Most hilarious last line ever by kaneman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Most hilarious last line ever

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 15:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1090
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:05 AM

Thinking that I had located the dumbest use of time by elected officials, earlier today I posted a short piece highlighting the proposed bill being considered in Connecticut that would mandate the DMV print drivers license tests in the Tibetan language. That story has just been rendered lame by San Francisco’s efforts to make infant circumcision a crime punishable by up to a year in prison. The Bay area’s NBC affiliate has the story:

Self-described “civil rights advocates” say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.

Hang on, it gets better.

If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed.

And so, if this passes and becomes law in San Francisco, foreskins will have greater protection than fetuses.

Lifted off blog at beck

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:28 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

It's arguably genital mutilation. It had hygene purposes in the past, but that should no longer be the issue it was. Seems like complicated legislation on religious grounds. I'm circumsized myself, and it doesn't seem that horrific to me, but then I don't remember the actual process. Unnecessary mutilation is unnecessary, so I'm not sure this proceedure should be condoned, but then again, I don't have strong feelings on it one way or the other. I don't think the legislation goes into crazy land though.

Bringing up a fetus as a comparisson is stupid as usual. The legislation isn't to protect forskins, its to protect, if that is necessary, the children those forskins are attached to. Scientifically, empyrically, fetus's do not function as mentally formed human beings...but then neither do you most of the time, so i'm wondering what my point was...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:35 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

It's arguably genital mutilation. It had hygene purposes in the past, but that should no longer be the issue it was. Seems like complicated legislation on religious grounds. I'm circumsized myself, and it doesn't seem that horrific to me, but then I don't remember the actual process. Unnecessary mutilation is unnecessary, so I'm not sure this proceedure should be condoned, but then again, I don't have strong feelings on it one way or the other. I don't think the legislation goes into crazy land though.

Bringing up a fetus as a comparisson is stupid as usual. The legislation isn't to protect forskins, its to protect, if that is necessary, the children those forskins are attached to. Scientifically, empyrically, fetus's do not function as mentally formed human beings...but then neither do you most of the time, so i'm wondering what my point was...

Well, let me help you out...you have no point. What you have is a twisted metal illness called liberalism. It allows you to chop up fetuses, suck them out of their filthy mother's vagina, and throw it in the trash....see, in your retarded world a mother has such rights over her and her baby she can tear it apart, but she has no right to preform a religious based act on her son's dick.....you should be hung upside down from a tree, your pants removed, and your balls slapped for a minimum of 34 seconds.....idiot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:52 AM

HERO

The really funny thing is that this forces people to come out either for or against forskins.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:54 AM

MINCINGBEAST

I am a foe of all intactivists.

This proposed law is hateful and anti-semitic, and was likely drafted by Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Unless muslims like to cut the skin off their pee pees, too, in which case they are copy cats and should abandon the practice. Or cut lower.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:14 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Kane, I kind of apologize for my snark...I shouldn't be letting your threads annoy me. I assure you, that my belief about what a fetus is is not dogmatic, that I have no personal interest in my position on the matter. I've never been in a situation where a loved one of mine was considering an abortion.

Still, science is science. I tend to put a reasonable amount of stock in the science of the day, the same stuff that got us to the moon. My point is not to say that you are wrong in your beliefs, though yes, I think so, but to point out to you that while I may be wrong, and science may be wrong, those of us who are pro choice are not actually willfully denying the humantiy of fetuses, we simply believe it not to be the case based on demonstrable proof. If something else is going on having to do with God and angels and baby Jesus, then I am wrong, but you might want to allow that we don't believe what we do because we have a callous disregard for human life. Demonizing in this regard, seems counter productive, on either side.

Of course if there is some jesus stuff going around, then as an aside, I wonder why people care so much...wouldn't it be true that any fetus aborted before child birth would get a fast-track to heaven and wouldn't have to worry about the prickly little details that might drag it into hell? Never quite understood this.

Also, you aren't alone in this, nor is your perspective, but it would be nice if you didn't attack me and liberalism as a disease, but instead were more...I don't know...specific with your points of disagreement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:35 AM

CANTTAKESKY

I really hate circumcision. It's gross and inhumane. It's abusive.

Having said that, I support the freedom of parents to mutilate their children for religious purposes. I hate that I support religious or cultural freedom that much, but I do.

Sigh.

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:16 PM

BYTEMITE

...Uh... I can't say I agree with parents torturing or mutilating their kids on the basis of religion, anymore than I'd agree with them practicing child sacrifice for that same religion.

But I'm in no position to legislate it.

Off hand for circumcision I might suggest concerns over later fertility issues, and that groups practicing it might be disadvantaging themselves in reproduction competition with other creeds and practices. Or the potential for abuse, or the circumcision ritual hijacked for other more nefarious ends in that direction.

I'd also suggest that ritual mutilation is pretty damn weird and possibility unethical if the person being mutilated is not given a choice. But then I guess I'm not going to be looking down people's pants to check, you know? So I'm not even sure how such a law would even be enforceable, which might make it pointless.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:29 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So I'm not even sure how such a law would even be enforceable, which might make it pointless.

They would go after providers, like they do drug dealers.

It's like this. I think it is abusive, but not SO abusive that I would be willing to kidnap the parents/circumcision provider and lock them up for some period of time. Intent has everything to do with it.

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:41 PM

BYTEMITE

Fair enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:31 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I never thought of circumcision as GM, I guess because you do it when they're a baby usually and won't remember, it can be more hygenic too, even though you guys are saying it isn't, I have some personal experience withit, well, not personal, but familial.

I think parents should decide whether they want it done. Men still enjoy sex with it done after all. And people who are circumsized, as far as I know reproduce as much as people who aren't.

I think this law is rediculous.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE