Circumcision..Child abuse or parental right?

[Keevan_Colton]

Right you fucking moronic twat, lets get some things straight.

Had exactly what to do with the point you where addressing, asking for people to respect the rights of a person to have a religion in general you answered with the above. Really the bigotry and hatred from some of the Atheissits on this board is staggering! Some of the most bigoted judegmental shits seem to race to the Science and Logic board and shout that Religion is EVIL... and insult anyone whoi has even a religious view at all. Let me make it clear I am a Liberal Catholic from the United Kingdom, never been down south, believe in Evolution and the Big Bang and am happy with the use of any and all pre-conception forms of contraception, but because I said that I would respect the right of a person to believe in God, I came from Down South in America....

It's a trite line oft waved around by americans but it applies well here even though I'm normally loathe to use it.
"Your rights end where anothers rights begin"
That applies to the right of a child not to be mutilated, which trumps your right to believe in some fucking pixie.

Second, you fucking twat I'm in the god damned UK too. You really dont pay much fucking attention do you? "Down South" as in South of here, or the term commonly used to refer to England in relation to Scotland.

Lastly, you really do seem to believe cutting bits off children is good and moral. That doesnt just make religion evil, it makes you a sick evil little fuck.

You cannot grasp that something can be comperable while lacking the same magnitude. Mutilating a babies penis and permanently reducing the sexual pleasure they will be able to feel for the rest of thier life IS ABUSE, it cannot be defended and you are a sick piece of shit.

[Justforfun000]

Skelron, I know what you are saying, but you are not taking into account the bigger picture. You are vociferously arguing two particular points.

1) Religion should be respected as someone's belief, and the posts we are making here are coming across as VERY anti-religious, and therefore are guilty of intolerance and bigotry just as much as religious fanatics are accused of being.

2) The issue of Male Genital Mutilation, circumcision, is so minor COMPARED to other types of abuse issues like sexual molestation that to equate it in any way with this level of concern is (in your mind) incredibly insulting and demeaning to people who have suffered such grievious crimes.

I understand why you are saying this, but the problem is that this line of thinking is only half truthful.

For number one, you have to always keep in mind that just like Christianity is fond of saying "Hate the sin, not the sinner", the reverse can be applied to say "I can hate and/or disagree with the religious ideas that are being spewed forth from said believers, but not hate the people THEMSELVES".

It's perfectly just to argue against ideas and beliefs. If you can't defend them in the long run with fairness, logic and ethicality, then it's the beliefs that have to give way. Sorry, but that's the only realistic way to live life.

People that don't accept this are fooling themselves, and the characteristic that sets apart most people on this board from the average Joe Blow is the basic anathema to being told what to think instead of understanding and agreeing by demonstrable evidence.

As to your number two point, yes it is not as severe as sexual molestation. Of COURSE not. But you cannot measure the ethicality of something based on it's DEGREE of harm, it has to be judged on the merits of its intrinsic benefit/indifferent/detrimental nature.

If you cannot agree that doing physical damage to an infant without any MEDICAL reason simply for the sake of religious, cosmetic, or what have you reasons, is wrong, then I'm sure I speak for most of the people on this board when I say that we cannot even meet in the middle because we're not on the same page.

[Broomstick]

And Broomstick - good points overall. But FGM and MGM are both unethical for the same reason if not to the same extent. It's like the difference between stealing $1000 and stealing someone's Dodge. They're not equally wrong, but both violate a person's right to security of property. And someone saying MGM is okay because FGM is worse is using a false dilemma fallacy

Huh. That's not where I was trying to go at all. I'd say circumcism and FGM, particuarly in the more extreme forms, are NOT comparable. After all, a man with a standard circumcism is able to achieve orgasm, reproduce, and urinate without difficulty or additional procedures. A woman with an infibulation is subject to repeated infections of the the genitourinary area. Her ability to piss is severely hampered. Clotting of menstrual blood may block the opening entirely, leading to a build up of necrotizing tissue and blood which, you can imagine, is no good at all for the woman. With no clitoris and extensive damage to other structures in the region she is extremely unlikely to experience sex as pleasurable, and may find it painful. She is not able to reproduce without assistance and further cutting. These are common effects of infibulation.

If this is what makes FGM unethical (it's not), then simply removing the hood is okay by the above standard.

No, that's not what makes them unethical.

Do you live in a binary world with no degrees of wrong? I don't approve of stealing in any form, yet I recognize a difference between stealing a dollar and stealing a million dollars. They are both wrong - but they are not equally wrong.

