I think its just precious when we find intactivists' online trying to argue with some disgusting filth online who normally tries to justify their child's genital mutilation after posting pictures of their "cute perfect angels" prior to being mutilated. Signing a piece of paper called a "consent forum" (read: ethical liability waiver) to have their son get a "medical procedure" which consists in the destruction of healthy tissue based on junk science with no reference is one thing, but plastering how great of a parent you are all over the internet THEN having the pedophile with a knife mutilate them before CONTINUING to present yourself as a "ideal mother," is another. People are stupid, and they don't know what they're talking about, the very fact that they have to construe this as an exchange between "consent" and "healthcare" is symptomatic- the question we should all ask is "what are they trying to repress?"
We all know this poses a chance of death in addition to the absolute certainty of sexually harming an infant- mainstream society may try to recoil in horror at us comparing them to child molesters, yet they are the ones who resort to this claim that their sons penises are MORE VISUALLY APPEALING as a result or that this mutilation makes penises more visually appealing. In what way is never expicitly stated but this is intentional, ultimately it is no different from being aroused by a childs genitals. Your sons penis is not supposed to be appealing to you- if you think otherwise and are prepared to act accordingly you are a child molester by definition.
I understand the attempts by people like Gregory Malcuk to "call these people out," but a more successfull method would be to interact in a way geared towards them saying the most disgusting things imagineable then waiting until their sons grow up to send it to them. They have no right to expect anything except hatred from them and are lucky to get anything short
We all know this poses a chance of death in addition to the absolute certainty of sexually harming an infant- mainstream society may try to recoil in horror at us comparing them to child molesters, yet they are the ones who resort to this claim that their sons penises are MORE VISUALLY APPEALING as a result or that this mutilation makes penises more visually appealing. In what way is never expicitly stated but this is intentional, ultimately it is no different from being aroused by a childs genitals. Your sons penis is not supposed to be appealing to you- if you think otherwise and are prepared to act accordingly you are a child molester by definition.
I understand the attempts by people like Gregory Malcuk to "call these people out," but a more successfull method would be to interact in a way geared towards them saying the most disgusting things imagineable then waiting until their sons grow up to send it to them. They have no right to expect anything except hatred from them and are lucky to get anything short
Comment