sponsor: sevitzdotcom uses vzaar for all his video needs

You’re saying it didn’t harm you, and that you can’t now tell the difference, but ask yourself, if you had to have an inch removed for no medical reason, would you willingly accept it for reasons of tradition

I don’t think you can compare an inch with the foreskin. Cutting of an inch would without a doubt make a difference, both physically and mentally and medically. If circumcision had this same effect, men who elected to do this later in life would have highlighted this by now.

Many unfortunate acts are committed by good people with only the best of intentions.

And ? …. Many unfortunate acts were also committed by bad people with evil intentions. Good and beautiful and meaningful and loving acts are committed by good people with the best of intentions too. Are you suggesting people should stop trying to do good loving acts because some unfortunate acts are too committed by good people with the best of intentions. Again a struggle to see how a decision a parent makes in honest belief if it’s for the best of their child and made with love, a decision that does no harm, is abuse.

Your experience of being circumcised and how it affects you - while very important to you and your view of it - does not constitute ‘evidence’ in the debate either way, I’m afraid. Just because you and everyone you know are fine and happy with it and not affected by it in any negative fashion does not mean that you can draw conclusions about the whole practice from your positive experiences

I never claimed it constituted evidence. I can however claim to have an understanding of what it’s like to be circumcised as a baby, and can use that as a way of relating to the discussion, in a manner that women and uncircumcised men can’t. I also from knowing a lot of circumcised men, can say that I have failed to see any evidence of this being a negative experience. Still you could say I come from a freak community that is an outlier. However when I combine this knowledge with the fact that should the opposite be true, you would see a vast and massive outcry by circumcised men, especially in todays environment of easy information flow and access. This for the most part has not happened.

So I am quite comfortable claiming that my own feeling on circumcision is not only mirrored by the fairly large community I know, but the significant majority of circumcised men. Whilst I am very sorry for your friends that they do not like the fact they have been circumcised, they are a very small statistical group of circumcised men. The out cry of people like your friends is very small, and that gives more credence to my claim that it is not abuse.

I am sure that’s exactly the term that the law would use against a parent who tattooed their baby

Actually their are rural and native societies who do. In our western society I would see this as abuse as their is no cultural or traditional or any value in this. However I wouldn’t waltz in to a different civilisation or culture and necessarily say what is or isn’t culturally correct without examining how it affects their culture.

I’ll still call a parent that removes their child’s right to self-determination and forces them to conform to a tradition of their choosing a bad one.

You put this forward as if it was absolute. I say it’s subjective and your opinion. All this comes down to is self determination, as if that was everything. But it ignores the fact that is the parents role to determine what they feel is best of their child. Where should the child be given the choice of making it’s own decisions … 6 months? 6 years? 16 years? One can argue on 1000 different parental choices and none would be right or wrong. Because their isn’t a guide to how to parent nor is their a right or wrong.

Look at it this way. You believe in abortion. Someone who doesn’t believes that you are taking away the childs right to life. Or another way, the childs ability to determine weather it is important enough to be born. Here you are accepting a parents decision to not only remove self determination but remove the chance of living at all. For someone who believes that a child is alive the moment it exists, this is no different from 47 weeks later. Or 24 or 36 or whenever the termination occurs. So you feel comfortable with a mother removing a childs right to live so that she can have a career, but not comfortable with a small fairly unimportant inconsequential bit of flesh being remove 36 weeks later.

The difference between the determination a parent makes to terminate a baby, is no more or less arbitrary than the determination a parent makes to circumcise a baby. It’s a question of what a parent feels is right and appropriate. Not an absolute right or wrong.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that if ritual circumcision was carried out at an age when the child is able to voice their discomfort it wouldn’t be long before mothers started being more reluctant at their boys being put through it in the name of tradition.

If you read Mandela’s book, “The Long Walk to Freedom”, he talks about circumcision at about the age of 16 (pages 30-33) - “Circumcision is a trial of bravery and stoicism; no anaesthetic is used; a man must suffer in silence.”. Is this abuse? I mean it intentionally requires suffering, and I would argue that he was doing it no more out of choice but because of the traditions of his society. Perhaps loving parents consider that doing this post birth is better as it is less painful on a child who is not fully self aware yet.

