Religion

Heddi

(18,312 posts)

92. I deleted a screen cap of the non-edit history because the screen had personal info on it

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 05:52 PM

Feb 2015

I didn't delete calling you a liar because you are a liar. You lied that I edited a post to say something that It didn't say after you replied. THAT IS A LIE. the post wasn't edited. I edited one post to point out your error.

I'm sorry that 1) you were wrong and 2) you lied to deflect your error. I can't help you with either of those issues. Those are your issues. You can help by self-deleting your thread where you called me a liar and stated, wrongly, that I edited a post after you responded.

Let's point out the things you've gotten wrong in this sub-thread
1) how disease is spread
2) misread Clinically to criminally
3) lied and said I used the term "criminally negligent"
4) Lied and said I changed the term "clinically negligent" to "Criminally negligent" after you replied
5) Lied and said there was an edit history to prove that
6) Lied and said I edited a phrase calling you a liar

There are the (so far) 6 things you were wrong, or outright lied about in this subthread.

The edit histories are there for anyone to see. Your words are there for anyone to see. I stand behind mine, but you have to lie to stand behind yours

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

131 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYC Orthodox Jews negotiate over right to give babies herpes and brain damage, and kill them [View all] muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 OP

I find your headline offensive Cartoonist Feb 2015 #1

Not intentional, but known side effects of a religious ceremony muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #2

The story reads they are trying to protect the infant's health, which seems a good thing uppityperson Feb 2015 #5

They could protect the babies' health by getting surgeons to do an operation muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #9

I agree, but the negotiations are not over the right to give herpes, brain damage, kill. uppityperson Feb 2015 #12

Surgeons don't generally do this procedure, pediatricians do. cbayer Feb 2015 #14

It's surgery; the person should be qualified to do such minor surgery muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #23

Mohels are completely qualified and trained. cbayer Feb 2015 #25

no they are not. Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #40

I agree with you. It's unnecessarily inflammatory. cbayer Feb 2015 #7

The "high reactionary quotient" is only due to skepticscott Feb 2015 #60

WTF is up with these religions and cannibalism? obxhead Feb 2015 #3

They are "how to protect children's health", not how to continue to harm them. uppityperson Feb 2015 #4

Right, but it's much more inflammatory to call Orthodox Jews baby killers. cbayer Feb 2015 #19

That libel comes straight out of the pogroms. okasha Feb 2015 #48

Honestly, the thread reveals an underlying agenda that has little cbayer Feb 2015 #49

You keep up the fantasies of what other people think, why not? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #50

You have made this an issue about mohels performing circumcisions in general. cbayer Feb 2015 #51

I've made it about having them performed by qualified people in regulated conditions muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #53

Since the mohels performing these particular procedures are cbayer Feb 2015 #61

Warren Stupidity thinks that is not the case muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #64

Does he have anything to back that up, or is that just his belief? cbayer Feb 2015 #65

The basis for tighter regulation is the death, brain damage and STDs they've caused muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #67

Muriel, that risk is associated with this single practice, not with circumcisions cbayer Feb 2015 #68

Any pediatrician that's going to perform sugery better be trained in it muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #74

Honestly, I suspect mohels receive more extensive training in circumcision than cbayer Feb 2015 #83

You 'suspect'. You have no idea. You are really in over your head with this. muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #87

Here is a clue: "I am having trouble finding specific information on this". Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #70

It may have not been your intention, but it reads that way. Behind the Aegis Feb 2015 #57

Honestly, your assertion that there is an "agenda"... trotsky Feb 2015 #120

Oh bullshit. It's straight out of the headlines. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #115

The accusation that Jews killed children okasha Feb 2015 #125

I would say that of any group that would intentionally risk a child's health AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #130

If there are 3,000 of these a year, cbayer Feb 2015 #6

CDC says the practice increases risk of herpes in baby boys by 3.4 times. enough Feb 2015 #16

