NationStates

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:You do like unilateral, universal one line statements don't you?

Yes, because I'm right. Any time someone walks into a hospital and says "I want my son's foreskin cut off because my god says so", the response should always be a hearty "Go fuck yourself".

No room for due intellectual caution and qualification then. Enjoy that.

DaWoad wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Yes there is it could be for cosmetic or religious reasons.

Those are not valid reasons for performing it on a non-consenting minor.

Religion is not a valid reason for anything. Social laws override religious ones every single time.

You do like unilateral, universal one line statements don't you?

So respond, explain how religion should ever overrule societal laws.

What if they are coterminous?

The blessed Chris wrote:

DaWoad wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Yes there is it could be for cosmetic or religious reasons.

Those are not valid reasons for performing it on a non-consenting minor.

Religion is not a valid reason for anything. Social laws override religious ones every single time.

You do like unilateral, universal one line statements don't you?

So respond, explain how religion should ever overrule societal laws.

What if they are coterminous?

Coterminous? As in covering the same area? . . . .well it would depend if the religious law and societal laws are essentially identical then there's absolutely no problem. If, on the other hand, societal laws contradict the religious ones in the same area then, in my opinion, societal laws trump every time. Can you explain why they shouldn't?

error double post

DaWoad wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:

DaWoad wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Yes there is it could be for cosmetic or religious reasons.

Those are not valid reasons for performing it on a non-consenting minor.

Religion is not a valid reason for anything. Social laws override religious ones every single time.

You do like unilateral, universal one line statements don't you?

So respond, explain how religion should ever overrule societal laws.

What if they are coterminous?

Coterminous? As in covering the same area? . . . .well it would depend if the religious law and societal laws are essentially identical then there's absolutely no problem. If, on the other hand, societal laws contradict the religious ones in the same area then, in my opinion, societal laws trump every time. Can you explain why they shouldn't?

You mean, besides making Baby Jesus cry?

I suppose by "coterminous" he meant in an area where everyone is of the same religion and there are no non-religious people there. In other words, CloudCuckooLand.

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

Person012345 wrote:So you're against male circumcision too? I think Ifreann was making fun of the attitude that male circumcision is ok "because it happens all the time (in america)" and that female circumcision is bad because it doesn't. Y'know. Like sarcasm.

I only support male circumcision on minors if it's for medical reasons.

I'm rather glad I didn't need your 'support' then. This is one 'victim' who's absolutely fine with his 'mutilation.'

Farnhamia wrote:

DaWoad wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:

DaWoad wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Yes there is it could be for cosmetic or religious reasons.

Those are not valid reasons for performing it on a non-consenting minor.

Religion is not a valid reason for anything. Social laws override religious ones every single time.

You do like unilateral, universal one line statements don't you?

So respond, explain how religion should ever overrule societal laws.

What if they are coterminous?

Coterminous? As in covering the same area? . . . .well it would depend if the religious law and societal laws are essentially identical then there's absolutely no problem. If, on the other hand, societal laws contradict the religious ones in the same area then, in my opinion, societal laws trump every time. Can you explain why they shouldn't?

You mean, besides making Baby Jesus cry?

I suppose by "coterminous" he meant in an area where everyone is of the same religion and there are no non-religious people there. In other words, CloudCuckooLand.

ohhhh! Right . . . .That definition didn't occur to me. Actually that argument is even weaker. If everyone in a state followed exactly the same religion their societal laws would be identical with their religious laws and then see above.

Greater Phenia wrote:

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

Person012345 wrote:So you're against male circumcision too? I think Ifreann was making fun of the attitude that male circumcision is ok "because it happens all the time (in america)" and that female circumcision is bad because it doesn't. Y'know. Like sarcasm.

I only support male circumcision on minors if it's for medical reasons.

I'm rather glad I didn't need your 'support' then. This is one 'victim' who's absolutely fine with his 'mutilation.'

Again, there are these things called "other people". As already demonstrated not all circumcision goes well, and not everyone is happy with it. No-one here is suggesting banning circumcision, I believe the people you're arguing against are saying that people shouldn't have it forced on them. Just because you are ok with it doesn't mean everyone is.

Greater Phenia wrote:

Sun Aut Ex wrote:

Person012345 wrote:So you're against male circumcision too? I think Ifreann was making fun of the attitude that male circumcision is ok "because it happens all the time (in america)" and that female circumcision is bad because it doesn't. Y'know. Like sarcasm.

I only support male circumcision on minors if it's for medical reasons.

I'm rather glad I didn't need your 'support' then. This is one 'victim' who's absolutely fine with his 'mutilation.'

Jewish, Muslim? Or just American?

map

It's just unfortunate that your penis has been altered without your consent, most likely for religious reasons, and as a result has reduced the sensitivity of, and thus sexual pleasure you can get from it's head, and reduced the total volume of it. No need to defend such practices, we're on your side! We're primarily interested in you having a more enjoyable existence; they however want the opposite to be true, so you can conform more to religious traditions for a supposedly good reasons which are mostly anti-sexual. It was there for a reason, however they lobbed it off to control you, make you conform; too bad.

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/function ... es-of.html

The foreskin offers protection (like female genetalia), self-cleansing function (like female genetalia), self-protecting functions (like female genetalia), Immunological protection, anti-bacterial function, coverage during erection, erogenous sensitivity, self-stimulating sexual function, enhances forepleasure, and very important functions during intercourse that leads to less pain and discomfort for both parties, self-lubricating function, Production, Retention, and Dispersal of Pheromones,

I don't see the point in cutting bits of a penis off.

Person012345 wrote:The fact is, not all parents are sensible, and you get dumbfuck parents who will cut open their kids penis even if something is likely to go wrong. Solution: Prevent parents forcing it on their kid. There is no reason for it (unless you do have a genuine medicinal reason for wanting to do so) so why should the parents be allowed to force their child to have it?

For the same reason that religion is forced upon children. It's just the 'done thing'.

And a big bump here. Sorry.

I'm just gonna chop off this zombie now.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'll leave it to your imagination just where I'm chopping.