Is the term "r*****k" offensive?

[Manfred Belheim]

Calling a simple procedure which the vast majority of Americans, Canadians, and British did as a matter of course for many decades based on the opinions of most healthcare professionals at the time, and which many still do highly recommend to promote basic hygiene and to reduce the risk of penile cancer, is hardly "mutilation".



And thanks for proving my point.

Nope sorry. In order to have proved your point I'd have had to demonstrated I'm incapable of having a rational discussion about something. And in order to have demonstrated that you'd have had to at least have attempted to engage me in a rational discussion about the matter. Since you haven't done so then I can't possibly have proved your point. Me simply holding an opinion that you don't agree with (or even consider to be irrational in and of itself) does not mean I can't DISCUSS it rationally. And you basically saying "" doesn't really constitute any sort of attempt at rational discussion.

Not that I'm saying you should have to or want to discuss this of course, and it's quite clear that you don't want to, but if you're going to claim your point is proven (and in rather an immature way I have to say) then you have to have at least put it to the test.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's happening again

What is happening again?

Also, yaa for CFC being back up!

 

[onejayhawk]

What is happening again?

I'm just pointing out that the ones "fighting intolerant" are the most intolerant of all.

J

 

[NovaKart]

I wonder how much of the drop in circumcision has to do with a larger Latino population, who traditionally don't do it.

 

[Nares]

Not that I'm particularly wanting or expecting a discussion on the topic, but it seems rather double-thinky that you can actively shut down a discussion whilst simultaneously accuse the other side of being incapable of discussion in the same breath.

As much as I agree with him on this one solitary topic, I have to ask, do you realize who/what you're bothering to argue with?

Off-topic is a much more interesting place once you use the ignore feature to drown out the constant clamoring of a select few.

 

[NovaKart]

It might be too quiet a place.

 

[Borachio]

Is circumcision an offensive term to rednecks? And are most cops circumcised, or not?

And does circumcision correlate with anger-management issues?

 

[Formaldehyde]

These questions seems completely lost on Manfred Belheim, who claims to want to discuss the topic "rationally" while calling such a widely practiced medical procedure in the US "mutilation". That it must be a form of "censorship" to suggest that if he really wishes to show how "rational" such ludicrous statements supposedly are to simply start another thread on that very topic, or to simply revive a past thread full of such "rational" statements.

 

[Wilniuk]

Perhaps this is more obvious in the case of the boy scouts being forced to include homosexual team leaders, which really is not a good idea given some parents and kids may feel they are not now comfortable to use that service.

It seems to make sense to you that they might be uncomfortable. So why, in your opinion, might they be uncomfortable with a gay scout leader?

Why is there a division for boy scouts and girl scouts in the first place? Shouldn't there be united teams for both boys and girls? If there are scout teams just for boys, then these boys will be uncomfortable with a gay leader because it's like having a female leader, but such to whom nobody in the team is attracted.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So for you, gay men = women? That's bizarre. A gay man is a man who happens to be gay. He's not a woman, just as lesbian women are not men.

 

[Wilniuk]

I'm saying that gay men, like straight women, are attracted to men. So it is as uncomfortable for straight boy scouts to be led by a gay man, as it is for them to be led by a woman. Actually it is more uncomfortable: many boy scouts would probably like to be led by an attractive young woman, but not by a gay man.

We are talking about boy scouts, but of what age group? I'm thinking mostly about teenagers.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And if they don't know the scout leader is gay, what difference does it make?

 

[Wilniuk]

If they don't know then it doesn't make a difference. But he wrote about boy scouts "being forced to include homosexual team leaders".

In such cases they know who are they including as team leaders.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you think the Boy Scouts of America force them to wear a special emblem so everybody else knows they are gay?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I assumed that meant that if the leaders are later known to be gay, they can't be kicked out.

Of course I've never been a scout of any kind, so I don't know if applicants for leader-type jobs have to disclose their sexual orientation. I should think that would be one of the things that is not allowed to be asked (at least in Canada, where discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation is prohibited under the Charter of Rights).

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's not illegal here yet, thanks to all the homophobic Republicans in Congress.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why is there a division for boy scouts and girl scouts in the first place? Shouldn't there be united teams for both boys and girls? If there are scout teams just for boys, then these boys will be uncomfortable with a gay leader because it's like having a female leader, but such to whom nobody in the team is attracted.

Responding in the Gay marriage thread