FGM - be it simply nicking the hood of the clit or shaving off the whole shebang - is wrong. However, an infibulation is more wrong than a simple nick.

I'd say the male equivalent of an infibulation is more like a subincison - a spliting of penis from tip to base. Which I think we can all agree is far more wrong (when done to an unwilling, unconsenting man) than removing a foreskin. Saying forced subincision is wrong doesn't suddenly make foreskin removal right.

The most common MGM is foreskin removal, which is less debilitating that the FGM that gets most attention (I am not sure infibulation is the dominant FGM or not - and I'm not sure anyone else is, either, because these things do vary).

Yes, you are correct involuntary alteration of anyone's genitals is wrong. If you want to make that your favorite cause/charity go to it.

So, while I will agree that circumcism is multilation, at least in the sense of bodily alteration without consent, the effects of a typical circucism are far, far less disabling than FGM. For that reason, I don't think they are comparable. It's like equating losing the tip of your pinkie finger with losing your entire arm. Yes, both are amputations, but in day-to-day life one really is a minor defect (and may pose no difficulty at all) and the other is a severely crippling defect.

Both are human rights violations that need to be banned. That doesn't require them to be worse than other violations. And only the man who lives with the result of a circumcision is entitled to decide whether he finds the result cripping or not. I've talked to men who have never orgasmed via intercourse. If they say that's a problem (or say that the appearance or anything of the other results are problems), then it is. Their standard overrides yours.

What standard? I even said that for some people it WOULD be crippling, are you so obtuse you can't see that we're basically coming from the same position?

We've seen on this thread men to whom this is a very important matter, and men who think it's no big deal. For all I know some man reading this is GLAD he had an infant circumcism. Nowhere have I tried to impose any standard on anyone. I have stated my position, but I haven't gone ballistic when others have stated theirs.

Chill out.

Another false dilemma I hear alot on the RIC issue. People say that getting it done as a baby is better than getting it done as an adult.

And that I can't quite fathom - why anyone would think this is less painful for an infant than for an adult I can't imagine. The main difference is that the infant can't articulate his complaint.

I definitely would put up a fuss to prevent this being done to any child under my care (should that ever happen). As I said, I can tolerate a world in which this continues for religious reasons - but only because there are much worse injustices in the world that need attending to, and the impairment of life quality isn't horrific. When we've eliminated problems that leave people truly disabled, hungry, ill, abused, or needlessly dead I'll start campaigning to make circumcism completely illegal.

That will never happen. There will always be something worse than most of the unjustices people face in the world (injustices you aren't putting much work into anyway unless you're donating shitloads to charity or join the Peace Corps).

Oh, fuck you and your righteous bullshit. I "worked against injustice" for four years in inner city Chicago, where I could hear gunfire sitting at my desk and walk by bullet holes on my way to and from work. I did it as my goddamn job, my bread and butter. So sorry MY good cause wasn't yours, but that's the breaks. There's plenty of evil for all the wannabe superheros to combat, with lots left over.

But if someone comes after me with scissors trying to force it on me, I'm entitled to do whatever I have to to stop them, even if they just want to take an inch. It's mine, regardless of what value another person places on it.

So? Where have I said you have no right to defend yourself? Nowhere. You're reading shit into my statements that just isn't there. I already said I'd oppose this for any child in my custody, what the fuck do you want? A pledge of undying loyalty to the cause? A statement signed in blood?

[ArmorPierce]

@ Justforfun000, my source on taylor's ridge was bad so point conceded.

I hear that just wearing a condom at all times restores sensation to how it was before you were cut after a few weeks after the keratinization layer disappears.

[Illuminatus Primus]

But who wants to wear a condom all the time?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

WTF is wrong with this Skelron asshole? Also, why the hell is this thread not HoSeD and Skelron Horsemanized and VIed?

[Ghost Rider]

WTF is wrong with this Skelron asshole? Also, why the hell is this thread not HoSeD and Skelron Horsemanized and VIed?

Ein, don't spam.

Either challenge his incredibly single minded perspective that we should respect traditions regardless of their stupidity or just watch.

[Uraniun235]

Let's put it this way: Why is it any less wrong to force the decision of circumcision on an infant than it would be to force it on, say, a 14-year-old?

[Broomstick]

It's just as wrong to force circumcism regardless of age.

I do think it would be a lot harder for parents to present an uncut 14 year old to a doctor and say "do it". That's because of society's traditions, and emotions, rather than rational ethics.

