(01-24-2012 09:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 08:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 06:39 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  the tattoo artist should've known better and really should've known it was against state law.

There is a question in this as to if the mom went to a "unlicensed" artist. If so...this is a direct example of the consequences of prohibitions. If she did go to a "garage tattoo artist" it is because she was forced into a unsafe and dangerous black market. The legitimate marketplace is ALWAYS safer than the black market in ALL respects. Our history has proven this to be unquestionable.

You're an idiot. These places are licensed for our safety. They are inspected for cleanliness and their instruments must be sterile. Getting a tattoo isn't illegal but to think that licensing them is a bad idea just perpetuates the idea that libertarians are crazy. Oh, and kids shouldn't be allowed to get tattoo'd, drink, or smoke. There are reasons for these things...

First off...If anyone is the idiot...it is you. No where did I say that the damn places did not need to be licensed. My point was that she was not allowed to go to a damn legal establishment and was forced into the black market. I swear...I wish people would read once in a while and stop and think for a f'ng second before they hit "post". Now feel free to blast away some more GD nonsense.

I guess you missed the part about not allowing a child to get tattoo'd. I swear I wish people would read once and a while...

By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah...RP. Maybe you should read what you type before you click "Post".

Just another control freak with a bad attitude. Get over youself.

(01-24-2012 12:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 08:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There is a question in this as to if the mom went to a "unlicensed" artist. If so...this is a direct example of the consequences of prohibitions. If she did go to a "garage tattoo artist" it is because she was forced into a unsafe and dangerous black market. The legitimate marketplace is ALWAYS safer than the black market in ALL respects. Our history has proven this to be unquestionable.

You're an idiot. These places are licensed for our safety. They are inspected for cleanliness and their instruments must be sterile. Getting a tattoo isn't illegal but to think that licensing them is a bad idea just perpetuates the idea that libertarians are crazy. Oh, and kids shouldn't be allowed to get tattoo'd, drink, or smoke. There are reasons for these things...

First off...If anyone is the idiot...it is you. No where did I say that the damn places did not need to be licensed. My point was that she was not allowed to go to a damn legal establishment and was forced into the black market. I swear...I wish people would read once in a while and stop and think for a f'ng second before they hit "post". Now feel free to blast away some more GD nonsense.

I guess you missed the part about not allowing a child to get tattoo'd. I swear I wish people would read once and a while...

By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah...RP. Maybe you should read what you type before you click "Post".

Just another control freak with a bad attitude. Get over youself.

Pound sand...

(01-24-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 08:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  You're an idiot. These places are licensed for our safety. They are inspected for cleanliness and their instruments must be sterile. Getting a tattoo isn't illegal but to think that licensing them is a bad idea just perpetuates the idea that libertarians are crazy. Oh, and kids shouldn't be allowed to get tattoo'd, drink, or smoke. There are reasons for these things...

First off...If anyone is the idiot...it is you. No where did I say that the damn places did not need to be licensed. My point was that she was not allowed to go to a damn legal establishment and was forced into the black market. I swear...I wish people would read once in a while and stop and think for a f'ng second before they hit "post". Now feel free to blast away some more GD nonsense.

I guess you missed the part about not allowing a child to get tattoo'd. I swear I wish people would read once and a while...

By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah...RP. Maybe you should read what you type before you click "Post".

Just another control freak with a bad attitude. Get over youself.

Pound sand...

"By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah..RP."

Let's leave this here before we both embarrass ourselves shall we.

(01-24-2012 05:58 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  First off...If anyone is the idiot...it is you. No where did I say that the damn places did not need to be licensed. My point was that she was not allowed to go to a damn legal establishment and was forced into the black market. I swear...I wish people would read once in a while and stop and think for a f'ng second before they hit "post". Now feel free to blast away some more GD nonsense.

I guess you missed the part about not allowing a child to get tattoo'd. I swear I wish people would read once and a while...

By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah...RP. Maybe you should read what you type before you click "Post".

Just another control freak with a bad attitude. Get over youself.

Pound sand...

"By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah..RP."

Let's leave this here before we both embarrass ourselves shall we.

Grammar smack....? Really? Yeah, you got me.

(01-24-2012 09:48 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:45 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:44 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:35 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  It's a great example of selective outrage of the left..

1) Bring home a deceased baby to say goodbye to the family sick
2) Allowing your 10 yo to get a tat of his deceased brothers name sick
3) Allowing your 5yo boy to gender cast himself as a girl *AWSOME*

I agree. All of the above are nonsense. I also believe telling parents how they should raise their children is equally wrong. Unfortunately..it is the price of freedom. What surprises me constantly is that so called conservatives that love to expound upon freedom are the damn first to want to control peoples lives.

Partisanship and consistency don't play nicely together.

Pot meet kettle...

Prayer vs. Science....Really?

You commented, really?

You understand how it's related, now. Your comments, are rarely, anything but the response of a partisan hack.

(01-24-2012 08:29 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 05:58 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I guess you missed the part about not allowing a child to get tattoo'd. I swear I wish people would read once and a while...

By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah...RP. Maybe you should read what you type before you click "Post".

Just another control freak with a bad attitude. Get over youself.

Pound sand...

"By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah..RP."

Let's leave this here before we both embarrass ourselves shall we.

Grammar smack....? Really? Yeah, you got me.

Only done so in desperation.

(01-24-2012 09:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 08:29 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 05:58 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Just another control freak with a bad attitude. Get over youself.

Pound sand...