There does appear to be an increased risk. The question at hand is whether cbayer Feb 2015 #18

really? You see no reason why this particular form of circumcision, Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #35

It's religiony/faithy, and it's being criticized by people skepticscott Feb 2015 #59

So they are fighting against a consent form? Lordquinton Feb 2015 #31

Actually the vast majority of HSV infections in newborns do come from the mother. cbayer Feb 2015 #36

Barbaric, harmful practice debated edhopper Feb 2015 #8

Wow, great title! (he said sarcastically) LoveIsNow Feb 2015 #10

I don't think anything I can do would make it more offensive than death, would it? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #11

What's the most offensive aspect to you? If they could do this without giving uppityperson Feb 2015 #13

In order, the offensiveness is: muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #22

You are again making a false statement. cbayer Feb 2015 #24

Which statement is false? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #27

Mohels are qualified to perform circumcisions. That is not even up for debate. cbayer Feb 2015 #28

If mohels have passed appropriate state medical examinations, then that's fine muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #30

As far as I know, Mohels are generally certified and licensed. cbayer Feb 2015 #34

They are "certified and licensed" by various religious organizations Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #38

No, I was under general anaesthetic for mine, so I didn't see it muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #43

General anesthetic???? Did you have this done this as an adult? cbayer Feb 2015 #45

Aged about 8 muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #46

I sure hope it would not be. cbayer Feb 2015 #47

I drew blood from inmates in a jail setting for STD/HIV/HCV screenings. pinto Feb 2015 #56

You wore gloves to protect yourself AND THE PERSON YOU WERE DRAWING BLOOD FROM Heddi Feb 2015 #69

Yes, it was mutual protection. pinto Feb 2015 #107

Well, LoveIsNow Feb 2015 #21

Minimizing the health risk means ending the use of the mouth muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #26

No. It means like with that pediatrician, hygiene is used to make sure disease isn't spread. uppityperson Feb 2015 #29

This one man has done 35,000 of these muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #32

They need to regulate who does it. If he doesn't have herpes, he can't pass it on. If he does, he uppityperson Feb 2015 #33

Are all the babies tested for herpes too? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #37

That is something that should be worked out with the public health people. It needs to be regulated uppityperson Feb 2015 #42

seriously? you think there is a way to make oral suctioning of a wound Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #39

Ever cut your finger and stick it in your mouth? I have and haven't gotten it infected. uppityperson Feb 2015 #41

please tell me you have nothing to do with health care. nt. Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #54

I am playing devil's advocate here, not sinking to personal insults. uppityperson Feb 2015 #55

Seriously? You're a nurse, right? So am I. I *know* you had to have taken Microbiology at some point Heddi Feb 2015 #72

I guess you didn't read my other post.I'm playing devil's advocate here, not sinking to personal ins uppityperson Feb 2015 #77

There's no excuse to post that drivel. Not as "devil's advocate." Not as anything Heddi Feb 2015 #78

You can believe what you want and continue to insult. Calling me "criminally negligent" for posting uppityperson Feb 2015 #79

Reading is FUNdamental. CLINICALLY negligent. CLINCIALLY Heddi Feb 2015 #80

And again she tries to claim I said something I didn't say. At least you missed the insult this time uppityperson Feb 2015 #81

Aha, and there is the insult, accusation and CAPS!!!1111 All edited in and changed after I replied? uppityperson Feb 2015 #82

there was no edit. You are lying. Clinically was not changed from criminally Heddi Feb 2015 #84

This message was self-deleted by its author Heddi Feb 2015 #85

Down at the bottom it says this....the edit history. uppityperson Feb 2015 #86

Wrong post, genius Heddi Feb 2015 #88

I never accused you of lying. You did edit post #80, the one I replied to in 82 uppityperson Feb 2015 #91

Oh, but you did. Are you unaware of what you post? Heddi Feb 2015 #94

Did you notice that was in reply to post 80, which you did edit? Are you denying you edited #80? uppityperson Feb 2015 #97

