Political Crossfire Forums

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8310

mODULAR mAN wrote: (As if a god would need you to have your foreskin cut! :roll: )

Genesis 17: 9-13

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

mr.snruB wrote: The Comrade wrote: mr.snruB wrote:

Not if you wear an eyepatch. If you have an eye it could get stuff in it and become infected, or may require glasses. It's easier just to cut one out when you're a baby and just use an eyepatch or a glass eye

what about the other eye then?

and you have tear ducts to push things out of your eye.

Well you need at least one eye to see, but two is just a luxury, isn't it? And tear ducts won't push everything out. Better to be safe then sorry and just cut one out

Actually no, two eyes is necessary for binocular vision (i.e. the ability to see in 3-d). Not a luxury at all.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8310

eXploiTeD wrote: I take fault with how you've chosen to make your points, in other words.

Why? They're my points, and I've stopped arguing them since you've proven them faulty. No need to blame yourself for my actions, I take all the blame for my arguments.

That's how I operate: if I stop addressing something, then I've conceded the point...

or just become too frustrated to continue. :wink:

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

mr.snruB wrote: The Comrade wrote: mr.snruB wrote:

Well you need at least one eye to see, but two is just a luxury, isn't it? And tear ducts won't push everything out. Better to be safe then sorry and just cut one out

you don't need any eyes. seeing eye dogs and brail make it thus.

and like i said, taking out an eye leads to an increased risk of infection.

these rediculous hyperboles are getting old. come up with something that is relevant.

I told you, you can just wear an eye patch.

For good arguements against Circumcision, just watch the episode of the Penn&Teller show Bullshot on Circumcision

Hmm, I'm surely going to listen to two street magicians for medical advice. Maybe after that, I'll ask Harry Anderson for advise about heart disease....

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

perdidochas wrote:

Hmm, I'm surely going to listen to two street magicians for medical advice. Maybe after that, I'll ask Harry Anderson for advise about heart disease....

Ever read harry potter?

it's like the quintessential medical journal.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8310

The Comrade wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Hmm, I'm surely going to listen to two street magicians for medical advice. Maybe after that, I'll ask Harry Anderson for advise about heart disease....

Ever read harry potter?

it's like the quintessential medical journal.

If Harry Potter can have a scar on his forehead, why can't my son have a scar on his foreskin?

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

LostSoul3412 wrote:

If Harry Potter can have a scar on his forehead, why can't my son have a scar on his foreskin?

true. it wasn't harry potters choice to have that scar though.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

LostSoul3412 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: (As if a god would need you to have your foreskin cut! :roll: )

Genesis 17: 9-13

I know it's part of the mythology of the OT, but I still say a god wouldn't need foreskin cut.

Also, a god wouldn't get upset about a cartoon. :wink:

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8310

mODULAR mAN wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: (As if a god would need you to have your foreskin cut! :roll: )

Genesis 17: 9-13

I know it's part of the mythology of the OT, but I still say a god wouldn't need foreskin cut.

Also, a god wouldn't get upset about a cartoon. :wink:

Good thing we don't live in a theocracy. :wink:

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject:

This seems obvious. How the hell has there been 12 pages of this in 6 hours??

Yes, of course, there is nothing wrong with circumcision. WTF! It just one of those things where the parent makes a decision in the best interest of the child whilst the child is unable to make the decision. When I was 11, I didn't want braces either. They were ugly, hurt like f**k, and I was miserable, for a week. Now, my life is better for it. I am cosmetically better. Same thing with cutting the ol' skin off the weenie. Just makes it cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing, (This is important when the baby grows up and wants of have a girl for sex). What is the big deal?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8310

The Grandmaster wrote: This seems obvious. How the hell has there been 12 pages of this in 6 hours??

B-b-b-b-but...

OMGZ 4 T3H CHILDZ!

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:22 am Post subject:

LostSoul3412 wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: This seems obvious. How the hell has there been 12 pages of this in 6 hours??

B-b-b-b-but...

OMGZ 4 T3H CHILDZ!

What was your position on this. I don't want to read 12 pages. :lol:

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8310

The Grandmaster wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: This seems obvious. How the hell has there been 12 pages of this in 6 hours??

B-b-b-b-but...

OMGZ 4 T3H CHILDZ!

What was your position on this. I don't want to read 12 pages. :lol:

My opinion?

If it ain't your penis, it ain't your business.

Bonobo · Joined: 21 Aug 2006 Posts: 955 Location: London

LostSoul3412 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: (As if a god would need you to have your foreskin cut! :roll: )

Genesis 17: 9-13

I believe he was making a point on how laughable a document written by over 40 people a few millenia ago and translated into various languages is still taken word for word to assume that God gave us foreskin cause he wanted us to cut it off.

As for being scarred for life, you don't need to remember it to be scarred.

You can be raped as a 6 month old baby, you won't remember it but u can bet ur ass it will scar you.

As for the debate at hand, how ay of you can support a parent forceably deciding for that child that he will be symboled as a jew / orthodox christian / whatever the religion I don't know.

If my branch of Christianity demand edI tatoo a crucifix over my babies back, I would not be allowed to do this.

Not only for the pain reason, however becaus it would be labelling that child assomething for the rest of his life he may not want to be.

What is the problem with letting the child decide for himself? ALl of the pro circumcision people, you will just somehow try to ignore that you are forcing the symbol of your religion onto your child for life (one he may loathe when older), and that by allowing the child the choice you lose nothing but gain alot?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8310

Bonobo wrote: As for being scarred for life, you don't need to remember it to be scarred.

But if I don't remember it, and it's not against the law, then what's the problem?

Many children receive scars from birth, should we outlaw that as well?

Bonobo wrote: ALl of the pro circumcision people, you will just somehow try to ignore that you are forcing the symbol of your religion onto your child for life (one he may loathe when older), and that by allowing the child the choice you lose nothing but gain alot?

Christ, this is turning into an abortion debate!

No one is "pro-circumcision". No one here is support anything that requires mass circumcision.

Also, if you insist on debating the religious aspect of circumcision, then it must be done on the eighth day of life. Failure to do so, will result in a loss of the covenant, and afterward there is nothing to be gained for the infant.

Under your logic, should we outlaw baptism as well?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Bonobo wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: (As if a god would need you to have your foreskin cut! :roll: )

Genesis 17: 9-13

I believe he was making a point on how laughable a document written by over 40 people a few millenia ago and translated into various languages is still taken word for word to assume that God gave us foreskin cause he wanted us to cut it off.

As for being scarred for life, you don't need to remember it to be scarred.

You can be raped as a 6 month old baby, you won't remember it but u can bet ur ass it will scar you.

As for the debate at hand, how ay of you can support a parent forceably deciding for that child that he will be symboled as a jew / orthodox christian / whatever the religion I don't know.

If my branch of Christianity demand edI tatoo a crucifix over my babies back, I would not be allowed to do this.

Why not? What would stop it?

Bonobo wrote: Not only for the pain reason, however becaus it would be labelling that child assomething for the rest of his life he may not want to be.

And there is no law against that. If I want to tattoo 666 on my son's forehead, I can legally do so. I wouldn't, but there is nothing legally that can stop me (I'd probably have to buy my own tattooing equipment, though)

Bonobo wrote: What is the problem with letting the child decide for himself? ALl of the pro circumcision people, you will just somehow try to ignore that you are forcing the symbol of your religion onto your child for life (one he may loathe when older), and that by allowing the child the choice you lose nothing but gain alot?

Using your argument, it would also be illegal for me to carry my child to church, have him baptized at age two months, etc. Heck, it could also be argued that it should be illegal for me to enforce good behavior/manners on my child--after all, his choice might be to be a rude criminal, rather than a well-mannered honest citizen.

A parent has the right to make most decisions for their child. Anything else is an interference with a basic right--the right to reproduce and raise offspring. Evolutionarily, there is no right that is more important.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9045

The Grandmaster wrote: This seems obvious. How the hell has there been 12 pages of this in 6 hours?? I don't get it either GM.

Didn't we have a huge debate about circumcision a few months ago on these boards? I seem to recall being called a monster, disgusting, and a child abuser when I said I plan to circumcise any sons I may have in the future.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9045

Bonobo wrote: ALl of the pro circumcision people, you will just somehow try to ignore that you are forcing the symbol of your religion onto your child for life (one he may loathe when older), and that by allowing the child the choice you lose nothing but gain alot? What about those of us who will circumcise their sons, but not for religious reasons?

My religion has no stand for or against circumcision...but, I'll still circumcise my sons.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:26 am Post subject:

Enoch wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: This seems obvious. How the hell has there been 12 pages of this in 6 hours?? I don't get it either GM.

Didn't we have a huge debate about circumcision a few months ago on these boards? I seem to recall being called a monster, disgusting, and a child abuser when I said I plan to circumcise any sons I may have in the future.

Honestly. Braces can follow the same lines. Permanent change, painful, and usually done whether the kids want them or not. But in the end, it's for the better.

Bonobo · Joined: 21 Aug 2006 Posts: 955 Location: London

LostSoul3412 wrote: Bonobo wrote: As for being scarred for life, you don't need to remember it to be scarred.

But if I don't remember it, and it's not against the law, then what's the problem?

Many children receive scars from birth, should we outlaw that as well?

Bonobo wrote: ALl of the pro circumcision people, you will just somehow try to ignore that you are forcing the symbol of your religion onto your child for life (one he may loathe when older), and that by allowing the child the choice you lose nothing but gain alot?

Christ, this is turning into an abortion debate!

No one is "pro-circumcision". No one here is support anything that requires mass circumcision.

Also, if you insist on debating the religious aspect of circumcision, then it must be done on the eighth day of life. Failure to do so, will result in a loss of the covenant, and afterward there is nothing to be gained for the infant.

Under your logic, should we outlaw baptism as well?

How exacltly are you comparing circumcision to abortion?

To baptism at least I can see a slight connection. The comparison fails completely of course due to the fact that in 10 years time if the child \ teenager wants to revoke his faith he can with no permenant symbol there he can't get rid of.