Shea's Blog - Latest Comments

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

RJS — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:35:04 -0000

Your parents may not be in the position of having more children, but they may be in the position to influence those who will have more children, and as such, they should know that it's wrong to circumcise someone against their will.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Lindsey Hollands — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:50:09 -0000

Count me among those interested if Henesch ever replied to you. Thank you for sharing your story!

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Mohelman — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:42:29 -0000

You are really nuts. Sorry but you are in need of mental health care not a new foreskin.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Answerthis9999 — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:37:08 -0000

You are a mental case.

Re: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the Objectivist Movement

werewr — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:57:03 -0000

1) metaphysics - objective reality
2) epistemology - reason
3) ethics - rational self-interest
4) politics - laissez-faire capitalism

These aren't philosophies they're trite labels which either lack definitions or posses circular definitions which amount to tautological philosophical pointlessness. There is no good reason to believe that rational self interest equates to the standard 'Objectivist style wealth maximizer' nor is there any good reason to believe that there has ever been a meritocratic system of currency and just initial distribution of resources that would justify laissez-faire capitalism.

If you want to be a selfish douche in all of your interactions with other people just go ahead and do it, you don't need the angsty ramblings of a delusional woman who couldn't get over the communists taking away her daddy's farm so she had to create a fictional world of superhero inventors that bears no connection whatsoever to who science and innovation occur in the actual world to back you up.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Linnea731 — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:46:41 -0000

Thank you for opening up about your personal story, so that others may see the truth! I am sure you are making a big difference! It is because of people like you, that my son is NOT circumcised!

Re: Why Do We Need Definitions?

kalexander — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 05:53:14 -0000

As we reason with words and their definitions, then having ambiguous definitions results in ambiguous conclusions.
Importantly, someone who wishes to ambiguously communicate would not want precise definitions. They might then be accountable for their representations.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Ryan — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:22:28 -0000

Religious leaders pretend to speak for everyone. Your words need to be heard far and wide.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Kurt True — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:45:56 -0000

For a while there I was worried nobody would prove my point for me.

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

NSFW — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:43:19 -0000

Wait, hold on: what's the thing about getting together a team of vigilantes to combat "rights violations"? You mean seeking justice against those who have violated American rights, right?

Also, doesn't that already exist in the way of private contractors?

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

NSFW — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 05:20:01 -0000

Don't forget that you're a nihilist, Shea. A total nihilist. That's a pretty big difference, I think.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Frank OHara — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:47:58 -0000

@ cyjnurse: "My hope for you is that you find peace regarding this matter but that you come to realize that you could have had a dialog with the rabbi, face to face, instead you will dialog with everyone except him. You minimize your position by avoiding the discussion."

I've heard so many times "I've never met a man who wishes he were not circumcised." Shea has just put this argument to rest as he should. This can be a difficult discussion especially for a Jew. The parents are complicit and any public discussion would tend to implicate them. He is likely to get a long argument and personal blame if he discusses it with the mohel. Doing it by e-mail keeps a distance and shows concern for the mohel.

Shea has maximized his position by sharing the heartfelt feelings he is experiencing. Hopefully, it will empower other men who have been violated so personally and in such a private manner to confront those who have similarly violated them. It's about time this violent violation is exposed to the bright sunlight of day.

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

Joshua Job — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:23:25 -0000

What, in your minds, is "essential"? I mean, what is necessary to still be an "Objectivist" in your view (both Aaron and Shea)? Is there a sort of fixed list of positions, or is it a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing?

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

Shea Colton Levy — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:06:56 -0000

I don't think any of these are the defining essentials either, that's why I still say I'm an Objectivist. I do think, though, that these are all issues that set me apart from most Objectivists. That doesn't mean we can't have good faith disagreements or arguments about it, it just means that these are issues where I have a disagreement about things. I didn't really have a well-developed point in posting this, I just thought it might be fun to have this list around somewhere.

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

Aaron Bilger — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:03:48 -0000

Joshua-
That's interesting about Sherman. While his role in the killing or destruction has some debate, what I think's important in this discussion is that Brook+Epstein and others hold him up as an example of the right approach *because* they assume he did intentionally harm the innocent. Assuming there was no question Sherman truly did only destroy slaveholder property, and didn't burn or kill others (I do not believe this extreme, but for sake of argument) then I'd agree with you - but the big-Os in question would write him off as a needlessly restrained bleeding-heart.

