|
Well, someone from 4chan started this idea up, and it grew some traction. Now, feminists have hi jacked the idea, trying to claim victory, using things like the mythical wage gap which is only there because women will never do underwater welding like a guy, and they are getting national media attention.
If feminists were for equality, they would call themselves "equalists", yet, they don't. Feminism implies femininity, not equality.
I think there should be a #Ineedequality hashtag, instead of either fem or masc..
|
"Are you only capable of shitposting?"
|
What a giant shit of a topic.
The wage gap isn't mythical lol.
Feminism is a large political area, there are a lot of varieties of feminists; some radical, some not so much.
You represent neither equality of genders nor that of masculine pride. This topic screams "misunderstood person" that both genders want to distance themselves from being relative to at all.
|
On February 10 2013 02:35 farvacola wrote:
"Are you only capable of shitposting?"
Oohhh harsh
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
Maybe you should stay at 4chan.
|
What is a cogent indictment of over-zealous feminism, for $2,000 dollars please.
Protip: Linking a single act that actually helps men as much as women is not a cogent indictment.
|
Hey, I just proved the mythical pay wage is is in fact, a myth. Can't deal with it?
|
On February 10 2013 02:51 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Hey, I just proved the mythical pay wage is is in fact, a myth. Can't deal with it?
That doesn't make it fucking mythical, that legitimizes it as a real and current problem IN AMERICA AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES
So real that they had to sign a bill to abolish parts of it and surrounding problems (Only in the USA).
Weak ass troll.
2. Imaginary; fictitious.
Read a fucking book. You don't sign bills to sign imaginary problems lol
|
United States22883 Posts
Do you have any idea what the Lilly Ledbetter Act does? Because the answer is not very much.
The wage gap isn't a myth, it's just becoming less and less relevant. It's a bad statistic because it's just an aggregate without controlling for job types, conditions, experience, etc. but the reason it exists is because there were such societal problems decades ago. Today, aside from in some specific industries, equally qualified employees of different sexes won't receive different pay. What they will receive is different treatment, which extends back to their days in education where young women are directed away from math and science fields, and young men are directed away from things like education. In the off-chance they do make it into those fields, they both receive unfairly discriminatory treatment in different ways. The difference is that it happens to men in low paying fields, it happens to women in high paying fields.
Regardless, I don't think that's what you're actually after. I think you're a young boy in search of an enemy, and feminism is an easy target because it sounds like it speaks directly against you (even though it doesn't.)
|
The first wave of feminism is okay, I'm cool with that. The 3rd wave is something new. Do you agree that mothers can only be biological and fathers can be only societal? Because that's how it is in France, right now. (The fact that it's illegal for fathers to get a paternity test should say something.)
|
On February 10 2013 03:25 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
The first wave of feminism is okay, I'm cool with that. The 3rd wave is something new. Do you agree that mothers can only be biological and fathers can be only societal? Because that's how it is in France, right now. (The fact that it's illegal for fathers to get a paternity test should say something.)
Tell me.
Which branch of feminism supports that viewpoint and which don't?
|
|
|
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/Types-of-Feminism/Types-Of-Feminism.htm
Waves are political movements, not types of political branches within.
I provided you a list of types of feminism and those are just the major ones.
Take a class. Try masculine literature and a course in introduction to sociology, political science and then anything related to women's rights or even gender studies.
I'm going to leave you with that and just move on because you learned to talk through your ass more so than with your mouth and consideration.
|
United States22883 Posts
The third wave is partially defined by being difficult to define. Anyone making overarching claims for third wave feminism is going to run into trouble, whereas you can for first and second.
Second, do you read any of the things you link?
|
On February 10 2013 03:47 Jibba wrote:
The third wave is partially defined by being difficult to define. Anyone making overarching claims for third wave feminism is going to run into trouble, whereas you can for first and second.
Second, do you read any of the things you link?
I scan and then get tripped up by cognitive bias a lot.
|
Halp! I'm bein' oppressed!
|
wurst blog
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S2gKwep.jpg)
|
God damn men have it so hard with all their problems for example ... well I suppose not.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nxeffJv.jpg)
Take this image. What do you think of it? Those ladies look a little too old to be touching that boy in his private parts. (This picture is trending hard, at the moment)
Now, imagine that the picture was a little different. Instead of two women and a little boy, picture two men and a little girl. What do you think of that situation?
If you think the kid is lucky, and the girl is unlucky, you are sexist. If you think both the girl and boy are unlucky, you're a humanist. If you think they are both lucky, well...
|
United States10107 Posts
>4chan. plz stay there instead of bring 4chan to teamliquid. this site is holy... unlike the devil that is 4chan.
|
I'm all for equality and it has gotten better, we haven't reached it yet though. However when people started to rename manhole covers because it was sexist I began to tune those people out. Nothing wrong with calling yourself a police officer or police woman, but when I've been called sexist for calling a MALE policeman a Police Man... sometimes things go a bit off the deep end. It distracts some people as it seems it has done to you about the reality that everything is not equal in the workplace for women yet. It's very close though and I'm happy with our progression in the last 30 years.
I guess I agree and Disagree with you. Also that picture disturbs me. I never thought Rachel Adams would do something like that. lol but seriously some things need to be thought about before they are photographed...
|
On February 10 2013 07:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Take this image. What do you think of it? Those ladies look a little too old to be touching that boy in his private parts. (This picture is trending hard, at the moment) Now, imagine that the picture was a little different. Instead of two women and a little boy, picture two men and a little girl. What do you think of that situation? If you think the kid is lucky, and the girl is unlucky, you are sexist. If you think both the girl and boy are unlucky, you're a humanist. If you think they are both lucky, well...
What the hell? For one, this picture is ancient, and two, who is saying the kid is lucky?
|
On February 10 2013 08:32 Beorning wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 07:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Take this image. What do you think of it? Those ladies look a little too old to be touching that boy in his private parts. (This picture is trending hard, at the moment) Now, imagine that the picture was a little different. Instead of two women and a little boy, picture two men and a little girl. What do you think of that situation? If you think the kid is lucky, and the girl is unlucky, you are sexist. If you think both the girl and boy are unlucky, you're a humanist. If you think they are both lucky, well... What the hell? For one, this picture is ancient, and two, who is saying the kid is lucky?
I'd say that the women are saying he's lucky, and the fact that the women have not been criminally charged with child molestation makes the police, maybe even the federal government, saying such a thing.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PAcKzJM.png)
Of course, male circumcision isn't mutilation, either. Only when it's done to female is it bad.
|
United States5162 Posts
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general.
|
On February 10 2013 09:09 Myles wrote:
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general.
My reasoning is that if "feminists" are really for "equality" then why make a word that implies femininity be considered for "equality", yet doesn't imply anything about masculinity? Why not just say, "I'm a humanist" or "I'm an equalist" or something.
But hey, if me being for equality makes you a sad panda, then I don't know...
|
On February 10 2013 09:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:me being for equality
What's the title of this post again?
Also re:that pic, We have a picture of a girl maybe touching a kid's crotch(doesn't really look like she is to me), and you're saying the government should be mobilizing to bring her to justice?
|
The title of this blog is the hashtag #Ineedmasculism, not because I need it, and you won't find me saying it in here, but because it has gotten national media attention for being hijacked by feminists.
Also, "maybe touching a kid's crotch"? Are you blind?
What do you think would happen if it was a picture of two men and a little girl? Do you think that the men would still be walking around without punishment like the women are? Do you honestly believe that?
|
On February 10 2013 09:32 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
The title of this blog is the hashtag #Ineedmasculism, not because I need it, and you won't find me saying it in here, but because it has gotten national media attention for being hijacked by feminists.
Also, "maybe touching a kid's crotch"? Are you blind?
What do you think would happen if it was a picture of two men and a little girl? Do you think that the men would still be walking around without punishment like the women are? Do you honestly believe that?
Yes? It's a picture on the internet, do you think the fbi is running face detection software on every picture of some guy touching a woman's chest? Anyways I don't feel like getting trolled any more.
What happened to banlings living up to their name?
|
On February 10 2013 08:45 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Of course, male circumcision isn't mutilation, either. Only when it's done to female is it bad.
You should try to understand what words mean before you use them.
|
On February 10 2013 09:43 Beorning wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:32 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
The title of this blog is the hashtag #Ineedmasculism, not because I need it, and you won't find me saying it in here, but because it has gotten national media attention for being hijacked by feminists.
Also, "maybe touching a kid's crotch"? Are you blind?
What do you think would happen if it was a picture of two men and a little girl? Do you think that the men would still be walking around without punishment like the women are? Do you honestly believe that? Yes? It's a picture on the internet, do you think the fbi is running face detection software on every picture of some guy touching a woman's chest? Anyways I don't feel like getting trolled any more. What happened to banlings living up to their name?
You do realize that the FBI will arrest people for even having a single picture of child pornography on their computer, right?
Also, if the situation was different, it's two men and a little girl, not a man and a woman. If it was a picture of a man fondling a girls breasts, then I guess the woman was alright with it, unless it shows her trying to actively get away from the guy or something.
Think of back when the first feminists popped up. If they had the social media we had today, and they made a hashtag #Ineedfeminism, don't you think they would've been publicly attacked, even physically? (Some) men were very opposed to the idea of a woman being able to vote and other things.
What you see in the hashtag #Ineedmasculinity is feminists attacking the other gender for wanting "equal" rights. Again, however, masculinity can not be for equality in a pure sense because the same reason why feminism isn't equality: It implies only one gender, leaving out the other.
|
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge
|
On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge
You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy.
Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not?
http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf
|
On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge
I also am not advocating masculinity, I am advocating equality. At least we can agree on that.
|
On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf
they're not equivalent at all, except for the name. You should know what words mean. For what it's worth, I do think that male circumcision is unethical, but comparing it to female circumcision is totally disingenuous and you are a fool to suggest there is any meaningful equivalence.
If you had any idea how many fights I've gotten into with feminists, you would not call me this. You are a substanceless reactionary, don't try to play the "I'm rubber, you're glue" game with me, son.
|
On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf
what? Are you trying to compare circumcision to getting your tubes tied and confusing what the latter is? Or where Circumcision comes from and that it wasn't done to women... or... do you think Circumcision is getting a vasectomy? You are comparing two things that don't relate with each other. You are aware that "female circumcision" isn't a professional medical procedure right? ... I'm not sure what you don't understand about the topic you yourself brought up but its a pretty large misunderstanding.
|
|
|
At risk of getting involved in this thread ...
In addition to what was said above - the procedures that are termed male circumcision and female circumcision are actually functionally very different - there is also a huge movement in the US against male circumcision (being one of the few remaining countries where male circumcision is still prevalent). I'm pretty sure there's a big TL thread about circumcision, as well - ight want to have a look at that before you take another stab at claiming to know what people think.
Feminism as a political idea is about subverting established power structures like gender, but also things like race and social hierarchies. I don't know what "masculism" can possibly mean in relation to this, but the word, as it exists, and the concepts it's supposed to portray hurt my brain a little.
|
Did you guys know there are different types of FGM? As stated in the link...
There's a type where it's impossible for the woman to have a child, but there are types where it removes sexual sensation. Removing foreskin also takes away from sexual sensation. Both, for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin without his permission should be considered assault or something equivalent, if circumcising girls is illegal.
|
On February 10 2013 10:46 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Did you guys know there are different types of FGM? As stated in the link...
There's a type where it's impossible for the woman to have a child, but there are types where it removes sexual sensation. Removing foreskin also takes away from sexual sensation. Both, for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin without his permission should be considered assault or something equivalent, if circumcising girls is illegal.
Except girls don't have foreskins. I don't see why you're trying to equalise two procedures which apply to different body parts on different people.
