|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 12, 2017 15:13:40 GMT
I doubt you’ll find any Klansman who would claim that their philosophy teaches anything immoral. But you can’t depends on the subjects of the practice to render an honest appraisal of it. When I was a Christian (which was very recently), I would have agreed with you that Christianity was “clear”. Now that I no longer have the blinders on, I can see what’s clear and what isn’t (as any objective person should be able to do). This does not effect my point that no Christian is likely to say that their religion 'teaches nothing'. Incidentally as far as subjects of a practice not rendering an honest opinion of their belief system goes, I would argue the opposite: that it is best to ask those who profess something first as to what they mean, at least before substituting one's own preferred interpretation, as it is reasonable to presume that they would likely know best. In the case of the Klansman, one can see, yes, that they unlikely to see their practices and beliefs as sometimes reprehensible. But that blindness it is not the same as he or her being able to articulate what their creed teaches, only perhaps being wrong, or deluded about KKK's (moral) worth. And if one believes (as I do) that morality is ultimately subjective, anyway... In which case if one accepts this view then most significant things we experience in life - even some scientific questions - being unclear, or inviting different opinions, are 'not worth quibbling ove'r. This board would be very quiet indeed. However it may observed the quibbling is very often creates the interest, the sense and, sometimes, the way forward. Er.. OK. Got it now lol. Christianity does not clearly state anything, and it doesn't actually say anything. QED. But you have just acknowledged this is what you said! Again: "Christianity doesn’t “clearly” state ANYTHING... If it was clear ... [Christianity] doesn’t actually say anything" LOL How otherwise would one read your words? Does Christianity really say anything or not, clear or otherwise? One notes also that the converse (i.e that 'if Christianity was unclear on anything it would be that it says something) doesn't really help you much, either. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 12, 2017 15:44:01 GMT
This does not effect my point that no Christian is likely to say that their religion 'teaches nothing'. Your point is irrelevant as this fact was never in dispute. I was addressing my point, which you seem to be ignoring or challenging the validity of. I see no difference to be honest. Mostly semantics! That is a non sequitur. Science is not comparable to religion because science is the process by which one gains knowledge. Actual, tangible knowledge in the form of facts. Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge or facts. So you can’t judge them by the same standard. Scientists do not “quibble” over models or theories; the simply try to prove them or disprove them. Peer review determines whether or not a model has scientific merit. There is nothing to “quibble” over because there are no “interpretations” to the scientific method. At the end of the day, and idea is either scientific or it isn’t. When it comes to unscientific opinions, then whether or not it’s worth quibbling over had to do with how the person quibbling feels about what they are discussing, or rather how important it is to them. And you are at liberty to do so. I choose not to do that with religion because it’s pointless. I ask questions and point out facts. Beliefs and opinions which are debatable I don’t see worth arguing. But that’s me! Assuming you are genuinely confused as to what I’m saying at this point would be giving you the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that you are just arguing to be arguing at this point, so I’m not going to spend any more energy addressing this point. With respect to my overall point (which I think I’ve made) any religion (in this case Christianity) that has so many wildly different interpretations, based on so many different understandings of the bible cannot be reasonably said to be “clear” by any objective means. I don’t know how to explain it any “clearer” than this. You’re free to disagree or agree. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 12, 2017 18:18:53 GMT
In America religion doesn't play a role in most circumcisions today and over the last several decades. It is religion that instigated the practice, but in the US, it is performed for profit, under false and misleading pretenses. Ignorant mothers and fathers who have been circumcised— without their own consent—buy into it. A lot of them end up regretting that decision later in life after they learn more about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 12, 2017 23:18:46 GMT
It is religion that instigated the practice, but in the US, it is performed for profit, under false and misleading pretenses. Ignorant mothers and fathers who have been circumcised— without their own consent—buy into it. A lot of them end up regretting that decision later in life after they learn more about it. Well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think most really care. The doctor's aren't going to care, they profit, the rabbis are doing it in the name of God and religion, 😬, mother's shouldn't even be going down that road, since they are not male and don't have a penis, and circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance, and perhaps even being gutless and too fearful to address the hypocrisy and corrupt double standards regarding MGM. It's a vile practice. More men need to take a stance. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 13, 2017 2:07:03 GMT
A lot of them end up regretting that decision later in life after they learn more about it. Well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think most really care. The doctor's aren't going to care, they profit, the rabbis are doing it in the name of God and religion, 😬, mother's shouldn't even be going down that road, since they are not male and don't have a penis, and circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance, and perhaps even being gutless and too fearful to address the hypocrisy and corrupt double standards regarding MGM. It's a vile practice. More men need to take a stance. I am asking a question, no aggression included, simply out of ignorance: "circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance," what is lost when a male is circumcised? When I was a youngster, out there experiencing sexual freedom in the 70's, no male partners (I am female) even mentioned circumcised vs. non-circumcised. Back then is wasn't an issue, so I am truly clueless about the difference. I am against doing anything simply because a 'god' says it should be done; what are the physiological issues of the procedure? |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 13, 2017 2:47:37 GMT
Somewhere in Hell there is a mountain of foreskins.
