• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tattooing children

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Actually, they don't have as much value as I do.

And yes, if they can do that to their own children, they're savages.

I'm aware that my culture murders millions of children each year, but I personally am opposed to that, and I haven't murdered any of my children.

So, yes, I've more value than those people do.

At the time of Pocahontas, most indian tribes engagedin internecine warfare and took gruesome trophies of their victims, most frequently their scalps. This is not "savage" in what way?
Click to expand...


Really.... interesting

So what is this universal measure of value?

I am not complaining because I think White Folks are more savage than Non-White Folks. I am complaining because you wish to donate another group of people as "savages" because they are different than you; which is what the White-Folks and the Non-White-Folks of Pocahontas did, as yo ucan tell by my little music video there ^_^
Did you know that scalping originated because the French used to pay for the scalps of the Indians?
 
rivrrat said:
Should parents be allowed to tattoo their own children - for any reason?
Click to expand...

No, not at all... Since a tattoo would not save their life, not for any reason.


If I decided that my infant would be 'less ugly' with a tattoo on his/her body, should I be allowed to have them tattooed before s/he's old enough to *really* experience the pain, or remember, or decide for themselves? What about piercing their genitals?
Click to expand...

No. For a number of common sense reasons, the easiest being that the child might not want to be tattoo(d) later..


What if it's for religious reasons?
Click to expand...

Even worse. Branding your child with your own beliefs, thus negating and or squashing of their individuality from the earliest of ages? Horrible. These people should not be parents... it is child abuse.
 
gettting inked is so much worse than genital mutilation

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

Genital "mutilation"...nice.

Personally, the absence of a fleshy and extraneous bacteria trap on the end of my penis is worth the non-memory of having it removed.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Really.... interesting

So what is this universal measure of value?

I am not complaining because I think White Folks are more savage than Non-White Folks. I am complaining because you wish to donate another group of people as "savages" because they are different than you; which is what the White-Folks and the Non-White-Folks of Pocahontas did, as yo ucan tell by my little music video there ^_^
Did you know that scalping originated because the French used to pay for the scalps of the Indians?
Click to expand...

I'm unclear on your post.

Which group of savages do I own, and to whom do you believe I intend to donate them?

As for your comment on "scalping", your ignorance is sad, truly sad. Try doing at least a rudimentary internet search before sticking your foot in your mouth like that, unless you enjoy the stretching excercise.

Also, I make no pretenses and no excuses about being descended from a savage race. That's how survival is often defined. But I don't mutilate children. Those acts of savagery are unnecessary and a violation of their right of self-determination.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
At the time of Pocahontas, most indian tribes engagedin internecine warfare and took gruesome trophies of their victims, most frequently their scalps. This is not "savage" in what way?
Click to expand...
It's not "savage" because the European colonists who settled the North American continent did the same thing.
 
Ethereal said:
Genital "mutilation"...nice.

Personally, the absence of a fleshy and extraneous bacteria trap on the end of my penis is worth the non-memory of having it removed.
Click to expand...
and yet if nobody had ever been cut, all men, and boys, and i guess mothers, would know exactly how to to clean it
just like all women know to wipe from front to back:2razz:
 
va jay jay's have all kinds of flaps and folds.
why dont we chop that **** up too
without proper care it could cause a nasty infection :roll:
 
DeeJayH said:
and yet if nobody had ever been cut, all men, and boys, and i guess mothers, would know exactly how to to clean it
just like all women know to wipe from front to back:2razz:
Click to expand...

Pffft. My mom just had my vagina sealed shut so I couldn't get any infection in there from wiping the wrong way and not cleaning myself good enough. Also had me circumcised. Both of these things greatly reduce the risk of STDs and unplanned pregnancies for me. Gotta love her for making those hard choices for me and making sure that I didn't have to actually wash myself. Can you imagine? Having to WASH yourself?
 
Well DeeJay... some cultures do.

On another note, I don't like the direction this thread is going.
 
WI Crippler said:
If its widely regarded as a cultural practice, and isn't regarded as being unhealthy or threatening to a childs life, then I don't see why not.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make if it's a cultural practice? Does that change whether or not we should allow it in our culture? Does being a "cultural" thing make it more or less right or wrong to permanently change a child's physical appearance without their consent?
 
earthworm said:
Tattooing = criminal element
Click to expand...
That made me LOL

And these mentally ill so-called "parents" want to brand their offspring for life ???
Its bad enough that some teach their children hatred and intolerance for 18 years which is even worse than branding..
Click to expand...

