How about Chula thinking babies dont have human rights? Or trying to justify circumcision by comparing it to cutting an umbilical cord?

Way ahead of you.

Definitely the most head-scratching element of this convo.

When you mutilate something, you cut it up with the intention to alter it so radically as to make it imperfect.
You cut off or maim in order to permanently destroy that which you are attacking (a limb, for instance).
This is synonymous with crippling, disabling, incapacitating, making lame, or maiming.
None of this happens when you circumcise (unless it goes horribly wrong: still not a circumcision problem).
It does happen when FGM is performed (hence: the "M").

Still subjective, given that "imperfect" is incredibly subjective.

but you agree with the rest of the paragraph, right?

I agree with this

And this

I won't agree with the rest because they're just opinions and they aren't relevant to discussions about definitions.

I do, however, disagree that this point even ****ing matters. Number 3, guys.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...eement.svg.png

Cutting off the most stimulating part of the penis probably makes it more perfect. Because cutting off things that inhibit sexual stimulation is good, right? That's why nobody has a problem with Female Genital Mutilation.

Oh.

As one of his biggest shit-givers, I totally agree.

He sounds like a dirty ****. Tell him to take two showers and call me in the morning.

*genius

Is there a difference between the way human babies heal compared to human adults that makes that anecdote "relevant"? Other than the fact that adults can vocalize their pain.

Did Chula just ask me to send nudes?

This exact conversation regarding use of the word mutilation was in the Tumblr, Otherkin, and Political Correctness Overkill thread 2 months ago.

It bore similarly poor fruit.

The political intent of language matters to some of us and to others, such intention carries less weight.

This is not an argument for circumcision. This is an argument against a toxic political movement that twists valid concerns into shadowy examples of sinister Progressivism. I tend to think of the issue as like being raised by religious parents. I'd rather it didn't happen and in some cases it can deprive a person of some measure of happiness in their adult life. But I'm not sure it's up for me to legislate the practice.

Kinda sad I missed much of this thread. Might go back through it but I reeaalllly don't want to try and watch the Red Pill again. And MGTOW... I am filled with pity.

As stated before, removing the foreskin also reduces sexual pleasure (and can decreases penis size). Again, this is not to equate the two. FGM's roots are more related to the intentional discouragement and reduction of sexual pleasure, whereas circumcision probably doesn't stem from the same subjugation. But it is a side effect that the baby couldn't consent to.

If we are going to talk about definitions, I think it's fair to say that the practice of circumcision comfortably falls within the parameters set out under "mutilation". That doesn't change just because the procedure has a different label attached to it.

And I don't really care if you have a problem with MRA's, anti-feminists or whatever. The issue is about babies having part of their penis cut off for no morally legitimate reason.

Proof?


Congrats on all of you for running circles around me. :beer:

No morally legitimate reason? Cutting part of a penis off? It's a completely useless piece of excess skin that can (in small instances) lead to health issues.

I have zero problem with my parents making the decision to have it done to me. I have zero problem with me a Linda having it done to our son.

So sorry some of you feel like my mom and dad, and me and my wife are some sort of barbaric jerks.

For the 1000000000 time, no one said that about you or thinks that. Not every criticism and discussion is about you or an attack of your personal experience. They are general discussions about controversial topics. Conceited af.

The morally legitimate reason is that its a cosmetic procedure and thats not something that falls under the parents decision to make as a guardian. See my tongue splitting example that you conveintently ignored.

Well, since I decided to have it done to my child, the negatism hits a bit personal.

It was 100% our decision and legal right under the law. And it was not done for cosmetic purposes. Keep up with my narrative for cripes sake. You keep slamming me for not keeping up with yours. Double standards?

Ignored because it was absolutley stupid. Same goes for the silicone breast implant analogy that Isborn put forth. (love you Isborn!)



Start running circles around me.

I found an article a few months back. It mentioned that in Africa males who were circumcised had a lower rate of contracting contracting HIV/getting AIDS. That should be the "morally legitimate reason" you are looking for. I don't considered it "mutilation" because the way male circumcisions are performed nothing else is damaged. The glan is not destroyed, removed, or sliced which is what happens to clitoris and other part with FGM.

Its clear at this point you dont even understand the discussion and arguments against your position. Also calling something stupid and not explaining why you think so is about as lazy as it gets. The tongue split was a perfectly comparable example but again youre clearly not understanding the discussion. Enjoy your night.

Pretty sure thats been debunked and for the 100th time: we arent trying to equate the 2 procedures.

^ :beer:

If it's debunked, could you provide a source. The information I got was from WHO.

WHO | Male circumcision for HIV prevention

The tongue split is a horrible example. I thought I responded to it but I don't see my post.

Body mods, piercings and tattoos are all things you need to be 18+ to have that are purely cosmetic.

Male circumcision isn't just purely cosmetic.

Stop trying to make me sound stupid. I'm not. Stop it.

We simply disagree.

They keep saying this yet they are the ones equating it ffs. Pretty much every poster defending circumcision has done it :D

Heterosexually acquired infections are very, very low risk anyway (I can't remember the exact number and it is disputed but it's something stupid like 0.06% per contact, and that's assuming the partner is HIV+ btw) so if that's supposed to be a good reason to get a circumcision it's retarded.

Try?

Ha ha ha, just joking Chula. I wasn't paying attention nor do I care what ya'll were talking about.

Goof was the first one to do it with his legal illegal comparison.

But which bit of my post isn't true?
We are 10+ pages on from that and we still have to point out that we aren't equating the two procedures. Not even Goofle did that. It's you lot doing it.

quite sure we discovered that wasn't the case last time we discussed that. i'm in a rush so i can't find the source but i'll post it after work.

Explain. And if youre going to argue about the pontential MINOR health risks associated with keeping it then why arent we removing tonsils and appendixes? Its cosmetic, you just dont want it to be because your position is ****ed without it.

Im just going off memory from last time this all came up. I can look but im swamped with work and finals today.

Minor health risks are the main reason that it became so popular and that doctors recommended it.

Yes, there are a minority that do it for religious purposes or they just don't like the way that it looks but those two reasons aren't the main reason it became acceptable in the states and other progressive areas.

You savages should all live together in the same place forcing your kids to keep their foreskin.

So your position is parents have the right to modify their childs body to prevent any potential minor health risks in the future? And again i ask what about tonsils and appendixes? By your reasoning those need to go to, you dont get to cherry pick, sorry.

Yes the difference between those other two organs that you mentioned is that they don't have to be removed til they become a problem. Circumcision is better done to a baby.

and neither does a foreskin.

Im still waiting for an explanation of the differences in the procedure for babies and grown men other than the fact that adults can bitch about the pain and babies cant. Is there a biological difference in the way babies heal?


Edit: I have to go to work now, but if you can justify your "it's better for babies" argument than I have nothing more to say, atm. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for being the only person to actually represent your position in a logically consistent way. You'll still have to explain the bolded though.

I don't have time to post the links but there are higher complications when doing it as an adult. It isn't about the healing process. Just more is likely to go wrong with the procedure. Will post links later.

Stop being ridiculous please, they wouldn't be forced to keep it. They would be free to have the circumcision - when they are old enough to decide for themselves.

I posted that to make fun of Goofle's melodramatic statements and whining over how brutal and mutilating it is.

Dude, you've said to me that you're not even necessarily against Female Genital Mutilation because you think the parents should be able to make decisions like that.

I'm happy to stand against both and have argued my reasons for it. If you would care to argue for these procedures, go ahead.

As somebody with a working foreskin, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the part of the penis with most nerve endings and response is the foreskin itself.

You don't have an experience without working foreskin to know how it feels to your current situation.

Also I only said that on what's app because yes I do believe that the parents should get to choose but not when it comes to FGM.

You and others on your side refuse to just let others have their opinion and let it be. MGM is fine and FGM isn't. It isn't some big equality issue to me either.

You're completely allowed to have your opinion, just like I'm completely allowed to disagree with you and point out why.