>>533674522
However, these stop short of physical violence resulting in death. Some critics of intactivism have expressed concern that heated language could escalate to violence someday, but no such escalation to homicide has materialized in any verified case.

- Deaths *during* circumcisions (e.g., rare infections from ritual practices like metzitzah b'peh or medical errors) have led to manslaughter charges against providers in isolated cases—but these involve the circumciser causing harm to an infant, not the reverse.
- Some intactivists themselves have died (e.g., by suicide), but these were unrelated to attacks on others

In short, while intactivism has included disturbing harassment and threats, no lethal "intactivist terror" against circumcisers has ever been recorded.

bump

Bump!

Circumcision will never be illegal because muh religious rights

The closest case is years ago im South Africa and that is just people killing a doctor who “botched” a circumcision and killed their baby. So they were getting revenge on a doctor for killing their baby (by circumcising them “incorrectly”) rather then killing them for circumcising their baby

>>533675184
It can be made rare
It can be made illegal with exceptions for religious reasons

But Islam and Judaism are obviously provably false. All religions which require circumcision are full of contradictions and errors and are extremely extremely unlikely to be true

>>533674522
>a doctor
but the doctor is just the guy performing the surgery, how is it his fault? do you also kill your car mechanic because Ford build a shitty car? makes no sense but I'm also not aware of a politician or religous leaders getting attacked for it.
maybe americans just love being circumcised?

>>533674522
There was that crazy men's rights activist that Howard Stern made fun of. Remember, he was the one who hated lady's nights? He ended up killing the family of a federal judge who ruled against him I think circumcision was involved somehow

>>533675573
Why would you make an excuse for a doctor who performs a horrible surgery like that on a baby? On hundreds of babies for no good reason. Those doctors are scumbags who absolutely should know better

There’s ONE case but it involves a severely schizophrenic adult who killed the doctor who circumcised him as an adult. He CHOSE and consented to being circumcised as an adult then killed the doctor 3 years later

The Medellín Case: The Killing of Dr. Juan Guillermo Aristizábal (2024)

This is the most direct case of a circumciser being killed specifically because of a circumcision procedure.

The Victim: Dr. Juan Guillermo Aristizábal, a well-known and respected urologist in Medellín, Colombia.

The Perpetrator: Jhon Ferney Cano, a former patient.

The Motive: In 2021, Dr. Aristizábal performed a circumcision on Cano (who was an adult at the time). Cano became pathologically obsessed with the outcome, claiming the surgery caused him chronic pain and psychological "mutilation." He spent three years stewing in rage, even writing a 361-page "manifesto" or book detailing his suffering and his plans for revenge.

The Event: In April 2024, Cano entered the hospital, shot and killed Dr. Aristizábal, and then set fire to the office before taking his own life.

Why it matters: This is the clearest example of a doctor being murdered for the act of performing a circumcision. While Cano was a "lone wolf" with severe mental health issues, his language mirrored extreme anti-circumcision rhetoric.

>>533675655
>Why would you make an excuse for a doctor who performs a horrible surgery like that on a baby?
the guy is just doing his job that hes getting paid to do. the procedure is medical and legal according to the local laws and the surgery is in demand.
>Those doctors are scumbags
legally speaking they did nothing wrong.

>>533674522
Your parents signed the permission for your male circumcision. That's where the blame belongs.

>>533675823
You could say the same thing about slave traders. Even the person in charge of castrating slaves with no anesthetic. There’s plenty of realistic and hypothetical examples of people doing legal and medical procedures which are incredibly immoral.
What if the government passed a law that made the crime of stealing anything ( even a single loaf of bread if you are starving) punishable by having your tongue cut out?
What if FGM is legal and medical? Is it moral for doctors to perform the most severe and invasive forms of FGM on baby girls?

>>533675908
parents are also to blame in most cases, especially fathers

Doctors are usually smarter and should know better and are also very much to blame. If two parent’s consented to me raping their 2 year old baby I’d still be a scum bag if I raped their baby

>>533675652
That was over the all male military draft , he dressed up as a delivery driver

>>533675250
Again there’s cases not involving death but those involve “botched” circumcisions which required the entire penis to be removed

>>533676019
>which are incredibly immoral
but LEGALLY its ok to do, so whatever.
>What if the government passed a law
then you have to follow these laws no matter how retarded they are. thats how civilization works bro.
>Is it moral for doctors
hes just doing his job, he didnt make the decision to perform the requested surgery from the hospitals client.
if you have a problem with these laws you can start your own political party and get elected and if thats not possible you can start a revolution, if you aint a revolutionary and not willing to die on that hill you gotta move to some place that has laws that agree with your moral ideas.

>>533676348
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or just bad faith rage baiting. I don’t believe your post is worth responding to

>>533676558
I accept your concession. see its okay to not have any arguments and just to concede and run away.
didnt hurt as much as that circumcision right?

>>533676691
btfo loose farming sadist bad faith troll

>>533676691
>>533676348
>but LEGALLY its ok to do, so whatever.
>What if the government passed a law
>then you have to follow these laws no matter how retarded they are. thats how civilization works bro.
>Is it moral for doctors
>hes just doing his job, he didnt make the decision to perform the requested surgery from the hospitals client.

There are moderate deontologists and absolutist deontologists. Moderate deontologists say that you are sometimes permitted to perform seriously wrong actions if the benefits are great enough. Absolutist deontologists deny that. Moderate deontologists think you can kill an innocent person to save a trillion people, but not to save five people. Absolutist deontologists think you can never kill an innocent person (at least, in a prohibited way).

I think both views are wrong and I’ve given a number of reasons for this here. But absolutist deontology has significantly bigger problems than moderate deontology. The objections to it are, in my view, decisive. Unfortunately, closing the door on every option available to the absolutist deontologist is a lengthy endeavor—this piece will be quite long, around 5,000 words, but in most cases the long sections are responding to fairly in the weeds objections that you can easily skip. As Scott Alexander says, “the cost of thoroughness is length.”

>>533676996
Why should you read 5,000 words about absolutist deontology? To see how there really are proofs in philosophy, that it really is possible to establish non-obvious things by subtle argument. Philosophical progress is possible. To see, in addition, that no acts are absolutely impermissible—wrong to perform no matter how good their consequences are. The arguments in this piece, especially those in section 3, are some of the coolest arguments in all of philosophy!

1 Counterintuitive

Here’s a first problem with absolutist deontology: it is counterintuitive! It seems obvious that you should kill one person to prevent an infinite number of babies from being slowly tortured to death. If the only way to save the world was to kill one person, then you should kill that one person. This becomes clearer when you vividly imagine a world full of endless suffering, inflicted on babies, for all of eternity—all because of one omitted act that wouldn’t be very different from what people do daily. If the only way to save everyone on Earth from torture was to kill one person, then you should kill that one person.

>>533677022
My sense is this is the intuition that most people have, especially professional philosophers who have thought carefully about these things. Still, I don’t expect it to move the absolutist deontologist who probably does not find their view counterintuitive. Fortunately, we have other, better arguments.

2 Risk

The biggest problem for absolutist deontology: it struggles https://www.jstor.org/stable/20619943 massively with risk. https://owl232.net/papers/absolutism.pdf Absolutist deontologists think that it’s impermissible to kill an innocent person, no matter how large the benefits are. Even if shooting an innocent person would save the world, you shouldn’t do it.

File: image (15).png (564 KB, 1532x1028)

564 KB PNG

>>533677156
But now ask: is it impermissible to risk killing someone? How much risk are you allowed to impose on someone to save the world? To see this, imagine a series of cases where you shoot someone with projectiles of progressively diminished lethality. At one end, the projectiles have a 99.9999% chance of killing them. At the other end, they have a 0.000000001% chance of killing them.

>>533676996
>>533677022
bro I aint reading your AI slop

>>533677343
At what point does it become absolutely deontologically prohibited to fire the projectile to save many lives? There are three answers that the absolutist deontologist could give:

1 Any risk is impermissible.
2 Risks above some threshold (say, 40%) are impermissible. Perhaps the threshold is vague.
3 Only certainty of death is impermissible.

Note: absolutist deontologists generally make fine distinctions between different kinds of actions that lead to death. They often think, for example, that you can kill innocent people in a just war or redirect a threat to save more lives. In all of the cases I am imagining, stipulate that the imposition of risk is not done in one of these ways that would make it permissible to take an action that leads to a death for a greater good.

>>533677417
it’s not ai retard https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-absolutist-deontology

I
Accept your concession

>>533677472
I'm not reading your copypastas

File: brainlet3.png (68 KB, 645x729)

68 KB PNG

>>533675573
>the doctor is the one actually committing the evil act
>how is he responsible for an act he committed?

>>533677566
there’s been only 2 cases I could find of sons killing a patent because they circumcised them

The 2009 South Carolina Case: A 28-year-old man murdered his father. During the investigation and subsequent psychiatric evaluations, he repeatedly cited his "unconsensual circumcision" as the foundational trauma that ruined his ability to connect with women and his sense of self. He viewed his father as a "mutilator."

The 2011/2012 Florida Attacks: While several were thwarted, there was a case of a son attacking his father with a knife specifically because the father defended the practice of infant circumcision.

>>533677505
anti intactivism = anti empiricism

>>533677425
It’s easy to see why 1 can’t be right. All actions impose some risk on people. If you shot a nerf gun at someone, there is some chance that it would trigger a fatal allergic reaction and kill them. Nonetheless, obviously it is permissible to shoot a nerf gun at someone to save the world. Some people maybe don’t find this obvious if they adopt the non-aggression principle—but even they will hold that it’s permissible to shoot a nerf gun vaguely in someone’s direction to save the world. But the problem arises: at what point does risking aggressing upon someone become impermissible? How high does the risk of the nerf gun hitting them have to be to be impermissible?

3 can’t be right either. No action ever imposes a 100% risk of death on a person—if you shoot someone ten times in the head, there is always some risk that a miracle will happen, or the gun will jam, or they survive by huge improbability, or that they have some weird genetic defect where their head is ridiculously hard. So this would mean that absolutist deontology never absolutely rules out any acts in the real world. Additionally, the problem I’ll raise for the next view involving sequences of acts also applies to this view.

The only remaining option is 2—that you can impose some risk of death on people, but it can’t pass some threshold. E.g. maybe you can impose risks up to 40% on someone, but never more than 40%. But this has a number of big problems.

First, it is objectionably arbitrary. Why 40% rather than 39.9% or 27%? Where did this threshold come from? You could say that it’s vague, but wherever the threshold vaguely kicks in will seem equally arbitrary (e.g. you may say that it’s absolutely impermissible to impose a substantial risk of death on someone no matter how great the benefit is, but why substantial rather than enormous or near-certain or some other vague predicate?)

>>533677731
It also doesn’t seem like the fundamental normative facts can be vague. It can’t be that there’s no fact of the matter about whether an act is absolutely prohibited. Either it’s absolutely prohibited, so that you’re morally not permitted to do it, or it’s not. It can’t be vague! It can’t be that there’s no fact of the matter about whether an action is categorically morally banned. Vagueness is (on my preferred view) a matter of the imprecision of language and/or mental representation, not of reality.

Second, and more concerningly, this has the counterintuitive implication that sometimes you are permitted to do A, permitted to do B, but not permitted to do A and B together as one act. Suppose that there are two actions which both impose a 30% risk of death on someone (both involve firing a projectile at some person which has a 30% chance of killing them). Each one saves a million people when performed. Assume that they each impose a risk of death on a different person. For instance, the first one might fire a projectile that leads to a 30% risk of death at John and the next would fire a projectile that leads to a 30% risk of death at Steve.

Each action would individually be permissible. But if you bundled them together as one act, then they’d be impermissible, because they’d have a 51% chance of killing someone. However, surely whether an action is wrong doesn’t depend on whether it’s counted as one act or two.

We can illustrate this in another way: imagine that there are two buttons which each impose a 30% chance of death on someone and save a million lives. Surely it wouldn’t matter whether you press the buttons as one act or as two. Yet if you press them as one act, with one hand motion, they’d exceed the risk threshold.

>>533677472
>some retard posts drivel on onlyfans for people who want to be an intellectual
>that means its not AI
If you cant tell what is written by an LLM and what isnt you should reproduce

>>533677781
And note: saying the threshold is vague doesn’t help at all, because a sequence of acts can still exceed a vague threshold, without any individual act surpassing the vague threshold.

I can see four ways out of this dilemma, each lousy

2.1 Lifetime tally

First, you can think that you are never permitted, over the course of your life, to take actions which impose a risk of death on someone above some threshold (at least, in the way that’s morally culpable). So, for instance, over the course of your life you’d never be allowed to impose a more than 40% chance of death on anyone no matter how great the benefits are from doing so. That way, you could say that the first action is permissible but the second one is impermissible. The first act doesn’t exceed the threshold, while the second one does in combination with the first. If you take both acts together, then you’ll have exceeded the threshold.

On this picture, you have a running tally of “risk of death imposed on the innocent.” That tally can’t exceed some threshold, barring specific circumstances, like deaths in a just war or from the redirection of a threat, no matter how great the benefits of exceeding the threshold are. The threshold could also be vague.

The big problem with this view is that it makes the permissibility of acts bizarrely sensitive to other unrelated acts. Suppose that I’m deciding whether to fire a projectile at an innocent person which has a 40% chance of killing them but will save a billion lives. On this view, it matters whether a million years in the past, I imposed risk of death on some other innocent person for the greater good. But that is bizarre—why would such a thing be? Whether an act is wrong depends on the people it affects, not on whether it runs up some risk tally! Ironically, this seems, in a deep way, to violate the separateness of persons.

>>533677343
Everything a doctor does is subject to cost/benefit analysis. Circumcision has significant risks (such as infection and death) and guaranteed harm (such as the loss of the foreskin) but no benefits, and thus is impermissible.

The real issue however isn't that of cost benefit analysis, it's bodily autonomy. The mere existence of asserted health benefits (which again don't exist anyway) isn't enough for moral justification.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQQTIpBWqvY

>>533677802
It’s not behind a paywall and you don’t even need to register or sign in to view all of it and its comments on it. Do you hate it because it’s not owned by billionaires?

It’s not AI it’s just grammatically correct

>>533677566
>the doctor is the one actually committing the evil act
show me where in the US constitution or your state laws it says that circumcision is an "evil act"?
in reality all your politicians, your health care system and your medical universities all agree its alright so the doctor truly believes it too, thats what he studied (among many other things some could consider "evil"), its also what his peers belief so he doesnt question it.
hes just performing a surgery that is requested and the patient consents with it so the doctor isnt really at fault.

>>533677888
I agree with pretty much everything you said however in the case of a baby I do think parents in some extreme circumstances have the moral right to violate the babies bodily autonomy if the baby is in imminent significant risk of death. Circumcision is a large violation for little to no benefit

>>533677860
And what if you’re already above the permissibility threshold? Is every act that imposes any risk on someone impermissible? Nuts!

The view has another strange result. Suppose two people are deciding whether to perform an act that would have the exact same effects. It seems either both should do it or neither should. On this view, however, it might be that one person is permitted to do it and the other isn’t, so as the act raises one person above the risk threshold. That is bizarre—it shouldn’t be that Bob gets to fire the projectile that imposes a 40% risk of death, but Steve doesn’t because he did something similar a million years in the past. The view has even more problems—I’ll explain one more here ,

Another problem is construing what kind of risk the threshold is in terms of. Presumably it will either be subjective risk or objective risk. Subjective risk refers to how likely the decision-maker thought it was that an action would harm someone, while objective risk refers to how likely it actually is that the action would harm someone. Both have huge problems.

Suppose it’s subjective risk. Well, then that implies that if the decision-maker thought they were imposing a risk on someone in the deep past, that contributes to the threshold. But this is bizarre. If someone gave you a drug so that you reasonably thought turning on your lightswitch had a 30% chance of killing someone, that would not affect whether you should fire a projectile that risked someone’s death to save a million lives!
>>533678113

>>533674522
What kind of idiot would risk a prison sentence to kill some dick snipper?

>>533678113
>in reality all your politicians, your health care system and your medical universities all agree its alright so the doctor truly believes it too, thats what he studied

Politicians opinions on this don’t matter. He should consider the views of different universities both in the usa and abroad and realize there’s absolutely no consensus.
>(among many other things some could consider "evil"), its also what his peers belief so he doesnt question it.

You could use your exact same logic to justify late term elective abortions.
>hes just performing a surgery that is requested and the patient consents with it so the doctor isnt really at fault.

The baby did not consent. Hitmen and people who hire them are absolutely at fault

>>533678386
There’s tens of thousands of people who commit suicide with a firearm in the usa every year and only about 3% of them Take anyone else out with them on the way out.

>>533678247
Suppose it’s objective risk. The problem is you don’t generally know objective risks. So this would imply that whether it’s permissible to risk harming someone depends on causally-isolated facts that you don’t know. But how can what you’re supposed to do, in light of your evidence, depend on things that aren’t part of your evidence? This also might imply, if the objective risks really are low, but you don’t know that, that you are permitted to take an action that for all you know has a 99.9999% chance of killing an innocent person.

What if it’s subjective risk that gets overridden if you learn objective risks? So, for instance, suppose you thought that an action had a 10% chance of killing someone but later learn that it really had a 40% chance of killing them, then you’d replace the amount contributing to the threshold from 10% to 40%? But on this view, you would treat wildly differently the contribution risk of the following two cases:

An action leads to a coin being flipped, and if it comes up heads, someone dies.
An action kills someone if the millionth digit of pi is even.
Because, assuming the millionth digit of pi isn’t even, the second one had a zero percent objective probability of killing someone, it would be treated differently in the calculus. It also isn’t clear that actions do have precise objective probabilities of killing people, as that depends on the reference class from which you’re counting objective probabilities. So, for instance, if you throw a sharp boomerang in someone’s direction and miss, is the relevant reference class total boomerang throws or missed boomerang throws?

>>533678504
2.2 Person-relative thresholds

The second way out: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-018-9924-4 you can think that it’s impermissible to impose a risk above some threshold on any particular person. So, on this picture, you’re not allowed to perform an action if it imposes odds of death on someone in an impermissible way above some threshold, no matter how great the benefits are. For the actions A and B, because they impose risks on different people, they don’t contribute to the same threshold. Thus, A and B together would be impermissible only if either A or B was impermissible.

>>533678569
This view still has a number of problems.

First of all, the dilemma arises again in cases where the actions impose risks on the same person. Suppose that there are two projectiles that you can fire at John, each of which will have a 30% chance of killing him but each save a million lives. Suppose additionally that it’s impermissible to impose more than a 40% chance of killing John. On this view, each projectile would be individually permissible to fire, but firing them together is impermissible.

To get around this, you can hold that there’s a running tally of the risk you imposed on John. Because the second one would elevate John’s total odds of death as a result of you to above 40%, it’s impermissible. However, this is a very odd feature—why would whether I’m permitted to impose a 30% chance of death on John, who is very much alive, depend on whether a previous action imposed a risk on him, yet didn’t end up harming him? We can even imagine that the act imposed risk on John several billion years in the past—surely that shouldn’t be determinative of the permissibility of acts that impose a risk on John today.

Then, the second big problem for this proposal is that it fundamentally violates the spirit of absolutist deontology. Absolutist deontologists hold that it’s absolutely impermissible to do wicked acts, not just to do things which ensure any particular person is victim of a wicked act. To see this, imagine that you can throw a razor boomerang through a festival full of babies. It will kill a baby, but the risk of death imposed on any particular baby is low. Doing so will save a million lives. Absolutist deontologists should hold that doing so would be impermissible. And yet on this proposal, it would be permissible, so long as the risk imposed on any particular baby is low.

>>533674522
>no one's ever done it
>so you be the one to do it, goy
>hahaha

kys kike

>>533678113
>show me where in the US constitution or your state laws it says that circumcision is an "evil act"?
Circumcision constitutes sexual assault and rape of an infant is clearly prohibited by both state and federal law. I won't quote you the exact statute, because we all agree this is in fact illegal. Circumcision is simply allowed in spite of this laws, just like illegal immigration is tolerated despite being illegal on the books.
>your health care system and your medical universities all agree its alright
This is a myth. Doctors openly agree that circumcision has no medical value. They are motivated by a combination of religious bias and money.
Here's a good presentation by a nurse discussing this fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so8u5fPxXo4
I also recommend the documentary CUT, where you can hear doctors openly state that it has no medical value, and rabbis openly admit that it is sexual abuse: https://cutthedocumentary.squarespace.com/

>hes just performing a surgery that is requested
I was just following orders! How German. You're trolling right?

