14 Aug 2010, 4:32 pm
14 Aug 2010, 6:30 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Removing your finger tips can be done painlessly thanks to anesthetics . Removing your finger tips will also make your hand much easier to clean and as previously mentioned. As mentioned, it should decrease hand infection rates by 10%.
Oh yes, that certainly is exactly the same thing.
Good demonstration of word swapping being a vacuous tool of rhetoric alone.Is washing your penis that much trouble that you have to lop off a chunk of skin from it?
Blindspot149
Veteran
Joined: 7 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,516
Location: Aspergers Quadrant, INTJ, AQ 45/50
15 Aug 2010, 1:32 pm
I'm not circumcised but I'm already messed up enough with Asperger's, so I wouldn't want add to that 
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
15 Aug 2010, 7:28 pm
skafather84 wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
n4mwd wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Circumcision is a euphemism for genital reduction surgery or genital mutilation, ...
Skafather84=>You are trolling. This is just a bunch of BS to get people riled up over nothing. Any time a troll uses the emotionally charged word "mutilation" to describe circumcision, you know that he is lying and nothing else he says is true either. Give it up. I'm not playing your game.
First, the semantics:
mu·ti·late [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
Next, it wasn't my wording but the wording of an essay I had read and subsequently copy/pasted here.
Circumcision verily fits the definition of mutilation, however. The penis is mutilated from its original form that 99.9% of every male is born with. It's religious mutilation but it's still mutilation and if the tribes who've seen female circumcision banned and decried as mutilation can handle it, you can handle it too since you're assumedly more civil than them.
What form is the other 0.1% born with?
It's most likely more than that but I was more implying the cases of mutations or birth defects that results in the genitals not being formed correctly.
Though, I don't think there's ever been a mutation where a baby has been born without the foreskin in such a fashion as how we know a circumcised penis to exist. At least, I haven't heard of such a birth defect.
Foreskin in absentia topic
My son was born without a foreskin. Extremely rare, but no medical problems because of it.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
16 Aug 2010, 6:44 am
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Removing your finger tips can be done painlessly thanks to anesthetics . Removing your finger tips will also make your hand much easier to clean and as previously mentioned. As mentioned, it should decrease hand infection rates by 10%.
Oh yes, that certainly is exactly the same thing.
Good demonstration of word swapping being a vacuous tool of rhetoric alone.Is washing your penis that much trouble that you have to lop off a chunk of skin from it?
No, but in terms of people in general, most seem to be the kind too lazy to put food in the microwave for themselves.
16 Aug 2010, 10:18 am
sartresue wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
n4mwd wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Circumcision is a euphemism for genital reduction surgery or genital mutilation, ...
Skafather84=>You are trolling. This is just a bunch of BS to get people riled up over nothing. Any time a troll uses the emotionally charged word "mutilation" to describe circumcision, you know that he is lying and nothing else he says is true either. Give it up. I'm not playing your game.
First, the semantics:
mu·ti·late [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
Next, it wasn't my wording but the wording of an essay I had read and subsequently copy/pasted here.
Circumcision verily fits the definition of mutilation, however. The penis is mutilated from its original form that 99.9% of every male is born with. It's religious mutilation but it's still mutilation and if the tribes who've seen female circumcision banned and decried as mutilation can handle it, you can handle it too since you're assumedly more civil than them.
What form is the other 0.1% born with?
It's most likely more than that but I was more implying the cases of mutations or birth defects that results in the genitals not being formed correctly.
Though, I don't think there's ever been a mutation where a baby has been born without the foreskin in such a fashion as how we know a circumcised penis to exist. At least, I haven't heard of such a birth defect.
Foreskin in absentia topic
My son was born without a foreskin. Extremely rare, but no medical problems because of it.
Doesn't surprise me that such a case would exist but it's not the norm and forcing such a cosmetic surgery and a decision on a child is insanity. It's wrong to force such a thing on a healthy baby boy.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
16 Aug 2010, 11:39 am
skafather84 wrote:
sartresue wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
n4mwd wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Circumcision is a euphemism for genital reduction surgery or genital mutilation, ...
Skafather84=>You are trolling. This is just a bunch of BS to get people riled up over nothing. Any time a troll uses the emotionally charged word "mutilation" to describe circumcision, you know that he is lying and nothing else he says is true either. Give it up. I'm not playing your game.
First, the semantics:
mu·ti·late [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
Next, it wasn't my wording but the wording of an essay I had read and subsequently copy/pasted here.
Circumcision verily fits the definition of mutilation, however. The penis is mutilated from its original form that 99.9% of every male is born with. It's religious mutilation but it's still mutilation and if the tribes who've seen female circumcision banned and decried as mutilation can handle it, you can handle it too since you're assumedly more civil than them.
What form is the other 0.1% born with?
It's most likely more than that but I was more implying the cases of mutations or birth defects that results in the genitals not being formed correctly.
Though, I don't think there's ever been a mutation where a baby has been born without the foreskin in such a fashion as how we know a circumcised penis to exist. At least, I haven't heard of such a birth defect.
Foreskin in absentia topic
My son was born without a foreskin. Extremely rare, but no medical problems because of it.
Doesn't surprise me that such a case would exist but it's not the norm and forcing such a cosmetic surgery and a decision on a child is insanity. It's wrong to force such a thing on a healthy baby boy.
Well then, if such a procedure could be done prior to birth, when most moral liberals consider life not yet to be alive, would it then be "okay" to perform such a thing on a healthy 'fetal' boy?
16 Aug 2010, 6:53 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
16 Aug 2010, 7:18 pm
16 Aug 2010, 7:27 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
16 Aug 2010, 7:56 pm