On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf
If you think drawing unanalogous parallels, making illogical inferences, and bringing up irrelevant points constitute an "intellectual argument", then I have bad news for you son.
|
While it's true that society often treats men and women differently, in the end it all works out and we are all equals.
|
On February 10 2013 15:22 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 10:46 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Did you guys know there are different types of FGM? As stated in the link...
There's a type where it's impossible for the woman to have a child, but there are types where it removes sexual sensation. Removing foreskin also takes away from sexual sensation. Both, for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin without his permission should be considered assault or something equivalent, if circumcising girls is illegal. Except girls don't have foreskins. I don't see why you're trying to equalise two procedures which apply to different body parts on different people. Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf If you think drawing unanalogous parallels, making illogical inferences, and bringing up irrelevant points constitute an "intellectual argument", then I have bad news for you son.
Men and women have the same genitalia, in a sense. The female equivalent to the male foreskin is the clitoral hood. If you honestly think otherwise, get laid.
|
#Ineedtostayon4chan
or learn how to use my brain
|
On February 10 2013 20:52 sAsImre wrote:
#Ineedtostayon4chan
or learn how to use my brain
Hey, why don't you use your brain to come up with an argument instead of only being able to throw ad hominens? Do you even know what I'm after? Probably not...
|
Twitter is actively banning accounts the responds to any tweet attacking either #IneedMasculism or #IneedMasculismBecause
So much for equality, huh.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rUhk9SO.png)
#IneedMasculism because I shouldn't be censored by corporations.
#IneedHumanism because a gender-implied word shouldn't be the standard.
|
On February 11 2013 02:50 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Twitter is actively banning accounts the responds to any tweet attacking either #IneedMasculism or #IneedMasculismBecause
So much for equality, huh.
This is actually retarded.
But hey Twitter have a monopoly in "convenient ways to share my retarded, self-important ideas and shitty jokes with the world" so they can pull whatever kind of shit they want, because at the end of the day, people are still going to use Twitter.
|
Thank God for Ross Parkas. If it weren't were for his brave tweet "#IneedMasculism, they've moved me to the back of the e-bus", well, I just don't know how men would get to e-work or e-school without discrimination.
|
On February 11 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote:
Thank God for Ross Parkas. If it weren't were for his brave tweet "#IneedMasculism, they've moved me to the back of the e-bus", well, I just don't know how men would get to e-work or e-school without discrimination.
You're a guardian now
|
Not even the feminists could stop my ascent into the skies.
|
|
|
The problem with feminism is that it usually becomes quite extreme. The name is fitting in this case, because it has sort of the same problem "Yeah we want females to have it better, making them more equal to men... but the ACTUAL GOAL is equality". So the name isn't completely unfitting, but it's "extreme" and misrepresents the actual goal.
Sweden happens to be one of the most gender equal countries in the world... do you think that means we don't have extreme feminists? Nope. It just keeps going, becoming more and more extreme. In Swedish, like in English, we have gender-based pronouns: He and She (Han, Hon). Feminists in Sweden dislike this, because for some reason, indicating someones gender is bad. So they made up a new word, Hen, which is supposed to be gender neutral. It sounds retarded, but these people actually use it to such a degree that it has started to show up in newspapers etc... Fucking ridiculous. It's only a matter of time until people will literally become offended if you use the proper words.
If feminists renamed themselves equalists and became a bit more rational and worked for the goals which actually matter, such as the wage gap, they would get far more followers and have far more impact... instead, they are busy whining about pronouns.
|
On February 11 2013 19:39 Tobberoth wrote:
The problem with feminism is that it usually becomes quite extreme. The name is fitting in this case, because it has sort of the same problem "Yeah we want females to have it better, making them more equal to men... but the ACTUAL GOAL is equality". So the name isn't completely unfitting, but it's "extreme" and misrepresents the actual goal.
Sweden happens to be one of the most gender equal countries in the world... do you think that means we don't have extreme feminists? Nope. It just keeps going, becoming more and more extreme. In Swedish, like in English, we have gender-based pronouns: He and She (Han, Hon). Feminists in Sweden dislike this, because for some reason, indicating someones gender is bad. So they made up a new word, Hen, which is supposed to be gender neutral. It sounds retarded, but these people actually use it to such a degree that it has started to show up in newspapers etc... Fucking ridiculous. It's only a matter of time until people will literally become offended if you use the proper words.
If feminists renamed themselves equalists and became a bit more rational and worked for the goals which actually matter, such as the wage gap, they would get far more followers and have far more impact... instead, they are busy whining about pronouns.
feminists =/= gender theorists
|
On February 11 2013 19:39 Tobberoth wrote:
The problem with feminism is that it usually becomes quite extreme. The name is fitting in this case, because it has sort of the same problem "Yeah we want females to have it better, making them more equal to men... but the ACTUAL GOAL is equality". So the name isn't completely unfitting, but it's "extreme" and misrepresents the actual goal.
Sweden happens to be one of the most gender equal countries in the world... do you think that means we don't have extreme feminists? Nope. It just keeps going, becoming more and more extreme. In Swedish, like in English, we have gender-based pronouns: He and She (Han, Hon). Feminists in Sweden dislike this, because for some reason, indicating someones gender is bad. So they made up a new word, Hen, which is supposed to be gender neutral. It sounds retarded, but these people actually use it to such a degree that it has started to show up in newspapers etc... Fucking ridiculous. It's only a matter of time until people will literally become offended if you use the proper words.
If feminists renamed themselves equalists and became a bit more rational and worked for the goals which actually matter, such as the wage gap, they would get far more followers and have far more impact... instead, they are busy whining about pronouns.
I feel your pain on the "Hen" thing.
It was briefly discussed in Go'Morgen Danmark (Good morning Denmark).
We had a good laugh about the absurdity of it and moved on.
|
On February 10 2013 15:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 15:22 Ianuus wrote:On February 10 2013 10:46 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Did you guys know there are different types of FGM? As stated in the link...
