FGM Parties

[WinstonWolf]

Nanook said:

His anti-immigrant views?

That's not nearly how it reads to me, he seems to be saying it's part of their culture, they live here now, we need to accept it.

I'm sure it's been covered in this thread, but all of those against this act, you feel the same way about circumcision, yes?

I do, and ear piercing while we're at it. It's a decision for adults to make regarding their own body, not for anyone else.

The only exception is where it's to resolve a genuine medical problem.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

del mar said:

I really don't care if Africans / Muslims want to chop bits of there own daughters, provided they do it in they own **** hole countries.

That's your choice. I care about young girls being butchered anywhere, especially British girls. But maybe that's because I'm not a fking moron.

del mar said:

You cant just make some of their cultural / religious practices illegal the moment they get off the plane.

You don't have to make them illegal, because they are illegal already.

You're not a lawyer, are you.

[Countdown]

Nanook said:

FGM is bad, but MGM is ok?

Yes. Next question?

Nanook said:

In my opinion, unless there is a medical reason why such a procedure is required, both are as horrific as each other.

Are they? I've been circumcised. So was my son (under anesthetic). It's never caused problems, either physical or mental. So I really fail to understand how the 2 can be equated. I really do.

Nanook said:

Why propose waiting until a female is old enough to decide herself if she wants such a procedure, and force the equivalent onto a male baby?

I don't propose the first. I don't think the two are comparable so your second point isn't applicable.

[Countdown]

Nanook said:

I don't have one.

You are unable to be impartial as your view is skewed by a forced personal experience.
I cannot take your views seriously, given what you've just posted.
You're are against 'abhorrent FGM' yet have ordered the equivalent procedure to be carried out on your own male offspring.

If you're equating the 2 I genuinely think you're bonkers. I possibly am being biased because of my own personal experiences and I'm not massively bothered either way if the Govt. decided to ban it. However, i think by equating the two, you're actually lessening the seriousness of FGM.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Countdown said:

If you're equating the 2 I genuinely think you're bonkers. I possibly am being biased because of my own personal experiences and I'm not massively bothered either way if the Govt. decided to ban it. However, i think by equating the two, you're actually lessening the seriousness of FGM.

100% right. As I said a while back, it's like going on a thread about bone cancer and saying "but what about the common cold?"

Utterly bonkers.

[Charlie Hoskins]

Countdown said:

Charlie Hoskins said:

But as the man says, its just a 'quirk' that has to be accepted if we are to reap the overwhelmingly obvious benefits of a multicultural society. This is what their answer to integration into UK society really is.

Which "the man" says that?

As far as I can see only people like you you and Del Mar are suggesting that this should be accepted. That's a pretty vile attitude to take, in my opinion. Fortunately the majority disagree with you and it's illegal.

But the truth is that you don't care about FGM or women in particular. In fact it benefits people like you, Potato Salad and others because it helps your "Look! Aren't muslims awful" agenda.

At this rate you're going to need a new username soon - lucky for you I think T05 5POT might still be available.

I'm certain that you are guilty of misrepresentation here, or a downright smear tactic or giving you the benefit of the doubt, there is a huge multi-coloured albatross-sized parrot winging its way toward you as we speak...
I, for the record, find the cutting of children vile, abhorrent, mentally damaging and sick and I note with interest that you think 'I don't care about women'...are you on drugs ?
To say that all I, and others are doing here is saying 'look at the bad muslims...' is a weak offering as per usual from your limited record collection.
At this rate you are in danger of incitement towards banning posters as well as having threads closed and shredded.
Keep up the good work. And do watch the name calling old fruit or you'll be the one enjoying a holiday.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Nanook said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Countdown said:

If you're equating the 2 I genuinely think you're bonkers. I possibly am being biased because of my own personal experiences and I'm not massively bothered either way if the Govt. decided to ban it. However, i think by equating the two, you're actually lessening the seriousness of FGM.

100% right. As I said a while back, it's like going on a thread about bone cancer and saying "but what about the common cold?"

Utterly bonkers.

I personally disagree, and think your comparison is 'utterly bonkers'

Both procedures involve mutiliating a child's genitals in the name of religion, calling one bone cancer and the other a common cold is probably the daftest thing I've seen on this thread so far.

