Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

tisonlyi · 08-30-2003, 06:09 AM

dtheriault:

Utterly defeated on points of fact, the knave resorts to low brow sarcasm.

You made a bad choice. You found evidence to back your own prejudice and ignored the overwhelming body of accepted FACT.

Your right, but you shouldn't fool yourself as to why you did it. It wasn't for health reasons.

75 years ago, i'm sure a reasonably intelligent man could find 'facts' to back up home correction.

150 years ago, there were many 'facts' flying around to justify the inferiority of the negro.

Times change.

Barbarity wilts in the face of reason.

Don't get angry at me for YOUR POOR DECISION.

giblfiz:

A Jewish person with a tolerance for barbarism, isn't there a word for that in today's world?

Zionist? (yes, my tongue is firmly in my cheek)

Even for you chaps, if you go back to your history, it was more about identification and unity than cleanliness. The original circumcision was far, FAR less intrsuive, only taking a small section of the skin, which could easily be streched.

That stretching took place in areas under greek control where athletes would perform in the nude, with Jews being ridiculed for their lack of a full foreskin. Some athletes underwent procedures like hanging weights and stuffing the inside, etc to restore them to nature and remove the insults and sniping.

Obviously, your ancestors didn't like that at all, decreeing that from then on, all Jewish boys would have a full circumcision.

Which is utterly brutal, barbaric, and in your culture done without any kind of anaesthetic, unless i'm mistaken?

As for the tonsil and appendix points... irrelevent. diseased, dangerous, medically must be removed (currently - that will change at some point in the future, unless we wipe ourselves out.)

My hand point was valid, as there is NO VALID, RATIONAL, REASON TO REMOVE A HAND OR A FORESKIN AT BIRTH. (defects and complications aside)

Religious reasoning, well, I don't agree. personally. The child should be left to make that decision at a later date, like, when he's in command of the full facts and at an age when he could possibly do something like, oh i don't know... MAKE A REASONED CHOICE.

Who knows, the little lad might just turn out to be an atheist who enjoys the aesthetics and pleasures of an intact penis.

If he's lucky, which, being born to you, he wasn't.

08-30-2003, 06:09 AM	#93 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	dtheriault: Utterly defeated on points of fact, the knave resorts to low brow sarcasm. You made a bad choice. You found evidence to back your own prejudice and ignored the overwhelming body of accepted FACT. Your right, but you shouldn't fool yourself as to why you did it. It wasn't for health reasons. 75 years ago, i'm sure a reasonably intelligent man could find 'facts' to back up home correction. 150 years ago, there were many 'facts' flying around to justify the inferiority of the negro. Times change. Barbarity wilts in the face of reason. Don't get angry at me for YOUR POOR DECISION. giblfiz: A Jewish person with a tolerance for barbarism, isn't there a word for that in today's world? Zionist? (yes, my tongue is firmly in my cheek) Even for you chaps, if you go back to your history, it was more about identification and unity than cleanliness. The original circumcision was far, FAR less intrsuive, only taking a small section of the skin, which could easily be streched. That stretching took place in areas under greek control where athletes would perform in the nude, with Jews being ridiculed for their lack of a full foreskin. Some athletes underwent procedures like hanging weights and stuffing the inside, etc to restore them to nature and remove the insults and sniping. Obviously, your ancestors didn't like that at all, decreeing that from then on, all Jewish boys would have a full circumcision. Which is utterly brutal, barbaric, and in your culture done without any kind of anaesthetic, unless i'm mistaken? As for the tonsil and appendix points... irrelevent. diseased, dangerous, medically must be removed (currently - that will change at some point in the future, unless we wipe ourselves out.) My hand point was valid, as there is NO VALID, RATIONAL, REASON TO REMOVE A HAND OR A FORESKIN AT BIRTH. (defects and complications aside) Religious reasoning, well, I don't agree. personally. The child should be left to make that decision at a later date, like, when he's in command of the full facts and at an age when he could possibly do something like, oh i don't know... MAKE A REASONED CHOICE. Who knows, the little lad might just turn out to be an atheist who enjoys the aesthetics and pleasures of an intact penis. If he's lucky, which, being born to you, he wasn't. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}-- Last edited by tisonlyi; 08-30-2003 at 06:13 AM..