|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 12:16:59 GMT
You do realize Arlon, that the majority of males in the world since the 90's are uncircumcised. It is only Americans and for religious practices that it is a widespread practice. Please don't insult the intelligence of billions of men worldwide, who have no issue with their foreskins and anyone who lacks the self-awareness regarding personal hygiene, can fall into many categories and not just male genitals. Being uncircumcised is not an issue, never has been and only gets made out to be in the US, due to the medical establishment profiteering off this barbaric practice.
I'm not the one forcing my opinions on anyone else. You are. Please do not forget that. Those males who do not have jobs where gravel is problem might get along well enough without circumcision. I hope so anyway. I asked @graham about how many sandy beaches there are in the UK. Maybe there aren't very many. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 1, 2018 12:18:53 GMT
Those males who do not have jobs where gravel is problem might get along well enough without circumcision. I hope so anyway. I asked @graham about how many sandy beaches there are in the UK. Maybe there aren't very many. I think Arlon is now just havin a larf... |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 12:26:56 GMT
it's not really for religious purposes unless you're Jewish or Muslim; it started in America because of Puritanism, as a way of trying to prevent male masturbation. Interesting. Is that a real fact, or did you just toss it off here? I got it from here (go to 1:10): Adam's usually pretty good about making sure his claims are well researched. I've yet to catch him saying anything blatantly false, though he sometimes omits other complicating factors. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 12:28:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 12:30:48 GMT
I'm not the one forcing my opinions on anyone else. You are. Please do not forget that. Those males who do not have jobs where gravel is problem might get along well enough without circumcision. I hope so anyway. I asked @graham about how many sandy beaches there are in the UK. Maybe there aren't very many. I say you are the one being passive aggressive, by vainly attempting to force your pov, that males NEED to be circumcised. It's written all over your comments. At any rate, what is may opinion that I am forcing? You don't appear to understand anyone else's apart from your own. Most on here DO understand your point, they just don't buy into it and can see the transparency and evasive qualities of your responses. Would you like to borrow some clothes from my wardrobe to dress up your strawman to look more like me? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 12:33:08 GMT
Yes, it shows in the part where I admitted it.  Seriously though, please tell me you realize why: "You appear to be laboring under that psychotic delusion that anyone is forcing you or anyone else to be circumcised." is such a ludicrous claim when "forcing (someone) to be circumcised" is precisely* what's happening to infants whose parents decide to have them circumcised. *Had to get the "precisely" in there since the etymology of "precise" is "to cut short."  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 12:42:39 GMT
Yes, it shows in the part where I admitted it. Seriously though, please tell me you realize why: "You appear to be laboring under that psychotic delusion that anyone is forcing you or anyone else to be circumcised." is such a ludicrous claim when "forcing (someone) to be circumcised" is precisely* what's happening to infants whose parents decide to have them circumcised. *Had to get the "precisely" in there since the etymology of "precise" is "to cut short."
I only have to show that the new idea, the resolution, or the proposal, is not better. It is not better because it also forces choices on people without justification.
Your resolution is rejected because you failed to show cause why you should force any decisions on anyone yourselves. I explained how the burden of proof actually works many times. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 13:13:35 GMT
You do realize Arlon, that the majority of males in the world since the 90's are uncircumcised. It is only Americans and for religious practices that it is a widespread practice. Please don't insult the intelligence of billions of men worldwide, who have no issue with their foreskins and anyone who lacks the self-awareness regarding personal hygiene, can fall into many categories and not just male genitals. Being uncircumcised is not an issue, never has been and only gets made out to be in the US, due to the medical establishment profiteering off this barbaric practice.
I'm not the one forcing my opinions on anyone else. You are. Please do not forget that. Those males who do not have jobs where gravel is problem might get along well enough without circumcision. I hope so anyway. I asked @graham about how many sandy beaches there are in the UK. Maybe there aren't very many. Believe it or not, uncircumcised people get along just fine with gravel and sandy beaches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 13:18:49 GMT
Yes, it shows in the part where I admitted it. Seriously though, please tell me you realize why: "You appear to be laboring under that psychotic delusion that anyone is forcing you or anyone else to be circumcised." is such a ludicrous claim when "forcing (someone) to be circumcised" is precisely* what's happening to infants whose parents decide to have them circumcised. *Had to get the "precisely" in there since the etymology of "precise" is "to cut short." This is a false equivalence, though. Forcing a harmful choice onto a child is not equivalent to denying the child a harmful choice. By your argument it should be legal to sexually abuse children because there may be children who want to have sex. Would you support that argument? Your "explanations" don't hold a lot of weight with people, generally. For obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 1, 2018 13:27:24 GMT
I only have to show that the new idea, the resolution, or the proposal, is not better. It is not better because it also forces choices on people without justification. Without justification?? The justification is that you shouldn't be allowed to dismember other people without their consent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 13:33:54 GMT
I only have to show that the new idea, the resolution, or the proposal, is not better. It is not better because it also forces choices on people without justification. Without justification?? The justification is that you shouldn't be allowed to dismember other people without their consent. Ah, but apparently you should because otherwise, what about the people who want to be dismembered? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 1, 2018 13:35:50 GMT
Without justification?? The justification is that you shouldn't be allowed to dismember other people without their consent. Ah, but apparently you should because otherwise, what about the people who want to be dismembered? Then they're consenting obviously. It's fine if someone consents. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 13:36:59 GMT
Ah, but apparently you should because otherwise, what about the people who want to be dismembered? Then they're consenting obviously. It's fine if someone consents. If they're an adult, sure. Arlon seems to be worried that there are ten year olds out there clamouring for circumcision. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 13:48:27 GMT
Yes, it shows in the part where I admitted it. Seriously though, please tell me you realize why: "You appear to be laboring under that psychotic delusion that anyone is forcing you or anyone else to be circumcised." is such a ludicrous claim when "forcing (someone) to be circumcised" is precisely* what's happening to infants whose parents decide to have them circumcised. *Had to get the "precisely" in there since the etymology of "precise" is "to cut short."