There's a type where it's impossible for the woman to have a child, but there are types where it removes sexual sensation. Removing foreskin also takes away from sexual sensation. Both, for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin without his permission should be considered assault or something equivalent, if circumcising girls is illegal. Except girls don't have foreskins. I don't see why you're trying to equalise two procedures which apply to different body parts on different people. On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf If you think drawing unanalogous parallels, making illogical inferences, and bringing up irrelevant points constitute an "intellectual argument", then I have bad news for you son. Men and women have the same genitalia, in a sense. The female equivalent to the male foreskin is the clitoral hood. If you honestly think otherwise, get laid.
Erm, no it isn't. Then again, I wouldn't really expect someone who thinks that getting laid is the best way to understand anatomy to come up with a coherent argument, so I'll let you off the hook this time  Nice ad-hominem though, it's nice to see people who aren't afraid to use ad-hominems to spice up an argumen- On February 11 2013 00:16 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Hey, why don't you use your brain to come up with an argument instead of only being able to throw ad hominens? Do you even know what I'm after? Probably not... -oh wait, nevermind.
On February 11 2013 02:50 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Twitter is actively banning accounts the responds to any tweet attacking either #IneedMasculism or #IneedMasculismBecause
So much for equality, huh.
Yes, I'm sure that this has nothing to do with all the trolls who are using #IneedMasculism to troll uptight feminists.
On February 11 2013 03:36 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:#IneedMasculism because I shouldn't be censored by corporations. #IneedHumanism because a gender-implied word shouldn't be the standard.
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.
P.S. I'm pretty sure you don't know what humanism actually means.
|
On February 10 2013 15:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 15:22 Ianuus wrote:On February 10 2013 10:46 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Did you guys know there are different types of FGM? As stated in the link...
There's a type where it's impossible for the woman to have a child, but there are types where it removes sexual sensation. Removing foreskin also takes away from sexual sensation. Both, for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin without his permission should be considered assault or something equivalent, if circumcising girls is illegal. Except girls don't have foreskins. I don't see why you're trying to equalise two procedures which apply to different body parts on different people. On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf If you think drawing unanalogous parallels, making illogical inferences, and bringing up irrelevant points constitute an "intellectual argument", then I have bad news for you son. Men and women have the same genitalia, in a sense. The female equivalent to the male foreskin is the clitoral hood. If you honestly think otherwise, get laid.
If there are people uneducated enough who think this, is why #ineedfeminism. I honestly thought most people learned in kindergarden how boys and girls are different but ok.
|
|
|
There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two.
As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point?
|
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/Foreskin
In 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?
|
On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two. As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point?
Cutting the foreskin desensitizes the dick. If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart. It also causes physical pain which causes trauma at SUCH AN EARLY AGE.
They are both done for cleanliness, for "muh religion", while women are currently "castrated" or their vag stitched up, feminists are advocating the complete castration of all males.
http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/10/12147695-all-men-should-be-castrated-international-castration-day
That may not be a media corporation, but if you simply google "all men should be castrated", you'll find some real support. Now, unless you're cool with that, then go ahead and castrate yourself.
|
On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:
There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two.
As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point?
They are both forced genital cutting on children. Both violate a person's right to intact genitals. The reasons given to justify the two are nearly identical. They are listed side by side here, on a site defending girls from forced genital cutting:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
|
On February 12 2013 03:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two. As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? Cutting the foreskin desensitizes the dick. If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart. It also causes physical pain which causes trauma at SUCH AN EARLY AGE. They are both done for cleanliness, for "muh religion", while women are currently "castrated" or their vag stitched up, feminists are advocating the complete castration of all males. http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/10/12147695-all-men-should-be-castrated-international-castration-dayThat may not be a media corporation, but if you simply google "all men should be castrated", you'll find some real support. Now, unless you're cool with that, then go ahead and castrate yourself.
I'm not 100% sure why I'm responding to this but I'm kind of bored today so here goes.
It's hard to tell whether or not male circumcision actually does anything to the sensitivity of the penis since comparative studies are next to impossible to perform. And even if such a study was to be done (an adult male who experiences sex while uncircumcised and then get a circumcision) would not be helpful since men who had circumcisions at birth would have different experiences. Since the actual enjoyment of sex comes from the stimulatio of the head and not the foreskin it's possible that circumcised men enjoy it more then uncircumcised men. But because we will never know all we are left with to discuss is does male circumcision prevent men from enjoying sex. Since it doesn't (and if you google some anecdotal evidence that completely proves me wrong then I will google some anecdotal evidence that proves me right) there goes that reason. As far as pain goes I don't imagine there being anything more painful for a human being then being squeezed through a birth canal while your skull literally compresses in on itself (see I can random wikipedia links in as well). And yet somehow not just the cesarean babies turn out to be ok later in life. Human psyche has no problems dealing with pain at SUCH AN EARLY AGE (don't know why that's capitalized). And besides most babies don't even really feel the pain of circumcision since nowadays the area is numbed before the circumcision is performed. So there goes that argument too. Are there no good arguments against male circumcision? There certainly are. It seems that the foreskin helps guard against STDs (especially UTIs) but if you just raise your son right that shouldn't be a problem anyways. And as far as doing unnecessary medical procedures and the risks that come with it there is that too but that's up to the parents to decide what is and isn't necessary for hygienic, aesthetic, and spiritual purposes.
Female circumcision is a whole different ball game and I just don't see the need to argue that any further.
I'm not going to google "all men should be castrated" in order to find out the validity of it. I'm also not going to google "moon landing faking","Sandy Newton faking", or "undeniable evidence of Bigfoot". The internet gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Sally if you're a feminist), a soapbox. Doesn't mean that I have to go listen to them.
And finally not that this has anything to do with anything but
If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart
I actually am a scientist so I must be so smart?
|
On February 12 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:
There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two.
As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? They are both forced genital cutting on children. Both violate a person's right to intact genitals. The reasons given to justify the two are nearly identical. They are listed side by side here, on a site defending girls from forced genital cutting: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
Here's a list of everything that I feel like i need to know about circumsicions as has been proven by modern western medical knowledge:
Necessery?
