Although I sympathize with him, I'm also sympathetic toward the point of view that he needs to get over it. EVERYONE does something foolish and embarrasing in their lives. Maybe not with the notoriety that this guy got, but you know what? His problems would be over if he would just laugh at it, too. And then film a sequel.
Your list of problems that occurred says more about his emotional instability than the "horror" of what happened to him. If it wasn't this video, it would have been something else that messed him up.
If there's one thing I've figured out in my life, it's that it takes two people to create a bully/victim relationship. The bully has to be a bully, and the victim has to be a victim.
But don't tell anyone on earth what we may or may not laugh at.
Why not? You may not realize it, but you're reading and posting on a forum. I'll judge anything I feel like and tell you what you should or shouldn't do. Maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong, but it's certainly fair to tell someone when they're a jerk for thinking something is funny.
The point though is, I guess the kids just need to lose these things often enough, take their lickings or whatever punishment they get and after a couple of hundred $$$ their parents aren't going to bother with it anymore.
Screw whipping, that's not the way to break you. I'd take away your freedom. First grounding. If that doesn't work, I take away your stuff -- music, stereo, video games, etc. If that doesn't work, I take your door of your hinges so you'd have no privacy. If that doesn't work, the ultimate punishment.
I go to school with you and follow you around all day, and embarrass you.
Believe me, I WILL win the war. I can make your life far more miserable than you can imagine.
So what if your kid is intentionally bad about recharging his phone? What if they are good about it and simply forget?
Either way, it doesn't matter. They get punished until they do remember. It's called "discipline" and "responsibility". Just like in the real world, there are consequences to one's actions.
At what point are you going to stop invading your kids privacy?
College. At the point that I'm no longer responsible for them and responsible for teaching them right and wrong. Kids have no right to privacy.
Certain kids are going to requir special circumstances but mostly you are just going to have to form a trusting relationship with your kids by the time they would be doing things like the grandparent mentioned.
Trust is a two-way street. If they're good about informing me where they are and what they're doing, I'll probably be a bit looser with the reigns. But I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "trust, but verify".
My kids are currently 4 and 6, so this is not theoretical (like I suspect it is for you). There is no way I'm going to be a "modern parent" that lets their kids run wild and be so intimidated by them that they're never parents to their kids.
Kids need boundaries. And since they're kids, they'll test them, and my job is to make sure they're healthy, happy and loved by the time they leave the nest.
Guess what? I intend to randomly drug test when they get to be teenagers, too. (and they'll thank me for it, because it gives them a built-in excuse to tell their druggie friends, 'nah, I can't, my parents drug test.')
You know, it's funny. If you read biographies of famous people, ones that had strong and disciplining parents never complain about it, they're always thankful (obviously I'm not talking about emotionally or physically abusive parents).
Lots of love, lots of discipline. Both are important.
And he knows that if I try to call him and he doesn't answer, and I check up on him and he did what you outline, he's grounded for three months. Think he wants to take the risk?
I'm always amused by people like you. If any sort of tool isn't perfect, then the tool must be worthless. It's one more tool in the parenting arsenal.
Of the two, Negroponte is much more of a visionary.
Before making that judgment, take a look at the web site for the Bill Gates Foundation. It's impressive. Based on what I read, Bill was determined that his foundation was really going to make a difference, rather than just throwing money at problems so that everyone "feels good" (as so many foundations do, and never actually solve anything).
Say what you want about Bill (and his book wasn't that great), but you can't accuse him of lacking vision to doing world-changing things.
The difference between Freenet and your examples is that Freenet is designed to be untraceable, while your examples are not (even though they sometimes are, they're not designed to be). In other words, Freenet seeks to implement a level of anonymity that resolves people of responsibility.
Which is fine if you think that's something worthwhile, but is quite different in practice from your examples.
You know that Apple and Steve won't take this lying down. Just wait for the next product announcement. Apple WILL have the most expensive and overpriced technology, or Steve will personally scream at people until he does!
Sigh... I remember when comics were funny. Those were the days.
I know. Most comics are pretty damn lame these days, even the ones that are supposed to be funny (Dilbert is hit-or-miss, User Friendly always sucks). There is no one out there on the level of a Bloom County when Berke Breathed was in his prime. Get Fuzzy is often pretty funny, though.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also mentions alcohol. It says that the best drink in existence is the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.
Although interesting, your comparison is more correct between an encyclopedia and the Internet at large. The above quote is an opinion, and thus against the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia wants to be the Britannica. They specifically say in their bylaws that NOT everything is appropriate for it.
Re:Apple's marketshare isn't 3%... in most measure
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
But Apple Records is a brand, and so are any number of other labels-- distinct from other trademarks associated with their name. Capitol Records is confused with Washington DC?
One is music, the other a city. Different contexts.
Maybe Smuckers should sue Def Jam?
One is a food product, the other is music. Different contexts.
Trademark is all about context. If Apple is in the context of music, there is clear potential for confusion. That you're not confused says only that you're familiar with both products, but a reasonable person could be confused by "Apple Music", but could not reasonably be confused by your silly comparisons above.
Re:The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't ca
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.
"We" as in technology savvy people know the difference. What if you have some technophobe guy who grew up on the Beatles and Apple records who stumbles on iTunes and sees "Apple"? The first thing he's going to think of is Apple Records, because, duh, he's looking at music. He'll assume that Apple Records started the web site and is licensing music from other labels as well.
Remember, Apple Computer is only 3% of the market. There are LOTS of people who have never heard of Apple nor have ever seen a Mac (I know that's hard to believe from Mac fans whose lives revolve around the company).
Trademark cases are all about confusion, and there is clear potential for confusion here.
"A growing number of organizations are interested in moving away from closed, proprietary technology platforms in favor of an open computing model," said Michael Loria, Director of Worldwide Channels, IBM Software Group. "As one of the fastest growing operating systems in the world, Linux is emerging as a viable alternative to Microsoft Windows as an email and collaboration platform," he added.
Wow! IBM is open sourcing Lotus Notes and Domino? They really believe in the Open Source development model! That's an absolutely amazing mov...
Oh, what's that? The actual mail product they're selling is every bit as proprietary as exchange?
Gotta love the marketing department that can actually say the above quote with a straight face while being so hypocritical at the same time.
There are numerous fundamental problems. First of all, there are the fundamental chemistry problems. People seem to think that molecules are little round blocks and bonds are little pieces of sticky tape. It doesn't work like that; chemical reactions are extremely tricky things. They're also vibrating like crazy. Imagine trying to build a building where every single piece was shaking violently.
Then there's the physical problems of the nanoassemblers. If we're manipulating molecules (and some people want to manipulate atoms, which is even more insane), you have to have machines not that much bigger than what you're manipulating. Exactly how complex of a machine can you have and still be able to move things around? (even if you could actually move the molecules, which is again an incredible difficult chemical problem).
Then there's the organizational problem. Even if you could somehow have a machine that's useful at that scale, and you could somehow break bonds and move molecules around, how do the assemblers know what to do? They have to either 1) have some kind of plan programmed into them, or 2) be commanded by a central authority. Again, given the sizes of the machines we're talking about, how complex of a CPU can you have? How are you going to communicate with them?
The whole idea of a universal nano-assembler is completely ridiculous. You would need to build them out of something much smaller than atoms to have any shot at it, and that material would have to be able to manipulate molecules and chemical bonds, while suppressing chemical reactions. That particular material is currently fantasy.
Now, that doesn't mean you can't "grow" things at nanoscales ("look at biology!!" the nano proponents shout). But biology is not a universal assembler. It's a very specific process, and (probably) would only work for carbon, and is based on simple recursive instructions. And it certainly can't be a universal duplicator, as the original poster said was 30 years (!!) away.
I glanced at the Wikipedia article a while back, and it had a bunch of good links to articles about these sort of problems, if you want more information.
I suggest that it is your intelligence, in this case, that needs some looking into.
Those that live in glass houses...
I imagine that with $13 billion we could launch thousands. There'd be no money leftover for building the ones we launch next year, though. Or paying for the crews to maintain the ones we launched last year.
First of all, 13B is ONE YEAR. Next year is paid for by ANOTHER 13B. Second of all, do the math. Let's say we need 10,000 people to manage the probe program (managers, engineers, secretaries, etc). Let's say it costs 100K per employee, just to be generous. That's only a billion dollars. That leaves another 12 billion.
Sure there is. A probe costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Even at a mere $100 million, $13 billion is enough to build only 130 probes, to say nothing of paying for launch, maintainance, and scientific analysis.
Of course they cost $100 million -- NOW. That's because they're designed and custom-built every friggin' time. It's an incredibly wasteful and stupid method of construction. If you made three standardized types that were EXACTLY the same, except that you could plug standardized modules into it, you would save immense amounts of money. It's called "mass production", perhaps you've heard of it.
If NASA built cars, they'd also cost $100M a piece.
Budget woes? Budget woes?? NASA has what, 13 BILLION dollars? Roll that number around in your head -- THIRTEEN BILLION DOLLARS. Per year. EVERY YEAR.
How many probes could we launch with all that money? We could have probes flying all over the solar system. We could have fundamental research into remote robotics.
I've always thought that NASA should have a program that produces three types of probes, small, medium and large. And they should be modular, such that you can plug in all sorts of different sensors that use a standardized design.
There is no reason that through mass production, NASA couldn't be launching thousands of probes a year. If you're launching that many, they don't have to perfect. Launch 10 of them at every target, hoping five will end up working.
NASA needs to completely change their culture and use some intelligence for a change.
Nobody in America gives a shit for several reasons.
You forgot the fourth reason: it just doesn't matter. Anyone who doesn't wear the foil hat realizes that a bunch of drones looking down on US territory doesn't matter at all to individual liberty.
Sheesh, I seriously think that if people like you had their way, the police wouldn't be allowed to patrol the streets.
In reality, you're not trusting the machine; you're trusting the OS developers. Who says they know more about what's "secure" than you do?
And you're also trusting the iptable developers (or whatever firewall system you're using). Do you audit the code to make sure it does what it's supposed to do? Based on your philosophy, everyone should modify the TCP/IP stack source code to "make sure" security is implemented correctly.
Security does not come through pain and torment. Security comes through simple mistake-proof procedures to implement security policies. There are no "bonus points" for making opening up an FTP port as complicated as possible.
Trustix provides a reliable and secure Linux distribution that you can build upon. There are no wasteful graphical displays and no wizards to set up your firewall. If you aren't comfortable with the command line, forget about Trustix.
I'm all for the command line, and in fact like the flexibility of the command line, set-up files, etc.
But there's no doubt that with flexibility comes a lot of responsibility. And if you put responsibility in the hands of humans, then there will be an error somewhere along the way. If you want reliable security, not just potential security, it's a lot better to be able to just click the checkbox next to 'FTP' on a firewall dialogue than have to slog through iptable entries.
Sounds like these guys have the wrong philosophy. A server built for security makes sure that dumb administrators can't mess it up.
Yes, yes because only financially well off black families with a father who is a doctor and a wife who is a lawyer are adequately civilized. Yes, yes look at how empathetic you are because you champion the cause of showing black people speaking English properly. You sir, are an idiot.
Sheesh. You seem have a reading comprehension problem.
The point is not that all black families should be successful as they are, only that there's nothing wrong with being that way. And that there's nothing wrong with choosing to speak English properly.
Look, it's entirely your right to be as much of a bigot as you bloody well please. Just don't be surprised when people call you on it.
I'm not a bigot; I treat all stupid people equally. And someone who identifies themselves with the violent part of rap culture is stupid (or any particular culture that is idiotic), whether they are black or white, or any other race.
You know, if some religious fundamentalist worked for me and bragged how he beat his wife every night and how woman have to be kept in line, I'd probably fire his ass, too. And you'd probably think that was bigotry.
Ahh, cuz if you're an asshole to someone for no other reason than that they're from a different culture then that's just peachy (cuz any culture other than your own is simply a lack of culture).
Where, exactly, did I say any culture other than mine was bad?
If someone walks in wanting a job from me, and they're dressed in rap gear looking like an idiotic thug, then yes, I will bounce them out. Too f-ing bad. If they want to identify with a violent culture, then they should not be surprised that I don't want them around.
So the "Huxtables" are civilized? By whose standard? Yours? The "Huxtables" are fictional and you are an idiot.
Yeah, it sure was horrible that the Huxtables represented a black family that was financially well off, with a father who was a doctor and a wife who was a lawyer. How dare they show black people who could speak English properly!
Male circumcision is actually healthier for males (I have talked to numerous doctor's about this).
What do you think doctors are going to tell you? A lot of doctors make a good bit of change in doing circumcision, and of course a lot of them are going to look for excuses to keep doing them. Who wants to believe they're mutilating the genitals of boys?
There is less of a chance for spreading diseases and it's an overall pain in the ass to have your foreskin still attached.