Just my opinion.

But the common cold and bone cancer are both ailments. One is very serious, the other is of no real consequence to anyone, even the people who have a cold. The comparison is pretty spot on.

Now by all means talk about the common cold, and how you'd like to see the end of it, but not on a thread about bone cancer. If you want to talk about circumcision, do so, but not on a thread about FGM, because it's trivialising a very serious issue.

[Cotty]

Countdown said:

I've been circumcised. So was my son (under anesthetic). It's never caused problems, either physical or mental. So I really fail to understand how the 2 can be equated. I really do..

Was that due to medial or religious reasons?

As for how they can be equated, its cutting bits of genitalia off, the only difference is the sex of the child.

[Countdown]

Charlie Hoskins said:

I'm certain that you are guilty of misrepresentation here, or a downright smear tactic or giving you the benefit of the doubt, there is a huge multi-coloured albatross-sized parrot winging its way toward you as we speak...

Well, if you're "certain" I suppose. Anyway if I've misrepresented you in anyway please feel free to point it out and I'll feel free to apologise. However, just bear in mind, it's not that difficult to point towards the comments you've made in this and other threads to show a pattern

"#awks" as my daughter would say....

Charlie Hoskins said:

I, for the record, find the cutting of children vile, abhorrent, mentally damaging and sick and I note with interest that you think 'I don't care about women'...are you on drugs ?

My reply was in response to both you and Del Mar. To quote

Del Mar said:

I really don't care if Africans / Muslims want to chop bits of there own daughters, provided they do it in they own **** hole countries.

I'm glad you find it abhorrent. I do too. "Where it happens" is irrelevant. We could maybe influence matters abroad by using our aid packages as leverage. Many issues that happen in other countries are due to a lack of education. It's possible that, no matter how small our influence or efforts, it may have a large impact.

Charlie Hoskins said:

To say that all I, and others are doing here is saying 'look at the bad muslims...' is a weak offering as per usual from your limited record collection.

My collection is all on Phillips Laserdisc granddad...

Charlie Hoskins said:

At this rate you are in danger of incitement towards banning posters as well as having threads closed and shredded. Keep up the good work. And do watch the name calling old fruit or you'll be the one enjoying a holiday.

It's rare that I call for the banning of posters. I think it's more useful for their views/comments to be on display for as long as possible. Over a period of time it enables others to get a better understanding of their mentality and the type of individual they really are. Because of this they usually end up having to create a new profile and start all over again.

Does any of that sound familiar to you?

[WinstonWolf]

Nanook said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But the common cold and bone cancer are both ailments. One is very serious, the other is of no real consequence to anyone, even the people who have a cold. The comparison is pretty spot on.

Now by all means talk about the common cold, and how you'd like to see the end of it, but not on a thread about bone cancer. If you want to talk about circumcision, do so, but not on a thread about FGM, because it's trivialising a very serious issue.

The comparison is utter nonsense and you know it!

In my previous post I stated that both procedures involve mutilation of the genitalia in the name of religion.

Both can be painful, both can have serious long term effects, both can result in short term concerns such as infection.

If you disagree with any of that, I'd love to hear your explanation. About the actual procedures we're talking about that is, not an irrelevant comparison please.

Both are also frequently carried out without the consent of the person involved. No cutting till you're 18 IMO.

[alock]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you want to talk about circumcision, do so, but not on a thread about FGM, because it's trivialising a very serious issue.

I see it the other way around. By accepting a certain level of genital mutilation, you are turning the entire argument into one about what level of mutilation should be allowed. A far stronger argument is to ban all mutilation.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Nanook said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But the common cold and bone cancer are both ailments. One is very serious, the other is of no real consequence to anyone, even the people who have a cold. The comparison is pretty spot on.

Now by all means talk about the common cold, and how you'd like to see the end of it, but not on a thread about bone cancer. If you want to talk about circumcision, do so, but not on a thread about FGM, because it's trivialising a very serious issue.

The comparison is utter nonsense and you know it!

In my previous post I stated that both procedures involve mutilation of the genitalia in the name of religion.

Both can be painful, both can have serious long term effects, both can result in short term concerns such as infection.

If you disagree with any of that, I'd love to hear your explanation. About the actual procedures we're talking about that is, not an irrelevant comparison please.

