Nomrombom

Except abortions cannot be performed past six months and often won't be performed even earlier than that.

Yes, there is. Seemingly none of them are on Tip it :L

:lol:

Yes, god tells Moses (I think) that "the tips of their genitals shall be cut and cast off" or something to that effect. And back then, it was just the very tip, mostly noninvasive. Today, that has been morphed into the entire foreskin. The thing I don't get is why are we born with one if we're supposed to cut it off...L2build, god?

What are your opinions on waterboarding? I consider it torture, and based on the UN Convention against Torture: ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture Waterboarding usually causes longlasting psychological damage and can even kill you. IMO, waterboarding shouldn't be used. It is a seriously horrible action. I can't even begin to imagine how terrified and paranoid I'd be after it. Live demonstration of WB on Vanity Fair editer (?) Christopher Hitchens:[spoiler=Warning - very graphic and intense video] Also general thoughts on torture and justification of it.

Simplify that a little please?

This is pretty much right on. Edit: 1k posts :razz:

I think the general consensus of TIF here is that penis > ear. This. Also, pierced ears can 1. be closed/grown back fairly easily and with no effort and 2. does not affect such an important and useful part of the body as the penis. :wink:

http://www.circumcision.org/impact.htm (references available upon request) So you can violate human rights under the excuse of religious practice?

I'm wondering about this too. And if it is the first option, what is the point? You're going to shower, sleep, and shower again?

I don't give a [cabbage] what the Jews want to do. I would just prefer that people did not violate human rights based on an ancient book that has no evidence of anything behind it. And it's not even just Jews, about 75% of US males are circumcised, and the number of Semitics is far smaller.

Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences, too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors. http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

I strongly think that waterboarding is torture. Even 40 seconds of it has been known to cause permanent, severe psychological damage such as PTSD, phobias of water (showers, rain, pools, etc.), and paranoia. Plus you feel like you're drowning. There can also be brain and lung damage and even actual drowning. If you want to see it, google Christopher Hitchens waterboarding. He lasted something like 15-20 seconds. In the interview after, he said he had been having nightmares of being smothered and woke up terrified. ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture

Because you're cutting off part of someone's body without their consent, it kind of does matter. And there is in fact evidence of longstanding PTSD-like symptoms in circumcised males. http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Bestinterests "In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks." Psychological risks my ass. How the hell can a new born have psychological risks from this? Future psychological risks...

Because you're cutting off part of someone's body without their consent, it kind of does matter. And there is in fact evidence of longstanding PTSD-like symptoms in circumcised males. http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Bestinterests "In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."

I feel this debate goes a bit deeper, as (correct me if I'm wrong) all of these statements seem to be in the same vein of thought: "I don't think parents should be able to make irreversible medical decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions" "I don't think parents should be able to make religious decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions" "I don't think parents should be able to make important life changing decisions for their children, their children should make their own decisions" along with "I don't think parents should be allowed to have such heavy influence on their children's medical decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information" "I don't think parents should be allowed to have such a heavy influence on their children's religious decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information" "I don't think parents should be allowed to have a heavy influence on their children's important life changing decisions, their children should make their own decisions based on unbiased information" The above is tantamount to saying: "Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make medical decisions" "Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make religious decisions" "Parents don't have their children's best interests in mind when they make life changing decisions" Which, in my opinion, is saying that "I/someone else knows how to raise your children better than you, and you should not be in your children's lives" I must respectfully disagree. I think that nearly all parents have their child's best interests in mind, but the debate is not over irreversible medical decisions IMO. It is about a single practice, circumcision. In all other cases (such as serious illness, choosing what meds to take, etc.) the parents should be fine to choose. But circumcision is neither necessary nor very medically useful. And it is somewhat reversible. There are a small but growing number of men who are choosing to regrow the foreskin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

That is much, much different. In the case of a child with cancer, their life is immediately threatened. In the case of circumcision, it is completely unnecessary. The tip of a penis is not going to kill someone like cancer is, and therefore should not be the decision of someone else.

I just can't believe that people actually support non-consensual chopping off of any body part, regardless of it's use or non use.

Fine. So what do you call forcibly and without consent or prior knowledge, cutting off a part of someone's body? And whatever else you want to say, circumcision is chopping off a body part without consent. It doesn't matter if it's important or not - it should be each person's choice. And to whoever replied to my post concerning me creating a religion calling for removal of big toes, let's step it up. I create a religion calling for removal of the entire outer ear. Should I be able to force that on a child just because my book or whatever says so?

It doesn't matter whether it's useful. It's part of that person's body, you can't just decide to cut it off. And there are negatives to it - it's painful and forced upon you. It also of course reduces sexual pleasure. The bonus being it reduces the chance of infection with HIV? It seems like if you go putting your genitals in someone else who has HIV/AIDS you're going to get it anyway.

If you want to pull that card, why allow parents to make any body-related decisions for their children at all? Oh for christ sake, circumcision is a choice that should be decided by the guy himself when he is old enough, not due to religious or whatever belief, unless it's a medical situation. This is my, so it seems, crazy viewpoint on this forum. I'm glad my parents decided to get mine done as an infant. If you wait until the person is conscious enough to make the personal choice, that would mean he's now reached the point where circumcision is more painful, difficult, dangerous, and will now actually be aware of the not so comfortable experience. So circumcision is a painful, difficult, dangerous, uncomfortable medical procedure that is FORCED upon a very young child. The benefits of circumcision are miniscule in a first world country like the United States. It IS forced mutilation. In many places, forced mutilation is considered torture. Let's say I create a religion which follows our god saying that we must cut off our big toes. Nobody would allow or support it. But they support and allow circumcision... TL;DR Circumcision is (in the way it is done without consent of the victim) a human rights violation.

Quyneax is a her?

I've got Fury, Barrows gloves, D boots, Ddef, neitz, and piety. So I'd need verac's and rapier. What exactly is the method to kill them? Cannoning supplemented with melee?

I'm wondering if I could actually do frosts at my level. I'd also gain some levels while getting 85 dung, and of course I'd buy a rapier. What would be a good setup/what kind of profit per hour would I be looking at, if I could actually do them?

There's some trick you do by getting the 99 in F2P world and dropping the cape just before. Not sure though.