Circumcision: Double Standard?

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:57 am

Jochistan wrote:Again, I seriously doubt you're actually poor.

No, but I don't maintain a yard.

by **United States of McDonalds** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:59 am

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
United States of McDonalds wrote:
No ones denying that tbh

Uh, yes, some have.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p26333954
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p26333800

I think they're talking more in the ideological sense, not in the 'what is the actual law' sense

by **Saiwania** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:59 am

Dakini wrote:It's already the norm in many countries. There's nothing wrong with this. And this is a bad thing how?

The people who favor circumcision aren't going to be too happy. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from infant circumcision being discontinued. I wouldn't object but I imagine the pro-circumcision crowd will fight tooth and nail to have the practice continue.

by **Nanatsu no Tsuki** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:00 am

United States of McDonalds wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Uh, yes, some have.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=357153&p=26333954#p26333954
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=357153&p=26333800#p26333800

I think they're talking more in the ideological sense, not in the 'what is the actual law' sense

Who knows, but they are still saying that parents don't have rights over their kids. The truth is that yes, they do have rights over their kids.

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:01 am

Saiwania wrote:I wouldn't object but I imagine the pro-circumcision crowd will fight tooth and nail to have the practice continue.

Good, have them circumcised.

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:01 am

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Who knows, but they are still saying that parents don't have rights over their kids. The truth is that yes, they do have rights over their kids.

They have the rights that we give them.

by **Nationes Pii Redivivi** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:03 am

Test208 wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Who knows, but they are still saying that parents don't have rights over their kids. The truth is that yes, they do have rights over their kids.

They have the rights that we give them.

Who is this 'we'?

Certainly not the children.

by **United States of McDonalds** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:03 am

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
United States of McDonalds wrote:
I think they're talking more in the ideological sense, not in the 'what is the actual law' sense

Who knows, but they are still saying that parents don't have rights over their kids. The truth is that yes, they do have rights over their kids.

They do, but the one which allows them to circumcise non-consenting children for silly reasons isn't one i'm fond of

by **Nanatsu no Tsuki** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:04 am

United States of McDonalds wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Who knows, but they are still saying that parents don't have rights over their kids. The truth is that yes, they do have rights over their kids.

They do, but the one which allows them to circumcise non-consenting children for silly reasons isn't one i'm fond of

Neither am I, but right now, the law is on the side of the parents.

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:05 am

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:Who is this 'we'?

Certainly not the children.

You never told your father you'd murder him if he didn't apologize?

by **Nationes Pii Redivivi** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:06 am

Test208 wrote:
Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:Who is this 'we'?

Certainly not the children.

You never told your father you'd murder him if he didn't apologize?

Because he has a machete around, and he knows how to use it.

by **Jochistan** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:07 am

Test208 wrote:
Jochistan wrote:Again, I seriously doubt you're actually poor.

No, but I don't maintain a yard.

So? plenty of Middle Class people live in apartments. It doesn't take away from the fact that they're middle class. There are Apartments in the Suburbs.

There are people with lawns and backyards in downtown Oakland. I seriously doubt you were brought up in one of those places or anything like one of those places.

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:08 am

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:Because he has a machete around, and he knows how to use it.

In his sleep. Good old fashioned murder.

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:10 am

Jochistan wrote:There are people with lawns and backyards in downtown Oakland. I seriously doubt you were brought up in one of those places or anything like one of those places.

I lived in suburbs, most have a yard. But I spent my time reading because though I may be homosexual I was not a faggot.

by **Torisakia** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:13 am

As a circumcised male, I couldn't care less about the whole consent/"body mutilation" thing. I've never exactly understood the pros of being uncircumcised, to be honest. I'll have to Google it sometime later.

by **Dakini** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:17 am

Saiwania wrote:
Dakini wrote:It's already the norm in many countries. There's nothing wrong with this. And this is a bad thing how?

The people who favor circumcision aren't going to be too happy. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from infant circumcision being discontinued. I wouldn't object but I imagine the pro-circumcision crowd will fight tooth and nail to have the practice continue.

Why should they care? It's not their cocks.

by **Jochistan** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:18 am

Test208 wrote:
Jochistan wrote:There are people with lawns and backyards in downtown Oakland. I seriously doubt you were brought up in one of those places or anything like one of those places.

I lived in suburbs, most have a yard. But I spent my time reading because though I may be homosexual I was not a faggot.

As did I. And going out on hill and forest trails by myself. Seems pretty close to me.

Are you calling me a faggot?

by **The Alma Mater** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:18 am

Torisakia wrote:As a circumcised male, I couldn't care less about the whole consent/"body mutilation" thing. I've never exactly understood the pros of being uncircumcised, to be honest. I'll have to Google it sometime later.

Well, you are not a priori marked as a follower of a deity for one

Which of course carries slightly more weight if you actually desire to follow a different one OR consider the ones whose mark it is to be vile

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:18 am

Jochistan wrote:Are you calling me a faggot?

No, that's excercise. That's not the same thing as being a materialist.

However, if you did soccer, that might be gay.

by **Jochistan** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:20 am

Test208 wrote:
Jochistan wrote:Are you calling me a faggot?

No, that's excercise. That's not the same thing as being a materialist.

However, if you did soccer, that might be gay.

Alright, no.

And I'm no materialist, believe me.

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:22 am

Jochistan wrote:And I'm no materialist, believe me.

I forgive you for being middle class. You have true character.

by **Jochistan** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:24 am

Test208 wrote:
Jochistan wrote:And I'm no materialist, believe me.

I forgive you for being middle class. You have true character.

well thanks.

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:25 am

Jochistan wrote:well thanks.

I'm still waiting on the pics, though.

by **Jochistan** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:28 am

Test208 wrote:
Jochistan wrote:well thanks.

I'm still waiting on the pics, though.

What? when did I say I would...

by **Test208** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:29 am

Jochistan wrote:What? when did I say I would...

There's no need to be shy! Us noble people can trust each other.

we don't play soccer

Circumcision: Double Standard?

Who is online