Without a doubt I do believe circumcision would mostly stop if we legislated that this could only be done after the age of say 21. Not because we may or may not prefer cut or uncut, but because we mostly dislike short term pain, regardless of the reason, and as less people got circumcised peoples would less have something they socially were aware of and it would drop out of practice. That doesn’t actually mean circumcision is wrong, nor does it have anything to do with self determination.

I would also argue that their is a level of self determination. If you as a parent feel strongly against it, you don’t circumcise your child. If being circumcised as a child was such a bad thing, it would stop within a generation. But it hasn’t, and in fact has continued for thousands of years. Coupled with my point that their is very little outcry against it, and the act itself isn’t actually harmful (if it was people wouldn’t make that decision later in life) I would say that the thread of determination runs through the society.

Also I would like to add that I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. I was asked by Dan to explain my opinion and my point of view, and I am doing that. I’m not trying to change anyone’s minds about this. As in my view it’s a matter of opinion and parental choice, and it seems in the minds of others it is an absolute. I learnt long ago (normally by arguing against religious types), that once someone believes something to be an absolute, their is no real debate and the best you can do is explain what your opinion is based so in rare cases they may realise that even if you are (as they believe) absolutely wrong, they may understand how it is you came to that absolutely wrong belief.

It’s impossible to convince someone who sees only black and white that their are colours and shades. I’m just saying that I am seeing colour and shades.

I’m not saying that Jack does fall into that category. But I do find that those who argue against circumcision do view it as wrong in an absolute sense. As I have said to Dan, the use of the term “child abuse” says this quite strongly, as the words you pick give away your view point. The same way as people against abortion use the word “murder”.

Also I don’t think the two things are entirely comparable. Suddenly starting to lop ear lobes off tomorrow would have to the organised religion, no basis tradition, and no basis in the religion either. So their would be no purpose around this at all.

I have heard about a tribe somewhere (can’t find a reference so go with me on this for the moment) where the eldest of twins has the last digit of one of his fingers cut to signify he is the eldest. In our society today we would see this as barbaric. However in the context of the society it is done, apparently it is something they eldest twin is quite proud of. These things are not absolute.

Another society might consider removing your breasts barbaric. We as our society consider it a necessary way of dealing with cancer and sometimes a prevention. Again these things are not absolute.

Afrikaaners back home often pierce the ears of their children very very young. I have no numbers on this, and only a vague memory, but I do recall, that it was something reasonable common, and may actually be done to very young babies (like say under 1). (Disclaimer: this is not fact, but my dodgy memory). Personally I don’t agree with this practice and wouldn’t do it to my own children, as I see no value in it. But I don’t think it’s wrong, nor do I think it is inherently harmful.

As I stated above, I do not think circumcision is harmful, I do believe in context it has benefits (including religious, cultural and traditional), and for me to be able to view this as abuse, I would need to see that this does unequivocally cause harm (as I do believe FGM does).

Which means it comes down to self determination. And I do believe what should be self determined and what should be determined by parents is a matter of opinion and in now way absolute.

How big would the sample group have to be before an admittance that it is something that can cause harm?

It has to be significant enough. In science when a small group of data sets is very small compared to the norm, it’s seen as outliers and not something that affects the interpretation. I’ve not seen any data to suggest a significant enough group exists, nor anecdotally amongst the rather larger group of circumcised people I know that most, have I seen any evidence to suggest those people who feel distressed by being circumcised as children are big enough to register as a data point.

I see no difference between tattooing an infant because I or whoever think it will bring them benefits in later life and circumcising a child for the same reason.

Because in our society their is no social context for tattooing a child. Their is for circumcision. In other societies their is no context for circumcision but their is for tattooing.

You abortion analogy falls flat because in the case of abortion there is only one person who can make that decision; the mother. The foetus cannot be consulted.

Actually I see this as strengthening my argument. The different between a foetus and a baby is a few weeks, and neither can be consulted. Those people who do not believe in abortion, put forward that the parent has no right to decide for the child that the child has no right to life, or should have no chance at it. In both cases a parent is making a decision as to what they see is right, and not on the basis of any absolute.

My only other comment is that I think the health issue is pretty bogus. If it weren’t, circumcision would be deemed a medically necessary procedure.

I don’t think it’s a pure health thing, and even if it was that wouldn’t mean is HAD to be done. Medically more women will not get breast cancer if they had a double mastectomy as a precaution. But this is hardly ever done.

