From: Jason Ashley To: "'noharmm-l@eskimo.com'" Cc: "'restoration@foreskin.com'" Subject: Argument Methods Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:20:24 -0500 Encoding: 157 TEXT Sender: owner-restoration@lists.primenet.com Precedence: bulk Dear All, I've been reading a lot lately about how much trouble many of us have dealing with pro-circ people (professional or parent) who refuse to consider the medical and ethical material we have in our favor. It seems that many of us become angry and upset, losing objectivity and instead resort to name calling when we cannot convince a person to relinquish his or her pro-circ beliefs. I for one, cannot understand how anyone cannot see just how terrible circumcision is whether practiced upon a boy or girl. I saw a remarkable TV show the other night about animal intelligence and the heated debate within the animal behaviorist community about how self-aware animals are and whether or not animals can feel pain. There is a considerable body of opinion that animals, including the higher mammals such as primates (we share 99.4% of our DNA with chimpanzees), do not feel pain and are incapable of any sort of self-aware thinking. As I watched this I was stunned by the number of scientists who still subscribe to the Renaissance belief that animals are little more than organic robots despite the researched and anecdotal proofs of several hundred years to the contrary. Throughout this program I was amazed how much so many of these arguments sounded exactly like the arguments used by pro-circ doctors who insist that the human infant is incapable of feeling pain, unaware of what is happening to him or her, or cannot remember any part of what is happening whether consciously or subconsciously, and refuse to consider the ethical questions which arise from such a practice. Which leads me to say that sometimes a logical and proof-laden argument sometimes isn't worth squat when arguing our point. Plenty of people in this world have little concept of logic or innate tendency to it. It is impossible, no matter how much we would like, to win these people using logical precepts or methods. Socratic dialectic is marvelous so long as a target is susceptible to its value, otherwise it's no more than the fooler becoming the fool himself. For such people who cannot conceive logical arguments, the only route is to probe for just how these people do make decisions and follow, no matter how ridiculous, the same path. If someone makes major life decisions and philosophies based on the Flintstones, then try and impress that person with how relatively new circumcision is and how Barney and Betty would never have had Bam-Bam circumcised. If someone uses fortune cookies then invite them to dinner, bake up your own damn fortune cookies and make sure the target gets the loaded fortune cookie! (They are easy to make.) More often a person resistant to logic uses emotion or family-ways to make personal decisions where logic does not necessarily enter. Such people become resistant to any change of thought because they see counter-arguments as an attack upon their intelligence, family, culture, and tradition. No amount of medical or ethical information will change the mind of someone who feels under personal attack. Worse, such argument can cause deeper entrenchment. When these are the circumstances, make your argument a friendly and depersonalized one. Try and befriend the person first. Show how much you deeply believe in your feelings without belittling those who believe otherwise (bite your tongue if you have to). Keep your words and, if in person, body language open and unthreatening. Convey how much you are concerned about the practice and that the information you have isn't meant to harm, but to heal. That you once believed (even if you haven't) how right circumcision was for exactly the same reasons your target believes it is. That you considered, first and foremost, the emotional impact of circumcision and how heart-rendering it was when you discovered what it was like when before you thought it was such a natural choice. Remember that many parents who have already circumcised a son refuse to believe that they have inflicted such trauma on their child particularly if the father is circumcised as well. Arguing against a choice they previously made in good faith and interest in welfare requires a different approach. Currently much of the material we have only serves to show how barbaric the parents were in choosing circumcision and how cruel their action was. We attack circumcision and we attack the parents themselves. Any resolve we make in this issue has to be made with the feeling of the parents themselves as the priority. Don't regale them with stories reminiscent of Thomas DeTorquemada, instead offer them naturalness as a better alternative to circumcision. If you have to, tell them that circumcision is a reasonable choice but that leaving alone is perhaps a little better and offer them friendly, objective resources like a pediatrician they respect in the community (you should always know if you have at least one community doctor who is on your side). Talk to them based upon what you know and skew your argument to what you know they value. If they are health-conscious, then emphasize the health benefits; the infection prevention that the foreskin provides; the glans' natural state as an internal organ mirroring it with the female clitoris; the cleansing action of smegma and the physical protection the foreskin provides. If they are religious, emphasize the letters of St. Paul and Maimonides arguing against it. Point out that no Christian Church requires circumcision and indeed, under the health plan of the New York archdiocese of the Catholic Church, routine circumcision is not a covered expense so committed are they to the philosophy of the natural state. Jewish parents may not respond to Christian authored moral treatises on the subject, but do make sure they are aware of alternative bris ceremonies which many congregations allow as substitutes to the traditional bris. Emphasize how circumcision was performed in the day of Abraham (when only the tip of the foreskin was removed) and again, if you can find a respected rabbi in the community who sympathizes with your point, give the name to the parents. At the very least, if they must circumcise try very hard to convince them to remove as little of the skin as possible. If they have moral concerns about the greater opportunity for the future son to commit acts such as masturbation (and there are still plenty of these sorts out there) or be more randy than a circumcised boy, then point out that no matter how tightly circumcised a boy is, masturbation is possible and that a proper education is no substitute for a surgery that places the seat of sexual arousal out in the open. Point out that masturbation is more socially acceptable now then when it was before circumcision. In fact, the foreskin allows to keep the glans from unnecessary and opportune stimulation and can prevent a chance occurrence of masturbation (try not to laugh, ok?). Very surprisingly, I have found that the argument for greater sexual satisfaction works with this group the most. The point that coitus is more pleasurable for the intact man and his wife. That the vagina is less likely to dry out and that it is easier to introduce an uncircumcised penis to a woman who may not have been married (I know, I know) before. Be careful before introducing religion to this group. They may know more than you do and may only respect their particular Church's authority on the matter. Know your scripture and respected religious scholars who have written on the matter. If the parents are educated and respect scholarly sources, then introduce them to the material you do have from scholarly sources and of course, logic may well work here. In short, you can't win everyone with the same argument. Many people allow pride to blind their reason and with these people you must, I repeat MUST tailor your argument to the situation. If you have to swallow your pride and play to your target's sympathies and beliefs then do so. Where logic and reason won't work, play to emotions and concerns which directly address what your audience believes is important. Moral and medical superiority won't win you anything except resentment. All this may seem manipulative and underhanded to some people, but I have to say that I don't see anything immoral in trying as best I can to convince someone of a point which I believe is right. There is no trickery involved, nothing underhanded or misleading. To do so would be to plant a landmine which WILL later explode and ruin whatever solid work has been done. Argue consistently and reasonably in whatever way works best with your target without lying or misleading. Use techniques that fit your targets' lifestyle choice-making methods and your chance of success will be far, far better and based upon truth rather than convenient fictions (which is all the pro-circ people have left, BTW). Don't allow your emotional commitment to make you act morally and logically superior and if you can't win today, do not, above all, DO NOT belittle or smear your targets' failure to come around to your view. If you can't do it now, maybe someone somewhere else will. Don't poison a future opportunity with memories of a past encounter. Dear God this is long, but I hope everyone has read it because it is so necessary that we act as best we can to halt the practice of routine circumcision in this world. I know some readers may not have the same views I have and that's fine with me. I just believe so strongly that I hope to appeal to others who do to. As always, I hope this helps. With thanks, I am, Sincerely, Jason Ashley.