Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » McCain picks his vp.
( ) 1 Vote
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348954 is a reply to message #348647] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 17:10   |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I am still undecided on the abortion issue at this point.
However, I think the same people who think a fetus is a human and has feelings should also be against cutting off part of a male baby's penis. I am profoundly against circumcision and mostly against abortion. Like others, I wouldn't want an abortion ban to exclude certain circumstances where it is preferable. But, what if people just say it was rape since it often can't be proven?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #348963 is a reply to message #348647] |
Mon, 01 September 2008 21:18 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It was important back before people were able to bathe every day... nobody wanted fungus growing under their foreskin, so the age-old response was to cut it off- or so one explanation of the practice goes.
Not terribly practical in this day and age, but typically when you have it done you're too young to remember it hurting later anyhow- I certainly don't. Still, it is a questionable practice- causing some harm, however small, and doing no good. The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway.
Personally, I find the human body much more beautiful au natural- no unnecessary surgery, no tattoos, no piercings- but recognize that others don't see it the same way.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349001 is a reply to message #348954] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 10:38 |
 |
Ryu
Messages: 2833
Registered: September 2006
Location: Liverpool, England.
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 01:10 |
I am still undecided on the abortion issue at this point.
However, I think the same people who think a fetus is a human and has feelings should also be against cutting off part of a male baby's penis. I am profoundly against circumcision and mostly against abortion. Like others, I wouldn't want an abortion ban to exclude certain circumstances where it is preferable. But, what if people just say it was rape since it often can't be proven?
|
Talking of the circumcision, I was watching Pen & Teller's: Bullshit on that, fucking inhuman!
I'm totally against it too, cutting off someone's manhood like that.
as for abortions, can't really give an opinion on it.. just woke up so I'm too tired for a wall of text.
Oh and Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant at 17 years of age.
Presence is a curious thing, if you think you need to prove it... you probably never had it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349025 is a reply to message #348923] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 13:43 |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Mon, 01 September 2008 11:58 |
Extreme views in either direction concerning abortion ignore one of two facts of biology:
1. An early-term embryo has no functional nervous system (though the first activity can be measured fairly early), thus no brain, no consciousness, no feeling.
2. A late-term fetus does have a near-fully-developed nervous system; thus it is capable of feeling and limited thought (possibly consciousness, though we really don't know where that begins), even motor control.
We can safely assume that the line between a human being and a potential human being- if a definite line exists- falls somewhere between those two stages of development. There is a huge, obnoxious gray area there, and both sides of the abortion 'debate' (since it is never a formal debate so much as a passionate argument) tend to expand their position from one end clear across the gray area into the opposite end of the pregnancy. This is absolutely stupid.
Everything we know about biology tells us that an embryo which is only a month old is not a human being yet- that it is not capable of thought, feeling, or anything beyond the basic metabolic processes which sustain even the most elementary bacteria. Likewise, everything we know about an 8-month-old fetus tells us that it is clearly a human being; it is even able to survive and finish developing outside the womb if necessary (with some assistance from modern medicine- I should know; I was born a month early). Hell, a 6 or 7-month-old fetus is well-developed enough to be recognizable as human, to the point where its brain- as it truly is a brain by that time- is able to effect control over muscles.
Arguments to the effect of "we don't know where the line is, so we must err on the side of caution" are utter bullshit- we do know where the line is, we just don't know where it is exactly, and we know damn well that it doesn't lie at conception. Arguments to the effect of "until you are born, you have no rights" are utter bullshit also; we know, and have known since the ECG (that's Electrocardiogram) and the ultrasound became mainstream medicine, that a late-term fetus is as human as a newborn baby.
Arguments from the "it's your responsibility, slacker" perspective are even worse, relying on ad-hominem to make their point. Yes, it's your responsibility... but the argument goes both ways, doesn't it? It is your responsibility not to bring a baby into the world when you know you can't care for it, just as it is your responsibility to make sure that baby is cared for if and when it is born. It is an inherently neutral argument given weight only by the actual or implicit inclusion of "you kill babies because they're inconvenient."
