@Legalize
You "shouldn't" need an account to read it.

A friend of mine said of the collie's _'drinking from the toilet'_ rant, _"Are you surprised that the woman who had never heard of a garbage disposal would drink from the bowl? AOC ~ FACE OF THE DNC."_
You will have to forgive me if I'm not buying any of her stories anymore.
I hate those scuttlebutt/toilet combo things, but if she's so utterly incompetent that she can't recognize it for what it is, she's too incompetent to bartend, either.

I agree with Dr. Renfro on almost all of his proposals. Have to think about the last name one; that one's kind of weird.

I put strikethroughs on my 0s and use 24 hour time, and I wish we put punctuation in front of sentences. I also think it would be better if we read from bottom to top; you could write long messages on roads and walkways that would be readable if we did.

how you do strikethoughs for zeros?

on Windows

i know how to on MAc

0,/

Ø cool got it

hold ALT, type 0216 on the key pad, release ALT, doens't work on top row of numbers

#KnowingBetter

was looking for it, but you beat me to it

@GrumpyGabe
I'm not *sure* what he would have said about bottom-to-top, but based on the rest of the book, I'd wager he'd have said *'for handwritten notes'* or something to that effect.
You can get Ø off your character map, then set up a macro to do it; I used my computer's autocorrect custom dictionary as /0. 😉
On your phone, the letter Ø will give you that as an option if you hold it.
I also set up

dam nson

props to you

The bottom to top thing occurred to me when I was driving, trying to read a two part message on the road. Which has to be bottom to top. But it's the opposite of the way we usually read, so it's confusing.

But imagine if we read that way by default; you could, for example, write an entire book on a walking or bike path. You could convey a lot of information on travel surfaces.

Oh. A text message.
Ya. Those have been problematic (as in actually problematic) for years.

Why do you people bring up the people on the left don't house immigrants in their own homes like its an actual argument? Saying this seems dumb to me. Is there a point to this or is this statement rhetorical?

Because they're demanding we allow strangers in unvetted and unchecked, it's damned hipocritical to demand others do something you're un*WILLING* to do yourself.

Matt needs to throw out his new flag decoration because the stripes are inverted, change my mind

Circumcision is not infant male genital mutilation, change my mind.

Um, you're just factually wrong? I mean, what is there to debate. You're removing functional healthy tissue for no medical reason. Is there another word for that?

Circumcision is one word for that

In all seriousness it means "inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on."

Violent? I dunno. Misfiguring I can see though

what if this is Virginia, and we extend abortion to past birth, then I can circumcise my son because he's not human yet

Now you're thinking

How about in-womb circumcisions

That's the future

boombambaby

if it was good enough for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then it's good enough for me

Will @Deleted User love me now ? 😿

gotta bounce

peace out nigguhs

Does bodhi love the Jews or hate the Jews?

idc

All I know is he's obsessed with them

I really have no GD clue

I will just keep fighting to have the practice banned for any one under the age of consent as an adult.

Circumcised penis's are less disgusting to look at. Therefore, everyone should be circumcised.

Wonderful joke @DJ_Anuz

Circumcised penis are more aerodynamic, its all about efficiency

Let me put it another way. Is removal of the clitoral hood mutilation? @Clive

Also, "mutilate: 1) to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect 2) to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of"

Both of those definitions (from Webster) fit infant circumcision

Of both girls *and* boys, to be clear.

@uncephalized what if it's to cut up or alter so as to make perfect?

There's no debate here if you wanr your dick looking like Jewish dick go ahead

Do whatever you want to your *own* dick @DJ_Anuz just keep the scalpel away from innocent children.

I don't care about it being a jewish thing, i care about damaging healthy infants.

Doesn't FGM remove/disable the whole clitoris though? I don't think that's equivalent, it would be more like chopping off the whole head

FGM is like 4 different things

Most FGM isn't the worst procedure that can be done. As well, do you know how much damage circumcision does? @micamike45

Idk. My penis seems fine.

That's good.

I mean, they still work apparently

......

And I don't know of any instances where circumcision has resulted in a damaged penis.

Other than freak cases

Do uncircumsized men get super orgasms or something?

Guess i'll repost something in case you haven't seen.

Many might not care, but will still bring this up. For those who still argue for circumcision (or maybe even those who don't care).
Circumcision started as an effort to controlling male sexuality https://youtu.be/ESnSxIpabgQ (small video about that) and nothing to do with "health" (outside of when its medically necessary), this has only come in to discussion in an attempt to justify a terrible practice. Any "benefit" people will point to for this practice can easily be dealt with from normal care. MGM is no different then FGM (and most times worst).
This http://www.circumcisionharm.org/research.htm has a lot of studies and links about the topic.
And here are some videos about the issue
https://youtu.be/tL5repF3JFc
https://youtu.be/U5mVLCrrmQo
https://youtu.be/Mdh5IYg7A9E
https://youtu.be/xd81GBsk62g

I could bring up more links and videos about this topic, but many may find this issue annoying or not worth their time. But this is still a big issue that effects mostly men/boys around the world (and some women). Feel free not to care, and i won't tell you to not say what you want, but maybe check out a video from Karan on the topic if you wish to downplay this issue https://youtu.be/LxhJXw0I4EA.

