What the heck is wrong with San Francisco? Nanny state gone wild!!

reply to post by NadaCambia

Regardless, parents have NO RIGHTS to torture their children. When religious freedom encroach on the freedom and well being of others, that's when your rights vanish - Understand? This is a very simple and basic concept in the advanced world, it strikes me as really rather odd that an otherwise intelligent country like America, with freedom at the heart of her being, cannot fathom this.

You have 0 bloody right to physically harm any innocent person. Your kids, your Grandma, your best friend, your boss, a stranger - No rights! Not without consent.

Oh please, with the drama. Nobody is "torturing" or "physically harming" their kids. Get a grip, for goodness' sake.

My grandson was born tongue-tied, a common occurrence. His parents chose to NOT have the frenulectomy done while he was an infant. By age 3, it was obviously affecting his speech. They had the operation done at that age, and he was traumatized.

Now they could have ignored this problem until he was of legal age to make the decision on his own, and suffered the attendant problems that it caused for the first 18 years of his life. That is what you would want. But thankfully they finally came around to common sense and now he is a happy little boy with speech that sounds better every day.

You - YOU - have no right sticking your nose into their business. So take your preaching elsewhere.

Originally posted by NadaCambia
America is only a few steps beyond this

As bizarre as that custom of elongating the lower lip may appear to us, I'm sure the original reasons for that people to adopt the custom had some valid and logical reason which has since been shrouded in the midst of time.

It's the same with circumcision; while the idea may seem primitive and barbaric to us now, I imagine that, many thousands of years ago, before the availability of clean water and anti-bacterial soap, children probably developed nasty - perhaps fatal - infections ''down there''. It was perfectly reasonable and logical for someone to think ''Aha ! I know ! Let's prevent this from happening by removing this part of skin in our new-born babies.''

Although I'm sure that your post was intended to be partially facetious, there is a lot of truth to the point that you're making.

We, in the West, know that stretching our bottom lips from a young age is needless, nonsensical and unjustifiable, but the people who still practice this behaviour are largely isolated tribes who have inherited a time-honoured ritual which has been passed down to them for thousands of years.

The continued acceptance, in some Western cultures, of the illogical tribal practice of circumcision is exactly the same as those tribes who accept lip-stretching as ''normal''. It's just a ritual which has been passed down through generations.

We've all noticed how the pro-circumcision crowd, when pressed on the issue, tend to resort to the ''mah rights - yee-haw !'' spiel, rather than logically defending the process of cutting off parts of their children's genitals.

Societies which hold on to rituals, for the ritual's sake, tend to stagnate and reach a level of plateau in which progress and development grind to a halt.

The huge difference between the Ethiopian tribe who adopt the tribal custom of lip-stretching, and the members of the ''advanced'' American society who still practice the primitive tribal ritual of circumcision, is that the isolated tribes have no external ''knowledge'' which could make them correct their practices - the Americans, on the other hand, don't have this excuse.

reply to post by NadaCambia

Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.

Typical Progressive. Mutilation: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect

First: Don't use wikileaks as a dictionary.

Second: Explain how circumcision applies to that definition as per Webster? Again, I offer to give you evidence of my perfection

According to the 9th circuit (those crazy Liberals we are poking fun of in this thread..)

"The term mutilate as applied to a person means to cut off a limb or an essential part of the body, and in criminal law, means to deprive a man of the use of those limbs which may be useful to him in a fight."

Missouri:

... the cutting off or removal of an essential part of a person or thing, thereby impairing its completeness, beauty or function....

www.duhaime.org...

Would you mutilate your daughters genitals? No, you wouldn't.

Nope. But I will my sons.

So for you my typical bleeding heart Progressive with all their energies once again devoted to entirely the wrong sort of cause....

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

People like you and your holier-than-thou crusade of conformity are the reason why Governments turn into the monstrosities that they are.

Originally posted by brewing
And this is surprising how??? San Francisco and the whole of California is the most screwed up state in the union. we should slice it at it's border and push it out into the pacific. And we should make sure Pelosi and JAne Fonda are at home there when we do it. California is a fine example of how liberalism is simply another version of communism.

Dont be jealous about Cali, just because you can't afford living there doesn't mean you can diss the whole state

Oh please, with the drama.

Nobody is "torturing" or "physically harming" their kids. Get a grip, for goodness' sake.

tor·ture
   /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.
a method of inflicting such pain.
3.
Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

----------

harm
   /hɑrm/ Show Spelled[hahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.

My grandson was born tongue-tied, a common occurrence. His parents chose to NOT have the frenulectomy done while he was an infant. By age 3, it was obviously affecting his speech. They had the operation done at that age, and he was traumatized.

