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 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 of some Taiwanese 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. 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.