You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."
The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.
I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".
Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.
And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"
You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
Someone gets it.
I think the problem is people are just so conditioned to it happening that they don't see it as a problem.
If I said "Hey I'm gonna cut my babies pinky toe off because I think it's a good idea." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a single person to say "Well thats alright since you are the parent. They have other toes too."
randombattle on
I never asked for this!
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
Without a foreskin the head of the penis rubs on the fabric of the underwear for... oh I don't know... your entire life?
Does that cause anyone trouble?
I mean, is it a problem? For anyone?
For me? Not even a little bit.
And that would be because you were circumcised when you were an infant and scar tissue formed and so the skin is not as sensitive as it would be if you had a foreskin and then it just magically disappeared, leaving what is underneath exposed to chafing.
So, at worst, and assuming I have these imaginary calluses on my dick, I last longer with a female.
Terror!
You seem to be under the impression that scar tissue = horrific looking mutilations. No, sorry, scars don't always look abnormal.
So what's the big deal other than oh no, inconsequential violation of a newborn's surely inalienable human rights at birth that he will never remember or even remotely give a fuck about unless he is insane?
I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."
The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.
I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".
Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.
And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"
Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent. As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination. Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.
I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."
The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.
I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".
Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.
And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"
Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent. As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination. Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.
Oh wow all those "denying things" you listed are so not comparable to circumcision at all.
I think the problem is people are just so conditioned to it happening that they don't see it as a problem.
If I said "Hey I'm gonna cut my babies pinky toe off because I think it's a good idea." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a single person to say "Well thats alright since you are the parent. They have other toes too."
You can pick more benign ones people wouldn't think of but would react to. "Gonna tatoo a skull on their shoulder at 6 months old" for example.
Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent.
Later on they don't need to have tape on their dick in order to buy toys and cookies.
As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination.
The kid can go and eat broken glass all they want later.
Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.
Again: You're saving him from the fate of having a hard time finding a woman who wants to mutilate children. GOOD FOR YOU.
So what's the big deal other than oh no, inconsequential violation of a newborn's surely inalienable human rights at birth that he will never remember or even remotely give a fuck about unless he is insane?
I didn't realize that there was such a thing as a "inconsequential" violation of human rights.
I don't really think there's any reasonable stance beyond "Don't get your kid circumcised if you've got a problem with it."
The "Nobody should be circumcised as an infant because I think it's wrong!" thing is kind of lame.
I would say I agree on the principle of religious freedom, but then I remember that I was applauding whatever state it was that gave a minor a blood transfusion even though their Christian Scientist parents were like "no we want our kid to die".
Man I got my circumcision and my parents are not religious.
And I'd have to agree with that, too. Whatever's in the kid's best interest, I guess, I just don't feel that circumcision is really a negative thing. I'm sure at some point I've thought, "I guess it would've been nice to have some say in this," but just as quickly followed it up with, "Whatever, I don't really care."
Which is the issue at hand. The fact it's considered a minor matter by the populace doesn't (a) make it a minor matter necessarily, but (b) doesn't mean we should simply ignore the relevant moral issues, of which in this case are "is it actually ok to unnecessarily deny someone a choice?"
Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent. As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination. Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.
And sometimes the denial of choices by parents is not a good thing.
Also a cookie is not a penis, denying choices is part of being a parent, but denying a choice like circumcision is not comparable to a fucking brownie.
You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
It is not useless, you fucking idiot. Several people have already told you why it's there.
I can't walk around with my foreskin pulled back because the skin there is too sensitive to be rubbing against my underwear.
But by removing the foreskin the penis becomes less sensitized by constant interaction with underwear and diapers, thus removing the problem.
If, in theory, we started out uncircumcised, then no one would have an overly sensitive penis.
So, why do we need foreskins again?
You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
It is not useless, you fucking idiot. Several people have already told you why it's there.
I can't walk around with my foreskin pulled back because the skin there is too sensitive to be rubbing against my underwear.
But by removing the foreskin the penis becomes less sensitized by constant interaction with underwear and diapers, thus removing the problem.
