Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (43 users) | |
|
| sevencck Canada. June 28 2012 12:30. Posts 632 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 10:14 turdburgler wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:10 turdburgler wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:06 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:05 ][Primarch][ wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:02 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:56 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:18 Probe1 wrote:
According to the court, the religious freedom “would not be unduly impaired” because the child could later decide whether to have the circumcision.
This is fucked lol. Circumcision when I was born: no memory, probably painful but not so much to cause emotional or lasting damage Circumcision if I was old enough to make the decision: Keep your knife away from my tackle thanks. I'm not going to argue the health issues because I can post conflicting research with minimal effort to prove there is no clear consensus. What I will say is this is a stupid decision. It will lead to the rise of underground circumcisions and travel to other countries to perform the operation. If the court had said "You can only circumcise infants or boys once they've reached an age appropriate to consent to the operation" I would think nothing of it. But blanket banning it is just stupid. It will only lead to illegal circumcisions for religious purposes.
Well that quote just shows the severe lack of understanding for the religious motivations for circumcision. To me this is diametrically opposed to freedom of religion and to class it as "barbaric" is a complete stretch. I know the Jewish religion requires circumcision 8 days after birth to symbolize the covenant between Abraham and God; how the fuck does this not impact religious freedom? After reading the amount of times the word people have said "mutilation" in this thread I am certainly going to have to leave because it takes a great deal of ignorance to use that word in this context
through a variety of subliminal message and brute force techniques, i have attempted to replace the world mutilated with sculpted. so far its not working out so well. =(
Lol that made me laugh  well i guess religious sensitivity isn't as paramount in Germany as i thought it would be. While I am not a religious person at all I would say there are definitely things more important than religion but there are very FEW things more important than FREEDOM of religion. This certainly does not qualify in my opinion
How is mutilating a kids genitals religious freedom? How does that even compute to you?
it is a religious rite practiced by certain religions. if you impair that rite, you impair religious freedom.
bible says kill people who dont believe in god well you better get started then, i wouldnt want to impair your relgious freedom to fuck with other people however you want.
On June 28 2012 10:06 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:02 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:56 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:18 Probe1 wrote:
According to the court, the religious freedom “would not be unduly impaired” because the child could later decide whether to have the circumcision.
This is fucked lol. Circumcision when I was born: no memory, probably painful but not so much to cause emotional or lasting damage Circumcision if I was old enough to make the decision: Keep your knife away from my tackle thanks. I'm not going to argue the health issues because I can post conflicting research with minimal effort to prove there is no clear consensus. What I will say is this is a stupid decision. It will lead to the rise of underground circumcisions and travel to other countries to perform the operation. If the court had said "You can only circumcise infants or boys once they've reached an age appropriate to consent to the operation" I would think nothing of it. But blanket banning it is just stupid. It will only lead to illegal circumcisions for religious purposes.
Well that quote just shows the severe lack of understanding for the religious motivations for circumcision. To me this is diametrically opposed to freedom of religion and to class it as "barbaric" is a complete stretch. I know the Jewish religion requires circumcision 8 days after birth to symbolize the covenant between Abraham and God; how the fuck does this not impact religious freedom? After reading the amount of times the word people have said "mutilation" in this thread I am certainly going to have to leave because it takes a great deal of ignorance to use that word in this context
No court ever said that it does NOT interfere with religious freedom. The point the courts in Germany make is that the childs right to not be pyhsically harmed surpasses the parents right to exercise religious freedom.
Considering the amount times it gets done i'd say the professionals that do it are pretty good at it; sure there is pain but this is one of the most important parts of certain religions; it isn't just a thing people do on the side, it is core to religious practice. I don't know where freedom of religion sits in Germany, but for a lot of countrys' it is squared away in the constitution.
On June 28 2012 10:05 ][Primarch][ wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:02 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:56 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:18 Probe1 wrote:
According to the court, the religious freedom “would not be unduly impaired” because the child could later decide whether to have the circumcision.
This is fucked lol. Circumcision when I was born: no memory, probably painful but not so much to cause emotional or lasting damage Circumcision if I was old enough to make the decision: Keep your knife away from my tackle thanks. I'm not going to argue the health issues because I can post conflicting research with minimal effort to prove there is no clear consensus. What I will say is this is a stupid decision. It will lead to the rise of underground circumcisions and travel to other countries to perform the operation. If the court had said "You can only circumcise infants or boys once they've reached an age appropriate to consent to the operation" I would think nothing of it. But blanket banning it is just stupid. It will only lead to illegal circumcisions for religious purposes.
Well that quote just shows the severe lack of understanding for the religious motivations for circumcision. To me this is diametrically opposed to freedom of religion and to class it as "barbaric" is a complete stretch. I know the Jewish religion requires circumcision 8 days after birth to symbolize the covenant between Abraham and God; how the fuck does this not impact religious freedom? After reading the amount of times the word people have said "mutilation" in this thread I am certainly going to have to leave because it takes a great deal of ignorance to use that word in this context
through a variety of subliminal message and brute force techniques, i have attempted to replace the world mutilated with sculpted. so far its not working out so well. =(
Lol that made me laugh well i guess religious sensitivity isn't as paramount in Germany as i thought it would be. While I am not a religious person at all I would say there are definitely things more important than religion but there are very FEW things more important than FREEDOM of religion. This certainly does not qualify in my opinion
How is mutilating a kids genitals religious freedom? How does that even compute to you?
If you stop.. think about it; and then think about it again and use a little bit of sense, you'd stop using the word mutilate, you'd realise how it impacts on religious freedom and you'd stop imposing your narrow world-view on other people
why should he stop using a word that is correct? its like you're scared of using a word that means exactly what we are talking about because it would force you to wake up to exactly what you are doing to a child.
to quote a great tl.net admin and moderator, "you just went full retard. never go full retard." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1129#22562
my religion requires me to go full retard so you arent allowed to stop me
In the context of what is being discussed, this may go down as the single best post I've ever read.
|
| | I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. -Albert Einstein |
|
|
| Probulous Australia. June 28 2012 12:30. Posts 3784 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:21 ins(out)side wrote:
Show nested quote + If the decision was taken out of my parents hands, then I would have no choice but to go through with the procedure as an adult.
Ummm... what exactly are you talking about? If the decision was taken out of your parents hands you would NOT be forced to go through the procedure as an adult. You would have the choice of doing it or not doing it. Please tell me why you would have "no choice but to go through with it"? Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? Do you think that circumcision is something that absolutely HAS to be done or some such shit, because I really am struggling to understand your thought process here.
It was badly worded but if you read it in context you will understand that what I mean is the decision would ahve to come from me. If I could choose to have the procedure done when I am a child and cannot remember it, or when I am adult and can, I would obviously choose the former. But that is impossible, so by removing a parent's option for circumcision, you are forcing the child to make that decision as an adult. As in once I am old enough to make that decision, I cannot go back and make it when I would want to.
In other words if the only way I could get circumcised would be as an adult I would choose not to, but if I could have had it done already I would be happier. The decisions are not equivalent but people seem not to be making that distinction. |
| | "Dude has some really interesting midgame switches that I wouldn't have expected. "I violated your house" into "HIHO THE DAIRY OH!" really threw me. You don't usually expect children's poetry harass as a follow up " - AmericanUmlaut |
|
|
| harlock78 United States. June 28 2012 12:34. Posts 89 | Profile # |
Can we also ban practices that mutilate children brains or general health?
Sodas and junk food, TV 24/7, religious indoctrination etc..? Many of these are hardly reversible and are much worse than a millenia old tradition.
User was warned for this post |
|
|
| R3DT1D3 June 28 2012 12:34. Posts 204 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 12:25 Starshaped wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 12:21 R3DT1D3 wrote:
On June 28 2012 12:18 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 28 2012 12:17 R3DT1D3 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no ubiquitous consensus on the benefits of circumcised vs non but the courts ruled one choice illegal? I don't follow this line of thinking. I can understand making one option illegal if it was proven that it DID harm an individual in the long-term but making something illegal that has no long-term effects and arguable benefits seems like madness to me.
To be clear, I don't think which one is considered normal or better is important but taking away the choice seems like an abuse of government power.
They aren't making circumcision illegal, rather circumcising a child that cannot consent illegal.
I understand that's the issue (I'm referring to the choice of the parent), I maintain that it doesn't hurt the child in the long-run and has benefits (you can justify both sides) that should allow the parent to make the choice.
Let's see, should unnecessary genital mutilation on babies be legal or illegal... hmm... The only reason it's an issue whatsoever is religion and tradition. In and of itself the answer is pretty simple.
That's not what mutilation means:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilation
Circumcision is a preferential choice that has no long-term, negative effects and some medical professionals believe it has health benefits. If you want to argue that it's a poor choice go right ahead but downright preventing parents from making that choice is too much for me to stomach. |
|
|
 Praetorial United States. June 28 2012 12:34. Posts 3631 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 11:37 ins(out)side wrote:
Fucking finally!
This archaic, bullshit practice seriously needs to be stopped. I find it amusing that people do it for religious reasons when the reasons used to justify the practice seem to imply that god fucked up by giving us foreskin in the first place. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, we are BORN with foreskin for a fucking reason people. Its not an appendix, its a covering for one of if not THE MOST sensitive spot on your body. I'm pretty sure its where the highest collection of nerve endings are but I'll have to double check. Regardless, its either the most sensitive or a close second place, so the point remains.
To all you idiots who think that a circumcised dick "looks" better, you're a fucking idiot for at least two reasons.(A) When erect, which is really the only time you want to be showing your dick to anyone, its going to pretty much look the same as a cut dick. (B) Even if you still think a cut dick "looks " better, you can pretty much guarantee that it doesn't FEEL anywhere near as good. Having a continuously exposed head desensitizes it to stimulation, ultimately resulting in a less sensitive tip.
I don't know about you guys but I think my parents owe me for mutilating my genitalia all in the name of a covenant with god. There is no question that going through a circumcision is a SERIOUSLY traumatizing event. Saying some bullshit like, "Well I don't remember it" is retarded for more reasons than I care to address. Aside from the fact that the brain actively attempts to block out and remove seriously traumatic events, obviously you were so young that memories of anything from that time period are few and far between if they even exist at all.
BTW, who really thinks that an all-loving god forces people to mutilate male genitalia as a way of "making a conenant"? Sounds to me like this god is pretty fucked up. Why don't we just light a stack of infants on fire while we're at it. You know, to seal the deal?
Hi. I'm atheist and circumcised.
I am totally OK with it. |
| | FOR GREAT JUSTICE! Bans for the ban gods! |
|
|
| thurst0n United States. June 28 2012 12:36. Posts 573 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:27 sevencck wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 10:06 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:02 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:56 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:18 Probe1 wrote:
According to the court, the religious freedom “would not be unduly impaired” because the child could later decide whether to have the circumcision.
This is fucked lol. Circumcision when I was born: no memory, probably painful but not so much to cause emotional or lasting damage Circumcision if I was old enough to make the decision: Keep your knife away from my tackle thanks. I'm not going to argue the health issues because I can post conflicting research with minimal effort to prove there is no clear consensus. What I will say is this is a stupid decision. It will lead to the rise of underground circumcisions and travel to other countries to perform the operation. If the court had said "You can only circumcise infants or boys once they've reached an age appropriate to consent to the operation" I would think nothing of it. But blanket banning it is just stupid. It will only lead to illegal circumcisions for religious purposes.
Well that quote just shows the severe lack of understanding for the religious motivations for circumcision. To me this is diametrically opposed to freedom of religion and to class it as "barbaric" is a complete stretch. I know the Jewish religion requires circumcision 8 days after birth to symbolize the covenant between Abraham and God; how the fuck does this not impact religious freedom? After reading the amount of times the word people have said "mutilation" in this thread I am certainly going to have to leave because it takes a great deal of ignorance to use that word in this context
No court ever said that it does NOT interfere with religious freedom. The point the courts in Germany make is that the childs right to not be pyhsically harmed surpasses the parents right to exercise religious freedom.
Considering the amount times it gets done i'd say the professionals that do it are pretty good at it; sure there is pain but this is one of the most important parts of certain religions; it isn't just a thing people do on the side, it is core to religious practice. I don't know where freedom of religion sits in Germany, but for a lot of countrys' it is squared away in the constitution.