While I largely agree with Shea on sexual ethics, I think most of the prudishness or unhealthy sexual attitudes of some Objectivists come less from anything Rand wrote and more from people who likely grew up Christian, cast off the religion when becoming Oist, but still implicitly hold some of the bad Christian sexual views but now with an Objectivist veneer.

Thanks for the recommendations for Bruce Benson - I'm putting those on my list. I enjoy reading and thinking about conceptions of how the justice system would work in a free society, and historically what has come close.

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

Aaron Bilger — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:38:41 -0000

Shea-
Why so much focus on the divisive? Some of the items you mention are relatively obscure, and while some are at odds with particular Rand's writing (e.g. IP duration), others (e.g. total war) are just views of some big-Os who I think are not on the same page as Rand. In any case - and whether I agree or disagree with you, with ARI party line, or hadn't thought about that issue - I don't think any of these are defining essentials of Objectivism. I consider these all areas where we can be Oists and have good faith disagreements and arguments. I can see wanting to discuss and debate the issues, but just don't see why you'd want to focus on all potential conflicts and setting yourself apart from Objectivism.

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

Joshua Job — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:49:11 -0000

Well on the same topic, I don't think Sherman's March is quite the same as some of the proposals to intentionally target civilians (like nuking cities or something similar). Sherman killed next to no one, and most of the damage he caused on his March was to slaveholders estates (which is fine- they enslaved people). I think he burned down Atlanta (another city I think was burned down, but he didn't order that, historians think some of his soldiers got overzealous), which probably wasn't great but it killed no one since the city had been evacuated beforehand. There is a huge difference between destroying property vital to a war effort and destroying the ill-gotten property of slaveholders, and on the other hand massacring civilians because war is supposed to be nasty and hard. I'd be fine if we used a Sherman's March to the Sea type campaign in wars, as he did NOT target civilians (and most of his destruction was levelled on slaveholders and their estates).

Sex and gender are an area I haven't given a lot of thought about, outside of the more standard cases. I'm a heterosexual who likes wearing pants, button-up shirts, and when it is a reasonable temperature, a sport coat and necktie of some form, so I haven't really ever had to address cross-dressing or transgenderism in my own life. I'm too concerned about STDs to ever think of casual sex or a prostitute (well, if they were like the Companions from Firefly, then I guess it might come up, but barring that--definitely not).

However, where did you get the impression that having sex with multiple people or even having multiple lovers (as in people you love) was wrong according to Objectivist sexual ethics? I think that is up to personal characteristics and the field of psychology rather than philosophy (and I'm pretty sure that is the position of most Objectivists, even though the vast majority would say it isn't a good idea). Maybe I missed something?

As for government, I suggest you read Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" and "To Protect and Serve"- they're interesting empirical studies of the production of law and order in various societies throughout history. You can probably get them from a university library. They've had a pretty big impact on my thinking on this issue (I read them about a week ago).

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

Shea Colton Levy — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:52:12 -0000

As I said, I do think there are limits to the steps the military should take to avoid civilian casualty. If the civilians won't voluntarily move or show the military where the enemy combatants are, then the military is probably justified in attacking where they have a reasonable guess of the enemy location. The important thing is that the goal is to attack the combatants and that the civilian casualties are not the primary intent: in the "total war" doctrine purposely attacking civilians is a central goal.

Re: My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists

Seth — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:43:39 -0000

Regarding the second to last point, what about when the enemy military hides within the civilian population as Hamas does?

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Beitraban — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:51:32 -0000

I want to thank you for allowing me to laugh so hard. Your ode to your penis is hilarious. To write such a personal letter, with such blessed lack of self awareness is awesome. Please keep the laughs coming.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Reasoning101 — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:10:45 -0000

I found my way to Shea's blog via the blog of a friend of mine here where I live. She reprinted the above letter in its entirety.

As a man who grew up with great respect for the Jewish side of his family (my mother was raised Orthodox), I hear where Shea is coming from. One could argue that the indelible nature of circumcision is precisely its purpose. On closer, and logical, inspection, however, the reasons for this become less and less clear.

