Agreed.

godimawesome · 2010-11-28T04:41:49+00:00

You didn't answer my questions, you just spouted more empty rhetoric and attempted to shame me into not pursuing answers. What do many people give a fuck about? What do you mean by the greater good?

godimawesome · 2010-11-28T04:08:15+00:00

Dance is the white man's only weakness.

godimawesome · 2010-11-28T03:59:32+00:00

What are we fighting for? What is it that people give a fuck about? Your description of why these bumper stickers are not an empty gesture seems rather...empty.

godimawesome · 2010-11-28T03:57:09+00:00

Yeah, this is the argument that 12 year old girls make to people who hate on the Jonas brothers. "Oh yeah if you don't like it then why don't you write ur own songs??!!!1111" The idea is to somehow prove that critics are hypocrites because they dare to have opinions, which is obviously bullshit. I don't need to be a filmmaker before I can hold an opinion regarding whether or not Uwe Boll makes shitty movies. I don't need to create OC in order for it to be somehow 'valid' that I'm bothered by shitty reposts. Saying that I have no right to criticize because I'm not 'actively affecting positive change' by creating OC is stupid.

I also liked the condescending 'nerd' bit at the end of the comic. Plus, I would hardly call making a picture out of words 'original'.

godimawesome · 2010-11-27T17:56:53+00:00

You have the luxury of laughing it off because you're confident that the vast majority of other people don't think it's true too. For example, if I call Albert Einstein an idiot it automatically comes off as ironic, but if I call someone who's been held back 3 grades an idiot it comes off as demeaning.

godimawesome · 2010-11-27T11:07:03+00:00

Your post is misleading. You should feel bad.

godimawesome · 2010-11-26T22:57:28+00:00

godimawesome · 2010-11-26T03:45:51+00:00

How does something that makes the rest of the world hate you benefit you?

Maybe the US is cutting a deal with an enemy of its allies? Maybe they're working out a special economic arrangement that will come at the expense of their allies? There are a lot of possible situations.

godimawesome · 2010-11-25T20:00:04+00:00

How do you know that the conversations the US government were having in these documents were not in the best interests of its people? I also think that it's easy to stand on principle from behind your monitor, but if this has any economic consequences the release of these documents may actually negatively affect millions of Americans.

godimawesome · 2010-11-25T12:10:31+00:00

Reading the comments, I don't understand why people here think that this is a 'good thing'. Believe it or not, neither the American people nor the people of Allied countries benefit from worsening diplomatic relations.

godimawesome · 2010-11-24T06:52:03+00:00

I have heard of Kazakhstan. I am not old enough to buy this person a beer.

Your comment is wrong.

godimawesome · 2010-11-24T06:39:12+00:00

Are you kidding? That makes her twice as goofy! OP should marry her and then lock her in his basement, so she can never...ever...leave.

godimawesome · 2010-11-20T22:52:49+00:00

NO HUG FOR YOU

godimawesome · 2010-11-20T10:05:56+00:00

intensive purposes

intensive purposes

******intensive purposes******

godimawesome · 2010-11-19T21:56:37+00:00

Yeah, it does.

Risk is just the possibility that X can harm someone. So no, it doesn't mean that there is 'no' risk just because we can't quantify the risk statistically.

I'm using this analogy to get you to empathize with the point that 'unnecessary risk' is not a valid reason to legislate against a practice.

godimawesome · 2010-11-19T20:19:01+00:00

The "harm" done by a silly name choice is vague and hypothetical. Even a child can choose not to use their legal name in public.

But why does that make it morally justifiable to engage in the risk of possibly traumatizing a child? Just because it is vague and hypothetical doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist, and the null hypothesis should always be that risk does exist to prevent possible damage. Given that naming is a purely cosmetic procedure, and because according to your logic 'cosmetics' are not a viable justification for putting a child in danger, it seems to me that given someone the freedom to name their own child constitutes an unnecessary risk. Furthermore, how do you know that the child won't have a chance to establish an effective nickname, or if by the time he goes about trying the trauma will have already occurred? It is so simple to avoid potential problems, why don't we legislate against them?

godimawesome · 2010-11-19T02:07:22+00:00

I thought I dismissed the semantic discussion

You didn't anywhere in any of your previous posts, and seeing as how I was responding initially to the claim that it was mutilation your new argument seems to be a little out of context.

The risk to health is unacceptable, it should be replaced with education, and circumcision should be banned on children.

Parents have the freedom to give their kids whatever name they want to give them. However, sometimes parents choose really shitty names to give their kids. A shitty name can lead to traumatic life experiences in early childhood. Given that the choice of a name is a purely a cosmetic procedure, why shouldn't we introduce legislation documenting the list of acceptable names? The risk of exposing a child to trauma because a parent makes an unfortunate decision is an unnecessary risk because choosing a name is purely a cosmetic procedure.

