|
On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems.
So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child?
On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:29 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:18 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:10 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 03:27 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:I'm the way I am because I know no one will be able to come up with an argument using sources against me. When you start calling me names and refuse to use any intelligence, I'm just going to either ignore you or tell you what's up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood
female human anatomy, the clitoral hood (also called preputium clitoridis and clitoral prepuce) is a fold of skin that surrounds and protects the glans of the clitoris; it also covers the external shaft and develops as part of the labia minora and is homologous with the foreskin (equally called prepuce) in male genitals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForeskinIn male human anatomy, the foreskin is a double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus (pron.: /miːˈeɪtəs/) when the penis is not erect. The foreskin is typically retractable over the glans. It is also described as the prepuce, a technically broader term that also includes the clitoral hood in women, to which the foreskin is embryonically homologous. The same fucking purpose as foreskin. Think medical science has been wrong all this time? Well, guess you showed science! Wonder why women have orgasms? It's because men had them, then evolution was like, "oh, let me vacuum this cum up." The penis can be inverted into a vagina, the testicles are the ovaries, they are the same, in a sense. Just one gets testosterone and the other estrogen. Yes, I'm sure that this has nothing to do with all the trolls who are using #IneedMasculism to troll uptight feminists. I guess the feminists are immune from getting banned when they troll. Wonder what makes them so special. Oh, that's right, they have periods and get raped. (Even though, legally, before 2012, men couldn't legally be raped.) Remember, it was the feminist who hijacked the tag and got it national media attention. Not the "trollers". Oh god, do you actually think that that is a result of coporate censorship, rather than an algorithm which displays results based on historic search data? Now I'm seriously not sure if you're trolling or not. That page was getting MASSIVE hits from multiple sites. There is no reason why you could not find the search AT ALL when it's getting massive traffic. P.S. I'm pretty sure you don't know what humanism actually means. I'm a secular humanist. That's my "religion". Want to step on that subject some more? Ok, I'm pretty sure you don't understand what homology is as well; so let me explain. A whale's flipper is homologous to a human hand; yet they have vastly different functions and forms; the human appendix is homologous to a herbivore's cecum, yet cutting one off is a medical procedure and cutting the other would cause immediate trauma, if not death by starvation. Well done on misconstruing quotes and definitions to suit your own skewed world view. You're far from a humanist; you're a failed humanist at best, an pseudo-intellectual phoney at worst. One of the major themes of the humanist movement is the triumph of an individual rational human mind in its ability to objectively analyse facts and evidences in order to make sense of how the world works. You have failed that criterion at every step (the above basterdisation of the meaning of "homology" is just one of them), instead succumbing to a populist movement in which the power of the individual to analyse deeper truths is lost among surface half-truths and irrelvant observations twisted by demagogues to suit their own ends. Humanism isn't just a label you can apply to yourself to seem morally superior to those "dark-age religious nuts"; rational thought won't forgive your sins just because you are willing to pay lip service - you have to earn the right to be a humanist, and you are heading quite opposite to where you're supposed to go. Man, men's rights must REALLY piss some of you guys off. What is with these personal attacks? Why not try to provide an intellectual argument? I've been providing sources for most of my arguments, yet I haven't seen the opposition do so. Keep up the ad hominens; my sides are enjoying it. 1
a : having the same relative position, value, or structure: as (1) : exhibiting biological homology (2) : having the same or allelic genes with genetic loci usually arranged in the same order <homologous chromosomes> I guess the clitoral hood having some similarities to the foreskin is no argument against legal circumcision of males. Well, you did ask me to step on your "secular humanism", so I did. Hope you enjoyed  Well well, we've gone from "The same fucking purpose as foreskin" to "having some similarities". Horray, progress! I was thinking it would never happen to such a caudex. Purpose is the same, structure is a little different. They both cover the thing that gives pleasure. I'd like to see you refute that one. Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology. P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation.
"May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff.
Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail.
Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you?
|
On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:29 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:18 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:10 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 03:27 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:I'm the way I am because I know no one will be able to come up with an argument using sources against me. When you start calling me names and refuse to use any intelligence, I'm just going to either ignore you or tell you what's up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood
female human anatomy, the clitoral hood (also called preputium clitoridis and clitoral prepuce) is a fold of skin that surrounds and protects the glans of the clitoris; it also covers the external shaft and develops as part of the labia minora and is homologous with the foreskin (equally called prepuce) in male genitals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForeskinIn male human anatomy, the foreskin is a double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus (pron.: /miːˈeɪtəs/) when the penis is not erect. The foreskin is typically retractable over the glans. It is also described as the prepuce, a technically broader term that also includes the clitoral hood in women, to which the foreskin is embryonically homologous. The same fucking purpose as foreskin. Think medical science has been wrong all this time? Well, guess you showed science! Wonder why women have orgasms? It's because men had them, then evolution was like, "oh, let me vacuum this cum up." The penis can be inverted into a vagina, the testicles are the ovaries, they are the same, in a sense. Just one gets testosterone and the other estrogen. Yes, I'm sure that this has nothing to do with all the trolls who are using #IneedMasculism to troll uptight feminists. I guess the feminists are immune from getting banned when they troll. Wonder what makes them so special. Oh, that's right, they have periods and get raped. (Even though, legally, before 2012, men couldn't legally be raped.) Remember, it was the feminist who hijacked the tag and got it national media attention. Not the "trollers". Oh god, do you actually think that that is a result of coporate censorship, rather than an algorithm which displays results based on historic search data? Now I'm seriously not sure if you're trolling or not. That page was getting MASSIVE hits from multiple sites. There is no reason why you could not find the search AT ALL when it's getting massive traffic. P.S. I'm pretty sure you don't know what humanism actually means. I'm a secular humanist. That's my "religion". Want to step on that subject some more? Ok, I'm pretty sure you don't understand what homology is as well; so let me explain. A whale's flipper is homologous to a human hand; yet they have vastly different functions and forms; the human appendix is homologous to a herbivore's cecum, yet cutting one off is a medical procedure and cutting the other would cause immediate trauma, if not death by starvation. Well done on misconstruing quotes and definitions to suit your own skewed world view. You're far from a humanist; you're a failed humanist at best, an pseudo-intellectual phoney at worst. One of the major themes of the humanist movement is the triumph of an individual rational human mind in its ability to objectively analyse facts and evidences in order to make sense of how the world works. You have failed that criterion at every step (the above basterdisation of the meaning of "homology" is just one of them), instead succumbing to a populist movement in which the power of the individual to analyse deeper truths is lost among surface half-truths and irrelvant observations twisted by demagogues to suit their own ends. Humanism isn't just a label you can apply to yourself to seem morally superior to those "dark-age religious nuts"; rational thought won't forgive your sins just because you are willing to pay lip service - you have to earn the right to be a humanist, and you are heading quite opposite to where you're supposed to go. Man, men's rights must REALLY piss some of you guys off. What is with these personal attacks? Why not try to provide an intellectual argument? I've been providing sources for most of my arguments, yet I haven't seen the opposition do so. Keep up the ad hominens; my sides are enjoying it. 1
a : having the same relative position, value, or structure: as (1) : exhibiting biological homology (2) : having the same or allelic genes with genetic loci usually arranged in the same order <homologous chromosomes> I guess the clitoral hood having some similarities to the foreskin is no argument against legal circumcision of males. Well, you did ask me to step on your "secular humanism", so I did. Hope you enjoyed Well well, we've gone from "The same fucking purpose as foreskin" to "having some similarities". Horray, progress! I was thinking it would never happen to such a caudex. Purpose is the same, structure is a little different. They both cover the thing that gives pleasure. I'd like to see you refute that one. Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology. P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument.
