Life Advice - Don't Easily Dismiss or Lose Respect for People

[Mechatrommer]

A penis is just a growth of soft tissue.  There are surgeries to enhance it.

no there isnt. what you saw or read is temporary, killing some of the functionalities, risky and nasty hacks to get the illusion.

Anyway, it's not "chopped off", it's reconstructed.  The clitoris, vulva, etc. are all descended from the same cell line as glans, scrotum, etc. in the male genitalia.  They're remarkably similar structures once you realize this.  And then it becomes obvious how they can be reconstructed, to remain (neurologically) functional even, and it's just a matter of careful plastic surgery to get a natural appearance.

no, its a hack. no one can reconstruct cervix and reproductive system. you believe so probably because you've been told so by doctors. the hack needs constant maintenance from owner otherwise bad things grow inside.

[fourfathom]

Most abortions in the US occur as a form of birth control. The law should be the same across all states.

I happen to believe that the abortion laws should be left to the states, because (as our Supreme Court recently decided) our Constitution does not grant this authority to the federal government.  The original Roe vs Wade ruling was a bad decision.  The intent and effect were (in my opinion) praiseworthy, but the legal underpinnings were faulty.  While I would hope that all states would enact reasonable laws and policies (but some obviously aren't), I am even more concerned about Federal overreach, which has gone astoundingly off the rails in the last few decades.  Our Constitution means something and we (the USA) are in serious trouble in this regard.

BTW, I am generally pro-choice.

[pcprogrammer]

I think the pro-choice advocates who don't want any limits are as bigger problem as those who want it banned under all circumstances. They only polarise people into being more anti-abortion.

I'm as much against anti-trans as pro-trans activists.

Just some of the statements made, and I thought I read some pointing out, about it being personal visions.

But is that not what we all do. Preach, or advocate our own views, beliefs or visions. The problem lies in when we unite into groups with these same views, beliefs or visions and start to force them onto others. This can be seen throughout history. Just look at the crusades. "You convert to our beliefs? No, are you sure? No, you are dead"

Or that people (esp. kids) should be pushed into anything.  (Which goes for a hell of a lot broader things, like religion.)

And it is indeed an issue for about anything in society. Not as extreme as during the crusades, but it, at times, does cost peoples lives.

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

You can extend this list with do you drink alcohol, do you use a lot of sugar, do you eat a lot of fat, etc.

Being obese is also a big health risk, and maybe a bigger one then having reconstructive surgery. But talking about that is becoming more and more a taboo. I believe the percentage of obese people is running up to 60% by now. Other studies show that only 7% of the US population have healthy hearts. Did not read up on the latter to see what they mean with healthy hearts. I too have a heart "disorder" A complete right block, which is nothing to worry about.

And one of the problems causing this is the fact that a healthy diet is more expensive. A bag of potato chips is cheaper and also easier to get than good vegetables.

[tszaboo]

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim

This is a satire, right? How can you compare smoking to an operation, that removes the possibility of ever having children?
Which is now done on minors, that are a few year old, despite their parent's lack of consent in Canada?

[pcprogrammer]

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim

This is a satire, right? How can you compare smoking to an operation, that removes the possibility of ever having children?
Which is now done on minors, that are a few year old, despite their parent's lack of consent in Canada?

The underlying topic is doing harm to your body. Smoking harms your body. Also second hand smoke is not good for you.

[pcprogrammer]

But on a lighter note and slightly related to the original post here is some content of mine

The last big project on our build is laying a terrace with nature stone. A hard job even when you are not ill, but when your body only allows 3 hours of work at max it will take a lot of day's to get it done.



We can't afford to have it done by a business and the guy who was willing to help for a reasonable sum of money nearly had his hand amputated due to an mrsa infection and is no longer able to do the work. It is what it is and this is after 5 day's of work. Done the prep work for the alignment, so hopefully it will go a bit quicker from now on.

[Cerebus]

Most abortions in the US occur as a form of birth control. The law should be the same across all states.

