Russell Crowe sorry after anti-circumcision tweets
213 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385958]It may be correct, it may be logical to say in conversation, but when you're a study trying to prove a point and trying to look professional, saying "genitally intact" is just...biased[/QUOTE]
I can't think of any way this could be worded better.
Heck, by your logic wouldn't "uncircumcised" be biased?
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385984]Well that's more for preventing it from drying up and becoming less sensitive. The foreskin itself is what makes lube somewhat unnecessary.
But you're just making up for what you should be able to do naturally. Is there really a point in forcing a permanent change on a helpless baby when there are arguably little benefits and arguably more downsides?
You've said there's no difference either way, so why are you fine with forcing pain onto a baby for a dumb, permanent change? Why aren't you against that?[/QUOTE]
Let's be honest now, the baby is in pain, it isn't the same as a full grown being in pain. It's a fucking weird thing actually, your baby self might as well not even be you because you have 0 recollection, and as far as you know, it just plain happened without your knowledge.
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30385994]I can't think of any way this could be worded better.
Heck, by your logic wouldn't "uncircumcised" be biased?[/QUOTE]
why would that be biased, that doesn't imply inferiority or impairment, it just says it like it is
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385999]Let's be honest now, the baby is in pain, it isn't the same as a full grown being in pain. It's a fucking weird thing actually, your baby self might as well not even be you because you have 0 recollection, and as far as you know, it just plain happened without your knowledge.[/QUOTE]
It's still pain. And I can show you studies on the effects this has on a baby.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30386005]It's still pain. And I can show you studies on the effects this has on a baby.[/QUOTE]
Go for it I wanna see what's wrong with me because of my circ
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385999]Let's be honest now, the baby is in pain, it isn't the same as a full grown being in pain. It's a fucking weird thing actually, your baby self might as well not even be you because you have 0 recollection, and as far as you know, it just plain happened without your knowledge.
[/QUOTE]
I'll quote something I said a few hours ago here.
If rape in a baby was proven to have benefits, would it be okay to be performed in your opinion? Clearly the baby doesn't remember any of it.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385999]Let's be honest now, the baby is in pain, it isn't the same as a full grown being in pain. It's a fucking weird thing actually, your baby self might as well not even be you because you have 0 recollection, and as far as you know, it just plain happened without your knowledge.
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
why would that be biased, that doesn't imply inferiority or impairment, it just says it like it is[/QUOTE]
Uncircumcised = intact
Circumcised = not intact
I fail to see the difference.
And why "uncircumcised"? If what's natural is to not be "circumcised", and 70 percent of the population is not circumcised, then why is it right to lump the majority of people into a group of something they're not?
Wouldn't it be more right to use both in neutral terms by your logic? Either you're intact or you're circumcised?
[QUOTE=STeel;30386022]I'll quote something I said a few hours ago here.
If rape in a baby was proven to have benefits, would it be okay to be performed in your opinion? Clearly the baby doesn't remember any of it.[/QUOTE]
If it somehow had benefits then well, okay then, that's fucking weird but I assume benefits is mutual
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30386028]Uncircumcised = intact
Circumcised = not intact
I fail to see the difference.
And why "uncircumcised"? If what's natural is to not be "circumcised", and 70 percent of the population is not circumcised, then why is it right to lump the majority of people into a group of something they're not?[/QUOTE]
I see what you mean, but it's just how it is, those are the only 2 options, your penis can only really be circumcised or uncircumcised.
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
Anyway, I apologize if you are disappointed by this
and I'm glad if I can make you happy by this
but I need to sleep! It's 2:30 and i'd rather not be asleep at 12 (might be too late for that :P)
Goodnight, I could pick this up some other time, maybe. We'll see.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30386043]If it somehow had benefits then well, okay then, that's fucking weird but I assume benefits is mutual
[/QUOTE]
There's an African culture that cuts with a knife girl babies clits so they won't enjoy sex and won't presumably cheat on their husbands.
Personally I think it's fucking dumb and I do believe you'd agree, and it's also a very extreme example.
For them, however it is the word of god, so it's beneficial in the way if preventing from the girl to sin, and the word of god religious fanatics is as real as science is for you and me.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30386043]If it somehow had benefits then well, okay then, that's fucking weird but I assume benefits is mutual
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
I see what you mean, but it's just how it is, those are the only 2 options, your penis can only really be circumcised or uncircumcised.[/QUOTE]
And why not "intact" and "not intact"?
I just don't see how this could make one side seem inferior.
I'm not trying to say circumcised people are inferior to people who aren't circumcised, or vice-versa. It's just that there are known advantages and disadvantages to each side, so why force a permanent change on a baby who can't possibly have a say in it?
Growing up, it's not going to make a difference if you're circumcised or not. There's really no point in most cases in circumcising a baby. Why not just leave babies how they are naturally? When they grow up they can decide whether to keep their uncircumcised penis or to snip off the foreskin.
I hate people who dont have a full penis like mine. my wholesome dick
Let me leave you with this point:
Circumcison is not life changing. It should not be abolished but inform parents unbiasedly about both sides of the argument so that they may make a choice.
Abolishing it will just make the country look like a morally self rightous nanny state.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30386152]Let me leave you with this point:
Circumcison is not life changing. It should not be abolished but inform parents unbiasedly about both sides of the argument so that they may make a choice.
Abolishing it will just make the country look like a morally self rightous nanny state.[/QUOTE]
Welp, can't argue with the last statement.
Unless circumcision is medically required (for example phimosis) then that means you are either doing it for religious or appearance reasons. Since circumcision is irreversible it should require self consent (babies can't consent) that way they can choose whatever they want their appearance to be. I don't think religion is a valid reason to do the operation.