Now they could have ignored this problem until he was of legal age to make the decision on his own, and suffered the attendant problems that it caused for the first 18 years of his life. That is what you would want. But thankfully they finally came around to common sense and now he is a happy little boy with speech that sounds better every day.

There is absolutely no symmetry in this situation. Your grandson was born with an actual medical problem.

What problems does not being circumcised cause? Name 1? There is none, ergo there's no symmetry. Having foreskin is natural, therefore there's no symmetry.

Circumcision is not failing to correct human flaw, circumcision is paramount to taking a perfectly normal tongue and tying it.

When will you realise you're the victim of Jewish propaganda and that there's no notable health risks being uncircumcised, nor are there any noted health benefits in circumcision. The sooner you understand that, the better.

You - YOU - have no right sticking your nose into their business. So take your preaching elsewhere.

I have every right. What you're doing is evil and inhumane and unnecessary. In the near future circumcision will be illegal, and people who supported it will be viewed no different than how we now look back on slave owners. You better get used to that. There's only so far America can trail behind before Europe has to once again drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

You're like an anchor to the progression of the human race.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by NadaCambia
America is only a few steps beyond this

As bizarre as that custom of elongating the lower lip may appear to us, I'm sure the original reasons for that people to adopt the custom had some valid and logical reason which has since been shrouded in the midst of time.

It's the same with circumcision; while the idea may seem primitive and barbaric to us now, I imagine that, many thousands of years ago, before the availability of clean water and anti-bacterial soap, children probably developed nasty - perhaps fatal - infections ''down there''. It was perfectly reasonable and logical for someone to think ''Aha ! I know ! Let's prevent this from happening by removing this part of skin in our new-born babies.''

Although I'm sure that your post was intended to be partially facetious, there is a lot of truth to the point that you're making.

We, in the West, know that stretching our bottom lips from a young age is needless, nonsensical and unjustifiable, but the people who still practice this behaviour are largely isolated tribes who have inherited a time-honoured ritual which has been passed down to them for thousands of years.

The continued acceptance, in some Western cultures, of the illogical tribal practice of circumcision is exactly the same as those tribes who accept lip-stretching as ''normal''. It's just a ritual which has been passed down through generations.

We've all noticed how the pro-circumcision crowd, when pressed on the issue, tend to resort to the ''mah rights - yee-haw !'' spiel, rather than logically defending the process of cutting off parts of their children's genitals.

Societies which hold on to rituals, for the ritual's sake, tend to stagnate and reach a level of plateau in which progress and development grind to a halt.

The huge difference between the Ethiopian tribe who adopt the tribal custom of lip-stretching, and the members of the ''advanced'' American society who still practice the primitive tribal ritual of circumcision, is that the isolated tribes have no external ''knowledge'' which could make them correct their practices - the Americans, on the other hand, don't have this excuse.

Their men make them do it, the bigger the lip ring the more desirable. In this case there is no real valid reason and females are often left with serious speech impediments; Thankfully, I believe the practice is dying out.

Typical Progressive. Mutilation: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect

Well dictionaries offer many different definitions for many different words. Just because some token definition you pull exists, that doesn't disqualify my definition and the definitions offered by most real dictionaries.

You are mutilating your children.

First: Don't use wikileaks as a dictionary.

mutilate/ˈmjuːtɪleɪt/
▶verb injure or damage severely, typically so as to disfigure

www.wordreference.com...

mu·ti·late
   /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

dictionary.reference.com...

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Definition of MUTILATION
1
: deprivation of a limb or essential part especially by excision
2
: an instance of mutilating

www.merriam-webster.com...

mutilate verb
Click to hear the UK pronunciation of this wordClick to hear the US pronunciation of this word/ˈmjuː.tɪ.leɪt//-t ̬əl.eɪt/ v [T]
Definition
•
to damage severely, especially by violently removing a part
Her body had been mutilated beyond recognition.
Self-hatred apparently drove her to mutilate her own face.
•
to destroy an idea or a piece of art or entertainment
They have mutilated a beautiful film by making these changes.

dictionary.cambridge.org...

All from page 1 of Google for "dictionary mutilation", try again.

Second: Explain how circumcision applies to that definition as per Webster? Again, I offer to give you evidence of my perfection

According to the 9th circuit (those crazy Liberals we are poking fun of in this thread..)

"The term mutilate as applied to a person means to cut off a limb or an essential part of the body, and in criminal law, means to deprive a man of the use of those limbs which may be useful to him in a fight."

Missouri:

... the cutting off or removal of an essential part of a person or thing, thereby impairing its completeness, beauty or function....

www.duhaime.org...

I don't care about legal dictionaries or any token definition you might have to suggest circumcision isn't mutilation, in the real world - Which unfortunately excludes most of America - circumcision is mutilation.