Cleanliness is much more effective at stopping the spread of disease than cutting off important, functional, sexual parts of our bodies.
You are doing your son a great disservice in not having him circumcised.
Yeah, I'm sure he'll hate me for not killing a great deal of his sexual nerve endings. Do yourself a favor and stop talking to doctors, and do your own research, especially reading about men who have had it done in adulthood.
There is absolutely no difference in morality between male and female circumcision.
Uncircumcised men have a much higher risk of penile cancer.
Maybe higher, but "much" higher is crap. In any case, who cares? I'm sure if we cut off the nose of infants, we'd have a much lower incidence of nose cancer. Does that justify mutilating them?
On the other side of the ledger, circumcision removes sexual nerve endings, causing much less sensitivity. Do yourself a favor and do some research on it, especially men who have had it done late in life, and how they report that sexual feeling is much more muted.
Why does anyone even argue this? I somewhat suspect that nature has spent a lot of evolutionary attention on optimizing the sexual organs.
There is absolutely no justification for circumcision.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I sympathize with him, I'm also sympathetic toward the point of view that he needs to get over it. EVERYONE does something foolish and embarrasing in their lives. Maybe not with the notoriety that this guy got, but you know what? His problems would be over if he would just laugh at it, too. And then film a sequel.
Your list of problems that occurred says more about his emotional instability than the "horror" of what happened to him. If it wasn't this video, it would have been something else that messed him up.
If there's one thing I've figured out in my life, it's that it takes two people to create a bully/victim relationship. The bully has to be a bully, and the victim has to be a victim.
Obviously.
But don't tell anyone on earth what we may or may not laugh at.
Why not? You may not realize it, but you're reading and posting on a forum. I'll judge anything I feel like and tell you what you should or shouldn't do. Maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong, but it's certainly fair to tell someone when they're a jerk for thinking something is funny.
Screw whipping, that's not the way to break you. I'd take away your freedom. First grounding. If that doesn't work, I take away your stuff -- music, stereo, video games, etc. If that doesn't work, I take your door of your hinges so you'd have no privacy. If that doesn't work, the ultimate punishment.
I go to school with you and follow you around all day, and embarrass you.
Believe me, I WILL win the war. I can make your life far more miserable than you can imagine.
Either way, it doesn't matter. They get punished until they do remember. It's called "discipline" and "responsibility". Just like in the real world, there are consequences to one's actions.
At what point are you going to stop invading your kids privacy?
College. At the point that I'm no longer responsible for them and responsible for teaching them right and wrong. Kids have no right to privacy.
Certain kids are going to requir special circumstances but mostly you are just going to have to form a trusting relationship with your kids by the time they would be doing things like the grandparent mentioned.
Trust is a two-way street. If they're good about informing me where they are and what they're doing, I'll probably be a bit looser with the reigns. But I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "trust, but verify".
My kids are currently 4 and 6, so this is not theoretical (like I suspect it is for you). There is no way I'm going to be a "modern parent" that lets their kids run wild and be so intimidated by them that they're never parents to their kids.
Kids need boundaries. And since they're kids, they'll test them, and my job is to make sure they're healthy, happy and loved by the time they leave the nest.
Guess what? I intend to randomly drug test when they get to be teenagers, too. (and they'll thank me for it, because it gives them a built-in excuse to tell their druggie friends, 'nah, I can't, my parents drug test.')
You know, it's funny. If you read biographies of famous people, ones that had strong and disciplining parents never complain about it, they're always thankful (obviously I'm not talking about emotionally or physically abusive parents).
Lots of love, lots of discipline. Both are important.
I'm always amused by people like you. If any sort of tool isn't perfect, then the tool must be worthless. It's one more tool in the parenting arsenal.
Before making that judgment, take a look at the web site for the Bill Gates Foundation. It's impressive. Based on what I read, Bill was determined that his foundation was really going to make a difference, rather than just throwing money at problems so that everyone "feels good" (as so many foundations do, and never actually solve anything).
Say what you want about Bill (and his book wasn't that great), but you can't accuse him of lacking vision to doing world-changing things.
Yes, thank you. :) I knew it was wrong, but I was tired and wanted to go to bed, so I was like, "eh, screw it."
Which is fine if you think that's something worthwhile, but is quite different in practice from your examples.
You know that Apple and Steve won't take this lying down. Just wait for the next product announcement. Apple WILL have the most expensive and overpriced technology, or Steve will personally scream at people until he does!
