Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Kialo advertises itself as, “The only platform designed specifically
for rational debates,” but based on its recent, sponsored tweet, it is anything
but. Instead, Kialo is just one more vehicle for far-left Big Brothering ala
Facebook. The tweet in question reads:
“Is it ok to physically modify yourself as a symbol of a
religious bond? What if your parents do it while you're still an infant? Join
the Kialo debate on banning infant male circumcision!”
Is it ok to physically modify yourself as a symbol of a religious bond? What if your parents do it while you're still an infant? Join the Kialo debate on banning infant male circumcision! https://t.co/67deCOBx5n— Kialo (@KialoHQ) May 5, 2018
Kialo pretends
that it offers a way to have balanced debate “with clear, concise arguments
from both sides. That makes it easy to weigh the pros and cons without all that
editorial noise.”
But here
we have a very leading few sentences in a sponsored tweet. Kialo is telling the
Twitterverse what to think about circumcision. They are putting doubt in your
minds just by asking the question of whether people have any right to “modify”
themselves as a symbol of a religious bond.
And in
fact, the question itself is antisemitic. The only people who “modify”
themselves as a symbol of a religious bond are the Jews. Muslims circumcise for
other reasons.
Notice,
as well, that you don’t see anyone complaining about the lip-stretching or
scarification practices of some African tribes, or the tooth-sharpening
practice of the Mayans and Balinese. How about the neck-accentuation practices of some
Thai women in which they wear up to 25 coils, each weighing four and a
half pounds, beginning at age 5, to elongate their necks?
No. You don’t hear anyone
complaining about any of that. But if you did, it would not be framed as
"mutilation" but as diversity. Woe to anyone who dares to cringe or shudder
at the nature of these practices, lest he be accused of closed-mindedness and
prejudice.
Of course, if you really wanted
to address religious mutilation, it would not be circumcision, with its proven
health benefits, but female genital mutilation (FGM). Female genital
mutilation is known to cause "recurrent
infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the
development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth,
and fatal bleeding. There are no known health benefits."
Only when it comes to the Jews,
it seems, do people think they are justified in saying we have no right to
practice our religion. That our beliefs are wrong, our Torah is wrong, our God wrong. That our age old rite is "mutilation."
But here’s the thing: Jews are obligated to circumcise sons. Banning
circumcision effectively bans Judaism. Think how it was in Soviet Russia, how Jews risked
death to have their sons circumcised in secret, in the middle of the night. Think
how the Romans outlawed Jewish rites like circumcision and how, when Rabbi Shimon
Bar Yochai criticized them, he and his son were forced into hiding for 13 years
in order to evade certain execution. We did not risk death to
arrive at the point where our religion and fate can still be debated by
outsiders.
And yet, Kialo dares to ask, “What
if your parents do it while you’re still an infant?”
With this question, Kialo is
making a statement, telling the world to doubt the morality of something that
Jews have done for thousands of years. And judging by the responses, Kialo’s
implied message has been received, loud and clear.
If a male child is born with a foreskin, then its there for a good reason.— NecktopPC (@NecktopP) May 5, 2018
Its a JEWISH thing to cut it out. Pretty sick concept too.
How, by the way, is it even a
debate if Kialo has prejudiced you from the get go? Take a look at the way the “debate” is framed. The question is: “should circumcision be banned” and it’s
offered as a choice, pro or con.
But it’s natural for people to
choose arguments in favor of things. People like to be positive. They like to
be for, and not against things. This is why, for instance, the pro-abortion
crowd frames its position as “pro-choice” while telling the world that anyone
who disagrees with them is “anti-choice.” And so, given the choice of being pro or anti a ban on circumcision, people are going to take the bait, and choose pro.
Was there a choice about the wording? Of course. Instead framing the
question in terms of a ban, Kialo might have written, for instance: “should
circumcision be permitted?” and made that
as a pro/con choice. It’s clear that the chosen phrasing employing the word "ban"was meant to prejudice
participants against Jewish ritual. And at that point, we have to wonder: why should
a basic Jewish practice be the subject of “debate?” Why should it even be
discussed by people not Jewish?
Can anyone really tell us that
we have no right to observe our religion, as mandated by God since Father
Abraham was himself circumcised?
Kialo claims it makes it easy
to weigh the pros and cons of an argument by giving you “clear, concise
arguments from both sides. That makes it easy to weigh the pros and cons without
all that editorial noise.”
But here we have a sponsored
tweet, issued just as the right to circumcision for non-medical reasons is
being debated in Iceland. And the sponsored tweet suggests that the practice of
an ancient Jewish rite abrogates an infant’s human rights. How is that NOT
editorial noise?
And of course, people
responding to the tweet take the bait and run with it. Read the responses. The
word “mutilation” crops up numerous times.
Editorial silence, or bias
by selective omission, by the way, also provides a kind of “editorial
noise” by filtering what it is readers are allowed to see and hear. if you
click the link in the tweet, and read the backgrounder for
the debate, one paragraph out of five is given over to a detailed explanation of
why Muslims perform circumcision. There is, on the other hand, not one word, let alone a paragraph
on the reasons Jews perform circumcision. This, though clearly the Muslim rite
is based on the Jewish rite, the Jewish rite of circumcision having begun
thousands of years before Mohammed was born, the Jewish people having been the first to
practice this ritual.
So effectively, Kialo’s tweet
tells you to question the Jewish practice of Brit Milah, the Jewish circumcision rite, but tells you absolutely
nothing about why Jews perform this ritual. No one should be surprised. Bias by selective
omission is a classic tactic of the left. What they keep you from hearing is
just as important as what they whisper into your adorable little subconscious.
Which is why this,
is utter garbage:
“With Kialo, you can easily
visualize every aspect of a complex debate, so you can be more thoughtful about
the issues that matter to you and the world.
“Empowering reason.
“Kialo.”
No wait: via GIPHY