[Sir Sirius]

Ah shut up really I don't give a flying fuck if a person believes in God or not, thinks religion is the worst thing ever to happen and is bigoted against religion in that manner or or is a bigoted Southern wanker misusing religion.

Ad Hominem.

Had exactly what to do with the point you where addressing, asking for people to respect the rights of a person to have a religion in general you answered with the above.

Straw Man, we are talking about illigalizing circumcision done for religious reasons, not illigalizing religion in general.

Really the bigotry and hatred from some of the Atheissits on this board is staggering! Some of the most bigoted judegmental shits seem to race to the Science and Logic board and shout that Religion is EVIL... and insult anyone whoi has even a religious view at all.

*Whimper* <Evil athists are being mean> *whimper*

Quit with this innane whining already it's damn annoying.

Let me make it clear I am a Liberal Catholic from the United Kingdom, never been down south, believe in Evolution and the Big Bang and am happy with the use of any and all pre-conception forms of contraception, but because I said that I would respect the right of a person to believe in God, I came from Down South in America....

There is a marked difference between respecting someones right to belief in god and allowing parents to harm their children because of their religious beliefs.

Get it through your thick skull you stupid little baby, Male Circumsision is not anywhere near equal to Sexual or physical abuse. It does not even belong in the same discussion, if the worst thing that could happen to you is to be circumsised you are a lucky man, my Mother, and my Sister have both seen true Abuse in the faces of the Children they see everyday, the only sick fuck is you for belitting that suffering with your self rightous talk. My moher as teacher at a shool in a poor area, where she has had refugees from Yugoslavia in her classes, and my sister as a Child Social Worker

Black & White fallacy. Circumcision is not the worst form of child abuse around, but make no mistake it is child abuse.

Actually I was simply in this point doing something that may have gone over your head... Let me explain slowly, I was addressing the VERY Disgusting and hate filled crap that would compare Circumsicion to Sexual and Physical Abuse, I was not at this point addressing the rightness or wrongness of Circumsision but the Hate filled Shit that came from one little childs mouth, because a Mummy might have had a bit of a childs dick removed and he felt it would be as violating as a child who has been raped by his family members for years...

1. Cutting of a part of a childs body for no good reason certainly qualifies as physical abuse and since circumcision does harm a persons ability to enjoy sex, it is sexual abuse as well.

2. Either address Edi's first hand account of the effects of circumcision or stop trivializing the harm done by circumcision. Putting up a Wall of Ignarance impresses no one.

Basically I was addressing the incrediably disgusting piece of writing that would compare an entire religious group to Child Molestors... based on the issue of them doing Male Circumsision...

While I agree that comparing parents that have their children circumcized to child molestors is a Red Herring, parents that wish to harm their own children should be prevented from doing so, it makes no difference why their wish to harm their children. Society is under no obligation to tolerate their behaviour solely because it is motivated by religion.

amaazing how obviously I am the one talking Shit while because he supports your view point you don't address that point... which is quite obviously a big steaming pile of Dog Shit...

That sentence makes no sense.

Let us get a room full of Children the same age 50 of them will have been circumcised as Babys, the other 50 of the same age, have been sexually abused since childhood, which group would you honestly say is in need of Social Services?

Black & White fallacy, again.

[General Zod]

i've only got one more question that should settle things right now skelron.

If circumcision was not a religious practice would you still support it? yes or no is all that's needed. anything else will be viewed as dodging the question and responded to accordingly.

[Justforfun000]

@ Justforfun000, my source on taylor's ridge was bad so point conceded.

I hear that just wearing a condom at all times restores sensation to how it was before you were cut after a few weeks after the keratinization layer disappears.

No prob.

Where did you hear the second part though? I can;t believe it to be true as you are missing some of the original "pieces" as well. Don't forget the sheer amount of tissue you lose. I WAS mistaken in my earliest post. It's 15 square inches. I don't know how I mixed that up with miles.

[ArmorPierce]

I heard it at some people with circumcision that hates that they were circumcised support group forum thing.

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't support circumcision even as a religious practice; as a non-religious one I and many other people would be demanding laws against this.

[Vertigo1]

Personally, I resent the fact that I was cut without my permission and not given the opportunity to chose whether or not I wanted it done. (However, both my parents are protestant, with my mother being on the verge of being a fundie, so I seriously doubt I would've had a choice in the matter anyways....) Circumcision to a minor should be banned outright with the exception of a necessary medical reason, such as infection. Once you turn 18, the ball is in your court as to whether or not you want to get clipped.