I saw some posts online recently arguing that Jews must do this because it sets us apart. But how exactly does this mark set one apart in modern-day America? Doesn't Judaism teach us that what truly sets us apart is our introspection and commitment to good works, as well as observances in our daily lives that we choose willingly? Moreover, the Bible does not state anywhere that this is to be a unique mark of Judaism. In the context in which the instruction was delivered, it is not clear whether this is a unique sign or something that 90% of the surrounding population was doing; the only condition was for each father to perform it faithfully to his son, as Abraham allegedly had done -- no mention of a mohel.

The obligation to circumcise also stands out starkly against Jewish prohibitions against marking the flesh or cutting off any living parts of our body. It is exceptional for its insistence on wounding a human body other than your own, something Judaism abhors. It is inconsistent for making it the obligation of one person, the father, but putting the penalty for failure to carry out the instruction -- alienation -- on another person, the son. And it stands out for its overall vagueness and anatomical inconsistency; the foreskin is not a separate structure, like a tonsil or the appendix. It is an integral part of the penis, part of one continuous skin system and fused to the undeveloped glans at birth, so grievous mistakes could well have been anticipated. The instruction has all the marks of a human intervention added centuries afterward and thoughtlessly passed off as divine commandment. Indeed, that is exactly the conclusion that more and more biblical scholars are reaching today. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cutting of the infant acroposthion was changed by rabbinical less than 2000 years ago into a much more extensive 3-stage surgery; the origins of the simpler procedure may well not be any more ancient in time than the diaspora.

The looming question no one seems to want to ask is: can a religion maintain its distinct identity, and survive, without such a drastic anomaly as circumcision? The practice is unique among the great religions of the world as the the only instance of obligatory wounding of another person's sex organs. It smacks of being the contrivance of humans with an ulterior motive -- which it almost certainly was, by the Hebrew priests who were soon thereafter discredited.

As Jews, we question and examine. Circumcision's history, methodology and purpose should be no more shielded from scrutiny than any other practice or belief. It's only our visceral ambivalence at such an alarming act that makes people fearful to stare it down. But new evidence emerges every year about circumcision's deleterious effects, and having the will to change harmful practices is how we evolve as a society.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Kurt True — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:26:46 -0000

I suppose it's neither here nor there, but outdoorsy types will no doubt notice I got the name of the trail wrong. I should have said "Upper Yosemite Falls Trail."

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Kurt True — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:27:21 -0000

I was circumcised as an infant, and I can definitely relate to the physical discomfort that's just sort of always there. I can't say that during sexual activity I've ever thought to myself "Boy, it sure would be handy to have a foreskin right now," but I have had that thought many times on hiking trips. If you want to know why the foreskin evolved, try hiking the Yosemite Point Trail in a wet snow without one. Remember to bring the extra- strength painkiller of your choice.

In a lot of ways the discussion about infant circumcision as a human rights violation reminds me of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The victims open themselves up to a second wave of abuse when they speak out, because very often instead of sympathy and understanding, we hear a lot of ugly accusations. "You're imagining things." "You're crazy." "You're attacking innocent people. Shame on you." "You're trying to blame somebody else for your own personal failures."

I think what you've posted here will help to move public discourse on this subject in a more positive and productive direction, and for that I offer you my heartfelt thanks.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Zozosmamma — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:20:19 -0000

I`ll consider it...I have to give a lot of thought to how I word it. I have shared such things before...it always leads to drama and people i really care about being very very angry at me. I have almost lost friends over this issue. As someone who has grown up around the bris, I get it...I really do. Stuff like that just does not change the minds of most Jews.
Most of us (me included) are in a situation where every single man in
our families (and maybe circle of friends, depending) and not one of
them has ever indicated having a physical, emotional or spiritual issue
with it. Being brought up like that, it is hard to see it as a big deal
or a horrible thing.

Re: An Open Letter to Mohel Michael Henesch

Josh — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:12:49 -0000

Zozosmamma - I would urge you to consider sharing this - even if it does cause some drama.Infant genital cutting is only able to continue because people keep silent. The more of us who speak out about it, the sooner it will end.We're talking here about a violation of people's most basic human rights.