I happen to believe that the abortion laws should be left to the states, because (as our Supreme Court recently decided) our Constitution does not grant this authority to the federal government.  The original Roe vs Wade ruling was a bad decision.  The intent and effect were (in my opinion) praiseworthy, but the legal underpinnings were faulty.  While I would hope that all states would enact reasonable laws and policies (but some obviously aren't), I am even more concerned about Federal overreach, which has gone astoundingly off the rails in the last few decades.  Our Constitution means something and we (the USA) are in serious trouble in this regard.

BTW, I am generally pro-choice.

The problem here is that your constitution doesn't make it very clear what the nature of matters that ought to be ''reserved to the States respectively" is, in the ways that the constitutions of other federated republics do. In fact the definition is almost recursive - 'states rights' excluding things that have been delegated to the federation or that the federation has prohibited states from having. The logical thing would be for matters reserved to the individual states to have some essentially geographic significance and matters that one would naturally consider universal in nature (such as crimes against the person and human rights) to be federal matters as far as setting laws was concerned, and that's the way it's done in some, probably most, other federal republics. To someone from the rest of the world it's very odd to have the everyday criminal law (and others) change as one crosses a local political boundary.

That vagueness, and lack of helpful unifying principles, has led to continuing battles between the states and federation over 'states rights' and made them into a political hot potato in a way, and over matters, that they don't seem to be in the rest of the world with a federal republic form or government. The idea that one could criminalise or decriminalise something by arguing over who has the power constitutionally to do so, rather than over the substantive merits of the putative criminal act seems crazy.

So, your assertion that Roe v Wade was unconstitutional in nature is most certainly arguable as a point of law and is probably right (one would need a lifetime of studying US constitutional law to be certain on that). My point is that a law regarding basic human rights shouldn't have been a matter of constitutional law in the first place and most certainly, by its nature, ideally ought not to be settled on the basis of 'states rights'. That smacks of gaming the system to get the result some parties wanted rather than tackling the fundamental underlying issue.

[Cerebus]

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim

This is a satire, right? How can you compare smoking to an operation, that removes the possibility of ever having children?
Which is now done on minors, that are a few year old, despite their parent's lack of consent in Canada?

You're either conflating gender assignment surgery in neonates born intersex of ambigious gender with elective gender assignment, or you are referring to  a case that involves a 17 year old, and are asserting that a 17 year old (almost of the age to marry, take jobs, vote, get killed in the military [18, but 17 with parental consent], etc.) is "a few year old" and incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to have children in the future or make any decisions that affect the rest of their life.

[T3sl4co1l]

I happen to believe that the abortion laws should be left to the states, because (as our Supreme Court recently decided) our Constitution does not grant this authority to the federal government.  The original Roe vs Wade ruling was a bad decision.  The intent and effect were (in my opinion) praiseworthy, but the legal underpinnings were faulty.  While I would hope that all states would enact reasonable laws and policies (but some obviously aren't), I am even more concerned about Federal overreach, which has gone astoundingly off the rails in the last few decades.  Our Constitution means something and we (the USA) are in serious trouble in this regard.

Libertarian?

If you claim to morally respect some action, but assign priority to the procedure used to obtain that action -- you don't have the morals you claim you do.  Your morals are actually procedural.

Tim

[fourfathom]

The problem here is that your constitution doesn't make it very clear what the nature of matters that ought to be ''reserved to the States respectively" is

Actually, our Constitution makes it very clear.  The tenth amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  So if it's not specifically there, the Feds don't have the power.  If we want the Feds to have some new power then we are supposed to amend the Constitution (which is difficult but has still been done many times).  I will admit that the scope of our federal government has grown well beyond my interpretation of the Constitution, for a number of reasons -- some good and some bad.  In many cases the judicial interpretation has been driven by desired outcome rather than (IMO) an honest reading of the Constitution.  A bit of a mess, really, but we're dealing with humans so I'm not really surprised.

Libertarian?

If you claim to morally respect some action, but assign priority to the procedure used to obtain that action -- you don't have the morals you claim you do.  Your morals are actually procedural.

I'm fairly libertarian, but I do try to be pragmatic.  I believe that a classic Libertarian state, or a Randian "Atlas Shrugged" society would fail miserably in the current world.  I like the principle but I fear the practice.  So where does that leave me and my morals?  First of all, I didn't say I morally respected the Roe vs Wade decision.  I believe the resulting policy is reasonable, but I disapprove of the procedure used to achieve it.  I see no inconsistency on my part.

[tszaboo]

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim

This is a satire, right? How can you compare smoking to an operation, that removes the possibility of ever having children?
Which is now done on minors, that are a few year old, despite their parent's lack of consent in Canada?

You're either conflating gender assignment surgery in neonates born intersex of ambigious gender with elective gender assignment, or you are referring to  a case that involves a 17 year old, and are asserting that a 17 year old (almost of the age to marry, take jobs, vote, get killed in the military [18, but 17 with parental consent], etc.) is "a few year old" and incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to have children in the future or make any decisions that affect the rest of their life.

No, it's like 14 for Canada, 4 for Scotland. Canada is passing a law, where the parent can go up to 5 year in prison if they interfere with the operation of their own child, that they are the guardian of. Because the state knows better.

[Cerebus]

The problem here is that your constitution doesn't make it very clear what the nature of matters that ought to be ''reserved to the States respectively" is

Actually, our Constitution makes it very clear.  The tenth amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  So if it's not specifically there, the Feds don't have the power.  If we want the Feds to have some new power then we are supposed to amend the Constitution (which is difficult but has still been done many times).  I will admit that the scope of our federal government has grown well beyond my interpretation of the Constitution, for a number of reasons -- some good and some bad.  In many cases the judicial interpretation has been driven by desired outcome rather than (IMO) an honest reading of the Constitution.  A bit of a mess, really, but we're dealing with humans so I'm not really surprised.

There are a whole slew of things that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution as federal powers (which seems to be the reading you are taking) which are nevertheless now federal matters. Thus the matters which are reserved to the states are rather malleable and rather poorly defined. If they weren't we wouldn't have the situation we have now, where the Supreme Court  in Roe v Wade settled criminal law for the whole federation in 1973 and has now changed again. A clear, unambiguous dividing line between federal powers and states rights wouldn't leave a case hanging around for 50 years before it was overturned.

But that's not the point I was making, the point is that the rationale for choosing the dividing line seems rather odd when compared to other federal republics, particularly the choice to make moral or criminal issues which are essentially universal in nature matters for local legislation. It is what it is, but seen from outside it seems a peculiar historical choice especially when contrasted with elsewhere (Germany for instance, where criminal law is essentially federal and state law is typically about local things).

[Nominal Animal]

Hey, the original topic was specifically about individuals.  We've once again drifted into politics, talking about what should be done in the larger scale.

I sometimes mention that I really like individuals, but severely dislike people.  Groups, cliques, tribes, ideologies .. all that seems to just cloud peoples mind when it comes to dealing with individuals on a daily basis.  Like who you watch on Youtube, which news you read, or whether you cut off people just because they have an opinion you don't like.

I believe it is better to be open-minded and very liberal in dealing with individual humans, but conservative culturally and in the larger scale policies.

Which, funnily enough, is exactly the opposite of what is being pushed on us by the various social media.
Thou shalt exclude the wrong-thinkers that do not belong to your tribe, but accept whatever inane policies anyone might come up with at the governance level.

