Oral circumcision

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You theists are so fvcked in the head that it's hard to have any sort of reasonable discussion with you:

http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/another-newborn-herpes-case-tied-to-metzitzah/

 

[extragreen]

But it's ok with you if an adult male does the same thing to another adult male. Can't have a reasonable discussion with you atheists.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

But it's ok with you if an adult male does the same thing to another adult male. Can't have a reasonable discussion with you atheists.

This is a perfect example of the message in my post. You are trying to compare an activity between consenting adults with an activity between an adult and a baby (can't consent).

Are you Milo Yiannopoulos? Look up the definition of "reasonable" and add "logical" to it, then come back, and try again.

 

[extragreen]

This is a perfect example of the message in my post. You are trying to compare an activity between consenting adults with an activity between an adult and a baby (can't consent).

Are you Milo Yiannopoulos? Look up the definition of "reasonable" and add "logical" to it, then come back, and try again.

My question...."But it's ok with you if an adult male does the same thing to another adult male."

So, you're answer is "yes".

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You didn't ask a question. You attempted to make a point - which was a miserable failure - that an act between two consenting adults is the same as the act between an adult and a child. You claimed that because I find a huge difference in the two, that you can't have a reasonable discussion with an atheist.

Your basis for reaching that conclusion is illogical, absurd, and unreasonable. You're reinforcing my point.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

 

[i am herdman]

Wow. That is some weird stuff right there. Is it baseball season yet?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Wow. That is some weird stuff right there. Is it baseball season yet?

And it isn't rare. It happens throughout the U.S. It has led to babies getting herpes (and some dying).

If Josh Stoward were to do this, he would be arrested for it . . . well, unless he posted a video of it on the board, in which case, it would be covered up. But if a rabbi does it, suddenly it is fine.

You theists are so fvcked in the head that there is no reasonable discussion to be had with you. As a Christian, you think this is "some weird stuff." Want to know what your religion supports?

 

[HerdBuckeye]

Alright this is fu--ed up. Next thread.

 

[i am herdman]

And it isn't rare. It happens throughout the U.S. It has led to babies getting herpes (and some dying).

If Josh Stoward were to do this, he would be arrested for it . . . well, unless he posted a video of it on the board, in which case, it would be covered up. But if a rabbi does it, suddenly it is fine.

You theists are so fvcked in the head that there is no reasonable discussion to be had with you. As a Christian, you think this is "some weird stuff." Want to know what your religion supports?

Whatever it is then it has to be closer to normal than baby penis sucking. I saw some weird stuff at church camp but never that.

Now think about this, you and greed are arguing over penis sucking.

We are not even to the slow sports season yet. All time low for this forum.

 

[extragreen]

You didn't ask a question. You attempted to make a point - which was a miserable failure - that an act between two consenting adults is the same as the act between an adult and a child. You claimed that because I find a huge difference in the two, that you can't have a reasonable discussion with an atheist.

Your basis for reaching that conclusion is illogical, absurd, and unreasonable. You're reinforcing my point.

I made the point very well. You're ok with an adult male sucking on another male adult's penis for pleasure while attempting to make a religious act originally intended to keep the baby healthy as an atrocity. And if you want to compare health results between the 2 acts, you lose.

 

[extragreen]

Whatever it is then it has to be closer to normal than baby penis sucking. I saw some weird stuff at church camp but never that.

Now think about this, you and greed are arguing over penis sucking.

We are not even to the slow sports season yet. All time low for this forum.

The act is being done by the antichrists you support.

 

[i am herdman]

The act is being done by the antichrists you support.

Certifiably bat shit crazy

 

[extragreen]

Certifiably bat shit crazy

Give us an explanation of what I posted is crazy and why.........

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I made the point very well. You're ok with an adult male sucking on another male adult's penis for pleasure while attempting to make a religious act originally intended to keep the baby healthy as an atrocity. And if you want to compare health results between the 2 acts, you lose.

Not only is your comparison illogical, it is also factually wrong.

You're trying to compare an act between two consenting adults with an act including a child. Do you believe a man and a woman should be allowed to have sex? If so, your comparison would mean you also believe a man should be allowed to have sex with a female baby. The difference between the acts is the ability for both parties to consent.