I think their can be some healthy benefits, but healthy wise in a modern society the benefits are slight.

Never seen a circumsised penis - but if it ain’t broke don’t fix it - why does it need to be done - seems pointless to me - why is it cleaner if the guy washes??

Some people do actually prefer the look. A female friend commented to me (off blog) that she preferred circumcised and found it odd, as it doesn’t naturally occur. Unlike say boob jobs where their tend to be natural occurrences of bigger breasts that would explain it.

It’s not cleaner if the guy washes. But the guy has to wash. I guess that does mean their is slightly a higher risk uncut as it does need an action to be par.

The only thing that annoys me greatly about this whole argument is the use of the work ‘cut’ to refer to a circumcised penis.

I prefer the word snip.

unexamined belief that a logical response is disregarded

I have examined my belief quite intensely actually. As these blog posts show. You may not like my conclusions or even my thinking through of the issue, but just because my justification for agreeing with the practice isn’t enough for you, doesn’t mean that my belief is unexamined, or blind or without thought.

The foetus can never be consulted, as by the time it would be old enough to do so abortion would obviously be both impossible and unnecessary.

That’s exactly the point of the pro lifers. That in abortion the child doesn’t even have a chance. That a parent has no right to choose that a child should not be allowed to live. That parental choice to not be a parent is over ruled by the childs right to life.

Abortion is an either/or, circumcision can wait.

I’ll talk a bit more about about this in part 3, but I don’t believe that the argument about circumcision can wait is as simple as it sounds.

Also, as I did say above, the significant majority of people do seem to prefer that they were circumcised at a point they have no memory of the operation. I would be fairly confident to say a through survey would reflect this.

One of my absolutes in life is the belief in informed consent wherever possible, and child circumcision never abides by that.

I would say I believe the same. I would however phrase the sentence as

“One of my absolutes in life is the belief in informed consent wherever appropriate”

This is a fundamental difference in the way we view things as possible is a very different thing to appropriate. Possible is less subjective, and I don’t believe that parenting can be nor do I believe it is anything but subjective. I know of know parents (including my own) that have described the reality of parenting being what they expected before becoming parents, and that things viewed as objectively before becoming a parent suddenly became very subjective as a parent.

But I’ve not heard a single reason here that I can understand intellectually.

Well that’s good. Because as I laid out I have not given any arguments for it yet. I have given two arguments,

1. Tradition for tradition sakes isn’t necessarily bad by virtue alone of it being a tradition
2. Circumcision itself (of children) isn’t abuse or harmful

Now I know you disagree with some of my points on both these issues, so it may be you can see no reason for a why regardless.

While I consider it unforgivably lazy, your belief in that which has always be done and did you no harm is enough for you

I fail to see how questioning something and agreeing with it, is unforgivably lazy. Again I get the feeling that your personal opinion on this is an absolute that I should justify against. Should I for example think that drugs are wrong and harmful, but this is a personal opinion and not a standard I would expect you or any one else to live up to.

I will stand up for my beliefs, and I will be taken to task over them, if you believe they are wrong, and debate my point of view.

By calling my reasoning lazy, you that your standard in this area is more important than mine. I fail to understand how that this is an absolute, which you get to set.

But I consider the validity of the act in question - or any other act - to have a shadow over it if cannot at least be explained so it is intellectually understood.

I have argued on an intellectual level that we will never be able to exceed the speed of light. Both my argument, as well the counter point is not always intellectually understood. Does that make my standpoint suddenly invalid.

I don’t intellectually understand the concept of love. Does that make love invalid?

Some people don’t understand the act of marriage to have any intellectual value. Does that make it have no value for those who still want it?

We are not only driven by intellectual justification. This is by the by though, and my intellectual understanding of the act doesn’t necessarily translate to me being able to transfer that intellectual understanding on a level that fits into the constructs of how you view the world.

where we differ is what we consider reasonable.

Exactly. Couldn’t agree with you more. Nor do I have an issue that we have a different view on what is reasonable. But I think it’s perfectly valid that we both have different viewpoints, and that you can’t say I am wrong because my view point differs, even if you don’t agree with my explanation of why my viewpoint is what it is.