On June 28 2012 10:05 ][Primarch][ wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:02 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:56 bkrow wrote:
On June 28 2012 09:18 Probe1 wrote:
According to the court, the religious freedom “would not be unduly impaired” because the child could later decide whether to have the circumcision.
This is fucked lol. Circumcision when I was born: no memory, probably painful but not so much to cause emotional or lasting damage Circumcision if I was old enough to make the decision: Keep your knife away from my tackle thanks. I'm not going to argue the health issues because I can post conflicting research with minimal effort to prove there is no clear consensus. What I will say is this is a stupid decision. It will lead to the rise of underground circumcisions and travel to other countries to perform the operation. If the court had said "You can only circumcise infants or boys once they've reached an age appropriate to consent to the operation" I would think nothing of it. But blanket banning it is just stupid. It will only lead to illegal circumcisions for religious purposes.
Well that quote just shows the severe lack of understanding for the religious motivations for circumcision. To me this is diametrically opposed to freedom of religion and to class it as "barbaric" is a complete stretch. I know the Jewish religion requires circumcision 8 days after birth to symbolize the covenant between Abraham and God; how the fuck does this not impact religious freedom? After reading the amount of times the word people have said "mutilation" in this thread I am certainly going to have to leave because it takes a great deal of ignorance to use that word in this context
through a variety of subliminal message and brute force techniques, i have attempted to replace the world mutilated with sculpted. so far its not working out so well. =(
Lol that made me laugh well i guess religious sensitivity isn't as paramount in Germany as i thought it would be. While I am not a religious person at all I would say there are definitely things more important than religion but there are very FEW things more important than FREEDOM of religion. This certainly does not qualify in my opinion
How is mutilating a kids genitals religious freedom? How does that even compute to you?
If you stop.. think about it; and then think about it again and use a little bit of sense, you'd stop using the word mutilate, you'd realise how it impacts on religious freedom and you'd stop imposing your narrow world-view on other people
The mere fact that it's a religious custom that we've been desensitized to doesn't make the word mutilate inappropriate. Also, freedom of religion laws are not being violated here, it means nothing that people might believe a circumcision has to occur in 8 days. Freedom of religion laws are not a carte blanche that let you do whatever you want, they simply protect you from personal persecution for your religious beliefs. I'll also point out that logically, putting the choice of circumcision in the hands of a child as opposed to the parents actually supports freedom of religion laws, because the child should have more of a right to choose his religion and the way it impacts him than his parents should to dictate it to him. And if the state decides it's assault, then it's assault and it's illegal, you still have the freedom to practice your religion, you'll simply have to do it differently. Religion should not dictate the unfolding vision of social morality, it simply is not the bottom line in this regard.
How do people not realize it comes down to how you define everything.
Why do we have religion again? It's to create a 'good' society. Christianity operates under the assumption that everyone is bad. Religion urges you to be good, or scares you into it.
Children shouldn't be able to choose which religion they are brought up in, that would negate the point. The point of religion isn't god. it's to be a good person. this whole thing pisses me off because no one thinks objectively.
The even notion that a child should make any decision for themselves is just backwards. Children are children, they need to be cared for. Circumcision never hurt anyone. It's hurting them because you're defining it as mutilation. I can define it as cosmetic, preventative, religious rite. It's just a different lens.
If my religion needs to cut off a piece of skin to call it a good day, then why does that matter to you? I think people are being over dramatic.
Male circumcision effectively changes nothing.
Why aren't we talking about the real issue which is how women and little girls are being literally mutilated for malicious intent all over Africa? Bleh, i think i'm done with this thread. |
| | P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest |
|
|
| krndandaman Mozambique. June 28 2012 12:37. Posts 4362 | Profile Blog # |
lol elitist "uncircumcised people"
thats something new |
| | bw4lyfe/sports fanatic/korea lover/college student |
|
|
| blinken Canada. June 28 2012 12:38. Posts 267 | Profile # |
I don't think circumcised guys really get it.
