The Sage Garden

[IceSpear]

The US and American posters ought to stop speaking from a moral high ground given our aggressive post-Cold War wars against Panama, Iraq, Sudan, etc.

Edit: Oops, beat me to it.

[IceSpear]

If there is a World War III, why would Russia or China start it? Based on the recent track records of aggression it would almost certainly be the US to kick it off.

[IceSpear]

Given the secret TPP negotiations, the pursuit of a corporate handout of a health care "reform" package, a half-assed stimulus which was mostly corporate tax cuts, mass surveillance of American civilians, covert and overt attempts at maintaining imperial hegemony, and lack of any coherent plan to implement any of their stated social goals (which are essentially vague platitudes about "helping the middle class" or some shit), I don't see any real value in supporting Obama over the Republicans.

And why does politics have to stay zero-sum? The damn point of my ideology is progressing past bourgeois government.

[IceSpear]

The neoliberal vultures are already descending upon poor Ukraine. Why is this not a surprise?

[IceSpear]

The final and complete American plutocracy, brought to you by Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush's appointed judges. Now it's just a matter of time before the American people realize what party is responsible for letting the rich ruin this country and do something about it.

Both parties are run by authoritarian neoliberal warmongers, regardless of their disagreements. I don't know you yet but I hope I can pull you a bit further left, comrade.

[IceSpear]

Choosing your preferred thug dictator while having no alternative to the capitalist slave system isn't "democracy".

[IceSpear]

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

[IceSpear]

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

Good riddance. This thread largely serves as a means by which liberals and assorted 'lefties' attack actual lefties and people who dare to have an ideological preference or consistency beyond 'muh Democrats'

Are you implying anyone who is a Democrat or Republican has no ideology?

[IceSpear]

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

Good riddance. This thread largely serves as a means by which liberals and assorted 'lefties' attack actual lefties and people who dare to have an ideological preference or consistency beyond 'muh Democrats'

Well, at least you posted directly into the garden this time. TNF, you seem to be trying to fill the Snowstalker void yourself.

I have no qualms about my posts being posted here, given that this thread seems to be little more than a liberal circlejerk self-congratulating itself on how 'reasonable' they are compared to us unwashed lefties, who actually believe in something other than 'muh barack obama' and 'muh hillary clinton'. You seem to be attempting to try and make yourself into something other than a generic red avatar sh**tposter, and doing a fairly awful job at it, if I may say so. I'd recommend just not posting altogether, given that it would literally have the same affect on this forum as the rest of your 'contributions' here.

To be fair, a circlejerk about how reasonable we are is pretty warranted when supposed leftists talk about how they'd support Alan Keyes over Obama without a hint of sarcasm.

[IceSpear]

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

Good riddance. This thread largely serves as a means by which liberals and assorted 'lefties' attack actual lefties and people who dare to have an ideological preference or consistency beyond 'muh Democrats'

Are you implying anyone who is a Democrat or Republican has no ideology?

What I am implying is that this thread exists to attack people who dare to have actual principles, which they do not subsequently subsume to the needs of 'muh democrats' and 'muh republicans'. The fact that there's almost uniform agreement among red avatars (even the supposed progressive ones) that the worst slimy, disgusting turd of a corporate Democrat is better than supporting a principled left-winger answers your question in an of itself. Republicans and Democrats on Atlas are certainly ideological, but only in the sense that the ideology they subscribe to is 'Republicanism' or 'Democratism'.

Or it's just that people have an ideology, then pick the party which best fits it that actually has a chance of winning. That's kind of how it works in a first past the post two-party system, otherwise you marginalize yourself and actually end up helping the people you're diametrically opposed to.

[IceSpear]

Obama literally saves another person's life.

Has he made up for that Yemeni wedding he turned into a Yemeni funeral?

[IceSpear]

Basically any "progressive." As we've seen the past five years, "progressives" can cloak the imperialism of their "opponents" in Nobel Peace prizes and "cultured" affectations (e.g., Pahh-kee-stahhn).  In other words, "progressives" can get away with more peace droning and humanitarian occupations that "tough" "hawkish" types.

[IceSpear]

After seeing the garden with so many new posts, I thought maybe Snowstalker went on some more tangents about Ukraine. Instead I find this?

[IceSpear]

For the record, I'm not really arguing that this topic is worth legislating about. I understand that would do more harm than good in the current context. You know as well as I do that legislation can't always achieve what we would like it to.

However, I find it frankly strange that you seem to argue that opposition to circumcision to be immoral. If anything, I would argue that removing a part of a newborn's body without a medical reason (yes, I know there are sometimes medical grounds for circumcision, and I obviously have no problem with them, as I have no problem is it's an adult who makes the choice) is the immoral thing. Which again, doesn't mean it should be banned.

That's why I amended 'immoral' to 'morally irresponsible' after a certain point. Advocating for legally banning circumcision is morally irresponsible because it I don't think it adequately takes into account the histories of the groups that traditionally consider circumcision important and of legislation that targets them and their customs. Just personally opposing and advocating against circumcision is fine as far as I'm concerned.

Something like 100-150 million women have their genitals mutilated. That is also done for ‘cultural’ reasons. It is of course far far worse than the practice of male circumcision. It is of course, rightly improper to make appeals to culture and defence in tradition of such practices. Part of the main cultural reasons for doing so is of course misogynistic; it is the traditional inference that women’s sexual parts are ‘dirty’ and its removal promotes both virginity and fidelity. So why are males circumcised for religious and cultural reasons? There is evidence that as a procedure it was a form of emasculation. We tend to forget the ritualistic forms of castration that took place across cultures the majority of which have of course been made culturally redundant. Circumcision provided two ‘benefits’; it lowered sexual arousal in young males (as someone who has not been circumcised I am able, without the need for any other lubrication to masturbate ‘dry’) and it reduced the ability of men to inseminate other women (by ‘other’, I mean not his wife). The biological reason as to why men have a foreskin is in part, to a siphon off other men’s semen if the male penetrates a women immediately after other man. For whatever ancient reason the domino effect of the practice of circumcision took off amongst Semitic peoples, it was not for health reasons. If it was for reasons of cleanliness then it was at most a subjective cleanliness.

Both male and female circumcision are first recorded in Egypt. In the case of male circumcision that practice spread to neighbouring Semitic peoples and was subsequently layered with religious significance. Female circumcision remained fairly self-contained within that area until it was utilised much, much later on by Arab and Coptic cultures. Both were originally practiced for the same reason and for the same ends regardless of what difference people now place on them.

It would be improper of me to oppose FGM without giving pause to reflect on the shared cultural history of male circumcision.

I just want to chime in that as someone who is circumsized (and against unwilling circumcision), the thousands of times I have masturbated have all been dry, and I've never needed lubricant.

God, this discussion is so weird.