I care about the reasons you give in themselves

And you disagree with my reasons which is fine. But you seem to also be saying that because you disagree with my reasons, they are not valid reasons. I see this as a difference of view point. I think you see it as a difference of validity.

I have to suspect that the inability to do so (from your attempt as explaining the ‘tradition’ motivation so far) does not stem from my pre-existing concepts of the world, as you appear to be blaming, but from a core reasoning that amounts to no more than ‘because I want to’.

I’m not blaming you. What I am saying is that we fundamentally view the world differently. This fundamental difference may mean that I can’t explain things in a way that allows my point to be understood.

Or I could be putting forward arguments in a poor manner.

Or I could simply be wrong.

I have lost arguments I have been right on because I couldn’t present a strong enough argument. I have won arguments I was wrong on because I could put forward a stronger argument.

I do believe in this case we just view the world differently, and no matter what, my motivation and justification won’t be good enough for you.

were all your independent arguments somehow disproved beyond doubt you’d still believe its was right because that’s your conditioning, and that’s at the heart of many of our most cherished beliefs and opinions, not just yours or mine.

If it was prove that circumcision was harmful, I would not circumcise my child. End of story.

In fact, the logical shortfall in so many people’s thinking annoys me more than the circumcision itself

Not everything has to have a logical reason. This idea that the motivations of man all have to be rationally explained is false. In fact most parents I speak to, including my own, talk about how having kids changes all the rules. And you can read volumes on how to bring up children, but in the end you just have your gut feel and have to go with what’s right.

Also again I say, where you see a logic shortfall I don’t. However you don’t like or agree with my logic. I see a greater logic shortfall that you view abortion (a parents decision as to weather the child should even exist) is not the same as circumcision (a parents decision to have a minor surgery performed for religous or social contexts). You accept a parents decision in one case but not another. I see this as far more illogical.

There are also differences between reasons and valid reasons.

Quite correct. But what is valid for you is not valid for me. And visa a versa. Reasons are subjective. Their is know absolute on this.

I have never heard an argument for child circumcision from anyone that lessened my view that it was abuse and while I’m open to one I don’t expect it any time soon. But I have heard the occasional well thought out ones that led me to logically comprehend why the person thought that the disregard of consent (and all attending arguments) was acceptable.

And I feel that it’s less traumatic for a child than an adult. I value that over self determination.

You don’t. But you present your belief here as a fact and mine as incorrect. I’ve yet to see why your belief is correct and mine is incorrect, and not just a difference in choice.

All cultures used to do really stupid things, until someone in that culture, or exterior to that culture, taught them not to. They learned and evolved through reason.

However this isn’t a really stupid thing. It’s a minor harmless surgery. Again you may have a difference of opinion on this, but that’s all it is, a difference of opinion.

I believe if Jews thought this was a stupid thing it would have stopped. In fact historical evidence seems to indicate it was actually a really smart thing.

What are these mysterious benefits it conveys, other than a small chance of getting your dick lopped off?

Actually there is no chance of getting your dick chopped off.

If chicks prefer it cut, that doesn’t actually affect infants. If you are 16 and want to get it cut, that is doable. It can even be done painlessly, and when you are an adult you have a mental dominion over/understanding of pain that newborns do not.

Actually I believe that that understanding is what makes it far more painful and traumatic to have done at 16 than at 8 days.

I hope it’s not just tradition, because I think the point to my post was that tradition don’t cut it.

Right, I’ll expect you to stop everything you do that has any sort of basis in tradition or history.

~4%, and you may end up foregoing that child’s future sexual relations entirely, which admittedly would be an effective preventative for AIDS, but may cause them to hate you intensely

Of all the ones that go badly, I assume most or minor “go badly” than ending all sexual relations. On the other hand getting aids, far more limits your chance of having sexual relations. That is when it doesn’t actually kill you. In a scale of bad things, the weighting of bad is far more on the side of aids.

This argument is as specious as saying the way to avoid unwanted pregnancy in teenagers is to remove a baby’s uterus at birth. The answer to curing the AIDS pandemic is not to circumcise all babies, but to educate sexually active adults to avoid risky behaviour.

Actually if you can slow down a pandemic this is the answer. Education is sorely needed but isn’t having the impact on stopping the spread. Especially in Africa where a massive percentage of the population has aids and it’s spreading faster.

