|
| Thread: The Male Genital Mutilation Bill.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
posted January 26, 2012 08:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Incidentedly, I've never read anything which stated Assyrians ejaculated on their children as you claim.
AWWW **** WE'RE COMPROMISED! ABANDON SHIP!
Quote:
The majority of the American populace find circumcision to be a perfectly moral practice, and a religious practice that should be protected by the law. The same can't be said about ejaculating on one's children.
Then again, once upon a time the majority of Western civilization thought that slavery was pretty damn neat.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 08:21 AM |
|
|
And the founding fathers didn't do much about it, too.
Problem, elodin?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 09:24 AM |
|
|
Elodin has compromised his position already at the point when Corribus asked him:
Quote:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other? ... What information would you need to determine whether it should be allowed or not allowed?
and he answered:
Quote:
1) Is the practice moral? {blablabla}
Circumcision qualifies as moral because God commanded the Jews to do so.
2) Is the practice required by/encouraged by their religion?
3) Does the practice significantly harm the child.
We can safely say, that before the law all religions are equal, so point 1) reads, that a practise is moral, when the deity of the religion in question says it's moral.
If on the other hand it was moral only, when just ONE SPECIFIC God allows it, this would obviosly be in contradiction to the constitution (no disadvantage because of your religion).
Since the practise of ejaculation would be encouraged and NOT (significantly) harm the child, Elodin has no objective point.
Which is nothing new, though. How could he, when he thinks that his personal god is the absolute yardstick? Because that means, of course everyone can follow their own personal feelings, and no law forbids being stupid and blind, but when push comes to shove, things are defined by the One And Only.
So this reads: a religious practise is ok only, if it's not in open contradiction to what the One And Only finds acceptable. After all we can't have that pagans and heathens or even ATHEISTS define what's morally acceptable.
Quoting Elodin:
Quote:
This is pointless.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 11:56 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 11:57, 26 Jan 2012.
|
Of course I made up the thing about Assyrians.  Assyrians are, in fact, alive and well, some 3 to 4 million of them, including Andre Agassi, and tend to follow Syriac Christianity.
I said they supported child masturbation partly to see if you'd notice ( ), and partly in order to illustrate to you how much what you call "objective morality" is, in fact, someone else's subjective morality (preferably of someone long ago). That ancient subjective morality was, of course, based on the common sense and reason of the time, just like ours is today. The difference between your objective morality and mine is that I think we have yet to reach it, and you think it has already been reached and we just need to stick to it and not ask too many questions, filling every hole with God Said So, while I drill them with God Wants Us To Figure Out.
JJ pretty much said the rest. Basically, you're forfeiting your points by raising them occasionally and then abandoning them after we explain what's incorrect about them. And your supplies are running out.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 12:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin has compromised his position already
No, JJ, the people with the compromised positions are those who say it should be legal for a parent to kill a baby in the womb but not to circumcise a baby.
Quote:
We can safely say, that before the law all religions are equal, so point 1) reads, that a practise is moral, when the deity of the religion in question says it's moral.
If on the other hand it was moral only, when just ONE SPECIFIC God allows it, this would obviosly be in contradiction to the constitution (no disadvantage because of your religion).
No, JJ, your knowledge of history and of the Constitution has always been shown to be somewhat lacking. The founding fathers were circumcised and circumcised their children. Most American males are circumcised. The founding fathers however, would not have tolerated ejaculating on children and did not tolerate pagan practices of child sacrifice, and other perverted pagan practices like orgies to their pagan gods. I point to your remembrance that all sex outside of marriage was illegal in America for quite some time.
You'll have to remember the founders said atheists were not even fit to hold public office. The founders said the Constitution was meant for a religious and moral people and would only work for such. Anyone who thinks the founders would consider ejaculating on a baby to be moral is totally ignorant of history.
Quote:
How could he, when he thinks that his personal god is the absolute yardstick
There is only one God. Sorry, the yardstick is not Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Mao, or Pol Pot. It is not even Richard Dawkins. 
