Topic: Anti-semites want to limit the rights of parents in California.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #6,922
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later[^] [v] #121,345
> Hi, I'd like to interfere with your parenting from day one, and stop you from mutilating your child's genitals
> Mind my own business? What's that?
> Mind my own business? What's that?
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,350
It is a pretty fucked up practice if you think about it. I dunno where I stand generally on circumcision, its a complicated issue. However I support the rights of a parent in almost any situation.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,364
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,373
Foreskin master race.
benny joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,374
being against circumcision != being anti-semitical
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #121,376
The kid should be asked in his bar-mitzvah if he wants his pee pee mutilated or not. It's not about antisemitism, it's about giving the kid the choice on his own body.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,402
> mfw I'm going to sue my doctor for battery and get tens of thousands of dollars just for being cut without my consentAnonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,406
Children should be able to choose whether they want to be circumcised or not.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,408
@121,402 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
> mfw you go on /poof/
> mfw I've probably spoken nicely to you on it
> mfw you go on /poof/
> mfw I've probably spoken nicely to you on it
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,415
@121,376 (The Truth !!vSp31CfSr)
Circumcision needs to be performed at infancy or not at all pretty much. If you wait until the child is older it will severely impact sensitivity, when done to an infant the nerves grow differently. Just one of the many reasons why its such a complicated issue. I'm not sure anyone has the right to tell another person what to do to their own children, but if a religion were cutting of the tips of baby's fingers it wouldn't be allowed, but that doesn't have the same benefits of circumcision. I dunno. Its complicated. Mutilation is mutilation. Are the benefits of circumcisions enough to justify the act? I guess thats the only way to really work it out.
Circumcision needs to be performed at infancy or not at all pretty much. If you wait until the child is older it will severely impact sensitivity, when done to an infant the nerves grow differently. Just one of the many reasons why its such a complicated issue. I'm not sure anyone has the right to tell another person what to do to their own children, but if a religion were cutting of the tips of baby's fingers it wouldn't be allowed, but that doesn't have the same benefits of circumcision. I dunno. Its complicated. Mutilation is mutilation. Are the benefits of circumcisions enough to justify the act? I guess thats the only way to really work it out.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,419
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Would you support the removal of tonsils, appendix, and wisdom teeth for every child that is born?
Would you support the removal of tonsils, appendix, and wisdom teeth for every child that is born?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,422
> yfw like most things, if you're under 18, the decision is not yours but of your parent/legal guardian
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #121,424
@121,419 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
No, I guess I wouldn't. Are those fair comparisons though? I'm not sure. I do think mutilation of babies for religious beliefs only should be illegal though. Freedom of religion only goes so far.
No, I guess I wouldn't. Are those fair comparisons though? I'm not sure. I do think mutilation of babies for religious beliefs only should be illegal though. Freedom of religion only goes so far.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,483
We can't take children's consent too far. What if they don't consent to eating vegetables, brushing their teeth or wearing clothes?
I am opposed to circumcision, and this is probably an area where a government could intervene, because it involves two people and the question of consent, but I would rather the government stay out of our life as much as possible.
Jews will never stop doing this, so it wouldn't end well.
I am opposed to circumcision, and this is probably an area where a government could intervene, because it involves two people and the question of consent, but I would rather the government stay out of our life as much as possible.
Jews will never stop doing this, so it wouldn't end well.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,506
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
> We can't take children's consent too far. What if they don't consent to eating vegetables, brushing their teeth or wearing clothes?
Then when they are 18 they can eat junk food, not brush their teeth, and join a nudist community. They cannot get their foreskin back.
> I am opposed to circumcision, and this is probably an area where a government could intervene, because it involves two people and the question of consent, but I would rather the government stay out of our life as much as possible.
I'm a libertarian, so I believe it's up to the individual. Since the individual did not consent, it should not be legal.
> Jews will never stop doing this, so it wouldn't end well.
Jews ask the doctor. Doctors will stop, or lose their medical licence. A few Jews will probably try to do it themselves, and they will face punishment.
> We can't take children's consent too far. What if they don't consent to eating vegetables, brushing their teeth or wearing clothes?
Then when they are 18 they can eat junk food, not brush their teeth, and join a nudist community. They cannot get their foreskin back.
> I am opposed to circumcision, and this is probably an area where a government could intervene, because it involves two people and the question of consent, but I would rather the government stay out of our life as much as possible.
I'm a libertarian, so I believe it's up to the individual. Since the individual did not consent, it should not be legal.
> Jews will never stop doing this, so it wouldn't end well.
Jews ask the doctor. Doctors will stop, or lose their medical licence. A few Jews will probably try to do it themselves, and they will face punishment.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,512
@previous (A)
Actually, jews have their kids circumcised in a ritual, by a special foreskin cutting rabbi.
Doctors just do it for the fun.
Actually, jews have their kids circumcised in a ritual, by a special foreskin cutting rabbi.
Doctors just do it for the fun.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,515
@121,506 (A)
they cannot get 18 years of their life back. Hence why kidnapping is a crime.
Children cant consent... doesn't mean you can't do anything for them...
> Implying Jews aren't doctors
they cannot get 18 years of their life back. Hence why kidnapping is a crime.
Children cant consent... doesn't mean you can't do anything for them...
> Implying Jews aren't doctors
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,516
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,520
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr double-posted this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,522
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,525
@121,515 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
There is a big line between having a kid brush their teeth, and mutilating their genitals.
There is a big line between having a kid brush their teeth, and mutilating their genitals.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,528
No I don't. @121,520 (The Truth !!vSp31CfSr)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,529
no its just interesting. @121,522 (The Truth !!vSp31CfSr)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,531
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,535
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
You need me to explain to you the distinction between having a kid maintain their oral health, and mutilating the kid?
You need me to explain to you the distinction between having a kid maintain their oral health, and mutilating the kid?
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,538
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,545
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
Asking a kid to brush their teeth does not cause irreversible damage. Mutilating them does.
Yes, kids will spend time doing things obeying their parents. This is how things have to work. It is a requirement that kids do certain things, and obey their parents (to a degree) because they lack proper judgement. Proper guidance is important.
Asking a kid to brush their teeth does not cause irreversible damage. Mutilating them does.
Yes, kids will spend time doing things obeying their parents. This is how things have to work. It is a requirement that kids do certain things, and obey their parents (to a degree) because they lack proper judgement. Proper guidance is important.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,552
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,554
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,556
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,557
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,568
@121,415 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I agree with this completely. In principle, I don't think it's right for the parents to make that sort of decision without the consent of the child. However, I am glad that I am circumcised and I would probably be upset if I wasn't and had to make the choice of staying uncircumcised or getting circumcized and losing all those nerves. I think my parents made the right decision, but that's not the case for everyone. Like you said, it's a very complicated issue.
I agree with this completely. In principle, I don't think it's right for the parents to make that sort of decision without the consent of the child. However, I am glad that I am circumcised and I would probably be upset if I wasn't and had to make the choice of staying uncircumcised or getting circumcized and losing all those nerves. I think my parents made the right decision, but that's not the case for everyone. Like you said, it's a very complicated issue.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,569
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> getting circumcized and losing all those nerves.
You would rather you lose them early, than later? Might as well get to try them out and see if you like them.
> getting circumcized and losing all those nerves.
You would rather you lose them early, than later? Might as well get to try them out and see if you like them.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,571
@previous (A)
But one of the things Ks points out is that the nerves grow differently when it's done at an early age. So you only lose the nerves if you get it done later. If it's done at infancy, you get the best of both worlds, but it has to be done without your consent. If you wait until later in life, you have to choose between the sensitivity and being circumsized. If you try to stop parents from doing it, there will be men upset that it wasn't done and are now forced to make that choice. That's why it's a complicated issue that can go either way.