I know. Most comics are pretty damn lame these days, even the ones that are supposed to be funny (Dilbert is hit-or-miss, User Friendly always sucks). There is no one out there on the level of a Bloom County when Berke Breathed was in his prime. Get Fuzzy is often pretty funny, though.
I think my favorite strip right now that is often extremely funny is Brewster Rockit, Space Guy!.
Although interesting, your comparison is more correct between an encyclopedia and the Internet at large. The above quote is an opinion, and thus against the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia wants to be the Britannica. They specifically say in their bylaws that NOT everything is appropriate for it.
One is music, the other a city. Different contexts.
Maybe Smuckers should sue Def Jam?
One is a food product, the other is music. Different contexts.
Trademark is all about context. If Apple is in the context of music, there is clear potential for confusion. That you're not confused says only that you're familiar with both products, but a reasonable person could be confused by "Apple Music", but could not reasonably be confused by your silly comparisons above.
"We" as in technology savvy people know the difference. What if you have some technophobe guy who grew up on the Beatles and Apple records who stumbles on iTunes and sees "Apple"? The first thing he's going to think of is Apple Records, because, duh, he's looking at music. He'll assume that Apple Records started the web site and is licensing music from other labels as well.
Remember, Apple Computer is only 3% of the market. There are LOTS of people who have never heard of Apple nor have ever seen a Mac (I know that's hard to believe from Mac fans whose lives revolve around the company).
Trademark cases are all about confusion, and there is clear potential for confusion here.
Wow! IBM is open sourcing Lotus Notes and Domino? They really believe in the Open Source development model! That's an absolutely amazing mov...
Oh, what's that? The actual mail product they're selling is every bit as proprietary as exchange?
Gotta love the marketing department that can actually say the above quote with a straight face while being so hypocritical at the same time.
There are numerous fundamental problems. First of all, there are the fundamental chemistry problems. People seem to think that molecules are little round blocks and bonds are little pieces of sticky tape. It doesn't work like that; chemical reactions are extremely tricky things. They're also vibrating like crazy. Imagine trying to build a building where every single piece was shaking violently.
Then there's the physical problems of the nanoassemblers. If we're manipulating molecules (and some people want to manipulate atoms, which is even more insane), you have to have machines not that much bigger than what you're manipulating. Exactly how complex of a machine can you have and still be able to move things around? (even if you could actually move the molecules, which is again an incredible difficult chemical problem).
Then there's the organizational problem. Even if you could somehow have a machine that's useful at that scale, and you could somehow break bonds and move molecules around, how do the assemblers know what to do? They have to either 1) have some kind of plan programmed into them, or 2) be commanded by a central authority. Again, given the sizes of the machines we're talking about, how complex of a CPU can you have? How are you going to communicate with them?
The whole idea of a universal nano-assembler is completely ridiculous. You would need to build them out of something much smaller than atoms to have any shot at it, and that material would have to be able to manipulate molecules and chemical bonds, while suppressing chemical reactions. That particular material is currently fantasy.
Now, that doesn't mean you can't "grow" things at nanoscales ("look at biology!!" the nano proponents shout). But biology is not a universal assembler. It's a very specific process, and (probably) would only work for carbon, and is based on simple recursive instructions. And it certainly can't be a universal duplicator, as the original poster said was 30 years (!!) away.
I glanced at the Wikipedia article a while back, and it had a bunch of good links to articles about these sort of problems, if you want more information.
Those that live in glass houses...
I imagine that with $13 billion we could launch thousands. There'd be no money leftover for building the ones we launch next year, though. Or paying for the crews to maintain the ones we launched last year.
First of all, 13B is ONE YEAR. Next year is paid for by ANOTHER 13B. Second of all, do the math. Let's say we need 10,000 people to manage the probe program (managers, engineers, secretaries, etc). Let's say it costs 100K per employee, just to be generous. That's only a billion dollars. That leaves another 12 billion.
Sure there is. A probe costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Even at a mere $100 million, $13 billion is enough to build only 130 probes, to say nothing of paying for launch, maintainance, and scientific analysis.
Of course they cost $100 million -- NOW. That's because they're designed and custom-built every friggin' time. It's an incredibly wasteful and stupid method of construction. If you made three standardized types that were EXACTLY the same, except that you could plug standardized modules into it, you would save immense amounts of money. It's called "mass production", perhaps you've heard of it.