"By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah..RP."

Let's leave this here before we both embarrass ourselves shall we.

Grammar smack....? Really? Yeah, you got me.

Only done so in desperation.

Has RobertN hacked your account? Your logic is failing...

I'm all for personal freedom, but I agree that a 10 year old child should not be taken to a tattoo parlor to get a tattoo. Getting a tattoo is not the same as getting your ears pierced (conventionally) or circumcision. Circumcision is a legitimate option that has the best interests of the child at heart - whether you agree with it or not - from a health and sanitation standpoint. Young girls getting their ears pierced is minimally painful and socially allows girls to transition into womanhood (you know these girls are trying to look pretty and all of that stuff). If the girl no longer wishes to wear earings, the holes will close over and that's that.

A tattoo is permanent and depending where it's located it can be very expensive to remove if you change your mind. A 10 year old does not have the maturity to make such a decision for themselves. What if the kid wished he never had the tattoo as an adult? That is a violation of their rights.

(01-25-2012 08:50 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 09:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 08:29 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 05:58 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Pound sand...

"By the way you as crappy a communicator as your messiah..RP."

Let's leave this here before we both embarrass ourselves shall we.

Grammar smack....? Really? Yeah, you got me.

Only done so in desperation.

Has RobertN hacked your account? Your logic is failing...

Damn...I can't even admit desperation and evade attack. I give up.

(01-25-2012 11:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm all for personal freedom, but I agree that a 10 year old child should not be taken to a tattoo parlor to get a tattoo. Getting a tattoo is not the same as getting your ears pierced (conventionally) or circumcision. Circumcision is a legitimate option that has the best interests of the child at heart - whether you agree with it or not - from a health and sanitation standpoint. Young girls getting their ears pierced is minimally painful and socially allows girls to transition into womanhood (you know these girls are trying to look pretty and all of that stuff). If the girl no longer wishes to wear earings, the holes will close over and that's that.

A tattoo is permanent and depending where it's located it can be very expensive to remove if you change your mind. A 10 year old does not have the maturity to make such a decision for themselves. What if the kid wished he never had the tattoo as an adult? That is a violation of their rights.

For clarity. Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent. Is that not a violation of their rights? This young man not only consented to the procedure..he requested it. I see nothing here that would lead me to believe in this case that he was not perfectly aware of what he was doing. Let us not forget that it has not been long since a 10 year old was considered very close to an adult. It is OUR fault that we have extended the childhoods of our kids by coddling them.

I am not a fan of any of these things...I just am not going to be the one that tells a parent what they can do in regard to their child as long as the principle of non aggression is in adherence.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

The solution for anyone wanting to do something to a child that could be seen by others as being abusive, or not in the child's best interest, is to simply do it to the child in-utero. Or at the least, prior to being fully-birthed.

Tatoo your kids all you want, just do before they get completely out of the birth canal.

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

Eeeeewwwww. I would.

I wonder how many liberals will be left in 100 years if abortion is still legal?

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

(01-25-2012 03:34 PM)G-Man Wrote:  I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

The solution for anyone wanting to do something to a child that could be seen by others as being abusive, or not in the child's best interest, is to simply do it to the child in-utero. Or at the least, prior to being fully-birthed.

Tatoo your kids all you want, just do before they get completely out of the birth canal.

For clarity....The parent in this case did nothing but give consent just as she probably did for a circumcision. The only difference is that the child also consented to the tattoo. He had no say in the former.


Cutting off ones foreskin after birth has been so accepted that now..any parent that chooses not to partake in this mutilation is seen as loony. Funny how ritual practices become standards that we do not even question.

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

To call male circumcision 'mutilation' is a bit of a stretch. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses one or the other but having all daughters so far has spared me from making the decision.

Some older men develop cancer of the ***** - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Protection against HIV and AIDS. A British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

The rest of the 'benefits' are, as you say, a hygienic matter.

(01-26-2012 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

To call male circumcision 'mutilation' is a bit of a stretch. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses one or the other but having all daughters so far has spared me from making the decision.

Some older men develop cancer of the ***** - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Protection against HIV and AIDS. A British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

The rest of the 'benefits' are, as you say, a hygienic matter.

60% of the justification is tradition, 39% is hygiene, 1% is health. A double mastectomy is an effective way to reduce the odds of breast cancer too.

(01-26-2012 09:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

To call male circumcision 'mutilation' is a bit of a stretch. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses one or the other but having all daughters so far has spared me from making the decision.

Some older men develop cancer of the ***** - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Protection against HIV and AIDS. A British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

The rest of the 'benefits' are, as you say, a hygienic matter.

60% of the justification is tradition, 39% is hygiene, 1% is health. A double mastectomy is an effective way to reduce the odds of breast cancer too.

So to be safe you should have your breasts removed...

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

Mutilation is a legal word. It is a crime to mutilate a child. So your use of the word is improper. It is not and illegal practice.

(01-26-2012 09:47 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 09:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

To call male circumcision 'mutilation' is a bit of a stretch. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses one or the other but having all daughters so far has spared me from making the decision.

Some older men develop cancer of the ***** - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Protection against HIV and AIDS. A British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

The rest of the 'benefits' are, as you say, a hygienic matter.

60% of the justification is tradition, 39% is hygiene, 1% is health. A double mastectomy is an effective way to reduce the odds of breast cancer too.

So to be safe you should have your breasts removed...

One of my wife's employees did that. Her family history was wrought with breast cancer and she had both removed even though there was no cancer.