But one of the things Ks points out is that the nerves grow differently when it's done at an early age. So you only lose the nerves if you get it done later. If it's done at infancy, you get the best of both worlds, but it has to be done without your consent. If you wait until later in life, you have to choose between the sensitivity and being circumsized. If you try to stop parents from doing it, there will be men upset that it wasn't done and are now forced to make that choice. That's why it's a complicated issue that can go either way.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,588
lol'd at the term "genital mutilation"
god, cry about it op.
god, cry about it op.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,592
Circumcision should only be done for a legitimate medical purpose. Besides, it's already considered battery as long as the victim sues the doctor.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,595
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,596
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,597
@121,592 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Lol @ that
No, giving people 6 months to sue the doctor, when they are poor and just turned 18 does not give them a chance to sue.
Lol @ that
No, giving people 6 months to sue the doctor, when they are poor and just turned 18 does not give them a chance to sue.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,598
@121,595 (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
Oh yes, a Ferrari! A Ferrara (Italian plural!) can be easily purchased with the settlement money, by the way.
Oh yes, a Ferrari! A Ferrara (Italian plural!) can be easily purchased with the settlement money, by the way.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,628
@121,571 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Okay.
There is a strong deaf community proud of being deaf. I think my child, as well, would enjoy being deaf. So is it okay for me to deafen my child?
Yes, he could wait until he is old enough to be deaf, but then he would be burden with the world of sound, so it's really better this way.
Okay.
There is a strong deaf community proud of being deaf. I think my child, as well, would enjoy being deaf. So is it okay for me to deafen my child?
Yes, he could wait until he is old enough to be deaf, but then he would be burden with the world of sound, so it's really better this way.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,631
@121,598 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
From what I hear, you have only 6 months after your 18th birthday to sue the doctor, so chances are you will not get to sue.
From what I hear, you have only 6 months after your 18th birthday to sue the doctor, so chances are you will not get to sue.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,640
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,644
@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
Well that post didn't mention penises, it really focused on ears.hearing more.
Well that post didn't mention penises, it really focused on ears.hearing more.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,650
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,654
@previous (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
It is not possible to get your foreskin back to it's original form. This is mainly because of nerve growth, among other things.
Also, even if it was possible, it would be expensive.
Google it.
It is not possible to get your foreskin back to it's original form. This is mainly because of nerve growth, among other things.
Also, even if it was possible, it would be expensive.
Google it.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,662
@121,628 (A)
You're assuming that being circumcised is debilitating in some way. And you're still not even reading what I wrote. According Ks, I might have just as many nerves in my penis as someone who is uncircumcised because I had it done as an infant. If I was left to make that decision as an adult, I would have to choose between sensitivity and being circumcised.
You're assuming that being circumcised is debilitating in some way. And you're still not even reading what I wrote. According Ks, I might have just as many nerves in my penis as someone who is uncircumcised because I had it done as an infant. If I was left to make that decision as an adult, I would have to choose between sensitivity and being circumcised.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,666
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> You're assuming that being circumcised is debilitating in some way.
I'm assuming we shouldn't mutilate people against their will. Even if "no harm is done". You could cut a baby up a little bit, and he would heal up and live, albeit with some "cosmetic changes". Does that make it okay? No.
> You're assuming that being circumcised is debilitating in some way.
I'm assuming we shouldn't mutilate people against their will. Even if "no harm is done". You could cut a baby up a little bit, and he would heal up and live, albeit with some "cosmetic changes". Does that make it okay? No.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,668
@121,631 (A)
It's worth a shot if I can get a lawyer that gets payed only if the suit was won on my side.
It's worth a shot if I can get a lawyer that gets payed only if the suit was won on my side.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,670
@121,654 (A)
But nerves grow differently if it's done at a young enough age. Most circumcised men don't complain about it not being sensitive enough down there, and have no problem enjoying sex. It's only men who get circumcised later in life who complain about the loss of sensitivity.