It is literally the doctor's job to refrain from medically harmful thing. If some parents came asking a doc to blind their child should he? Of course not. In fact, there is *no other body part* that a doctor can legally get away with voluntarily amputating in the US.

>>533678396
>Politicians opinions on this don’t matter.
Politicians can change laws.
>He should consider the views of different universities both in the usa and abroad
why should he consider the opinions of foreigners? far more intelligent local people with multiple degrees in medicine all said its okay to perform the circumcision surgery and that its good and beneficial.
so why would the politician disagree with that or the doctor? its generally agreed upon to be ok to do. so not evil.
>You could use your exact same logic to justify late term elective abortions.
every state handles it differently, maybe some state allows it for some reason while others dont. if you dont like how your state handles it you can move to another one that does.
>The baby did not consent
the parents consent because the baby cant.
>Hitmen and people who hire them are absolutely at fault
they are performing illegal actions. this is different from lawful circumcisions.

>>533678618
Note: any view that implies that throwing the boomerang through the baby festival is impermissible to save a trillion lives will have a problem with risk. Throwing a boomerang that imposes a tiny risk on a single baby to save a million lives is clearly permissible, if the risk is low enough—but if you multiply that, then you get the boomerang festival case. So any view that holds that throwing the boomerang through the festival will have problems with implying that taking sequences of permissible acts as one act is impermissible.

A third problem: the view requires bizarre individuation of people. Suppose I perform two acts, each of which have a 30% chance of killing someone (a different person each time). Each act saves a million people. Suppose the relevant risk threshold is 40%. Now, on the one hand, it might be thought that my sequence of acts is permissible. But now suppose that if my act harms one of the two people, it harms whoever is taller (so, for instance, each act might impose a 60% risk of death on the person if they’re the taller of the group). Additionally, let Tallee refer to whichever person is taller. Well, now my act has a 51% chance of harming Tallee.

Now, maybe you object that Tallee is not a person but instead just whoever has some property. What matters is whether there’s some specific person that you can point to who an action imposes a more than 40% risk of death upon.

>>533678683
>Circumcision constitutes sexual assault and rape of an infant
no it doesnt, its not sexual assault and its not rape, its a medical procedure that your whole civilization agrees is okay to do.
>Doctors
thats just like their opinion man, other doctors have other views on this issue.

>>533678451
If I'm killing someone on my way out, I'm killing a judge or politician. Make it worth the trouble.

>>533678247
>if the baby is in imminent significant risk of death
Yeah but that isn't in question. Nor to my knowledge has such a case ever actually occurred. I don't think you intended it this way, but this is the same strawman feminists put up about abortion and "saving the life of the mother". The cases where an abortion is realistically necessary to save a mothers life are effectively nonexistent. What they're really arguing about, in bad faith is the 99% or 98% or whatever cases where it's elective.

>>533678691
But this has more problems:

1 This “pointing to” notion is vague. Does it require that you can see the person? What if you can only see them partially? What if, to borrow a memorable example https://web.mit.edu/~casparh/www/Papers/CJHareWishingWell.pdf from Caspar Hare, you can only see their fleshy ear? What if you additionally know that the taller person was called Tallee as a young child? Any time you know a person, what you really have learned is a number of properties about them—so knowing Tallee as the possessor of the property of being the taller of the two is only different from ordinary knowledge of people in degree, not of kind. And any threshold will be arbitrary.
>>533678687
>Politicians can change laws.

Doesn’t matter in the context you brought up, the majority or even all politicians agreeing that an action is legal or moral doesn’t necessarily make it moral.
Politicians approving of slavery in the United States didn’t mean slave traders were not doing something immoral

>why should he consider the opinions of foreigners? far more intelligent local people with multiple degrees in medicine all said its okay to perform the late term elective abortion surgery and that its good and beneficial.
>so why would the politician disagree with that or the doctor? its generally agreed upon to be ok to do. so not evil.

>>533678792
>no it doesnt, its not sexual assault and its not rape
It is, just like FGM is. In fact, foreskin and the clitoris derive and develop from the same embryonic tissue. Everyone agrees FGM is sexual assault and rape, but there's a magical double standard for boys.
>whole civilization agrees is okay to do.
Another lie. The overwhelming majority of western civilization does not practice circumcision, including Germany.

>>533678687
>every state handles it differently, maybe some state allows it for some reason while others dont. if you dont like how your state handles it you can move to another one that does.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about, abortion is still legal, common and easy for the mother by pill up to 14 weeks into pregnancy in all fifty states, there’s good evidence babies have a significant chance of having a significant amount of consciousness that far into pregnancy.

>if you dont like how your state handles it you can move to another one that does.

A baby murdered by abortion can not move. Because he or she is dead.

>the parents consent because the baby cant.

It’s still wrong. Just as it would be wrong for parents to consent to a doctor removing their baby son’s big toe nail and then putting acid on it so it doesn’t grow back to prevent any ingrown toenails before one has even happened. That would still be immoral if it was legal and 70 percent of parents did it to their baby

>Hitmen and people who hire them are absolutely at fault
>they are performing illegal actions. this is different from lawful circumcisions.

I’m convinced you are trolling. If you are actually serious then you are seriously mentally ill

>>533678792
If you can rape someone with a baton then you can rape someone with s knife.

Circumcision of baby boys is usually worse than rape of adult women, circumcision involves significant permanent irreversible physical damage and rape not always. Circumcision may also cause mental damage.

Stretching does not fully undo the damage done as many structures will not regrow and are permanently gone

>>533678800
If I was playing Minecraft and did not wish to play on that Minecraft server anymore

Get a bow and arrows
Get a chest
Get a small shovel
Get a Minecraft mod to get Silica Gel Packets Desiccant things they only cost a few emeralds in the mod
Go to a place NOT NEAR YOUR BASE if someone makes it so you can't even go within 500 blocks of your base you still need to be able to access your chest
Dig a deep hole

Put bow and arrow, at least a couple hundred emeralds and the Silica Gel Packets Desiccant things in your chest. Optionally also add stuff like a small sword.
Close chest up very tightly.
Put chest at bottom of hole and cover with dirt blocks.
WHEN YOU GO TO SPOT WHERE YOU WILL BURY THE CHEST LEAVE YOUR MAP AND COMPASS AT YOUR BASE DON'T BRING THEM WITH YOU. IF YOU HAVE A PHONE MOD OR MODERN CAR MOD DON'T BRING THOSE WITH YOU EITHER

final step

If you ever become homeless or whatever in Minecraft go dig up your chest and do PvP before jumping into lava

If you are making a stash in Minecraft don't bury it at your Minecraft base you live at in game bury it somewhere like a public park in the Minecraft server and make sure you bury it somewhere easy to find like next to some sort of landmark in the server.
Make sure to keep in mind how deep you bury it like how many blocks and what the frost line is if you have the frost line mod installed on the server. Obviously at least quadruple bag it if you have the plastic bag mods on the server with some very strong airtight bags from the mod and put plenty of dehydrating packets in each bag if you have a desiccant mod

>>533678814
Sure but I think cases like that can exist like maybe administering an epi pen on a leg even if it left a tiny scar. As I mentioned in the article I cited absolute deontological statements often have serious issues. That’s what threshold deontology is for (you can violate someone’s bodily autonomy if not doing so would be so so so bad like letting an unconscious person die of an allergic reaction rather than administer an epi pen)

The problem with routine infant circumcision is it doesn’t come close to anything like that. Utilitarians will hate it for obvious reasons. So will virtue ethicists. It’s just cartoonishly evil especially given how much tissues and structures modern circumcision removes

EVEN ANCIENT PEOPLE KNEW THIS

The Roman Executions under Emperor Hadrian (132–135 CE)

If we look at "ever" in the world, this is the definitive case of "hatred of the practice" leading to successful killings.

The Motive: Emperor Hadrian viewed circumcision as a form of "genital mutilation" (comparable to castration) that was incompatible with Greco-Roman ideals of the "perfect" human body. He issued a decree banning the practice across the Empire.

The Act: Doctors and parents who defied the ban and performed circumcisions on babies were executed. This sparked the Bar Kokhba revolt.

>>533674522
The only exception is when you go from one town to another too quickly.

>>533679066
Yeah and Western Europe is a good example because you can compare rich and developed countries in which almost no one is circumcised to a rich and developed country like usa in which babies are circumcised and see that the supposed benefits like reduced infections are non existent. Infections are extremely rare regardless of whether you are cut or not

Circumcision has obvious downsides and the supposed benefits are just made up and thoroughly debunked. They have been for a very long time

It’s not my fault doctors won’t humble themselves and be more open minded and consider the opposing side. They are still liable

File: LEADED GASOLINE.jpg (373 KB, 2250x1375)

373 KB JPG

>>533676101
>Doctors are usually smarter and should know better and are also very much to blame.
What am I supposed to do? Shoot up a hospital in minecraft and then go toe to toe with a SWAT team? Then if by some miracle I go full gigapsycho and win then I am rewarded with fighting the nasty girls with their military grade toys mostly because they're all a bunch of
>just doing my job
Inbred filth. Nah society has to change probably collapse. An entire generation of lead addled child abusers demanding ragnarok to end their kid cutting. Good thing the funskins are getting regenerated.

>>533679781
The zar also had to ban the Skoptsy from their pracitse.

>>533679781
>cases like that can exist like maybe administering an epi pen on a leg even if it left a tiny scar
Sure but again this isn't comparable to circumcision. First of all the harm of an epipen is small (a bit of pain and maybe a small scar) whereas the benefit is considerable (saving someone from a lethal allergic reaction). I suppose some people could suffer more sever effects but again this are probably dismissable if the alternative is death by asphyxiation. In contrast, circumcision has no benefit but considerable harm.

Second, circumcisions are overwhelmingly elective. No doctor could administer an epipen electively - he'd lose his medical license.

I think you might be arguing past me a bit - I'm agreeing that circumcision is totally and cartoonishly evil and it should be clear from my posts I think deontology is nonsense.

File: Screenshot 2026-04-23 01.30.26.png (376 KB, 921x840)

376 KB PNG

In my eyes circumcision was always weird as fuck. I still do not know how you're supposed to jerk off. Or how it doesn't permanently feel weird.

>>533679837
Good one
Even if I had to ask ai to explain it to me

>>533674522
Circumcision generates powerful loosh. It's anti human

>>533678972
>doesn’t necessarily make it moral.
your views on whats moral do not align with what the majority thinks is moral.
>>533679066
>In fact, foreskin and the clitoris
a foreskin isnt a clitoris, its not the same thing.
>The overwhelming majority of western civilization
I was talking about amerimutt civilization, I consider them different from us superior Europeans.

>>533679966
Anyone who still believes in the "authority and expertise" of doctors after covid is a clown. And of course the "trust the experts" crowd simply has to ignore the many doctor, nurses, and other medical experts who oppose circumcision/covid vaccines/etc.

File: 1767323468501751.jpg (336 KB, 1575x1091)

336 KB JPG

>>533680134
>In my eyes circumcision was always weird as fuck. I still do not know how you're supposed to jerk off. Or how it doesn't permanently feel weird.

They use their own Spit like faggots, and call themselves 'cleaner'. Have you noticed that in America, there must always be a medical solution for everything? Got a kid with ADD? Shrink hooks them on literal Amphetamine. Can't handle teaching your kid how to wash themselves in life, or wash them like a good parent does? Get em circumcised. I have noticed that every single little fucking bullshit must equal a doctors prescription. Food for the pain, Pain meds for the obesity, Drugs for the obesity, and on it goes. Its a fucking shitshow.

>>533680192
there’s something weird about this world because there’s way too few intactivists (in usa) , too few vegans or even anti factory farming activists and too few abortion abolitionists. pro life is controlled opposition

Some elites are doing something nefarious but I don’t know why. Atheists might be right but I’m open to elites possibly being in communion with literal demons

>>533680109
It is an unneccessary medical procedure, that reason alone is enough.

>>533680233
>a foreskin isnt a clitoris, its not the same thing.
Of course they're different, humans are sexually dimorphic. The point is that the exact same justifications for circumcisions are argued for FGM, but only the latter is considered immoral. And despite both being illegal according to the letter of the law. Circumcision apologists simply ignore the contradiction. If you accept the arguments for circumcision you have to accept the arguments for FGM as well, which I assume you do not. If you did, you'd still be wrong, but at least you would be consistent.

>>533680134
it looks exactly the same when i do it as when you do it. i've seen enough dicks being stroked on this website to know this and to not feel like i'm missing out no matter how many uncutfags desperately plead for me to feel bad. i think they're just mad at how cucked the EU is by the US and it's mostly just cope.

>>533679236
>Again you have no idea what you are talking about
I know what I was talking about but you clearly didnt read it.
maybe open your eyes or wash your glasses next time.
>there’s good evidence babies have a significant chance of having a significant amount of consciousness that far into pregnancy.
thats for the lawmakers to decide
>A baby murdered by abortion can not move.
her body her choice
>It’s still wrong
there is no wrong, there are just different opinions on it.
>Just as it would be wrong for parents to consent to a doctor removing their baby son’s big toe nail
thats not even remotely the same thing at all
>If you are actually serious then you are seriously mentally ill
so we are at ad homs now? why are you conceding?

