Marinus

I'm not sure what you mean by that but I think it's clear that the BOR and the Bible aren't very compatible. I am however curious what makes you think non-Americans benefited from the BoR.

Anyone who thinks this /\ is something the Christian God would say should really read the bible again. No equality, unalienable rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in there.

300.000 sounds like a lot, but in the end it's only about 0,1% of the US population. And they don't sound like terrorists either, they sound like conservatives who want a free ride and have some demands too, albeit somewhat vague demands. Or in other words: they sound like the right-wing branch of the OWS movement. I recommend some pre-emptive pepper-spraying.

In case I wasn't clear the first couple of times: HYGIENE IS NORMALLY NOT AN ISSUE IN UNCUT MALES Unless you think it's a problem uncut males need two hands to keep things clean downstairs. It's nothing more than an urban myth that it's hard to keep an uncut penis clean, (I'm sort of curious what the cut and their fans imagine we uncut have to do to keep things tidy, I suspect you think we need 30 minutes and a special penis cleaning kit to get it done) and it's at least peculiar that this myth only seems to exist in cultures/societies where circumcision is the norm. Or in other words, cultures/societies that have the least experience with foreskin maintenance Usually cut males don't know what they're missing, but some regret that they lack a foreskin. Uncut males OTOH never regret the presence of the foreskin, unless there's something wrong with it. And this is a good argument for infant circumcision because....? Anecdotal evidence at best. There's also stories about males with a circumcision in later life who report loss of sensation, lingering pain etc. etc. Besides that, in this guy it was obviously a necessity. My guess is that his foreskin was too narrow. Until quite recently the feet of Chinese females were horribly mutilated, to the point the females were practically disabled. But since this was the norm, it was considered to be beautiful. I wouldn't call circumcision a horrible mutilation, but I guess you like it according to the same principle. Other than that, it's just your personal preference, which isn't exactly normative of what is aesthetic or what other women like.

You know the penis envy part wasn't serious, right? that's just me and mr. chop exchanging our good natured insults for the day. I do believe that prophylactic circumcision is usually done with the best intentions for the benefit of the infant.

And how would you know uncut dicks smell, my dearest Mr. Halfcock? Sniffed a lot of male crotches in your time?

Are you saying you fuck around without a condom in this day and age? Well, it's your funeral darling.

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=3073 After you're done you should probably take some time to buy a gun to compensate, little friend.

People who actually know what they're talking about because they still have their foreskin, don't think of it as "excess skin". Only chopped males and women with deep seethed penis envy call it that.

The problems of having a healthy foreskin don't really exist outside of the psyche of the male chopped and their wives with penis envy. There's no problems with diseases, hygiene, penile function etc. Prophylactic circumcision is most probably an outdated procedure based on outdated pseudo-science. And even if there's benefits they don't outweigh the damage done even a little bit. For example: I don't have to buy a gun every 3 months to compensate for the fact half my dick is missing. So don't bother to spread you civilized American ways to this side of the pond.

If the foreskin is normally developed and someone has access to water for washing hygiene is not an issue at all. This is just a stupid old wives tale made up by people to justify their dick chopping habits. Hygiene is only an issue if there's something wrong with the foreskin and if that's the case things are fixed. That's what normal people do you see: we only start slicing away at the penis if there's a good reason for it.

I would say that "left" hardly exists in the USA. What's considered left in the US is considered centre (maybe even a bit right of centre) in much of the Western world. What's called right is indeed considered far right on this side of the pond. So yeah, I think you're right there. But then again, left and right aren't exactly fixed terms.

By the time a male can make an informed decision about circumcision the usual reaction to the offer to be partly unmanned would be "hell no!" No rational thinking male would chop off part of his dick for some small medical benefits that might be imaginary to begin with. Non ritual circumcision would go practically extinct within a generation if the decision was left to the owner of the foreskin.

What the majority thinks isn't necessarily the truth of course. Actually the majority often have really stupid opinions about reality. I expect a majority of people to vote for "low temperatures" when asked what the cause of common cold is. Argumentum ad populum is a common fallacy.

Why not remove all the body parts that have no obvious function. I heard humans only use 10% of their brains, and brains have the nasty tendency to cause strokes and stuff So crack the skull and scoop out all that useless fatty tissue.

So you wouldn't mind if I surgically removed the earlobes of my hypothetical kids as long as I called it a religious ritual or as long as I believed it might have some medical benefits? We gather that, make big cheese wheels from it, call it Gouda and export it to the US for LOLZ. If you want I can reveal the truth about Heineken too.

I was poking fun at you too, If you want you can imagine the smileys in my post. But one point is true: the supposedly negative effects of being complete are usually only experienced by those who are chopped. Which is of course a bit peculiar. That's probably because I still have the whole set down there. No, but how you raise your kids is governed by laws. In case of NL body modifications are generally only legal for people of 16 year and older. There shouldn't be a exception made for that on religious grounds in a secular nation. One law for all et al.

Circumcision is somewhat effective in prevention of STD's but no way near as effective as condoms. Even the high estimates don't get a higher number than a rather disappointing 50% protection against HIV, which makes it in no way a viable alternative to condoms. The only way that it could be useful is raising the effectivity of condoms from nearly 100% to nearly 100%, and possibly preventing a very rare form of cancer, and all that it'll cost you is part of your penis and part of your sexual pleasure. I'm a safe sex zealot but that trade-off really sucks.

It's funny that it's the chopped who think they're in a position to judge what it's like to have a foreskin. Also it's generally the chopped who decide for us we completes have issues with our hygiene. Personally I discard chopped opinions as irrelevant and tend to take opinions of completes serious,because they know what they talk about. Also: European males are generally uncut, but despite that we aren't really suffering en masse from rotting cancer & STD infested penises that are a biohazard. That sort of suggests it's mostly an urban myth to defend the practice of dick chopping.

Ear-piercings are almost completely reversible and only result in a scar that's hardly visible, so to call that mutilation is nonsensical. Circumcision would be more comparable to cutting of the ear lobes. Other than that, I'm also no proponent of piercing the ears of non-consenting kids.

Some types of female circumcision are essentially the exact same thing the male variant, however, other types are worse than that. One of my objections against tolerance of male circumcision is that it sets a precedent. Some time ago there was indeed a discussion by people who are too left to legalize female circumcision. But I don't think circumcision will be banned any time soon, politicians are too scared to be labelled as Islamophobic and/or anti-Semitic. And there's of course the public opinion that circumcision is harmless or even beneficial.

I'm not a fan of unnecessary circumcision in infants, because I think the physical integrity of the child is more important than the believes of the parents. This include the believes that circumcision is a completely harmless procedure that has only benefits for the child, btw. I even think think the practice should be banned (in NL that is, I don't really care about the dick chopping habits abroad) for individuals that haven't reached a certain age. 16, maybe 12, but certainly not younger, it's up to law-makers to decide when someone is able to make an informed decision about whether to chop of a healthy bit of the body. Anyway I see circumcision usually as a form of ignorance, not as child abuse, however the following I do see as child abuse. Even if I can get past the fact of a adult taking the penis of a baby in his mouth, which I really cannot, I'm still left with the fact that the man deliberately infected the wound with fatal result, while someone who performs what's basically a medical procedure should have some basic sense of hygiene. I'm all for freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean that people can subject their kids to all kinds of depraved and dangerous nonsense because God-said-so. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109965/Two-week-old-baby-died-herpes-contracted-disease-circumcision.html

I would prefer someone who understands that warning shots should be fired in the air, because he understands the that it's less dangerous than firing them into the ground. I would hate to be killed by a lame-brain who doesn't understand the word "ricochet" Edit: straight into the air that is, under an angle the bullet is much more likely to impact at lethal speeds.

Aha, so you admit Syria lacks beautiful modern ruins?

If I had the choice between being cremated in a conventional crematorium or being cremated in a crematorium which would do something useful with the heat, I would choose the latter. I always liked the idea of being useful after my death. Are you able to respect that choice?