Quote:
Because that means, of course everyone can follow their own personal feelings, and no law forbids being stupid and blind, but when push comes to shove, things are defined by the One And Only.
Oh, JJ, it is not theists who are stupid and blind.
Quote:
So this reads: a religious practice is ok only, if it's not in open contradiction to what the One And Only finds acceptable. After all we can't have that pagans and heathens or even ATHEISTS define what's morally acceptable.
Yes, atheists definitely can't define what is morally acceptable because the opinion would only come from the warped personal perspective of each atheist in question. There would be nothing objective about the subjective opinions of each atheist. Indeed, most atheists on this board (you included) have said right and wrong simply don't exist in an objective sense. You have said that right is what society deems ok, so I don't why you are crying about circumcision when in fact society says it is moral.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 12:34 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 12:49, 26 Jan 2012.
|
@Elodin
I find it curious that you would somehow look down on people of a different belief system, just for being different.
Dont get me wrong you have said a lot of things I find scary and somewhat eyeopening in a more or less disturbing kinda way but from time to time you also say things that make me think that you could be quite a decent person.
If your religion is kinda your thing and you define yourself via that venue thats totally cool.
What I dont get is how you so persistently and doggedly talk down on Atheists, or people that disagree with you in general. So they dont share your point of view, you dont have to hate them for it lol. I dont share your point of view and Im Christian (lol no pun intended), even though prolly not in any way you find acceptable. Just as a general note. Felt like telling you since its such a persistent theme with you and I really really believe you should be better than that.
Now about what you said:
Quote:
Yes, atheists definitely can't define what is morally acceptable because the opinion would only come from the warped personal perspective of each atheist in question. There would be nothing objective about the subjective opinions of each atheist.
There would be nothing objective about the subjective opinions of anyone Elodin.
So what are you trying to say Elodin? You say that a single person (lets forget the "warped mind of an atheist" remark for your own good) cant define what is morally acceptable? I would agree with you on that. A person could decide what is acceptable for themselves without much difficulty but once we start talking about morals in general one can by necessity not talk about one person anymore.
What I find confusing though is that you drop your whole "one person cant define" stance when we talk about anything said in the bible. You do not find that contradictory? That you (rightfully) suggest that people shouldnt blindly follow one persons views but when those views come from an aeon old book you will gladly embrace those values not only as your own but as indisputable fact?
Why is that?
Because you dont think that they are "someones" subjective values rather than the word of god dictated to man, and god as the Alpha and Omega will certainly know best whats moral and what isnt. A neat rulebook of sorts you just have to follow and eternal happiness and joy shall be yours?
EDIT: Also I think you are kinda missing the point of what JJ is saying:
Quote:
You'll have to remember the founders said atheists were not even fit to hold public office. The founders said the Constitution was meant for a religious and moral people and would only work for such. Anyone who thinks the founders would consider ejaculating on a baby to be moral is totally ignorant of history.
Dont you see a contradiction to what you said yourself? The Founders said its "objectively" okay if things are done according to our practices but any other religious practices (which is what Bak is talking about when he goes on about Satanic Baby Masturbation. The practice is completely interchangeable, its just about the fact that its an religious act) arent "moral". Thats not being objective, thats being subjective to the highest degree!
Not that it matters what I or you think the Founders wanted, thankfully in todays America all religions are protected under the constitution as far as I am aware .
EDIT EDIT: LOL sorry thought we were talking about morality! I promise my next post will be about how acceptable it is to cut pieces of someones wiener without their consent.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 12:48 PM |
|
|
Let me add something:
A view on Female Genital Mutilation is quite illuminating. There is a certain direction within the Muslimic religion that makes Level I of what is considered FGM a mandatory practise:
Quote:
One of the four Sunni schools of religious law, the Shafi`i school, rules that trimming of the clitoral hood is mandatory
Since 1997(!; not before mind you), FGM is legally forbidden in the US, even though there are some for whom this is mandatory religious practise AND members of said religion are living in the States...
It seems to be just a question of time when male genital mutilation will be outlawed as well, at least for parents to do this with their children. Of course, every adult can mutilate themselves as much as they want.
