Your concern is touching. :rolleyes:
Seriously, though: casting aspersions on the sanity of one’s interlocutory adversary, when one lacks a substantive rebuttal for their arguments, is a tired old gambit. Really shopworn stuff you are peddling here.
Like the sad deluded guys who don’t care about their circumcision?
Not your sanity. Your emotional health. I wish everyone were healthier in that regard, but you really seem to radiate your pain. .
:shrug: Maybe I’m wrong. If you’re happy and fulfilled, good on ya.
Reason #1 why your retarded:
When the thread is about the former and you the retard keep trying to make the thread about the latter then yes, you the retard, should be dismissed as the retarded retard that you are. Retard.
Reason #2 why you is retarded:
You, as a retard, don’t understand reality. Just stick to worshiping you’re foreskin like a nice good little retard and leave reality to those of us who can add 1+1 and know it is 11.
That was…something, I guess.
I’m actually a very upbeat person in general. I am the guy who appreciates the amazing improvements we’ve seen in terms of global reduction of poverty, in advances that give us technological marvels, who revels in the “platinum age” of TV, sees the upsides to global warming, etc. My main anxiety, therefore, is the occasional existential dread because I enjoy life so much and want to live forever. (Well, and there’s the black cloud of Trump, of course—but that’s just something we’re all dealing with right now, and hopefully it will be in the rearview mirror soon.)
of course. Just think of his endless podcast worship.
I don’t doubt that there are men out there living with botched circumcisions. What a horrible thing both physically and mentally. That it’s so rare we don’t hear about only adds to their isolation. I truly do feel compassion for those guys. What they go through, as well as credible, peer-reviewed studies regarding circumcision are certainly worthy of discussion and exploration.
IN THEIR OWN THREAD, not one regarding FGM! I don’t understand why this is so difficult, and it’s why you and your hijacking buddies here don’t get that you will alienate people by continuously doing this. YOU are the ones doing a disservice to the discussion about circumcision. YOU are the problem. YOU are why people refuse to pay attention.
Because some people don’t realize that they’re not the only ones in the universe. That it’s possible to care about someone other than themselves once in a while. Their heads would probably explode if they tried.
My god, some of you are so dramatic! Jesus, listen to yourselves.
Here’s a YouTube podcast with an interesting analysis/discussion of the Federal FGM decision, provocatively entitled Why your daughter WILL Be Circumcised.
SlackerInc and Blalron, go fondle your tiny little needle dicks and let the adults continue this discussion.
A thread for SlackerInc to fill his bottomless need for feeling superior to others (in this case, those he calls “mutilated” and “delusional”)? Must be a day that ends in y.
Andy of all people lecturing me about acting superior! Pffffffffffft. :dubious:
Since accusations of “misogyny” and “threadshitting” are being made by certain folk on the SDMB, I’m going to take this opportunity to rebut these arguments. I’ve been a member of this board for 17 years, and I’d really hate to be hit with the ban hammer. Here’s my defense:
Yes, the title of this thread is about female genital mutilation. So why are we talking about male circumcision? For a very good reason. This thread was started about a particular legal case in the USA. In this country, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that “nor shall any State […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. When it comes to sex based discrimination, the Supreme Court has ruled in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan that
Laws that protect girls and don’t protect boys from genital cutting are vulnerable to a legal challenge, and could very well be struck down. Thus, the best strategy to protect girls in this country must necessarily involve also protecting boys. Even if you are an Identity Feminist who is concerned soley with protecting girls, and you don’t give a shit about the suffering of males, the peculiarities of our legal system may force you to start caring. Maybe I’m wrong about this. But that’s not the question you should be asking here. The question the mods should be asking themselves should be: “Is this argument frivolous? Does it have any merit whatsoever, or it patently absurd?”
If anyone is willing to actually do a deep dive into this issue, they will discover that there are more similarities between FGM and male circumcision then is generally recognized in our society. Here’s a lengthy article by Yale bioethicist, Brian D. Earp, arguing that FGM and male circumcision belong within the same discourse. It’s clear to anyone with an open mind, who is willing to examine the evidence, that there is a double standard. Why is that the case? Earp quotes Rebecca Steinfeld, a political scientist at Stanford who studies ritual cutting speculates
There are three possible responses to this very obvious inconsistent treatment of the sexes vis a vis child genital cutting.
-
Modify your position on male circumcision. It should be banned just like FGC.
-
Modify your position on female circumcision. Maybe it’s not so bad after all! At least certain kinds aren’t. If we can cut off the entire foreskin, why not allow removal of the clitoral hood and some of the labia too? Certainly a ritual nick that only draws a single drop of blood should be permitted under this framework.
-
Refuse to address the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing, and get mad at the person pointing out the double standards. Instead of addressing the substantive arguments, engage in ad hominem attacks against the person pointing out the double standards. Call them a nutcase, or a misogynistic shitlord. Demand a gender segregated safe space where your core beliefs will not be challenged.
Why was this thread taken over by discussion of male circumcision? I’d argue it’s simple demographics, not misogyny. Let’s take into consideration the fact that FGM seems to be exceedingly rare in the United States. The Federal FGM law was passed in 1997, and the Detroit case was the first time anyone was ever charged under that law. It rarely happens here, and when it does it’s almost universally condemned. There’s just not much to talk about on that front. This is an American message board, and while we do have posters from other countries it’s basically a given that anyone posting here is speaks English. If there are any FGM victims reading this board, it seems they haven’t posted their thoughts here yet. I’d welcome their voice. I don’t view their struggle as being fundamentally different from my struggle. To the extent that it is different, it’s a difference of degree (how much of their body they lost) and not of kind (the morality of hacking off children’s body parts). Intactivists and Anti-FGM campaigners should be allies, not enemies. It makes excellent strategic and moral sense for us to be working together.
Dude… Make that defense in your own thread. This one (at least up until you stuck your dick in it) was about female genital mutilation.
Bravo, Blalron. That was a tour de force!
I am saving that link from the Yale bioethicist on the double standard we see playing out on this thread in all the bitching and moaning about men invading their safe space. Whenever I see that kind of pathetic bleating, I’ll just hit ‘em with that link and a choice excerpt. Thanks!
:smack:
You fucking imbecile. You obviously didn’t even really read the post, or the presentation from Earp, the Yale bioethicist, before you coughed up this oblivious boilerplate pablum.
Hey, keep on body shaming strangers and calling them “delusional” because they might be content with their bodies, if that’s your wont. Of course, you could try to not be such an unpleasant person, but you have to decide whether body-shaming and insulting strangers is more important to you than not being so obnoxious and unpleasant.
Keep on preaching from that high horse, Andy. Your brand of lecturing and virtue-signaling is, by contrast, not “unpleasant” because, what, you’re so righteous? Anyone who might find it unpleasant is obviously just a bad person. That about right? :dubious:
Apologies if I hurt your feelings; I’m certainly capable of making mistakes (virtue signaling is a silly alt-right buzzword, but I try not to lecture). Hopefully you can take reasonable criticism onboard and maybe consider not body-shaming and insulting strangers.