religious circumcision IS okay

[Soleil Niore]

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

Media, please respond to this.

This is a fallacy. How would I personally even know of these other religious acts?
The only ones I care about pertain to Judaism.

It's not a fallacy, it's a valid point that strikes at the heart of your argument.

You claim people should be allowed to carry on their religious rituals, regardless of what they are. i.e. sucking a d**k, getting a wooden pole rammed up your a**, and getting your p***s turtleneck sliced off.

So you also think other religious acts, like murders, child prostitution, etc, are okay- as long as they are religious.

If not, then you should understand why people are so against you mutilating infant boys.

No, that's not kosher.

So you admit you don't want religious freedom (which should be for everyone) you just want special treatment.

Religious freedom is fine and all, but it stops when it infringes on the freedom of someone else. Like ritual murders, child prostitution, and so on.

Why do you think your religion deserves special treatment?

Ritual murders and child prostitution =/ circumcision.

It's not the same thing, not even close.

Prove that claim. Prove that to those who follow those religions that it is NOT THE SAME.

[Soleil Niore]

Appel Cyder

gossamer!smile.

Appel Cyder

gossamer!smile.

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

"Yeah officer, I made my daughter suck my d**k.
But it wasn't sexual. Pff. rolleyes "

For some reason I don't think that'd hold up in court.

That's absolutely not the same thing at all!

What's different? The fact that it was done by a gentile?
So gentiles aren't allowed to have their penises sucked by children in a non-sexual manner?
It's a right reserved soley for jews?

It's not the children doing it to the rabbi, first of all.

You still have yet to prove that all genital contact is sexual.

As I remember, you're the one that likes to argue legality.

How about the fact that, in the eyes of the law, contact with a child's bathing suit areas that are not medicinal, or for other necessary things such as washing (but that stops around the age of like three or four), especially with someone's mouth or their own privates, is considered child molestation- a sexual act, and illegal.

Since everyone in this thread is so dead st against arguing legality, prove objectively without invoking the law that all genital contact is sexual.

I don't see where anyone, save yourself, has ever stated that all types of genital contact is sexual.

[Aino Ailill]

Soleil Niore

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

It's not a fallacy, it's a valid point that strikes at the heart of your argument.

You claim people should be allowed to carry on their religious rituals, regardless of what they are. i.e. sucking a d**k, getting a wooden pole rammed up your a**, and getting your p***s turtleneck sliced off.

So you also think other religious acts, like murders, child prostitution, etc, are okay- as long as they are religious.

If not, then you should understand why people are so against you mutilating infant boys.

No, that's not kosher.

So you admit you don't want religious freedom (which should be for everyone) you just want special treatment.

Religious freedom is fine and all, but it stops when it infringes on the freedom of someone else. Like ritual murders, child prostitution, and so on.

Why do you think your religion deserves special treatment?

Ritual murders and child prostitution =/ circumcision.

It's not the same thing, not even close.

Prove that claim. Prove that to those who follow those religions that it is NOT THE SAME.

Circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin. Child prostitution involves selling the use of a child's body for sexual acts for a monetary reimbursement. Ritual murders involve the illegal killing with malicious intent of a person. I fail to see how these might be considered 'the same.' However, they might be considered morally equivalent.

[Vixianna]

Soleil Niore

Appel Cyder

gossamer!smile.

Appel Cyder

gossamer!smile.

What's different? The fact that it was done by a gentile?
So gentiles aren't allowed to have their penises sucked by children in a non-sexual manner?
It's a right reserved soley for jews?

It's not the children doing it to the rabbi, first of all.
You still have yet to prove that all genital contact is sexual.

As I remember, you're the one that likes to argue legality.
How about the fact that, in the eyes of the law, contact with a child's bathing suit areas that are not medicinal, or for other necessary things such as washing (but that stops around the age of like three or four), especially with someone's mouth or their own privates, is considered child molestation- a sexual act, and illegal.

Since everyone in this thread is so dead st against arguing legality, prove objectively without invoking the law that all genital contact is sexual.

I don't see where anyone, save yourself, has ever stated that all types of genital contact is sexual.

That's cause you just got here. Others have claimed that it was. I'm not going back to find it but read the whole thread.