At the base of the mountain, lies a cave.
Within the cave one will find the pool of Urethral Discharge.
REACH INTO THE POOL TO FIND YOUR DESTINY!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 2:55:51 GMT
Somewhere in Hell there is a mountain Is it really necessary for you to be this vulgar for no reason just to grab attention? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 3:06:54 GMT
I am asking a question, no aggression included, simply out of ignorance: "circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance," what is lost when a male is circumcised? When I was a youngster, out there experiencing sexual freedom in the 70's, no male partners (I am female) even mentioned circumcised vs. non-circumcised. Back then is wasn't an issue, so I am truly clueless about the difference. I am against doing anything simply because a 'god' says it should be done; what are the physiological issues of the procedure?      |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 3:13:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 13, 2017 3:48:59 GMT
Well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think most really care. The doctor's aren't going to care, they profit, the rabbis are doing it in the name of God and religion, 😬, mother's shouldn't even be going down that road, since they are not male and don't have a penis, and circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance, and perhaps even being gutless and too fearful to address the hypocrisy and corrupt double standards regarding MGM. It's a vile practice. More men need to take a stance. I am asking a question, no aggression included, simply out of ignorance: "circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance," what is lost when a male is circumcised? When I was a youngster, out there experiencing sexual freedom in the 70's, no male partners (I am female) even mentioned circumcised vs. non-circumcised. Back then is wasn't an issue, so I am truly clueless about the difference. I am against doing anything simply because a 'god' says it should be done; what are the physiological issues of the procedure? The penis comes with a foreskin. It is there to protect the glands. It can also assist with masturbation, and also during erection and insertion, it can also assist in massaging the glands with thrust. Many uncircumcised males, also keep their foreskins retracted, giving the impression of a cut cock. Hygiene is a false argument and any male with self-awareness about himself, should know how to wash. I am not sure where you are from, but if you lived in a region where circumcision was common practice, it would have then been considered the norm. It became common practice also in Australia and NZ after WWII, no doubt due to influence from the US medical establishment. The majority of men in the world are uncircumcised. It is more of an issue in the US and those that are Jewish and Muslim. Europeans, Central and South American and a vast majority of Asian countries keep their males intact. As for Africa, I'm sure there are more uncircumcised males here as well, however, circumcision could have been performed as a ritual into manhood by many tribes. Females may want their sons circumcised, because they think it looks better. How creepy is that? Do they intend on f<>king their sons? Ask any uncut male if he wants to be circumcised, and I bet a massive majority of them would rather keep his foreskin. Regardless of whether or not people think it is a big deal or not, the bottom line is, the procedure is being performed without consent, especially when it is unnecessary. A male person needs to make up his own mind when he becomes sexually active. Uncut is natural and beautiful and as nature intended the male penis to be. Just to add, most males wouldn't discuss about other men's cocks, due to the stigma of being labelled homosexual, due to the projected normalcy of our heterosexist society. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 13, 2017 4:09:03 GMT
Wow Bryce! Reading those messages makes me feel both angry and saddened at the same time. Choice is such an important aspect of our lives concerning autonomy over our bodies. Since women want the right to have total autonomy over theirs, they need to extend this same courtesy to their male children, and not because of a devious and corrupt medical establishment that is giving out misleading information, which is all just propaganda for self-serving agendas. And lets not go down the religious route and all because of a God that can't be proven. What a s!ck f<>king society we live in! Why MGM isn't considered torture, a deprivation of liberty, and a cold cruel violent sexual assault on a minor, just boggles my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 13, 2017 4:12:27 GMT
I am asking a question, no aggression included, simply out of ignorance: "circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance," what is lost when a male is circumcised? When I was a youngster, out there experiencing sexual freedom in the 70's, no male partners (I am female) even mentioned circumcised vs. non-circumcised. Back then is wasn't an issue, so I am truly clueless about the difference. I am against doing anything simply because a 'god' says it should be done; what are the physiological issues of the procedure? Much ado about a lack of foreskin, actually proves that their is psychological damage incurred on many males. Females are the first to jump up and down about FGM, and unless they are born into barbaric third world Muslim countries, they get to keep their genitals intact, so where is the equality here? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 13, 2017 4:18:26 GMT
