Originally posted by Robtard
Cos I can't in good conscious call something that is high-tech and doesn't involve the whacking off of body parts for basically cosmetic purposes "barbaric."Seems you're intent on defending that mutilation isn't "barbaric."
I don't consider it mutilation any more than I would consider removing wisdom teeth mutilation of the mouth.
Originally posted by Robtard
So as questioned above, if done is a nice clean hospital, the removal of say the labia and/or clitoral hood wouldn't be "barbaric" either. Odd.
If it hurts the patient absolutely none, has no future health repercussions, doesn't demand that the patient live life any differently than they normally would... No. I'm having a hard time labeling that as barbaric.
Never-mind the fact that there actually ARE negative repercussions to female circumcision. At least some forms anyway. So the similarities to male circumcision are already removed. It's not the same thing.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't consider it mutilation any more than I would consider removing wisdom teeth mutilation of the mouth.If it hurts the patient absolutely none, has no future health repercussions, doesn't demand that the patient live life any differently than they normally would... No. I'm having a hard time labeling that as barbaric.
Never-mind the fact that there actually ARE negative repercussions to female circumcision. At least some forms anyway. So the similarities to male circumcision are already removed. It's not the same thing.
Your wisdom teeth comparison is absolute nonsense, but there's no point going over it a 5th time. Oh well.
Not all female circumcision is equal, some tribes/people 'merely' remove part of the inner labia, which if done in a clean environment, would be comparable to male circumcision. Same thing with removing the clitoral-hood.There ARE negatives to male circumcision though, less sensation on the phallic-head compared to an intact penis is common.
Your stance essentially boils down to "it's okay to cut a piece of a boy's genitals, but not a girls, cos." Which is [likely] due to circumcision being ingrained into Western society as "it's fine", for no other reason than it's done often.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you don't circumcise your males, then how would god know who his people are?
If you're religious and believe God made you "in his own image", I find it odd that you'd think whacking off a beneficial piece of your child's penis to be an improvement. Somehow you succeeded where God failed.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your wisdom teeth comparison is absolute nonsense, but there's no point going over it a 5th time. Oh well.
I wasn't using it in the same way I was before. My point was that you can put the term "mutilation" on to removing wisdom teeth to. I don't consider removing wisdom teeth as "mutilating" a child's mouth. And I don't consider circumcision as "mutilating" a child's genitals.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not all female circumcision is equal, some tribes/people 'merely' remove part of the inner labia, which if done in a clean environment, would be comparable to male circumcision. Same thing with removing the clitoral-hood.There ARE negatives to male circumcision though, less sensation on the phallic-head compared to an intact penis is common.
If what you say is true, and female circumcision can be done in a way that is equal to male circumcision, then I wouldn't call it barbaric either. I wouldn't see any particular reason to have it performed, but I wouldn't call it barbaric. It's the same as having a child's eye or hair color changed. It's an unnecessary alteration, but it's not barbaric.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your stance essentially boils down to "it's okay to cut a piece of a boy's genitals, but not a girls, cos." Which is [likely] due to circumcision being ingrained into Western society as "it's fine", for no other reason than it's done often.
That's not what my stance boils down to at all. I said it was wrong to perform female circumcision because of all the negative repercussions it entails. Take those away, and I would view it as basically the same as having a girls eye color changed. Unnecessary, but not barbaric. At least there are benefits to male circumcision, though. I don't know if the same can be said about female circumcision.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I wasn't using it in the same way I was before. My point was that you can put the term "mutilation" on to removing wisdom teeth to. I don't consider removing wisdom teeth as "mutilating" a child's mouth. And I don't consider circumcision as "mutilating" a child's genitals.If what you say is true, and female circumcision can be done in a way that is equal to male circumcision, then I wouldn't call it barbaric either. I wouldn't see any particular reason to have it performed, but I wouldn't call it barbaric. It's the same as having a child's eye or hair color changed. It's an unnecessary alteration, but it's not barbaric.
That's not what my stance boils down to at all. I said it was wrong to perform female circumcision because of all the negative repercussions it entails. Take those away, and I would view it as basically the same as having a girls eye color changed. Unnecessary, but not barbaric. At least there are benefits to male circumcision, though. I don't know if the same can be said about female circumcision.
Again, you're comparing by saying that. But okay.
Female circumcision can be done for the same exact reasons as male circumcision.
There are no real benefits to male circumcision(unless you consider aesthetic reasons as a benefit). The foreskin is there for a reason; it's not a vestigial organ. It protects the penis head and protects the opening; helping prevent urinary tract infections. If you're going to insist on the "if can get dirty under there, so it's best to whack it off" angle, then the same be be said concerning female circumcision, the clitoral-hood and folds of the labia are far more likely to attract and form bacteria, just one not clean. Yeast infections are common in women.