Male...no
Female...No
Dangerous in the short term?
Male...no
Female...YES!!!
Harmful in the long term?
Male...no
Female...YES!!!
As far as the right of children to intact genitals...meh. Children certainly have rights but I believe that parents have more rights. I think that a parent's immediate spiritual needs trumps the possible discontent of the future child (as long as the child's life isn't endangered etc...). And again it's almost as if you're saying that every circumcised boy will be unhappy with the state of his genitals 20 years down the line. Trust me that's not true. So nope, still not a double standard in the western world. Sorry.
|
On February 12 2013 04:38 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote:On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:
There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two.
As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? They are both forced genital cutting on children. Both violate a person's right to intact genitals. The reasons given to justify the two are nearly identical. They are listed side by side here, on a site defending girls from forced genital cutting: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html Here's a list of everything that I feel like i need to know about circumsicions as has been proven by modern western medical knowledge: Necessery? Male...no Female...No Dangerous in the short term? Male...no Female...YES!!! Harmful in the long term? Male...no Female...YES!!! As far as the right of children to intact genitals...meh. Children certainly have rights but I believe that parents have more rights. I think that a parent's immediate spiritual needs trumps the possible discontent of the future child (as long as the child's life isn't endangered etc...). And again it's almost as if you're saying that every circumcised boy will be unhappy with the state of his genitals 20 years down the line. Trust me that's not true. So nope, still not a double standard in the western world. Sorry.
I did not say that every circumcised boy will be unhappy with the state of his penis. Not every girl is unhappy with having her genitals cut either. In fact many believe it is good and necessary. Your "proven by western medical knowledge" is rather meaningless because there is a big dearth of studies on the long term effects of male genital cutting. As far a short term harm, in the US the reported deaths hover at around 100 per year. Then there are the "successful" cases where they cut so much skin that the penis cannot accommodate an erection without bending, and hair from the scrotum is pulled up the shaft. I'm amazed that you think surgery, which you admit is unnecessary, on a healthy child is OK because it "fulfills the spiritual needs of the parent". Only if the child is male, of course. Or is it my right to make cuts on my daughter's genitals so long as they weren't life threatening, and I were fulfilling my spiritual needs?
|
On February 12 2013 04:25 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two. As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? Cutting the foreskin desensitizes the dick. If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart. It also causes physical pain which causes trauma at SUCH AN EARLY AGE. They are both done for cleanliness, for "muh religion", while women are currently "castrated" or their vag stitched up, feminists are advocating the complete castration of all males. http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/10/12147695-all-men-should-be-castrated-international-castration-dayThat may not be a media corporation, but if you simply google "all men should be castrated", you'll find some real support. Now, unless you're cool with that, then go ahead and castrate yourself. I'm not 100% sure why I'm responding to this but I'm kind of bored today so here goes. It's hard to tell whether or not male circumcision actually does anything to the sensitivity of the penis since comparative studies are next to impossible to perform. And even if such a study was to be done (an adult male who experiences sex while uncircumcised and then get a circumcision) would not be helpful since men who had circumcisions at birth would have different experiences. Since the actual enjoyment of sex comes from the stimulatio of the head and not the foreskin it's possible that circumcised men enjoy it more then uncircumcised men. But because we will never know all we are left with to discuss is does male circumcision prevent men from enjoying sex. Since it doesn't (and if you google some anecdotal evidence that completely proves me wrong then I will google some anecdotal evidence that proves me right) there goes that reason. As far as pain goes I don't imagine there being anything more painful for a human being then being squeezed through a birth canal while your skull literally compresses in on itself (see I can random wikipedia links in as well). And yet somehow not just the cesarean babies turn out to be ok later in life. Human psyche has no problems dealing with pain at SUCH AN EARLY AGE (don't know why that's capitalized). And besides most babies don't even really feel the pain of circumcision since nowadays the area is numbed before the circumcision is performed. So there goes that argument too. Are there no good arguments against male circumcision? There certainly are. It seems that the foreskin helps guard against STDs (especially UTIs) but if you just raise your son right that shouldn't be a problem anyways. And as far as doing unnecessary medical procedures and the risks that come with it there is that too but that's up to the parents to decide what is and isn't necessary for hygienic, aesthetic, and spiritual purposes. Female circumcision is a whole different ball game and I just don't see the need to argue that any further. I'm not going to google "all men should be castrated" in order to find out the validity of it. I'm also not going to google "moon landing faking","Sandy Newton faking", or "undeniable evidence of Bigfoot". The internet gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Sally if you're a feminist), a soapbox. Doesn't mean that I have to go listen to them. And finally not that this has anything to do with anything but Show nested quote + If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart I actually am a scientist so I must be so smart?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
CONCLUSIONS:
The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
As a humanist, forcing this procedure on a person against their will is illogical and wrong. It has no basis other than
>muh feelings
Which is funny, because those who have been circumcised have less feelings because they've been cut off, against their will. (for the most part)
|
How is mutilation of babies' genitals legal in 2013? :O
|
And a new study was just published this month about the importance of the male foreskin in male sexuality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
If you are truly interested in defending genital integrity for males, please keep it separate from your attacks on females. Some of the most vocal opponents of male genital cutting are women. The rates are dropping in the US largely due to the effort of mothers who are doing their own research and educating each other.
On February 12 2013 05:35 BadBinky wrote:
How is mutilation of babies' genitals legal in 2013? :O
Not only legal, it is big business. The procedure costs anywhere from $200 to $1000, and the amount of baby boys cut in the US is around 1 million per year. It is still covered by government insurance in many states.
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526
We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis.
I wish forums were peer reviewed also.
Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal.
|
On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526Show nested quote +We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal.
I don't personally know any females who are unhappy with their genitals being cut. How is that relevant? It is still an important issue. If I sarcastically called forced genital cutting of "poor little girls" an "amazing injustice" I would get flamed and maybe even banned. Keep pretending there is no double standard.
|
On February 10 2013 15:22 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 10:46 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Did you guys know there are different types of FGM? As stated in the link...