I am asking a question, no aggression included, simply out of ignorance: "circumcised men do not know of a life with a foreskin and a basic human right was taken away from them. The attitude of cut males can be born out of ignorance," what is lost when a male is circumcised? When I was a youngster, out there experiencing sexual freedom in the 70's, no male partners (I am female) even mentioned circumcised vs. non-circumcised. Back then is wasn't an issue, so I am truly clueless about the difference. I am against doing anything simply because a 'god' says it should be done; what are the physiological issues of the procedure? The penis comes with a foreskin. It is there to protect the glands. It can also assist with masturbation, and also during erection and insertion, it can also assist in massaging the glands with thrust. Many uncircumcised males, also keep their foreskins retracted, giving the impression of a cut cock. Hygiene is a false argument and any male with self-awareness about himself, should know how to wash. I am not sure where you are from, but if you lived in a region where circumcision was common practice, it would have then been considered the norm. It became common practice also in Australia and NZ after WWII, no doubt due to influence from the US medical establishment. The majority of men in the world are uncircumcised. It is more of an issue in the US and those that are Jewish and Muslim. Europeans, Central and South American and a vast majority of Asian countries keep their males intact. As for Africa, I'm sure there are more uncircumcised males here as well, however, circumcision could have been performed as a ritual into manhood by many tribes. Females may want their sons circumcised, because they think it looks better. How creepy is that? Do they intend on f<>king their sons? Ask any uncut male if he wants to be circumcised, and I bet a massive majority of them would rather keep his foreskin. Regardless of whether or not people think it is a big deal or not, the bottom line is, the procedure is being performed without consent, especially when it is unnecessary. A male person needs to make up his own mind when he becomes sexually active. Uncut is natural and beautiful and as nature intended the male penis to be. Just to add, most males wouldn't discuss about other men's cocks, due to the stigma of being labelled homosexual, due to the projected normalcy of our heterosexist society. Thank you for the education. Given what you have said, what else I have read here and what a quick google search produced, it seems that it is an unnecessary procedure for the vast majority of infant boys. There does seem to be several medical circumstances where it is a palliative procedure, but I agree, just doing this non-reversible invasive procedure on non-consenting infants is wrong. They should be of an age to fully understand the procedure, the risks, and the reasons for doing the procedure or not doing the procedure. And that goes for the cultural/religious factor as well. Culturally, I was raised in the bible belt of the USA, was religiously kept ignorant of a lot of things. I abandoned all that later in life when logic, reason and science became available to me. I am a cancer survivor, and owe the last 27 years of my life to advances in medical science. I was able to make medical decisions for myself, fully informed of risks vs. rewards. Everyone should have that right. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Oct 13, 2017 9:52:54 GMT
The penis comes with a foreskin. It is there to protect the glands. It can also assist with masturbation, and also during erection and insertion, it can also assist in massaging the glands with thrust. Many uncircumcised males, also keep their foreskins retracted, giving the impression of a cut cock. Hygiene is a false argument and any male with self-awareness about himself, should know how to wash. I am not sure where you are from, but if you lived in a region where circumcision was common practice, it would have then been considered the norm. It became common practice also in Australia and NZ after WWII, no doubt due to influence from the US medical establishment. The majority of men in the world are uncircumcised. It is more of an issue in the US and those that are Jewish and Muslim. Europeans, Central and South American and a vast majority of Asian countries keep their males intact. As for Africa, I'm sure there are more uncircumcised males here as well, however, circumcision could have been performed as a ritual into manhood by many tribes. Females may want their sons circumcised, because they think it looks better. How creepy is that? Do they intend on f<>king their sons? Ask any uncut male if he wants to be circumcised, and I bet a massive majority of them would rather keep his foreskin. Regardless of whether or not people think it is a big deal or not, the bottom line is, the procedure is being performed