That said, I'm wondering whether the law would allow a clit or a penis piercing when done by parents to their child, especially if the piercing was a religious symbol, say... a Star of David?
Oh, and Elodin, we KNOW, that the Founding Fathers had very limited ideas about their own constitutional designs. I'm sure, when they talked about "religious freedom", they actually meant the PROTESTANT freedom from Catholic oppression, and not the freedom of some pagan cult to follow their heathen practises, and I'm, also sure that when they talked abou "all men are created equal", they actually meant MEN - and not WOmen OR SUB(hu)men like "Negroes" - it has always a question of what you are prepared to ACCEPT as being a religion or a (hu)man being or whatever, or in short, whom you consider to be part of society; I don't think, for example, that they considered Native Amricans as potential US citizens.
So you are of course right, when you say, that the founding fathers were children of their respective time and had very different ideas about most things.
That seems pretty normal, though, because
The Times They Are A-Changing
as we should know, because otherwise we might still burn, drown or otherwise kill so called Witches, something Luther and Calvin, two leaders of the religious belief the FFs seemed to had in mind when they made freedom of religion part of the constitution, were very much in favor of.
But what do I say? People are still killed as Witches, in Africa and South America, mostly...
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 01:22 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:26, 26 Jan 2012.
|
Goddamnit, JJ, you greedy basterd. We had him. He said it's pointless to argue. We would have made him quit a discussion. We would have written history. Why'd you have to bring the Founding Fathers into this? That's the kind of gloating over a nearly defeated hero that gets villains' arses kicked every time. It's like telling Bruce Lee that his martial arts order dies with him. Or Mr T that milk is for fools. You gave him strength (and reason to turn the subject in that direction) for at least 10 more pages.
Just take a look at El's last post. That'll be his next 50. And it's all your fault.
The operation has been jeopardized. Everyone fall back and regroup. We'll try again next year.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 01:49 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:50, 26 Jan 2012.
|
No!
Did you hear that? Who... It cannot be! Lord Marx!
Silence! You and your incompetent minions have failed me for the last time!
*blows Baklava to smithereens*
It is time to find a new champion of liberalism. You have won the battle, pawn of the False Fathers, but not the war. We will return, more powerful than ever, and we shall bring death, destruction and taxes wherever we go. Your children will toil endlessly in the underground dungeon-factories producing free healtchare, and their penises shall be whole for all eternity. We shall take down the traffic signs that say "CHURCH" and replace them with ones that say... uh... "NO CHURCH", we shall drink Martini from the skulls of unborn babies, and the red and pink banner of Nazi Commie Liberalism will fly over Texas itself, in the dark ages of Obama's Second Term. Enjoy your taste of victory, servant of light, while you can...
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 01:54 PM |
|
|
Now, now, Bak, not so fast - it was Dagoth who mentioned the FFs eplicitely at the beginning of page 9.
Also, if that was the mission, there wasn't a chance of success anyway, because Elodin would drag every point into any discussion, whatever one of us would do, like, for example, abortion (who can someone who is pro-choice, err, sorry, who has no problems with killing unborn babies, can be so squeamish about a tiny patch of skin?) and OF COURSE the "religion of atheism" (atheists have no grasp on anything in connection with morals and are therefore missing the basic foundation to discuss these things with real humans, err, believers), and so on and so forth.
So relax. It's fighting windmills and will be so forever, but sometimes it's also fun to see them whirl around and around and around in their zealotry to give not a tine patch of skin, err, ground to the infidels and those sheep in wolfskin calling themselves Christians, like certain Serbs.
Great job, by the way. I know, it will mean nothing to you, but I applaud your superior effort here. I'm even tempted to say sorry, for anything harsh I may have said in the past, since well-phrased pleas make me somehat sentimental, but that might be a bit too much, and who needs an apology from an atheist unborn-baby-killing-condoner like me anyway? 
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 02:39 PM |
|
|
I would answer with something equally positive and all but I'm currently, as you may have noticed, blown to smithereens by Karl Marx and will probably have to wait until he remakes me into a slavering monstrosity with free healthcare sorcery.
But if I was in one piece right now, we'd probably be in for a manly handshake.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2012 03:04 PM |
|
|
I don't know about the handshake, since I'm currently testing a couple of sufficiently symbolic saluts for the NCL, and I'm currently favoring something like an outstretched left arm - the angle to the vertical should be 135 degrees - flat hand, that clenches to a fist while it is lifted up to point vertically into the air, while the right hand is unzipping and zipping the fly.
When you are back to one piece again we might support the free healthcare issue with the demand for free taxes for everyone who has more than zero bank accounts. With that, Comrade Obama might bring Texas to secede from the Union, which would mean, he could make adequate use of the troops coming home from Irak in an attempt to restore peace and union and make short work with the cowboys.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 27, 2012 02:36 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:38, 27 Jan 2012.
|
@Azagal
Quote:
What I dont get is how you so persistently and doggedly talk down on Atheists, or people that disagree with you in general. So they dont share your point of view, you dont have to hate them for it lol
1) I don't hate anyone
2) Actually, what generally happens is atheists start lobbing out jabs at religion. They I start lobbing out jabs at the religion of atheism. Atheists are generally accustomed to be the ones firing shots but not being the ones being shot at so that tends to get their hackles up.  **Shrugs** They get to set the tone of the discussions. I'm actually holding back far more now that I used to. I'm getting too soft on people who take an anti-theist stance I think.
Quote:
Because you dont think that they are "someones" subjective values rather than the word of god dictated to man, and god as the Alpha and Omega will certainly know best whats moral and what isnt.
Errrr...I've already stated in this thread that the Bible is the Word of God. Yep, objective morality can certainly only come from God.
Anyways, libs and atheists will be getting a short reprieve from having their viewpoints subjected to logical scrutiny. My wife and I are going on little vacation.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 28, 2012 01:07 AM |
|
|
Have a great time, mate. Take a swim for us over there.
Or ski. Or hash brownie. Depending on where you're going.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 28, 2012 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
as you may have noticed, blown to smithereens by Karl Marx
Is that some kind of dungeons and dragons God?
Quote:
what generally happens is atheists start lobbing out jabs at religion. Theyn I start lobbing out jabs at the religion of atheism.
You're doing it wrong though. You don't come off as someone who jabs at the "religion of atheism", but someone who jabs at the people who you think supports the "religion of atheism".
If I said all... jews (religious ones, not born ones) are stupid because they follow their religion [for whatever reason I might come up with], then I'm not taking a jab at the jewish religion despite I might use part of said religion in my reasoning. I'm talking a jab at the jews who're supporting it. I think there's a big difference there.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted February 06, 2012 10:11 AM |
|
|
I think child molesters (paedophiles) should have their genatalia castrated from them and turn them into eunuchs. This will certainly make society much, much safer.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 06, 2012 12:46 PM |
|
|
What does this thread have to do with pedophiles?
Edit: Did anyone else, btw. hear that WHO or a similar organisation wants a demographic of african males to be circumcised?
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted February 06, 2012 01:12 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 13:13, 06 Feb 2012.
|
read my posts on the matter Forf. Circ isn't needed if the hygiene accessible to the population is enough for them to properly clean themselves on a daily basis. Africa is a place where the hygiene isn't... as good as it should be.
That being said, "studies" have argued the usefulness of circumcising as a matter of AIDS prevention. It is said to have no effect whatsoever. I'm not certain about other STIs however, and it is not surprising the WHO would recommend it in Africa, where, due to the lacking hygiene, it may actually be necessary.
ETA: and the circumcision usually isn't done on infants either, but done at a later age, usually near adulthood. From a moral perspective, I think it's 100% acceptable.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 06, 2012 02:17 PM |
|
|
|
I already did read your post.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 12, 2012 03:16 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:16, 12 Mar 2012.
|
Infant dies from ritualistic circumcision.
Note to all aspiring child sex offenders: apparently it is legal for a man to put his mouth on a child's penis if he can prove it is part of a religious ceremony.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
