This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 164165166 167168 ... 520
4951
« on: April 23, 2016, 01:54:52 PM »
4952
« on: April 23, 2016, 01:31:53 PM »
Butthurt about what? What am I butthurt about? I'm butthurt because I simply don't care whether you get your kid circumcised or not, and I don't care about this ruling? Why is that butthurt?
In my experience on the Internet, it's usually the first person to use the word "butthurt" who is actually the butthurt one, because it shows that you're unwilling to accept different viewpoints--so you project your own frustrations onto other people, because you don't have anything better to say. No Verb, I'm not suggesting you're butthurt because you disagree with me or hold a different opinion. I'm saying it for two reasons. For one, the tone and content of your first post. You're not just disagreeing or voicing how you not care about this, nor are you actually giving a different viewpoint. You're making a mockery out of valid points and going on the offense for no reason whatsoever while simply dismissing people who do care about something they consider unjust. Your post screams salt and is no different from someone coming into a thread on veganism by going "LOL PUSSIES JUST MAD BECAUSE CANT HANDLE MEAT". Regardless of whether it's true, it comes across as a deflection based on an inability to actually address the concerns at hand. Secondly, this is so unlike you. For whatever reason, this topic turns you into a supporter of pseudoscience and bullshit points. It changes your normal logical rundowns into what's essentially ">2016 wormdicks still caring about peens lol sad". You seem to abandon and go against many things you've claimed before and even people who share your philosophy like Eggsalad are dumbfounded by this sudden transformation. So no, I don't think your butthurt because of your opinion. I think you're butthurt because every single time this topic comes up it changes your behavior and turns you from a generally sound and logical debater into whatever this is. So I wouldn't use that word--and you've used it many, many times already--because I could just as easily claim that you're butthurt because you weren't circumcised. Would that be useful or productive? No, because unlike you, this topic doesn't change me. It's something I care more about than other things, like I am with gun control and legal stuff, but it doesn't affect how I behave. Besides, if I wanted to I could walk into a hospital tomorrow morning and be home with a circumcised penis a few hours later. I could easily change this about myself, if only I wanted to. Those who had the procedure done as a baby however, they don't have the opportunity. It's irreversible and you're never getting back what you lost, nor will you ever even know what it's like. I still have the choice to go either way. Circumcised people don't. Logically speaking, it would be a lot more likely to assume someone stuck with a choice made for him is upset about it than the guy who still has the opportunity to go either way. Either way, butthurt might not be the right word. But the point is that for some reason, you seem unable to deal with this topic in the way you deal with pretty much everything. It really does change you, which is something I've noticed ages ago. And going by the amount of people calling you out and upvoting my previous post, I don't think I'm the only one who notices a change in behavior. Exactly--so, there's a number of things you can do to help make that kid's life a little bit more comfortable. A lot of these things are mandated, like vaccines--a lot of them are optional, like circumcision. Only, it doesn't make life more comfortable. It's painful and the benefits do not outweigh the downsides. Medicine almost unanimously agrees. If you don't want your kid to go through life having a slippery cheesy slug hanging off his dick for the rest of his life, you have the option of relieving him of that burden. Comments like this really only show how ignorant you are about this topic. But the point is that he's never going to make the decision himself when he's older Who would've thought that men are generally reluctant to have someone cut away one of the most sensitive parts of their penis that is causing them no trouble at all and will likely result in a loss of sexual pleasure and functionality with it removed? This is nothing but an argument in my favor.[/quote] and you're overall better off without it. Again, the medical community almost entirely disagrees. As for any pain or suffering involved in the procedure, the little baby is not going to remember any of it, anymore than he's going to remember having his skull crushed just so it can squeeze out of its mother's vagina. So the infliction of unnecessary suffering is fine if it's not remembered. Gotcha. There are reasons, and you've put the baby through enough imposition already as it is, so one more decision on your part (that he's not going to remember) isn't going to amount to much more than a better looking, cleaner, and healthier penis. It's not like you ever have to go through it again. Again, your statements are just wrong and stand up to no scrutiny at all. "Why not cut off your left hand? It's better looking, you don't have to keep it clean and it's infinitely more healthy because nothing can go wrong with it. Sure, there's downsides, but think of all the benefits. Right here, you're trying to play with my emotions by using this grisly imagery, and it's kind of a bullshit way to argue, isn't it? Yeah, that really is. Just preemptively covering the "tiny painless procedure over in 2 minutes" argument that often comes up. This post got 6 likes for no reason. "Flee agrees with me! I'm gonna like it!" All right, guys. I'd argue it got 6 likes because your otherwise logical viewpoint is now clouded for whatever reason and because you're simply wrong, likely acting out of self preservation. Find me a case where a patient remembers his circumcision, and you'll have a point. But you don't. Numerous psychological studies have discovered subconscious effects and found that it can lead to longer lasting effects and behavioral issues among children. Besides, so what? He doesn't remember the suffering so hurt him, it's no biggy. You can keep calling it useless, but I'm sorry--that doesn't make it useless. You're right, it's not useless. Just stupid. Cutting off someone's legs isn't useless either. He can never break those bones anymore and is completely immune to any conditions or illnesses that could affect his legs. Wonderful, isn't it? The point is that the downsides outweight the almost negligible benefits to the point that calling it useless isn't so far off. And there are many problems, complications, and sufferings for the ones who don't get circumcised, as well. Usually later in life, but they're still there and very possible. It's a trade-off. Yes, but as far as I'm aware these are generally less frequent and less problematic than the complications coming from circumcision. I love that I was circumcised, and I will never not love that. All I'm doing right now is explaining that there are benefits to circumcision, and there can be consequences later in life to not getting circumcised. To deny either would be very trite and populist of you.
Only thing is that I'd never deny either of them. Like I mentioned above, get rid of any body part and you'll have benefits. The whole point is that all but one national medical organizations in the developed world agree that the benefits do not outweigh the downsides. For you to deny that and somehow think that you know better than the general international consensus is very strange.
4953
« on: April 23, 2016, 09:52:02 AM »
That was beautiful and moving. I'm not crying though, I just got some dust in my eye.
4954
« on: April 23, 2016, 09:14:50 AM »
The only one I see online right now is me.
4955
« on: April 23, 2016, 07:21:54 AM »
I sure wish I could pvp at all
DS3 PVP is already pretty laggy as it is, so it might not be that much worse for you. It feels pretty different from DS1 and DS2 with there being a lot of phantom range even in good connection fights and noticeable delay between every attack actually hitting and registering.
4956
« on: April 23, 2016, 04:31:17 AM »
Hardy har har.
You're ranked #5.
The last thing my favorite needs is more attention.
It's okay man, you don't have to say it. I hear ya. <3
oh
4957
« on: April 23, 2016, 03:43:46 AM »
The last thing my favorite needs is more attention.
It's okay man, you don't have to say it. I hear ya. <3
4958
« on: April 22, 2016, 03:08:05 PM »
Mega Dragonite.
Flying / Dragon.
Ability: Hyper Charged (use Hyper Beam without having to recharge the next turn)
Moveset: Hyper Beam.
Everything you could ever need. Become unstoppable.
4959
« on: April 22, 2016, 10:55:06 AM »
I thought this was going to be about our Turkey. You know, the hurtful one.
4960
« on: April 22, 2016, 10:25:29 AM »
>worm dicks
How does it feel knowing my pee pee is prettier than yours?
It's amazing how quickly people get salty and butthurt over this topic, especially when no one is calling them out.
but worm dicks are the only ones that ever bring up this topic
Eh, not really. They typically have no reason to complain. Perfectly healthy and got themselves a bunch of extra nerve endings, functionality and erogenous tissue to enjoy. I personally just take interest in the legal status of the procedure after researching it for a class on health law. From my experience, the people who are most likely to bring it up are either those who actually care about the morality and ethics of medicine along with human rights in general, or those who have had it done to them (or did it to their child) and feel it was a mistake. Most of the outspoken anti-circumcision movements in the US seem to be primarily fueled by circumcised men unhappy with what was done to them. Besides, it's not that important who brings it up. It's the attitude towards the issue. And "haha le wormdicks so mad cuz ugly peen" is the kind of reaction that just screams salt and butthurt. Regardless of where you stand, actually and properly debating or just discussing this is the intelligent and rational way of forward. But dismissing and avoiding perfectly valid opinions and concerns by trying to get others to feel bad? "You condemn painful and medically unnecessary genital mutilation so you must be mad wormdick lol". Just like many other hot political topics, it's such a shame people always have to turn it into us vs them. Forget science, forget facts, forget logic and reason. They're saying something different from what I've been grown up to believe, so they must be wrong / mad / stupid / jealous. Fuck the other side and fuck the truth when it could be different from my opinion! How nice things could be otherwise.
4961
« on: April 22, 2016, 09:10:28 AM »
>worm dicks
How does it feel knowing my pee pee is prettier than yours?
It's amazing how quickly people get salty and butthurt over this topic, especially when no one is calling them out.
4962
« on: April 22, 2016, 07:16:58 AM »
I guess I'm a bit biased, you make plenty of good points. That's fine, as long as people are open to learn. On principle, I would be against it, as its an unnecessary modification, but I'm personally glad I never had to worry about getting it done later in life. Fair enough. No one is telling you to feel bad about it. If your happy with how things turned out then that's great for you and I'm not here to argue against that. All people want is to leave the choice to the person it's being done to. It's painful, unnecessary and while not often to a dramatic extense, it does come with a lot of risks and possible side effects. We have a foreskin for a reason, even though it's not as relevant as it once was. It protects the glans and helps it develop properly, it keeps it hydrated and prevents it from drying it out, it stops it from rubbing up against clothes and losing sensitivity, it provides additional lubrication, friction and rolling motions during sex to increase pleasure for both parties, it holds thousands of erogenous nerve endings and has been called the area that is the most sensitive to fine touch in the entire male genital area and so forth. So while you definitely should not feel bad about your situation, I do think it's reasonable to leave this decision up to the person itself and not make such an irreversible choice for him. I just hate how people pick and choose what issues of consent matters. If the human citizen has the right to decide what happens to their own body, then that's a constant maxim. I get your point, but I feel like it should lead to you condemning the procedure too. You're obviously a strong supporter of consent, even when it comes to children. So the logical opinion I feel would be to not perform serious medical procedures that violate that consent unless there is a good reason to, right? Some procedures and actions should definitely not be okay (tattooing your baby or cutting off one of its ears because you think it looks nice), while others definitely should be (performing surgery on a child that will save his life). Just because you feel like the flu vaccine falls in the not okay category doesn't mean that the same should apply to circumcision. It's entirely possible to oppose or support flu shots for whatever reason, and still disagree with the practice of circumcision because it is a painful and unnecessary violation of bodily autonomy without consent. I also think you kind of underestimate the effects of the surgery. As I already described above, it is considered one of the most painful neonatal procedures done on infants. Newborns are known to go into catatonic shock because they simply can't handle the pain. There's videos and pictures of the procedure out there that I can dig up, but it's not for the squeamish. The quick rundown of how circumcisions are usually performed is this. Spoiler First, the child is strapped down in a harness. Its legs, arms and chest are secured so that it can't move at all. Then, the foreskin is forcibly separated from the glans. Naturally, they slowly separate after years of the child's life when it has performed its first purpose of protecting the glans from infection and helping it develop properly. In infants, these two body parts are still fused together. Think of it as how your nail is attached to your finger. At this point, the doctor inserts a pair of forceps under the foreskin and tears it away from the head. This is comparable to having shoved in between your finger and nail so it can be ripped off. Then, once its separated, two more forceps are used to stretch the foreskin to a point at or beyond its limit so that an incision can be made along the length of it, allowing it to be peeled back to expose the bleeding glans fully. At this point in a child's life, the glans has not been able to develop yet. It is not supposed to see the light of day. It is nothing but pure raw nerve endings that, like a real open wound, cause extreme pain just to be touched lightly. Now, the doctor applies what is called a plastibell tool. It's a little bell shaped tool that is placed tightly over the glans so that then the foreskin can be peeled back over it. Next, they tie a ligature around the plastibell at the bottom of the glans. This literally crushes the lower part of the remaining foreskin to a pulp. Following this, they "trim" around the edge and scrape or cut away the remaining skin. Finally, they leave the bell in place for a while so that the intense pressure and compression causes the remaining tissue to necrose and literally die. This still commonly happens without any anesthesia because it's just an infant that won't remember and because newborns are not ideal recipients for sedation.
4963
« on: April 22, 2016, 05:30:11 AM »
The flu vaccine is hardly a broad societal concern, it's more or less there for convenience, and far from necessary. I'm not talking about flu vaccines. I don't know if I ever got one myself. I figured this was about actually important vaccinations for things like polio, pox, hep A/B and such. The reason we give newborns circumcisions is that they're even worse to perform on an adult. Which is completely irrelevant. You would have a point if we HAD to be circumcised at one point in our life, or even if a large portion of men would later be forced to be circumcised or face a lot worse. This absolutely isn't the case, as perfectly illustrated by extremely low circumcision rates at later ages in pretty much the entirety of the developed world outside of the US, and by the lack of higher UTI / penile cancer / HIV rates in those countries compared to the US. I'd agree you with if there was any reason at all to assume men HAVE to be circumcised at one point in their lives or if there even existed compelling evidence to suggest a large portion of them would have to be. In that case, it would be better to perform it on infants. But that isn't so. And as I'm sure almost every logical and reasonable person would agree with, the choice between A: excruciating pain as an infant and B: excruciating pain never is an easy one. Circumcisions and tattoos aren't nearly the same, one actually serves a puroose beyond looks. Uncircumsized penises are far easier to get dirty and infected, tattoos have no purpose whatsoever. Terrible analogy.
That is factually incorrect. The dirtier part is a non-issue given access to clean running water (which I assume we all do) and the "far easier to get infected" part is rejected by most of the medical community, with numerous studies actually finding that circumcisions increase the odds of those complications occuring during infancy. So no, it doesn't serve a purpose. But even if I humor your argument, it still falls short. Say you're right and it is dirtier and easier to get infected. This would justify cutting it off, right? Well, why don't we cut off some other parts too? Plenty of body parts we don't need and that pose significant risks. I mean, why not cut off earlobes or a few unimportant toes? They can get dirty, they can get cut, they can infect. You can break the bones in your toe and there's a myriad of possible things that could go wrong with it. Plus, it really doesn't serve that much of a purpose anyways. Why not just cut it off? Why not open the baby up and take out the appendix while we're at it. Or your teeth. Sure, it's a bit of an inconvenience not being able to eat solid foods anymore, but so what? Plenty of shakes and liquid meals out there. And just imagine all the benefits! No more having to brush your teeth twice a day, just think of all the time you'd save! No more painful visits to the dentist, no more money wasted on toothbrushes and tooth paste. It's definitely cleaner because, well, there's nothing to keep clean and the chance of tooth pain and possible afflictions has been reduced to zero because you don't have teeth anymore! Pull them all, I say! Every single argument in favor of circumcision I've ever heard falls short by a mile. It is a barbaric practice, a major violation of bodily integrity and genital mutilation. The supposed benefits are so small and so heavily contested in medicine that they're pretty much negligible, while the risks, complications and downsides are very real and well documented. And even if there were some small benefits to it, they'd be so tiny that they wouldn't justify the procedure, as supported by pretty much every single national medical health organization in the entire developed world. We don't know everything yet and it's definitely true that some aspects of circumcision are still unclear and debated, but the more we know and the more is discovered, the fewer things actually seem good about the procedure. The only reason anyone should refrain from supporting a complete ban is that it would drive the surgery underground where it would be done in clandestine and less than desirable circumstances instead of by medical professionals in a hospital. But aside from that, I really can't see how anyone who is usually so concerned with the morality of things as you are can argue against this procedure. I could write an entire post about how the actual reason people still support it is rooted in self preservation, but I don't think that would do anyone any good.
4964
« on: April 22, 2016, 04:10:24 AM »
It's almost like infants can't remember anything that happens shortly after birth Date rape is okay. As long as you drug the girl before passing her around to your friends so that she won't remember kicking and screaming while being held down and raped when she wakes up, everything is fine. No memory of specific events, no foul. Animal abuse of certain species is just fine. Dogs have a short term memory of only a few minutes while chimpanzees can't even remember things happening half a minute ago. Beat or hurt it as much as you'd like, they'll have forgotten all about it soon. They can't remember it anyways, so causing them excruciating pain is just fine. No memory of specific events, no foul. It's unneccesary, but objectively better than not getting the procedure. The virtually unanimous verdict of all national medical organizations in the world disagrees with you and has decades of medical research on its side. I would show you, but I've seen you dismiss so much of Turkey's research because you claim those people are just biased/bought to promote things like GMO's that I don't think any of it will change anything.
4965
« on: April 22, 2016, 04:06:49 AM »
I guess we should stop vaccinating our kids until they're old enough to make an informed decision about it. Terrible analogy to make an even more terrible point. One is a routine prick of a needle for major public health issues that'll stop the child from potentially contracting and spreading serious diseases. It's a tiny sting that leaves no lasting pain, has virtually no possible complications and has benefits that drastically outweigh the downsides. The other is an almost entirely cosmetic and invasive surgery. It is by definition genital mutilation and is an extremely painful, brutal and unnecessary procedure with little to no benefits and a whole lot of possible downsides and complications. Not a single official medical health organization in the world thinks it should be done routinely and all but one (heavily biased and contested) aside, they unanimously claim that the benefits do not even come close to outweighing the cons. I love how now one gives a shit about consent and the right to your own body until this one issue comes up.
That is because this is almost no different from tattooing your child. The issue of consent does not come up with most medical procedures because there is good reason to not listen to what the child has to say, as the benefits drastically outweigh the downsides or the procedure is simply necessary to treat the chlid. But here, you're subjecting an infant to an extremely painful, unnecessary and irreversible procedure for almost entirely cosmetic or religious reasons. Calling it child abuse is rather strong, but there's a point to it.
4966
« on: April 22, 2016, 03:56:06 AM »
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to go after distributors and retailers? Unless the manufacturers are those in this case.
Or what about the folks that the dude got the gun from?
Maybe in other cases where there was clear neglect from the seller, but not in this one. In this case, the shooter simply used his mother's guns who obtained them all legally, so there's really no point in going after the seller who did notthing wrong here.
tbh I think this whole thing is just shitlibs wanting someone to sue but they cant sue the dead mother, so they make some retarded claims and go after Cerberus because they have all that sweet corporate money to take.
I'd say it has more to do with them just wanting to hold someone responsible. Not that it isn't possible they're in this for the money as well, but I think it's more likely that because every party directly involved is now dead and unaccountable, they're just looking for at least someone to take the blame and to feel vindicated that they've at least managed to do something after what happened. It's likely to fail and I don't even know if I'm on their side here, but it should be an interesting case nevertheless.
4967
« on: April 22, 2016, 03:51:58 AM »
Holy shit, what the fuck? Literally an emotion based trial. You don't go after the knife manufacturer after a serial killer gets caught. Gun manufacturers should have absolutely zero legal liability.
Again, they're not suing the gun manufacturer just because the tool he made was used to commit a crime. They're claiming that the specific way the gun is designed, made and especially marketed made it particularly appealing for the shooter to commit the crimes he wanted. For your example of the knife manufacturer it would mean that they're going after him not just because his knife was used by a serial killer, but it because it had features that would make it especially attractive for one (anti-fingerprint coating, hardened tip so it wouldn't break if it hit bone, easy to get human blood out of it..) and that it was marketed specifically at people with violent tendencies.
4968
« on: April 21, 2016, 04:50:59 PM »
And if it isn't, you should just get it cut off entirelly for being that lazy.
Relevant image is relevant and actually addresses several pro-circumcision arguments pretty well.
4969
« on: April 21, 2016, 04:47:07 PM »
They've been given the green light to sue, doesn't mean they'll win. I don't anticipate they will.
Yeah, I would rate their chances slim too. But it's going to be interesting to see nevertheless. The fact that this is actually going to court is pretty big on its own, and I'm curious to see what arguments the claimants will present.
4970
« on: April 21, 2016, 04:46:04 PM »
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to go after distributors and retailers? Unless the manufacturers are those in this case.
Or what about the folks that the dude got the gun from?
Maybe in other cases where there was clear neglect from the seller, but not in this one. In this case, the shooter simply used his mother's guns who obtained them all legally, so there's really no point in going after the seller who did notthing wrong here.
4971
« on: April 21, 2016, 03:06:35 PM »
I don't think the burden should be shifted to gun manufacturer's when they have no power over the lives of their customers. That's about as silly to me as punishing match manufacturer's for arson fires or car manufacturer's for bank robbers using their car to escape.
Well, in this case they're not suing the manufacturer just because it made a product used in a crime. They're suing because they believe that these guns are designed, made and marketed in such a way that they're more likely to be used in mass shootings like this. For your examples, the exaggerated but more appropriate comparison would be that the matches came in a box together with all the other materials used to burn down buildings and said "the real arsonist's choice" on them, while the getaway car was marketed as a tool specifically to escape police because of things like a built in police radio scanner, studded tires for spike strips, hidden compartments under the seat to hide stolen goods in and so forth. Very exaggerated, yes, but that's what the claimants are going for here instead of just suing because they happened to have made a random product used in a crime.
4972
« on: April 21, 2016, 02:50:59 PM »
I thought you were inexorably concerned about the idea of something suffering. Is ability to remember it necessary? If pain is inherently bad why is memory necessary? Does this now exclude simple animals that don't have the ability to reflect on pain cognizantly? If hypothetically I were to harm someone but be able to erase their memory of it without issue is that now not a big deal?
This I don't understand either. The biggest takeaway from Verb's posts has always been that all suffering is intrinsically bad and that it should be avoided at pretty much all costs. It's the reason why we should all be vegan and stop reproducing, so that we can prevent theoretical humans of the future from ever suffering and that we can minimise the suffering inflicted to all things alive right now. It's the entire reason why Verb sees things the way he does and why holds his political beliefs. I really don't see how his attitude here is compatible with his philosophy. I mean, this isn't about him actively fighting against the practice, blogging about the horrors of circumcision, or even considering it a priority at all. He doesn't even have to care about it much. But his response now? Not even condeming the completely unnecessary infliction of a tremendous amount of pain, suffering and risk of complications on defenseless and completely innocent, non consenting human beings or viewing it as something negative, but instead responding to it with mockery? Verb, the most "if you don't hate something objectively bad you're a fucking asshole" person I've ever known is now being condescending and hostile towards people who condemn suffering and want to see it gone? The only possible explanations are that he's simply unaware, which I can't see being the case because this conversation has been had many times before, or that he actually is a little emotional and by lack of better word "butthurt" about this.
4973
« on: April 21, 2016, 02:09:38 PM »
>my penis is cleaner than yours
>my penis is less likely to get an infection than yours
All of the other points aside, these things are simply untrue or very heavily contested. Honestly, you actually sound a bit butthurt here, which I find very surprising. These people are already born and are being born every few seconds, that's a reality. So if we for one second ignore your "but no consent to birth, anti-natalism go" argument (that really isn't too relevant here in the first place), I really don't see how you can be opposed to this. The ultimate point of your philosophy which I've seen time and time again is that "suffering is bad, avoiding suffering is good". Well, an infant comes into existence. It's there. Nothing to do about that, you can't shove it back and hope it just goes away at this point. That is the reality of things and no matter how loud someone screams ANTINATALISM, that isn't going to change. From my perspective, the only logical step forward in your philosophy would be to minimize pain and suffering for the existing situation. Make things as close to perfection as possible for all living things while advocating others not to conceive more people. So in what possible way could you justify taking this baby, strapping it to a table, crushing and stretching one of its most sensitive body parts to beyond its breaking point and then cutting it off for absolutely no real reason whatsoever? Studies on his have shown that circumcision is the single most painful neo-natal procedure that is done on infants. It impairs maternal bonding, it has been known to literally make the baby turn blue because it's running out of oxygen due to how hard it's crying and there are even reports of infants falling in catatonic shock because they simply can't handle the pain. It has a myriad of possible side effects and complications that can occur both during the procedure and within the months afterwards. So tell me, how is this justifiable? If for one second you actually acknowledge the reality that babies are being born right this very second and will continue doing so, even though antinatalism is, according to you, the best philosophy and that "lol lack of consent with something like this is meaningless compared to the lack of consent to life" does not change anything about this fact. How can you, the single most driven and spirited proponent of "suffering is intrinsically bad and should be avoided at all costs" I've ever met, sit here and shrug this off because of anecdotal bullshit like "hey it happened to me but I'm fine now"? This is an extremely invasive and painful procedure. It is, by definition, genital mutilation. Not a single national medical organization in the world suggests it to be done routinely and literally all but one of them say that the benefits most definitely do NOT outweigh the risks and downsides. This isn't a vaccination, where you give a child a tiny prick of pain to prevent much worse, nor is it a necessary procedure to address genuine and serious medical concerns. It is an entirely cosmetic, painful and very often harmful procedure on non-consenting humans. I'm not an expert on antinatalism, but from what I've come to understand its primary argument is that life is suffering, suffering is bad and that suffering should as such be avoided. It's why you're a vegan too, as to not make living creatures suffer any more than they have to. I may be wrong here, but seems to me like it's pretty solid so far. Yet, despite all of this, you're so willing to not condemn a painful and useless procedure that inflicts a tremendous amount of pain on living and born human beings. And I'm not even wondering why you're not here to "rally for the cause" or even care a lot about this issue. Those things take time and effort, and there's so much shit going on that I understand this doesn't even come close to being a priority. But for you to not even condemn it? For you to simply mock those who do care about the painful genital mutilation of newborns and dismiss valid concerns because "le wormdicks mad cuz my peen is the best" and other salty and generally wrong reasons? That I really don't understand. Sure, it's relatively minor and sure, it pales in comparison to the lack of consent to being born. But regardless of that, it does cause a shit ton of pain, problems, complications and suffering for literally tens of thousands of infants and people through life. So how can you not even think it shouldn't take place as a way to reduce the amount of suffering in the world? Really, the only conclusion I can make here based on what I've said above and the pretty salty nature of your post is that you are, to some extent, actually butthurt over this. Not that I suspect you'd even admit it if it was the case, but I really don't see any other explanation for your hostile and salty post deflecting the whole point. And you really shouldn't be. No one's calling you out or trying to say you're beneath others. You don't have to defend yourself by trying to make others feel bad.
4974
« on: April 21, 2016, 12:10:20 PM »
These poor families are getting tricked into lawsuits they can't win.
I picture this going exactly how the Lucky Gunner suit went. Family gets BTFO in court, Brady Bunch conveniently decides it can't afford to cover their legal costs, and now uses their loss as ammo against "muh gun lobby".
Well, that is a real possibility. The American justice and penal system are attrocities in certain ways after all.
4975
« on: April 21, 2016, 11:56:05 AM »
Good ruling, good article. Based UK following the likes of Germany. The law will not end infant circumcisions, but education just might. A judge’s remarks have reignited the debate on the practice. While banning it is no solution, the case for better information and regulation is incontrovertible.
In her ruling this week, the family court judge Mrs Justice Roberts was quite clear that the two boys at the centre of her hearing could be circumcised when the time was right. She was also quite clear that the time was not yet right.
“I am simply deferring that decision to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices, once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer term effects of the decisions which they reach.”
The father of the two boys, aged six and four, had applied for a court order to compel their mother to have the boys circumcised in accordance with his Muslim faith. The mother, from whom he is separated, successfully persuaded the court to allow the boys to mature to an age where they could make their own decision about their religious and bodily preferences.
While the ruling in this case is specific to the individual circumstances, the case is not unique. Last year in Florida, a similar court case ruled the other way, obliging Heather Hironimus, a mother, to surrender care of her four-year-old boy to his father to arrange his circumcision. She initially refused, disappearing into hiding in a domestic violence refuge for three months before being located and then jailed for nine days until finally, sobbing loudly and still shackled in handcuffs, she signed the release papers. It is reported that the boy was circumcised last November.
Across the world, attitudes towards routine or ritual infant circumcision are changing. In the US, where circumcision rates were once close to 90%, the latest surveys show that only slightly more than half of newborn boys are now cut. That is expected to become a clear minority within a generation. Even among Jewish and Muslim communities, there is a small but growing movement to abandon the tradition. Meanwhile the type of interfaith and cross-cultural relationships that sparked the case this week are an inevitable feature of an increasingly migratory global society.
As these trends gather pace, it is inevitable that there will be more and more cases like the one in Exeter. That judge’s ruling is correct and welcome; where there is a dispute between parents the deciding factor has to be that, while one outcome is easily reversible at a later stage, the other (barring complex plastic surgery) is not.
Inevitably, however, the judge’s remarks have already invited discussion of the deeper principles involved. What right do or should parents have to impose permanent bodily alteration or, as many would call it, mutilation, on their own children? What rights do or should cultural communities have to preserve their own religious rites and customs? To participants on either side of the circumcision debate, the answers to those questions seem self-evident and unarguable. They are also entirely incompatible.
It is the role of a secular democratic state to intervene in such clashes of competing rights. Yet over the years UK governments have almost entirely neglected their duty of care on this question. No formal attempts have been made to quantify the extent of medical complaints arising from circumcisions. We know that hundreds of babies and children are admitted to British hospitals every year with infections, uncontrolled bleeding or other complications. Shockingly, despite horrific evidence of serious injuries and even deaths arising from botched circumcisions conducted by unqualified practitioners in non-clinical conditions, there remains no legal regulation of circumcision in this country. Anyone can set up shop as a circumcision practitioner in Britain today.
Personally, I would like to see an end to all non-medical infant circumcision, but I recognise that any attempt at a legal ban is entirely the wrong approach. Rightly or wrongly, it would be perceived as an attempt to force assimilation on Jewish and Muslim communities, and would require them to leave the country in order to observe their religion. It would also encourage the very same backstreet, blackmarket practices that pose by far the greatest medical risks.
At the same time, an informed and unapologetic public health debate is long overdue and necessary. If parents wish to have their children circumcised then that has to be facilitated, but no parent should make that choice without understanding that even medical circumcisions carry risks of permanent mutilation, terrifying injuries and even fatalities. The NHS has a formal position that routine circumcision brings no identifiable medical benefits that could justify the quantifiable risks. We need to go further, however, in challenging and exploding prevailing myths about circumcision, such as the idea that it is painless for babies, that it is no more invasive than an ear-piercing, or that it has proven health and hygiene benefits. All these ideas have now been resoundingly and repeatedly disproven by medical science.
Circumcision has been practised for thousands of years, and it will not be ended by an act of parliament, however well-intentioned. But it might well be reduced and eventually even eliminated by growing consideration of the rights of the child, by education, by information and, ultimately, by nothing more than the will of parents. tl;dr, Muslim dad wants to circumcise son, mom disagrees, court takes her side and says that the children will shall remain untouched until they're 18 or there's agreement.
4976
« on: April 21, 2016, 11:37:38 AM »
 Literally amazing.
4977
« on: April 21, 2016, 10:35:22 AM »
North Carolina may want to keep transgender individuals out of their bathrooms, but their citizens are clamoring for transgender porn. According to adult entertainment site GameLink, the number one best selling title in North Carolina is My TS [Transsexual] Teacher, followed by Shemale Shenanigans, and third is Joey Silvera's Trans-Visions 6. "We have seen significant growth in the viewing of TS movies in North Carolina since 2012," says Jeff Dillon,Vice President of GameLink's parent company, eLine. He adds, "viewing TS movies has increased 64.3 percent [for North Carolina]; our average state increase during this time is 47 percent."
It also seems worth mentioning that, according to GameLink's numbers, Utah downloads the most incest related titles.
The site also ranks Mississippi sixth in its viewing of gay porn, but number one in hypocrisy. The top five movies watched in Mississippi on GameLink over the last 90 days are Full Service Transsexuals, Fathers and Sons Number 3, Bareback Sex, Daddy and Me, and ever-popular Joey Silvera's Trans-Visions 6. "Our user data show Mississippi has been consuming gay and transsexual pornography at a high rate in comparison to the rest of the country," says Dillon. "It's unfortunate to see that their diverse viewing habits do not translate into an open-minded society."
One can view the high consumption of gay porn in Mississippi and trans porn in North Carolina as hypocritical, but an argument also could be made that the hypersexualization of trans bodies directly correlates with perceiving them as a threat. A sexy, sexy threat. Why, any minute now we could be ravished by a dashing trans man named Slaven with salt and pepper hair, and a smile like a secret, and the secret is that he loves you.
lmao
Motherfucking Joey Silvera does it again.
4978
« on: April 21, 2016, 10:04:50 AM »
On the other, they find that the weapons used and and created as originating from and to some degree adhering to military standards and purposes of warfare to the point that they should not be marketed and distributed to the general civilian population in such a manner. They argue that this constitutes negligent entrustment and should therefore fall outside of the immunity awarded by the law.
There is nothing magical about 5.56. There is nothing deadly about black polymer. .30-06 was once a military cartridge and only fell out of use because you can carry more smaller bullets than large ones in the same space (and automatic fire with full size rounds is ridiculous, but that's besides the point as I know you know that incredibly low crime statistics involving NFA and automatic firearms). It's now a really popular hunting cartridge.
"It's based off a military 'platform'" really has no bearing in reality. Give me a 30-30 lever gun and about five of these in a crowded mall and I'll rack up a score beyond Lanza's supposed kill count.
I'm not saying I agree with their points and thought more or less the same thing. But what I am saying is that their two arguments are valid reasons for this to go to court. The judge definitely made the right call and applied the law correctly. Whether they're right or not is pretty irrelevant at this point. All that matters is if their arguments could possibly be true and that there is some reason to at least suggest the gun manufacturers might fall outside of the immunity granted by the law, which I believe there definitely is. Once this goes to trial, I have no doubt that the defense will have expert testimonies and witnesses lining up to argue your point, while I'm sure the claimants will have a few points of their own. Is their second argument wrong? Maybe, or even probably so. Is their argument sufficient for this to deserve an actual trial? Definitely.
4979
« on: April 21, 2016, 09:21:53 AM »
The fact that this lawsuit is even being entertained is ridiculous.
How so?
The article in the OP makes it seem like they're going after gun manufacturers for doing what Camel cigarettes did in the 90's. Difference is, even if they are disproportionately targeting the young adult demographic, those young adults are legally allowed to purchase their products.
As far as I understand, their argument is twofold. On the one hand, they argue that the company deliberately and in a specific way targets young people some of which are disproportionally inclined to commit these acts of violence. On the other, they find that the weapons used and and created as originating from and to some degree adhering to military standards and purposes of warfare to the point that they should not be marketed and distributed to the general civilian population in such a manner. They argue that this constitutes negligent entrustment and should therefore fall outside of the immunity awarded by the law. Whether or not there's any merit to either of these claims is obviously debatable, but I think it is the right call to at least allow this to go to court and be decided on. It should be a very interesting case.
4980
« on: April 21, 2016, 09:09:08 AM »
"The reality is, every case gets a scheduling order with a trial date. There's nothing unique about what happened today,"
This thread is more about the thing as a whole, not just the recent update. I meant to make a thread when it became known it would actually go to trial but forgot due to other circumstances. This was merely a reminder for me to make the thread and it be as relevant as it could be. Of course, the mere fact that it now has a trial date is nothing but an administrative formality. But that the PLCAA's very narrow restrictions on immunity are being challenged and that this whole thing is actually going somewhere is actually pretty big.
Pages: 1 ... 164165166 167168 ... 520
|
Show Posts