Slowing down the spread with circumcision might actually give us a chance to start educating people.

When dealing with a pandemic you need to stop the exponential growth before it gets out of hand you can’t contain it. With the rate it’s growing, if circumcising has even a smallish protection, it’s worth it.

Ask an Aids suffer if they’d rather be circumcised for a 10% better shot at not having aids. ….

I just sent you a link proving that circumcision has a high risk of complications. This is documented and peer-reviewed.

Yes it is. From the article you linked too

The incidence of complications, risks, and adverse effects of male circumcision is controversial. There is wide disagreement on what constitutes a complication.

I am trying to avoid debating where we each end up citing opposing research after opposing research. This is even why I didn’t cite the HIV testing that has now been linked to by commentors. Because this is controversial, the interpretation of the data has a high bias to it. Data (and interpretation) from “The National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males” is going to have a bias that plays against circumcision. Equally will data by those in favour of it, will show a bias towards it.

This is not because I am saying the data has no value nor am I dismissing the data by who provides it. However to say that this is conclusive I feel is incorrect. Every time I researched the medical aspect of this for these blog posts I found a lot of debate but not very much agreement. I have tried to avoid getting into a “I cite, you cite” type debate.

The Wikipedia cites references that list the complication rate as low as 0.06% and as high as 55%. The fact this range is that massive, tells me that 1) Not all the research is comparable 2) A variance by location must exist

However I will totally agree that complications DO occur. I will totally occur that ANY surgery carries risks.

Laser Eye Surgery carries risks too. So does tattooing and piercing. And in both these areas their is controversy because their is conflicting view points based on conflicting evidence, based on non equal research. So just because something has risks, doesn’t mean that on that basis alone it should be stopped.

If it was just about the risk, then the counter argument would be, at what level do I need to reduce the risk to for it to be acceptable. I would agree with you entirely that at some percentage it is unacceptable. But that means the rate of complications should be decreased not necessarily that the practice itself is bad.

As a father, like any elective surgery, I would make sure that the person doing they surgery presented the least risk to my child. At some risk level, I would consider the practice harmful, and too risky and not circumcise my child. But at some level I would consider the risk low enough that this doesn’t effect my consideration, and other aspects do.

I don’t think this is about the risk though, because you are ok with circumcision as an adult choice. And you are ok with it being done in environments where the health aspect is greater (cleanlyness, hiv). So the issue and the only issue I can really see you truly have is the debate about parents right to make decisions for their kids. Not about the risk itself.

Friends of mine had several electives surgeries done on his daughter. At least 5 or 6. Eye opps, and some plastic surgery amongst them. All of these were more risky than circumcision. However his daughter was born prematurely and he felt the benefit of these surgeries would outweigh the risks. Including the cosmetic surgery to fix problems that had occurred as a result of the medical treatment received as a result of her being a premmie. These were all elective but he felt that this would set her up for a better life both health wise and aesthetics. Parents make decisions for their kids, including evaluating the risks.

You can read volumes on how to bring up children, but in the end you just have your gut feel and have to go with what’s right.

Do you even read what you’re writing? If I wanted to write a parody of an argument without substance I couldn’t do a better job that to quote this line.

Yes actually I do read what I write. I’d rather you asked me to explain myself than treated me like I was stupid. These issues are complex, and in a very deep an layered discussion it’s possible I don’t make myself clear. I’m happy to try clarify, but please don’t insult me.

What I was trying to say is that parenting is not an absolute. Parents try do what’s right for their child. Right is subjective. To you a .X% chance of complications in circumcision might be more important than to another parent a .Y% chance of contracting aids or being unable to have barmitzvah.

Where is the logic in ‘gut feel’? Where is the logic in ‘I believe’? In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell shows how gut feel can be more powerful than trying to trivialise our understanding to it’s micro components. Not everything in a human context is logical. If it was I would understand women a lot better.

So why, then, do you object to Female Genital Mutilation, if you believe everything is subjective and there are no moral absolutes? Why would you object to anything at all? Because when I look at the evidence, I believe (see their is belief again) that it is harmful. - It’s not advocated by women who have had it done - It’s not elected to be done as a choice later in life - It seems to have no benefits - It seems to cause direct harm, even when their are no complications

When I way up the body of in information about FGM, it seems to me to be purely a harmful practice. When I way up the body of information about male circumcision I do not see it as a harmful practice.

I would not stop an adult male I know being circumcised. I would stop an adult female I know having FGM.

I do not believe this is a valid comparison. I do not believe they are the same thing at all.

And how can you claim to use logic in an argument but then argue that nothing is absolute, when logic bases itself on the premise of an objective universe?

Who said their is nothing in the universe that is absolute? All I said was that in many things human, social and relational things are complex and not always absolute. The boiling point of water is absolute. The social value of circumcision in a Jewish community is subjective.

You belief doesn’t mean shit next to scientific evidence. It’s been proven that infants feel pain.

Again please insult me less when disagreeing with me.

I never argued against the fact infants feel pain. However I have not seen scientific evidence that offers unequivocal uncontroversial proof that an infant has the context to understand the pain of circumcision and that as a result this is worse over the life of the child than making a decision at say 13 where social pressure or even desire to have the circumcision doesn’t introduce greater physical and psychological pain.

And frankly you jump the fence a lot on this one, since you’ve previously cited circumcision as Nelson Mandela’s ‘trial of manhood’ as a reasoning person.

I said that this was a example of how social context presents different rituals to different social groups. What’s valid in one social grouping may not be valid in another. I don’t see this as fence jumping.

If it harmed another person, damned right I think you should expect that. But using your magical belief system as a defence, I can apparently do whatever I like to whomever I like, so long as I say: “That’s okay! It’s part of my culture!” after I do it.

I never said that. I said that I am in favour of it because I don’t see it as harmful and it’s part of my culture.

Instead of assuming, why don’t you look at the evidence? I did. It was inconclusive.

You do know that some people with AIDS do continue to have sex lives, without endangering others, right?

Yes I do. But I said it limits your chances of sexual relations. I stand by this.

Except as an adult you have the option to try and avoid AIDS through your choices. As an infant you are defenceless if your parents want to chop at you.

That is true. But the reality is that you are still at risk unless you abstain entirely. At this point becomes an evaluation of one risk against the other. This again is a matter of opinion.

Circumcision is the answer to the AIDS pandemic. I barely even know where to begin on the wrongness of this statement. If you have repeated unprotected sex with partners who have HIV, eventually it will be transmitted to you. Circumcision will not prevent this. Education will.

I said, if circumcision can cut down the numbers dramatically, it is the answer, in that it gives us enough time to give education a chance to work. Education takes time, and sometimes generations to work. If you looked the the growth of infection rates, it gets to a point where it is out of hand, and anything you can do to bring down the spread is a smart decision. I never meant to imply it was the only answer, but that it could be part of the answer if education is not working quickly enough.

I’ve already stated that in some environments, such as a desert where regular hygiene is problematic, circumcision makes sense as a medical procedure.

Even for infants?

So I assume you don’t see circumcision as bad thing either then? Just that you disagree with it, on infants in a western society as a choice by parents who have evaluated all the factors and decided this is appropriate.

You’re just drawing your lines in different places.

Without wishing to sound excessively rude, wouldn’t it have been easier to teach him to wash?

Yes it probably would have. Does this mean he would have washed? Does this mean he wouldn’t have gone camping and been unable to? Does this mean occurrences couldn’t occur where he has a high rate of infection?

It’s been the parents decision that the risk was reduced by circumcision. This is a evaluation and decision based on the information available. Again I say this is a differing of viewpoints on the benefit and not an absolute either way.

However even so, there is no excuse for any boy to keep his willy unwashed. That’s true. But not all boys do what they are told. Just because infections are avoidable, doesn’t mean they actually end up being avoided.

Circumcised boys may try to get away with the whole: “It’s okay baby, I don’t get dirty down there. Also: I can’t give you AIDS!” spiel. Don’t listen to them. Send `em to the shower.

I totally agree. This is unacceptable. But we all have been teenagers and we all have made mistakes.

I know of myself and several friends who I have made go get tested. Even as smart bright educated successful western people this group has all had unprotected sex in an environment where the chance of getting something existed.

Just because we should know better doesn’t mean we do.

I take your point that circumcision isn’t a solution unto itself for health issues. But it does effect the issue of risk, and does move where the risk occurs. In some cases parents may evaluate that this is the best option for their kids.

Again, it’s a matter of differing opinions.