For your point about health . . . the religious act is unhealthy. There are far healthier options to cleanse the wound than to have a rabbi suck on it. Why do rabbis continue to do that? It's because a fvcked up religion (this time Judaism) has instructed them to do that for hundreds of years. It is codified in some of the most important and earliest Jewish rules. Why was it so important to include as a "rule?" It was due to the medical beliefs at the time, which of course, have been thoroughly refuted and shown to be wrong since that time. So, the "health" aspect of this has been shown to be absolute bull$hit. It is simply being done as a religious ritual, and in turn, has resulted in babies receiving herpes and dying from it.

But take it a step deeper: the whole reason for this absurd act is due to yet another absurd religious ritual which physically maims babies; circumcision. So, we have one illogical, unhealthy, and twisted religious ritual (penis sucking with an open wound on a child) being done to try and help make yet another illogical, unhealthy, and twisted religious ritual (circumcision) a little healthier . . . yet it is even failing at that!

This is an apples-to-apples comparison for you: Chop the left arm off of a baby for religious reasons. The wound then needs to heal without the baby bleeding out. A way to get the blood to clot is to jerk-off in the open wound, as the thickness will help clot the blood. It is the exact same thing as the circumcision/penis sucking. In both, we would be using an illogical, unhealthy, and twisted religious ritual (circumcision vs. arm chopping) and then using another illogical, unhealthy, and twisted religious ritual to try and make the original illogical action healthier . . . even though there are far healthier and more useful medical approaches to do that.

I have no problem with a guy jerking-off on another consenting adult, so why should I have a problem with jerking-off in a baby's open wound? After all, in the latter, it at least is serving a health related purpose.

 

[extragreen]

It is YOU that is illogical. You believe it's ok for an adult male to suck another adult man's penis for pleasure, while the health factors are worse than the religious act of metzitzah. As for your consensual point, you'd agree that if the 8 day old child was aborted 10 days earlier, consent is not needed.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Let me try to dumb this down for you since you aren't catching on:

I have no problem with consenting adults sucking the blood out of each other's penises.
I do have a problem with a consenting adult sucking the blood out of a child's penis due to the child not being able to consent.

Let me try to dumb this down for you in another respect:

If I cut off my baby's toe, I am going to jail for child abuse. If somebody cuts off my baby's foreskin, nothing happens because it is a "religious ritual."

Let me try to dumb this down for you in another respect:

If Josh Stoward sucks the penis of a baby, he is going to jail (assuming the judge isn't the owner of this board). If a rabbi sucks the penis of a baby, nothing happens because it is a "religious ritual."

This "religious ritual" is an unhealthy practice that can be accomplished much safer for the baby without the twisted aspect of it. Likewise, the original "religious ritual" of circumcision is an unneeded spiritual practice that maims a baby.

As for your consensual point, you'd agree that if the 8 day old child was aborted 10 days earlier, consent is not needed.

You clearly have lost the original argument since you are now trying to change this to abortion. Without taking a breath, the fetus is not a person yet. That is why it isn't illegal to take out breathing tubes on a person who has had a medical issue and can't breath on their own any more.

 

[extragreen]

No, I caught on from the very beginning. You agree to adult men sucking the penis of other adult men for pleasure even though it promotes disease far more than metzitzah . Period.

You attack a religious practice that promotes far less disease simply because it's a religious practice. Your consent argument hinges on your view that only 10 days earlier, the child had no right of consent. Period.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The baby does not have consent before being born or eight days after. That's my point and it entirely destroys your argument. It doesn't have the ability to consent whether in the womb or outside of it.

Both of the religious practices - the sucking and the cutting - are done to the detriment of the child's health. Both practices are unnecessary and endanger the child. The veil of being "religious practices" should not be able to cover the maiming of a child.

 

[extragreen]

The baby does not have consent before being born or eight days after. That's my point and it entirely destroys your argument. It doesn't have the ability to consent whether in the womb or outside of it.

Both of the religious practices - the sucking and the cutting - are done to the detriment of the child's health. Both practices are unnecessary and endanger the child. The veil of being "religious practices" should not be able to cover the maiming of a child.

If the baby has no consent the hour before it's birth nor 8 days later, then quit worrying about consent when you condone killing it, and then complain about no consent when it undergoes the minor operation of circumcision.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

If the baby has no consent the hour before it's birth nor 8 days later, then quit worrying about consent when you condone killing it, and then complain about no consent when it undergoes the minor operation of circumcision.

You're missing a key point of the argument which I stated earlier: in one of those situations it is a living human being, in the other, it is not yet a living human being.

 

[extragreen]

You're missing a key point of the argument which I stated earlier: in one of those situations it is a living human being, in the other, it is not yet a living human being.

You missed a key point. That's YOUR opinion.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You missed a key point. That's YOUR opinion.

Which begs the question, if it is my opinion and my opinion stays consistent throughout both arguments, why have you continued trying to argue that point? It would be one thing if my opinion changed between the two situations (abortion vs. maiming after birth), but it hasn't. So, why did you spend so many attempts trying to argue that there was some sort of contradiction in my argument? You're just not good at this.

Now, go back to my apples-to-apples example. As long as it is a religious ritual, do you support chopping off a baby's left arm and then jerking-off in the wound (another religious ritual) because it is healthy to stop the bleeding?

 

[extragreen]

Which begs the question, if it is my opinion and my opinion stays consistent throughout both arguments, why have you continued trying to argue that point? It would be one thing if my opinion changed between the two situations (abortion vs. maiming after birth), but it hasn't. So, why did you spend so many attempts trying to argue that there was some sort of contradiction in my argument? You're just not good at this.

Now, go back to my apples-to-apples example. As long as it is a religious ritual, do you support chopping off a baby's left arm and then jerking-off in the wound (another religious ritual) because it is healthy to stop the bleeding?

I'm ridiculing several of your opinions. 1. that you are ok with men sucking the penis of other men. 2. that metzitzah is an atrocity. 3. that it's ok to kill a human a few hours before birth 4. that a circumcision without consent is bad while murdering the same child 10 days earlier without consent is ok.

 

[big_country90]

What a sick practice. Surely these idiots can come up with another way to 'cleanse' the baby's penis than for a grown man to suck on it. This is just sick. Who on earth allows this nonsense?

 

[extragreen]

What a sick practice. Surely these idiots can come up with another way to 'cleanse' the baby's penis than for a grown man to suck on it. This is just sick. Who on earth allows this nonsense?

It's those antichrists you and the rest of the cons support whole heartedly.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I'm ridiculing several of your opinions. 1. that you are ok with men sucking the penis of other men. 2. that metzitzah is an atrocity. 3. that it's ok to kill a human a few hours before birth 4. that a circumcision without consent is bad while murdering the same child 10 days earlier without consent is ok.

You're moving the goalposts more often than the trump administration. Try to stay with one argument and not flip to another after you have jumped ship from the other failed attempts:

1) Your homophobia places you on the wrong side of history
2) An adult sucking the penis of a child is wrong; a "religious ritual" doesn't change that fact. If you disagree, you are no better than Muhammad banging adolescent girls, priests molesting altar boys, and LDS members sleeping with children. The fact that the "ritual" exposes the children to disease and death is even more disgusting.
3) It isn't a human a few hours before birth, just like a fetus in an egg isn't yet a chicken.
4) We have gone over this and your argument held no validity.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

What a sick practice. Surely these idiots can come up with another way to 'cleanse' the baby's penis than for a grown man to suck on it. This is just sick. Who on earth allows this nonsense?

Lets not act like your religion is exempt from bizarre beliefs and practices. Your religious text has more than their fair share of perverted and violent actions against people including children.

 

[extragreen]

You're moving the goalposts more often than the trump administration. Try to stay with one argument and not flip to another after you have jumped ship from the other failed attempts:

1) Your homophobia places you on the wrong side of history
2) An adult sucking the penis of a child is wrong; a "religious ritual" doesn't change that fact. If you disagree, you are no better than Muhammad banging adolescent girls, priests molesting altar boys, and LDS members sleeping with children. The fact that the "ritual" exposes the children to disease and death is even more disgusting.
3) It isn't a human a few hours before birth, just like a fetus in an egg isn't yet a chicken.
4) We have gone over this and your argument held no validity.

1. I have no dislike of homosexual people. I disagree with their sexual practice. That puts you on the wrong side of facts.
2. An adult sucking another adults penis is wrong. If you disagree, you are no better than Fritz Haarmann and Dahmer.
3. "It isn't a human a few hours before birth". Let's pretend that's true. Question: you rather be aborted or circumsized?
4. opinion

 

[big_country90]

Lets not act like your religion is exempt from bizarre beliefs and practices. Your religious text has more than their fair share of perverted and violent actions against people including children.

I think you're a little confused as to what "spare the rod" means. I'm just guessing.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

1. I have no dislike of homosexual people. I disagree with their sexual practice. That puts you on the wrong side of facts.
2. An adult sucking another adults penis is wrong. If you disagree, you are no better than Fritz Haarmann and Dahmer.
3. "It isn't a human a few hours before birth". Let's pretend that's true. Question: you rather be aborted or circumsized?
4. opinion

1) Homophobia doesn't mean you simply dislike homos. It is a wide-ranging term which encompasses any of these; dislike of them, dislike of their sexual activities, aversion, fear, disgust, discimination, etc.
2) So, you even think fellatio between a married heterosexual couple is wrong? You really are a whacko, huh? Is the only reason for sex in humans to procreate?
3) Would I rather be aborted or circumcised? It depends; would you end up being my father?
4) Exactly, hence why your continued argument that my opinion on each was somehow contradicting of the other was a foolish and a failed attempt.

 

[extragreen]

1) Homophobia doesn't mean you simply dislike homos. It is a wide-ranging term which encompasses any of these; dislike of them, dislike of their sexual activities, aversion, fear, disgust, discimination, etc.
2) So, you even think fellatio between a married heterosexual couple is wrong? You really are a whacko, huh? Is the only reason for sex in humans to procreate?
3) Would I rather be aborted or circumcised? It depends; would you end up being my father?
4) Exactly, hence why your continued argument that my opinion on each was somehow contradicting of the other was a foolish and a failed attempt.

1. If you want to include dislike of homosexual acts under homophobia, then I'm guilty. And I'd have to conclude that you are homophobic also unless you partake in their sexual practice.
2. I've never heard of a heterosexual couple being comprised of 2 men.
3. What's wrong? Can't answer that question?
4. You wish.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

that you are ok with men sucking the penis of other men

I assume your "other religion" is OK with it, considering its two most famous converts have probably had a boner or three in their mouths.

 

[extragreen]

I assume your "other religion" is OK with it, considering its two most famous converts have probably had a boner or three in their mouths.

You'd have a point if you had a point.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

1. If you want to include dislike of homosexual acts under homophobia, then I'm guilty. And I'd have to conclude that you are homophobic also unless you partake in their sexual practice.
2. I've never heard of a heterosexual couple being comprised of 2 men.
3. What's wrong? Can't answer that question?
4. You wish.

1) I have no fear, no disgust, no aversion, or hold no discrimination against gays or their activities. Me choosing not to partake in homosexual activities (shopping and interior design excluded) doesn't make me homophobic. Your attempt, once again, fails.

2) You didn't specify man-on-man fellatio. You said "An adult sucking another adults penis is wrong." Know what you say and say what you mean. You clearly don't do that.

3) I need more information to answer. Would you be my father if I chose not to be aborted?

4) It's quite clear.

 

[herdfan06]

 

[extragreen]

1) I have no fear, no disgust, no aversion, or hold no discrimination against gays or their activities. Me choosing not to partake in homosexual activities (shopping and interior design excluded) doesn't make me homophobic. Your attempt, once again, fails.

2) You didn't specify man-on-man fellatio. You said "An adult sucking another adults penis is wrong." Know what you say and say what you mean. You clearly don't do that.

3) I need more information to answer. Would you be my father if I chose not to be aborted?

4) It's quite clear.