[Soleil Niore]

Aino Ailill

Soleil Niore

In Medias Res IV

Quote:

Shall I point out for the umpteenth time that the claim of 'It's always been in the Torah' has been refuted for OVER TWO HUNDRED ******** YEARS?????? Or are you going to AGAIN ignore that because to acknowledge it would mean having to reassess your claims?

No. The book of J is no where in my Torah so it's useless to even bring it up.

Then you don't have an actual Torah do you hon? Your make-believe book isn't the Torah. I think I know what she's referring to, and to whom; Rabbi Maimonides. If your claim to be Jewish is real then you know who he is and what he said, yes?

Could you explain for the rest of us?

Rabbi Maimonides was born on March 30, 1135 and died on December 13, 1204. He himself stated that the original Torah made no mention of circumcision. He stated that it was man who added that into the Torah in order to control a man's sexuality. The fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah, which is used today, was influenced by his works and views, which are considered the cornerstone of Jewish thought and study. Considering the fact that the 13 principles of faith that are held to be obligatory by Orthodox Jews, comes form Maimonides' works, it would seem that the Orthodox Jews only wish to follow the parts of the Torah and not the original version of it either.

[Blakaize]

Mr Ransom 2

Vixianna

Mr Ransom 2

honestly, I cannot find anything that says you can or cant, but I am going to ask a doctor on this, but I don't see it as possible for a tumor to grow on something so thin

Wow new google record for me, only 15 seconds...Penile cancer

And it says right there and I quote: "Penile cancer starts in the skin of the p***s. Almost all (about 95%) penile cancers develop from flat skin cells called squamous cells. Squamous cell cancers can develop anywhere on the p***s. Most of these cancers are found on the foreskin (in men who have not been circumcised) or on the glans."

Ln2medicineresearch, or maybe Lrn2Google. Anyway, these are slow growing but there are fast growing types of cancers of the p***s(and note 95% are on the foreskin(though that doesn't warrant full removal)) But most likely it's a type of soft tissue cancer called a Sarcoma. A sarcoma effects any soft tissue from blood vessels to muscles. So he could a blood vessel sarcoma of any type.

I see nothing about at tumor in there, and I do not think cancer always requires a tumor, and circumcision does not help prevent cancer

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/aitken-swan1/
http://www.nocirc.org/statements/cervical_cancer_stmt2002.php
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/acs/

You sir, are an idiot!
Ever Cancer begins with a tumor!
However, not all tumors are cancerous!
You have just proven you have little to no medical knowledge on the subject of penile deseases besides that of which has been given to you by bias sources.

[Soleil Niore]

Aino Ailill

Soleil Niore

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

It's not a fallacy, it's a valid point that strikes at the heart of your argument.

You claim people should be allowed to carry on their religious rituals, regardless of what they are. i.e. sucking a d**k, getting a wooden pole rammed up your a**, and getting your p***s turtleneck sliced off.

So you also think other religious acts, like murders, child prostitution, etc, are okay- as long as they are religious.

If not, then you should understand why people are so against you mutilating infant boys.

No, that's not kosher.

So you admit you don't want religious freedom (which should be for everyone) you just want special treatment.

Religious freedom is fine and all, but it stops when it infringes on the freedom of someone else. Like ritual murders, child prostitution, and so on.

Why do you think your religion deserves special treatment?

Ritual murders and child prostitution =/ circumcision.

It's not the same thing, not even close.

Prove that claim. Prove that to those who follow those religions that it is NOT THE SAME.

Circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin. Child prostitution involves selling the use of a child's body for sexual acts for a monetary reimbursement. Ritual murders involve the illegal killing with malicious intent of a person. I fail to see how these might be considered 'the same.' However, they might be considered morally equivalent.

That is in no way proof that to those who follow those religions it is not the same to them as removing a part of the body. Not to mention no one ever said anything about prostitution, just sex with children. Well, no one save medias.

[Soleil Niore]

Vixianna

Soleil Niore

Appel Cyder

gossamer!smile.

Appel Cyder

gossamer!smile.

What's different? The fact that it was done by a gentile?
So gentiles aren't allowed to have their penises sucked by children in a non-sexual manner?
It's a right reserved soley for jews?

It's not the children doing it to the rabbi, first of all.
You still have yet to prove that all genital contact is sexual.

As I remember, you're the one that likes to argue legality.
How about the fact that, in the eyes of the law, contact with a child's bathing suit areas that are not medicinal, or for other necessary things such as washing (but that stops around the age of like three or four), especially with someone's mouth or their own privates, is considered child molestation- a sexual act, and illegal.

