NationStates Jolt Archive

My sister's little toes were removed at birth for cultural reasons and to prevent ingrown toenails.

She would like to have her two daughters get the same procedure for the same reason and the doctors are denying her that right. It is her decision and I don't understand why anyone would consider this to be a problem. She simply wants her daughter to look like her mother, to honor the traditions of my family and to protect her from ingrown toenails.

Granted, ingrown toenails affect woman at a much lesser rate than men and such a procedure isn't done to men in our family. Granted, the incidence of ingrown toenails is fairly low and there can be complications with removing toes, but isn't that up to me to decide? This is our culture.

It's not as if it's unprecedented. We already perform cosmetic, elective procedures on infants in the US. I would assume I'll get wide support from the NSG community based on said precedence.

What are you parodying? I'm too tired to tell. But little toes are indispensable. Without them people have a LOT of trouble balancing.

Oh, I gotcha. I just needed to finish reading the post.

I'm sure its your every right to have any and all body parts removed as long as it is your own will.

I'm sure its your every right to have any and all body parts removed as long as it is your own will.

No, we're talking about infants. My sister should be permitted to make decisions for them even if those decisions are unnecessary and irreversible.

Yes, because just like toes, a foreskin is a necessary limb used to assist in walking, running and jumping and lacking it is a unique and obvious disability.

Oh wait it isn't.

Yes, because just like toes, a foreskin is a necessary limb used to assist in walking, running and jumping and lacking it is a unique and obvious disability.

Oh wait it isn't.

Your ignorance is not an argument. The entire world considers the foreskin to be a useful body part with the exception of a pile of people in the US. Among them is you, who have admitted you aren't aware of the purpose of the foreskin or the surgical effects of circumcision. Forgive me if I don't take your admittedly uneducated claims as arguments.

Why, why oh why can't people just make their points in the thread already going instead of making their 'point' in new parody threads?

For fucks sake...

My sister's little toes were removed at birth for cultural reasons and to prevent ingrown toenails.

What culture are you referring to here? I have never heard of such a practice. Oh, and there are methods of removing ingrown toenails that don't involve removing the toe. Also, ingrown toenails can happen on any toe, not just the little toe.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

An ad hominem fallacy is not an argument.

Even if I am indeed "ignorant," pointing it out whenever I say anything doesn't constitute an argument either. Nor does it do anything but make you look like a hostile, arrogant douche.

I guess that would be excusable if you actually had something to be arrogant about. Like a point.

The entire world considers the foreskin to be a useful body part with the exception of a pile of people in the US.

Irrelevant.

Among them is you, who have admitted you aren't aware of the purpose of the foreskin or the surgical effects of circumcision.

I "admitted" no such thing.

Forgive me if I don't take your admittedly uneducated claims as arguments.

Forgive me if I'm less-than-impressed with your series of strawmen and ad homs. I rather think you created this thread just to troll and flamebait. You weren't getting enough attention in the OTHER circumcision thread and you wanted to misrepresent everyone's argument. Makes it easier to attack, after all. Just PRETEND I support toe amputation - you don't even have to address the issue of circumcision then!

Marvelous. Why don't you grow the fuck up already.

now now jocabia I'm sure you know, copycat threads are against the rules.

An ad hominem fallacy is not an argument.

Even if I am indeed "ignorant," pointing it out whenever I say anything doesn't constitute an argument either. Nor does it do anything but make you look like a hostile, arrogant douche.

I guess that would be excusable if you actually had something to be arrogant about. Like a point.
I'm not attacking you. I'm discussing your lack of knowledge on the subject. The only thing you've presented is your ignorance of the use of the foreskin, despite many links demonstrating it's purpose.

Irrelevant.

So that you think it's useless is relevant and your argument that you are not harmed by not having one is relevant, but the opinion of the rest of the world and whether or not they would like to have their foreskins is not relevant. Interesting claim. No, actually, it's not.


I "admitted" no such thing.

Perhaps you don't know what ignorance means. I presented both the claim that there are consequences of the surgery and links that discuss those consequences and you asked me what they were. Are you claiming that your question stating asking what they were isn't an admission you don't know? Seriously, how can you possibly think this helps your argument?



Forgive me if I'm less-than-impressed with your series of strawmen and ad homs. I rather think you created this thread just to troll and flamebait. You weren't getting enough attention in the OTHER circumcision thread and you wanted to misrepresent everyone's argument. Makes it easier to attack, after all. Just PRETEND I support toe amputation - you don't even have to address the issue of circumcision then!

Marvelous. Why don't you grow the fuck up already.

And, yet, still no argument. Just ire. Amusing. This is a parody thread, as noted in the second post. You're argument here is as devoid of substance as in the other thread.

now now jocabia I'm sure you know, copycat threads are against the rules.

Parody threads are not against the rules. It's come up repeatedly, and the use of them as an argument has been regularly supported. I can provide you with links if you like.

What culture are you referring to here? I have never heard of such a practice. Oh, and there are methods of removing ingrown toenails that don't involve removing the toe. Also, ingrown toenails can happen on any toe, not just the little toe.

Yes, much like there are methods of dealing with phimosis and UTI that don't involve removing the foreskin. Every medical issue that could possibly be addressed by removal of the foreskin can be addressed equally or better through other procedures. This is also true of ingrown toenails, but since we believe in preventative medical procedures that actually have no medical indication, I figure we can obviously do this anywhere.