Nope. But I will my sons.

Yet there is no moral difference. Type 1 Female Genital Mutilation is physically no worse than accepted male circumcision. The only notable difference is that male circumcision happens to be practiced in otherwise advanced Western hospitals, where as Type 1 Female genital mutilation is confined to the 3rd world and religious lunatic asylums in Africa and the Middle East.

So for you my typical bleeding heart Progressive with all their energies once again devoted to entirely the wrong sort of cause....

This has nothing to do with bleeding heart progressives. Male Circumcision is a majority minority practice, usually practiced by Africans, Jews and Muslims. If I was a bleeding heart progressive surely I'd be defending these minority groups and attacking white culture and the practice of white people?

Next you'll be telling me that opposing abortion is a "bleeding heart Progressive" viewpoint and concern.

And yes, this cause does matter. Any torture and mutilation of defenseless children matters. It matters very much.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

If you minded your own business, as opposed to mutilating your children, I wouldn't have to interfere in your affairs. We're back to the issue of your religious freedom ceasing to exist when it impedes on the rights of free and defenseless individuals. Do you understand? Because you really should be now.

People like you and your holier-than-thou crusade of conformity are the reason why Governments turn into the monstrosities that they are.

I'm an Anarchist, I don't even agree with state. This is a question of basic morality. It has nothing to do with Orwellian governments or w/e you right-wing nutjobs want to make it.

Typical of America. Any law that impedes your tyranny is deemed to be oppressive in itself. If everyone thought like you America would still be in the 18th century making African slaves work plantations. Get over yourself. You have no right to mutilate defenseless and innocent people. Try to grasp this. Try hard, for me.

How's it feel knowing people like you will litter the pages of history for all the wrong reasons?

reply to post by NadaCambia

Oh please, with the drama. Nobody is "torturing" or "physically harming" their kids. Get a grip, for goodness' sake.

tor·ture
   /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.
a method of inflicting such pain.
3.
Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

----------

harm
   /hɑrm/ Show Spelled[hahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.

You just proved my point. None of those definitions apply to circumcision.

What problems does not being circumcised cause? Name 1? There is none, ergo there's no symmetry. Having foreskin is natural, therefore there's no symmetry.

You really are un-informed and naive, aren't you?

Read on:

SUMMARY

Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.

The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.

Benefits

I'm honestly astonished that you didn't know about the many health benefits of circumcision. Don't they have personal hygiene classes where you live? Seriously, what other healthy practices do you condemn?

You - YOU - have no right sticking your nose into their business. So take your preaching elsewhere.

I have every right. What you're doing is evil and inhumane and unnecessary. In the near future circumcision will be illegal, and people who supported it will be viewed no different than how we now look back on slave owners. You better get used to that. There's only so far America can trail behind before Europe has to once again drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

You're like an anchor to the progression of the human race.

Please. Europe is so far behind the times that incest is legal in many countries there.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by newcovenant
Do you live there? I mean is that why all the fuss.

Last I saw, we are allowed to discuss the sucess and failures of different types of government intrusion into the lives of United States citizens. We are allowed to discuss how people are handing their freedoms over. We are allowed to discuss if it works or fails. We are allowed to discuss the pros and the cons. We don't live in a bubble and are allowed to discuss what is happening in differnet parts of the country and the world.

We need a nanny here in South Florida.

Move to San Francisco. It's all set up for you.
Soon - you won't even have to think for yourself anymore.
A whole lotta' sheeple depending on the gov't for everything.
Enjoy.

Patriot Act?

TSA Patdown?

So you are all fired up now about circumcision and goldfish?
Did you just wake up?

We are allowed to discuss

So bully for you!
Now why not make sure everyone thinks the exact same way?
Yeah...that would be good.

You can move to some country where people don't have the freedom to decide for themselves how and what type of city they would like to live. This is my country and I am staying.

edit on 23-6-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

The problem, that you haven't addressed yet, is this. There needs to be uniformity, or at least a semblance of it, among the laws governing our United States. Otherwise, visiting San Fran would be tantamount to visiting another country, where the laws you are so familiar and comfortable with are completely thrown into question.

Ask yourself this, how many of those new laws are asking for "freedoms" as opposed to restrictions? For a city that is supposed to be priding itself on liberal expression, those laws seem mighty oppressive, don't they?

Again, the issue of uniformity. Traveling to another location in our great nation should never feel like you're going to Singapore. Try to understand. The laws being asked for approval do not grant rights to anyone. They remove rights from people. And our rights are really what protect us here, no?

Please tell me you can understand that much, ok?

Ya'll igmos ain't been to the south have ya...! Good, stay there in The Fruit and Nut state, we don't want ya, or need ya, you would probably just bring some disease with you anyway.

reply to post by FlyersFan


"Nanny State" ...

