Le Chop

LTO · Post by **LTO** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:55 pm

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:Yes, yes - you've provided that link already before. And NO, I don't believe it.

Why? Don't believe in science? Some creationist argument against it?
http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/w ... sk-of-hiv/

Advocatus Diaboli · Post by **Advocatus Diaboli** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:01 pm

Oh, I do believe in science. But in this case it's more likely that the US government is infiltrated by a bunch of ass poppers.

LTO · Post by **LTO** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:08 pm

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:Oh, I do believe in science. But in this case it's more likely that the US government is infiltrated by a bunch of ass poppers.

And think that kind of says it all.

vladimir · Post by **vladimir** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:12 pm

The point is, whether it has been scientifically proven later or not that circumcision has health benefits, 6000 years ago some sand-jockey thought he heard voices and people started surgically removing body parts from newborn kids without anaesthetic.

And then they call sand-jockeys of a different religion, who claim the same story nowadays, but for females, ignorant and barbaric.

Double standards. I think both practices are wrong, there are millions of uncircumcised healthy males around.

Just staying away from a promiscuous lifestyle/sticking with one partner, will protect you way more than circumcision.

So far no one's mentioned the poor women affected by this barbarism.

Advocatus Diaboli · Post by **Advocatus Diaboli** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:13 pm

LTO wrote: And think that kind of says it all.

What do you mean? Is it really a secret that the US is basically not governable anymore because of all its lobbyists ?

YouTube · Post by **General Mackevili** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:29 pm

vladimir wrote:
However, it also amazes me that we conveniently ignore the practice of circumcision which I also consider barbaric.

vladimir wrote:The point is, whether it has been scientifically proven later or not that circumcision has health benefits, 6000 years ago some sand-jockey thought he heard voices and people started surgically removing body parts from newborn kids without anaesthetic.

And then they call sand-jockeys of a different religion, who claim the same story nowadays, but for females, ignorant and barbaric.

Double standards. I think both practices are wrong, there are millions of uncircumcised healthy males around.

Just staying away from a promiscuous lifestyle/sticking with one partner, will protect you way more than circumcision.

So far no one's mentioned the poor women affected by this barbarism.

So you consider the modern, Hygienic method of circumcision to be barbaric, or are you only talking about the ones that took place 6,000 years ago (and the obvious naughty religious ones still going on today)?

vladimir wrote:
So far no one's mentioned the poor women affected by this barbarism.

Which women? I was thinking this thread was about male circumcision, which is what was stressed in your op.

vladimir wrote:
Just staying away from a promiscuous lifestyle/sticking with one partner, will protect you way more than circumcision.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "you don't need a Hep vaccine, just stay away from dirty water."

I still don't understand your stance on modern, hygiene circumcision. Yay or nay?

It kind of sounds like you're saying, "I agree it's a good idea to do, as it clearly has health benefits. However, since it was started by religious nutters thousands of years ago, I'm just going to condemn it now anyways."

vladimir · Post by **vladimir** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:38 pm

wtf? What have you been smoking?

I'm talking about circumcision, male or female (clitorectomy).

For males, if you haven't been circumcised and don't have multiple partners, why would you care about the health benefits?

I don't think you can compare drinking water (a necessity for survival) with gratuitous sex.

If you're not going to put yourself in danger of getting HIV/AIDS, why bother? Is there any other advantage of being circumcised?

The majority of people still do it because it has been done in their families for generations. It's done without anaesthetic, and without consulting the child, and you've seen some of the weird shit that goes iwth it, even under surgical conditions. You still need to ask if I approve of it?

I'll answer, just for you: NO.

Advocatus Diaboli · Post by **Advocatus Diaboli** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:55 pm

Thing is that the thought of removing a baby's foreskin to prevent HIV is faulty. Babies don't have sexual intercourse and just for that reason such an act of mutilation should not be accepted. They can do whatever they want once they are 18 respectively 21, but till then a parents job is to get them to the point to make free decisions and nothing else.

LTO · Post by **LTO** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:57 pm

Homophobia, racial epithets, hatred of religion, denial of science, US government conspiracy theories, false comparisons, abstinence and monogamy as public health policy to deal with the spread of HIV...this is all shaping up as a nice collection of worst possible arguments against circumcision.

Advocatus Diaboli · Post by **Advocatus Diaboli** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:03 pm

Say what you want.....I still wouldn't do it to my child.

Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Re: Le Chop

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: