If an action on a child cannot be shown to be beneficial, and can even be shown to have objectively negative outcomes, why support it? Why not allow pedophilia using that same reasoning?
-
-
Replying to @Mephitus_Skunk @peaceniky and
All along I’ve said why. Religion and some hygiene considerations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SwangoKevin @peaceniky and
So if was a religious practice to bath a 10 year old girl before and after you bed her, would that be an acceptable comparison? It's a religious practice that encourages hygiene after all.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Mephitus_Skunk @peaceniky and
“If”? And, who doesn’t bathe before and after. Ew...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SwangoKevin @peaceniky and
tl;dr religious historical practice is no reason to permanently mutilate anyone by any means. Such an argument still supports FGM.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Mephitus_Skunk @peaceniky and
No. The reasons matter. Controlling a [woman] through circumcision is way different than establishing a covenant and improving hygiene.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But only one of those religions has its goal as controlling women.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SwangoKevin @peaceniky and
Gynocentrism 101...only seeing things out of the myopic view of how it affects teh poor whamens...
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Mephitus_Skunk @peaceniky and
Meanwhile you are putting your focus on boys. You don’t get to poke your nose in family decisions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Unfortunately there are no laws protecting boys, but we as a humans certainly can try to defend the defenseless against the ignorant, stupid snd cruel
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.