@DJ_Anuz "I don't know of any instances where circumcision has resulted in a damaged penis." Aside from the fact that it is damage by its very nature, botched circumcisions can and do occur and can result in complete loss of function or even amputation of the entire organ.

And yes, uncircumsized penises do "work better"--the foreskin is self-lubricating, making both masturbation and intercourse easier for both partners. Both premature ejaculation *and* difficulty climaxing are less common in intact men.

I haven't seen all of those, but the remarks about suicide seem to coincide with getting circumcised after they reach maturity. I don't see a drastic increase in suicide rates between cultures that circumcise at birth, and those that don't.

As for the remarks about circumcision being for controlling male sexuality, who cares what a few philosophers on the matter say about it? The practice occurred well before they came about.

Having been circumcised, and being the horny bastard that I am, I haven't experienced any diminishment in my sex drive, nor the other circumcised men I know.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't reduce sexual stimulation, but if Jews, Muslims, or Christians wish to cut off the foreskin, I don't want governments telling them they can't.

@uncephalized In a quick google search I found that botched circumcisions usually occur when they are done after maturity is met, and in underdeveloped nations.

Also, the foreskin takes up volume so the circumcision literally made your dick smaller.

@uncephalized In my case, that's probably a good thing.

You don't have to defend the practice just because you are not intact. I'm circumsized too.

@uncephalized Its understandable for people to do so, if they don't notice anything wrong. It is less of a problem for a person.

I'm not calling myself a cripple, I don't have any real problems because of it, but if I could go back in time and tell my parents *not* to let a doctor strap me down to a board and perform unnecessary surgery on my newborn genitals without anesthesia while I screamed in pain and fear, making one of my earliest experiences one of terror, betrayal and suffering, yeah, you bet I would.

I just don't see it as that damaging of a practice if done properly. I most likely won't circumcise my children, I just don't see it as such a damaging practice in the west that parents who opt to should be criticized.

Unless they're intentionally trying to inflict pain.

You've never watched a circumcision procedure have you DJ?

"Lower satisfaction with one’s circumcision status—but not men’s actual circumcision status—was associated with worse body image and
sexual functioning" Being angry about it is the cause of the problems according to this study they tried to spin

I don't even care *that* much about the long-term ramifications. Just learn about how the surgery works. It's horrific torture and they do it to newborn boys *with no anesthetic*

In all fairness, no newborn remembers it.

I had a friend that got the chickenpox to grow under his foreskin, and I tell you what, that left him scarred a whole lot more than circumcision would have.

I'm not sure none of you here know how terrible it is to do this (well some might).

@DJ_Anuz "In all fairness, no newborn remembers it" Not true.

Newborns don't have conscious memories of the procedure but I have read studies that indicate circumcized boys are more fearful and sensitive to pain than intact.

The notion that such an event would have no impact on a developing infant is childishly wishful thinking.

I would need to see the studies. As a general rule, every study has something wrong with how the conclusions are met that may or may not damage their legitimacy.

None of that even matters because *inflicting an unnecessary surgery on a newborn is clearly wrong* regardless of the long-term outcome

On the one I read they made the major mistake of self selection based on men answering an ad that said it was for research about circumcision (who do you think will answer that)

As would mandating that those compelled by a religious faith to be unable to do so would be wrong.

I don't know, there are lots of things we don't let people do to their children even if they have a religious motivation.

I have yet to see evidence compelling enough to determine that the practice significantly degrades a child's quality of life.

*like FGM for instance*

I just do not see how you can oppose one and not the other.

I'm actually fine with the surgery that removes the clitoral hood, though not the entire clitoris.

Well at least you are consistently wrong...

XD

If I wanted to remove the last joint of my children's left little toe at birth, because I had a religious conviction that Satan lived in the left little toenail, would you prohibit or allow that practice @DJ_Anuz?

I'd think it's silly, but I don't think the government should prevent it.

If it were the big toe or the thumb I would say no.

So at what point does mutilating newborns go from 'silly' to 'unacceptable' in your book?

When it significantly will reduce the normal function of their body.

Because for me it's the part where you are removing or damaging any healthy, normal part of their bodies.

That is a completely subjective standard. What if that child was going to grow up to be a gold medal gymnast but the loss of proprioception from that missing toe joint makes them fall off the balance beam at the Olympics?

Would that count as a 'significant loss of function'?