I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best.
|
On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:29 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:18 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:10 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 03:27 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:I'm the way I am because I know no one will be able to come up with an argument using sources against me. When you start calling me names and refuse to use any intelligence, I'm just going to either ignore you or tell you what's up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin[quote] The same fucking purpose as foreskin. Think medical science has been wrong all this time? Well, guess you showed science! Wonder why women have orgasms? It's because men had them, then evolution was like, "oh, let me vacuum this cum up." The penis can be inverted into a vagina, the testicles are the ovaries, they are the same, in a sense. Just one gets testosterone and the other estrogen. [quote] I guess the feminists are immune from getting banned when they troll. Wonder what makes them so special. Oh, that's right, they have periods and get raped. (Even though, legally, before 2012, men couldn't legally be raped.) Remember, it was the feminist who hijacked the tag and got it national media attention. Not the "trollers". [quote] That page was getting MASSIVE hits from multiple sites. There is no reason why you could not find the search AT ALL when it's getting massive traffic. [quote] I'm a secular humanist. That's my "religion". Want to step on that subject some more? Ok, I'm pretty sure you don't understand what homology is as well; so let me explain. A whale's flipper is homologous to a human hand; yet they have vastly different functions and forms; the human appendix is homologous to a herbivore's cecum, yet cutting one off is a medical procedure and cutting the other would cause immediate trauma, if not death by starvation. Well done on misconstruing quotes and definitions to suit your own skewed world view. You're far from a humanist; you're a failed humanist at best, an pseudo-intellectual phoney at worst. One of the major themes of the humanist movement is the triumph of an individual rational human mind in its ability to objectively analyse facts and evidences in order to make sense of how the world works. You have failed that criterion at every step (the above basterdisation of the meaning of "homology" is just one of them), instead succumbing to a populist movement in which the power of the individual to analyse deeper truths is lost among surface half-truths and irrelvant observations twisted by demagogues to suit their own ends. Humanism isn't just a label you can apply to yourself to seem morally superior to those "dark-age religious nuts"; rational thought won't forgive your sins just because you are willing to pay lip service - you have to earn the right to be a humanist, and you are heading quite opposite to where you're supposed to go. Man, men's rights must REALLY piss some of you guys off. What is with these personal attacks? Why not try to provide an intellectual argument? I've been providing sources for most of my arguments, yet I haven't seen the opposition do so. Keep up the ad hominens; my sides are enjoying it. 1
a : having the same relative position, value, or structure: as (1) : exhibiting biological homology (2) : having the same or allelic genes with genetic loci usually arranged in the same order <homologous chromosomes> I guess the clitoral hood having some similarities to the foreskin is no argument against legal circumcision of males. Well, you did ask me to step on your "secular humanism", so I did. Hope you enjoyed Well well, we've gone from "The same fucking purpose as foreskin" to "having some similarities". Horray, progress! I was thinking it would never happen to such a caudex. Purpose is the same, structure is a little different. They both cover the thing that gives pleasure. I'd like to see you refute that one. Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology. P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best.
You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that:
Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation.
Seek help.
|
On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:29 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:18 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:10 Ianuus wrote:
[quote]
Ok, I'm pretty sure you don't understand what homology is as well; so let me explain. A whale's flipper is homologous to a human hand; yet they have vastly different functions and forms; the human appendix is homologous to a herbivore's cecum, yet cutting one off is a medical procedure and cutting the other would cause immediate trauma, if not death by starvation. Well done on misconstruing quotes and definitions to suit your own skewed world view.
You're far from a humanist; you're a failed humanist at best, an pseudo-intellectual phoney at worst. One of the major themes of the humanist movement is the triumph of an individual rational human mind in its ability to objectively analyse facts and evidences in order to make sense of how the world works. You have failed that criterion at every step (the above basterdisation of the meaning of "homology" is just one of them), instead succumbing to a populist movement in which the power of the individual to analyse deeper truths is lost among surface half-truths and irrelvant observations twisted by demagogues to suit their own ends. Humanism isn't just a label you can apply to yourself to seem morally superior to those "dark-age religious nuts"; rational thought won't forgive your sins just because you are willing to pay lip service - you have to earn the right to be a humanist, and you are heading quite opposite to where you're supposed to go.
