I'm not flip-flopping, the discussion was about 'routine' circumcision, anyone besides YOU apparently would know that would exclude medically necessary procedures.
There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised. It's not something a man should even have to deal with. 'Someone cut a body part of mine off when I was a baby so now I have to spend thousands of dollars and endure all this pain to try to regain something that should have just been intact until I could decide for myself'-yeah, that makes sense.
Mark people down? Um, no. I'm assuming you mean thumbs down, and I didn't thumbs anyone down.
It wasn't until in your previous comment did the word "routine" even come up. None of your other comments, or anything the OP said had the word routine in it.
Your actual quote was as I've posted it many times "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn." You never specify routine, or for medical reasons. By leaving it broad, you also encompass the circumsicions for medical reasons, stating that they are not in fact, medically necessary.
First you say they aren't, and then you say they can be. If that isn't flip-flopping I don't know what is.
The problem here is language.
"Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. I don't have a problem with medically necessary procedures"
VS. "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn."
AND
"There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised."
It's like when you're having a conversation about how fast cars can go. It's assumed you're talking about cars that are in proper running condition. You can't come into the argument and say 'well what about the cars with no wheels?'. Obviously the cars with no wheels are excepted.
Your arguments reek of desperation. You're attacking people's choice of words, etc, rather than the facts, the hallmark of a man who has no point. I'm not wasting my time on you anymore.
I have to say you handled this very well. And you are totally right, Gelmurag's arguments do reek of desperation. But then that makes sense, only a desperate person would be so eagerly in favour of obeying traditions that cause harm to infants and breach their basic human rights.
Is it normal that I am against child mutilation?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm not flip-flopping, the discussion was about 'routine' circumcision, anyone besides YOU apparently would know that would exclude medically necessary procedures.
There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised. It's not something a man should even have to deal with. 'Someone cut a body part of mine off when I was a baby so now I have to spend thousands of dollars and endure all this pain to try to regain something that should have just been intact until I could decide for myself'-yeah, that makes sense.
Mark people down? Um, no. I'm assuming you mean thumbs down, and I didn't thumbs anyone down.
--
shade_ilmaendu
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
Gelmurag
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
He's just grasping at straws because he can't argue against any of the points you've made.
It wasn't until in your previous comment did the word "routine" even come up. None of your other comments, or anything the OP said had the word routine in it.
Your actual quote was as I've posted it many times "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn." You never specify routine, or for medical reasons. By leaving it broad, you also encompass the circumsicions for medical reasons, stating that they are not in fact, medically necessary.
First you say they aren't, and then you say they can be. If that isn't flip-flopping I don't know what is.
The problem here is language.
"Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. I don't have a problem with medically necessary procedures"
VS. "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn."
AND
"There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised."
VS. "Can you reattach a foreskin? No? Oh, OK."
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's like when you're having a conversation about how fast cars can go. It's assumed you're talking about cars that are in proper running condition. You can't come into the argument and say 'well what about the cars with no wheels?'. Obviously the cars with no wheels are excepted.
Your arguments reek of desperation. You're attacking people's choice of words, etc, rather than the facts, the hallmark of a man who has no point. I'm not wasting my time on you anymore.
--
Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I have to say you handled this very well. And you are totally right, Gelmurag's arguments do reek of desperation. But then that makes sense, only a desperate person would be so eagerly in favour of obeying traditions that cause harm to infants and breach their basic human rights.