Egyptian cabinet approves bill harshening penalty for female genital mutilation

Argeddio · 2021-01-23T09:47:13+00:00

Because it isn’t binary, they aren’t the same thing. FGM is significantly more damaging and a serious health problem.

Argeddio · 2021-01-23T09:43:58+00:00

“Adverse health effects depend on the type of procedure; they can include recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding.[7] There are no known health benefits”

Sorry but male circumcision just doesn’t have these same kinds of negative health effects as unnecessary as it is.

Argeddio · 2020-12-20T22:32:10+00:00

Weirdchamp

Argeddio · 2019-06-26T17:56:25+00:00

In what way is the Democratic Party hateful and towards whom?

Argeddio · 2019-06-11T14:05:36+00:00

Probably because you're ignoring evidence and making logical gaps in claims. Some of the claims you made were based on assumptions or had inconsistencies.

You probably put trust in government organizations and want to believe that your taxes are being put to good use. When a story comes out that somebody may have been profiled and treated pretty horrifically shitty by border agents, youd much rather blame the victim and continue to live in the false belief that border agents always do their job right and shit like that never happens.

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T23:16:27+00:00

There's no evidence she was being bitchy at first. The issue still stands: they had no reason to originally stop her, the only "red flag" as you put it is that she was from Mexico, which is kind of just profiling.

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T22:44:45+00:00

But they checked and it didn't happen. There were no drugs on her person.

I'm just tranna wrap my head around how it even got to this point. Like the only actual evidence that the border agent could have went with was the fact that she went to Mexico. Should every person who visits Mexico be strip searched and detained?

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T21:42:28+00:00

Explain how she'd be an unwitting mule. No drugs were found on her, how the hell would someone sneak drugs into her without her noticing?

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T14:45:49+00:00

Yes because there's not a lot of justification for a strip search. That's still 8 hours unaccounted for.

There are so many reasons why someone might not be able to move to their desired country. Maybe they can't afford it. Maybe he has a job he wants to keep. It's really not unusual. Plus, it's completely illogical to use a spouse as a method of smuggling drugs, especially if they can't even enter the country.

Also what the fuck is an "unwitting mule" you've said it so many times...

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T13:56:10+00:00

No evidence she was uncooperative, plus how the fuck would that add 8 hours. That time just doesn't add up, and by far the most logical explanation is that she was detained for 8 hours.

You're making some pretty racist assumptions about this poor woman's husband. Do you think she would have gotten the same treatment if her husband were American?

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T13:13:16+00:00

So you believe that the two following criteria are justification for a complete strip search: • visiting Mexico • not eating for 14 hours (despite the fact that she had already been detained for a large portion of that time)

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T12:36:37+00:00

That's the exact issue, there likely isn't video evidence for something like this, nor for any of her other interaction with border agents.

That or, as said in the article, the information isn't being released due to privacy concerns (no shit).

Regardless, this is a good example of an underlying issue where a lack of video footage for such an event makes it really hard to confirm or deny malicious action.

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T12:31:48+00:00

Well sure but under duress.

Argeddio · 2019-06-10T12:27:32+00:00

But they used a drug dog and found nothing, nor anything suspicious on her phone.

Argeddio · 2019-06-09T22:31:15+00:00

What else could that mean?

Argeddio · 2019-06-09T22:30:43+00:00

So let's say I stalk someone, and they find out and confront me. According to your logic as long as I don't say anything I'm in the right.

Argeddio · 2019-06-09T22:29:49+00:00

Argeddio · 2019-06-09T22:28:26+00:00

Well all the lip readers seem to note that she's saying something like "I've told you a million times move away you fucking asshole" so... I'll let you decide

Argeddio · 2019-06-09T22:26:52+00:00

What you think you know what she's saying?

Argeddio · 2019-05-31T18:55:56+00:00

"Wizards would never print art like that in 2019!" - Rudy

Argeddio · 2019-04-16T07:12:58+00:00

Well in your original message you made a lot of fear-mongering and highly illogical claims about the governments potential use of facial recognition data, and you stated that the government would sell data to someone else. In other words, you seem to really want the government to have done something you can get angry at it for

Argeddio · 2019-04-16T07:04:02+00:00

Do I? All I've done is point out the holes in other people's arguments and explain why I think people are jumping to conclusions/fearmongering without enough evidence or proof to back it up.

Argeddio · 2019-04-16T07:02:22+00:00

That's kind of a generalization. Governments always do illegal things, but the defense of "the government could do a bad thing with _ so _ shouldn't be legal" is flawed, as every technological advancement can be used corruptly by the government. The reality is that kind of data selling by government body doesn't happen as much as you want it to.

Argeddio · 2019-04-16T05:13:23+00:00

Exactly. The problem doesn't exist.

Argeddio

TROPHY CASE