|
|
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=3676 |  LastFreeVoice (50) Dec 01, 2006 - 04:02 pm
| » Where?
The first part of the chapter is a hit and run raid on a "humanoid" like alien's home, that is aiding the bugs! Yes they use a nuke but only on one part of the WHOLE PLANET!
Where in the world do you get the idea it is dictatorship? This is something I don't understand...if you have to do Federal Service (Which does not mean you have to serve in the Military) you get Citizenship, or rather you earn the right to vote. Seems a little odd that you can earn the right to vote if it was a dictatorship doesn't? Also If you are in the military you can't vote. So it is only VETERAN'S and others that have performed FEDERAL SERVICE who vote.
The Federation was just that a federation of planets and like minded people. Where CITIZEN'S have the right to vote, just because they had to earn it doesn't mean it is a dictatorship. The idea isn't anything new, but the scale is. If you served in the Roman for twenty years I think you could earn Roman citizenship.
I never understood how anyone came away with a fascist or totalitarian government.
Heinlein himself said (taken from wikipedia) "glorifies the military ... Specifically the P.B.I., the Poor Bloody Infantry, the mudfoot who places his frail body between his loved home and the war's desolation — but is rarely appreciated... he has the toughest job of all and should be honored." The only thing that I can the book says in a militaristic sense is the above. The rest it what those people earn because of it. and doing what you have to to survive in a completely hostile environment. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=3676 | LastFreeVoice (50) Nov 29, 2006 - 11:33 am
| » Hope
Hopefully it will be better then the terrible Hero of the Federation. The first movie was decent but no where was it true to the book aside from the character names. The Federation was actually quite a free society so I was suprised with the Federal Network of the first movie. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=3302 | LastFreeVoice (50) Aug 28, 2006 - 09:20 am » Edited on Aug 29, 2006 - 09:39 pm
| | Anything is better then the shuttle, it wasn't needed and cost too much. The soil fuel rocket boosters were too expensive to reuse (it was actually cheaper to just make new ones.) Not to mention the shuttle didn't have centerline thrust. Now we are going backwards...nice make a single stage to orbit and you are set. Then you can actually call it a space program. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11095 | LastFreeVoice (50) Jul 12, 2006 - 12:40 pm
| | Actually he has a valid point. I bought HL2 Ep1 and it had a deleted scenes aspect to it. I am not sure I am going to get any of the other Episodes. 20 dollars for a few hours of gameplay that I will continually be rehashing every few weeks? no thanks. Maybe when all the episodes are released in a one giant collectors package. They can call the it Game edition. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=2949 | LastFreeVoice (50) Jun 19, 2006 - 06:09 pm » Edited on Jun 19, 2006 - 09:11 pm
| I researched Syx, LEARNED TO READ! it is mutliation because it fits the definition
Mutilation- 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE
"You want to talk about genital mutilation? Look at the young girls in the middle east and africa who get their clit cut off and vagina sewn up.
That's fucking mutilation."
Very true, young men had this done to them during the victorian area to help curb masturbation a terrible thing blamed for things like blindness and insanity, Oh don't forget to insert whatever you would like, it was seen a cure all. MGM in the form of circumcision it the only thing that really stuck but didn't take off in the US untill after WW2 and STOPPED in Europe soon after. Almost forgot, in every part of the world where FGM occurs so does MGM, infact usually in greater number.
"Removing the foreskin for health reasons is not."
That is the part of the debate, it doesn't have a single health reason short of foreskin cancer (which btw has a less chance of happening then breast cancer.) Foreskin does no harm to leave and actually helps if left alone for various reasons.
"You zealots read this anti-circumcision bullshit like it's fact."
First of all I am not a zealot, you sir and more a MGM zealot. You take what I present and don't address it or anything rather you just say I am lying and come one with a few things that are quite frankly mute. They have no basis what-so-ever. Also like I said before, I researched, talked to doctors that actually know what they are doing, heard testimony from mutilated men and intact men. Also like I said before this is MY FOCUS FOR MY MAJOR!
"When you have sex the foreskin gets pulled back and is no use anyways."
Not true, you sure are completely ignoring anything I have said. The foreskin protects the glans (that is the head of the penis) from drying out and calusing, keeps it sensitive, also by keeping it moist it keeps the skin soft and spongie. Now take a look at your penis as a mutilated man when erect you will notice a hard ridge at the back of your glans, this is known as the coronal ridge. When engaging in intercourse that can and will catch on the vaginal wall of your partner. It will hurt and iritate the sensitive skin. Yet if you had foreskin this would pull up to the coronal ridge and protect the wall of the vagina as you pulled back. Also note that mutliated partners actually engage in sex differently then intact partners. Intact tend to use shallow soft motions (which btw is better for both partners as has been noted many times, shallow penetration is much more pleasurable.)
"For a lot of men the foreskin can tear and cause scarring, which further shrinks it causing more tearing and scarring."
hmmm...haven't had that problem myself, and every man I have talk with during my studies and research has never mentioned that...however some did complain about trying to pull their foreskin back and early age causing pain and some tearing (this is because the foreskin should be moveable until puberty has started) Western Eourope doesn't seem to have this problem either and they almost never mutilate their male children.
"HPV transmission rates are also higher among uncircumcized men, and that means less women with cervical cancer."
This has never been proven and actually modern research to find out if it was true conclucded with the HPV and Cervical Cancer rates being consistent with hygeine methods and not if their partners were intact or not. The first 'research' into this was a comparison. Basicly what it did was compare jewish rates of cervical cancer and compared that to the rest of the population. They found that jews had less, but what they never conducted was an actual study. They didn't see living conditions, hygeine methods, anything. Also remember this was around WW2 and not all people had access to medicine.
"The foreskin is a lot like underarm hair or pubic hair. It served a point when humans were running around naked it forests and shit. But not anymore."
The foreskin still serves a valuable purpose to our sexual enjoyment. Most mutilated men say the same things StillGotTNT2Ultra said. I know my friends complain about it when we are talking about sex. I have actualy given them reasons for this but like post people who hear the true they act like you. They cannot believe something like that was done to them. Pubic exists for most logically the capture of pheromones (lol I actually asked this in an anatomy class.)
Also note that mutilated men have a higher risk of ED, not to mention around 50% have painful or tight erections. Partners experience pain duruing intercourse but because most american males were mutliated they didn't know the difference. Now this the numbers changing I am not suprised to see mutliated men actually singled out when those that are intact become old enough for sexual activiyt.
I am actually and anomoly for my time, I was the 20% from the 80s that didn't get mutilated, and my current Girlfriend couldn't be happier, she loves it more then anything. She was apprehensive at first because they were never shown a proper penis, but once we talked about and she experienced natural sex. She was 'upset' to put it mildly afterwards because she had missed out on something like that how much it had affected her partners.
P.S. The reason you see doctors and medical associations just back-peddling to it is not necessary and going no further is two fold
1. First it is a clear violation of the Hippocratic oath.
2. If they ever truly admitted to being wrong they would open themselves up to MILLIONS of malpractice lawsuits.
There I have address all your points and put in some new ones for you to consider. I wait for the flaming. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=2949 | LastFreeVoice (50) Jun 18, 2006 - 07:12 pm
| There are jews that do not practice circumcison or MGM as part of their faith, they instead have a small amount of blood taken from the infant. Also MGM (well to the extent today) was not the same in the past for the jews as it is today. They actually took off a very SMALL part of the foreskin leaving a tiny bit of the glans exposed. (history about why it became whole foreskin can be explain later)
The HIV defense is the best because it is so blatantly contradictory. The best defense against HIV is not to have sex or use a condom. Remember lots of mutilated men get HIV. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=2949 | LastFreeVoice (50) Jun 18, 2006 - 01:53 am » Edited on Jun 18, 2006 - 02:00 am
| Syx I never make anything up, I have never lied or doctored any of my evidence, or data. Read, do the research for yourself. Instead of going off about something you know nothing about. Morons like you are a disgrace to the human race and make me sick. BTW nice fallacy there, just saying my data and arguments are wrong without any counter evidence.
As for who taught me, no one. I researched it after hearing my friends talk about sex and learning about FGM in one of my sociology classes, not to mention Arthur C. Clarke brought it up once in '3001.' Male rights is my focus for my sociology degree so I have spent alot of time with subjects such as MGM, and such. So much of schooling is being TOLD not THINKING so I am not suprised you asked WHO taught me rather then ask HOW I came to the conclusion. Since any rational and intelligent being would clearly see the error of their ways and just how much of a rights violation it is, along with the ethical and moral problems it creates. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=2949 | LastFreeVoice (50) Jun 17, 2006 - 08:41 am
| They probably weren't taught proper washing, or never cleaned up right after. The problem with removing the "flap of skin" as you call it. is
1. Sex is no longer a natural act, it has been turned into a man made act. Lubes are required because one of the primary lubrication methods is now gone. Natural sex is short shallow thrust, mutilated sex is long hard strokes.
2. Nerves are now lost that will never be replaced (foreskin contains around 3 inches of nerves)
3. No hair should be on the penis. Depending on the zeal of the mutilator you can lose 1/3rd to 1/2 of the skin on your penis pulling pubic skin to makeup for the loss during erections.
4. Mutilation like this often puts an unnatural curve of bend in the penis, sometimes causing painful erections.
5. Contrary to popular belief circumcision (in fact contrary to popular belief circumcision doesn't to pretty much all of what it is said to do) does not make your penis look bigger. It can and does actually shrink your penis, since you now have much less skin to work with when getting an erection.
6. Circumcision can increase you chance of ED later in life. (Ever compare ED stats from EU to America?)
7. Circumcision makes an internal organ an external organ thus causing dry and callused skins where it should be moist and soft.
many more fact so please go to www.http://www.nocirc.org/
Side note, when one of my friends had sex for the first time he told us how sore it was and how he hurt for a few days afterwards. Something that also interesting me was the next year he and one our friends would talk about how they don't climax during sex...I believe it was about 50/50. I was surprised at the painful intercourse part because I had never had that problem (quess what the difference is people) Yes, he was mutilated and I was intact. Since I have been in college I have researched this and other men's right issues (actual men's rights, not the women's studies hidden as men's studies run by fascist femanazis.)
P.S. Denial like the stuff above is a common reaction to learning about has actually been done to you. Watched friends as they expressed the same feelings, and emotions, that many women feel after having undergone a FGM. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=2949 | LastFreeVoice (50) Jun 16, 2006 - 02:30 pm
| "Did this really have to end up in court?"
Yes it did, maybe men will finally get some of the same rights as women (in the US) like genital protection.
As for the other people here who posted "witty" or "smart" comments, do some research mutilating a penis is no cure. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