Or is it reserved to penes?

yes yes, and I'm sure you can explain to me in very clear examples what the difference between a "copycat" thread and a "parody" thread are.

Because the post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540512) seems pretty direct and explicit on the matter

Yes, because just like toes, a foreskin is a necessary limb used to assist in walking, running and jumping and lacking it is a unique and obvious disability.

Oh wait it isn't.

1) Since when is a toe a limb?

2) Care to cite examples of how the loss of a little toe presents "a unique and obvious disability"?

I'm not attacking you. I'm discussing your lack of knowledge on the subject. The only thing you've presented is your ignorance of the use of the foreskin, despite many links demonstrating it's purpose.

The uses of the foreskin are again irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread. So I can only conclude you harp on "ignorance" as part of a personal attack.

So that you think it's useless is relevant and your argument that you are not harmed by not having one is relevant, but the opinion of the rest of the world and whether or not they would like to have their foreskins is not relevant. Interesting claim. No, actually, it's not.

blah blah blah self-congratulatory nonsense blah blah blah rest of the world appeal to popularity blah blah blah look im clever and funny even though im not blah blah blah.

Perhaps you don't know what ignorance means.

Perhaps you like to rape monkeys.

I presented both the claim that there are consequences of the surgery

That was the other thread, and the exact quote is - well, I'm not going to repeat it since that's the other thread.

Are you claiming that your question stating asking what they were isn't an admission you don't know?

Once again those links didn't actually address the question *I* asked.

Seriously, how can you possibly think this helps your argument?

UR IGNORANT

UR IGNORANT

UR IGNORANT

U MUST APPROVE OF RANDOMLY AMPUTATING BABY'S TOES IF YOU SUPPORT CIRCUMCISION

THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY THE SAME THING

sorry, did you really think any of that shit helps your "argument?"


And, yet, still no argument. Just ire.

For a guy who has yet to even read what I've actually said in this thread, instead only choosing to repeat "ignorant" in a pathetic ad hom, you really don't have a third leg to stand on.

Luckily I do eh?

Amusing. This is a parody thread, as noted in the second post. You're argument here is as devoid of substance as in the other thread.

A parody of what, your inability to argue or comprehend other people's arguments?

I notice you keep using "your" and "you're" wrong. Grammar rules must be hard to follow when you're full of rage about your penis? Oh well, not my problem.

My sister's little toes were removed at birth for cultural reasons and to prevent ingrown toenails.

She would like to have her two daughters get the same procedure for the same reason and the doctors are denying her that right. It is her decision and I don't understand why anyone would consider this to be a problem. She simply wants her daughter to look like her mother, to honor the traditions of my family and to protect her from ingrown toenails.

Granted, ingrown toenails affect woman at a much lesser rate than men and such a procedure isn't done to men in our family. Granted, the incidence of ingrown toenails is fairly low and there can be complications with removing toes, but isn't that up to me to decide? This is our culture.

It's not as if it's unprecedented. We already perform cosmetic, elective procedures on infants in the US. I would assume I'll get wide support from the NSG community based on said precedence.

Ok, so you are supporting lopping off two perfectly good toes, which work to help you walk properly and maintain balance, for cosmetic reasons?

Sorry, for 40 years I've had my little toes and never had an ingrown toenail on either of them. It's more likely, truthfully, on the big toe than the others.

I would think the doctors who are listening to this request are also saying "there is absolutely no medical reason to do this."

An ad hominem fallacy is not an argument.

Even if I am indeed "ignorant," pointing it out whenever I say anything doesn't constitute an argument either. Nor does it do anything but make you look like a hostile, arrogant douche.

I guess that would be excusable if you actually had something to be arrogant about. Like a point.



So... to suggest you are ignorant... is an ad hominem. But to tell some they are a hostile, arrogant douche is... what?


Irrelevant.


How can it be? You've implied that the foreskin is useless. If this is a universal truth, all well and good. If, on the other hand, someone can show it is NOT considered a universal truth... your argument fails.

Seems relevant.


Forgive me if I'm less-than-impressed with your series of strawmen and ad homs. I rather think you created this thread just to troll and flamebait. You weren't getting enough attention in the OTHER circumcision thread and you wanted to misrepresent everyone's argument. Makes it easier to attack, after all. Just PRETEND I support toe amputation - you don't even have to address the issue of circumcision then!


The purpose of this thread, one assumes, is to create a semi-isolated scenario, in which it can be tested whether or not 'special exception' is being invoked for prepuces.

If the logic is consistent, the results in this thread should pretty closely match a similar thread on circumcision. If the results don't match, 'special exception' is at work when we discuss if it's okay to chop parts off of a penis.


Marvelous. Why don't you grow the fuck up already.

That'll help.

Ok, so you are supporting lopping off two perfectly good toes, which work to help you walk properly and maintain balance, for cosmetic reasons?

Sorry, for 40 years I've had my little toes and never had an ingrown toenail on either of them. It's more likely, truthfully, on the big toe than the others.

I would think the doctors who are listening to this request are also saying "there is absolutely no medical reason to do this."

It's a parody thread, Kat. He's making an argument from the circumcision thread. Why he couldn't do it there is another question all together...

Parody threads are not against the rules. It's come up repeatedly, and the use of them as an argument has been regularly supported. I can provide you with links if you like.

Yes, but now you're off topic. This is about toes, not penes.