>>533680307
i don't need any lubricants. you're just regurgitating propaganda you heard from other people with motivated reasoning.

>>533679384
circumcision is not rape, you can ask an AI or look up the laws.
>circumcision involves significant permanent irreversible physical damage
and your parents and the hospital and the doctors and the lawmakers all agree its a good thing.
you parents could have said no but they said YES instead because thats what they wanted.
>Circumcision may also cause mental damage.
a lot of things cause mental damage, proving it is the difficult part.

File: 1768709671551328.jpg (33 KB, 493x387)

33 KB JPG

>>533674522
>intactivist
Legitimately kekd at that.

>>533680410
>The point is that the exact same justifications for circumcisions are argued for FGM
pretty sure this isn't true, and i'm pretty sure FGM is akin to cutting the whole head off. the foreskin is just a flap of skin. i don't see anybody fondling their foreskins in porn. i think uncutfags feel exactly the same as us but because nobody can prove a difference in either direction this argument will go on forever.

>>533680410
>Of course they're different
good, I was already worried you are some troon who thinks men and woman are the same thing.
>If you accept the arguments for circumcision you have to accept the arguments for FGM as well
no you dont, they are two different subjects.

File: 1767282947262836.jpg (208 KB, 1901x2560)

208 KB JPG

>>533680412
>>533680445
You have no ability to contextualise what it is you are missing out on, therefore you can't grasp that its genuine horror, and not 'cope' cause you're American.

>>533680233
>your views on whats moral do not align with what the majority thinks is moral.

Majority of men on earth today are not circumcised, it’s about 1/3 but less then half. Majority of women are not circumcised today either.

Historically there’s been examples of emperors executing >>533679781 doctors and parents for circumcising babies. Were the “police” who executed doctors or parents who broke the law at the time by circumcising a kid doing something moral or immoral? Was the emperor who passed and enforced this law doing something good or bad?

If in the future human societies across the world ban circumcision of children and then circumcision of children remains illegal from 2200 A.D. to 8000 A.D. and or beyond then “most” people would believe circumcising babies is immoral.
So I don’t know what you mean by most. Because a doctor can live in a city in which most people believe circumcising babies is immoral but that city is in a country in which most people in that country believe circumcising babies is moral. Or vice Versa

>>533680546
>i think uncutfags feel exactly the same as us
lol no. your dick is dried out and has a layer of ceratine on it, a normal healthy uncut penis thats protected by a glans feels soft and very sensitive.
you are missing out on so much and you cant even jerk off without lube.

>>533680723
>Majority of men on earth
we are talking about the USA
>emperors executing doctors and parents for circumcising babies.
sucks for them but they just did what they were asked to do, if they had refused then the circumcising guys would have circumcised their necks.
>“most” people would believe
people will believe whatever they are told to believe, this never changes.

>>533680546
>pretty sure this isn't true, and i'm pretty sure FGM is akin to cutting the whole head off
No. Like circumcision, the degree of the amputation varies. Any degree of it is wrong and immoral.
>the foreskin is just a flap of skin
Ok so you're just ignorant of the biology. The foreskin is definitely not just a skin flap, it actually consists of a number of discrete organs which provide a large number of functions that a "skin flap". Does not. A good analogy would be an eyelid - is just a skin flap, the same as any other? Could we just replace it with any other piece of skin from your body? The foreskin provides natural protection to the glans, the gliding mechanism that is normally supposed to exist during sex, lubrication, sensation, and many others. However we don't need to resort to analogy, we can just look at anatomical actuality:

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/the-prepuce/
https://www.cirp.org/pages/anatomy/
http://www.savingsons.org/2015/09/foreskin-and-its-16-functions-not-just.html
https://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet4.html
https://intactaus.org/information/functions-of-the-foreskin/

>>533680412
It’s more pleasurable for the man and woman during sex
It also prevents the dickhead from being keratinized and dry

There’s lots of benefits you would not think of, like with other little things like toenails

In a physical and biological sense, yes. The foreskin acts as a protective "shield" that serves two main functions in cold or outdoor environments: thermal insulation and moisture retention.

Here is how it works from a physiological standpoint:

1. Thermal Insulation (The "Scarf" Effect)

The glans (the "dickhead") is a mucous membrane, much like the inside of your mouth or your lips. It is not designed to be exposed to the elements.

Protection from Air: The foreskin provides a double layer of tissue that traps a small amount of body heat against the glans.

Cold Exposure: In freezing temperatures, the body naturally pulls blood away from the extremities (vasoconstriction) to protect the core. Because the glans has very thin skin and high vascularity, it loses heat rapidly if exposed. The foreskin acts like a "sleeve" or a scarf, reducing the rate of heat loss.

2. Prevention of "Numbness" (Desensitization)

When you ask about "going numb," there are two ways to look at it:

The Immediate Cold Numbness: Just like your fingers go numb in the snow, the nerves in the glans (which are very dense) will lose sensitivity if the temperature drops significantly. The foreskin keeps the tissue closer to core body temperature, delaying this "freezing" numbness.

The Long-term "Callous" Numbness: This is a major point of debate in the medical community. Without a foreskin, the glans is in constant contact with clothing. Over time, the tissue undergoes keratinization—it develops a thin, leathery layer of protein (keratin) to protect itself from the friction. This layer can reduce fine-touch sensitivity, making the area feel "numb" compared to a protected, moist glans.

>>533680728
I always thought this too, if I want to feel like I was circumcised I could just tape my skin for a day or some shit if I wanted to cosplay as an american, but they cannot do the same, they cannot regenerate the skin. In any case I'm against it because it is literally a great con with barely any medical indications to do it on infants. If you had, for example, a case of phimosis then sure, but randomly as an infant it is indefensible no? Why not remove your appendix too while they're at it, I mean there's a chance it may give you problems eventually within your lifetime.

>>533680941
3. Moisture and Friction

A protected glans stays moist due to the mucosal environment under the prepuce.

In the Cold: Cold air is notoriously dry. Dryness leads to chafing and "windburn" on sensitive skin.

The Barrier: The foreskin prevents the natural oils and moisture from evaporating. This keeps the skin supple. If the skin dries out and cracks (which can happen in extreme cold), it becomes painful rather than numb.

Summary

While a foreskin won't prevent your entire anatomy from "shrinkage" (that’s a muscular response to cold called the cremasteric reflex), it absolutely keeps the tip of the organ warmer, moister, and more shielded from the numbing effects of cold air and rough fabric.

Think of it as a built-in "all-weather" cover for a very sensitive piece of biological hardware

>>533674522
It's a shame. The dirty kike that cut me is dead already. Maybe I'll go spit on her grave some day.

It's because you're male and no one cares about you.

