Russell Crowe eats crow.

I'm trying to think of a "pro tip" or "tip off" joke for this but I failed due to lack of caffeine :)
 
Foreskin Man Comic

a superhero named Foreskin Man saves a baby boy from being circumcised by the evil Monster Mohel

This comic is being circulated by supporters of a ballot initiative to to get circumcision banned in San Francisco.
 
this is ridiculous!
first of all circumcision IS barbaric !
if someone wants to do this I'm not going to stop them but I sure as hell am not going to change my opinion about it.

and why do people with this religion think they have the right to feel THIS offended ?
get over it. If you want to have stupid ideas then have them but you'll have to take people's views on them as well. grow a spine
 
I'm trying to think of a "pro tip" or "tip off" joke for this but I failed due to lack of caffeine :)

Hmmm. Well, let's see.

Russell Crowe admits he's been hanging around nuts but he has raised him self above them now. With head held high, he pulls back foreskin comment to show his sensitivity.
 
this is ridiculous!
first of all circumcision IS barbaric !
People have the right to do whatever modifications they want to their bodies no matter how strange or disturbing. What makes it barbaric is doing it to someone else without their permission. Performing mutilations for no medical necessity on people who cannot consent is a crime.

The practice of infant circumcision is equivalent to branding. The purpose is to leave an irremovable injury that identifies an individual as being owned by an institution. If it is to be done it should be the choice of a legally competent adult to have this done to themselves. In that sense it also speaks more to an individuals commitment than when it is forced upon someone who cannot chose nor understand the whys and wherefores.

and why do people with this religion think they have the right to feel THIS offended ?

That is the crux of religions. It is a part of their basic DNA since, having no winning arguments and being highly vulnerable in the loopiness of their world view which is unable to stand up to even mild critical analysis, surviving religions have developed effective criticism suppression mechanisms from ridicule on up to lethal force. They get so offended because they've got nothing else.
 
as usual, Mr fluffy, you hit the nail on the head.

this is Exactly the reason I feel circumcision is barbaric.

and Exactly the reason I am an atheist.

And Exactly the reason I hate political correctness.

if Russell Crowe wishes to check in with friends to assure them he wasn't being insulting to them personally, that's one thing, but to go around "apologizing" to the general religious population is hypocrisy. I'm sure he still feels circumcision is barbaric. Why back down? screw those nitwits
 
The practice of infant circumcision is equivalent to branding. The purpose is to leave an irremovable injury that identifies an individual as being owned by an institution. If it is to be done it should be the choice of a legally competent adult to have this done to themselves. In that sense it also speaks more to an individuals commitment than when it is forced upon someone who cannot chose nor understand the whys and wherefores.
I agree with this, and I'm against circumcision in general. But the argument against religion is straightforward, but what would you say to those who argue circumcision has important health benefits, in particular the fact that circumcised men are far less likely to contract HIV/AIDS.
 
what would you say to those who argue circumcision has important health benefits, in particular the fact that circumcised men are far less likely to contract HIV/AIDS.

Well, for a start new born babies aren't likely to be contracting HIV from unprotected sex.

Secondly, there are things called condoms which can be used without any need to mutilate the body and they offer far more protection against HIV than circumcision.
 
I agree with this, and I'm against circumcision in general. But the argument against religion is straightforward, but what would you say to those who argue circumcision has important health benefits, in particular the fact that circumcised men are far less likely to contract HIV/AIDS.

My boys were circumcised not because of any religious belief, but because the doctor touted the health benefits. HIV/AIDS was not mentioned, but infections and other reasons were.
 
My boys were circumcised not because of any religious belief, but because the doctor touted the health benefits. HIV/AIDS was not mentioned, but infections and other reasons were.

From what I've read, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence for keeping it too for just the same reasons. I haven't looked into the issue deeply enough to really form much of an opinion as far as that goes.
 
[...]but what would you say to those who argue circumcision has important health benefits, in particular the fact that circumcised men are far less likely to contract HIV/AIDS.

The health "benefits" are far from settled and strangely seem to split along religious lines.
In the US circumcision of infants is still very common. This is partly because there was an influx of a certain religious group into the medical profession who regarded the procedure as "normal" and partly because it is viewed as low risk and is a billable procedure.

Circumcision is much less common in Europe and is not done by default.
 
My boys were circumcised not because of any religious belief, but because the doctor touted the health benefits.

Sorry to tell you Red, but your boys lost their foreskins so the doctor could make a buck off your insurance. By the way, what was your doctors religious belief? In talking to some urologists have found that this is still a factor in who finds the "health" argument convincing.
 
Back
Top