My "original claim" being that you prefer cut because your own wang is cut? I'm...I'm not sure I made that claim!Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Printable View
My "original claim" being that you prefer cut because your own wang is cut? I'm...I'm not sure I made that claim!Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If you don't remember what you said, I'm sure you can dig it out with a few minutes effort. Even assuming this discussion arose solely from excessive boredom on your part when you made that claim, do you really think it will repeat well enough that you want to start it again from the beginning? Wasn't the first time enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
*sigh* FineQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Actually, looking back (from the eye on whose location I need not educate you!), I said "as Fuzzy likes to point you" and (paraphrasing) "whether you prefer cut schlongs for ..., or whatever, it's okay!"Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Now, I realize it doesn't come off that well over text, but the Valley Girl "or whatever!" implied some humour, see? And as for you repeatedly pointing it out, well, that was my memory of the situation. Have you not at least twice or thrice pointed out this anti-HIV boon of circumcision?
I realize that you have your own reasons for ascribing all sorts of malice on me, and that I like to post in a tone that seems to bug you, but...
I didn't make that claim ("being that you prefer cut because your own wang is cut?").
Of course, if you want to think I did, okay, that's perfectly human too, and I can't fault you for that. But it's a bit impolite to just knee-jerk to my magic glowing blue sigil on my crotch because you felt slighted. Now, if your betrothed lay dying and my crotch carried souls to save him, I might not mind that much.
Okay, I would, but you see what I mean, right?
You can feel it's impolite to make a reply in the same vein as the comment it's replying to, I can't stop you. For myself, in this field, I think turnabout is fair play.
a) Wasn't in the same vein
b) Are you seriously contrasting your circumcision with gender dysphoria? I mean, that's years of therapy right there!
For A) It wasn't in the same vein, or you took it more personally? Perfectly human if you did, but it's clearly stated that it was written as a reciprocal response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
From what I can tell the answer to this mess can be found in Fuzzy's initial post where he likened circumcision of infants to both ear piercing and tattooing as a defense. And then somehow getting that confused with other issues in which parents act as medical proxies and stuff.
Ugh. Either I'm suffering from an illness that leaves me "flailing", or whichever verb you used, and you just had a beneficial operation done on you, or they're not in the same vein, assuming I actually made the claims you think I did, which I in fact did not. Would you care for a new shovel?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Which mess, I see several? I did assert that likeness as my original understanding, but you corrected that when I sought your better-educated determination on that understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I didn't have an operation done on me. You very obviously closely read my post, or you wouldn't be trying to claim it wasn't in the same vein, but you apparently keep missing where I pointed out I'm uncircumcised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Your earlier post could be read in two ways, one of which you assert is a misinterpretation. My response to that post was openly stated to be reciprocal. It's vein is determined by how one reads the comment of yours it was replying to.
So you're upset over an allusion to your physiology as motivator to your argument (an allusion I didn't even make), because it was false, and subsequently you chose to pick on my mental illness? I'm still not exactly sure which high horse you're aiming for here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
What high horse? The only one I see if the one you're trying to invent for yourself by misinterpreting my response to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
"I am rubber, you are glue"?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Alright, consider my lesson learned, I won't poke fun at the archangel in the near future.
Pretty much the entire purpose of the pissing match you wanted to start back on page 2, yeah. I tried to short-cut it but you apparently did want to repeat it from the beginning after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Hi,
I just reread that exchange. You guys are definitely misunderstanding/misinterpreting/talking past each other. I swear on everything that is dear to me.
Btw, re. the comparison with lopping off other bits, it really is more like lopping off other bits, although the practical consequences are less severe than lopping off an arm. For a number of reasons, beginning with: circumcision can't be reversed in anything but a cosmetic sense, and even then it's not great (in contrast to both piercings and tattoos). Those nerves don't grow back, the glans doesn't metamorphose back into its slimy icky natural state, etc. The comparison with lopping off other bits isn't particularly dishonest, and interpreting it as such makes the point Nessie was making in that post: being okay with circumcision is giving genitalia magical special privileges. Good or bad is another question.
*sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Again, it's not what I "wanted to start" on page 2, that's you disliking everything I have to say. I didn't want to repeat anything as much as I was perplexed as to the constant puzzles you tossed at me, but it is of course my blame not yours that I don't have the privilege of constant third-eye perspective *shrug*
You do, it's called "Minx". You said something, Fuzzy misinterpreted it in an uncharitable way, and you were confused (so was I, it was like someone answering circumcision with chopping off an arm, it's like "wtf") and it's difficult to own up to the causing of PAIN :cry: But the truth is that it happens, even between frenemies, this sort of hurtful misunderstanding and the like. This is where you guys can kiss and make up. Don't be all Loki and Khen about this please :o *runs*
I shave, though
Since Nessie insists on the game, I don't have much choice but to go ahead and play ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
"Balls" might be more apropos
I see we've already created sort of a trademark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
"The Loki and Khen Show"! Watch as TVs implode all over the nation in order to vainly protect their audiences! Run in panic as the broadcast station is sucked away into a blackhole of idiocy (I'm not naming any names as the party responsible for all that idiocy, though. /glances nonchalantly at Loki)!
Sort of like Beavis and Butthead, only worse.
Which reminds me: I do recommend the movie "Into the Mouth of Darkness".
See? When tempers aren't hot we all mostly love one another. Or we can at least laugh at ourselves :o
Sorry dude, you're just not my type.
:bulb:Quote:
San Francisco considers banning the sale of all pets
The proposal started with dogs and cats, expanded to birds and hamsters, and now includes any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it.
By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times
June 26, 2011, 6:29 p.m.
Reporting from San Francisco— The first vision was simple and straightforward: To curtail puppy mills and kitten factories, the sale of cats and dogs should be banned in San Francisco, where the loving guardians of animal companions come to regular blows — politically — with the loving parents of children.
The ban was put on hold last year after animal advocates broadened it to include anything with fur or feathers. Now it's back, with a new name and a new strategy: More is more. The Humane Pet Acquisition Proposal is on its way to the Board of Supervisors, and it hopes to protect everything from Great Danes to goldfish.
Yes, goldfish. And guppies, gobies, gouramies, glowlight tetras, German blue rams. No fish, no fowl, no reptiles, no amphibians, no cats, no dogs, no gerbils, no rats. If it flies, crawls, runs, swims or slithers, you would not be able to buy it in the city named for the patron saint of animals.
Representatives of the $45-billion to $50-billion-a-year pet industry call the San Francisco proposal "by far the most radical ban we've seen" nationwide and argue that it would force small operators to close. Animal activists say it will save small but important lives, along with taxpayer money, and end needless suffering.
"Why fish? Why not fish?" said Philip Gerrie, a member of the city's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare and a coauthor of the proposal. "From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them. If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.… Our culture sanctions this, treating them as commodities and expendable."
The commission voted earlier this month to send a proposal to the Board of Supervisors recommending a ban on the sale of all pets in the city to shore up the adoption of unwanted creatures from shelters and rescue organizations. Commissioners are now looking for a supervisor or two to sponsor such an ordinance.
Snake food was almost exempt from the proposal. After all, pythons have to eat, and they like their lunch alive. But at a heated meeting, Commissioner Pam Hemphill questioned how it could be humane to sell live animals to be fed to other live animals.
"If a snake is caught with a rodent in a box, the rodent can scratch its eye and cause an infection," said Hemphill, who noted that reptiles on display at the California Academy of Sciences eat dead, frozen prey. "The snake can't escape, and the rodent might be stuck for one or two days in the box with the snake because the snake's not hungry right then.
"So it doesn't seem very humane to me," she continued. "And if the frozen [food] works, then I think the killing of the animals to be food is probably more humane."
It is legal in San Francisco to sell live animals for eventual human consumption, and the proposed ban would not stop markets from selling live fish, poultry, turtles or seafood for that purpose.
Rebecca Katz, director of San Francisco Animal Care and Control, said her agency supports a ban on pet sales — particularly one that includes the so-called smalls, such as hamsters, which are euthanized at her city shelter at a higher percentage than any other domesticated animal. Although she did not advocate for the inclusion of fish, she is not against it.
"We're the agency that receives the old, filthy fish bowl with the goldfish at risk and have to determine whether we can make them healthy and adopt them out or flush them down the toilet," Katz said. "These are the lucky ones. Most people just flush them themselves."
Jennifer Scarlett, a veterinarian and co-president of the San Francisco SPCA, notes that only a handful of stores in San Francisco sell animals of any kind and that the effect of a ban would be largely symbolic. But she said that symbolism, and the conversation that it raises, is critical in improving the lives of millions of helpless creatures.
"For us as an organization, we've identified the larger problem of online purchasing of dogs, and we hope this is an avenue to get to that," she said. Still, when it comes to birds and fish, "there's a lot of cruelty around where they are sourced from. We see the cruelty."
But Jonathan Ito finds the proposal to be far more than symbolic. To the owner of Animal Connection — who has sold fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, rats, mice and hamsters for a generation — the ban is a threat to his livelihood.
"It would put us out of business and our employees out of work," said Ito, who believes there is "no cause and effect" to the proposal.
Pet stores, he said, do not cause overcrowding at the shelters. They do not promote impulse buys of small, cute creatures that will later be tossed aside by bored children. And they work hard to educate prospective pet owners.
"The animal-rights activists are trying to drive a wedge any way they can in order to get a foothold on changing the ownership of animals," Ito said. "They don't believe they should be bred. They don't believe people are responsible to care for them.… They are about eliminating animals as pets."
I really love the "liberal hellhole" moniker for SF.
Reading that I thought it was from The Onion.
Quote:
California prevents ban on male circumcision
5:06pm EDT
By Mary Slosson
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown announced on Sunday that he signed a bill preventing local authorities from banning the practice of male circumcision.
The bill, which takes effect immediately, comes in the wake of an effort by a San Francisco group opposed to male circumcision to enforce a city-wide ban of the practice in a November ballot measure.
That effort was struck down in late July by a California judge who said it would infringe on religious freedom. The measure was removed from the November ballot.
The measure, which garnered 12,000 signatures of support, would have made it a misdemeanor crime to circumcise a boy before he is 18 years old in San Francisco, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs.
A dozen petitioners sued to block the initiative at the time. A similar effort in Santa Monica, west of Los Angeles, was withdrawn.
Circumcision is a ritual obligation for infant Jewish boys and also a common rite among Muslims, who account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.
The move to outlaw circumcision in San Francisco raised alarm bells for Jewish groups.
In June, the Anti-Defamation League condemned a comic book created by supporters of the anti-circumcision movement that it said contained grotesque anti-Semitic imagery. The comic featured a character named "Monster Mohel" as an evil villain.
A mohel is a Jewish individual specifically trained to perform the ritual circumcision of infant boys.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7911X720111002
FYI for no particular reason* my views on this have shifted a bit. Well, shifted in that when this comes up next time, I'm not 100% sure I would choose to get my son circumcised after birth. But wouldn't ban it, and still see the merits of wanting it.
You pack a lot into a few sentences. :p Either you're Reformed Jewish, or have been hanging around young Pediatricians (who can't give medical reasons for circumcision, and increasingly have a hard time justifying cultural/religious reasons, too.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I rather like your presumptions that you will (1) find a mate, (2) procreate, and (3) have a son. Maybe there are some things in your personal life you haven't shared with the forum, but that's cool, too. :heart:
Given the text you quoted, I like your presumption that I don't have a kid. :o