If, in theory, we started out uncircumcised, then no one would have an overly sensitive penis.
So, why do we need foreskins again?
Again thats not the issue. Are you even reading the thread at this point?
You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
It is not useless, you fucking idiot. Several people have already told you why it's there.
I can't walk around with my foreskin pulled back because the skin there is too sensitive to be rubbing against my underwear.
But by removing the foreskin the penis becomes less sensitized by constant interaction with underwear and diapers, thus removing the problem.
If, in theory, we started out uncircumcised, then no one would have an overly sensitive penis.
So, why do we need foreskins again?
Because this is hardly a problem that is not later alterable yet the reverse is not so true?
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
Never ever in my entire life, even once, has my dong gotten chafed.
I'm holding back a lot of jokes here, so: Okay, good for you. Like I said, it depends on your lifestyle and your penis.
Hell, I get the occasional tiny sore, which is really really really not pleasant.
Now that you mention it, I do recall having a really tiny sore or two. Like, when wearing jeans and the metal zipper rubs up against it or something, which I do not think a foreskin would protect from.
But then how would I know, I was butchered at birth in a horrible violation of my rights as a free human.
So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!
Parents don't have the right to have an unnecessary surgery performed on their kid as far as I am concerned.
So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?
You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
But they have the parent's permission, and they can't get permission from an infant anyway. Are we supposed to stop vaccinating any infant who can't say "Yes"?
So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!
Parents don't have the right to have an unnecessary surgery performed on their kid as far as I am concerned.
So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?
If I said "Hey I'm gonna cut my babies pinky toe off because I think it's a good idea." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a single person to say "Well thats alright since you are the parent. They have other toes too."
You got my vote, although the socks would be rather awkward.
But they have the parent's permission, and they can't get permission from an infant anyway. Are we supposed to stop vaccinating any infant who can't say "Yes"?
Because clearly if we don't cut off their foreskin they will die of measles, is that what you're saying?
Now that you mention it, I do recall having a really tiny sore or two. Like, when wearing jeans and the metal zipper rubs up against it or something, which I do not think a foreskin would protect from.
But then how would I know, I was butchered at birth in a horrible violation of my rights as a free human.
You would have the sore on your foreskin rather than your glans. Your glans is generally more sensitive.
It's not, like going to save your life, but it would be nice to have slightly less discomfort.
You can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make you correct.
Your personal re-definition is worth jackshit.
Sorry, you're right. All I've proved is that the foreskin is nigh useless and thus has no effect on evolution. All it is is a useless flap of skin that no one should care about, sorry.
I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
But they have the parent's permission, and they can't get permission from an infant anyway. Are we supposed to stop vaccinating any infant who can't say "Yes"?
There is a huge difference between vaccination and circumcision. One has clear benefits the other does not.
So your all trample the rights of parents to get what you want. Brilliant!
Because, hey, fuck kids, they don't deserve rights.
Until they learn whats right and wrong and can decide for themselves according to the law, then no, they don't. When kids get evolved into smarter beings from the start and can write a lenghty thesus then we'll start talking.
So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?
I was thinking more selfish and ignorant.
--
Ash: So you're saying that all rights should be denied to a person until they understand those rights?
Now that you mention it, I do recall having a really tiny sore or two. Like, when wearing jeans and the metal zipper rubs up against it or something, which I do not think a foreskin would protect from.
But then how would I know, I was butchered at birth in a horrible violation of my rights as a free human.
You would have the sore on your foreskin rather than your glans. Your glans is generally more sensitive.
It's not, like going to save your life, but it would be nice to have slightly less discomfort.
It really isn't even that. I don't give a shit that people who had it done don't care. I give a shit that some do, that there's no obvious reason to do it, and that it can be in fact be done at any time (but oh hey look, that's comparatively rare). And yet despite this, apparently the better option is "do nothing" because making our world the tiniest bit better for those people is really a complete waste of time.
So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?
I was thinking more selfish and ignorant.
Same could be said for your stance.
