religious circumcision IS okay

[sltttbrgr]

Blakaize

dixieboy

Blakaize

But for RIGHT NOW it is legal and arguing over it solves nothing.

It will remain legal until the vast majority of the legal community agrees against it.

IMR is not asking for special treatement, she already, in your eyes obviously, has it.

Sooo, another fallacity?

stare
A little respect would be much appreciated. I am only trying to explain to him why IMR says the things she does. This does not mean I agree or disagree, stop crucifying me as if I was. I am only saying that our opinion do not matter, and while personal opinion and public standards reflect the way laws are made and passed, the majority of America sees nothing wrong with religious/routine circumcision.

Hm Hm hmmm.

[Blakaize]

dixieboy

Blakaize

dixieboy

Blakaize

But for RIGHT NOW it is legal and arguing over it solves nothing.

It will remain legal until the vast majority of the legal community agrees against it.

IMR is not asking for special treatement, she already, in your eyes obviously, has it.

Sooo, another fallacity?

stare
A little respect would be much appreciated. I am only trying to explain to him why IMR says the things she does. This does not mean I agree or disagree, stop crucifying me as if I was. I am only saying that our opinion do not matter, and while personal opinion and public standards reflect the way laws are made and passed, the majority of America sees nothing wrong with religious/routine circumcision.

Hm Hm hmmm.

-sigh-
I give up, you win, you are obviously the expert on everything.
Happy now?
I shall ignore the fact that you're only posting links, not promoting the topic, but, instead spamming the forum.
After all, you are the smarter one, obviously, in all things.

[Soleil Niore]

Blakaize

gossamer!smile.

Blakaize

gossamer!smile.

Blakaize

gossamer!smile.

So Media, are you ready to admit you're not asking for religious freedom, but special treatment?

Are you ready to admit you didn't come here for a discussion but an argument and personal vendetta?
Your post was a very a**-hole thing to say,
stare

It's a valid question.
Are you saying she's not asking for special treatment?
Feel free to explain that.

I'm still not sure how you claim she's asking for special treatment.
Please explain that to me and I'll try.
I believe I made a post about this already, I shall try to find it for you, the post that America is a nation of laws.

She said she wants religious freedom for everyone- freedom to carry out their rituals even if it goes against a person's personal choice, against their ability to consent, and will a cause life-long, lasting effect.

Then she said that other religious groups should not be allowed to do what is in their rituals (ritual murders, sacrifice, getting your child drunk and offering him/her up to your neighbors for sex).

She's not asking for freedom of all religions, she's asking for extra freedom for her religion.

Special treatment.

To try to explain the best I can the ideals of IMR would be difficult. I have but this to say: Those examples you gave are all against the law. Male circumcision is not. America is a nation of laws and the American legal system says that ritual murders, sacrifice, child sex, and mutilation is illegal and those who practice them, even religiously, are met with legal opposition and punishment.

For the time being, Male Circumcision is not illegal in the eyes of the American Legal System. If the day comes that the Law sees that religious circumcision/routine infant circumcision is not lawful, there is no doubt in my mind devout, peace loving Jewish people will refrain from doing this.

Special treatment may not be what she is asking for, as the Jewish people are, in the eyes of the American law, in the clear. Those who practice ritual murder have been found to be unlawful by those eyes.

Your bone to pick is not with IMR but with the American Legal System. IMR is not asking for 'special treatment' but social acceptance.

Circumcision =/= ritual murder, because one is legal and one is illegal. If you would like a reason why, I suggest talking to your communities police chief or a legal council.

Appeal to authority.


Want to try again without using logical fallacies?


Or are you incapable of doing so?

It makes no difference if 'those are illegal but circumcision is not' she wants it to REMAIN legal so she can have RELIGIOUS FREEDOM all while not supporting the religious freedom of OTHER RELIGIONS.

[Blakaize]

Soleil Niore

Blakaize

gossamer!smile.

Blakaize

gossamer!smile.

It's a valid question.
Are you saying she's not asking for special treatment?
Feel free to explain that.

I'm still not sure how you claim she's asking for special treatment.
Please explain that to me and I'll try.
I believe I made a post about this already, I shall try to find it for you, the post that America is a nation of laws.

She said she wants religious freedom for everyone- freedom to carry out their rituals even if it goes against a person's personal choice, against their ability to consent, and will a cause life-long, lasting effect.

Then she said that other religious groups should not be allowed to do what is in their rituals (ritual murders, sacrifice, getting your child drunk and offering him/her up to your neighbors for sex).

She's not asking for freedom of all religions, she's asking for extra freedom for her religion.

Special treatment.

To try to explain the best I can the ideals of IMR would be difficult. I have but this to say: Those examples you gave are all against the law. Male circumcision is not. America is a nation of laws and the American legal system says that ritual murders, sacrifice, child sex, and mutilation is illegal and those who practice them, even religiously, are met with legal opposition and punishment.

For the time being, Male Circumcision is not illegal in the eyes of the American Legal System. If the day comes that the Law sees that religious circumcision/routine infant circumcision is not lawful, there is no doubt in my mind devout, peace loving Jewish people will refrain from doing this.

Special treatment may not be what she is asking for, as the Jewish people are, in the eyes of the American law, in the clear. Those who practice ritual murder have been found to be unlawful by those eyes.

Your bone to pick is not with IMR but with the American Legal System. IMR is not asking for 'special treatment' but social acceptance.

Circumcision =/= ritual murder, because one is legal and one is illegal. If you would like a reason why, I suggest talking to your communities police chief or a legal council.

Appeal to authority.


Want to try again without using logical fallacies?


Or are you incapable of doing so?

It makes no difference if 'those are illegal but circumcision is not' she wants it to REMAIN legal so she can have RELIGIOUS FREEDOM all while not supporting the religious freedom of OTHER RELIGIONS.

You're right, I'm wrong, everything you say is right no matter what it is

[sltttbrgr]

Blakaize

-sigh-
I give up, you win, you are obviously the expert on everything.
Happy now?
I shall ignore the fact that you're only posting links, not promoting the topic, but, instead spamming the forum.
After all, you are the smarter one, obviously, in all things.

Apparantly so

All I want is a fair discussion, and what you're doing is well... cheating, i guess?

[Blakaize]

dixieboy

Blakaize

dixieboy

Blakaize

dixieboy

Blakaize

But for RIGHT NOW it is legal and arguing over it solves nothing.

It will remain legal until the vast majority of the legal community agrees against it.

IMR is not asking for special treatement, she already, in your eyes obviously, has it.

Sooo, another fallacity?

stare
A little respect would be much appreciated. I am only trying to explain to him why IMR says the things she does. This does not mean I agree or disagree, stop crucifying me as if I was. I am only saying that our opinion do not matter, and while personal opinion and public standards reflect the way laws are made and passed, the majority of America sees nothing wrong with religious/routine circumcision.

Hm Hm hmmm.

-sigh-
I give up, you win, you are obviously the expert on everything.
Happy now?
I shall ignore the fact that you're only posting links, not promoting the topic, but, instead spamming the forum.
After all, you are the smarter one, obviously, in all things.

Apparantly so

To be fair, all I want is a fair discussion, and what you're doing is well... cheating, i guess?

Don't be silly, you're obviously right in this situation, I'm just ignorant. I really shouldn't even be at the keyboard.

[Vixianna]

Soleil Niore I'd like an apology for the fallacious claims you made against me. I've posted my original posts into the one responding to you, and thanked you for the info. But you have yet to address the fact you were wrong and jumping to conclusions from not reading the whole thread and jumping into the last two pages. I always read the whole thread before posting, always. I know it's alot to expect from someone else, but it keeps things like this from happening. I'd like an apology and an acknowledgment of being overzealous.

Please and Thank you.

[Soleil Niore]

Vixianna

Soleil Niore

So you decided to backpedal and you're whining because you got caught making a false claim.

I never said that!

So you LIED then about making a later post? You made a claim then later made a different claim, which is called backpedaling.

After all, if you're not the same person, using two different accounts, why would you say this in response to my post to Blakaize?

Vixianna

Soleil Niore

Really? Then explain why Leukemia patients do not have tumors? Hmmmm?

No, the false information comes from doctors who are attempting to protect a billion dollar business. Claiming that removal of the foreskin will 'greatly reduce' HIV, despite the fact that the US has the highest number of cut men and the highest, or second highest, rate of HIV infections, which shows this to be a fallacious claim. The claim of UTI's is fallacious because they are caused by irregularities within urethra, not because of the foreskin. The claim that babies do not feel pain is also fallacious, yet those who support RIC claim they feel nothing both during and after the surgery. The American Cancer Society has refuted all claims of the foreskin causing HPV. If you do not begin having sex at a young age and do not have a multitude of partners you will not get HPV. So what fallacious claims have they made? Hmm?

Does no one read my follow up post where I explained it more clearly? Jesus. I said Blood (leukemia's are a kind of these) and lymphomas don't usually form tumors.

[Blakaize]

Believe me, Vixiana is not my mule account. I believe she was only coming to my aid.

[Soleil Niore]

Blackzilla34

I shall just state my opinion, I don't see why some people are against circumcision. The baby may feel pain but it won't matter in the long run. I am circumcised and I don't remember the pain and I find it to be more comfortable. To be truthful, I don't really understand the big deal.

I'll just state my opinion. I don't know why people are against raping babies. They might feel pain but it won't matter in the long run. They're not going to remember it after all.

[Blakaize]

Soleil Niore

Blackzilla34

I shall just state my opinion, I don't see why some people are against circumcision. The baby may feel pain but it won't matter in the long run. I am circumcised and I don't remember the pain and I find it to be more comfortable. To be truthful, I don't really understand the big deal.

I'll just state my opinion. I don't know why people are against raping babies. They might feel pain but it won't matter in the long run. They're not going to remember it after all.

I wish that dixie person would be able to point out what kind of fallacity this is . . .

[Soleil Niore]

Blakaize

dixieboy

Blakaize

But for RIGHT NOW it is legal and arguing over it solves nothing.

It will remain legal until the vast majority of the legal community agrees against it.

IMR is not asking for special treatement, she already, in your eyes obviously, has it.

Sooo, another fallacity?

stare
A little respect would be much appreciated. I am only trying to explain to him why IMR says the things she does. This does not mean I agree or disagree, stop crucifying me as if I was. I am only saying that our opinion do not matter, and while personal opinion and public standards reflect the way laws are made and passed, the majority of America sees nothing wrong with religious/routine circumcision.

Doesn't matter, you're still using logical fallacies left and right, including poisoning the well, ad homs, appeal to tradition, and appeal to authority.

[Vixianna]

Soleil Niore

Vixianna

Soleil Niore

So you decided to backpedal and you're whining because you got caught making a false claim.

I never said that!

So you LIED then about making a later post? You made a claim then later made a different claim, which is called backpedaling.

Ok I'll try this again. I meant I never said That blood cancer and all lymphomas have tumors. That's what I never said.

You are just taking things out of context, and trying to pick a fight with someone you have no qualms with. I never said that blood cancer and all lymphomas have tumors and I never said that all cancers start out as tumors. Another poster did. I even posted my original response and my subsequent response into the one you are quoting. Someone else quoted me and Mr. Ransom's conversation. Could Blakaize and Mr. Ransom please back me up so she can get this straight?

Why are you acting like this? I didn't back pedal and I didn't make one claim and then make another. I am a totally different poster than Blakaize. I am not a mule. I am another person. Please read the whole post with my original posts added for you. Or go back to the 55 page and read forward. PLEASE. And stop saying I'm backpedaling and lying about what I said, or I'll report you for slander and abuse.

This is ridiculous...

[Vixianna]

Soleil Niore

After all, if you're not the same person, using two different accounts, why would you say this in response to my post to Blakaize?

Vixianna"
Does no one read my follow up post where I explained it more clearly? Jesus. I said Blood (leukemia's are a kind of these) and lymphomas don't [i] usually form tu

o4a18w4d:1="Vixianna"
Does no one read my follow up post where I explained it more clearly? Jesus. I said Blood (leukemia's are a kind of these) and lymphomas don't [i] usually form tumors.

That is because Blak quoted me after Mr. Ransom did, and was responding to something he said, which was a response to something I said. She made a claim counter to what I did, and went off the handle about it. You assume we are the same person and we aren't. I don't have any mules, i only have one account. And I am not Blak's mule. I'm a different person who believes and has said different things...

[Blakaize]

Soleil Niore

Blakaize

dixieboy

Blakaize

But for RIGHT NOW it is legal and arguing over it solves nothing.

It will remain legal until the vast majority of the legal community agrees against it.

IMR is not asking for special treatement, she already, in your eyes obviously, has it.

Sooo, another fallacity?

stare
A little respect would be much appreciated. I am only trying to explain to him why IMR says the things she does. This does not mean I agree or disagree, stop crucifying me as if I was. I am only saying that our opinion do not matter, and while personal opinion and public standards reflect the way laws are made and passed, the majority of America sees nothing wrong with religious/routine circumcision.

Doesn't matter, you're still using logical fallacies left and right, including poisoning the well, ad homs, appeal to tradition, and appeal to authority.

You're right, it doesn't matter. Nothing I say matters. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm a terrible person, you're a saint.
smile