There's a type where it's impossible for the woman to have a child, but there are types where it removes sexual sensation. Removing foreskin also takes away from sexual sensation. Both, for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin without his permission should be considered assault or something equivalent, if circumcising girls is illegal. Except girls don't have foreskins. I don't see why you're trying to equalise two procedures which apply to different body parts on different people. Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf If you think drawing unanalogous parallels, making illogical inferences, and bringing up irrelevant points constitute an "intellectual argument", then I have bad news for you son.
I don't care about the argument in this thread, but stop calling people son. It makes you sound like an idiot and it's just a stupid and condescending thing to call people.
|
On February 12 2013 07:22 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal. I don't personally know any females who are unhappy with their genitals being cut. How is that relevant? It is still an important issue. If I sarcastically called forced genital cutting of "poor little girls" an "amazing injustice" I would get flamed and maybe even banned. Keep pretending there is no double standard.
I am not pretending that there is no double standard there is no double standard. I can't believe that this has to be spelled out for you but ok here goes. The main difference between female circumcision and male circumcision is this: Female circumcision is overwhelmingly performed in cultures where women are considered second class and sexual norms are very different and by western standards backwards. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex and therefore the genital mutilation is fine since in the eyes of those cultures they don't do anything to women that women don't "deserve." In those same cultures women don't have any power to talk differently and if they speak out and say that sex is painful for them then they will be told that's how it's supposed to be and their only job is to please their husbands and having enjoyment from sex is sinful. The medical procedure itself is also dangerous and needs to be performed by trained medical professionals (which if they are trained medical professionals they will usually refuse to do the procedure anyways). So it is extremely dangerous for a class of citizens who families usually don't care about anyways. Those people need others to intervene on their behalf. On the opposite end of a spectrum is male circumcision. A practice that has been done for thousands of years to males. Trust me if men suffered from circumcisions we'd hear about it. They don't. Period. So no there is no double standard. One is a serious issue that has to be addressed and hopefully eradicated the other is a triviality that people with nothing better to do obsess about.
If modern age has proven anything it's that if you said you had a way to end all suffering on earth and bring eternal peace and bliss to everyone there would sprout a "serious" movement of people who would be against eternal bliss because it infringes on my personal right to be miserable. Enough of this phony activism. Aren't there enough real problems in the world?
|
I don't feel like I'm educated enough on the subject to claim whether circumcision should be accepted or not, but arguing that it's "fine because it's been done that way for a long time" is pretty dumb :p There are dozens of examples of really stupid practices that are still considered acceptable 'only' because it's been that way for a long time, even though everyone knows it's stupid.
|
Everyone should have autonomy over their own body. I think it's the most important fundamental human right.
|
On February 10 2013 09:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:09 Myles wrote:
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general. My reasoning is that if "feminists" are really for "equality" then why make a word that implies femininity be considered for "equality", yet doesn't imply anything about masculinity? Why not just say, "I'm a humanist" or "I'm an equalist" or something. But hey, if me being for equality makes you a sad panda, then I don't know...
What a stupid argument. The reason the word is 'feminism' is because the movement started at a time when women were considered to have vastly less rights and opportunities, thus it made sense to approach gender equality starting with women's issues (being perceived as greater in magnitude and number). Regardless, the goal of the movement (at least by definition) is still only equality for women... Which, if you're not an idiot, is quite obviously the same as equality for men, at least regarding issues which involve both sexes.
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the feminist movement either, but that argument is terrible.
|
On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526Show nested quote +We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal.
"Significantly" here is the key word. Still reduces the pleasure. So, it's okay to literally reduce the pleasure of sex for one gender, but not the other, in your eyes? So barbaric.
On February 12 2013 09:16 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:09 Myles wrote:
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general. My reasoning is that if "feminists" are really for "equality" then why make a word that implies femininity be considered for "equality", yet doesn't imply anything about masculinity? Why not just say, "I'm a humanist" or "I'm an equalist" or something. But hey, if me being for equality makes you a sad panda, then I don't know... What a stupid argument. The reason the word is 'feminism' is because the movement started at a time when women were considered to have vastly less rights and opportunities, thus it made sense to approach gender equality starting with women's issues (being perceived as greater in magnitude and number). Regardless, the goal of the movement (at least by definition) is still only equality for women... Which, if you're not an idiot, is quite obviously the same as equality for men, at least regarding issues which involve both sexes. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the feminist movement either, but that argument is terrible.
If the movement is only for the equality of women, where the fuck is equality for men? Honestly, is that what you think? Do you not know that in France, if a mother wants to say that someone is her child's father, getting a paternity test isn't exactly legal? And that fatherhood is defined socially, not biologically, which it is for mothers? Shit like that is not making sure men are protected in the process, it completely leaves them out of the equation, or puts them on the other side of the positive aspects for the movement.
http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france
In India, I believe, there's a recent law passed stating that a women can divorce her husband within 24 hours and take 50% of his property. The husband, however, is fucked, because he can't do the same. I guess they should be trolled and mocked and trivialized when they stand up for themselves, which is funny, because that's what women usually look for in a man. I'll see if I can find the video coverage, but it was in a different language, so I can't remember the title.
