|
|
Post by kls on Oct 13, 2017 13:42:02 GMT
Have all of those dudes sued their parents yet? Wouldn't be a basis to sue over a legal procedure being done. Doesn't mean it should be legal, but even if the rules are changed that isn't a retroactive thing. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 13:51:46 GMT
Have all of those dudes sued their parents yet? Wouldn't be a basis to sue over a legal procedure being done. Doesn't mean it should be legal, but even if the rules are changed that isn't a retroactive thing. People sue over legal procedures all the time.
The class action would be on behalf of babies all over the country/planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 13, 2017 13:55:03 GMT
Wouldn't be a basis to sue over a legal procedure being done. Doesn't mean it should be legal, but even if the rules are changed that isn't a retroactive thing. People sue over legal procedures all the time.
The class action would be on behalf of babies all over the country/planet.
But it was phrased suing the parents. Wouldn't it be more a cease and desist thing? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 13:59:54 GMT
People sue over legal procedures all the time.
The class action would be on behalf of babies all over the country/planet.
But it was phrased suing the parents. Wouldn't it be more a cease and desist thing? No, because it involves choice and these dudes think the choice of the parent is cruel.
If it is cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on them by their parents, then there could be a pain and suffering plus punitive damages considering the issues these guys clearly have in the present day from being snipped in the peepee.
However, if current/future parents knew that they could be sued for their actions, that would prevent them from being enthusiastic about circumcisions anyway.
I guess they could go after the doctor, but they would have to prove the doctor encouraged it. The guilty party is pretty much automatically the parent.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 14:14:23 GMT
Have all of those dudes sued their parents yet? Can we sue yours?  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 14:16:56 GMT
But it was phrased suing the parents. Wouldn't it be more a cease and desist thing? No, because it involves choice and these dudes think the choice of the parent is cruel.
If it is cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on them by their parents, then there could be a pain and suffering plus punitive damages considering the issues these guys clearly have in the present day from being snipped in the peepee.
However, if current/future parents knew that they could be sued for their actions, that would prevent them from being enthusiastic about circumcisions anyway.
I guess they could go after the doctor, but they would have to prove the doctor encouraged it. The guilty party is pretty much automatically the parent.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 14:25:19 GMT
Have all of those dudes sued their parents yet? Can we sue yours? You could try I guess.
One's dead and one's poor, but good luck! 
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 15:03:03 GMT
Can we sue yours? You could try I guess.
One's dead and one's poor, but good luck!
In any case, it isn’t so much about getting money, or punishing parents for making mistakes. Most intactivists focus their efforts on education, and preventing innocent children from suffering the same fate (or worse) as these individuals. Questioning whether they are pursuing legal matters is missing the point. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 15:38:39 GMT
The point to me is those are some angry dudes.
I have no idea why I would listen to them as a fellow circumcised dude that doesn't have that anger.
I guess it could scare some parents straight. No one wants their kid mad at them and being hindered to boink for grandkids.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 13, 2017 20:49:55 GMT
The point to me is those are some angry dudes. I have no idea why I would listen to them as a fellow circumcised dude that doesn't have that anger.I guess it could scare some parents straight. No one wants their kid mad at them and being hindered to boink for grandkids. Well I feel like you’re not the type who would listen to reason in the first place, so this entire argument is an exercise in futility. The reality of the situation is that you have ONE penis, and ONE experience with circumcision. And you’ve decided that this is a large enough sample size to validate an involuntary, unnecessary procedure being forced on babies. Fortunately, despite having no say in the process, you were not injured by the procedure (physically or emotionally). Unfortunately, you seem to have decided that your lone experience with it is enough to declare it “benign” as a generality, and assume that anyone else who has an issue with it is somehow “crazy” and not worthy of listening to (despite their completely different experiences). I imagine that Ryleigh McWillis, Ryan Heydari, Eric Keefe, Jamaal Coleson Jr, Jayvas Carson, Angelo Mintah, and Brayden Tyler Frazier probably would have had a very different perspective about their circumcision than you do, but fuck what they might have thought. Your opinion matters so much that they wouldn’t have been worth listening too apparently. If you’re not willing to listen to the testimony of anyone else who has a different outlook on what was done to them, then it doesn’t matter what anyone says, as you’ve already decided that they are crazy and worthy of ridicule. If you’re not going to even consider that someone else may have a different opinion than yours which is valid, then that pretty much makes this a discussion not worth having with you. By the way, if you’re wondering who those names are, and why they have not publicly declared their opinion regarding circumcision, it’s because they are dead! |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 14, 2017 0:09:22 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. You're welcome!
There is always an exception to every rule and if it is of a "serious" health concern, then decisions need to be made and that is more than justified. Other than that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! All these pro-circumcision advocates are doing, is violating an obvious and basic rule of nature, and that is the human right of choice over body autonomy. It is illegal to remove any other part of the human anatomy when it is not warranted, except for the male foreskin, so what's the deal here?