As for those that advocate its use for religious purposes or for "cleanliness", FUCK YOU. When my nephiew was born 5 years ago, I was there when he got clipped. Right outside the damn room, and I heard him scream bloody murder when the doctor went to town. However, its automatically alright because "he won't remember it". Thats like saying drugging up someone and then raping them is ok because they don't remember it. BULLSHIT! There is no anesthesia involved here folks. None at all. Its mutilation, plain and simple.

[Skelron]

Okay I'll make something clear that I should have done from the start, I am neither Pro-Male Circumscion nor Anti-Male Circumscion. Nor is my main defence of it on basis of tradition, more to do with my natural hatred of banning something unless absolutly neccersary.

I Loath the very concept and believe it too be a solution to too many things advanced by too many people, once something is banned it should be viewed as a very serious step, undertaken for the most vital of reasons, anything else is insane.

As pointed out I loath the comparisons done so far, if people want to compare it to something, at least make those comparisons fair, rather than the rather insane ones that have been presented.

Lastly, I will have gone over board in my arguments, I suffer from one major flaw in debates, once someone insults me thats it, I will go all out and not listen anymore. I Dig my heels in and have to be right, a flaw I know, and tonight I am feeling in an honest mood... Shit it seems happens and tonight shit happened to me, making me very reflective, I won't say what here, as it has no relevance to the debate.

As to the question of if it where not religious would I support it or not, likely not, my support of it, if any strong support, comes from the importance that a religion places on it, and the likely hood that such importance is viewed as a link to the past, and all the suffering that they have gone through, an important tradition of heritage, rather than an unneccersary religious act. (And I thank the stars that one guy managed to ensure that Catholics would never have to have the snip...)

[Keevan_Colton]

Right, so you are a fucking moron. Alright, now get back to the special needs class, they must be missing you.

[SirNitram]

Okay I'll make something clear that I should have done from the start, I am neither Pro-Male Circumscion nor Anti-Male Circumscion. Nor is my main defence of it on basis of tradition, more to do with my natural hatred of banning something unless absolutly neccersary.

An instinct I truly doubt you actually hold: Would defend rape, more conventional abuse, murder in the same vein? Of course not.

I Loath the very concept and believe it too be a solution to too many things advanced by too many people, once something is banned it should be viewed as a very serious step, undertaken for the most vital of reasons, anything else is insane.

But in your crack-addled view of the world, cutting a chunk off someone isn't enough to get banned? What is, retard?

As pointed out I loath the comparisons done so far, if people want to compare it to something, at least make those comparisons fair, rather than the rather insane ones that have been presented.

I'm sorry, monkey boy, I didn't realize your thin little skin wasn't tough enough to accept you are supporting the mutilation of small children. Just because it's done for religion doesn't make it any less vile.

Lastly, I will have gone over board in my arguments, I suffer from one major flaw in debates, once someone insults me thats it, I will go all out and not listen anymore. I Dig my heels in and have to be right, a flaw I know, and tonight I am feeling in an honest mood... Shit it seems happens and tonight shit happened to me, making me very reflective, I won't say what here, as it has no relevance to the debate.

So you're an emotional asshole who can't debate with a level head. This is me not giving a damn.

As to the question of if it where not religious would I support it or not, likely not, my support of it, if any strong support, comes from the importance that a religion places on it, and the likely hood that such importance is viewed as a link to the past, and all the suffering that they have gone through, an important tradition of heritage, rather than an unneccersary religious act. (And I thank the stars that one guy managed to ensure that Catholics would never have to have the snip...)

Druidism places high importance on the bloody sacrifice of virgins. Should we go back to that? It would support your idiotic assertions.

[Broomstick]

Much as I would like to simply pass a law and have it so, people are not rational animals, parcticularly in regards to religion.

Earlier, I refered a book on circumcism written by a woman who has lived in a region where FGM is common, up to and including infibulation. In it, she points out that in North Africa/the Middle East wherever this practice has been made illegal there has been an UPSURGE in the practice, and an increase in severity. In other areas, the rate has gone down not through outright banning, but through education and social change.

If banning something will truly end it, OK, but if banning won't work - for whatever reason - then I think we need to look for alternatives. Because the goals isn't to make people criminals but the stop the mutilation.