The foreskin protects all the nerve endings. They stay SUPER sensitive. If an uncircumcised penis head makes contact with boxer shorts it actually hurts them. Imagine this. How sensitive it must be for this to happen.
Why would any man do anything that would decrease the feeling of sex even 1%?
Besides the cleanliness issue, I think the real issue was to curb masturbation. It is so easy for an uncircumcised guy to jerk off. Frankly, I don't know how you other guys do it...Last edit: 2012-06-28 12:38:42 |
|
|
| dAPhREAk Nauru. June 28 2012 12:38. Posts 8698 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 11:52 Starshaped wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 11:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
On June 28 2012 11:33 Starshaped wrote:
On June 28 2012 10:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
one last question before i leave, do you guys who are arguing against circumcision actually care about this issue, or is this just faux-internet outrage? i just find it hard to believe that you guys care so much about a non-issue. before you respond, remember that i am the so-called victim of this "genital mutilation" and i am pretty damn pleased it happened. also, most of the people in this thread who have been circumcised seem pretty okay that it happened to them as well. the outrage seems forced to me.
I think most people defend being circumcised because it's too late for them. The damage has been done so they might as well grit their teeth and act as if it's some awesome thing they are thankful for having been done on them without getting a say in it. I can't see any other reason why anyone would defend it, except for religious reasons. In answer to your question, yes, I do actually care about genital mutilation being so widespread, so accepted, so tolerated, even PRAISED (hello, USA). It's awful. It's one of those things I think will make us all look backwards and terrible to future generations. May I ask why you are so pleased about having your genitals mutilated without your consent when you were just an infant? Is it strictly because everyone else does it, so you want to fit in? Because it would only take one generation of sane parents to fix that 'problem'. I mean there really is no argument here. There are people saying "hey, don't needlessly mutilate your kids' genitals when they are babies, it not only hurts the baby but sex will be less pleasurable, masturbation won't even work well (I guess you need lotion?), there could be complications during the operation and it has zero benefits and they can't give consent so at least wait until they can decide for themselves whether or not they want to do it. Then there are people saying "lulz everyone does it and it looks better and I have the right to do whatever I want to my kids, religious freedom etc." There is no argument.
you shouldnt speak for circumcised people since you have no idea what they think and are stating their arguments through your own biased views. i think uncircumcised penises look disgusting--my personal opinion--so i am pleased it was done to me. and you also obviously have no idea about circumcised people's sex life--who needs lotion? the whole "i have more nerve endings, so i have a better sex life" argument is really stupid. you cant objectively quantify it and i have never heard a circumcised person complain that they wish they had their foreskin back.
And why do you think it is that you think they look disgusting? Could it be because you were brought up in a society where everyone mutilates their baby boys' genitalia and as such a 'normal' penis looks 'ugly' to everyone there? Or do you think you have an innate disgust aimed at a natural-looking penis? I'm curious. In either case, do you think the fact that you just happened to in the future feel disgust towards intact penises justify your parents decision to, with no possible say from you, mutilate you? As an intact male I can't really understand how mutilated guys masturbate (save for lotion), but maybe it differs from person to person. And if you really think mutilating your genitals won't have any effect on your sexual pleasure (specifically removing the most sensitive part) then you are simply delusional.
why does it matter why i think it looks disgusting? the simple fact is that i think it does. your fascination with our masturbation techniques fascinates me, and i have no problem getting off so its as sensitive as its needs to be. |
| |
|
| thurst0n United States. June 28 2012 12:39. Posts 573 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:34 R3DT1D3 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 12:25 Starshaped wrote:
On June 28 2012 12:21 R3DT1D3 wrote:
On June 28 2012 12:18 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 28 2012 12:17 R3DT1D3 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no ubiquitous consensus on the benefits of circumcised vs non but the courts ruled one choice illegal? I don't follow this line of thinking. I can understand making one option illegal if it was proven that it DID harm an individual in the long-term but making something illegal that has no long-term effects and arguable benefits seems like madness to me.
To be clear, I don't think which one is considered normal or better is important but taking away the choice seems like an abuse of government power.
They aren't making circumcision illegal, rather circumcising a child that cannot consent illegal.
