Perfect! We should also give all infants, male & female, mastectomies at birth. The males will never need those nips, and the females can always use a bottle to feed their offspring, so nipples and breasts are not necessary and should be cut off. Plus, if they don't have breasts, no chance they will get breast cancer.
Circumcision
- Thread starter vega
- Start date
Irvy
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Posts
- 308
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 187
- Points
- 263
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Peterborough (England)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Irvy,
Absolutely. And since I have the right to do whatever I want to them until the age of maturity, it's kinda handy that they have 2 kidneys, fresh and unabused. I might grab a kidney or two out of a couple of them, and replace my own. After all, their body is mine until they're old enough, I may as well make use of it.
And I wonder, with all this talk of it being the parent's right to do whatever they want with their children's body when they're that age, does that put a different spin on all forms of child abuse?
The whole idea that a foreskin is somehow bad or unhealthy is wrong. One of the reasons the practise was introduced, however, was because an uncircumcised penis requires more attentive cleaning, and parents didn't want their sons to be too attentive to that particular organ, and certainly didn't want them cleaning it for 20 minutes or more at a time, if you know what i mean. The answer was, if you cut the foreskin off, they're less likely to masturbate.
As for the appearance of it, fair enough. If all you've seen in your family and peers is circumcised dicks, then an uncircumcised one will look different and strange, and therefore can become a fascination or a thing of revulsion. In our society, difference tends to equal dislike.
Actually, I really liked the point someone made a bit back. Since parents have this carte blanche over their kid's bodies until their 18, how would society react to parents forcing their sons to be circumcised at 17?
And I wonder, with all this talk of it being the parent's right to do whatever they want with their children's body when they're that age, does that put a different spin on all forms of child abuse?
The whole idea that a foreskin is somehow bad or unhealthy is wrong. One of the reasons the practise was introduced, however, was because an uncircumcised penis requires more attentive cleaning, and parents didn't want their sons to be too attentive to that particular organ, and certainly didn't want them cleaning it for 20 minutes or more at a time, if you know what i mean. The answer was, if you cut the foreskin off, they're less likely to masturbate.
As for the appearance of it, fair enough. If all you've seen in your family and peers is circumcised dicks, then an uncircumcised one will look different and strange, and therefore can become a fascination or a thing of revulsion. In our society, difference tends to equal dislike.
Actually, I really liked the point someone made a bit back. Since parents have this carte blanche over their kid's bodies until their 18, how would society react to parents forcing their sons to be circumcised at 17?
Using IQ scores as a gross index to assess this rarity, those with IQ's of 150 and above occur about 5-7 times out of 10,000 persons.
Ivy Leaguers, I reckon?
[post=354812]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]yeah, it's pretty amazing when people can spend years in fancy schools and still come out fucking stupid.
yeah, it's pretty amazing when people can spend years in fancy schools and still come out fucking stupid.
[post=354859]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Unfortunately in most schools emphasis is taught on assimilating information rather than free thought. Many of the people who made the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history were killed because of non-acceptance of their diversion in current thought.
Well, many weren't KILLED... a few were, but most were just excommunicated. For many of them, that was worse than death, due to societal pressures. Gallileo is a prime example. If dissenters were not in a theocracy, they were shunned (the same as excommunication, but with less religious undertones.) Rocking the status quo is so threatening to the unintelligent that they resort to strong measures to discourage it.
Using IQ scores as a gross index to assess this rarity, those with IQ's of 150 and above occur about 5-7 times out of 10,000 persons.
Ivy Leaguers, I reckon?
[post=354812]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]"Just remember, half the world's population is below average intelligence."
Yes, I know it's not accurate, that's why I put it in quotes, I didn't come up with that one.... but it does make you think, doesn't it?
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 17,289
- Media
- 476
- Likes
- 22,647
- Points
- 818
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Well, many weren't KILLED... a few were, but most were just excommunicated. For many of them, that was worse than death, due to societal pressures. Gallileo is a prime example. If dissenters were not in a theocracy, they were shunned (the same as excommunication, but with less religious undertones.) Rocking the status quo is so threatening to the unintelligent that they resort to strong measures to discourage it.
[post=354879]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]It's interesting that you mention Galileo...I was at the University of Padua this past week.
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 17,289
- Media
- 476
- Likes
- 22,647
- Points
- 818
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
There is no way that you can compare cutting off a foreskin and taking the life of an unborn baby. A parent does have the right to make the decision to abort a fetus, but you have already said that the act and the end result are not the same. In my faith, abortion for non-medical reasons is generally considered as a form of infantcide. The last time I checked, there was no such thing as foreskincide.
Somehow, to my feeble little brain (with my college degrees and IQ over 150), human life is a little bit more valuable than a little bit of skin. Not having a foreskin, I don't know what I'm missing. However, from what I was told by my former college roomate, it's much better being cut. Also, I've heard from other people that were cut as adults that they prefer it. I can't speak from firsthand experience and I admit that. All I know is that I'm quite sensitive and that my equipment works just fine, thank you.
There is no way that you can compare cutting off a foreskin and taking the life of an unborn baby. A parent does have the right to make the decision to abort a fetus, but you have already said that the act and the end result are not the same. In my faith, abortion for non-medical reasons is generally considered as a form of infantcide. The last time I checked, there was no such thing as foreskincide.
Somehow, to my feeble little brain (with my college degrees and IQ over 150), human life is a little bit more valuable than a little bit of skin. Not having a foreskin, I don't know what I'm missing. However, from what I was told by my former college roomate, it's much better being cut. Also, I've heard from other people that were cut as adults that they prefer it. I can't speak from firsthand experience and I admit that. All I know is that I'm quite sensitive and that my equipment works just fine, thank you.
[post=354938]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Yes, the right to life is the greatest right of all I belive. Circumcision is surgery with risks which has the potential to infringe that right. The point really is: I believe they have a right to life and a right to bodily integrity. Unfortunately everyone is so worried about their rights these days that they forget about the rights of others who can't speak up.
"Just remember, half the world's population is below average intelligence."
Yes, I know it's not accurate, that's why I put it in quotes, I didn't come up with that one.... but it does make you think, doesn't it?
[post=354882]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Not if your below average intelligence.
Irvy
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Posts
- 308
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 187
- Points
- 263
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Peterborough (England)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
"Just remember, half the world's population is below average intelligence."
Yes, I know it's not accurate, that's why I put it in quotes, I didn't come up with that one.... but it does make you think, doesn't it?
[/b][/quote]
If I were to say, "all the guys of our group are cut and have dicks at least 9" long," I would be called a liar.
The odds are about the same.
Welcome to American healthcare. Some circumcision advocates actually think you can't get AIDS if you're circumcised.
[post=355050]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]There have been many studies on the HIV-Circumcision links showing no signiciant correlation. However some French group designs some study with many flaws in which shows a higher correlation amongst uncirced guys and the world falls over it. They didn't even finish their study according to them in order to give the uncirced guys a chance to be circed.. The USA press seems to have swallowed it up though but completely ignored all the others which showed no correlation <sigh>
As a matter of interest, in South Africa there are two dominant tribes, the Zulus (almost completely uncut) and the Xhosa (almost completely cut) but the HIV rate is equal in both groups. People believe what they want to believe in order to try and give substance to their own beliefs. Sad..
