|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 29, 2019 21:58:30 GMT
Nope, the current ramble still doesn't change the continuing point that FGM and MGM are broadly comparable although I am pleased that at least you associated genital mutilation as not 'healthful' and harmful. But on the wider basis that you have not argued the point but just typed verbiage, as repetition is never much fun, I will leave you to it until the next thread. A fallacy, by the way such as an ad hominem is, cannot be logical - while insults instead of proper argument are never necessary, except of course for those who have nothing else to contribute. Just saying. If by "intellectually inferiority of your friends" you again refer to my mentally handicapped brother then I feel sorry for you. No one else on this or the old board has been so deliberately crass, over and over or made the insults so personal, even when politely asked to stop. I'm sorry I'm not a doctor, but I'm quite certain you aren't either. I suspect, but really do not know, that female genital mutilation is not entirely reversible and not as easily reversed as circumcision is. Do you deny that? What then is your point about "similarities"? Or since you are no doctor, never mind. You can whine till you turn blue, it will do you no good. I'm not going to tell you that you are doing well when you obviously are not. I'm kind that way. I'm not changing. You have no business representing anyone else but yourself. You do not speak for atheists, not all of them anyway. You do not speak for scientists, especially not doctors. You do not speak for theologians. If I catch you pretending that you do I will point it out. Just get over it, or don't. You stop. . I don't deny that MGM can be more readily reversible, but then I have been saying all along that the two types are broadly comparable when you said they were "totally" not so . The fact still remains that both FGM and MGM are most regularly justified for religious and cultural reasons, as I have shown (also sometimes for secondary 'health' reasons it must be said) and represent mutilation of a specific type, often worked on the young and which is non-consensual. Just because something can be more readily fixed does really not make it more acceptable, and I have never heard this weak argument before. By this same reckoning rape is presumably better than murder since only one of these is permanent, but neither is really acceptable is it?
|
|
