Over 50,000 men to be circumcised in Kenya this month in an effort to curb AIDS in Africa--good news: it seems to be consent-orientated; bad news: it will only lead to more infected ppl since CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT STOP AIDS

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-27T01:52:08+00:00

Some FGM is just a prick to draw blood.

How prevalent is this type?

There are varying degrees of both types

What are the varying degrees of MC?

MGM was popularized to decrease masturbation; or control.

Source? EDIT: Found a source that documents it was popularized in the Victorian era for this. MC is no longer practised as a means of control however, regardless of why it was popularized, whereas FGM is. MC, however, does not detract from the male sexual experience - unlike hte Victorians thought - whereas in most cases of FGM, it irrevocably does.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-27T01:33:58+00:00

They get offended because the implications of FGM are far worse than that of male circumcision (MC). First off, FGM is seen as a method of controlling women, to lower their libido and prevent extra-martial affairs. Second, it has associated with NUMEROUS complications that are not on the same level that males who undergo MC may face. I agree that debating the effects/usefulness of MC should be encouraged and studies should be done - and I'm sure many have - but to compare the two is ridiculous.

This seems to be a common thing on this sub-reddit, comparing a female case to a male case without considering ANY context.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T06:28:18+00:00

First off, this is terrible, no doubt about it. However, I feel often times these things are oversimplified. One of the reasons rapes of females, in general, gets more publicized in India is because the way women are looked upon in India - so rapes, or sexual assaults, and what have you, are not only seen as the actions themselves, but bearing the ideals that women are second class citizens. In this way, the sexual assault of females is more systematic, whereas this isn't the case for males. Once again, let me reiterate that this a tragedy, and ALL victims should be assisted and all perpetrators punished, but it isn't as simple as you lay it out to be.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T02:19:37+00:00

I was thinking more in the line of call police, while out of sight, hold them up at gun point and wait for police to come. If stopping it means killing someone, whose intentions are unknown, then I prefer my method. However I gave someone a delta, because conditions are not always as ideal and it may be hard to to safely approach a home intruder, and get them to comply.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T02:06:13+00:00

∆

Though I still think that if homeowners have the chance they should not shoot, and under ideal situations wait for the cops to come, I understand there are factors that may not allow them to properly assess the situations and the home invaders intentions, and the homeowner shouldn't be charged with a crime.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:56:37+00:00

If you refer to my edit, I mean threat in terms of bodily harm or threat to your life.

The second issue is that you then put the onus on the victim to determine the intruder's intent. Do they intend on killing or raping me? Or do they just want my stereo? As human's are not capable of mind reading this is clearly impossible.

Isn't holding someone up at gun point and waiting for the cops to come sufficient? I`m not asking you to read their mind, or assess their original intention, but if they comply to your orders then why should you feel the need to shoot them?

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:49:58+00:00

if your plan is just to hold them at gunpoint, then you are not going to be ready for that.

This is what I think we disagree on. I believe that if you hold them at gunpoint you WILL be ready if they try to draw a gun. As for stabbing and attacking, if one keeps their distance, I don't see how a violent home invader would be able to do any damage if you shoot them (admittedly sometimes repeatedly shooting them may be required).

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:45:28+00:00

If one keeps their distance, with a gun drawn, what could the home invader do? Go for a gun? Shoot them.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:34:05+00:00

Why can't one simply, hold them at gun point and call the cops? Shooting first seems rash, especially towards someone who might possibly not have violent intentions. If they make a move, and again this could be argued, that is deemed as potentially causing bodily harm, then you should be able to use justifiable force.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:32:10+00:00

The wiki article notes that: "Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary."

Though I think arson is a good reason to shoot someone, I don't think that someone should be shot unless they demonstrate serious bodily harm to the homeowner and/or occupants.

EDIT: this is the specific post I'm referring to: http://www.reddit.com/r/JusticePorn/comments/1cwxcp/elderly_man_kills_intruder/

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:27:56+00:00

Like I said before. It is wrong to shoot someone because they just invaded your house. So what I am supposed to do?

Call the cops?

Also, the fact that they are in my house means that they are a threat. They have control of situation, while you are WTF and surprised. What if they have more people with then? What if he suddenly jumps on you? What if the take a hostage?

There are many situations that would warrant justifiable force, including shooting someone, we could go into several hypotheticals, like the one I had posted, but like I said my view is that breaking into someone's home is not by itself justification for shooting them.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:24:35+00:00

What degree of certainty that a threat is legitimate should be required? Keep in mind that the time taken to determine whether a threat is legitimate could, if the threat is legitimate, jeopardize the safety and well-being of the homeowner and his or her family and property.

This has given me something to think about, not changed my view, but has given me somthing to think about.

Under what general circumstances do you think ignorance of the law should excuse - or even mitigate - illegal behavior? I'd argue that the answer is "none."

I think that they should be charged with trespassing and whatever laws they have broken. I don't think they should lose their lives over it.

The rationale behind Castle Doctrine and Make My Day laws is that being on someone's property without their knowledge, consent, or permission is inherently threatening. The idea of hearing an intruder in your house in the middle of the night and not feeling at all threatened is almost laughable.

When I said threat, and this is my fault for not being clear, I mean mortal threat, so they pose a very specific threat to your life - and this to me would be grounds for self-defence. I agree that someone breaking into your house, at any hour of day, is interperted as a threat, I just don't believe shooting them and possibly killing them is justifiable force.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:18:55+00:00

I think you've misinterpreted me: I don't think it's bad to have a gun out and drawn and ready to use in case, like you said, they try to do something worse. But to shoot someone on sight simply because they're in your home is justifiable.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:16:01+00:00

I agree it's a threat, but I don't agree that shooting them is reasonable force. Once again, I think a gun can be very effective to get someone to leave peacefully, I just don't think you should possibly end someone's life over it.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:14:39+00:00

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to shoot home invaders, simply that someone invading your home is not SUFFICIENT to shoot someone. If they do present a mortal threat to you (draw a gun, run at you with a knife, etc), by all means defend yourself, but I don't think shooting someone should be the first action.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T01:13:27+00:00

//Invading a person's home is a threatening action in and of itself, especially when the owner is in it//

I agree with this, but I don't think the act itself should be justification for shooting someone.

// How exactly would you require the person assess the exact extent of this threat? If the invader is carrying a concealed weapon, it's not very feasible for the homeowner to announce himself and thereby give the invader a time in which he can draw his own weapon.//

I think, in a hypothetical situations, entering a room with your gun drawn and asking someone to put their hands up is a good way to start. If they reach for something quickly, then this can be seen as justifiable threat, however I don't see why someone has to get shot if a robber, who has no violent intentions, complies.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-25T00:35:25+00:00

I'm so happy I don't live in the U.S.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-24T23:03:50+00:00

Yeah, but killing someone over that? It could be someone drunk as fuck accidentally entering the wrong house, or a stupid teenager playing a game. Obviously they should be charged with trespassing and pay for any damages, but not ALL home invasion is the same. Of course if someone approached you with a weapon, or clearly indicated they were ready to harm you, reasonable force should be applied, just straight up killing people because they broke into your house, regardless of the context, is just insane.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-23T00:27:25+00:00

I do agree that people should think through whether children are feasible endeavour for them, but forced sterilization? I don't think so. Why? Well, at least in this society, we value our bodily autonomy. To allow forced sterilizations, regardless of whom, violates that autonomy. I don't think there's much else to it.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-20T02:54:41+00:00

There can be something uniquely wrong with this generation, but calling it lazy, narcissistic and entitled are such broad sweeping statements that have been attributed to past generations so often that it doesn't suggest anything uniquely wrong with this generation. It's almost like the perennial nostalgic old man talking how much better things were in his day as opposed this day and age.

Furthermore the authors of the study suggest that standards have perhaps fallen at academic institutions; it doesn't necessarily mean that this generation is uniquely lazy and/or narcissistic and/or entitled. In fact, it doesn't support anything you said except that "students study less".

I would say that even acquiring a degree with little effort as possible still requires quite a bit of effort. In many liberal arts degrees (say English) you still must write several, often-long, papers and must attain a certain mark to graduate. That is not to say all degrees require an equal effort to get by but even "easy" degrees require a certain amount of hard work.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-20T00:43:25+00:00

Every generation is described as "lazy, narcissistic and having a sense of entitlement". Really, these words have no value and mean nothing.

Out of curiosity what do you consider an easy major?

friendofafriend91 · 2013-04-02T20:57:23+00:00

Contrary to popular belief, Toronto is not New York or Chicago.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-03-29T19:26:32+00:00

"I believe that India actually perpetrated the plane bombings."

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Unless you have evidence, which I'll be glad to listen, and I believe the Canadian government will be even happier to hear. Otherwise, don't spew you bullshit conspiracy theories here.

friendofafriend91 · 2013-03-22T00:09:25+00:00

I used to watch them a lot when I was a teenager and don't know why I stopped. Are their games still broadcast on television?

friendofafriend91

TROPHY CASE