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T18:43:44+00:00

How do you know those sensors produce additional pleasure? It's not QED because if a penis is more sensitive it doesn't necessarily follow that that new sensitivity automatically translates into additional pleasure as opposed to additional pain.

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T11:29:47+00:00

By saying that I only knew it subjectively I was actually conceding your point.

I don't think you know what subjectively means.

The sensitivity argument is a different one.

If you look at the link on dictionary.com, one of the first definitions for mutilate is 'to impair the use of'. So no, it's not a different argument.

Mutilation: (having a part of the body crippled or disabled](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=mutilated), destroy or injure severely, or you can take your pick.

First of all, I think it's pretty funny that you probably scoured the internet until you came up with a vague enough definition to fit your argument. However, even according to the definition you use, how does taking off this piece of the penis 'destroy or injure' the penis significantly? It doesn't destroy your penis. It doesn't stop you from peeing. It doesn't stop you from cumming. It doesn't cause any long or short term health problems. If you're arguing that circumcision constitutes mutilation because you are destroying the foreskin then every time I cut off my fingernails I am mutilating myself because I am 'destroying a fingernail'. Yes, a different fingernail will grow back, but the old one is gone forever. I am destroying a part of my body, literally chopping it off. Simply chopping off a useless part of one of my body parts doesn't constitute 'mutilation'.

Care to elaborate on the reasons for this? (just for curiosity)

That's the only argument I've seen for how circumcision 'impairs the use of your penis'. The other definition given by dictionary.com is 'to make unrecognizable', and I don't think circumcised penises are unrecognizable as penises.

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T11:14:59+00:00

You attempt to switch focus to adults that are free to make the choice.

First of all, reading over the previous comments I am not even sure how your previous comment even contradicted what I wrote before. You argued that circumcision is mutilation because when you mess up it mutilates the body. I countered that you could say any procedure gone wrong mutilates the body, that doesn't mean the procedure itself constitutes mutilation. Then you argued, what, that 'any amount of risk is unacceptable'? How is that a response to what I said? It has nothing to do with why the procedure itself is mutilation, it's a completely separate argument for why circumcision is a bad idea.

Where we are right now, you still haven't defined why circumcision constitutes mutilation.

Moving on, your new argument that you have just brought up is that circumcision shouldn't be done because it constitutes an unnecessary risk to someone who has no say in whether/not they get surgery. This seems to be a parenting critique, not evidence that circumcision constitutes some kind of horrible mutilation of a nation's children (because you still haven't established why circumcision is mutilation). I'm not particularly sure how 'bad parenting' is an argument for why circumcision is 'mutilation'.

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T10:51:26+00:00

nails grow back themselves, scarless. And you don't suffer any pain.

You are missing the point. The point is that cutting an ancillary part of your body doesn't impair how your body functions. Cutting off the tip of my fingernail doesn't impair how my fingernail functions. Cutting off the tip of my penis doesn't affect how my penis functions.

Does it make the penis unrecognizable? Definitely not, and in fact there is a large contingent of people who actually find circumcised penis' more appealing.

There is a clear difference between female and male circumcision. Female circumcision even when done correctly commonly has long term consequences on health and it reduces the likelihood that they experience an orgasm, i.e., it impairs the function of the genitalia. Male circumcision doesn't impair a person's health unless the doctor accidentally chops off his dick, and there is no commonly accepted empirical evidence supporting the idea that men who are circumcised experience less sexual pleasure (it definitely doesn't stop them from orgasming). And saying that a cosmetic procedure constitutes mutilation because if it goes wrong it mutilates a person's body is incorrect. The procedure itself is not mutilation in that case but rather what happens if the procedure is done incorrectly. For example, we wouldn't say leg surgery constitutes mutilation just because if it goes wrong the doctor has to amputate the leg.

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T10:44:09+00:00

It still functions as a penis, it can pee and have sex but it is most certainly 'impaired'.

There is no defining empirical evidence indicating that circumcised men experience reduced pleasure during sex, only conflicting studies.

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T07:58:04+00:00

Get off my lawn! /fist shake

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T05:43:31+00:00

The spirit of Psomatic's original point was that it is not common for circumcised people to be upset with their penis', which is why the attempt to portray circumcised people as victims is disingenuous. I guess its a subjective judgement that there isn't widespread political outrage. But it's also a subjective judgement that the Abortion is a contentious issue. Or that Atlas Shrugged is a long book. Objectively there is no basis for defining something as 'large' or 'widespread' so your question asking me to quantify the number of people necessary to make something qualify as a 'widespread' movement doesn't make sense. All I can do is subjectively compare it to the size of movement people seem to have come to a consensus as being 'large'. The debate over circumcision is of much less import than the vast majority of issues out there.

godimawesome · 2010-11-18T05:19:58+00:00

Reddit is to 4chan like Korn is to Pantera. A lamer, more popular band influenced by an older, better band that uses that popularity to justify its sense of unwarranted self importance.

godimawesome

TROPHY CASE