So you'll be giving up Social Security, Medicare, Police, Fire Dept, roads, military, trash collection, (I'm not about to write this incredibly long list).

While I sure as Hell wonder about some of what SF does, tossing around the term "nanny state" belies a particular ignorance about why government exists.

But, what should make you happy, is the GOP is defunding (among other things) food safety regulations. Eat up and have fun with that. Wouldn't want a Nanny State involved in what you eat.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Flyers, it seems the problem is poor hygene, not circumcision or lack thereof.

I've been uncircumsized for nearly 30 years and yet to have any infections or adverse effects.

But I do agree with others, I will never live in San Fran....or any other part of california, they might as well become part of Canada...they'd fit right in...

reply to post by FlyersFan


San Francisco is the greatest example of what happens when Liberalism and Progressiveism goes unchecked. It is the so called Utopia that all brain dead progressives hope for.

Banning goldfish.

reply to post by cyberether


Ban all body piercings.

Ban all tattoos.

Ban cosmetic dentistry.

Ban hair implants.

Ban plastic surgery.

Ban whatever it is that women do with their nails.

Ban ban ban ban ban.

Who died and made you god?

You just proved my point. None of those definitions apply to circumcision.

Really, circumcision isn't physical damage?

You really are un-informed and naive, aren't you?

Read on:

SUMMARY

Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.

The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.

Benefits

I'm honestly astonished that you didn't know about the many health benefits of circumcision.

Don't they have personal hygiene classes where you live? Seriously, what other healthy practices do you condemn?

Actually, all this shows is that you're another victim of propaganda.

Physical hygiene? What physical hygiene - Are you blissfully unaware that the majority of Europe is uncircumcised; Europeans have notably more sex than Americans; Yet Europeans also have notably less STDs.

There is no evidence for circumcision having any hygiene benefits, you've fallen hook, line and sinker for Religious brainwashing.

Regardless, even if we pretended there are some marginally insignificant benefits - which all objective evidence says contrary - it would not in itself justify the practice. No more than it would any insignificant health benefits female circumcision might have.

Lol at your attempted point though. You just highlight how blissfully ignorant you are to reality by suggesting over here we're without hygiene. Despite being circumcised and despite lower rates of sex, Americans have a ridiculously high rate of STDs. Sounds like a very very dirty and unclean nation to me. And goes against these claims of circumcised people being cleaner, doesn't it. Circumcision seems to only be an issue for unclean parts of the world like the Middle East, Africa, Israel and America. In countries that wash it really isn't needed, and evidence proves this.

But hey, facts don't matter, just quote some Jewish, Muslim or Christian doctor.

You might as well take a scalp or a flame thrower to your kids head because hair COULD become dirty when not washed. It's that asinine and ridiculous a notion.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Michael Savage calls it Sanfran-sicko

reply to post by NadaCambia


You're a self described Anarchist who believes in Child Protection and government restrictions on non-evasive procedures?

Congrats... *SNIP*....

reply to post by NadaCambia

Actually, all this shows is that you're another victim of propaganda.

Physical hygiene? What physical hygiene - Are you blissfully unaware that the majority of Europe is uncircumcised; Europeans have notably more sex than Americans; Yet Europeans also have notably less STDs.

There is no evidence for circumcision having any hygiene benefits, you've fallen hook, line and sinker for Religious brainwashing.

Regardless, even if we pretended there are some marginally insignificant benefits - which all objective evidence says contrary - it would not in itself justify the practice. No more than it would any insignificant health benefits female circumcision might have.

Lol at your attempted point though. You just highlight how blissfully ignorant you are to reality by suggesting over here we're without hygiene. Despite being circumcised and despite lower rates of sex, Americans have a ridiculously high rate of STDs. Sounds like a very very dirty and unclean nation to me. And goes against these claims of circumcised people being cleaner, doesn't it. Circumcision seems to only be an issue for unclean parts of the world like the Middle East, Africa, Israel and America. In countries that wash it really isn't needed, and evidence proves this.

But hey, facts don't matter, just quote some Jewish, Muslim or Christian doctor.

You might as well take a scalp or a flame thrower to your kids head because hair COULD become dirty when not washed. It's that asinine and ridiculous a notion.

I've already supplied objective testimony to the health benefits of circumcision. You choose to ignore them - it shows your total ignorance.

Your objections to circumcision are based on racism and intolerance.

And don't throw alleged "facts" around without supporting links.

I notice you conveniently ignored the part about incest being legal over there, eh? Disgusting.

reply to post by mishigas

I notice you conveniently ignored the part about incest being legal over there, eh? Disgusting.

Prohibiting sex between consenting adults is much more disgusting than incest.