The_Gabe

Was wondering if anyone knew how to do this? (Chem final tomorrow) On heating 5.03g of hydrated barium chloride, 4.23g is left behind. What is the name of the hydrate? We never covered this in class, so I was wondering anyone on OT could explain that to me?

500k- Win 1.5m- Win 3.5m- Loss 8m-Loss Rage stake 20m Win.

I first read this about two nanoseconds after waking up, and I didn't get it. I read it again just now and . . . Hahahaahahah@@@@@@@@@2 Lmao OT: Obt sucks

Oh ok. No mention, not like I gave you over 20m for your farming. -.-

This has nothing to do with the thread...?

Can you still boost 52 theiving for it?

To be fair though, getting circumsized earlier is a lot less painful than doing it at the age of, say, 18. And from what I gleamed from the article, a petition of ~7000 people signing it means that a small part of the population of SF is trying to push this law through for everyone else. Then it will fail. And you can get local anesthesia or general - doesn't need to be painful. Please research a subject before posting so this won't turn into another pointless back and forth.

Anything buyable?

What can boost theiving?

Ah, so you're denying that consent should be a necessary part of undergoing medical treatment? I'm not stopping people form practicing their religions, or impinging on their ability to do that - see my previous posts. All I'm calling for is a general observance that children are unable to give consent (for instance, lacking the ability to sign legally binding contracts or consenting to sexual intercourse) and that such practices should wait until the individuals involved have the information and willpower to give informed consent. The law isn't against jews or circumcision: it's about informed consent for medical practices. Isn't difficult. :mellow:

Studio1417, I feel you can handle any further arguments from here. I'm going to bed, cya. :razz:

Feel free to get circumcised - I'm certainly stopping you. What I am supporting stopping is the human rights violation of nonconsensual medical practices. [1][2] If getting circumcised is such an essential and core aspect of your religious belief, surely there's no issue getting it done as of when you reach the age of consent and majority? :rolleyes: Are you seriously making me go back to the part of the discussion where I pointed out that later circumcisions can be costly, may have complications, a lot more painful, and take longer than the procedures done on birth...

I very much enjoyed that post. Thank you.

Don't delete them. They're completely relevant..

I disagree; they are very much so related. They are both in your category of violation of human rights, yet one of them is taking a life by itself and you don't seem to mind it. Your statement about me wanting to perform circumcision before birth was either a troll post or simply stupid. I do not consider a fetus to be alive until about 6 months. Therefore, it is not taking a life. That was a troll post, but you did answer it with what I wanted. You said YOU don't consider it a life, but there are many, many other people do. You are putting your opinion again before others. Second of all Wait, no. Unless it's denying women legal access to abortions. Except that people are trying to make abortion illegal, like you are saying circumcisions should be. They are both affecting people who are way too young to consent. You seem to be fine with abortions, so what makes circumcisions so different? [/hide] You're not getting it. Unborn babies are not people and as such, whatever rights they have are unimportant compared to those of us living right now. So yes, I'm against uniformed, nonconsensual and unnecessary medical practices on human infants. However, I weigh the rights of a living, realised human mother as above and beyond anything a fetus may incidentally have. Then again, who decides if they are not or if they are not? This is the problem; it's all about perspective. That's why it's not a good idea to ban abortion and circumcisions. If you ban them, then you are respecting one opinion. If you keep them optional, than both sides win. If you don't want your own child circumcised, no one is forcing you. You have no right to talk about other peoples' children, though.

Baby Amilla survives at 22 weeks Baby Jaslyn survives at 23 weeks Baby Amelia survives at 23 weeks Baby Jessica surives at 23 weeks Baby Chelsey survives at 23 weeks I don't see any weight to your argument either. Your statements are not at all relevant to the discussion..

I disagree; they are very much so related. They are both in your category of violation of human rights, yet one of them is taking a life by itself and you don't seem to mind it. Your statement about me wanting to perform circumcision before birth was either a troll post or simply stupid. I do not consider a fetus to be alive until about 6 months. Therefore, it is not taking a life. That was a troll post, but you did answer it with what I wanted. You said YOU don't consider it a life, but there are many, many other people do. You are putting your opinion again before others. Second of all Wait, no. Unless it's denying women legal access to abortions. Except that people are trying to make abortion illegal, like you are saying circumcisions should be. They are both affecting people who are way too young to consent. You seem to be fine with abortions, so what makes circumcisions so different?

I disagree; they are very much so related. They are both in your category of violation of human rights, yet one of them is taking a life by itself and you don't seem to mind it.

I don't see what Y_Guy being a mod has anything to do it with. I'm sorry, but from gathering all of your posts together, are you saying that we should try and perform circumcisions before babies are born? Putting words into my [bleep]ing mouth. Get out. Then what are you trying to say by that logic?

I'm sorry, but from gathering all of your posts together, are you saying that we should try and perform circumcisions before babies are born?

Have to say my respect for you just dropped there. Ridiculous statement. Haircutting/nail clipping/hair dying is non permanent, so irrelevant to the purpose this discussion, nor are they medical procedures. Piercing and tattooing individuals without their consent is also considered illegal.[1][2] I merely answered your ridiculous statement with one of my own. Circumcision is neither truly permanent nor damaging, and is arguably a medical procedure. Baby in womb: 8 months, 30 days, 23 hours old - ripped to peices by vaccuum = coooooool Baby outside womb: 9 months old - flap of skin removed - NOT INFORMED CONSENT OMGOMGOMG Unfortunately, with abortions in the U.S, they can be performed in some states up until 24 weeks. That's 6 months, but that would only be a 3 month window, which is incredibly small. So technically, Y_Guy is correct in this true but funny observation.

Have to say my respect for you just dropped there. Ridiculous statement. Haircutting/nail clipping/hair dying is non permanent, so irrelevant to the purpose this discussion, nor are they medical procedures. Piercing and tattooing individuals without their consent is also considered illegal.[1][2] As a baby you are utterly unable to give the informed consent that say, a 10 or 13 year who desired piercings is able to give (not to mention that male circumcision is rather more permanent and the prohibition on less permanent modifications (e.g. tattoos) to those over the age of 18). With regards to the abortion argument, I don't see how that's relevant, as I don't consider a fetus to have the same rights or even be comparable to a newly born baby. Except that most people who are circumcised from year 1990-2000, around 85% of circumcisions are birth circumcisions. Consider that percentages don't change at rapid pasts, you can get a good estimate of how many of those are birth. Yet, I've asked this before, but please show me one documented evidence of harmful effects of circumcisions from birth that cause physiological trauma.

Who said it wasn't torture? Or does it violate human rights too?