The common cold can be painful, and in very rare cases can have serious long term effects, and result in short term infections. But I still wouldn't think to raise my concerns about the common cold on a thread about bone cancer. It's ludicrous to do so, even if I'm not in favour of the common cold.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

alock said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you want to talk about circumcision, do so, but not on a thread about FGM, because it's trivialising a very serious issue.

I see it the other way around. By accepting a certain level of genital mutilation, you are turning the entire argument into one about what level of mutilation should be allowed. A far stronger argument is to ban all mutilation.

I'm all for curing the common cold, but after we've dealt with bone cancer. I don't expect time and effort to be put into addressing the cold whilst people still get bone cancer. The fact that they are both illnesses and we shouldn't accept illness is laudable, but unrealistic.

I'm not in the least interested or remotely bothered by circumcision whilst FGM is still going on. I don't understand why anyone would be.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Nanook said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm all for curing the common cold, but after we've dealt with bone cancer. I don't expect time and effort to be put into addressing the cold whilst people still get bone cancer. The fact that they are both illnesses and we shouldn't accept illness is laudable, but unrealistic.

I'm not in the least interested or remotely bothered by circumcision whilst FGM is still going on. I don't understand why anyone would be.

You can't understand why people might be bothered about mutilating the penis of a baby, who is unable to consent, for purely religious purposes?

I can understand why they might be bothered about it. I can't understand why they would raise it on a thread about something 1000 times more serious.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Nanook said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I can understand why they might be bothered about it. I can't understand why they would raise it on a thread about something 1000 times more serious.

Possibly because it's only your opinion that it's 1000 times more serious, and you seem unable to grasp the idea that your opinion is not fact?

Worldwide, how many men have been circumcised and how many women have had FGM. I'd guess for every one woman, there's 1000 men, maybe more.

How many people suffer serious issues, as a result. Probably 1000 women for every man. Maybe more.

So, 1000 times more serious was probably an understatement, more like a million times more serious.

[Countdown]

Nanook said:

Possibly because it's only your opinion that it's 1000 times more serious, and you seem unable to grasp the idea that your opinion is not fact?

Do you think they're equal, in terms of pain/risk/physical and mental impact?

[Cotty]

Countdown said:

Do you think they're equal, in terms of pain/risk/physical and mental impact?

What would you say to your son if when he grows up tells you he didn't want to be circumcised?

As for pain/risk/physical impact, very similar if being conducted by someone who is not a medial professional.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Cotty said:

Countdown said:

Do you think they're equal, in terms of pain/risk/physical and mental impact?

What would you say to your son if when he grows up tells you he didn't want to be circumcised?

As for pain/risk/physical impact, very similar if being conducted by someone who is not a medial professional.

Why do you think it is that there are thousands of medical professionals that'll happily carry out a circumcision without any medical requirement, but none that will carry out FGM?

[del mar]

I may well be a moron, however;

FGM was not illegal when we started to import it.

I don't recall seeing big signs at Heathrow stating that it is now illegal, so those just arrived would be able to leave this custom on the plane. We don't appear to have any meaningful process in place to tell these people that they can cut their son but not their daughter. The fact that it has been illegal for over 30 years doesn't seem to have addressed it. It is more prevalent now as we continue to import it.

I don't believe breast ironing is a specific offence, it comes under general child abuse, again something we have imported that we had no idea about.


The negative health effects come from the fact that it tends to be carried out with a bit of broken glass or rusty blade and sewn up with twigs ! If boys were cut in the same way I imagine we would see a lot more issues. Legalise it and have it done in hospitals, sterile environment only allow the milder versions. Older women can be tidied up does not cause them any long term issues so why should this ?

Those that are cut as young children in the name of religion never complain about it, as it just forms part of general religious brainwashing. If you are told from a very young age that you had to be cut to demonstrate that you are of a certain religion and you want to be a good Jew / Muslim don't you ?

There have been adult women who have chose to be cut, not many but there are some out there, again that is fine as an adult that is your choice.

[del mar]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Why do you think it is that there are thousands of medical professionals that'll happily carry out a circumcision without any medical requirement, but none that will carry out FGM?

Because it is illegal, if it wasn't illegal they would all be doing it.