Why does there seem to be a stigma attached to advocate for Men's Rights?

DwnWthVwls · 05-03-2017, 09:27 AM

Stop trying to equate things and take the example questions for what they are.. Questions to determine logical consistency. If you're okay with one and not that other than please explain the logic you use to draw that conclusion. You're only argument is, I'm okay with it so who cares. It's not a big deal to you.

Let's take this to a more comparable example: Is it okay for parents to have their babys tongue split at birth? It's safer, they won't remember it, they will never know the difference, and they won't lose any sensation or ability to use their tongue. PLUS, it's reversible. This is actually less detrimental than circumcision because of the last two points. So what is your argument against that?

(not you specifically elph, just in the general sense for anyone taking your position. even if youre okay with it the majority of the US would cry out in horror)

~~Cuthbert~~ · 05-03-2017, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Let's take this to a more comparable example: Is it okay for parents to have their babies tongue split at birth? It's safer, they won't remember it, they will never know the difference, and they won't lose any sensation or ability to use their tongue. PLUS, it's reversible. This is actually less detrimental than circumcision because of the last two points. So what is your argument against that?

Doesn't protect against life threatening conditions like UTIs and smegma covered bellends.

**Frownland** · 05-03-2017, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man like Monkey

Doesn't protect against life threatening conditions like UTIs and smegma covered bellends.

Giving your dick a rinse every once in a while will do both.

DwnWthVwls · 05-03-2017, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Ya I agree it's an outdated practice we do out of tradition

But again it's like "hold up there" when it's immediately compared with female genital mutilation

It's disengeneous and feels like they're just trying punch a hole on their anti-feminism scorecard

I agree when the two are made out to be comparable it seems dishonest, but I don't think using one as an example to justify why the other should also be illegal does that. It's just consistency of reason.