without consent, especially when it is unnecessary. A male person needs to make up his own mind when he becomes sexually active. Uncut is natural and beautiful and as nature intended the male penis to be. Just to add, most males wouldn't discuss about other men's cocks, due to the stigma of being labelled homosexual, due to the projected normalcy of our heterosexist society. Thank you for the education. Given what you have said, what else I have read here and what a quick google search produced, it seems that it is an unnecessary procedure for the vast majority of infant boys. There does seem to be several medical circumstances where it is a palliative procedure, but I agree, just doing this non-reversible invasive procedure on non-consenting infants is wrong. They should be of an age to fully understand the procedure, the risks, and the reasons for doing the procedure or not doing the procedure. And that goes for the cultural/religious factor as well. Culturally, I was raised in the bible belt of the USA, was religiously kept ignorant of a lot of things. I abandoned all that later in life when logic, reason and science became available to me. I am a cancer survivor, and owe the last 27 years of my life to advances in medical science. I was able to make medical decisions for myself, fully informed of risks vs. rewards. Everyone should have that right. Circumcision was introduced in this country during the Progressive era for the purpose of discouraging masturbation, by making it uncomfortable. The foreskin is a mechanical lubricant. Circumcised men turn to widely available artificial sources now. The hygiene argument didn’t come till later, along with the idea that girls need to douche. But we know a lot more about bacteria now, and we dismissed that idea for girls, but not yet for boys. Every major health organization, especially the World Health Organization, enthusiastically promotes universal male infant circumcision. Even so, the circumcision rate continues to drop from its peak of about 90% mid last century. One more thing. When circumcision was introduced, it was introduced for both sexes. John Harvey Kellog, what a guy. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 10:59:19 GMT
Females are the first to jump up and down about FGM, and unless they are born into barbaric third world Muslim countries, they get to keep their genitals intact, so where is the equality here? argh |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 13, 2017 11:06:00 GMT
The testimonies may be real, but I've seen Planet X photos that looked less fake than these tear-jerking images. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 13, 2017 11:23:34 GMT
Much ado about a lack of foreskin, actually proves that their is psychological damage incurred on many males. Females are the first to jump up and down about FGM, and unless they are born into barbaric third world Muslim countries, they get to keep their genitals intact, so where is the equality here? I'm not responsible for any males being circumcised. I say I'm against both. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 12:56:54 GMT
The testimonies may be real, but I've seen Planet X photos that looked less fake than these tear-jerking images. Wrong thread knucklehead; chemtrails is over here!  Chemtrails Thread |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 13, 2017 13:20:46 GMT
This does not effect my point that no Christian is likely to say that their religion 'teaches nothing' CB: Your point is irrelevant as this fact was never in dispute. I was addressing my point, which you seem to be ignoring or challenging the validity of. So your point is that religion never says anything 'clearly'? Not even through distinct commandments? I see no difference to be honest. Mostly semantics! The difference is that, arguably, one is most likely to get a better idea of what a belief system stands for by initial asking the adherents. For instance those who have insisted in the past that atheism is a 'religion', I can direct to American Atheist and how in actual fact they describe themselves on their website.
Never the less disagreements, whether of the quibbling nature or more serious are common within religion and science. It is also odd to imply that we don't gain knowledge from religion - unless you therefore think that religion 'teaches nothing', which I still wait to hear lol
I can see what you mean, but religious belief does contain some facts and knowledge. The fact that scripture exists for instance. The knowledge that the Qu'ran contains teachings. And so on. It is the respective value placed upon any range of them - and then of the ultimately unknowable too - which is of significance to faithists.
www.theage.com.au/news/national/2500-scientists-1200-pages-and-one-quibble/2007/02/02/1169919533976.html blogs.royalsociety.org/history-of-science/2014/08/13/catalogue-of-quibbles/
And yet here you are, still quibbling, on a second religious noticeboard thread with me. The view that religion does, or does not teach anything, is something of an opinion my friend. I get that, but still don't know if you think it teaches anything. But I guess you 'don't do' opinions any more... |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 13:29:10 GMT
Have all of those dudes sued their parents yet?
|
|
