NVQ Level 2 in Critical Thinking? Congrats, I heard its not an easy get.
I think it is time that we both stopped being purposely obtuse and facetious in our arguing, there is common ground that we both agree on and areas in which we probably don't, but the water is being muddied by our mud slinging tactics. Continuously inferring that I am an idiot because I advocate fairness and left wing ideals is getting quite tiresome. I agree not to belittle any of your comments I deem small minded, and you must promise to be civil towards me, deal?
Doesn't it make it look bigger? Yeaaaaaaaaah I don't need that
When people start arguing on this subject -- and especially when they start ad hominem insults or when Godwin's Law proves itself true once again -- I point out that "wouldn't every mom like her son to grow up to be a porn star?", circumcision being, I am told, the norm in that genre.
What I do know (having had to address the legal issue once) is that circumcision is a female-, i.e. a mother-driven issue. And as a noted California paediatrician told me, decided more on cosmetic and less on public health grounds. More's the pity.
But then courts not infrequently -- but usually in divorce and child custody matters -- have to decide what will be the religion of a child of a mixed marriage. Not a nice task for a judge to be faced with.
In the USA the circumcision rate has varied over time, but is more than half and less than 2/3 of infant boys; more in the East than the West. (I know that from an information sheet handed out to new parents by the U.S. military.) No other country other than predominantly Muslim countries or Israel come closes to that rate.
It is said, if you read the literature on JSTOR, that the Victorians promoted circumcision as a means of countering masturbation. (But then, wasn't that the reason for the Boy Scouts as well?) In recent years the revival has been on account of its HIV resistance. Sadly, few other than scientists can address the question dispassionately, disinterestedly.
Switzerland, I think, has been outside the scope of the above. But perhaps Godwin's law still applies. Let's see.
Of course the battle between subjective experience and emprical evidence is a classic of philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. A neuroscientific approach is one way to practically meet the problem. although arguably you're still not getting any closer to subjective experience: Compare saying 'ouch' and being in pain, which is the observation of some synapses in action closer to?
Nevertheless science often investigates individual experience through all kinds of response tests and subject questioning.
I'd never say that a subjective enquiry should be discounted . . . but you, on the other hand, seem to ruling out any kind of scientific investigation. How would research into effective analgesia be possible . . . that obviously elides any philophical concerns over the subject's privileged experience of pain.