Man, men's rights must REALLY piss some of you guys off. What is with these personal attacks? Why not try to provide an intellectual argument? I've been providing sources for most of my arguments, yet I haven't seen the opposition do so. Keep up the ad hominens; my sides are enjoying it. 1
a : having the same relative position, value, or structure: as (1) : exhibiting biological homology (2) : having the same or allelic genes with genetic loci usually arranged in the same order <homologous chromosomes> I guess the clitoral hood having some similarities to the foreskin is no argument against legal circumcision of males. Well, you did ask me to step on your "secular humanism", so I did. Hope you enjoyed Well well, we've gone from "The same fucking purpose as foreskin" to "having some similarities". Horray, progress! I was thinking it would never happen to such a caudex. Purpose is the same, structure is a little different. They both cover the thing that gives pleasure. I'd like to see you refute that one. Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology. P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Show nested quote +Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help.
"one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation"
Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long.
P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn?
|
On February 12 2013 21:40 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:29 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:18 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
[quote]
Man, men's rights must REALLY piss some of you guys off. What is with these personal attacks? Why not try to provide an intellectual argument? I've been providing sources for most of my arguments, yet I haven't seen the opposition do so. Keep up the ad hominens; my sides are enjoying it.
[quote]
I guess the clitoral hood having some similarities to the foreskin is no argument against legal circumcision of males. Well, you did ask me to step on your "secular humanism", so I did. Hope you enjoyed Well well, we've gone from "The same fucking purpose as foreskin" to "having some similarities". Horray, progress! I was thinking it would never happen to such a caudex. Purpose is the same, structure is a little different. They both cover the thing that gives pleasure. I'd like to see you refute that one. Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology. P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help. "one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation" Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long. P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn?
"FGM is worse than MGM" doesn't imply that either is wrong. Easy enough.
Still, seek help.
|
On February 12 2013 22:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 21:40 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:29 Ianuus wrote:[quote] Well, you did ask me to step on your "secular humanism", so I did. Hope you enjoyed Well well, we've gone from "The same fucking purpose as foreskin" to "having some similarities". Horray, progress! I was thinking it would never happen to such a caudex. Purpose is the same, structure is a little different. They both cover the thing that gives pleasure. I'd like to see you refute that one. Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology. P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help. "one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation" Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long. P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn? "FGM is worse than MGM" doesn't imply that either is wrong. Easy enough. Still, seek help.
You mean "either is right" right?
|
On February 12 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 22:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:40 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
[quote]
Purpose is the same, structure is a little different. They both cover the thing that gives pleasure. I'd like to see you refute that one. Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology. P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help. "one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation" Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long. P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn? "FGM is worse than MGM" doesn't imply that either is wrong. Easy enough. Still, seek help. You mean "either is right" right?
I don't think you understand what I did there. I just switched some words using your logic to show you the fallacy of it.
|
On February 12 2013 23:41 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 22:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:40 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:
[quote]
Once again, irrelvant information. I would pose that the legality of circumcision rests on the effect on circumsised individuals, which depends on the structure, rather than on its teleology.
P.S. At risk of ad-homineming your fragile little ego, I would also like to point out that your self-righteous tone, triumphant arrogance, liberal use of explicatives and constant "come at me bro" attitude puts a rather large dent on your attempt to sound intellectual - there is a difference between enlightened fervour and just being crude. Work on that, will you? How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality? Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help. "one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation" Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long. P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn? "FGM is worse than MGM" doesn't imply that either is wrong. Easy enough. Still, seek help. You mean "either is right" right? I don't think you understand what I did there. I just switched some words using your logic to show you the fallacy of it.
So you got confused by your own arguments and then you pretend like it's your great plan to "switch up words" in order to prove someone wrong? This means one of two things: either you're an idiot or you think that this is Looney Toons and the Bugs Bunny strategy of "no yes no yes no yes yes no" would work. Either way this is entertaining.
|
On February 13 2013 00:05 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 23:41 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 22:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:40 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
[quote]
How is the purpose of the foreskin/clitoral hood irrelevant in the discussion of circumcision legality?
Keep up the attacks. My ego is at critical HP, I think I need a potion. Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. "May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help. "one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation" Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long. P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn? "FGM is worse than MGM" doesn't imply that either is wrong. Easy enough. Still, seek help. You mean "either is right" right? I don't think you understand what I did there. I just switched some words using your logic to show you the fallacy of it. So you got confused by your own arguments and then you pretend like it's your great plan to "switch up words" in order to prove someone wrong? This means one of two things: either you're an idiot or you think that this is Looney Toons and the Bugs Bunny strategy of "no yes no yes no yes yes no" would work. Either way this is entertaining.
I'm enjoying these attacks. Must really piss you guys off that men think they have rights.
|
On February 13 2013 00:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 00:05 FryBender wrote:On February 12 2013 23:41 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 22:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:40 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 20:22 khaydarin9 wrote:
In the case of abortion, it's not that no one cares that it's the guy's child, too, it's more that there is no moral justification for someone to say "Hey, you have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and a lifetime of physical and social consequences of having been pregnant because I want you to." And before you claim that there's equally no moral justification for forcing a man to pay 18 years' worth of child support for a child he didn't want in the first place, consider that whether or not a woman carries the child to term, she'll be enduring a range of physical and psychological changes due to the pregnancy, so it's not that women just get off consequence-free if she does choose to have an abortion. And before you try to claim that if a woman doesn't want to endure consequences, she shouldn't have had sex - neither should men. Everyone should be prepared to accept the consequences - physical, financial, whatever - of their actions.
It would be very inconsistent to say that it's wrong for parents to have executive power over their children's bodies (in situations like circumcision) and then turn around and say that women have no right to decide what happens to their own reproductive systems. So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child? On February 12 2013 20:54 Ianuus wrote:
[quote]
Because even if its purpose is exactly the same, what happens when you mutilate the organ and the effect it has on the subject may be completely different. For example - if you cut off a tail of some species of lizard, it ain't even mad and will regenerate it. If you cut off the tail of a cat, it's pretty much fucked. Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation.
"May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff. Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail. Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help. "one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation" Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long. P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn? "FGM is worse than MGM" doesn't imply that either is wrong. Easy enough. Still, seek help. You mean "either is right" right? I don't think you understand what I did there. I just switched some words using your logic to show you the fallacy of it. So you got confused by your own arguments and then you pretend like it's your great plan to "switch up words" in order to prove someone wrong? This means one of two things: either you're an idiot or you think that this is Looney Toons and the Bugs Bunny strategy of "no yes no yes no yes yes no" would work. Either way this is entertaining. I'm enjoying these attacks. Must really piss you guys off that men think they have rights.
Yep that's exactly why I'm making fun of you. It has nothing to do with your shitty posts that prove nothing, your use of every false logic argument out there, your over-inflated ego in thinking you're better and smarter then everyone, your weasely ways of trying to change topics when your arguments are proven false over and over and over again and just your crappy attitude that makes you sound like you're 14. All of that has nothing to do with anything. I'm making fun of you because I'm pissed off that men want rights. How dare they (I?)?
|
You know OP, the sad thing is that most people here probably agree with the principle of your position, but just think that the way you express your points and the way you argue are obnoxiously retarded.
|
On February 13 2013 00:43 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 00:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 13 2013 00:05 FryBender wrote:On February 12 2013 23:41 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 23:21 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 22:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:40 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 21:30 Ianuus wrote:On February 12 2013 21:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
[quote]
So, because the woman has to carry the baby for nine months, the father must live the rest of his life knowing the mother murdered his child?
[quote]
"May be completely different." Sounds like you know your stuff.
Cutting the tail off a lizard, something that grows back, is no where near the same as cutting the skin off a dick or vagina. The skin doesn't grow back, just like the cat's tail.
