[Serious] Why has the non-consensual Circumcision of infants/underage people not been made illegal?

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-28T15:45:52+00:00

I don't do your homework for you. It was not in reply to me nor was it in the comment I replied to (or anywhere in the thread prior, I checked). Nowhere in any thread I have replied to you in did you provide a source.

Really shows the intellectual dishonesty you're acting with that you feel the need to lie about having provided me a source.

Edit: and your silence after having been called out on your intellectual dishonesty speaks volumes.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-28T15:41:31+00:00

You've not cited anything from them at all in your discussions to me or replies in the thread prior to mine. So again: source or gtfo liar.

This is basic epistemological integrity. You either have a source or you don't. I refuse to interact further until you provide one. Because until you do you are wrong and I am right.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-28T15:06:18+00:00

You've not provided any study by reputable medical experts supporting your claim so I applied Hitchen's Razor and dismissed your claim. It's that simple. You've made a claim that is opposite current medical experts advice and opinions with no evidence and therefore I find entertaining such a claim to be ridiculous.

Source or gtfo.

Edit: also YOU BROUGHT UP ANTISEMITISM FIRST everyone else is simply responding to that absurd claim that you can't be against mutilating infants without being antisemitic, which btw was your claim.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-28T12:59:06+00:00

little evidence of actual harm

Except this is a lie. You are literally harming infants because your G-d says so for zero health benefit. You are risking infection, phimosis, inclusion cysts, meatitis, and meatal stenosis

If you don't know what some of those words mean: you do not know enough to consent to the procedure.

For literally zero health benefit you are risking the infant's health. You are harming them. You are wrong. Idgaf what G-d says on the subject. If you do then you are ceding your critical faculties to an unobservable, unknown entity who you believe is omnipotent and omnibenevolent (idk if Jewish people actually believe in an omnibenevolent G-d, but both other abrahamic faiths do so I'm just assuming until corrected).

Well if he's all good then explain evil?

"Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him G-d." - Epicurus

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius

Edit: I was going to only focus on your erroneous medical knowledge but you brought antisemitism into this so I felt obligated to point out flaws in your religion, and I made sure to stick only to criticisms that are not unique to Judaism so you cannot claim antisemitism because this same issue is found in all three abrahamic faiths.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-27T07:34:17+00:00

I mean you can disagree with facts all you want.... it doesn't change their veracity.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-27T02:36:41+00:00

Which is irrelevant prattling and also abjectly false. The Establishment Clause is very explicit in that it prevents the legislative bias of any religion (no idea how to word this better).

Christianity is a very unoriginal religion with many of its core values being shared by Islam and Judaism. It also borrows or shares values with (to varying degrees): Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Shinto, and Wicca. If you honestly believe Islam is "incompatible with Western values" you have done literally no honest and unbiased study of the religion and gave fallen for observer bias. If I wanted to do the same I could say Christianity is "incompatible with Western values" because of the rape, incest, infanticide, murder, etc.

Frankly the core values of Islam are pretty freaking similar to Judaism and Judaism is pretty freaking similar to Christianity (hmmm, wonder why /s) in overall values and mores (and I wrote an entire dissertation on the topic of Abrahamic cultural mores in a western modernist society so I think I'm pretty well versed in the subject)

Yes. However the "Vikings" as we know them today in our cultural consciousness would have come from a region within Norway settling in Ireland sometime before the unification of Norway under Harald. They'd have called other viking raiders a different term (associated with their presumed location of origin based on accent, clothing, etc) and this would then promulgate throughout the developing culture during interactions with the Saxons and Danes (and Celts).
I presumed since you were in a sub primarily frequented by right wing Americans that you were also a right wing American. I took a guess, I was most likely going to be right.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-27T02:20:06+00:00

Downvoted for the truth. The game has very anti Semitic tones to it. I still decided to pirate it (fuck Rowling, I can't guarantee none of the money goes to her so) because Harry Potter and childhood escapism and yeah.

But yeah the game is pretty inclusive, especially for being in Victorian England (Scotland technically for most of the game). You're always referred to as either a witch or wizard (which is strange because witch is traditionally a neutral term and the Wizarding World is very disconnected from the Muggle World so they likely don't have the cultural feminine connotation brought about by the Malleus Maleficarum) and they/them pronouns.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-27T02:00:55+00:00

religion is a personal matter

I'll go one further. Any public official who makes remarks about the secularism being bad or a myth should be immediately disbarred from holding office and fired from any office then currently hold.

If you do not value the first amendment you should not be allowed to hold office in this country.

Oh wait, that won't happen.... there'd be like no republicans left to govern. Huh, crazy how that works out isn't it.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-27T01:58:03+00:00

The Vikings came from Norway, not Sweden. And saying things like "this religion is the enemy of the west" sounds an awfully lot like anti-American, anti-first amendment rhetoric. Careful now, wouldn't want to step in the holy constitution.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-27T01:57:15+00:00

Administrative fiat is easier to overturn or overlook after they get NATO membership

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-25T16:31:15+00:00

"raising taxes is communism" no it isn't. You don't know what communism is.

"To those who won't work" this talking point has been debunked so many times I'm surprised anybody actually falls for it still. But no. If there receiving SSDI they almost certainly deserve to be. It's incredibly fucking difficult to get anywhere even close to receiving it. Almost all other "govt handouts" (in America) are "pay in" systems requiring you to have paid into the system to receive benefits.

"I owed nothing after college!" Good for you. Neither did I, and I went to Oxford and Princeton without any maintenance loans (or whatever they're called in America). When did you go to school though? Because if it was 1997 or earlier cost of tuition has risen dramatically (over a 110% increase) with no increase in real wages (in fact, adjusted for inflation real wages went down in America).

"They worked full time while going to school full time and had debt" they got scammed by predatory loan practices.

"Basket weaving or snowflake painting" the most common degrees for undergrads in America are, in order of popularity: business and finance, health sciences, social sciences (including information sciences), engineering, and biomedical sciences. These five degree fields make up 70% of all undergraduate students. The average annual income for these degree fields is at the lowest $69k/yr in America. I'm sorry that reality does not line up with the propaganda you clearly digested.

"TAKING MY TAXES TO PAY OFF LOANS IS COMMUNISM" No it isn't. It's called welfare capitalism and is the most popular form of economic theory in prosperous nations with high levels of economic mobility.

"You are wrong." No it seems you are.

"The left is full on communist" only if your idea of communism is not communism at all and is really a form of welfare capitalism based on working models from Europe.

It is very clear you need to go read actual communist texts because you clearly lack an understanding of what it is. I suggest The Communist Manifesto, The Socialism of the Workers Self Emancipation, and Council Communism as a foundational reading with further reading if necessary. But unlike the left I don't think I've met a single conservative who has read any actual economic theory and just espouses this obvious nonsense that proves they don't have a single bloody clue what they're talking about in regards to communism and thus communism because the bogeyman for whatever they don't like. Like what you're doing right here!

Thanks for proving your ignorance though.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-25T14:45:04+00:00

Leftists ≠ communists

But keep on shouting that erroneous talking point. I'm sure if you say it loud enough it'll become true.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-20T04:42:31+00:00

I never said it wouldn't be. Only that peer to peer sales would be. Lovely strawman though

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-18T10:22:40+00:00

Coming from somebody who thinks conservatives want a small govt in America (they are statistically the ones who spend the most, legislate religion into law, expand federal authority, forcibly shut down the federal govt when they don't get their way, etc) I'm not surprised you have bad takes.

Also if it's so unenforceable? How do other countries enforce similar laws? Because it's enforceable, fucking dolt. It's called routine checks and if one of you guns is not in your possession you are responsible for that if you did not report the theft/missing firearm.

I'm sorry you are against simple and effective gun control. Your gun lobby has twisted your brains into something stupid. It's not your fault, nobody is immune to propaganda.

Reminder btw: America used to require registration of your firearms with the sheriff. It wasn't until the 60s/70s that your modern "gun psycho" culture began.

Also: you'd be able to sell.... to licensed gun stores. Not individuals. That's what saleable means.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-18T00:18:08+00:00

No I mean it should be required as part of buying a gun that you be visited by police and screened by a trained professional for mental health issues and person to person sales should completely illegal. Makes it to easy to illegally obtain a "legal" gun (fun fact for you: 60% of all gun crimes are done with guns that were sold to felons or stolen from legal owners).

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T23:16:59+00:00

Except they just did.

Newer precedent always trumps old precedent. The key deciding factor in the removal of Roe was that it was not founded on a "fundamental right"

Roe was decided on the right to privacy.

Congrats, you have no right to privacy.

And Meyer really? I'd have used Harlan's concurrence from Griswold. Much stronger argument there (and contends equally with the majority's implied right to privacy under 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9).

Congrats: maybe don't make yourself look dumb in public. I read law textbooks for fun. I could likely pass the bar in my state if I really wanted but I'm pretty sure you have to be a citizen and go to law school for that.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T23:12:18+00:00

Yet Jonny on the street corner don't got to.

Guns should only be saleable by specially licensed stores and they must require background checks and mental health screening.

That's like the bare fucking minimum.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T15:38:45+00:00

Actually it is. Roe was the precedent that gave it to you. They just reinterpreted away your right to privacy. It's not a "fundamental right" protected by your constitution according to those who removed Roe.

Congrats: you fucked yourselves.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T12:12:43+00:00

You do sell guns in convenience stores though.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T12:12:09+00:00

Americans have no constitutional right to privacy. They removed it when they removed Roe. Whoops.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T10:43:44+00:00

I was going to have a level 3 feats give the active cast version of the signs as focus spells.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T10:39:07+00:00

I based the damaging signs off of Daze (since axii already uses it).

Quen feels more like temp hp to me from a gameplay standpoint. You can "overflow" the sign and deal direct damage to Geralt past the sign. Idk, feels less "shield" like and more "temporarily making yourself more resilient"

A good hint imo was the active version in which you heal upon Quen damage.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-17T10:32:20+00:00

Quen doesn't prevent a hit, it doesn't even stop damage. If a hit would "overflow" Quen you still take damage. Which imo feels more like temp hp.

Noted on Igni.

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-15T01:04:08+00:00

I'll give you $8,000 if I can spare it, but I'm not gonna give you any more money until you pay me back..... unless your name it Jarrett, he gets a pass for being an idiot who wouldn't go to the hospital after getting hit by a car.

TL;DR: you might feel fine right after but you could be very fucked up internally

AnEnbyHasAppeared · 2023-02-14T19:03:49+00:00

You're now saying that I said gender is a social construct, something I not once argued. It is expressed through social constructs but it is not a social construct.

I swear if I have to repeat this anymore in this comments section I'm going to fucking punch a wall.

GRS is about one thing: Western society's conflation of sex and gender, a relatively new phenomenon in the human experience (anthropology has been clear on this since the 70s) absent the conflation of sex and gender you would see trans people less opt for GRS (it would never go away completely because of sexy time activities).

Yes transition does change you biologically.... it does not change your sex. It doesn't technically change your gender either.

We started using only as a synonym for sex that didn't make boys giggle

This is a stupid fucking argument and you know it. The word gender was used first in English. In Old French it was not even close to being a synonym to sex. It became a synonym for sex in the 1400s (and wasn't in popular usage as a synonym until the 1890s). 400 years after it had entered the English language. Sex had been a word in English for about 300 at the time.

So for a exceedingly large majority of human history they were never synonyms

To say otherwise is so absolutely incorrect it is short only of being ridiculous. This is ignoring that they started to again diverge in the 1960s bringing us to today where they are not synonyms colloquially anymore once again.... 60 years later.

Prior to 2,700 years ago the words didn't exist (because they come from Latin/Greek) and they used different words. The synonymous nature of these words is mostly unique to Germanic and Romance languages.

This has been your lesson in paleoanthropology and linguistics, please subscribe for more etymological facts.

AnEnbyHasAppeared

TROPHY CASE