[Mechatrommer]

where the parent can go up to 5 year in prison if they interfere with the operation of their own child, that they are the guardian of. Because the state knows better.

i'm not sure totally how other country works, but a relative that lived in UK for 3 years for phd study told us that parents can get sued (jailed?) if they dont send their kids to school even for few days, we dont have such law and on some circumstances, that dont really make sense. parents can have more excuses and freedom to decide whats good to their children.. and yet we are the one that got the "conservative" label. we are raised with good islamic religion teaching, so if implemented correctly, everybody knows what to do accordingly. goverment trusts the parents, and parents know what to do best. thats why i think lots of people are missing the good stuffs because they saw and experienced bad things from so called religious people who actually not implementing religious teaching correctly... clashes do happen even among family when some members deviated  from the book, becoming a trans or homo for example, and then the members who follow the book become abusive, they forgot about the golden rule mentioned in the book, they should only advice, not judge, let alone punish. god will be the ultimate and justice judge in the end everybody will get their fair share, this fact can easily get overlooked because of negative influences in everybody. everybody, religious or not can easily resort to "judge by the cover" if not give enough rational thought. you can debate about politics, rules and regulations until the sun die, this thing will never end because everybody think they are smart and big enough to think. otoh suppresion is one way to solve problem, the idea that "i can do whatever to my body" will create another problem anyway, imho. but then its up to your definition is it a problem? or not a problem?

[pcprogrammer]

where the parent can go up to 5 year in prison if they interfere with the operation of their own child, that they are the guardian of. Because the state knows better.

i'm not sure totally how other country works, but a relative that lived in UK for 3 years for phd study told us that parents can get sued (jailed?) if they dont send their kids to school even for few days, we dont have such law and on some circumstances, that dont really make sense. parents can have more excuses and freedom to decide whats good to their children.. and yet we are the one that got the "conservative" label. we are raised with good islamic religion teaching, so if implemented correctly, everybody knows what to do accordingly. goverment trusts the parents, and parents know what to do best. thats why i think lots of people are missing the good stuffs because they saw and experienced bad things from so called religious people who actually not implementing religious teaching correctly... clashes do happen even among family when some members deviated  from the book, becoming a trans or homo for example, and then the members who follow the book become abusive, they forgot about the golden rule mentioned in the book, they should only advice, not judge, let alone punish. god will be the ultimate and justice judge in the end everybody will get their fair share, this fact can easily get overlooked because of negative influences in everybody. everybody, religious or not can easily resort to "judge by the cover" if not give enough rational thought. you can debate about politics, rules and regulations until the sun die, this thing will never end because everybody think they are smart and big enough to think. otoh suppresion is one way to solve problem, the idea that "i can do whatever to my body" will create another problem anyway, imho. but then its up to your definition is it a problem? or not a problem?

There you go, your believe is that someone needs education based on the Islam, which to me implies that you think your imam knows best. From this I take you also believe there is a god, which no one can proof is true, nor can it be proven that it is not true. I choose to belief there is none. Enough reason for lots of people to hate me.

You are right with your point that a lot of people forsake the "true" intent within the book, being it the Koran or the bible. Both books are mans interpretation of things and the texts evolved over time. It takes careful reading and thinking to properly interpretate these texts.

But earlier you wrote that the solution to a lot of problems is education. So therefore in most western countries there is compulsory education. Don't know about penalties for parents that don't send their kids to school, but here I would say that, yes to some extend the state knows best.

The way education is given can be debated, and also what is taught can be debated. But it being mandatory to me is a good thing.

Here in France it is possible to do homeschooling, but I don't know about any regulations surrounding that. (Edit: A problem I see with home schooling is the possible lack of socialization that comes from interaction with other children)

And parents knowing best is very debatable. Take a look at the extreme forms of religion where children are forced into roles that might conflict with their feelings. These actions can scar a child for live. The same can be said for where parents are criminals who force their kids to take the same path through live.

This is why nurture has an important role in the formative years of a child. And this is what governments should pay more attention to.

[Mechatrommer]

Both books are mans interpretation of things and the texts evolved over time. It takes careful reading and thinking to properly interpretate these texts.

no they are not evolved, human did it..esp on torah and bible. But some of the important aspects remains the same. you cant say that on qoran that its evolved.. the problem is you picked certain aspects of them that are unprovable and missing out the good parts.. you think we follow imams/priests blindly?  Thats true because most people of faith are like that, but when reading the book carefully, it should not be like that.. thou follow god and your heart, not imams nor priests. How many christians follow the bible strictly? I would say none.. women should wear head cover, not eat pork, men should not dress like woman are all in there. Whats add insult to the pain are those false prophets and holy books out there like mormon etc.. in short you conclude based on oppositions opinions on religion and its cover based on people around you that implement it wrongly. i bet you havent read  those books yourself to make judgement. Nobody hates you for not believing in god, if they understand religion correctly, it is us who got hated and banned for just simply mentioning god, religion or qoran.. so thats why i know you all missing the potentially good stuffs. Those all you've discussed here have been solved thousands of years ago, its people that want to reinvent the wheel (both religious or not) for the sake of feeling good and right. Ymmv.

[pcprogrammer]

You did not get what I meant.

Both books are translations from ancient languages and the texts have been revised over time. Like for the bible you have the old testament, and the new testament.

I have read enough of the bible to form an educated opinion. Talked about the Koran with several Islamic people when I was young to also form an opinion. The "true" intent behind both books is good, but if we, as society, had not evolved and let go of some of the restrictive opinions brought into the books by man, and here I literally mean man, we would still be living in the dark ages of real oppression.

And when you throw in arguments, you should also check them. Christians have long been allowed to eat pork. But that is besides the point.

Starting a discussion about god will lead nowhere. Have had to many of those and they always end with "God moves in mysteries ways"

And "follow your heart", that is what all the people, that you like to force back into your belief, want to do.

[Mechatrommer]

And where did you get quran was a bible translation? how do you explain the differences in quran that are not available in earlier text? Another human invention? where in bible pork is permitted? Just because another verse stated all meats are good? Logically speaking..clause a) pork is not good, clause b) all meats are good. How do you interpret? Clause b cancels A? That make they are contradicting! How about treat them as combination? All meats are good except pork? follow your heart with guidance. Without guidance you can do anything including bad things.

[Zero999]

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim

This is a satire, right? How can you compare smoking to an operation, that removes the possibility of ever having children?
Which is now done on minors, that are a few year old, despite their parent's lack of consent in Canada?

You're either conflating gender assignment surgery in neonates born intersex of ambigious gender with elective gender assignment, or you are referring to  a case that involves a 17 year old, and are asserting that a 17 year old (almost of the age to marry, take jobs, vote, get killed in the military [18, but 17 with parental consent], etc.) is "a few year old" and incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to have children in the future or make any decisions that affect the rest of their life.

No, it's like 14 for Canada, 4 for Scotland. Canada is passing a law, where the parent can go up to 5 year in prison if they interfere with the operation of their own child, that they are the guardian of. Because the state knows better.

Exactly.

The problem is, this is being rolled out to minors.  The legal age for drinking alcohol is 21 in the US, so how anyone there can argue children should be allowed to take drugs and have surgery with permanent effects is beyond belief.

Even as far as adults are concerned, there still needs to be safeguards, which should also apply to cosmetic surgeries. I'm all in favour of allowing grown adults to do what they want with their own bodies. The state should not prohibit gender reassignment surgeries, hormones, cosmetic procedures or mandate vaccination. It has to be regulated through. The clinician performing the procedure/proscribing the medication has to have appropriate experience and training. The patient needs to give informed consent. Part of this should be a psychological assessment to ensure they're not being pressured into it, or are going to regret it later. Unfortunately there are too many instances of this not happening.

Hey, the original topic was specifically about individuals.  We've once again drifted into politics, talking about what should be done in the larger scale.

I sometimes mention that I really like individuals, but severely dislike people.  Groups, cliques, tribes, ideologies .. all that seems to just cloud peoples mind when it comes to dealing with individuals on a daily basis.  Like who you watch on Youtube, which news you read, or whether you cut off people just because they have an opinion you don't like.