So, you think it's wrong to permanently, physically alter a child's body without their consent?
 
Tattoos can be removed. Circumcisions are... harder to reverse. I'm still against it, though.
 
rivrrat said:
Okay, but why not? What is so inherently wrong about allowing it?
Click to expand...

It's not your body, so it's not your choice.

Hands-off unless you have a medical reason.
 
Jerry said:
It's not your body, so it's not your choice.

Hands-off unless you have a medical reason.
Click to expand...

An actual medical reason? Or just a hypothetical one that could maybe possibly happen at some undetermined point in the future?
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
Tattoos can be removed. Circumcisions are... harder to reverse. I'm still against it, though.
Click to expand...

Tattoos is a purely decorative procedure that can painfully be removed over a period of time. There is no medical or health reason for it.

Circumcisions are medical and health procedure. Similar to tonsils, wisdom teeth, and appendix. Completely different.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
An actual medical reason? Or just a hypothetical one that could maybe possibly happen at some undetermined point in the future?
Click to expand...

The child wakes up one day as an adult and forgets who he is and where he came from and has to undergo emergency medical treatment with a drug that he happens to be allergic to. Seconds before he is given the drug he see's a tattoo of some kind on his arm that reminds him of his entire life and he suddenly remember he is allergic. His life is potentially saved because his parents had the foresight to have him get a tattoo when he was born.

Is that the medical reason? :)
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Tattoos is a purely decorative procedure that can painfully be removed over a period of time. There is no medical or health reason for it.
Click to expand...
That's true. There IS no medical reason for it. But it makes them LOOK better, isn't that enough?

Circumcisions are medical and health procedure. Similar to tonsils, wisdom teeth, and appendix. Completely different.
Click to expand...
No, they are not like tonsils, wisdom teeth or appendices. Docs don't remove tonsils or wisdom teeth or appendices unless there is an actual reason to, as opposed to a hypothetical one.

Additionally, one cannot just wash themselves better and avoid impacted wisdom teeth, or infected tonsils, or appendicitis. So really, they are not comparable.
 
Gibberish said:
The child wakes up one day as an adult and forgets who he is and where he came from and has to undergo emergency medical treatment with a drug that he happens to be allergic to. Seconds before he is given the drug he see's a tattoo of some kind on his arm that reminds him of his entire life and he suddenly remember he is allergic. His life is potentially saved because his parents had the foresight to have him get a tattoo when he was born.

Is that the medical reason? :)
Click to expand...

See? There's a good hypothetical one.
 
Gibberish said:
Tattoos is a purely decorative procedure that can painfully be removed over a period of time. There is no medical or health reason for it.

Circumcisions are medical and health procedure. Similar to tonsils, wisdom teeth, and appendix. Completely different.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. I support circumsision but not tattooing for kids. Unless you're improving your child's health, you shouldn't be messing around with their body (with semi-permanent stuff).
 
celticlord said:
It's not "savage" because the European colonists who settled the North American continent did the same thing.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is savage.

Now you're trying to either say that the European colonists weren't savage or that the activity wasn't savage because white folks did it.

Scalping is a savage act, got it?

Guess what? The indians were doing it before the white man showed up.
 
Gibberish said:
The child wakes up one day as an adult and forgets who he is and where he came from and has to undergo emergency medical treatment with a drug that he happens to be allergic to. Seconds before he is given the drug he see's a tattoo of some kind on his arm that reminds him of his entire life and he suddenly remember he is allergic. His life is potentially saved because his parents had the foresight to have him get a tattoo when he was born.

Is that the medical reason? :)
Click to expand...


That works.

Here's another one:

Tattoo HIV infected persons with the bio-hazard symbol the left buttock and on the right tattoo "Danger Do Not Enter HIV Found in Tunnel"
 
rivrrat said:
An actual medical reason?
Click to expand...

In general, when I refer to something, anything, I'm referring to an actual thing unless I specify otherwise.

Preventing a problem which might occur at some point in the distant future may or may not be an “actual” reason. Such situations are fact dependant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom