(Part 2) Best products from r/changemyview

Note: I am against ALL genital mutilation of females, males and intersex. Please don't interpret this post as supporting any of these crimes.

Everything I have posted below is factual; but it's supposed to be ironic and educational - to help folks clear up their confused thinking around this issue. Thanks

> According to wikipedia

The Wikipedia entries on male circumcision are controlled by pro-circumcision editors, who are circumcision fetishists and/or are pushing the religious mutilation of male infants:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/wikipedia.html

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised. Plus there are many so-called potential "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

The truth about the female clitoris

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

Female Circumcision & Health Benefits

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS. This deeply sexist attitude must cease.

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf


"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" - African Women Confront American Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.shortLike male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

>I'm not an artist.

then your overly-expensive screen is entirely a moneysink; This is literally the only time it offers an advantage, since all movies currently are rendered "HD" at 1080p. If there is something I'm missing here, please correct me. It's not just every practical purpose, it's that you literally cannot use those pixels unless you are doing something that you just admitted you don't do; beyond 1920x1080, movies don't render any sharper on a better display.

Also, if you aren't an artist, I'm at a loss for why the idea of art and music programs for mac are a plus?

>Fair point. But if mine breaks, I can walk into the apple store and have them replace it for free (for the first year, at least).

To be fair, I picked the ASUS semi-randomly based on the graphics card; new that same model is still $1,300 from Amazon but if memory serves, ASUS supports their refurbished laptops pretty well also. But a year's warranty is pretty standard on any new computer.

>No it does not. And I have never needed it. Software isn't installed via CD any more. And any movies I watch are on my computer aren't DVDs or Blu-Ray.

And I own movies on DVD or Blu-Ray. I also do heavy IT work, and need something that might need to read a driver CD; I could carry around an external drive, but that's extra money and negates a lot of the portability/ease of use. Again, this is personal preference, which is what a lot of things are.

>Damn right it's personal preference. What's your point?

I'm pointing out these things in advance because otherwise the argument would've been "This isn't the same at all, look, the hard drives are different"; I'm even giving you it as an advantage over the ASUS so I don't know exactly why this is a mac knock? The new ASUS has an option with a 256gb SSD that is at $1,600 but that also comes with double the RAM of the Macbook so I was trying to go with the best equivalent.

>I'm not saying that my computer is the best that exists. I'm saying that for what I paid, I'm not getting ripped off

I think you're paying for aesthetics and prettiness. Which is fine if that is worth it to you, but for a PC that has the same stuff, minus the extraneous display (which is where I feel you're really getting ripped off) then you're looking at good savings for a machine that will do the same thing.

Pretty much all historical civilizations were sexist, since women were denied fundamental rights in them based on gender. Even if one were to agree with everything else you've written, your final conclusion/suggestion does not follow. I can't think of any significant, historical civilization that might be called non-sexist.

Biology is a fact of nature; you cannot "fight biology". That would be like fighting physics. No matter what you did, the laws of physics would still apply. What you are talking about, such as "scholarships for women only, to get them into areas of technology, engineering", and "specialized programs for boys only to help them in reading & writing" do not in any way fight biology, they leave biology just as it is. However, they do change society. Scholarships are societal creations designed to redistribute access to education, which is another societal creation. Education doesn't grow on trees; human beings artificially created the system of education. Hence, the educational system is an aspect of society, not biology.

The fact that there are some gender differences in the brain, statistically speaking, should be no big surprise. But many popularized studies tend to exaggerate or misinterpret these differences. I would suggest you read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, or Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences for a deeper look at these topics. Broadly, a study that shows no differences in how men and womens' brains, on average, perceive a topic won't make a good headline or blog post, so it will be unlikely to be reported compared to one that finds a difference.

Secondly, it's not clear what these differences have to do with social roles. For example, what does the fact that men have more spatial reasoning, on average, mean for social roles exactly? Since there are many intelligent and successful women in programming and engineering fields, and many men who suck in these areas, it does not follow that there is a casual relation between gender and STEM fields. On the other hand, engineering is clearly coded as a masculine profession in society, and girls may be turned away from studying engineering for fear of being seen as unfeminine. Scholarships that seek to counteract that would then be playing a positive role.

Finally, I see an assumption through your post that what is "nature" is automatically good and must be accepted by society. However, the whole point of civilization and society is go beyond nature itself to build something for ourselves, as humans. Is medicine natural? We are programmed to die from birth, yet we still use the medical system to prolong life. Since men are physically stronger than women, should men then dominate women and impose our wishes on them? No, we created a system of laws where all citizens are equal before it because we recognize the equal moral worth of each person. Freedom is the fundamental issue. Humanity as a whole, and individual people for their own lives, must have the freedom to define its own path and create its own society without being told that a certain path is required due to unnecessary extrapolations from natural facts.

>My statement about the field studies was in response to you when you said that people don't know from anecdotal evidence that we're all the same. According to you, this can only be learned from "studying the field". So, you're claiming that Ethnic Studies is useless by your own standards because it doesn't study the field?

When you said "we're all the same" I was assuming you were referring to genetics (which isn't entirely, but mostly true). With regards to culture, history, and levels of discrimination, we're very different, but the white perspective is what gets expressed broadly in culture. In addition, it's inculcated by the idea of "colorblindness" which is in itself a form of racism. Here's an article that says as much although the book's much better.

> What does this matter to the kids who are studying? If we want more minorities with great educations, have them spend less time working on PC perfection and more time studying the subjects at hand.

That is what we currently do. No one's saying don't teach kids math, US history, English etc. That's what our culture and educational system demands, and so it would be a disservice not to educate kids. However, does it seem to be working that well? Our schools are the most segregated they've been since Jim Crow ended. As I stated in my post, I'm not arguing we replace anything, and as the districts that now have ethnic studies have shown, you don't have to.

> Combine that with the fact that minority communities tend to be uneducated and poor for some reason, this leads to yet another decrease in the chances of minorities leading the field in a certain subject.

Are you ok with this? If so, then I don't know why we're having this discussion because I'm guessing there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. Education is literally the main conduit out of poverty in this country. Your level of education does more to predict your income, your chances of staying out of prison, and your lifespan than any other factor for people of color.

> You seem to speak from a position of a "white privilege apologetic". It's true that I'm lucky to be where I am, but that doesn't change the validity of what I claim

No, I speak from a platform of white privilege. Unequivocally. And I don't apologize for anything. I just try and stand up for what's right.

> Very few states have been founded through exclusively peaceful means.

This is true. None of them should be exempted from criticism and they should be challenged when they deny the violence of their foundation. Here are some examples of anti-racist content critical of Israel from r/conspiracy:

This is a picture of 20,000 Orthodox Jews (ignored by the MSM) protesting Israel in NYC, these
are some photos of the Israeli apartheid alongside the Nazi holocaust, this is an example of Israeli false flag terrorism, and this is a report that two Israeli companies helped the NSA bug the U.S.

There are Israeli shills. The government of Israel has gone public about this. But it's not just Israel, the U.S. military is doing this too.

And if we take a look at current affairs, we see Israel, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are [manipulating events](http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/16/318941/the-axis-of-evil/
) in Egypt to their mutual benefit while Israeli soldiers are making pancakes of Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist murdered by the IDF.

> The partition plan was the UN's proposal for how to get the British out. Neither the British or the UN made even a token attempt to enforce it. And the conflict had been in a state of open war for years before the partition plan. Hell, the british were still nominally in charge until 1948, but the war was already well under way then. And the british certainly didn't bother helping the jews out, as the wikipedia article you linked states.

I'm not claiming the british are the good guys here. The partition plan did more than get the british out, it also gave most of palestine to israel and resulted in the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people and many deaths.

> So...academic freedom is unlimited? It's wrong for universities to discipline faculty no matter their opinion? What if a professor is an avowed Nazi? Calls for mass murder? Teaches creationism in Bio 101? I see no reason that professors should be allowed to do anything in the name of academic freedom. I agree that professors should be allowed to speak their opinions outside lecturing, but freedom to do anything remotely academic seems ridiculous to me.

No, this is a strawperson and a slippery slope and not what I'm saying. The book I linked you to discussed the loyalty-oath and free-speech controversies at the University of California, the tortured relationship between universities and the government as seen in language acquisition programs, and the policing of thought in the academy in relation to the Middle East. To take just one example, the former President of Harvard, Larry Summers, claimed that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic "in effect, if not intent." Chomsky's unwillingness to study whether 9/11 was an inside job is another example. And here's a very recent example: Alice Walker being barred from speaking at the University of Michigan due to her views on Israel.

> Did you read the article? He didn't face issues because he threatened the establishment, he faced legal problems because he was sued for libel by the brigade he accused of massacring people. He was then unable to show a significant amount of evidence for his claims. His only evidence was recordings from people who were children in the village, which he appears to have filtered and possibly fabricated--no documents, no Israeli corroboration, etc. His consequence was...having his MA temporarily retracted. Even though his revised thesis had the same problems, he still got a weird quasi-MA out of it.

Yes, I read the article. This is a misleading and inaccurate narrative. Before the trial began, Katz attempted to have the case dismissed, arguing that the content of an academic thesis should be the subject of scholarly debate, and should not be placed under the purview of a legal proceeding. Haifa University did not support this effort. In fact, they offered no legal or practical assistance whatever, and instead quickly moved to erase Katz's name from the list of graduating students to be awarded honors. Senior professors at Haifa University involved in providing scholarly scaffolding for the Zionist narrative lobbied the university to withhold support for Katz.

Katz himself could not afford an attorney, and, besides help from his cousin, his legal team was organized pro bono by a Palestinian NGO in Israel. At the same time, he encountered various forms of pressure in the kibbutz where he lived, from friends, family, and neighbors. Under these conditions, the middle-aged Katz suffered a stroke in the weeks before the trial.

In defense of his thesis, Katz had to choose between two arguments: either he had told the truth and his research conveyed the fact of the massacre, or he had at least acted in "good faith" and even if his research was found to be lacking he had never had any intention to libel. Katz was represented by five lawyers—only one of these lawyers (who also happened to be Katz’s cousin) pressured him to adopt the "good faith" defense, with the aim of "minimizing the political nature of the case." The others had hoped to use the trial as a public venue for discussion of Israel’s role in the violence of the Nakba, an unprecedented prospect. Although Katz had, in conversation with his legal team, initially agreed to defend that he had spoken the truth, he decided at the last minute to adopt the "good faith" defense.

During the cross-examination, the prosecutors scrutinized only six of Katz's references out of two-hundred and thirty in total. One member of Katz's legal team exhibited 'exultation' at the conclusion of the prosecution's case, and eagerly anticipated their opportunity to present the defense. After two days of cross-examination by the plaintiff’s lawyer, Katz agreed to a settlement, issued a public apology renouncing his thesis, and the veterans dropped the suit. A lawyer from Haifa University appeared to hint to Katz that settling the case and admitting wrongdoing would enable him to resume his studies. Given the pressure to which he was subjected from within the community of the kibbutz and the overwhelming conditions of uncertainty surrounding his future livelihood, it is not surprising that Katz leapt at the opportunity.

Sources:

Ilan Pappe, Israeli historian and socialist activist, professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, director of the university's European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies: http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=4227&jid=1&href=fulltext

Samera Esmeir, Professor of Rhetoric at UC Berkeley: http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/duke-university-press/1948-law-history-memory-KtvBPC56Ku

Firstly we are getting really off topic here but ok.
your argument assumes that the government is competent enough to know what is best for society, something that I would disagree with: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737
as for your examples, I feel like debating healthcare would be too far off topic, there is no need to provide for dependents with UBI in place, people should give to charity through kindness, not because of a tax break and why should the government encourage house buying and starting a small business?

> The only Republican who I can say is a media darling would be Ron Paul. And I'd say his lifetime of consistent political views and building the libertarian movement in the US is quite an accomplishment.

What has Ron Paul accomplished? Just about nothing, if you're curious. He had no interest in attracting co-sponsors for his legislation, much of which focused on ending the Fed or reinstating the gold standard, which he wrote a book about.

In terms of accomplishments, Ron Paul has just about nothing. There is no legislation with his name on it, there's essentially nothing in law that is different because he was there. He spent his time doing interviews, speaking to college campuses, and making his speeches.

In other words, he just wanted to promote himself and his ideas, and didn't do anything in Congress. Which is exactly the charge that you've levied at Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren.

For the record, Warren and Booker have about 3 years in the Senate combined, while Ron Paul had about 30 years in the House to make an impact.

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

Below is a link to one of the bigger studies that is often cited. I don't think it does justice to the full weight of the evidence and aggregated research that Brooks' book provides, but I do want to provide something to easily read for free:

https://www.philanthropy.com/interactives/how-america-gives#advanced

I've never seen a single study that has ever shown the opposite to be true, but I'd be open to reading what anyone knows about and can provide a link to. Again I want to help change OP's mind, but not based on false premises. I'm open to my mind being changed too!

>I won't get into the thick and thin of the plot (flew really close to the sun, got hit with a solar flare, no he has super cancer or something), but the point is a seemingly all powerful character can be a great character when you show the cracks in his armor.

Required reading, I think:

Superman: Red Son

Kingdom Come

Both excellent examples of stories that present Superman as a conflicted character rather than just a walking god.

I posted links in another reply but i suppose i can do it again

Overview for different blood types

http://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/blood-type-diet

Various links to articles about clinical trials as well as opnion/editorials and more

http://dadamo.com/txt/index.pl?3000

More general info overall

http://dadamo.com/

A link to an amazon book that describes in detail what foods are beneficial / harmful to which blood types and i beleieve there is a breif description about why for most foods and blood types.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00256Z2HI/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

If you need more im sure i can find it, however there is a wealth of information available if you google "eat right for your blood type" or "bloodtype diet".

I am as ardent an anti-theist as you'll find, however, few points

>I am not trying to offend anyone who is religious

Not up to you, they're going to get offended anyway.

>I know religion is responsible for many of our moral values

Is it though? Morality is still an incredibly rich area of study and thought (along with consciousness.) There are many competing theories such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

In any case- religion certainly teaches that some things are bad and other things are good. I reject the claim that it is responsible for "many of our moral values." (Reference the Old Testament- morality isn't the word I would use to describe stoning people to death for transgressions.)

>Religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history.

I would say that close-minded adherence to bad ideas are the root of the worst atrocities in human history. Religions are among the worst ideas and the most deeply held convictions people have and have contributed mightily (and have been the primary factor for a lot of the atrocities) however, people are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.

>I don't understand how people are willing to die for something that they have been told and never actually seen.

Philosophy Psychology of` religion is pretty useful here. You may find the following concepts interesting:

• The Backfire Effect
  
• Cognitive Dissonance
  
• Confirmation Bias
  
  It is important to note that religious adherents often grow up being taught these dogmatic systems as truth. To them it is common sense and they attribute their good feelings and positive experiences to the religion.
  
  >We are not born believing in religion it is taught to us.
  
  Someone along the way came up with the idea. Generally these days we cannot tell because not many people can get to age 18 without being subject to religious ideas. Although, I tend to agree with this hypothesis in a modern sense.
  
  >I believe that any religion, whethever it's monotheistic (one god) or polytheistic (many gods) that believes in a divine creator is a plague and gives evil people justification for committing awful crimes againist others (molesting children, terroist attacks, etc).
  
  Well, polytheistic religions have a history of being tolerant and intolerant of other gods/faiths. Monotheism has a horrific track record here.
  
  Jainism is non-violent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
  
  >I think social philosophies like confucianism which are built on more ethical and natural principles should replace religion.
  
  Secular Humanism sounds like it would float your boat: https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260
  
  What people find irreplaceable about religion is its answers to big questions, comfort, and "spiritual fulfillment."
  
  Whether you believe in spirituality or not, there have been many hypotheses about what spiritual experience is, or where exactly it comes from. Personally, I think religions are middle men between you and whatever those experiences are. Meditation and other methods have been suggested.
  
  >Religion is an evil plague apon society CMV.
  
  Ultimately, I agree with you. Although, I do think that some people get things from religion that are good or benign (things that could be gotten from other sources IMO.) Your view just needs a bit more nuance, respectfully. The following sources would be interesting to you:
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231
  
  https://www.amazon.ca/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655
  
  https://www.amazon.ca/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0771041438

Capital in the Twenty first century actually lays out a 200 year record that the rate of return on capital is always greater than the growth of the overall economy, always concentrating wealth in the hands of oligarchic/dynastic wealth unless acted on by redistributive forces. Robotics massively accelerates this process as noted in the Second Machine Age. When you look at both books you get a picture of the rapid and accelerating transfer of wealth from everybody to a small few. The only way that i see to deal with this is Makerspaces like Technocopia that are build distributed community accessible automation of thier own.

I read this book 2-3 years ago "The Brain That Changes itself Self" super fascinating all about neuroplasticity and how the brain can re-wire itself. One chapter talked about porn regarding people losing their jobs, relationships, social life etc. Because of porn, it can also lead to impotence. I will just take some quotes:

> [A 2001study] found that 80 percent felt they were spending so much time on pornographic sites that they were putting their relationships or jobs at risk.

>When I asked if this phenomenon had any relationship to viewing pornography, they answered that it initially helped them get more excited during sex but over time had the opposite effect. Now, instead of using their senses to enjoy being in bed, in the present, with their partners, lovemaking increasingly required them to fantasize that they were part of a porn script.

I can't suggest this book enough. My recommendation would be to combine through that chapter if you are interested.

EDIT: This book is on amazon and is well worth the cash side note I realized when I ordered it was in 2012....time is strange

> Where do you think boys get the idea that you put niceness-coins in and get sex in return?

They get it from confusing seriously important messages that they are told (stop being an abusive, violent asshole to women like previous generations of men were) with a message that the point of this was to get them laid. The point of not being a misogynist is, well, not being a misogynist, because women are people too, with complex desires, needs, and emotions of their own, who should not be abused.

> No man who is successful with women has ever suggested this idea.

Not in quite such simplistic ways, no. But then you get guys like Mark Manson who suggest that connecting with women is what works best in the short and long term.

And guys like me. I was a nice guy who, in my youth, treated women like people to get to know, and frequently had wonderful physical relationships with them. And I was quite low-status by most all RP standards, and all of 140 lbs. at 6' tall. But it worked over and over, constantly amazing those around me. And one day I tried to help a friend meet a gorgeous girl, and it didn't work, but I made friends with her anyway, and eventually she asked me out and now I'm almost 20 years into a marriage that still looks like a brand new one.

It's not "be nice and get laid", but rather "not treating someone like a full person will get you bad long term results."

>f 2/3 of the public was never willing to change their view, how do you explain major shifts in public opinion over time?

The OP is talking about changing views based on facts and evidence.

As someone who has spent his whole life trying to change people's views based on objective fact and evidence, I tend to side with OP. It can work, but it is rare (although not as rare as 1%).

Many had recommended I read Influence by Cialdini. So I did. I now recommend it to everyone.

People will mostly change their views if it comes from someone who has influence over them. When said influential person presents the facts, they are more likely to change their views. But if a random person, or someone who is somehow different[1] presents the same facts, it has little effect. They don't change their views primarily because of the facts, but because of the person presenting the facts.

[1] What constitutes "different" will vary from person to person. It could be race/gender/sexual orientation/nationality/job/etc. It could be more complex: A tech geek is more likely to listen to another tech geek. Ever had/witnessed a conversation where someone says "I know what X is saying sounds crazy, but he's not (e.g. senior corporate manager), he is one of us. I think we should at least consider what he is saying". People are skeptical of the outgroup, but if someone in their ingroup says it, they are more likely to listen.

Also just read The Righteous Mind. Also highly recommend it. Too much in there to summarize, but he points out that if you want to change someone's mind, you'll have much more luck by applying Dale Carnegie's techniques than presenting facts and evidence. Be kind to people. Compliment them. Butter them up with gifts, etc. And so on.

Both are books by academics who study their subjects. Not some random bloke on Reddit.

> Now you just have to show that it has no measurable effect on sexual performance, sexual satisfaction, or life satisfaction.

Oh yeah. I forgot that bit. Here you go 😂😂😂:

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed scientific studies, cultural research reports, and personal testimonials, that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised.

Female Circumcision & Sexual Response

The truth about the female clitoris

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

”Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised” — The Atlantic Magazine

“An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure”:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

”Fuambai Ahmadu explains how female circumcision is empowering and culturally enriching, and why she chose to get circumcised” — BBC Interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6UfEaZHBE

”Fuambai says circumcision is an essential part of her culture and she doesn't feel mutilated” — Insight Interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbxVctxoMU

"3,000 Afrian Maasai women protest in favour of FGM and against the government banning it" — Note how the men are ordered to keep quiet!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Q9hRH6fCo

”Circumcised Women Fight Back”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-KC75YUBY

"FGM: Maasai women speak out" — The activists leading this (anti-FGM) movement have failed to understand the cultures behind the practice, and their ignorance is dangerous. Legislation, particularly the criminalization of FGM, and other external pressures that do not take local culture into account can have deadly consequences:

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/fgm-maasai-women-speak-out

”Seven things to know about female genital surgeries in Africa” — By the public policy advisory network on female genital surgeries in Africa. Western media coverage of female genital modifications in Africa has been hyperbolic and one-sided, presenting them uniformly as mutilation and ignoring the cultural complexities that underlie these practices:

https://www.sfog.se/media/295486/omskarelse_rapport.pdf

"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" — African Women Confront American Medicine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi [Unscientific opinion — no different to the sort of stuff spouted by western Doctors about the wonderful "benefits" of male circumcision]:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.short

The best online resource I can think of for brain function and organization is http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/

For each subject you can adjust the how complex the explaination is from beginner to advanced and the level of organization from molecular up to social.

Some good non-fiction books if you're interested in learning: The Brain That Changes Itself (neuroplasticity), The Boy Who Was Raised As A Dog (brain development and how its changed by early experience), Phantoms in the Brain (brain function and expression; theres also a BBC doc on youtube)

This seems to have accessible stuff on neural pruning in learning and development: http://www.brainbasics.org/home/neural-pruning

This Wikipedia page Biological Basis of Personality and Googling 'neural substrates personality' gives a lot of information as well, though its a mixed bag of whether its relevent or accessible.

Models: Attract Women Through Honesty, by Mark Manson

As a woman and feminist who read that book for funsies, I think it offers a lot of solid advice for men on how to gain confidence and a good mentality, and actual instructions for social interaction with women WITHOUT the ordinary PUA tricks and tropes. Can't be bothered to look up exact quotes right now, but his message is basically that "if you want to get laid, PUA tricks and games could potentially work on some women who are very insecure. If you want to maximize your happiness however, drop that shit and start making yourself and the women you meet truly happy -- which incidentally will also get you laid, and so much happier in the long run."

• Screen: 14.0", 3200x1800 + Multi-Touch
  
• Processor: Intel® Core™ i7–4720HQ (You win at this)
  
• Ram: 16GB dual-channel onboard memory
  (DDR3L-1600MHz)
  
• Video Card: Intel HD Graphics 4600 DDR3
  NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 970M (3GB GDDR5 VRAM), automatic switch between the two, (GTX 970M > GT 750M, 5166 vs 1408)
  
• HDD: 512 GB SSD
  
• Network card: Intel® Wireless-AC 7260HMW (802.11a/b/g/n/ac + Bluetooth® 4.0)
  
• Built-in 70Wh rechargeable lithium-ion polymer battery
  
• Size:
  13.6” / 345mm (Width) x 0.70” / 17.9mm (Height) x 9.3” / 235mm (Depth)
  
  
  Price including the OS: $2699 http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade
  
  
  Or you can go for this Asus n550jk $1199. Almost the same specs (less screen resolution still 1080p, better sound, slightly lower processor but a lot better graphic card NVIDIA GTX850M) The difference is worth the $1500 extra?

These are not straw man arguments - these are the arguments put forth by the lawyers and AGs in the cases argued in front of state supreme courts, circuit courts, and SCOTUS.

These issues were argued in court. Expert witnesses testified. Studies and data and briefs were introduced and examined. The conclusion was that there was little or no evidence that gay marriage would be a problem, much less a problem which would rise to a level that would justify restrictions on gay marriage. Again, read the decisions.

Your taxpayer dollars are not being spent to promote/support gay marriage - they're being spent to promote marriage. If you're fine with supporting marriage, but not gay marriage, I have to ask if you think you're any different than a person who supports marriage, but not interracial marriage. (You've familiar with Loving v Virginia, right?) Or marriage, but not interdenominational marriage.

Defining marriage in a way that includes same sex couples is "right" because it does not unconstitutionally deprive same sex people of their constitutional rights. I have been pro-gay marriage since the issue was first brought to my attention. My first real exposure to the issue was through my cousin when I was in high school back in the early 1980s, and reinforced a bit later when I took a course from Karen Thompson. http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Sharon-Kowalski-Come-Home/dp/0933216467

The government does not have to be involved in the institution of marriage. If it chooses to, it should do so without discriminating against gay marriage.

Trying to prove Trump is not gaslighting us in a reddit post to someone that has already made their mind would take a TON of time. I do however, invite you to do a few things if you're truly seeking to understand the other side(doubtful).

1. Read his book "great again" https://www.amazon.com/Great-Again-How-Crippled-America/dp/1501138006/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1541918111&sr=8-2&keywords=donald+trump+great+again In fact, if you're serious enough I'll even buy it for you. I recommend the Audio version. It details most of his policies
   
   
2. Sign up to r/The_Donald 50& of it is just memes, but you'll also get a lot of great information. For example right now, we're talking a lot about the Florida election and how it's attempted at being stolen. The left is just saying "we're just counting votes" it's not that simple, and there is massive evidence of real fraud.
   
   
3. If you ever have specific questions about why we think or feel this way. Feel free to message me anytime and I'll explain our stance on a specific viewpoint.
   
   Like most things in life, there are two sides and both sides are credible.

"There have been many studies..."

Here is the thing tho. A lot of the studies in gender differences have absolutely junk methodology. And a lot of the valid studies show only minor differences where the two Bell Curves overlap 90 percent. From that aspect the science shows clearly that individual differences in something like math skill completely override any tiny difference in gender. Here is a book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511

I don't expect I can change your view, but if you are really interested in the subject and open-minded I'm sure that book can.

> These are not straw man arguments - these are the arguments put forth by the lawyers and AGs in the cases argued in front of state supreme courts, circuit courts, and SCOTUS.
> These issues were argued in court. Expert witnesses testified. Studies and data and briefs were introduced and examined. The conclusion was that there was little or no evidence that gay marriage would be a problem, much less a problem which would rise to a level that would justify restrictions on gay marriage. Again, read the decisions.

And for the third time, I'm not interested in one specific opinion. The opinions I've stated at least twice now are reasonable opinions to hold, and they have not been disproven. Also, the implication seems to be that because these cases lost, that means the arguments are invalid. That's not the case.

>Your taxpayer dollars are not being spent to promote/support gay marriage - they're being spent to promote marriage. If you're fine with supporting marriage, but not gay marriage, I have to ask if you think you're any different than a person who supports marriage, but not interracial marriage. (You've familiar with Loving v Virginia, right?) Or marriage, but not interdenominational marriage.

Well my preference is the government get out of the marriage business all together. My secondary preference is to leave it up to the states, because I'm not so much arguing that gay marriage is bad, but just that thinking gay marriage is less beneficial to society than heterosexual marriage is a reasonable position to hold. Personally I'm torn because I do think marriage is important, and part of me is glad that gay people care enough about marriage to fight for it. As I've said a couple times now, I'm not sure if on net gay marriage will be good for the institution in the long run.

But no, being against gay marriage is nothing like being against interracial marriage, because there are material differences between men and women, not between whites and blacks. And there are material differences between gay couples and straight couples, but not between interracial and intraracial couples. Race is purely aesthetic, which makes any discrimination due solely to race immoral.

>Defining marriage in a way that includes same sex couples is "right" because it does not unconstitutionally deprive same sex people of their constitutional rights. I have been pro-gay marriage since the issue was first brought to my attention. My first real exposure to the issue was through my cousin when I was in high school back in the early 1980s, and reinforced a bit later when I took a course from Karen Thompson. http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Sharon-Kowalski-Come-Home/dp/0933216467

But your definition precludes polyamorous marriage, interspecies marriage, etc. And NO I'm not saying they are identical to gay marriage, but the point is there's nothing fundamentally different about drawing the line at homosexuality than there is about drawing the line basically anywhere else. The principles are the same. The only differences you will be able to claim will be subjective ("damn good reason").

>The government does not have to be involved in the institution of marriage. If it chooses to, it should do so without discriminating against gay marriage.

Again, says you... quite arbitrarily. In order to say this definitively, you have to assume that gay marriages are identical to straight marriages and they aren't. When gay marriages start producing children at any sort of significant rate, you'd have a point. But while there is an actual difference between gay and straight marriages, then the issue is not so black and white.

Crimea? Isn't that a river?

Yes, people are ignorant about economics and politics. And that's fine as long as there aren't systematic biases that pull policy away from the ideal (ideal based on some aggregation of everyone's preferences). But that condition doesn't seem to be the case.

Okay, so there is systemic and damaging ignorance and we can't simply wave a wand and make people spend less time having fun and all go out and learn economics, sociology, political science, etc. But your friends can surely discuss ignorance. What are its sources? (hint: time is scarce) What are it's implications? (hint: reducing the scope of government would reduce the problem)

> That's perhaps the root of your misunderstanding here.

It is actually two separate issues. One is on whether there is an obligation to vote. The other is whether most people are warranted in voting. My arguments against there being an obligation to vote may stand even if my argument regarding most people being irrational about politics (and thus shouldn't vote) fails.

> You think most people have no idea at all what sort of government and laws there should be? That's a ridiculous statement.

Well, I wouldn't exactly phrase it like that ("no idea"). For example, they are aware that representative democracy is better than a dictatorship or a new monarchy. But you'd be kidding yourself if you think most people are highly informed on the facts surrounding todays political issues or if you think people are sufficiently reflective enough in their philosophy. This isn't just confusing jargon. There are good reasons to think voters are irrational about politics. People like watching American Idol. And they have jobs to do and families to raise and friends to spend time with. They don't like reading policy analysis and rigorously reflecting on their thoughts and values. It's too much work, and not enough benefit (unless they personally enjoy it.) So they don't do it.

> Barack Obama is running against a Neo-Nazi in 2012. The Neo-Nazi candidate is proposing that we kill all the Jews in America. You think most people would have no good reason to oppose the new holocaust that is being proposed by the Neo-Nazi? Would you still advocate not voting?

As I said above, people know enough to oppose neo-nazis. But don't pretend like modern political issues aren't far more complex than that.

> Would you still advocate not voting [in the Obama vs. Neo-nazi scenario]?

There are two issues here: (1) Would I advocate not voting? (2) Would I advocate that someone doesn't have an obligation to vote?

As to (1), recall my reasons for saying most people shouldn't vote. It was that they are irrational when it comes to politics, and they are thusly not often epistemically warranted in supporting the candidates they support. In this hypothetical scenario, because people are epistemically warranted in being anti-Nazi, then it would certainly be permissible for them to vote to avoid the Nazi. (But in reality, people aren't typically epistemically warranted in being for/against Obama or Romney or whoever -- they sway whichever way fear mongering, propaganda, and their ideological upbringing directs them.)

As to (2), in the Obama vs Neo-nazi election, whether someone has an obligation to vote depends on whether their vote is likely to effect the outcome. If it isn't (say they don't live in a swing state, and their district is solidly pro-Obama or pro-Neo-nazi), then they don't have an obligation -- voting in such a scenario does nothing to promote the public good. If it is likely to matter, then yes, one should go vote.

In reality, in my case, in my state and my district, my vote has no such meaning and impact. It is not likely to effect the outcome (I am far more likely to win the lottery. And it isn't often even clear to me which outcome, which candidate, would be better.

Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed introduces a number of these essential concepts and goes a little into the background, and really finds the edges of the thing by finding those cases where they fall apart completely. I also think that it has the right overall tone to not repulse someone with an anarchic bent. There are better surveys from an academic perspective, but legibility is important.

Richard Lynn's work in his book demonstrates the racial disparity in intelligence: https://smile.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X?sa-no-redirect=1

The study I linked proves the heritability/genetic component of intelligence.

> The action to document basic informations about every citizen is essential in my mind in order to properly manage the country

What about the countries where this information isn't kept (e.g. the UK, or most other common law countries)? Are they not properly managed?

It's certainly true that governments tend to want to create these sorts of databases, but that doesn't mean they're essential. Seeing Like A State even makes a compelling argument that such schemes tend to be largely detrimental as they always require squeezing a complex reality into an over-simplified structure.

> As for why he doesn't enslave humanity, well that wouldn't make for a very good story.

It can and has. It's called Superman: Red Son.

http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X

>there is nothing else meaningful to base your government policy, or your ethics off of.

My ethics are based on providing maximum freedom to the individual, irrespective of what they do with it. I'm not concerned about promoting the greater good by central planning. Why does the good of the group outweigh the good of the individual?

>I am not sure there is any realistic example in which some can suffer a lot for others benefit, and this maximises utility.

I would say this depends on the scope of the group you are talking about benefiting. The US harms many overseas to benefit the domestic population, for example.

>Ultimately I have some faith in governments... to fail less than the market does. i simply think they fail less (or have the potential to fail less) than the free market.

When the government fails, it does so after having threatened the people with violence, taken their money, and then wither wasted it, lost it, and hurt the many to benefit the politically connected. Market failures certainly do happen, but they are the result of the choices people make, which to me is far less unethical than a government failure. Do you think governments have the potential to fail worse than the market, with worse outcomes from those worse failures?

>I am a Keynesian, so I think deficit spending is terrific.

Even Keynes only suggested deficit spending during recessions, not every single year during good times as well.

>The only way to deal with this is a very informed electorate, which is hardly an exciting solution.

It's an irrational solution. Have you ever read anything like They Myth of the Rational Voter? The amount of time it takes to become educated on all the relevant topics compared to the meaninglessness of your vote statistically among many millions makes it a very poor investment of your time.

>These are deeply heterodox views, and you would have a hard time finding a respectable modern academic to back you up on them.

The government isn't exactly known for its historical honesty, and supports people who support its views. However, there are some recognized works, including this Pulitzer Prize winning book. Ben Bernanke has a concurring view of Milton Friedman's work to show the great depression worsened by Federal monetary policy

>respectable

The trouble with this word is that in today's discourse anyone who supports a heterodox view of anything is instantly branded as "not-respectable."

I'm going to skip your stuff on austerity, as I am not familiar with the particulars of those countries and don't have anything informed to say about them. My apologies.

>I am all in favour of a smaller military

Yes, but if you're concerned about the environment, then the military is currently and ongoing government failure, dare I say a disaster. Can you point to something the market is failing at that has an equally large impact?

>that energy would have been consuming by the free market equivalent of the services provided by government anyway.

This assumes the government programs are as efficient as market ones. Would you make that assumption?

>Again, while the government is not perfect, it is the better than the alternative.

False dichotomy. What is the alternative? There can be many alternatives.

>Almost all of the top universities in the world are publicly run, Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford etc.

Harvard is private. The Ivy league schools are private. Also, what does "top" mean? Top at what? Promoting an orthodox view? Producing the best minds to go into politics and lord over people?

>higher than many poor people could afford in the free market, this is the ultimate problem of education in the market.

In much of the developing world private education is stepping in where the government fails.

>What sort of social mobility can you expect when the lower classes are educated so badly relative to their more rich counterparts?

The US government is a worst offender of this I can think of, because it funds schools on property taxes. Government education is a massive failure, yet it produces people at the ready to denounce private education.