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, you're comparing by saying that. But okay.Female circumcision can be done for the same exact reasons as male circumcision.
There are no real benefits to male circumcision(unless you consider aesthetic reasons as a benefit). The foreskin is there for a reason; it's not a vestigial organ. It protects the penis head and protects the opening; helping prevent urinary tract infections. If you're going to insist on the "if can get dirty under there, so it's best to whack it off" angle, then the same be be said concerning female circumcision, the clitoral-hood and folds of the labia are far more likely to attract and form bacteria, just one not clean. Yeast infections are common in women.
You didn't really address my points. When it comes down to it, circumcision is basically the same as having the child's eye color changed (except there are actually benefits to having it done, even if you don't find them very important). So you either have to say that having a child's eye color changed is barbaric, or you have to show the difference between the two that makes one barbaric and the other not.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://mobile.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/health/120607/jewish-circumcision-ritual-carries-herpes-risk-says-cdc
I don't know what this was suppose to show. This was a special ritual, and it was done out of hospital.
Why hijab in Islam??????
peace be upon you
The imposition of the veil to the rule of God and the secrets of great, and commendable virtues, and the goals and the interests of large, including:
First: Remember Width: Veil guard to save the legitimacy of the symptoms, and the payment of the reasons for suspicion and strife and corruption.
Second: purity of heart: a farewell to the purity of the veil hearts of the believers, men and women, and architecture piety, and to maximize privacy. And sincerity of God - the Almighty - {that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts}.
Third, good manners: the veil is to provide an advocate morals of chastity and modesty and shyness, jealousy, and the blocking of of pollution and depravity
Fourth, a sign of the chaste: the veil on the sign of the legitimacy of Silks chaste in their chastity and honor, and the distance from the impurity of suspicion and doubt: { (59) O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful }, and the apparent evidence of Salah Salah al-Batin,
Fifth: cutting ambitions and Discussion diabolical: the veil and prevention of social harm, diseases of the hearts of men and women, cut off further ambitions promiscuous, and keeps eyes treacherous, and pay the harm a man in his presentation, and harm women in the view, and male relative, and prevention of throwing chaste , and desecrated the suspicion and doubt, and other passing thoughts diabolical.
Sixth: Remember modesty: it is taken from life, there is no life without him, which create deposited God in the soul that he wanted - Almighty - honored, also cause the virtues, and pay in the faces of vices, one of the human characteristics, and qualities of instinct, and the creation of Islam, and modesty is a branch of people of faith, one of the qualities of Mahmoud endorsed by the Arabs and Islam and called for by the veil only effective way to save the modesty, and take off take off the veil of modesty.
Seventh: The veil prevents the wanton display and unveiling the influence of mixing and communities to the people of Islam.
Eighth: the veil immunity against adultery, pornography, so that the women of each vessel and clear.
IX: Women roughness, and the veil cover her, and that of piety, God said: (26) O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness - that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember. . Al-Araf (The Heights) } (custom / 26).
Ten: Remember jealousy
In summary of the above post, veil necessity according to Islam -
- Men are savage animals who upon seeing a small part of women's skin will not be able help themselves but rape it.
- Women are shameful creatures who cannot be seen as upon being seen will wake the desire of men to go on a rape spree. Her whole body is like her vagina, and thus must be covered to keep her from getting raped and to keep man from going into a rape rage.
So much wisdom in Islam! OMFG I want to revert!? Sign me up right now. Your dawah has been successful!
Sam, that is among the creepiest things I've ever read. Maybe you're a rape-minded creep, but it is not a serious thought in most minds.
Also, there's actually a fair amount of evidence that women's sex drive is as powerful or more powerful than men. The societal narratives surrounding the genders and sex just lead us to different conclusions. Even more surprisingly, the gap between men and women in the realm of sexual abuse is not as wide as is popularly believed:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
We're products of evolution, and sex is basically the prime directive. It makes sense that it's not a one-sided affair.
Originally posted by SamZED
Yeah... Joking. Why is that a problem? Ive been on KMC for 7 years and must say its hardly the meanest joke this forum has witnessed. A day doesnt go by without someone making jokes about "surprise butt sex". Digi, im not seriously threatening anyone...
Ok, sure, I get that. And I don't mean to come down too hard. It's just, even on the internet, there's such a thing as timing, context, and delivery. Your first post comes across as kinda creepy and messed up, is all. If you intended it solely as a joke, sorry to dredge it up. I just physically grimaced when I read it. Maybe it's just the thread topic, and lil's serious, though sarcastic, evisceration of it, that a flippant joke about rape seemed out of place.