Also an obligatory comparison it would be like giving your baby a tattoo and when that person grows up and asks "why did you give me a tattoo?" the parents say they thought it looked better.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;30383931]Gays are unnatural![/QUOTE]
Except babies arent forced to have same-gender sex because their parents want them to be gay.
It has nothing to do with it being unnatural, just that it is totally unnecessary to mutilate the penis of a defenseless baby for absolutely no real or practical reason.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;30383931]Well generally it is a pretty terrible argument. Gays are unnatural! Abortion is unnatural! Polyester is unnatural!
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
it makes little sense you see[/QUOTE]
Do you think gays are unnatural?
He's wrong. Babies aren't perfect. They are full of imperfections.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30383901]circumcision is pointless and unnecessary, and it's sick and wrong to force this on babies who have no say in this[/QUOTE]
The only reasons not to do it are the first two. Infants receive vaccinations much of the time without their consent.
Circumcision isn't [b]entirely[/b] pointless. I had pretty bad phimosis until I got cut when I was about 8 or so (:ohdear:) and I'm glad I did. There are also reports that it can reduce the chance of catching HIV.
That said, there is literally no reason to force it on a baby who can't give their consent.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30383901]circumcision is pointless and unnecessary, and it's sick and wrong to force this on babies who have no say in this[/QUOTE]
There are exceptions ie diseases that force you to get circumsized.
Oh hey, it's this thread again.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30387693]The only reasons not to do it are the first two. Infants receive vaccinations much of the time without their consent.[/QUOTE]
Vaccinations are medically proven to be beneficial. Circumcisions on the other hand have loads of medical research behind them with mostly opposing findings. And if anyone ends up wanting to get circumcised, well you can do that at any time when you're at the age of consent and it would take, I assume, no longer than a single day. Restoring foreskin on the other hand takes a bit longer.
Obviously circumcision should be used in cases with medical problems (phimosis and such), since then it's medically beneficial.
Also good job FP, we managed to get to page 5 without anyone saying dickcheese. I'm glad that nobody uses that shit as an argument anymore
[QUOTE=MasterG;30390014]I think it's kind of cruel to mutilate a baby's junk when the baby can't decide, but hey if some people want to do that then i'm not about to go on some crusade to stop them.[/QUOTE]
Way to blow shit out of proportion. Mutilate? What the fuck?
[QUOTE=Artyom;30390277]You're stupid.[/QUOTE]
The benefits of being circumcised or not are debatable, so why allow parents to choose for their children?
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30383901]circumcision is pointless and unnecessary, and it's sick and wrong to force this on babies who have no say in this[/QUOTE]
I agree with you. I was circumcised out of my families hardcore roman catholic beliefs.. No big deal though, the ladies love it. :smug:
[QUOTE=Artyom;30390277]You're stupid.[/QUOTE]
why? the definition of "mutilation" is "An act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death"
[QUOTE=Artyom;30390064]Way to blow shit out of proportion. Mutilate? What the fuck?[/QUOTE]
And yet it's pretty much the exact male counterpart to what no one has anyone any trouble calling "female genital mutilation."
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30392670]And yet it's pretty much the exact male counterpart to what no one has anyone any trouble calling "female genital mutilation."[/QUOTE]
are you fucking serious, i mean really.
the female counterpart is horrendous compared to removing a flap of dick skin
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30385714]By just calling them circumcised and not saying that they are literally lacking something.[/QUOTE]But... they [b]are[/b] literally lacking something.
They are, in fact, literally lacking a foreskin.
"Auricularly intact is a biased term; just say lobicized and unlobicized."
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30387693]The only reasons not to do it are the first two. Infants receive vaccinations much of the time without their consent.[/QUOTE] Vaccinations hurt a little bit. It's a needle being poked a little bit into your skin.
But cutting off a very sensitive part of an already sensitive sexual organ can't hurt [b]THAT[/b] much more, can it?
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;30392848]are you fucking serious, i mean really.
the female counterpart is horrendous compared to removing a flap of dick skin[/QUOTE]
Said "dick skin" is very sensitive.
You know what this thread is full of?
"Hey guys, I think it's a bad idea for us to cut up babys' dicks without their consent if there's no medical reason for it."
"ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME
YOU'RE JUST INSECURE ABOUT YOUR DICKS, COMPARING THEM TO MINE AND SAYING THEY'RE BETTER
AND THE CIRCUMCISED PEOPLE ARGUING AGAINST IT, STOP USING ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, IT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY
I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT I'M CIRCUMCISED AND I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH IT, ANYONE WHO ISN'T IS A WHINY LITTLE BITCH"
[QUOTE=Last or First;30394506]
You know what this thread is full of?
"Hey guys, I think it's a bad idea for us to cut up babys' dicks without their consent if there's no medical reason for it."
"ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME
YOU'RE JUST INSECURE ABOUT YOUR DICKS, COMPARING THEM TO MINE AND SAYING THEY'RE BETTER
AND THE CIRCUMCISED PEOPLE ARGUING AGAINST IT, STOP USING ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, IT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY
I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT I'M CIRCUMCISED AND I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH IT, ANYONE WHO ISN'T IS A WHINY LITTLE BITCH"[/QUOTE]
This is a perfect summary. Well done.
[QUOTE=Danny Lol;30390899]I agree with you. I was circumcised out of my families hardcore roman catholic beliefs.. No big deal though, the ladies love it. :smug:[/QUOTE]
[img]http://flagdog.facepunchstudios.com/?ipe=65232a77d2bf2279ae95d6c681835d12[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.