I only have to show that the new idea, the resolution, or the proposal, is not better. It is not better because it also forces choices on people without justification.
Your resolution is rejected because you failed to show cause why you should force any decisions on anyone yourselves. I explained how the burden of proof actually works many times.Typing in larger fonts makes what you say extra true. You may not be forcing infant circumcision yourself, but you're allowing circumcision to be forced on infants. This is like saying that in a country that doesn't make rape illegal, you're not doing anything wrong since you yourself aren't forcing others to be raped. It's asinine. The new idea is better because it takes the decision of genital mutilation out of the hands of the people whose genitals aren't involved. That alone is enough of a reason. The choice has to be placed upon someone, and arguing that the choice should be on anyone besides the person whom it concerns (when there is no medical reason for doing it to begin with) is also asinine. You've never explained how the burden of proof works because you yourself don't know how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 1, 2018 13:49:29 GMT
Then they're consenting obviously. It's fine if someone consents. If they're an adult, sure. Arlon seems to be worried that there are ten year olds out there clamouring for circumcision. Well, you might remember that I'm not in favor of an age of consent. I'd allow ten-year-olds to consent to circumcision, if they're capable of consenting (which I have my own criteria for) . . . I just doubt there would be many who would consent. What I'd ban is circumcision sans consent. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 1, 2018 14:15:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 1, 2018 14:48:46 GMT
Well, you might remember that I'm not in favor of an age of consent. I'd allow ten-year-olds to consent to circumcision, if they're capable of consenting (which I have my own criteria for) . . . I just doubt there would be many who would consent. What I'd ban is circumcision sans consent. It wouldn't really matter if there was an age of consent that was realistic. Like I have mentioned to Arlon, a 10yr old boy is not even sexually active and still a child. I think 16 would be acceptable, but perhaps should a male want a circumcision, 18 would be a more practical age. He is then technically an adult. But yes, sans consent, the procedure shouldn't be done pronto, but there has to be a guideline for the age of consent. So the law isn't about what a child wants or does not want, it's about a child being too stupid to make a decision for themselves until they are an adult and only in regards to circumcision...Which kind of fits the whole notion of people are brainwashed if they are within 2 feet of religion. But even then, why would their choice matter at 18? After all, they have been fully indoctrinated to get a circumcision by this time. Why should anyone be allowed to get a circumcision if they are that mentally dangerous since they aren't medically dangerous? If kids who can't even remember or pretend to care about having a circumcision are scarred for life physically and mentally, have horrible sex lives they don't realize they're having, & gross out romantic partners, I'm not sure why this isn't in the same category as suicide. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 1, 2018 15:03:10 GMT
The way I see it, if we're going to make circumcising infants illegal and giving the choice to be circumcised to individuals at a certain age, then the best way to determine the appropriate age would be to look for analogous procedures. Since it's a cosmetic surgery, all cosmetic surgeries (that I know about) can be done at age 18, so that seems like a reasonable age. You'll have to reiterate your "careful illustration" of how this is no solution, as opposed to you just not liking the solution. Assuming consent is a real issue regarding circumcision, I'm not sure why a minor couldn't choose to be circumcised. They are allowed piercings, tattoos, plastic surgeries, abortions (Often without any parental involvement for some reason), so why couldn't an 8 years old ask mommy and daddy to have his foreskin lopped off? Not sure why 18 is a magic number if they are making the choice and all the analogous procedures can be done sooner. Just because they are ALLOWED to do these things at such a young age does not imply that this is a good idea. I would argue that any parent that allowed their 10 year old child to get a tattoo is complicit in child abuse, even IF it was something the child claimed to want at the time. Same thing with cosmetic surgery. And teenagers (under 18) in most cases do need parental consent before having an abortion. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 1, 2018 15:08:03 GMT
1) So what other medically unnecessary bodily mutilations should be left up to parents? How about female genital mutilation? Cool with you if parents want to do that? 2) I must be missing your careful illustration, because all I'm seeing are baseless assertions. There are no problems with a foreskin if you have easy access to soap. The tradition started in America for ridiculous reasons: <comedy sketch> 1) You are way over the limit on repeating nonsense. I am not stupidYes you are (as your argument demonstrates to damn near everyone else on this thread)!  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 1, 2018 15:35:58 GMT
I am not forcing infant circumcision on anyone. No, but other people are (which is kind of what drives these debates in the first place). |
|
