Can we ban "filmstrip" pics as the first pic in the description, please? I'm not keen on them to begin with as they are difficult to browse (my browser doesn't let me scroll through the image, so if it's longer than the height of my browser, it's cut off, anyway), are often of such reduced resolution as to be useless, etc.  But the main problem is that filmstrips, when the first pic in the description, take up a huge amount of space in the "browse" view.  This has recently become a huge problem and makes sorting through new content all the more difficult.

@raphjd:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-39976018?SThisFB#

If this exact case had happened to a girl, it would be a crime.

Can the feminist cucks explain why feminists aren't screeching for equality on this?

There are two separate issues at play here:

1. The right to bodily integrity of an individual who can't speak for himself
2. Who may consent on behalf of an incompetent individual.

Here in the US our OB/Gyns and pediatricians are on record for routine neonatal circumcision for the small (ha, ha) but questionable health benefit it may impart.  Their statements make plain that bodily integrity is, well, not at all a consideration in the judgement.  Because who cares, it's just a piece of skin.  Reasonable people may disagree on whether it is justifiable to expose the entire population to the risk of harm (losing your penis! in addition to other considerations) when engaging in a routine procedure with questionable benefits, but no one can argue that (male) circumcision is generally accepted to have no medical benefit.  This is in sharp contradistinction to female genital mutilation where there is no claimed medical benefit.  Yes, there is a political issue here, no doubt, but there is also a bright line between hand-waving, possible benefit (male) and absolutely no benefit (female) – that's the key difference.

HOWEVER, the grandparents in this case, in all likelihood, did not have the right to consent to a procedure for a baby.  Therefore, not only are they possibly liable for assault and battery but the doctor who performed the operation is too, because he should have known that they were not legally responsible for the baby.  This is a legal issue whether the operation was circumcision or a tonsillectomy.  They simply didn't have the legal standing to do it.

@raphjd:

Islam is extremely anti gay.    Name a non muslim country that has the death penalty for being gay.

Spin it how you want, but Mohamed married a 6yo and fucked her when she was 9yo.   That is a fact and your justifications won't change that.

I'm not sure why you are being a muslim apologist.

Russia is extremely anti gay.  Chechnya has the death penalty for being gay.  (and Uganda, Tanzania and Sierra Leone have life imprisonment, might as well be same thing.)

Spin it how you want, but "Christians" can be just as big of anti-gay bigots as Muslims.  That is a fact and your justifications won't change that.

I'm not sure why you are being a "Christian" apologist.

@SemenDemon:

@markystarky:

Yes, obviously, there is an incredibly small minority of extremist, right-wing fringe voters who are racist, but they don't come near to representing the vast majority of poor who are voting for themselves, not against immigrants. They vote for border control because they feel abandoned by the system, not because they "hate" immigrants. Assuming all poor people are racist idiots is just as arrogant and clueless as [**assuming non-whites can't get ID's for voting [EDIT: inb4 "buuuhh! Faux News!" Would you feel better if I'd posted it from MSNBC?]. It's the typical soft classicism and racism of the privileged left that deems everyone "less" than them as helpless and weak idiots in need of their wisdom and stupid, narcissistic savior complexes, and who prefer to coddle and placate the disadvantaged than to actually help them. I grew up poor. Dirt-fucking-poor. I know what a trap the welfare system is, and how condescending the left is to its "underlings" (poor, disadvantaged people) based on personal experience.

Wisconsin, for one, would beg to differ with you.  Voter turn-out went WAY down in Milwaukee County this election.  Wonder why that might be?  Perhaps the new voter ID laws?  Care to guess what the predominant Milwaukee Co. demographic is?  (Hint: poor and minority).  Let's not kid ourselves that Voter ID laws were passed on some principled stand against (the non-existent problem of) voter fraud.  It was specifically designed to depress the Democratic turnout.  And it succeeded.  So congrats, Republican assholes, mission accomplished!**](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs#)