There are valid reasons for parents to choose circumcision.
I don't believe this is true.
There are valid reasons for parents to choose circumcision.
I don't believe this is true.
The "procedure" you're referring to is, by definition, genital mutilation. Which is intentionally inflicting trauma on a child. That is child abuse.
If they were truly able to consent (which is not possible due to power imbalance), then maybe you'd have an argument. Maybe. But the truth is this "procedure" is for the express purpose of forcing puritanical beliefs and lifestyle into another. So, again, its literally child abuse.
Believing that your religious views override any of this? That's bigotry.
So, not mutilating kids' genitals is...bigotry???
Fuck no. Like, seriously, your position is factually incorrect. And, frankly, the tone of superiority makes you sound, well, like a fucking bigot.
That is such a perfect way to describe how "Indian hot" is offered! No malice, of course, just an honest warning!
fact... potentially...
Yes, we're going to ignore a sensationalist conclusion that is not supported by evidence.
You know analogy and argument are not the same thing, right? Like, not at all. I'm not the guy you replied to, but I definitely did not get the impression he meant anything even close to "meaningful argument".
And you know what? I think he's right; that is a very apt analogy when taking about sophisticated bullshit generators. Cause that's the version they keep trying to sell to the public. This isn't about data analysis or any other if the creative scientific applications of this technology.
Hey, Canada, that's kind of your thing isn't it? Seriously, though, please just burn the while fucking White House to the ground! (again) Cause we're never gonna be able to get Diaper Donnie's stench out, anyway...
But birds aren't real, haven't you heard?
If you’re upper-income, earning over $100,000, things are good … What we see with middle- and lower-income consumers, it’s actually a different story.
When had this ever not been true? What a windbag.
Not even Signal, though. At least that might be secure. Our moron squad in charge of things used a compromised version that sends everything through a server in Israel, and I heard they broke they E2E encryption to - so you know they're keeping logs of everything.
First, I pay attention to if an article references an original source. If not, see if they're the only one reporting the events in question.
I also tend to look at community reactions a lot, see what other random people have to say. That's a horrible way to verify truth, but on the other end, it's the effect of the actions or events that will really matter.
And, yeah, I doubt Fox "News" has referenced an original source in decades, so I'm very skeptical of anything they report. And if they're the only ones talking about something, I generally assume it's completely false.
Maybe take your own advice? If the best case scenario is still a tool with high enough failure rate it can't actually be trusted, then your tool might just be hallucinations from huffing your own farts.