Pleased to know that you survived a serious illness ordeal, and are still trooping along, and it is also pleasant to read flexible and open minded comments, such as your own. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 14, 2017 0:19:32 GMT
The point to me is those are some angry dudes. I have no idea why I would listen to them as a fellow circumcised dude that doesn't have that anger.I guess it could scare some parents straight. No one wants their kid mad at them and being hindered to boink for grandkids. It sounds to me though, that you are not looking at the wider spectrum. Ok, you don't have an issue with it, but that is not the same feeling for everyone, and if you did have a foreskin and were forced to remove it, you would have a different story to tell. It's more about a vile procedure that is being performed for questionable and insidious agendas, when it is unnecessary and done without personal consent. You were born with something that was taken away from you, in fact two things, one was literal the other was figurative. Is this something that we should be doing to our males in society? Females would be screaming blue murder if their genitalia was being so wantonly mutilated. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 14, 2017 0:25:07 GMT
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. There must be a large Jewish contingent in the WHO perhaps. Are they speaking for the American medical establishment, so they can keep on profiting, because it is not recommend procedure in the majority of other parts of the world? They are not paying attention to the bulls<>t that is being propagated. Only in the US. It is a disgusting attitude, to mislead and give out misappropriated information to ignorant parents. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 14, 2017 0:32:07 GMT
But it was phrased suing the parents. Wouldn't it be more a cease and desist thing? No, because it involves choice and these dudes think the choice of the parent is cruel.
If it is cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on them by their parents, then there could be a pain and suffering plus punitive damages considering the issues these guys clearly have in the present day from being snipped in the peepee.
However, if current/future parents knew that they could be sued for their actions, that would prevent them from being enthusiastic about circumcisions anyway.
I guess they could go after the doctor, but they would have to prove the doctor encouraged it. The guilty party is pretty much automatically the parent.
The parents were ignorant more than anything and it is the medical establishment that needs to be sued as a collective whole. Since it is a procedure that gets performed on the majority of male children in the US, there is enough to prove that it is done for routine and monetary purposes, rather than any health necessity, which was being used as a scapegoat. If the boys parents are still alive, they can still give recollections of why they chose to have their son circumcised based on the "phony" advise that was given to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 14, 2017 0:36:04 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. No one said you were K, but pleased to know that you're pro-natural. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 18, 2017 12:35:31 GMT
The deafening silence makes it obvious that CoolJGS has been put in his place and run out of argument. If only he had some humility to go with his incredulity.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 18, 2017 15:30:27 GMT
The deafening silence makes it obvious that CoolJGS has been put in his place and run out of argument. If only he had some humility to go with his incredulity. Not sure how many times I have to say I am in no way obligated to respond to anything and if you think I am and I don't then consider yourself a winner of the religion board no-prize.
I don't even know what you're talking about as the thread got boring .
Did you tell me off or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 19, 2017 16:54:46 GMT
The deafening silence makes it obvious that CoolJGS has been put in his place and run out of argument. If only he had some humility to go with his incredulity. Not sure how many times I have to say I am in no way obligated to respond to anything and if you think I am and I don't then consider yourself a winner of the religion board no-prize.
I don't even know what you're talking about as the thread got boring .
Did you tell me off or something?
I explained why your argument is nonsensical and why your position is unreasonable and fails in light of known facts. You’re not obligated to respond, and I never claimed as much. I merely point out that your lack of response and inability to address point that were made which refute many of your preconceived notions speaks volumes, and ultimately helps make my point for me. So by all means, remain silent on an issue you have no case with.  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 19, 2017 17:07:32 GMT
Not sure how many times I have to say I am in no way obligated to respond to anything and if you think I am and I don't then consider yourself a winner of the religion board no-prize.
I don't even know what you're talking about as the thread got boring .
Did you tell me off or something?
I explained why your argument is nonsensical and why your position is unreasonable and fails in light of known facts. You’re not obligated to respond, and I never claimed as much. I merely point out that your lack of response and inability to address point that were made which refute many of your preconceived notions speaks volumes, and ultimately helps make my point for me. So by all means, remain silent on an issue you have no case with. Exactly.
Because I don't respond, that means you win without any bearing on how stupid your argument might be.
I can live with that.
It's a win-win!
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 19, 2017 17:59:46 GMT
I explained why your argument is nonsensical and why your position is unreasonable and fails in light of known facts. You’re not obligated to respond, and I never claimed as much. I merely point out that your lack of response and inability to address point that were made which refute many of your preconceived notions speaks volumes, and ultimately helps make my point for me. So by all means, remain silent on an issue you have no case with. Exactly.
Because I don't respond, that means you win without any bearing on how stupid your argument might be.
I can live with that.
It's a win-win!
No, I win because I just proved how stupid your argument is; and you have no defense for your stupidity. Live with that asshole! |
|