I understand that's the issue (I'm referring to the choice of the parent), I maintain that it doesn't hurt the child in the long-run and has benefits (you can justify both sides) that should allow the parent to make the choice.
Let's see, should unnecessary genital mutilation on babies be legal or illegal... hmm... The only reason it's an issue whatsoever is religion and tradition. In and of itself the answer is pretty simple.
That's not what mutilation means: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilationhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilationCircumcision is a preferential choice that has no long-term, negative effects and some medical professionals believe it has health benefits. If you want to argue that it's a poor choice go right ahead but downright preventing parents from making that choice is too much for me to stomach.
Thank you.
In regards to the definition. SOmeone is just going to say that we were perfect the way god created us, so changing that makes it "imperfect"
|
| | P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest |
|
|
 micronesia United States. June 28 2012 12:40. Posts 19315 | Profile Blog # |
| I have read reports that circumsized men, due to having more exposure to the fabric around them, are better at pleasing their partner due to being less sensitive. Interesting, I suppose. |
| | Haste. Exalted. Flying. Deathtouch. Lifelink. Protection from Red. | |
|
|
| ampson United States. June 28 2012 12:41. Posts 1873 | Profile Blog # |
| I don't understand why people are so angry about cut vs. uncut. We get it, you think that (insert status of your penis here) is superior. Honestly, this is something that can't be proved today and it's a little crazy and irrational that everyone is getting so defensive/offensive about it. But, that's men and their penises for you. |
|
|
| Probulous Australia. June 28 2012 12:41. Posts 3784 | Profile Blog # |
| Yeah I don't understand the whole focus on masturbation. Doesn't seem to stop me |
| | "Dude has some really interesting midgame switches that I wouldn't have expected. "I violated your house" into "HIHO THE DAIRY OH!" really threw me. You don't usually expect children's poetry harass as a follow up " - AmericanUmlaut |
|
|
| thurst0n United States. June 28 2012 12:42. Posts 573 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:38 blinken wrote:
I don't think circumcised guys really get it.
The foreskin protects all the nerve endings. They stay SUPER sensitive. If an uncircumcised penis head makes contact with boxer shorts it actually hurts them. Imagine this. How sensitive it must be for this to happen.
Why would any man do anything that would decrease the feeling of sex even 1%?
Besides the cleanliness issue, I think the real issue was to curb masturbation. It is so easy for an uncircumcised guy to jerk off. Frankly, I don't know how you other guys do it...
Think really really hard.. Think harder.. you got my dick in your head? Ok you're gay.
Dude seriously.. have you had sex? It's not a problem, it feels amazing.
This isn't even an argument.
You can leave your car in the garage.. Imma take mine out for a ride..
You act like you know how it works, and you use horrible horrible logic. Just because A->B doesn't mean A->C. Basic stuff here man. |
| | P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest |
|
|
| Probulous Australia. June 28 2012 12:43. Posts 3784 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:41 ampson wrote:
I don't understand why people are so angry about cut vs. uncut. We get it, you think that (insert status of your penis here) is superior. Honestly, this is something that can't be proved today and it's a little crazy and irrational that everyone is getting so defensive/offensive about it. But, that's men and their penises for you.
The problem is that if you try and present your own feelings about this you get shouted down like a heretic. Honestly people need to stop being so "catastrophic" about everything. |
| | "Dude has some really interesting midgame switches that I wouldn't have expected. "I violated your house" into "HIHO THE DAIRY OH!" really threw me. You don't usually expect children's poetry harass as a follow up " - AmericanUmlaut |
|
|
| Djzapz Canada. June 28 2012 12:43. Posts 5688 | Profile Blog # |
Since the topic since to be drifting in all directions, I'll make yet another "objective" statement.
Genital mutilation is only reprehensible when done to female babies.
Because. Science and stuff.
Edit: It's intuitively a ridiculous statement to me. Just needed to spell it out in case some people don't see it.Last edit: 2012-06-28 12:45:14 |
| | "My incompetence with power tools had exponentially increased after 21 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners" |
|
|
| thurst0n United States. June 28 2012 12:46. Posts 573 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:43 Djzapz wrote:
Since the topic since to be drifting in all directions, I'll make yet another "objective" statement.