I believe it is better to be open-minded and very liberal in dealing with individual humans, but conservative culturally and in the larger scale policies.

Which, funnily enough, is exactly the opposite of what is being pushed on us by the various social media.
Thou shalt exclude the wrong-thinkers that do not belong to your tribe, but accept whatever inane policies anyone might come up with at the governance level.

The trouble is the actions and opinions of individuals affect wider society.

The main problem with social media is not people posting "misinformation" or "hate" but the way the algorithm tends to recommend similar content to what you've liked or viewed in the past, which reinforces your current point of view.

[Mechatrommer]

from my general view.. politicians, mass media or any other individuals or organizations that can affect larger population are not much different from imams or priests.. except admittedly based on human invented definitions or guidance to earthly matter. we can easily conclude if they are bad or good from what kind of population's behaviour/direction they are creating.

The main problem with social media is not people posting "misinformation" or "hate" but the way the algorithm tends to recommend similar content to what you've liked or viewed in the past, which reinforces your current point of view.

algorithm is not an excuse, we have google and the hand typing what we want to find. the problem is we dont want to find what we dont want to find, due to some doctrination or indoctination embedded into us. thats what this thread is about... missing the good parts.

[wraper]

The main problem with social media is not people posting "misinformation" or "hate" but the way the algorithm tends to recommend similar content to what you've liked or viewed in the past, which reinforces your current point of view.

algorithm is not an excuse, we have google and the hand typing what we want to find. the problem is we dont want to find what we dont want to find, due to some doctrination or indoctination embedded into us. thats what this thread is about... missing the good parts.

You're wrong here. The problem with google is that for different people who type the same thing it will show different results depending on what it "thinks" you should prefer. And good luck getting results which are not extremely biased in one way or another when it comes to anything politics related.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Louis Rossmann dropped this nugget.

I know Reddit is cancer, but apparently it's old fashioned (!) to be nice to one another in a relationship. These young kids think they've invented what is good old fashioned marital bickering. Fight me.

[pcprogrammer]

And where did you get quran was a bible translation? how do you explain the differences in quran that are not available in earlier text? Another human invention? where in bible pork is permitted? Just because another verse stated all meats are good? Logically speaking..clause a) pork is not good, clause b) all meats are good. How do you interpret? Clause b cancels A? That make they are contradicting! How about treat them as combination? All meats are good except pork? follow your heart with guidance. Without guidance you can do anything including bad things.

I would say "learn to read". I did not say that the Koran is a translation of the bible. I stated that the Koran is a translation of earlier Koran written in an ancient language, And that the bible is a translation of earlier bible written in an ancient language.

And over time both have changed. Only when you have access to the earliest exemplar and are able to understand the ancient language will you be able to tell if the translations are correct and nothing has changed, but as with so many stories they change over time when they are rewritten.

It is your provocative to live to the letter of the Koran, but you should not try to enforce it onto others. Individuality is what we are talking about, and are trying to reach consensus about what is common sense.

What you are writing is propagating hate onto the different.

homo otoh is pure disgusting (for me esp male when they do love things in public) they are very very seldom here but i've encoutered one or two. imho its a feel good stink-ass sickness just want to get rid of sexual-related responsibility. i'm sorry if you have a family of such.

I would say "ding ding ding we have a winner of the homophobic of the year award"

[rsjsouza]

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim

This is a satire, right? How can you compare smoking to an operation, that removes the possibility of ever having children?
Which is now done on minors, that are a few year old, despite their parent's lack of consent in Canada?

You're either conflating gender assignment surgery in neonates born intersex of ambigious gender with elective gender assignment, or you are referring to  a case that involves a 17 year old, and are asserting that a 17 year old (almost of the age to marry, take jobs, vote, get killed in the military [18, but 17 with parental consent], etc.) is "a few year old" and incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to have children in the future or make any decisions that affect the rest of their life.