For those who have no religious reason to do this, the practice can be stamped out quickly by inducing a change in society - and this is occuring. The male circumcism rate in the US is dropping as people realize there is no damn good reason for it, and several medical societies are now advocating against it save for legitimate medical reasons. A doctor telling parents "We really recommend against this - it serves no useful purpose. Yes, I realize that 20/30/40 years ago we thought differently but we were wrong. Don't do this to your child" can have far more effect than passing a law.

But that still leaves the problem of groups like the Jews. The Jews will not give up circumcism - it's been a matter of Jewish identity for, oh, 6,000 years. Since the time of Moses, that is, since Pharonic Eqypt (which might even be where they picked up the practice). It's hard for someone outside the religion to really comprehend just how important this is to Jewish identity. If you ban it, the Jews will just keep doing it in secret. It's too simple an operation to prevent it.

So... what to do? Well, the Jewish God didn't specify how much you had to cut, only that cutting must be done. There is some evidence that in the past, in some times and places, the amount cut during circumcism was very minimal - so minimal that it could be difficult to distinguish Jew from non-Jew.

Where I'm going with this is, if you can't eliminate the practice then minimize the damage. With some FGM societies, it has been possible to convince parents to opt for a less extreme form of FGM than they might have otherwise performed. Is that a good thing? No - it's the lesser of two evils. Likewise, if you could convince the Jews to cut less and less, until the cut became largely symbolic, it might be an avenue to explore.

I realize that that may not satisfy everyone, but I've long believed that in a true compromise everyone is equally dissatisfied.

[Justforfun000]

So... what to do? Well, the Jewish God didn't specify how much you had to cut, only that cutting must be done. There is some evidence that in the past, in some times and places, the amount cut during circumcism was very minimal - so minimal that it could be difficult to distinguish Jew from non-Jew.

This is absolutely correct, and I meant to mention it at some point but never got around to it.

This link explains exactly what they used to do ORIGINALLY. Even back in the time of Moses, they apparently only circumcised the tip that hangs over the edge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

Here's a brief excerpt:

The original form of circumcision practiced by Jews was more minimal than the form performed today. This rite, milah, initially consisted of cutting off only the tip of the foreskin, the floppy part that extends past the glans in the normal male infant. Two thousand years ago, Jewish hellenists, wanting to assimilate into Greek society, obliterated the sign of their "tip" circumcisions. Most of their foreskins were still intact, so they found ways to lengthen them, to make it look as if they had not been circumcised at all. This practice was unacceptable to the Jewish community at large; the community responded by changing the circumcision rite to remove all of the foreskin. Babies circumcised in this manner could not later hide the fact that they were Jewish.

So if people would stick to this relatively "minimal" form of removal, the issue would be a hell of a lot less important.

[General Zod]

Okay I'll make something clear that I should have done from the start, I am neither Pro-Male Circumscion nor Anti-Male Circumscion. Nor is my main defence of it on basis of tradition, more to do with my natural hatred of banning something unless absolutly neccersary.

there's no practical reason to continue this practice, moron. if you aren't for or against it either way then don't argue one side or the other.

I Loath the very concept and believe it too be a solution to too many things advanced by too many people, once something is banned it should be viewed as a very serious step, undertaken for the most vital of reasons, anything else is insane.

it causes verifiable harm for no substantial reason. why shouldn't it be banned?

As pointed out I loath the comparisons done so far, if people want to compare it to something, at least make those comparisons fair, rather than the rather insane ones that have been presented.

so far your only rationalizations i've seen have been appeals to tradition. there are other traditions far more barbaric. should they be kept too?

Lastly, I will have gone over board in my arguments, I suffer from one major flaw in debates, once someone insults me thats it, I will go all out and not listen anymore. I Dig my heels in and have to be right, a flaw I know, and tonight I am feeling in an honest mood... Shit it seems happens and tonight shit happened to me, making me very reflective, I won't say what here, as it has no relevance to the debate.

grow a backbone. seriously, there's nothing more annoying in a debate than a whiner that can't handle an insult or two.

As to the question of if it where not religious would I support it or not, likely not, my support of it, if any strong support, comes from the importance that a religion places on it, and the likely hood that such importance is viewed as a link to the past, and all the suffering that they have gone through, an important tradition of heritage, rather than an unneccersary religious act. (And I thank the stars that one guy managed to ensure that Catholics would never have to have the snip...)

real harm trumps religious practices. Christianity used to advocate quite a bit of living sacrifices to the invisible sky pixie, would you still want that to continue if it was still practiced simply because religious values placed such a huge importance on it?

[Skelron]

Oh sorry of course I should stand here and love the whole insult part of it, you know through out my education one key idea was taught, debating. One key fact layed out debating and arguing are different. A debate does not include Insults an Argument does....

I like to debate not have slanging matches with people, do I insist people play by my rules no, I simply pointed out last night that I tend to dig my heels in when insulted. Last nice I was in a reconcilatory mood, it happens when you get threatened with a Needle containing a certain virus. I see Offering up a small explanation was a mistake because Ass wipes will insult you for trying to explain, and insult you for not.

Forget it, I am sick of this whole Fucking site, I get dragged into some of the nastiest little arguments I have ever been in, on issues I don't care too much about by people who think that the height of intellect is being able to throw a great insult!

Your all seriously fucked up, and right now I say this with a clear head, I havn't the time for little Shits like the regulars at Stardestroyer.Net. Oh and before I face a great deal of people insulting me back... I won't be reading any of the replies so the only people you will impress will be each other.

Too the one person here that knows me from else where, I apologise I don't include you.

[Keevan_Colton]

Oh sorry of course I should stand here and love the whole insult part of it, you know through out my education one key idea was taught, debating. One key fact layed out debating and arguing are different. A debate does not include Insults an Argument does....

Style over substance fuckwit.

I like to debate not have slanging matches with people, do I insist people play by my rules no, I simply pointed out last night that I tend to dig my heels in when insulted. Last nice I was in a reconcilatory mood, it happens when you get threatened with a Needle containing a certain virus. I see Offering up a small explanation was a mistake because Ass wipes will insult you for trying to explain, and insult you for not.

Actually, the insults have more to do with your inability to offer any kind of defense of your position.

Forget it, I am sick of this whole Fucking site, I get dragged into some of the nastiest little arguments I have ever been in, on issues I don't care too much about by people who think that the height of intellect is being able to throw a great insult!

And you think polite idiocy is superior?
Well, run along home to mummy then.

Your all seriously fucked up, and right now I say this with a clear head, I havn't the time for little Shits like the regulars at Stardestroyer.Net. Oh and before I face a great deal of people insulting me back... I won't be reading any of the replies so the only people you will impress will be each other.

Translation :-
You're all big meanies, I wont play anymore

Too the one person here that knows me from else where, I apologise I don't include you.

Except of course anyone who might find me....then you're very nice, please dont hurt me....

[Keevan_Colton]

Oh sorry of course I should stand here and love the whole insult part of it, you know through out my education one key idea was taught, debating. One key fact layed out debating and arguing are different. A debate does not include Insults an Argument does....

Style over substance fuckwit.

I like to debate not have slanging matches with people, do I insist people play by my rules no, I simply pointed out last night that I tend to dig my heels in when insulted. Last nice I was in a reconcilatory mood, it happens when you get threatened with a Needle containing a certain virus. I see Offering up a small explanation was a mistake because Ass wipes will insult you for trying to explain, and insult you for not.

Actually, the insults have more to do with your inability to offer any kind of defense of your position.

Forget it, I am sick of this whole Fucking site, I get dragged into some of the nastiest little arguments I have ever been in, on issues I don't care too much about by people who think that the height of intellect is being able to throw a great insult!

And you think polite idiocy is superior?
Well, run along home to mummy then.

Your all seriously fucked up, and right now I say this with a clear head, I havn't the time for little Shits like the regulars at Stardestroyer.Net. Oh and before I face a great deal of people insulting me back... I won't be reading any of the replies so the only people you will impress will be each other.

Translation :-
You're all big meanies, I wont play anymore

Too the one person here that knows me from else where, I apologise I don't include you.

Except of course anyone who might find me....then you're very nice, please dont hurt me....

[Keevan_Colton]

Also, for Skelron, and anyone else that might labour under the clearly sub-par education he's recieved, lets just see what the dictionary has to say:

Debate :
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.
To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.



Argument
n.
A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: ?sheath'd their swords for lack of argument? (Shakespeare).
A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.
A topic; a subject: ?You and love are still my argument? (Shakespeare).
Logic. The minor premise in a syllogism.
Mathematics.
The independent variable of a function.
The angle of a complex number measured from the positive horizontal axis.
Computer Science. A value used to evaluate a procedure or subroutine.
Linguistics. In generative grammar, any of various positions occupied by a noun phrase in a sentence.




As you can see, fuck all about insults in the definitions.