If NASA built cars, they'd also cost $100M a piece.
How many probes could we launch with all that money? We could have probes flying all over the solar system. We could have fundamental research into remote robotics.
I've always thought that NASA should have a program that produces three types of probes, small, medium and large. And they should be modular, such that you can plug in all sorts of different sensors that use a standardized design.
There is no reason that through mass production, NASA couldn't be launching thousands of probes a year. If you're launching that many, they don't have to perfect. Launch 10 of them at every target, hoping five will end up working.
NASA needs to completely change their culture and use some intelligence for a change.
You forgot the fourth reason: it just doesn't matter. Anyone who doesn't wear the foil hat realizes that a bunch of drones looking down on US territory doesn't matter at all to individual liberty.
Sheesh, I seriously think that if people like you had their way, the police wouldn't be allowed to patrol the streets.
And you're also trusting the iptable developers (or whatever firewall system you're using). Do you audit the code to make sure it does what it's supposed to do? Based on your philosophy, everyone should modify the TCP/IP stack source code to "make sure" security is implemented correctly.
Security does not come through pain and torment. Security comes through simple mistake-proof procedures to implement security policies. There are no "bonus points" for making opening up an FTP port as complicated as possible.
I'm all for the command line, and in fact like the flexibility of the command line, set-up files, etc.
But there's no doubt that with flexibility comes a lot of responsibility. And if you put responsibility in the hands of humans, then there will be an error somewhere along the way. If you want reliable security, not just potential security, it's a lot better to be able to just click the checkbox next to 'FTP' on a firewall dialogue than have to slog through iptable entries.
Sounds like these guys have the wrong philosophy. A server built for security makes sure that dumb administrators can't mess it up.
Sheesh. You seem have a reading comprehension problem.
The point is not that all black families should be successful as they are, only that there's nothing wrong with being that way. And that there's nothing wrong with choosing to speak English properly.
Look, it's entirely your right to be as much of a bigot as you bloody well please. Just don't be surprised when people call you on it.
I'm not a bigot; I treat all stupid people equally. And someone who identifies themselves with the violent part of rap culture is stupid (or any particular culture that is idiotic), whether they are black or white, or any other race.
You know, if some religious fundamentalist worked for me and bragged how he beat his wife every night and how woman have to be kept in line, I'd probably fire his ass, too. And you'd probably think that was bigotry.
Where, exactly, did I say any culture other than mine was bad?
If someone walks in wanting a job from me, and they're dressed in rap gear looking like an idiotic thug, then yes, I will bounce them out. Too f-ing bad. If they want to identify with a violent culture, then they should not be surprised that I don't want them around.
So the "Huxtables" are civilized? By whose standard? Yours? The "Huxtables" are fictional and you are an idiot.
Yeah, it sure was horrible that the Huxtables represented a black family that was financially well off, with a father who was a doctor and a wife who was a lawyer. How dare they show black people who could speak English properly!
As the others pointed out, we're talking about now, not a culture that was dead a long time ago.
But I don't think you want to go there anyway. Who is worse... the slaver, or the people in Africa who sold their own people to the slavers?
What do you think doctors are going to tell you? A lot of doctors make a good bit of change in doing circumcision, and of course a lot of them are going to look for excuses to keep doing them. Who wants to believe they're mutilating the genitals of boys?
There is less of a chance for spreading diseases and it's an overall pain in the ass to have your foreskin still attached.
Cleanliness is much more effective at stopping the spread of disease than cutting off important, functional, sexual parts of our bodies.
You are doing your son a great disservice in not having him circumcised.
Yeah, I'm sure he'll hate me for not killing a great deal of his sexual nerve endings. Do yourself a favor and stop talking to doctors, and do your own research, especially reading about men who have had it done in adulthood.
There is absolutely no difference in morality between male and female circumcision.
Maybe higher, but "much" higher is crap. In any case, who cares? I'm sure if we cut off the nose of infants, we'd have a much lower incidence of nose cancer. Does that justify mutilating them?
On the other side of the ledger, circumcision removes sexual nerve endings, causing much less sensitivity. Do yourself a favor and do some research on it, especially men who have had it done late in life, and how they report that sexual feeling is much more muted.
Why does anyone even argue this? I somewhat suspect that nature has spent a lot of evolutionary attention on optimizing the sexual organs.
There is absolutely no justification for circumcision.