>>533681002
>If you had, for example, a case of phimosis then sure
Even this usually isn't necessary, doctors are just ignorant or lying. Most actual cases of phimosis can be cured with stretching and steroid cream.

https://www.phimocure.net/about

In extreme cases the appropriate surgical intervention is *preputioplasty*, not circumcision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preputioplasty

>>533680546
>and i'm pretty sure FGM is akin to cutting the whole head off

No because there’s multiple forms of FGM. You are being bad faith if you don’t go along with his argument using the form of FGM which is most similar to male circumcision in terms of harms and risks

In the usa and most countries all FGM on girls is banned even if it is only removing or cutting a tiny amount of tissue

>>533674522
yeah people dont do extrajudicial executions for crimes that the Bible doesnt say are capital (murder, sodomy, rape...)

>>533680522
>circumcision is not rape, you can ask an AI or look up the laws.

Neither is a man holding down his screaming and crying wife in Afghanistan and forcibly impregnating her.

> you parents could have said no but they said YES instead because thats what they wanted.

One parent said yes the other initially said no but then eventually cucked to the other parent and said fine. That’s what can happen when it’s not illegal

>>533681200
>In the usa and most countries all FGM on girls is banned even if it is only removing or cutting a tiny amount of tissue
The American Academy of Pediatrics actually tried to roll back anti-FGM laws to get around this moral contradiction so they could keep circumcising.
https://newsone.com/513302/medical-association-backs-ritual-nick-as-female-circumcision-option/

>>533681214
Modern Circumcision is usually worse then rape

You have been psyoped into believing rape is the worst thing ever because women who were not virgins were difficult to marry off historically.

>>533681101
this
Sad but true especially if you are not rich

>>533681077
based

>>533681305
>One parent said yes the other initially said no but then eventually cucked to the other parent and said fine. That’s what can happen when it’s not illegal
Again it isn't even legitimate for parents to elect nonnecessary medical surgery for their children. No doctor can cut off a child's arm just because the parents "want it". This is of course why tranny surgery on children is immoral.

>>533674522
I literally don't give a fuck. Unfortunately I was mutilated but I never actually think about it until y'all show up. What kind of shit is this that you guys seem to have it consume your world?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-liable-driver-grabbed-passenger-inner-thigh/

Rape victim gets 8 million dollars.
Circumcised as an infant? You get nothing even if you had more significant physical permanent irreversible damage done to you.
I don’t know the extent of her possible injuries but in most cases circumcision does much more long term physical damage

>>533681543
It’s the hypocrisy of it. >>533681598
It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Hippocratic Oath:
(...)
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment andtherapeutic nihilism.
(...)

Infant genital mutilation collides head on with this oath.

>>533681723
so does abortion and feeding patients in a hospital meat from animals raped / artificially inseminated , caged in tiny battery cages, etc factory farms

>>533681184
I had phimosis as an infant, and the doctor only removed the tip of the skin. I am still completely "uncut" in appearance at least.
This was post-commie Romania, early 90s. I'm sure your top notch American doctors have much better knowledge and equipment.

>>533681873
>only removed the tip of the skin.
Sadly this still removes the ridged band. I'm sorry that happened to you. Unironically at least he only did that.
https://research.cirp.org/

>>533681873
>I'm sure your top notch American doctors have much better knowledge and equipment.
Sadly most doctors would rather chop off an infant's entire penis than risk being called antisemitic.

>>533681873
I too had phimosis, at the age of 27 I got it due to an STI (she had a fucking yeast infection) and got over it with steroid cream and antibiotics or some shit.

>>533681873
even ancient desert religious people only removed the tip at first, but then people who were cut started stretching to restore themselves and reverse it (as best they could)

Unfortunately modern circumcision removes many structures, so a very significant amount of the damage modern circumcision does is irreversible and permanent.

I demand reparations for being circumcised as an infant.

>>533674522
Be the change you want to see in the world fren.

All men who were circumcised as babies deserve at least 150 million USA dollars adjusted for inflation / at least 44000 ounces of pure 24k gold (44000 ounces of pure 24k gold is worth 147727340 dollars on 06/03/2025).
They were innocent babies and were horribly, permanently and irreversibly mutilated for their entire one life on earth before it even began.
There is NO way to FULLY or even MOSTLY recover their lost foreskins and all of it's structures. Stretching does not nearly even come close to restoring it to it's original form.

>Why at least 150 million USA dollars / at least 44000 ounces of pure 24k gold?

Because there was a case of a adult man who merely had some mean words, drawings and jokes said to him at work. Nothing criminally illegal like death threats, leaking his social security number etc. He later quit his job at Tesla he wasn't fired. He was offered 15 million 2022 dollars for his hurt feelings by a usa judge https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/tesla-racism-lawsuit-worker-rejects-15-million-payout-rcna34655
He was literally offered 15 million dollars that the government would take from Tesla and hand directly to him. He rejected it because he wanted more then 15 million 2022 dollars but the point stands the government is willing to say mean words and hurt feelings are worth at least 15 million 2022 dollars.
Being circumcised as a baby is AT LEAST ten times worse.
At least 150 million 2025 dollars and at least 44000 ounces of pure 24k gold is a very very deep compromise.

>But anon I'm circumcised and broke

I know and you deserve better. Immediately quit your wagie job. You should never contribute to circumcisers. You deserve to be very comfortably retired NOW. A circumciser should not be richer than you unless they are bezos or musk. You should be almost infinitely richer than every american woman (circumcision is illegal in USA) unless she's Mackenzie bezos. She should be working a wagie job and serving you.

>>533682404
CASE #2

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/07/20/mcdonalds-lawsuit-hot-chicken-nugget/70436203007/

A random family is in a car. These are not employees they're just random customers.
They go to McDonalds drive through

Mom buys nuggets

Gives nuggets (corpses of tortured and mutilated animals that were factory farmed) to her little kid

Kid drops nugget on thigh

It leaves a slight burn on thigh

Burn heals completely leaving a small barely noticable and not painful scar on thigh

Girl gets 800,000 dollars.

Circumcising a baby is at least 30 times worse easily.
It's obviously way way worse than 30 times but whatever let's be extremely conservative

That's 24 million dollars or at least 7000 ounces of pure 24k gold.

You deserve this.

>>533681543
>"Society" sexually assaults and debilitates infants a normal matter of course
You're kidding right? If this isn't your #1 issue you have no grasp on reality.

>>533682438
>But but but if I quit my wagie job and stop helping circumcisers I'll become homeless and have no money!!

Maybe or maybe not. Doesn't matter don't be a pussy.

In Minecraft if you want to be the ultimate Minecraft neet

Get a bow and arrows
Get a chest
Get a small shovel
Get a Minecraft mod to get Silica Gel Packets Desiccant things they only cost a few emeralds in the mod
Go to a place NOT NEAR YOUR BASE if someone makes it so you can't even go within 500 blocks of your base you still need to be able to access your chest
Dig a deep hole

Put bow and arrow, at least a couple hundred emeralds and the Silica Gel Packets Desiccant things in your chest. Optionally also add stuff like a small sword.
Close chest up very tightly.
Put chest at bottom of hole and cover with dirt blocks.
WHEN YOU GO TO SPOT WHERE YOU WILL BURY THE CHEST LEAVE YOUR MAP AND COMPASS AT YOUR BASE DON'T BRING THEM WITH YOU. IF YOU HAVE A PHONE MOD OR MODERN CAR MOD DON'T BRING THOSE WITH YOU EITHER

final step

If you ever become homeless or whatever in Minecraft go dig up your chest and do PvP before jumping into lava

If you are making a stash in Minecraft don't bury it at your Minecraft base you live at in game bury it somewhere like a public park in the Minecraft server and make sure you bury it somewhere easy to find like next to some sort of landmark in the server.
Make sure to keep in mind how deep you bury it like how many blocks and what the frost line is if you have the frost line mod installed on the server. Obviously at least quadruple bag it if you have the plastic bag mods on the server with some very strong airtight bags from the mod and put plenty of dehydrating packets in each bag if you have a desiccant mod

>>533675823
"Just following orders" is not a get out of jail card, you of all flags should know that, also the hipocratic oath. Doctors who perform MGM are evil and deserve to be killed in the most horrible way imaginable.

>>533682477
I think factory farming (basically all animal agriculture except edge cases like oysters) is worse but solving circumcision seems significantly easier

>>533682479
I wasn't exaggerating at all being circumcised is at least 100 times worse then mean words you volunteerly endure (you can quit job at any time) and at least 30 times worse then that girls burn

all circumcisers don't get reparations. That includes doctors who perform surgeries as well as parents among others.

Millions of dollars for the irreversible damages must be the priority.
No circumcised man should have to choose between wage slavery and homelessness while their are circumcisers who are rich enough they can comfortably retire young.

YOU DESERVE MILLIONS ACT LIKE IT

QUIT YOUR JOB IMMEDIATELY.

REPARATIONS OR RETRIBUTION

There are young woman with completely intact genetalia who have never been mutilated in their lives who are very wealthy and are comfortably retired.
THERE are men who had their genitals seriously mutilated permanently and irreversibly as babies who are poor and working jobs they hate to serve those women because if they don't work they'll become homeless.

Quit your job today.
Play Minecraft if you must.
You deserve to be a multimillionaire today

>>533682530
Absurdly, anyone who wasn't a doctor (or a rabbi or imam) who did this would be prosecuted for rape and sexual assault. The doctor has a *greater* moral obligation even than that the normal person should be held to.

>>533682564
Give each person circumcised as a baby enough money to buy at least 44000 ounces of pure 24k gold in 2025

Blame parents
Doctors
Nurses
Police
Judges
Politicians
Lawyers

Living as a circumcised male makes sense if you are worth tens of millions of dollars and otherwise reasonably healthy

I don't want to focus too much on legality.
Morally we deserve it even if morality is subjective.
They're hypocrites for not giving us our millions each
We are justified to seek justice ourselves

Circumcised men need to understand they're totally justified in not working at all and taking as much welfare as they want

And if they become homeless for not working they should play Minecraft at the public library computer

>Also work for muslim ?

Maybe but again they can't be circumcising others
If they're promoting Islam they're promoting circumcising babies
So only ex Muslims who were circumcised as children and are vocally anti Islam and have been since they were young

If you are circumcised and you have a sibling that is uncircumcised you deserve full inheritance from your parents for mutilating you.
You had to suffer more if they wanna do 50/50 play minecraft, you are perfectly justified and I, for one, will praise you. Men need to grow balls again, yeah Minecraft is scary, but living as a cripple who isn't rich and has to work is miserable and humiliating.

I plan to get rich though investing/gambling
I will not contribute to society in any way I only want to steal

Circumcising girls is illegal. Circumcising boys is legal in every country on earth.
Circumcising girls is illegal in most.

Make them care

Give us what we deserve or we play Minecraft

Spartans fought guys off outnumbered 7 to 1

I could beat 20 feminist "males" myself in Minecraft PVP easily

>>533681988
>ridged band
I checked and i still have this. Like i said, it functionally and aesthetically looks completely natural. I guess I'm lucky.
>>533682079
>the damage modern circumcision does is irreversible and permanent
Sounds like y'all need some medical updates based on science and biology, instead of judaism and shit. Research papers on male genital mutilation SHOULDN'T be written by jews, who are biased.

>>533682604
Not everyone would instantly become a multimillionaire
No reparations for women
Reparations only for circumcised men who haven't helped circumcise others

Circumcised innocent men would become much wealthier then those who are intact or who circumcised others.

Tens of millions of men would be given millions of dollars printed into existence.
Yes it would cause inflation. That's okay.
The circumcised who haven't circumcised others deserve to be wealthier then the intact and or circumsirers

Boomers who circumcised babies SHOULD have their retirement savings inflated out of existence.
Sorry boomer retirement is over for you now you must go back to work or be homeless.
Time for gen z to take it easy

BRING THE DIGITAL CURRENCY OR TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR USA BILLS AND ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS USA BILLS NOW

100 USA DOLLAR BILL WON'T EVEN BUY YOU A SODA AND THAT IS OKAY

If bread costs 10,000 dollars a loaf that's fine.
It's the uncircumcised who didn't get reparations who won't be able to afford bread at first.
They can work for a circumcised person who got reparations for 15,000 dollars an hour or something

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WWVz_DcSeZc

He wasn't even arrested. He wasn't even handcuffed. If he can get millions of dollars why can't I?

>>533682633
>And just who will fund this?

The government's infinite money printers.
Also confiscate wealth from circumcisers and make them homeless.
Oprah Winfrey makes cream from baby foreskins she should be homeless

If someone offered me 150 million dollars or my original foreskin back I'd take the foreskin in a heartbeat. Since that is no longer an option I will have to settle for just the 150 million dollars instead. If I don't get either of those I'm playing Minecraft.

>silica gel packets from the silica gel mod

You can buy them from villagers or online if you have the online shopping mod they're really cheap you can also find them in potion bottles I think.

>>533675184
Okay, I'm an esoteric Hitlerist and my religion dictates TKD. It's illegal to stop me because I really believe this.

File: protect baby.png (530 KB, 576x1024)

530 KB PNG

>>533682621
>I checked and i still have this. Like i said, it functionally and aesthetically looks completely natural. I guess I'm lucky.
That's great anon, seriously.
Pay it forward.

File: 1761101819732.jpg (89 KB, 1024x998)

89 KB JPG

>>533683019
>Pay it forward.
Yeah.

Bump

Boop

>>533685582
Bump

Boop

Bump

>>533674522
Women prefer circumcised dicks