Religion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,637 posts)

33. Oh rug, you are so cheeky

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 01:27 PM

Jul 2012

You're the one who incorrectly claimed it banned all circumcisions; no-one claimed there was a difference between "ritual or other" purposes in the ruling, other than the medical reasons exemption we pointed out; and all that had been claimed was the basis for ritual circumcision is was an imaginary sky being has said. Yet you have the nerve to bluster "are you prepared to admit".

No-one else has to 'admit' anything. You're the only one who got it wrong. And you're now backing down with remarkably ill grace.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Religious minorities fear circumcision debate amounts to assault by secular society [View all] rug Jul 2012 OP

Mutilating children is child abuse no matter what any imaginary sky being said. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #1

Yeah, that's the sole basis for the practice. rug Jul 2012 #2

That is the sole basis for ritual circumcision. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #3

The court ruling bans all circumcision, ritual or otherwise. rug Jul 2012 #10

Are you sure about that? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #11

Yes, the phrase is "medical necessity". rug Jul 2012 #14

oh nice backtrack. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #18

That's correct. But it is a minor correction. rug Jul 2012 #20

ALL - or er, hmm... well only the NON MEDICALLY NECESSARY ONES. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #24

There's a question awaiting you on #21. rug Jul 2012 #26

oh for fucks sake. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #29

So, you admit this ban goes beyond religious ritual. rug Jul 2012 #32

you are now off into complete dishonesty. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #42

Talk about dishonesty. rug Jul 2012 #44

where did I say that rug? Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #45

Your initial, knee-jerk, post. rug Jul 2012 #47

Really? Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #49

Really. rug Jul 2012 #50

no rug that is bullshit Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #13

No, it isn't. rug Jul 2012 #17

"The court ruling bans all circumcision, ritual or otherwise. " Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #19

No, this time it's your sweeping implication that failed you. rug Jul 2012 #21

RUG: "The court ruling bans all circumcision, ritual or otherwise. " Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #22

You're repeating yourself. Why don't you answer the (amended) question? rug Jul 2012 #25

no you don't get off the hook rug, you still havent confessed Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #27

Confessed? rug Jul 2012 #30

Oh rug, you are so cheeky muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #33

And I have refined the question. rug Jul 2012 #34

"The fact remains" muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #39

Not as absurd as the thought of you diligently typing smileys. rug Jul 2012 #43

When in a hole "dig deeper". Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #46

Speak up, I can't hear you down there. rug Jul 2012 #48

OK: YOU ARE A PARODY OF RUG Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #51

What? rug Jul 2012 #52

You've all forgotten!!!!!! AlbertCat Jul 2012 #53

DING DING DING!!! Winner! cleanhippie Jul 2012 #57

any thread that contains the phrase "imaginary sky being" has forfeited the quality of grace. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #62

Whose fantasy world? rug Jul 2012 #63

I am glad to hear that the mohel's are proceeding while this gets worked out. cbayer Jul 2012 #4

Would you be equally relieved if a moratorium on a ban on female circumcision were in place? Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #5

I am a strong opponent of non-religious based male circumcision, cbayer Jul 2012 #6

"non-religious based male circumcision" Really? What about the children who have no say cleanhippie Jul 2012 #7

That's a surprising stance muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #12

it is the oddest opinion on this issue I've ever seen. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #15

Nothing odd at all about it. cbayer Jul 2012 #23

"It is also a religious practice with the same risks and downsides" - No, its forced mutilation. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #35

a child who has no say in the matter. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #54

I agree with all but the last part. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #55

Like any operation, there is a small chance of complications muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #56

no it is odd. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #58

Because I respect the religions and the members of those religions who hold beliefs cbayer Jul 2012 #59

so again - but you do not respect the religions of those who wish to perform FGM? Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #60

There are no religious requirements for FGM. cbayer Jul 2012 #61

Well that is debatable, but suppose there were? Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #64

I'm not in favor of male circumcision for religious beliefs, I just don't think it's any of my cbayer Jul 2012 #16

"I am glad to hear that the mohel's are proceeding while this gets worked out" sounded muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #28

Because to those who practice this for religious reasons, there are cbayer Jul 2012 #31

"I am giving power of the child over to the parents in this instance" - only religious ones muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #37

Being strongly against it does not mean I wish to see it outlawed. cbayer Jul 2012 #38

You seemed to condemn it for non-religious parents muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #40

I have worked with medical associations to take positions that would cbayer Jul 2012 #41

"You seem to be giving some power over the child to a religious hierarchy." - DING DING DING! cleanhippie Jul 2012 #36

good thing the bible doesnt advocate stoning to death or gouging out eyeballs nt msongs Jul 2012 #8

It's an assault alright. An assault on barbarism that we should all be fighting. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #9