It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


How it relates is this: If Obama is a dictator, he can do whatever he wants to whoever he wants. Yet if there is a law that says his power must be shared and there must be checks and balances, he does not have the freedom to do whatever he wants, but people are able to live their own lives free of that tyranny.

When people say banning circumcision is taking away people's freedom, it is only taking away the freedom of parents to cause permanent and irreversible mutilation and amputation of genital tissues. Yet it protects the infant from having someone else's religious views forced on them by permanent mutilation of their natural bodies and function.

You've taken up the idea that circumcision is entirely banned, but it's only non-consensual circumcision that has been banned. People are still free to do what they want with their bodies if they so choose.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
you know, that goldfish story is taken WILDLY out-of-context. It was actually legislation limiting pet mills, at the request of the public.

Is publicly requested legislation now considered a 'nanny state', or are you just glossing over the facts to make a broader point?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
reply to post by newcovenant
 

So exactly how many "people" felt circumcision was an important enough issue the city govt should use the force of law to encourage or prevent it (3?). No I didn't read the article it's absurd on it face.

I'm sure those three radicals forced their ideas onto the city. Perhaps nobody cared about it enough to marshall an opposition.

Defend it if you want; we all recognize typical liberal: "I love a legal mandate" activity.

edit on 23-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



Just curious since I found you in my "reply" messages what are you referring to?
Talking about? Any clues at all will be helpful.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
you know, that goldfish story is taken WILDLY out-of-context. It was actually legislation limiting pet mills, at the request of the public.

Is publicly requested legislation now considered a 'nanny state', or are you just glossing over the facts to make a broader point?



My guess would be the latter.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by newcovenant
 



reply to post by FlyersFan

Again...letting the TSA feel up your wife or the government checking out what you say on the telephone and where you travel, what books you check out of the library is fine as long as they as let you have the happy meals?
I don't get it.
You let the Patriot Act pass and until you return those and the 4th amendment violations to our constitutional rights I don't think you should be fighting for the right to endanger local species including the people. Just my opinion about what you got going down there in San Francisco. I think that's the topic.
:
:
:


Where are you getting this bullcrap from? You're really talking out of your a$$, bunky. You have no idea what FF's stance is on these issues you are manufacturing. You really sound silly, you know.:shk:

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



Correct me if I am wrong but aren't we supposed to be discussing issues and not people?
It appears this thread is about me now. I'm not flattered.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 



After living in the bay area for a few years, I am confounded by their lack of interest in what happens to the huge amount of homeless people there, but let's save the goldfish!


What are you talking about here. People in the Bay Area have struggled for decades to better the lives of the homeless. So much so that homeless people have moved there from all around the country. Sure, the bans and laws described in this thread are going way overboard, but your statement is just plain false.

Never mind, I see now that Newcovenent has addressed you on this topic already


edit on 24-6-2011 by TerryMcGuire because: Read response already



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Observer99
However, I am appalled that in this day and age, circumcision is still practiced.

I'm surprised that people in this day and age don't do it more. It's an issue of health .. keeping clean. At the risk of being indelicate ... infections happen much more easily when uncircumcised. Especially with older men who don't take as good care of themselves as they should. And those with dementia issues. They 'forget' to clean up. It's MUCH easier on them and on their care givers to have someone who is circumcised.


Yeah right. So you force it on the babies? If you are concerned of your health why not let it hang as it is and then go for the scissors when you're older? Why not make it so that if you have difficulties remembering then snip it off?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 0001391
 


Then we agree.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0001391
reply to post by Jepic
 


How it relates is this: If Obama is a dictator, he can do whatever he wants to whoever he wants. Yet if there is a law that says his power must be shared and there must be checks and balances, he does not have the freedom to do whatever he wants, but people are able to live their own lives free of that tyranny.

When people say banning circumcision is taking away people's freedom, it is only taking away the freedom of parents to cause permanent and irreversible mutilation and amputation of genital tissues. Yet it protects the infant from having someone else's religious views forced on them by permanent mutilation of their natural bodies and function.

You've taken up the idea that circumcision is entirely banned, but it's only non-consensual circumcision that has been banned. People are still free to do what they want with their bodies if they so choose.


How that comment got a star is beyond me. Must be a moron who gave you that star...

Anyway. The Obama thing is still still unrelated... Like I said. I'm for people themselves deciding to have a circumcision. I'm against people having it done to them without consent. We are on the same page.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I'm sorry but anyone who thinks circumcisions leave a long lasting negative impact or psychological damage to a man is a complete and total moron.



one moron
two morons
more morons
even more morons
not the end of the list of morons
Sorry, make that total morons

edit on 24-6-2011 by TerryMcGuire because: typo



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic
Why are people going to extremes?

One side is for banning circumcision entirely and the other side is for getting everyone circumcised. WTF?!

How about we postpone circumcision to a later date where a person is mature and ready enough to consciously decide if he/she wants to have it or not. When they day arrives you simply give her all the pros and cons of the operation and she can freely decide if she wants to go through with it or not. It's that simple.