Since everyone in this thread is so dead st against arguing legality, prove objectively without invoking the law that all genital contact is sexual.

I don't see where anyone, save yourself, has ever stated that all types of genital contact is sexual.

That's cause you just got here. Others have claimed that it was. I'm not going back to find it but read the whole thread.

If it's there and you've seen it it should be easy to find. If you claim it is within the last ten pages that is a lie as I have read the last ten pages. I'm not doing your work for you. If it's there then you can find the proof of the claim.

[Blakaize]

Mr Ransom 2

Aino Ailill

Mr Ransom 2

Aino Ailill

Mr Ransom 2

honestly, I cannot find anything that says you can or cant, but I am going to ask a doctor on this, but I don't see it as possible for a tumor to grow on something so thin

So, in other words, you accused the person of lying without a shred of evidence based on your fallacious logic? Good to know.

I am human, I make mistakes.

Maybe you ought to apologize to the person you accused of lying?

Quote:

I thought you were against circumcision, you seem to be playing both sides.

When I see an argument that I believe may be flawed, I will dispute it. I am not arguing for either side.

no, she has made her share of bullshit claims as well

and understandable, but you sure sounded against it earlier in the thead

Proof I made bullshit claims, oh wisher of dead babies with whole penises?

[Soleil Niore]

Blakaize

Mr Ransom 2

Vixianna

Mr Ransom 2

honestly, I cannot find anything that says you can or cant, but I am going to ask a doctor on this, but I don't see it as possible for a tumor to grow on something so thin

Wow new google record for me, only 15 seconds...Penile cancer

And it says right there and I quote: "Penile cancer starts in the skin of the p***s. Almost all (about 95%) penile cancers develop from flat skin cells called squamous cells. Squamous cell cancers can develop anywhere on the p***s. Most of these cancers are found on the foreskin (in men who have not been circumcised) or on the glans."

Ln2medicineresearch, or maybe Lrn2Google. Anyway, these are slow growing but there are fast growing types of cancers of the p***s(and note 95% are on the foreskin(though that doesn't warrant full removal)) But most likely it's a type of soft tissue cancer called a Sarcoma. A sarcoma effects any soft tissue from blood vessels to muscles. So he could a blood vessel sarcoma of any type.

I see nothing about at tumor in there, and I do not think cancer always requires a tumor, and circumcision does not help prevent cancer

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/aitken-swan1/
http://www.nocirc.org/statements/cervical_cancer_stmt2002.php
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/acs/

You sir, are an idiot!
Ever Cancer begins with a tumor!
However, not all tumors are cancerous!
You have just proven you have little to no medical knowledge on the subject of penile deseases besides that of which has been given to you by bias sources.

The bold is ironic given the fact that the very posts you quoted states clearly that penile cancers do not start as tumors.

[Aino Ailill]

Soleil Niore

Aino Ailill

Soleil Niore

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

So you admit you don't want religious freedom (which should be for everyone) you just want special treatment.

Religious freedom is fine and all, but it stops when it infringes on the freedom of someone else. Like ritual murders, child prostitution, and so on.

Why do you think your religion deserves special treatment?

Ritual murders and child prostitution =/ circumcision.

It's not the same thing, not even close.

Prove that claim. Prove that to those who follow those religions that it is NOT THE SAME.

Circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin. Child prostitution involves selling the use of a child's body for sexual acts for a monetary reimbursement. Ritual murders involve the illegal killing with malicious intent of a person. I fail to see how these might be considered 'the same.' However, they might be considered morally equivalent.

That is in no way proof that to those who follow those religions it is not the same to them as removing a part of the body. Not to mention no one ever said anything about prostitution, just sex with children. Well, no one save medias.

...the claim which you told IMR to prove mention child prostitution. As such, I referred to that post.

If the acts are, literally, the same for the people who follow these religions, then these people are, simply, wrong. Again, they may be morally equivalent, either in sanctifying or condemning, but they can not be 'the same.' The definitions of the words do not allow it.

[Soleil Niore]

Blakaize

Mr Ransom 2

Aino Ailill

Mr Ransom 2

Aino Ailill

So, in other words, you accused the person of lying without a shred of evidence based on your fallacious logic? Good to know.

I am human, I make mistakes.

Maybe you ought to apologize to the person you accused of lying?

Quote:

I thought you were against circumcision, you seem to be playing both sides.

When I see an argument that I believe may be flawed, I will dispute it. I am not arguing for either side.

no, she has made her share of bullshit claims as well

and understandable, but you sure sounded against it earlier in the thead

Proof I made bullshit claims, oh wisher of dead babies with whole penises?

This very flame would be a bullshit comment, would it not?

[Aino Ailill]

Blakaize

Mr Ransom 2

Aino Ailill

Mr Ransom 2

Aino Ailill

So, in other words, you accused the person of lying without a shred of evidence based on your fallacious logic? Good to know.

I am human, I make mistakes.

Maybe you ought to apologize to the person you accused of lying?

Quote:

I thought you were against circumcision, you seem to be playing both sides.

When I see an argument that I believe may be flawed, I will dispute it. I am not arguing for either side.

no, she has made her share of bullshit claims as well

and understandable, but you sure sounded against it earlier in the thead

Proof I made bullshit claims, oh wisher of dead babies with whole penises?

...I haven't actually seen you prove that Ransom wished such upon those who would be circumcised. For all I know, and certainly according to Ransom, it is BS. sweatdrop

[Soleil Niore]

Aino Ailill

Soleil Niore

Aino Ailill

Soleil Niore

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

So you admit you don't want religious freedom (which should be for everyone) you just want special treatment.

Religious freedom is fine and all, but it stops when it infringes on the freedom of someone else. Like ritual murders, child prostitution, and so on.

Why do you think your religion deserves special treatment?

Ritual murders and child prostitution =/ circumcision.

It's not the same thing, not even close.

Prove that claim. Prove that to those who follow those religions that it is NOT THE SAME.

Circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin. Child prostitution involves selling the use of a child's body for sexual acts for a monetary reimbursement. Ritual murders involve the illegal killing with malicious intent of a person. I fail to see how these might be considered 'the same.' However, they might be considered morally equivalent.

That is in no way proof that to those who follow those religions it is not the same to them as removing a part of the body. Not to mention no one ever said anything about prostitution, just sex with children. Well, no one save medias.

...the claim which you told IMR to prove mention child prostitution. As such, I referred to that post.

If the acts are, literally, the same for the people who follow these religions, then these people are, simply, wrong. Again, they may be morally equivalent, either in sanctifying or condemning, but they can not be 'the same.' The definitions of the words do not allow it.

Ah, I missed that in his post. Same, similar, equivalent, to those who follow those religions doing those things are the same to them as a Jewish person removing part of an infant's p***s for religion. Her claim was that they are not equivalent, or the same thing, I asked for proof that to those religions it is not the same, or equivalent, to the Jewish practice of foreskin amputation.

[PumpIcin]

Soleil Niore

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

In Medias Res IV

gossamer!smile.

It's not a fallacy, it's a valid point that strikes at the heart of your argument.

You claim people should be allowed to carry on their religious rituals, regardless of what they are. i.e. sucking a d**k, getting a wooden pole rammed up your a**, and getting your p***s turtleneck sliced off.

So you also think other religious acts, like murders, child prostitution, etc, are okay- as long as they are religious.

If not, then you should understand why people are so against you mutilating infant boys.

No, that's not kosher.

So you admit you don't want religious freedom (which should be for everyone) you just want special treatment.

Religious freedom is fine and all, but it stops when it infringes on the freedom of someone else. Like ritual murders, child prostitution, and so on.

Why do you think your religion deserves special treatment?

Ritual murders and child prostitution =/ circumcision.

It's not the same thing, not even close.

Prove that claim. Prove that to those who follow those religions that it is NOT THE SAME.

Minor problem here- circumcision is a lot more like incestuous date rape than ritual murders or child prostitution. Here's my logic for this-

Rape is an invasion upon someone's body, more specifically, their genitals.
Date rape is often never remembered, because they were drugged.
Normally mentally scarring- but not anymore! They didn't even remember the rape! Oh, goody! biggrin
Normally extremely painful, but hey! That doesn't matter if they don't remember it.
It's gender-specific, in this case.
They're parents give consent on their behalf.

Using this logic, date rape is obviously extremely similar to infant circumcision, with the only difference being that the latter shows scars long after it has been done. Perhaps one may be lead to the conclusion that... circumcision is worse than date rape?