And I haven't even brought up any of the downsides to having an uncircumcised penis. There's a reason many choose to get circumcised later.
But nerves grow differently if it's done at a young enough age. Most circumcised men don't complain about it not being sensitive enough down there, and have no problem enjoying sex. It's only men who get circumcised later in life who complain about the loss of sensitivity.
And I haven't even brought up any of the downsides to having an uncircumcised penis. There's a reason many choose to get circumcised later.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,672
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,674
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,675
@121,670 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
So while we get to stretch the foreskin back for restoration, those who are uncut can't even get a proper circumcision without massive loss of feelings?
So while we get to stretch the foreskin back for restoration, those who are uncut can't even get a proper circumcision without massive loss of feelings?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,676
@121,666 (A)
Also, you're still ignoring everything Ks and I said about nerves, and the benefits of having it done at a young age rather than later. If you're going to ignore our points altogether and just spout the same talking points over and over, it's not really an argument. It's just you trolling and pretending to know how to read.
Also, you're still ignoring everything Ks and I said about nerves, and the benefits of having it done at a young age rather than later. If you're going to ignore our points altogether and just spout the same talking points over and over, it's not really an argument. It's just you trolling and pretending to know how to read.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,677
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,680
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,681
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,694
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,695
@121,676 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I am not ignoring them, they just aren't relevant.
Mutilating a kid is wrong, even if you believe he will appreciate it in the future.
A kid may enjoy the dead community, however that does not make deafening him okay.
I am not ignoring them, they just aren't relevant.
Mutilating a kid is wrong, even if you believe he will appreciate it in the future.
A kid may enjoy the dead community, however that does not make deafening him okay.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #121,720
@previous (A)
Yes, you are ignoring them, and yes, they are relevant. You're simply choosing to ignore them.
> Mutilating a kid is wrong even if you believe he will appreciate it in the future.
Ok, let's say that an infant has a fatal disease, and surgery can save the child's life, but the surgery will mutilate the child's abdomen for life. By your logic, it is wrong to perform the surgery because mutilating a kid is wrong in all circumstances regardless of the benefits. What you should say is "Mutilating a child without justifiable cause is wrong." That is why my points are relevant. I'm trying to explain the benefits and you're trying to say that the benefits and reasons don't matter, when they do. You're just using the same talking point over and over.
Your example of deafening a child is a terrible example because a child can still learn to appreciate the deaf community without the loss of his/her hearing. The act of deafening the child is therefore not justifiable. However, I can't get circumcised later in life and enjoy sex in the same way as someone who was circumcised as an infant. That is one reason that might justify it. There are also issues like phimosis, paraphimosis, ganggreen, smegma, infection, hygeine, etc, that make circumcision justifiable.
Yes, you are ignoring them, and yes, they are relevant. You're simply choosing to ignore them.
> Mutilating a kid is wrong even if you believe he will appreciate it in the future.
Ok, let's say that an infant has a fatal disease, and surgery can save the child's life, but the surgery will mutilate the child's abdomen for life. By your logic, it is wrong to perform the surgery because mutilating a kid is wrong in all circumstances regardless of the benefits. What you should say is "Mutilating a child without justifiable cause is wrong." That is why my points are relevant. I'm trying to explain the benefits and you're trying to say that the benefits and reasons don't matter, when they do. You're just using the same talking point over and over.
Your example of deafening a child is a terrible example because a child can still learn to appreciate the deaf community without the loss of his/her hearing. The act of deafening the child is therefore not justifiable. However, I can't get circumcised later in life and enjoy sex in the same way as someone who was circumcised as an infant. That is one reason that might justify it. There are also issues like phimosis, paraphimosis, ganggreen, smegma, infection, hygeine, etc, that make circumcision justifiable.