I mean why does it have to be either everyone or no one? I don't understand...
edit on 23-6-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


Isn't that the proposal. I thought they wouldn't to ban circumcision on children? I'm all for adults or developed teenagers making their own decisions. Sometimes it's even needed medically, my brother needed to be circumcised in his teens because his penis was retarded



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Nanny state?
How can the government ban circumcision? It's a religious practice....



They can't do it legally. I don't think that matters though. The Ninth District, you know Pelosi's buddies, have had something like 80% of their decisions overturned and still they will uphold this. SF can count on the Ninth to do whatever they wish. The Ninth ceased to be a real court long ago.


The can ban anything legally. The Bible tells you to commit many crimes that are illegal under law, many of which I'm sure you support.

The hypocrisy is unreal.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I'm sorry but anyone who thinks circumcisions leave a long lasting negative impact or psychological damage to a man is a complete and total moron.


Whether it does or not is besides the point. The point is you have no right to mutilate your child because you have some perversed religious lust to do so.

No right. Just as you'd have no right to mutilate your daughters genitals in anyway.

And anyone who disagrees with that is a moron and potentially has deep-rooted mental problems.

I think the real problem here is so many Americans are circumcised or have circumcised their children that they just cannot bear to entertain the negative implications of their heartless actions. Or even that their own parents did something so horrible to them, my god, so instead you all pretend it's moral and healthy.


edit on 24-6-2011 by NadaCambia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





How can the government ban circumcision? It's a religious practice....


Who cares? Government has to be secular. I can accept logical reasons for why routine neonatal circumcision should not be banned, but definately not religious ones.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If you are concerned of your health why not let it hang as it is and then go for the scissors when you're older? Why not make it so that if you have difficulties remembering then snip it off?

I don't have a penis. I'm a woman. I"m speaking from the perspective of someone who had an elderly male relative with dementia and I found out that he ... and many others with it ... can't take care of themselves and they get serious infections. Dementia gets very common in the old folks. So are those kind of infections.


Originally posted by Blaine91555
To me the real topic is what this stems from in the first place. San Francisco is the testing ground of the Progressive agenda and how life under a Progressive system really is. .

EXACTLY. Did you see the previous posters comments?? People in america aren't smart enough to buy a puppy or a goldfish so the government has to step in and make sure they don't get their nasty hands on them. Insane.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't have a penis. I'm a woman. I"m speaking from the perspective of someone who had an elderly male relative with dementia and I found out that he ... and many others with it ... can't take care of themselves and they get serious infections. Dementia gets very common in the old folks. So are those kind of infections.


Er... Doesn't that also apply to elderly women with dementia who can't take care of their own genital hygiene ?

Do we just start chopping pieces of a baby's body off at birth, in the off-chance that they will develop Alzheimer's later in life and be unable to clean themselves thoroughly ?

Besides, this is something that would be taken into consideration when the adult decides whether or not to have his foreskin removed.


edit on 24-6-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


Mutilate? .. hold on .. let me check .. nope, I'm certainly not mutilated. Still works properly, I have no long lasting emotional issues because of this erm ...... traumatic event ...

I have the right to do whatever I want in terms of non-life threatening procedures to my children. Just because some dimwitted idiot like your self thinks causing pain is the end of the World doesn't mean we all have to conform to your weak appetite for displeasure.

I can always send you pictures of the evidence that I turned out O.K. ..........


PS: Some cultures perform "Hoodectomy" or circumcision of the clitoris... it's perfectly legal and done more than you'd think in the US. Get over it, and worry about your own junk.
edit on 6/24/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
PS: Some cultures perform "Hoodectomy" or circumcision of the clitoris... it's perfectly legal and done more than you'd think in the US. Get over it, and worry about your own junk.


Is it really legal to perform a hoodectomy on a new-born girl in the US ?

The ''Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995'' says:


whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


www.fgmnetwork.org...

The only exception to this law is if one of these procedures has to be performed for medical reasons.

The reason why a hoodectomy is performed is because it purportedly increases sexual stimulation for some women. In the West, it is purely a cosmetic procedure which is voluntarily undertaken by an adult.

If any ''parent'' wants to mutilate their young daughter's genitals in the off chance that it may increase her sexual pleasure, then I'd hope that the young girl would be removed from the custody of these ''parents'' ASAP.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


Mutilate? .. hold on .. let me check .. nope, I'm certainly not mutilated. Still works properly, I have no long lasting emotional issues because of this erm ...... traumatic event ...

I have the right to do whatever I want in terms of non-life threatening procedures to my children. Just because some dimwitted idiot like your self thinks causing pain is the end of the World doesn't mean we all have to conform to your weak appetite for displeasure.

I can always send you pictures of the evidence that I turned out O.K. ..........


PS: Some cultures perform "Hoodectomy" or circumcision of the clitoris... it's perfectly legal and done more than you'd think in the US. Get over it, and worry about your own junk.
edit on 6/24/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)


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

And of course it's not a traumatic event, because it's done long before most people even have memory. You could chop off a kids foot at age 0 and very few would have any memory of it. I'm sure if it happened when kids were 5 it would be far more a traumatic experience.

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.

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

And some cultures are retarded. Unfortunately America has proven herself again, to be one of those.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
America is only a few steps beyond this





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join