1. You do in fact have an aversion to homosexual activity.
2. What a terrible omission on my part. Doesn't change the fact that it puts you in the company of Fritz Haarmann and Dahmer.
3. You can choose your father. Answer the question.
4. Oh yes, it is quite clear. Your opinion is that a man having homosexual activity for pleasure is ok but a non homosexual religious activity is bad.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

1. You do in fact have an aversion to homosexual activity.
2. What a terrible omission on my part. Doesn't change the fact that it puts you in the company of Fritz Haarmann and Dahmer.
3. You can choose your father. Answer the question.
4. Oh yes, it is quite clear. Your opinion is that a man having homosexual activity for pleasure is ok but a non homosexual religious activity is bad.

1) I don't have an aversion to it. Having no interest in something isn't the same as disliking something.

2) It puts me in the same category as the majority of this country's adults. Most adults in this country don't care if consenting adult males take part in fellatio. Only the religious-whackos and/or hillbillies care; double whammy for you.

3) Would I rather be aborted or circumcised? That has nothing to do with your original comment with this number. You're moving the goalposts once again.

4) Consenting adults having sex allows them to make their own decisions, some of which, may come with risk. Since a baby can't consent, you are putting that child at a health and psychological risk with the religious ritual. The ritual was originally based on medical opinion and practice at that time. Since medicine has shown that the past practice is unhealthy, they have developed safer methods. The failure to protect children who can't consent based on "religious rituals" is ethically wrong. If you disagree, donate to my defense fund when I chop off the arm of your grandchild because it is a religious ritual of mine.

 

[extragreen]

1) I don't have an aversion to it. Having no interest in something isn't the same as disliking something.

2) It puts me in the same category as the majority of this country's adults. Most adults in this country don't care if consenting adult males take part in fellatio. Only the religious-whackos and/or hillbillies care; double whammy for you.

3) Would I rather be aborted or circumcised? That has nothing to do with your original comment with this number. You're moving the goalposts once again.

4) Consenting adults having sex allows them to make their own decisions, some of which, may come with risk. Since a baby can't consent, you are putting that child at a health and psychological risk with the religious ritual. The ritual was originally based on medical opinion and practice at that time. Since medicine has shown that the past practice is unhealthy, they have developed safer methods. The failure to protect children who can't consent based on "religious rituals" is ethically wrong. If you disagree, donate to my defense fund when I chop off the arm of your grandchild because it is a religious ritual of mine.

1. You have an aversion, so you are therefore homophobic. Aversion def: a strong dislike or disinclination. Know the meanings of words, which clearly you don't.
2. If the majority of people in this country had no aversion toward homosexual acts, more of them would be partaking in them.
3. I know the answer. You simply refuse to answer it. The answer of any sane male would be they'd rather be circumcised than aborted. That answer means you're whining about something of less harm (circumcision) than that which you agree with (abortion).
4. ^^^ Time for you to leave this discussion.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

1. You have an aversion, so you are therefore homophobic. Aversion def: a strong dislike or disinclination. Know the meanings of words, which clearly you don't.
2. If the majority of people in this country had no aversion toward homosexual acts, more of them would be partaking in them.
3. I know the answer. You simply refuse to answer it. The answer of any sane male would be they'd rather be circumcised than aborted. That answer means you're whining about something of less harm (circumcision) than that which you agree with (abortion).
4. ^^^ Time for you to leave this discussion.

1) "1. a strong feeling of dislike, opposition, repugnance, or antipathy 2. a cause or object of dislike; person or thing that causes antipathy 3.
a feeling of repugnance toward something 4. a feeling of strong dislike of something"

None of those describe me. Not being interested in something is not the same as disliking, opposing, repugnance, a strong dislike, etc. I understand why you are trying to argue semantics, but it doesn't change the fact that you are homophobic and I am not.

2) That's patently false. I don't have an aversion to playing golf, I just don't have the interest to do it.

3) You're trying to compare two entirely different things. But pretend you aren't: I have a problem with torturing opposing soldiers in a war; I don't have a problem with killing those soldiers during war. One is far less harmful than the other. See how your argument doesn't hold water?

3 & 4) What you fail to understand is that I don't view a fetus the same as you do. That is why none of your analogies work.

My analogy is accurate. You have no problem using a religious ritual which causes more harm to a child than modern medical practices do. Further, that religious ritual is done to try and mitigate the harm causes by another religious ritual which serves no benefit to the child and only hurts him.

You place your religious rituals over the well-being of children. It's digusting.