|
On February 12 2013 09:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal. "Significantly" here is the key word. Still reduces the pleasure. So, it's okay to literally reduce the pleasure of sex for one gender, but not the other, in your eyes? So barbaric. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:16 Swede wrote:On February 10 2013 09:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:09 Myles wrote:
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general. My reasoning is that if "feminists" are really for "equality" then why make a word that implies femininity be considered for "equality", yet doesn't imply anything about masculinity? Why not just say, "I'm a humanist" or "I'm an equalist" or something. But hey, if me being for equality makes you a sad panda, then I don't know... What a stupid argument. The reason the word is 'feminism' is because the movement started at a time when women were considered to have vastly less rights and opportunities, thus it made sense to approach gender equality starting with women's issues (being perceived as greater in magnitude and number). Regardless, the goal of the movement (at least by definition) is still only equality for women... Which, if you're not an idiot, is quite obviously the same as equality for men, at least regarding issues which involve both sexes. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the feminist movement either, but that argument is terrible. If the movement is only for the equality of women, where the fuck is equality for men? Honestly, is that what you think? Do you not know that in France, if a mother wants to say that someone is her child's father, getting a paternity test isn't exactly legal? And that fatherhood is defined socially, not biologically, which it is for mothers? Shit like that is not making sure men are protected in the process, it completely leaves them out of the equation, or puts them on the other side of the positive aspects for the movement. http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-franceIn India, I believe, there's a recent law passed stating that a women can divorce her husband within 24 hours and take 50% of his property. The husband, however, is fucked, because he can't do the same. I guess they should be trolled and mocked and trivialized when they stand up for themselves, which is funny, because that's what women usually look for in a man. I'll see if I can find the video coverage, but it was in a different language, so I can't remember the title.
You didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote. Equality for women IS equality for men. Spend 10 seconds thinking about that sentence. If women have equal rights in the workplace what do men have...? Equal rights. It's implicit in the original statement.
I'm not debating that feminism has taken a lot of things too far. I'm just debating your specific argument regarding the word 'feminism'. If you want to talk to people read what they say and respond to what they say. Don't just barrage people with facts and stats which are irrelevant (to the specific point). That's exactly what crazy feminists do (or just crazy people in general).
|
The saddest thing about this thread is that the ridiculous "I'm a man and I'm okay with the status quo, and I don't understand why some people aren't" flag-waving is detracting from an issue that is actually worth discussing, which is - what rights should parents have over their children's bodies?
Obviously, there's medical proxy, and male circumcision is still categorised as a medical procedure. Whether it should be a medical procedure or not is certainly debatable - the most prevalent for the latter would probably be that given contemporary first world health standards, the number of incidents of disease and infection that surgical circumcision was historically designed to prevent is almost negligible. On the other hand, plastic surgery is an accepted type of medical procedure which, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the "health" of the individual. It's also worth noting that there are many cases of children born in with minor physical abnormalities where the parents have made the executive decision to have them surgically corrected long before the child has any cognition of it - is that an acceptable practice? Why? Why not?
|
To fight for women's rights is not fighting for men's rights. It's funny, men's is spelled wrong, while women's right wrong. Lol.
They are not ensuring protection for men, in case there is legislation against men. Which, in parts of the world, THERE IS.
To fight for equality is to fight for equality, not women's or men's right, just rights for fucking everyone.
But hey, trivialize people who fight for men's rights around the world some more, just like the feminists did with the hashtag. Make it a joke when men stand up for themselves. That's feminism, that's how the media and the nation has perceived the hijacking, just some big joke.
Yet, if people were to do the same to the other hashtag, they'd be insta-banned and shit would go down.
|
|
|
On February 12 2013 09:45 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
To fight for women's rights is not fighting for men's rights. It's funny, men's is spelled wrong, while women's right wrong. Lol.
They are not ensuring protection for men, in case there is legislation against men. Which, in parts of the world, THERE IS.
To fight for equality is to fight for equality, not women's or men's right, just rights for fucking everyone.
But hey, trivialize people who fight for men's rights around the world some more, just like the feminists did with the hashtag. Make it a joke when men stand up for themselves. That's feminism, that's how the media and the nation has perceived the hijacking, just some big joke.
Yet, if people were to do the same to the other hashtag, they'd be insta-banned and shit would go down.
Sigh. It's not a difficult concept but you're still not getting it. Fighting for equality for one sex on issues where both men and women are involved IS fighting for equality for both sexes. Do you know what equality means? If one sex is equal then both are. It's not fucking hard.
Your original argument was to do with the root of the word. I am showing you why that argument sucks balls. It has nothing to do with what's happening today. It's simple semantics. Get some arguing skills. You're as bad if not worse than any feminist I've debated with.
|
On February 12 2013 09:10 BadBinky wrote:
Everyone should have autonomy over their own body. I think it's the most important fundamental human right.
That's why you gotta slice 'em up while they're young and weak!
|
On February 12 2013 10:11 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:45 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
To fight for women's rights is not fighting for men's rights. It's funny, men's is spelled wrong, while women's right wrong. Lol.
They are not ensuring protection for men, in case there is legislation against men. Which, in parts of the world, THERE IS.
To fight for equality is to fight for equality, not women's or men's right, just rights for fucking everyone.
But hey, trivialize people who fight for men's rights around the world some more, just like the feminists did with the hashtag. Make it a joke when men stand up for themselves. That's feminism, that's how the media and the nation has perceived the hijacking, just some big joke.
Yet, if people were to do the same to the other hashtag, they'd be insta-banned and shit would go down. Sigh. It's not a difficult concept but you're still not getting it. Fighting for equality for one sex on issues where both men and women are involved IS fighting for equality for both sexes. Do you know what equality means? If one sex is equal then both are. It's not fucking hard. Your original argument was to do with the root of the word. I am showing you why that argument sucks balls. It has nothing to do with what's happening today. It's simple semantics. Get some arguing skills. You're as bad if not worse than any feminist I've debated with.
"Equality for one gender is equality for both genders."
I just can't stop laughing.
|
On February 12 2013 10:21 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 10:11 Swede wrote:On February 12 2013 09:45 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
To fight for women's rights is not fighting for men's rights. It's funny, men's is spelled wrong, while women's right wrong. Lol.
They are not ensuring protection for men, in case there is legislation against men. Which, in parts of the world, THERE IS.
To fight for equality is to fight for equality, not women's or men's right, just rights for fucking everyone.
But hey, trivialize people who fight for men's rights around the world some more, just like the feminists did with the hashtag. Make it a joke when men stand up for themselves. That's feminism, that's how the media and the nation has perceived the hijacking, just some big joke.