Katchem_ash on
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?
I was thinking more selfish and ignorant.
Same could be said for your stance.
No it really couldn't. If there were tangible benefits to circumcision you would have a point but that really isn't the case.
Posts
I don't think that is the issue at hand. People are having a part of their anatomy removed for no reason without their permission.
Thank you.
I think the problem is people are just so conditioned to it happening that they don't see it as a problem.
If I said "Hey I'm gonna cut my babies pinky toe off because I think it's a good idea." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get a single person to say "Well thats alright since you are the parent. They have other toes too."
I never asked for this!
So what's the big deal other than oh no, inconsequential violation of a newborn's surely inalienable human rights at birth that he will never remember or even remotely give a fuck about unless he is insane?
Parents deny choices all the time. They deny their children the right to a cookie, to a toy, to sit around all day. Denying choices is part of being a parent. As for permanent ones, they deny their childs right to die from various diseases through vaccination. Also, this saves the kid from having to do it as an adult and be either in massive pain or heavily sedated for nearly a week when he has to do it because his GF is jewish and she wont marry an uncircumcised man.
Absurd, yes, but just as absurd as the idea of undergoing massive pain to regrow a foreskin.
I'm holding back a lot of jokes here, so: Okay, good for you. Like I said, it depends on your lifestyle and your penis.
Hell, I get the occasional tiny sore, which is really really really not pleasant.
Oh wow all those "denying things" you listed are so not comparable to circumcision at all.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Later on they don't need to have tape on their dick in order to buy toys and cookies.
The kid can go and eat broken glass all they want later.
Again: You're saving him from the fate of having a hard time finding a woman who wants to mutilate children. GOOD FOR YOU.
Parents don't have the right to have an unnecessary surgery performed on their kid as far as I am concerned.
I wonder if it's possible to get the appendix removed too. I mean, we're already there.
I didn't realize that there was such a thing as a "inconsequential" violation of human rights.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And sometimes the denial of choices by parents is not a good thing.
Also a cookie is not a penis, denying choices is part of being a parent, but denying a choice like circumcision is not comparable to a fucking brownie.
Because, hey, fuck kids, they don't deserve rights.
But by removing the foreskin the penis becomes less sensitized by constant interaction with underwear and diapers, thus removing the problem.
If, in theory, we started out uncircumcised, then no one would have an overly sensitive penis.
So, why do we need foreskins again?
Again thats not the issue. Are you even reading the thread at this point?
Now that you mention it, I do recall having a really tiny sore or two. Like, when wearing jeans and the metal zipper rubs up against it or something, which I do not think a foreskin would protect from.
But then how would I know, I was butchered at birth in a horrible violation of my rights as a free human.
So why not start handing passes to those parents who follow your line while killing the rest? I mean if they aren't following your method thier evil, vile people right?
But they have the parent's permission, and they can't get permission from an infant anyway. Are we supposed to stop vaccinating any infant who can't say "Yes"?
Why do we need a foreskin? Why do we need to have one removed?
What? Seriously, what?
You got my vote, although the socks would be rather awkward.
THANK YOU.
You would have the sore on your foreskin rather than your glans. Your glans is generally more sensitive.
It's not, like going to save your life, but it would be nice to have slightly less discomfort.
There is a huge difference between vaccination and circumcision. One has clear benefits the other does not.
Well according to Picardathon, underwear serves the same function as a foreskin, and because of this, we should all have our kid's dicks snipped.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Until they learn whats right and wrong and can decide for themselves according to the law, then no, they don't. When kids get evolved into smarter beings from the start and can write a lenghty thesus then we'll start talking.
I was thinking more selfish and ignorant.
--
Ash: So you're saying that all rights should be denied to a person until they understand those rights?
Fuck that noise though.
Same could be said for your stance.
because toes serve a purpose and missing one is an unattractive deformity
the foreskin is useless and essentially amounts to a smegma generator and an ugly one at that
No it really couldn't. If there were tangible benefits to circumcision you would have a point but that really isn't the case.