Yes. I edited THAT POST THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIM Heddi Feb 2015 #100

Nope. Look at post 82, which post it is in reply to. Notice, the edited post 80. uppityperson Feb 2015 #104

"you lied about me editing a post which was never edited." Nope. I said you edited 80, this one uppityperson Feb 2015 #105

Now you are saying you agree, you did edit 80, the one I said you did and you called me a liar. OK uppityperson Feb 2015 #106

And, since you self deleted, here is what you wrote, "You are lying." in part uppityperson Feb 2015 #89

I deleted a screen cap of the non-edit history because the screen had personal info on it Heddi Feb 2015 #92

You are lying about it. You lied and said I changed "Criminal" to "Clinical" Heddi Feb 2015 #90

No. I did not say you edited that post. I misread criminal for clinical. You edited post 80, denied uppityperson Feb 2015 #93

Short version: "I read something wrong and lied about it being edited so I wouldn't look foolish" Heddi Feb 2015 #96

You mean like you continuing to call me a liar for saying you edited post 80, which you did" uppityperson Feb 2015 #98

I will give you one more chance to edit out "you are lying" about you editing post 80 uppityperson Feb 2015 #99

You would already have it, in order to infect yourself with something. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #117

What about other diseases, I mean, herpes is the most obvious viral agent here, cold sores in... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #95

I do not know if that is possible, or how to go about it. I find the practice abhorent, and like uppityperson Feb 2015 #102

You can't. It isn't possible. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #118

"If the mohel doesn't have herpes, there is no health risk." AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #116

+1 cbayer Feb 2015 #17

I also find your title offensive. Android3.14 Feb 2015 #15

^^^ THIS ^^^ COLGATE4 Feb 2015 #20

I find your opinion offensive. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #103

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #108

Said the poster defending child endangerment. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #110

So you're offended skepticscott Feb 2015 #114

Make sure you go voice your fauxrage on this one too. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #121

a fitting title - edgineered Feb 2015 #44

The point of the OP is clear - that any purely religious-belief-based ceremony that unnecessarily risks heath is obscene. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #52

If this were done to babies without religion as an excuse, those crying "offensive"... Silent3 Feb 2015 #58

Thank you...exactly the point I made above skepticscott Feb 2015 #63

Wow, just wow, what the fuck is wrong with some people... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #62

So those of you who support this for babies--it's okay if your surgeon licks your wounds, right? Heddi Feb 2015 #66

Its fucking insane, even when my Mom "kissed the boo boo" to make it better... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #71

You mean she didn't have some stranger from across town kiss the boo-boo Heddi Feb 2015 #73

The thing is that this goes WAY beyond just herpes, there are a lot of bacteria that can end up... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #75

Again, I think it's telling that these Mouth-As-Gauze advocates Heddi Feb 2015 #76

The "oral suction" has been proven to be a cause of serious ladjf Feb 2015 #101

For any DUers who think I am giving "expert medical advice" to go get this done, I am not. uppityperson Feb 2015 #109

I think the bigger point here is, this is NOT a thread on which... trotsky Feb 2015 #111

I agree Dorian Gray Feb 2015 #122

You claimed there was a way to make oral wound suction "less harmful". Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #119

While don't care for the headline I don't think they should be allowed to do in that fashion. n/t hrmjustin Feb 2015 #112

The fact that it's normal and legal... MellowDem Feb 2015 #113

GAH!!! Arugula Latte Feb 2015 #123

De Blasio to end Metzitzah consent forms hrmjustin Feb 2015 #124

Are you fucking kidding me? They need to end this stupid religious exemption of obvious health... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #126

Yeah I was shocked he went along with this but this is NYC politics at play. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #127

That's a bad bargain, I think. okasha Feb 2015 #128

I agree it is a bad bargin. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #129

"test and certify"? Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #131