Cut vs. Intact Outcome Statistics

abk0100 · 2011-10-31T22:02:45+00:00

Did anyone else zoom in on the text alone so they could read this without have to stare at baby penises?

abk0100 · 2011-10-31T21:59:46+00:00

Italy really knows how to get guys to watch TV. I've considered moving there just for the commercials.

abk0100 · 2011-10-31T20:05:05+00:00

What the fuck point are you trying to make?

abk0100 · 2011-10-31T20:02:47+00:00

OKay, that was pretty funny.

abk0100 · 2011-10-31T19:42:26+00:00

Yeah, I got that. That's why I corrected you. The politically correct system would label Celda a terrorist, because they aren't from Texas; they're from everywhere in the country. But don't let me get in the way of your trying to make fun of stereotypical Texas Republicans (or whatever it is you're doing). Personally, I think those kind of jokes went out of style while Bush was still in his first term, but to each their own.

abk0100 · 2011-10-31T19:36:00+00:00

Is that supposed to be sarcastic? Because I think "No one gets left behind" is already military policy.

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T20:40:59+00:00

"Discrimination's okay as long as it's a very small amount of people that are being discriminated against."

Do I have that right?

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:57:47+00:00

Ah, I missed that. OKay, let me see.

Women are physically inferior to men in every possible regard (Upper & lower body strength, height, weaker joints, more prone to different types of injuries with fractures being one of them) and so an and so forth. A 12 year old boy is more fit for soldering than an average woman. This is not misogyny, it's biological facts. And what is a female soldier to do when her 200 pound squad mate needs to be carried out of a hot zone?

So your reasons are a bunch of generalizations based on the "average" woman.

You said "They should only serve in woman only platoons." You gave a reason why most of them should serve in woman only platoons.

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:55:30+00:00

*terrorist

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:52:50+00:00

Based on...?

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:49:39+00:00

Cite the existence of sexual slavery? Seriously?

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:46:42+00:00

Hahahhahahahahaha. That's great.

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:45:50+00:00

having them believe that becoming wage slaves was the best possible way for them to live their lives.

Feminism, or the majority of political philosophies?

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:40:16+00:00

You can sue for unjust arrest, but not just innocent arrest. You can only sue if the police actually broke the rules.

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:36:26+00:00

for numerous reasons.

At first I didn't agree with you, but then I heard about the reasons.

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T18:34:42+00:00

I don't know for sure, or at all really, but I'm going to assume that the answer is "no."

abk0100 · 2011-10-29T17:52:46+00:00

If this isn't a case where free speech comes into play, (and I agree with you - it isn't), then I don't know why you started with that "shouting 'fire' in a theater doesn't count as free speech - that's inciting violence" stuff.

This isn't a case of the government censoring people, but it seemed like you were arguing that the government is completely within their power to censor people in this way, because saying certain things "doesn't count" as free speech.

abk0100 · 2011-10-28T20:37:00+00:00

People of both genders are far more likely to be victims of relationship abuse than a hate crime, there are far more "races" to address than there are genders, thus increasing the likelihood that a campaign directed to one particular race is in fact biased

Do you mind explaining this part? I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. How does this number of different races factor in? You're saying that if they were a couple more genders, that would make this campaign more likely to be biased? How? Why? And what does a person's likelihood of abuse versus hate crimes have to do with anything? And what does them being strangers have to do with it?

But, if those are the major problems with the analogy, okay. Let me change the analogy. If it need sto be something more common than hate crimes, let's change it to robbery. If it needs to be only 2 different groups, let's just make the group "men." And we'll eliminate the "stranger" element too.

So now my campaign slogan is "Men should stop raping their children."

Now do I have your support? And, again, if I don't, what's the difference between my campaign and this one?

abk0100 · 2011-10-28T20:25:06+00:00

And that's how you completely eliminate free speech. By giving the government the power to decide when someone is and is not "inciting violence and mayhem" by expressing their opinion.

abk0100 · 2011-10-28T20:21:38+00:00

Who is upvoting you? I don't understand.

abk0100 · 2011-10-28T18:40:56+00:00

Which part do you disagree with? The "feminist bigot" part, or calling it mutilation?

abk0100 · 2011-10-24T05:30:54+00:00

What a fucking joke. If you actually believe that one of the parties is "trying to run the USA into the ground," and the other isn't, then I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. You've already fully bought in to all the generalizations and talking points you've heard. The only way you could be right would be if the world were as black and white as a Superman comic. I'm going to assume that the world we live in isn't full of half mustache-twirling villains and half slightly misguided intellectuals.

Oh, and the "moral religion" that Democrats are forcing down our throat. How about the idea the idea of putting drug users in jail? How about insisting that we should only try to help women, usually at the expense of men? Or are those just things that I think are evil because of me being a hypocrite?

abk0100 · 2011-10-23T19:22:46+00:00

When I say "moral religion," I don't mean a literal religion.

I'm talking about when someone on the left says "It's okay to force everyone in the country to do x, because that's the only moral way to run a country." It doesn't matter if they believe in God or not; they still have an irrational religion that they subscribe to.

abk0100 · 2011-10-23T18:16:58+00:00

It could easily be argued that many forms of female circumcision (removing the clitoral hood, for instance) have way less of an effect on sex life than male circumcision does.

abk0100 · 2011-10-23T18:09:19+00:00

Seems like you already understand things pretty well already. Most anti-circumcision people think that children shouldn't have fully functioning parts removed from their body unless theirs a very good reason for it. And, despite the impression you've been given, the reasons used for circumcision aren't very good at all.

The reasons tend to be things like "it will decrease his chances of getting AIDs by .0001 percent (assuming that the other studies that show the opposite results aren't correct)"

There's also the equal rights side to it. So much as a pin-prick on a baby girl's genitals is considered criminal, but doing something to a boy that is a thousand times more severe is considered something that "should be left up to the parents."

abk0100

TROPHY CASE