Just because lizards seemingly don't feel the pain of their tails being cut off, you think that's an argument for legalizing "lizard cruelty"? Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you? Once again, since you lack the ability to see any logical flaws in the premise of my argument, you resort to putting words in my mouth then attacking the strawman which you've created. Since when did I promote animal cruelty? I merely compared two cases in their relative morality, not the morality of either case as an absolute. Your righteous indignation further erodes any pretence of a legitimate argument. I did say "may be completely different", since I am not an arrogant prick such as you, and I do not pretend to have detailed knowledge of human anatomy, as you do. I can merely point out the flaws in your argument on principle. Arrogance starts where ability ends, and my ability with male and female circumcision is limited at best. You're saying that person can make a case for cutting off a lizards tail, legally. If you're not saying that, then let me show you where you said that: Thus, even if in both species the primary purpose of tails are for balance, one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation. Seek help. "one could make a case of the legality of lizard tail mutiliation over cat tail mutiliation" Comparatives, man, learn to understand them. Since you have failed so far, I will provide you with an easy-to-understand example: "a nanometer is longer than a picometer" does not imply that either is long. P.S. Here's another example of you arguing a point not related to the premise of the argument with flawed logic. I think this is another one of those fallacies in argument along with your favourite "ad-hominem attacks". Maybe look over those again and see what you can learn? "FGM is worse than MGM" doesn't imply that either is wrong. Easy enough. Still, seek help. You mean "either is right" right? I don't think you understand what I did there. I just switched some words using your logic to show you the fallacy of it. So you got confused by your own arguments and then you pretend like it's your great plan to "switch up words" in order to prove someone wrong? This means one of two things: either you're an idiot or you think that this is Looney Toons and the Bugs Bunny strategy of "no yes no yes no yes yes no" would work. Either way this is entertaining. I'm enjoying these attacks. Must really piss you guys off that men think they have rights. Yep that's exactly why I'm making fun of you. It has nothing to do with your shitty posts that prove nothing, your use of every false logic argument out there, your over-inflated ego in thinking you're better and smarter then everyone, your weasely ways of trying to change topics when your arguments are proven false over and over and over again and just your crappy attitude that makes you sound like you're 14. All of that has nothing to do with anything. I'm making fun of you because I'm pissed off that men want rights. How dare they (I?)?
Show me the proof. Lol.
|
United States43764 Posts
I'm a guy and I need feminism. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the things feminists (in general, not the crazy ones (there's always some)) are asking for are things men don't want too. There are a lot of fucked up things about society's view on gender identity and challenging it should be encouraged. Unfortunately shit like the men's rights subreddits are hateful circle jerks of misogyny which make me feel ashamed to share a species with them so whatever, I need feminism, deal with it.
|
On February 13 2013 01:28 KwarK wrote:
I'm a guy and I need feminism. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like the things feminists (in general, not the crazy ones (there's always some)) are asking for are things men don't want too. There are a lot of fucked up things about society's view on gender identity and challenging it should be encouraged. Unfortunately shit like the men's rights subreddits are hateful circle jerks of misogyny which make me feel ashamed to share a species with them so whatever, I need feminism, deal with it.
Why do you need it?
Women want reproductive rights, but by allowing the mother to get an abortion without the consent of the father is not what men want. Men should be allowed reproductive rights, as well. Hopefully, you or I, or anyone else on this board, will not have to be told their child will be murdered by the mother without their consent.
>Oh, we carry the baby for nine months! We tough now
To this, I'd say, if the man doesn't want to the child, he at least has to pay nine months child support. If the mother doesn't want it, then she doesn't have to pay child support, but it should not be solely her right to terminate the baby. Nine months has fucking nothing on two life times. One for the dead baby, two for the father that will have to live the rest of his life knowing his child was murdered before he even got to see the child.
|
United States43764 Posts
Sorry, you seem to have confused the abortion discussion (which by the way you're a fucking moron on) with anything I just said in that post you quoted.
|
I wanted to jump on the bandwagon on finding you a moron.
Just reading you in this thread disgust me, the worst part being you seem to find yourself smart.
Amazing.
|
United States43764 Posts
In fact, closing this because the level of the points you're bringing ("why do you want to kill babies") is so incredibly degrading to the dignity of this the site and humanity as a whole that I just can't bear it. Maybe try commenting on YouTube videos.
You've let me down, you've let men down, you've let teamliquid down, but most of all you've let yourself down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