Genital mutilation is only reprehensible when done to female babies.
Because. Science and stuff.
Edit: It's intuitively a ridiculous statement to me. Just needed to spell it out in case some people don't see it.
And it's a completely different fucking thing. Completely different, for completely different intentions, with completely different results.
|
| | P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest |
|
|
| SnipedSoul Canada. June 28 2012 12:47. Posts 1691 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 12:46 thurst0n wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 12:43 Djzapz wrote:
Since the topic since to be drifting in all directions, I'll make yet another "objective" statement.
Genital mutilation is only reprehensible when done to female babies.
Because. Science and stuff.
Edit: It's intuitively a ridiculous statement to me. Just needed to spell it out in case some people don't see it.
And it's a completely different fucking thing. Completely different, for completely different intentions, with completely different results.
What about just removing the clitoral hood? The more extreme variants of FGM are equivalent to removing the entire head of the penis. |
|
|
| ins(out)side June 28 2012 12:48. Posts 220 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:30 Probulous wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 12:21 ins(out)side wrote:
If the decision was taken out of my parents hands, then I would have no choice but to go through with the procedure as an adult.
Ummm... what exactly are you talking about? If the decision was taken out of your parents hands you would NOT be forced to go through the procedure as an adult. You would have the choice of doing it or not doing it. Please tell me why you would have "no choice but to go through with it"? Seriously, what in the fuck are you talking about? Do you think that circumcision is something that absolutely HAS to be done or some such shit, because I really am struggling to understand your thought process here.
It was badly worded but if you read it in context you will understand that what I mean is the decision would ahve to come from me. If I could choose to have the procedure done when I am a child and cannot remember it, or when I am adult and can, I would obviously choose the former. But that is impossible, so by removing a parent's option for circumcision, you are forcing the child to make that decision as an adult. As in once I am old enough to make that decision, I cannot go back and make it when I would want to. In other words if the only way I could get circumcised would be as an adult I would choose not to, but if I could have had it done already I would be happier. The decisions are not equivalent but people seem not to be making that distinction.
OK, I'm glad you made the distinction as that makes things more cogent. However, this brings up an issue that not many people are considering and that is the psychological impact such a traumatic event has even on an infant!
People seem to think that just because one has something done at an early age and they can't remember it that it hasn't had some kind of profound impact on you. Simply put, this is wrong. Not only is the notion that "can't remember = OK" wrong but the brain actively blocks/removes profoundly traumatic events. This is a sort of inherent defense mechanism the brain has because our thoughts are so powerful that we can relive events and bring all the pain back up to the surface, almost like its happening again.
Don't be mistaken though, this doesn't mean the event wasn't incredibly traumatizing. Of course, more research needs to be done to measure what exactly the impact of circumcising is on the human psyche. On a basic level, you need only ask an adult (who has been cut as an adult) to get an indication of how painful circumcision is and for how long it continues to hurt afterwards. Based on that information alone we can assume that its a pretty shitty way to come into this world.
Just think about it. You take the most sensitive region on the body and slice off the protective covering that was put there. The mere thought makes me cringe. I mean, to go at the most sensitive part of your body with a scalpel at such a young age....we can only begin to speculate just how negatively this impacts the mind. True, its speculation regarding the degree of trauma, but there is no denying its inherently traumatic nature. |
|
|
| Djzapz Canada. June 28 2012 12:49. Posts 5688 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 12:46 thurst0n wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 12:43 Djzapz wrote:
Since the topic since to be drifting in all directions, I'll make yet another "objective" statement.
Genital mutilation is only reprehensible when done to female babies.
Because. Science and stuff.
Edit: It's intuitively a ridiculous statement to me. Just needed to spell it out in case some people don't see it.
And it's a completely different fucking thing. Completely different, for completely different intentions, with completely different results.
Sure, but in what other instances are parts of my body systematically removed for, in most cases, no other reason than phony traditions?
As futile and misguided female genital mutilation may be, male genital mutilation is also done just for the fuck of it, because we're a bunch of backward retards.Last edit: 2012-06-28 12:51:32 |
| | "My incompetence with power tools had exponentially increased after 21 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners" |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