Yet, if people were to do the same to the other hashtag, they'd be insta-banned and shit would go down. Sigh. It's not a difficult concept but you're still not getting it. Fighting for equality for one sex on issues where both men and women are involved IS fighting for equality for both sexes. Do you know what equality means? If one sex is equal then both are. It's not fucking hard. Your original argument was to do with the root of the word. I am showing you why that argument sucks balls. It has nothing to do with what's happening today. It's simple semantics. Get some arguing skills. You're as bad if not worse than any feminist I've debated with. "Equality for one gender is equality for both genders." I just can't stop laughing.
Finish this sentence:
If women are equal to men then men are...
|
Finish this sentence:
If circumcision for females is illegal and legal for male, this is _____
See, they fought for women's rights, but not men's rights.
|
On February 12 2013 09:44 khaydarin9 wrote:
Obviously, there's medical proxy, and male circumcision is still categorised as a medical procedure. Whether it should be a medical procedure or not is certainly debatable - the most prevalent for the latter would probably be that given contemporary first world health standards, the number of incidents of disease and infection that surgical circumcision was historically designed to prevent is almost negligible. On the other hand, plastic surgery is an accepted type of medical procedure which, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the "health" of the individual. It's also worth noting that there are many cases of children born in with minor physical abnormalities where the parents have made the executive decision to have them surgically corrected long before the child has any cognition of it - is that an acceptable practice? Why? Why not?
In the case of physical abnormality, it is more grey. With cutting off of the foreskin however, we are treating as pathological a body part that every male is born with. Since this is a case of unnecessary plastic surgery, I feel it is very wrong to do it to someone who is too young to refuse. There is nothing preventing someone from getting their genitals cut as an adult. A person should have the right to refuse unnecessary plastic surgery on their own body. Infant girls are protected from this by law, while males are not.
|
On February 12 2013 11:19 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Finish this sentence:
If circumcision for females is illegal and legal for male, this is _____
See, they fought for women's rights, but not men's rights.
Sigh. This is a waste of time.
|
Imagine thinking that everything is a zero-sum game.
|
On February 12 2013 10:11 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:45 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
To fight for women's rights is not fighting for men's rights. It's funny, men's is spelled wrong, while women's right wrong. Lol.
They are not ensuring protection for men, in case there is legislation against men. Which, in parts of the world, THERE IS.
To fight for equality is to fight for equality, not women's or men's right, just rights for fucking everyone.
But hey, trivialize people who fight for men's rights around the world some more, just like the feminists did with the hashtag. Make it a joke when men stand up for themselves. That's feminism, that's how the media and the nation has perceived the hijacking, just some big joke.
Yet, if people were to do the same to the other hashtag, they'd be insta-banned and shit would go down. Sigh. It's not a difficult concept but you're still not getting it. Fighting for equality for one sex on issues where both men and women are involved IS fighting for equality for both sexes. Do you know what equality means? If one sex is equal then both are. It's not fucking hard. Your original argument was to do with the root of the word. I am showing you why that argument sucks balls. It has nothing to do with what's happening today. It's simple semantics. Get some arguing skills. You're as bad if not worse than any feminist I've debated with.
You clearly haven't debated with very many feminists, but I think that's for the better, if you wish to remain sane. 
Although I find it kind of sad that just because this guy doesn't know how to legitimately argue everyone in this thread is conveniently ignoring the issues he's bringing up. Whether it's denial or feminist propaganda, it doesn't really matter, just wait until you get dragged through court by some crazy chick who you had consensual sex with who changed her mind 2 weeks later and wants to press charges for "rape". (just an example of the multiple injustices being committed against men that would NEVER be seen as serious if coming from the other side) 
|
|
|
On February 12 2013 11:51 koreasilver wrote:
Imagine thinking that everything is a zero-sum game.
Delivers again.
I think OP is just a--oh, and please forgive the esoteric language--shit poster. Also the proud OP of the recently-closed general thread on the asteroid that had been proven to be of absolutely no hazard whatsoever weeks ago.
On February 12 2013 11:29 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:19 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Finish this sentence:
If circumcision for females is illegal and legal for male, this is _____
See, they fought for women's rights, but not men's rights. Sigh. This is a waste of time.
Basically my sentiments after going through the thread and hitting this point. This is not a discussion, despite whatever is going on in the fantasy land inside his mind. This is him trying to promote a ludicrously uninformed agenda while being completely oblivious to all the counterarguments, qualifications/elaborations on his statements, and generally a brick wall as far as conversation goes. It's like he just learned what a double standard was. Must refer back to koreasilver's cogent comment on apparently only seeing everything as a zero-sum game.
|
Just wait until you get raped by some guy and no one will believe you and/or everyone just thinks you're a slut.
Injustices surrounding rape are not gender-specific.
EDIT: I worded that poorly. I meant: injustices surrounding rape happen to both sexes.
|
On February 12 2013 18:03 Aerisky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 11:51 koreasilver wrote:
Imagine thinking that everything is a zero-sum game. Delivers again. I think OP is just a--oh, and please forgive the esoteric language--shit poster. Also the proud OP of the recently-closed general thread on the asteroid that had been proven to be of absolutely no hazard whatsoever weeks ago.
Shitposting. ^^
I like how you attack me, yet provide nothing of intellectual value to the argument. Continue being a useless shitposter some more.
It is not equality to fight for women's right yet ignore men's right. When male circumcision is illegal, just like it is for females, then there will be equality on that subject. To fight exclusively for women's right is not fighting for men's right. How is making circumcision for females illegal yet not for males equality? Oh wait, shitposters can't explain that.
Did women fight for men to be included in the legal definition of rape? Nope, but hey, fighting for women's rights is equality.
What about men's right to abortion?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833
Just gotta let them know before, that's all. They don't get to say, "Hey, now wait a fucking minute, that's my child, as well."
|
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_hoodShow nested quote +
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/ForeskinShow nested quote +In 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. Show nested quote +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". Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On February 12 2013 19:10 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 12 2013 19:18 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 12 2013 19:29 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 12 2013 19:33 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On February 12 2013 19:44 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
On February 12 2013 20:07 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 States42421 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 States42421 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 States42421 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