No, it's like 14 for Canada, 4 for Scotland. Canada is passing a law, where the parent can go up to 5 year in prison if they interfere with the operation of their own child, that they are the guardian of. Because the state knows better.

Exactly.

The problem is, this is being rolled out to minors.  The legal age for drinking alcohol is 21 in the US, so how anyone there can argue children should be allowed to take drugs and have surgery with permanent effects is beyond belief.

Precisely. Keep the minors out of this.

As to how anyone can argue the obvious, this is tactic of changing society from the ground up. Think about it: how quickly it came from allowing same sex marriage^* to gender reassignment of minors, bending elementary school curriculum, state overreach over parent's decisions, opportunist scumbags infiltrated in teenager girl's environments, etc.  All were introduced step by step initially for adults and surreptitiously pushed onto minors without pushback for a while, as the ones that alerted and opposed this were one by one tossed out of the room with screeching shaming and bully tactics. Fortunately there is change in the horizon against the excesses, but it will take time until passion is taken out and reason sets in.   

Even as far as adults are concerned, there still needs to be safeguards, which should also apply to cosmetic surgeries. I'm all in favour of allowing grown adults to do what they want with their own bodies. The state should not prohibit gender reassignment surgeries, hormones, cosmetic procedures or mandate vaccination. It has to be regulated through. The clinician performing the procedure/proscribing the medication has to have appropriate experience and training. The patient needs to give informed consent. Part of this should be a psychological assessment to ensure they're not being pressured into it, or are going to regret it later. Unfortunately there are too many instances of this not happening.

Indeed. Just like any medical procedure that has lifelong consequences (and is not life threatening), the decision must be taken with a professional approach to give time for the individual to properly reflect over all pros/cons.


^*Before someone starts to bend my words, I personally don't agree with same sex marriage but don't think the state has any saying in prohibiting this between consenting adults.

[Zero999]

And where did you get quran was a bible translation? how do you explain the differences in quran that are not available in earlier text? Another human invention? where in bible pork is permitted? Just because another verse stated all meats are good? Logically speaking..clause a) pork is not good, clause b) all meats are good. How do you interpret? Clause b cancels A? That make they are contradicting! How about treat them as combination? All meats are good except pork? follow your heart with guidance. Without guidance you can do anything including bad things.

I would say "learn to read". I did not say that the Koran is a translation of the bible. I stated that the Koran is a translation of earlier Koran written in an ancient language, And that the bible is a translation of earlier bible written in an ancient language.

And over time both have changed. Only when you have access to the earliest exemplar and are able to understand the ancient language will you be able to tell if the translations are correct and nothing has changed, but as with so many stories they change over time when they are rewritten.

It is your provocative to live to the letter of the Koran, but you should not try to enforce it onto others. Individuality is what we are talking about, and are trying to reach consensus about what is common sense.

What you are writing is propagating hate onto the different.

It really isn't worth trying to debate religion, using logic or common sense. It won't get you anywhere!

homo otoh is pure disgusting (for me esp male when they do love things in public) they are very very seldom here but i've encoutered one or two. imho its a feel good stink-ass sickness just want to get rid of sexual-related responsibility. i'm sorry if you have a family of such.

I would say "ding ding ding we have a winner of the homophobic of the year award"

I would say that don't like to see any sexual act which doesn't turn me on. I saw a straight couple, with their bodies covered in ugly tattoos and piercings all over each other a few weeks ago and thought yuck.

Mutilation implies involuntary, I would say, yes.

Male genital mutilation is also very common, even in the west; fortunately, it's finally falling out of vogue.

There are indeed people who do very strange things to their bodies.  As adults, with consent.  Often without medical oversight, at that; so, they get such modifications done at the piercing parlor rather than the doctor's office, and don't benefit from anesthesia.  So it's also a pain tolerance thing.  Split tongue (yikes), pierced labia (ouch), various kinds of implants, etc.  I think there's some even with split dicks, which... not honestly sure if that's as in a real living thing or shock content (I mean, it's certainly the latter regardless), but... if you like it that way? I guess so?

Oh yeah, random question: do you smoke?  Do you know friends who smoke?

Tim

This is a satire, right? How can you compare smoking to an operation, that removes the possibility of ever having children?
Which is now done on minors, that are a few year old, despite their parent's lack of consent in Canada?

You're either conflating gender assignment surgery in neonates born intersex of ambigious gender with elective gender assignment, or you are referring to  a case that involves a 17 year old, and are asserting that a 17 year old (almost of the age to marry, take jobs, vote, get killed in the military [18, but 17 with parental consent], etc.) is "a few year old" and incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to have children in the future or make any decisions that affect the rest of their life.

No, it's like 14 for Canada, 4 for Scotland. Canada is passing a law, where the parent can go up to 5 year in prison if they interfere with the operation of their own child, that they are the guardian of. Because the state knows better.

Exactly.

The problem is, this is being rolled out to minors.  The legal age for drinking alcohol is 21 in the US, so how anyone there can argue children should be allowed to take drugs and have surgery with permanent effects is beyond belief.

Precisely. Keep the minors out of this.

As to how anyone can argue the obvious, this is tactic of changing society from the ground up. Think about it: how quickly it came from allowing same sex marriage^* to gender reassignment of minors, bending elementary school curriculum, state overreach over parent's decisions, opportunist scumbags infiltrated in teenager girl's environments, etc.  All were introduced step by step initially for adults and surreptitiously pushed onto minors without pushback for a while, as the ones that alerted and opposed this were one by one tossed out of the room with screeching shaming and bully tactics. Fortunately there is change in the horizon against the excesses, but it will take time until passion is taken out and reason sets in.   

Even as far as adults are concerned, there still needs to be safeguards, which should also apply to cosmetic surgeries. I'm all in favour of allowing grown adults to do what they want with their own bodies. The state should not prohibit gender reassignment surgeries, hormones, cosmetic procedures or mandate vaccination. It has to be regulated through. The clinician performing the procedure/proscribing the medication has to have appropriate experience and training. The patient needs to give informed consent. Part of this should be a psychological assessment to ensure they're not being pressured into it, or are going to regret it later. Unfortunately there are too many instances of this not happening.

Indeed. Just like any medical procedure that has lifelong consequences (and is not life threatening), the decision must be taken with a professional approach to give time for the individual to properly reflect over all pros/cons.

My view has shifted on gender reassignment of minors. I was originally in favour of puberty blockers, but have changed by view. The idea of postponing puberty until the individual is old enough to consent to more interventions sounded like a good idea, because someone with gender dysphoria might find their body developing into the sex which doesn't match their psychological gender stressful. I changed my view when I realised: changes which occur during puberty directly affects the person's psychological development and puberty blockers retard it, the long term effects are unknown, many children with gender dysphoria grow out of it on their own, some gender reassignment surgeries require the person to have gone through puberty to some degree and there are activists who are encouraging children to believe they're trans, when they're probably not.

^*Before someone starts to bend my words, I personally don't agree with same sex marriage but don't think the state has any saying in prohibiting this between consenting adults.

I have mixed views on the matter. I don't like words being redefined in the sense of political correctness, but lovers should have the right to have a formal, legally recognised relationship, irrespective of whether they're the same sex, or not. Ideally, the state should keep out of marriage and only civil unions, be they hetero or homosexual recognised in law, with marriage being purely religious. Unfortunately the state has been involved with marriage, ever since the state's existence, so there's no alternative, but to allow marriage, whether it be same sex, or opposite sex. It hasn't cost the government anything and has appeared to please more people, than it's upset, so it makes sense.

I'm uneasy about two men adopting a child. Does that make me homophobic? Perhaps not, because I don't feel the same sense of anxiety about two women adopting a child. I suppose I just think children are safer with women, than men.