Based on the known facts- not on bullshit, not on the "Word of God," and not on those heart-wrenching pictures of dead embryos- my stated opinion on the subject is that abortion only becomes objectionable late in a pregnancy when the fetus is known to be a thinking, feeling creature. What would I do if I got someone pregnant? I honestly have no idea; I've never been there. I like to think that I'd consult her, then make a decision based on our situation at the time- but who knows, maybe I'd get all sentimental over that little clump of cells and try to hold onto it no matter what. What I do know is that sentimentality makes horrible policy; the difference between "right" and "wrong" on this subject is almost always defined by entirely subjective views- not by biology.
Not to drag this even further off-topic or anything- just trying to inject a little common sense (appalling how uncommon it is) into the thread. By all means, flame away.
|
You've mentioned the huge grey area...shouldn't we draw the line at the beginning of it as long as we're unsure? Unless the woman's life is threatened (I'd include carrying the child of your rapist because there's a good chance of the woman contemplating suicide), there's no valid reason to allow abortions. I'm an agnostic, not an abortion clinic bomber...the left likes to make this a religious issue, when it's in fact a common sense issue (and liberals have always had problems understanding those).
Government's only real job is to protect the lives of the citizens...ironic how Obama with his lifetime fascination for Marxism and big government fails in that regard.
Palin seems like a decent VP. As long as she's not the president I could care less about her right-wing social views.
Concerning circumcision...I decided to get circumcised at 18 solely for aesthetic reasons and I don't regret my choice in the slightest...denying your child the right to choose against an irreversible aesthetic surgery seems like bad parenting to me.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349032 is a reply to message #349029] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 14:18 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 |
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 |
The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway.
|
As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you.
|
WTF???
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349035 is a reply to message #349032] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 15:41 |
|
Ryu
Messages: 2833
Registered: September 2006
Location: Liverpool, England.
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:18 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 |
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 |
The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway.
|
As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you.
|
WTF???
|
^
Apparently it's to "Prevent" STD's (which is bullshit).. It was a tradition hundreds of years ago to prevent fungus growing there due to lack of clean water for cleansing, etc.
But.. circumcising your baby's is just wrong, in 16 years time they'll probably hate and disown you for making a choice they didn't want, It should be a choice you make when you're old enough to think for yourself, really.
Presence is a curious thing, if you think you need to prove it... you probably never had it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349042 is a reply to message #348647] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 16:25 |
Rocko
Messages: 833
Registered: January 2007
Location: Long Beach, California
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
me and my huge wonderful black penis aren't circumsized and i'm happy that way. if i wanted to get it trimmed i would do it myself.
black and proud
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349043 is a reply to message #349035] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 16:38 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Ryu wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 17:41 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:18 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 |
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 |
The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway.
|
As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you.
|
WTF???
|
^
Apparently it's to "Prevent" STD's (which is bullshit).. It was a tradition hundreds of years ago to prevent fungus growing there due to lack of clean water for cleansing, etc.
But.. circumcising your baby's is just wrong, in 16 years time they'll probably hate and disown you for making a choice they didn't want, It should be a choice you make when you're old enough to think for yourself, really.
|
It does prevent AIDS and other STDs to an extent and would help lower the number of infections in 3rd world countries...in the civilized world, the only medical reason would be phimosis.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349049 is a reply to message #349045] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 17:13 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
That's a load of bullshit indeed. The show claims that with foreskin, you have more ejaculatory control...I experienced the exact opposite myself. Perhaps it's because I learned to cope with the sensitive foreskin, so once it was gone ejaculatory control seemed like a piece of cake...might not make that much of a difference if you've never been used to having foreskin.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349072 is a reply to message #349043] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 19:51 |
|
Ryu
Messages: 2833
Registered: September 2006
Location: Liverpool, England.
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 00:38 |
| Ryu wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 17:41 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:18 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 16:14 |
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 00:18 |
The fact that anybody finds an uncircumcised prick disgusting is grounded in learned cultural perception- and if we're circumcising our kids because we think it looks nicer, we're doing it for entirely the wrong reason anyway.
|
As for the reasoning behind it, I always thought that it was to prevent cancer.. I heard that that skin they cut off was unhealthy for you.
|
WTF???
|
^
Apparently it's to "Prevent" STD's (which is bullshit).. It was a tradition hundreds of years ago to prevent fungus growing there due to lack of clean water for cleansing, etc.
But.. circumcising your baby's is just wrong, in 16 years time they'll probably hate and disown you for making a choice they didn't want, It should be a choice you make when you're old enough to think for yourself, really.
|
It does prevent AIDS and other STDs to an extent and would help lower the number of infections in 3rd world countries...in the civilized world, the only medical reason would be phimosis.
|
I'm not so sure on how it prevents STD's, You can still get crabs, a womans juice can still slide down your pee-hole and infect you, or cold sores (I forgot the medical name for that infection) on yer dong, all with or without the skin.
I mean, with a cut dick I'd think it would make it easier to infect you, since your foreskin can be a protective layer.
But again, I'm no doctor nor scientist so yeah.
Presence is a curious thing, if you think you need to prove it... you probably never had it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349080 is a reply to message #349062] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 20:21 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 20:20 |
Are parents wrong for doing it? No they aren't. However are they right for doing it? Still, no they aren't.
It isn't like they are cutting it off completely. It can still be used therefore the only thing that stands left over is if they prefer to have it on or off. That's it.
"Mutilating" is an interesting choice of word. Although it correctly describes the procedure, I think it is a bit too strong of a word for this. It is like saying you mutilate your hair when you get it cut or mutilate your fingernails. Sure both your fingernails and hair don't have nerve endings in them and can't feel pain, but it doesn't impact your life once they are removed. Which is what I'm trying to point out.
If you tend to prefer one over the other, that is perfectly fine. However if you are against one and not the other, that is different and I think such opinions should be avoided. It's like being against a certain hairstyle or clothing line or skin color. It doesn't have an impact on your functionality in life so it should not be an issue.
And as far as these "organizations" that are for or against it... they are a waste of money and I think they should be disbanded.
|
In case you haven't noticed, your fingernails and hair grow back...
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349081 is a reply to message #348647] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 20:28 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I changed the subject. Sue me. I fully support an adult's right to decide if he wants a circumcision. I don't think a parent has the right to decide something like that for their child.
Saying that women prefer it isn't necessarily true, either. You have to ask women who have been "with" both. I believe a survey done found that over 70 or 80 percent of women who have been with an uncut penis prefer to be with an uncut penis.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349083 is a reply to message #349080] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 20:39 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 23:21 |
In case you haven't noticed, your fingernails and hair grow back...
|
That's besides the point.
Does cutting your fingernails or hair effect the reproduction rate of humans on earth? No, and neither does circumcision. That is why I like to think of circumcision as nothing more than a simple style that stays with you for the rest of your life.
As for what Crimson said, I do agree that it should be left up to the person and not the parents, however there is also the fact of choice: would someone rather have it when they are old enough to choose for themselves or young enough to not remember the pain?
[Updated on: Tue, 02 September 2008 20:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: McCain picks his vp. [message #349090 is a reply to message #349083] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 21:50 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 22:39 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 23:21 |
In case you haven't noticed, your fingernails and hair grow back...
|
That's besides the point.
Does cutting your fingernails or hair effect the reproduction rate of humans on earth? No, and neither does circumcision. That is why I like to think of circumcision as nothing more than a simple style that stays with you for the rest of your life.
As for what Crimson said, I do agree that it should be left up to the person and not the parents, however there is also the fact of choice: would someone rather have it when they are old enough to choose for themselves or young enough to not remember the pain?
|
Cutting off a woman's clitoris doesn't change the reproduction rate of humans, either...I really don't understand your line of thought.
lol
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 16 13:00:34 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01534 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
