Lady Tam Li Hua
Chitsa Black
If you actually think that NO MALE IS EVER AFFECTED then you're being deliberately ignorant and blind. Or are you going to say 'well, they don't matter' because they're not the majority? If that's the case then the same philosophy can be applied to a lot of things that are considered wrong, like rape. As logn as there's no physical damage it's okay, because, after all, not all rapes are violent.
I never said that no male is ever affected. Rather, my indication was that the percent of guys who actually consider this a dead-serious issue probably
equal about 1% of the American population [give or take a few percents].
Rape is a silly and unjust comparison IMHO, and nothing you or anyone else says will convince me that it's not.
Prove the bold. I am sick of you making baseless claims. Now back your s**t up.
What you think is not law sweets. One violation of the body is no better or worse than another. Hell, the comparison is coming form someone who has been raped twice, if anyone should think it was unjust it would be me, yet I think it's a fitting comparison. Just as not all males who are cut are forever traumatized by it not all rape victims are forever traumatized so the philosophy holds. As long as it's not something that is permanently damaging it is okay to do it.
Lady Tam Li Hua
Quote:
You can prove the bold, right? Also, what deity died and made you supreme ruler of what people care about? Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean that most people don't care.
Already responded to this, you silly silly woman.
No, you made yet another baseless claim without any proof whatsoever. So, PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
Lady Tam Li Hua
Quote:
So we can remove parts of your fingers and you won't care, right?
Like I said before, this is also a silly and far too over-dramatic comparison, IMHO. Circumcision is the equivalent of taking some skin off of said finger,
not the entire finger itself.
rolleyes You aren't removing bone, and the p***s itself...*sigh*
Translation: If I say no then it would have to mean me rethinking my stance on circumcision, so instead I'll evade the question. Evading the question is the same as saying "No, you can't do that to me because I would care and it's not right" which in turn means that you are deliberately refusing to admit that you are wrong about people not caring and you refuse to accept that your stance is a flawed one.
Lady Tam Li Hua
Ya know what, I can't do this any more; you and everyone else -know- my arguments; I've typed them until my fingers have turned blue. You're -never- going to like or agree with my opinion, and I'm not inclined at this juncture to change it.
I'm happy, my circumcised husband is happy, and if we have a baby boy, he'll be happy. That's it; that's all. There isn't any more.
I just...I give up.
As vindictive as this sounds, I hope to all the gods and goddesses who are listening that your kid despises you for violating his body and removing part of his p***s against his will. To claim 'he'll be happy' is so damn arrogant it deserves a vindictive comment.
My ex-husband is happy about being circumcised. According to YOUR logic my sixteen year old should be happy about being cut, but he voiced displeasure about it before I ever commented on how I felt about RIC. Part of me hopes that you don't have ANY children, ever, because with arrogance like that there's no telling what kinds of things you'll do to your kid and claim he or she is happy about it.