Vickie

miel

i will have to try that on my husband !!! good advice !

leeanne

Uvlollypop

i was gunna say nips are good for pinching when annoyed!! lol

Suz

PeanutBean

OK so whose views have I been belligerent to? You'll notice that neither of my posts in this debate have mentioned either my own opinions on circumcision nor said anything about anybody else's.

You said these parts were useless so I explained why they are there and/or what their functions are. By all means question things but you ought to be prepared to hear answers - that's what questions are for, finding out.

StirCrazy

You posted:
bel·lig·er·ent (bə-lĭj'ər-ənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.

n.

One that is hostile or aggressive


oh look I can copy and paste too... So yes that was a 'hostile' post.

I didn't ask what all those body parts were for; I asked what were male nipples for...? and I was right, those body have no real use.

Not only that but you completely ignored my reason for posting in the first place. It was to address this comment:
feel free to quote wikipedia at me anytime you like, it doesn't make what I said wrong or you smart!

PeanutBean

Yes thank you, I know what belligerent means. But I was neither hostile nor aggressive. Two posts in a debate of 16 pages is hardly eager or inclined to fight. When I said jovially "do not question the function of the body parts" it was meant to be lighthearted for the very reason that I wasn't getting personal (as you now are with me in what I would say is in an unacceptable manner with your "oh look I can copy and paste too..."), but merely providing some information to the people looking at this forum in relation to the things you had posted. If, without a sprinkling of lols and rofls, my post came across as offensive then I apologise.

I didn't ignore your reason for posting, I just didn't refer to it as I wasn't responding to your reason but to what you said.

In your original post you asked "Why do men have nipples?" so I explained why men have them. No they don't have an overt function in men (other than giving pleasure) but if men didn't have them then neither would women because that is how the baby develops. They are hardly a body part comparable with the foreskin anyway, it's not like women have a foreskin with some great function like with nipples.

You then listed "six other useless parts of the body" so I found out their uses (if I didn't already know them) and shared the information with the list. I'm afraid you were wrong when you stated that these parts were useless, but I wasn't trying to be smart, I was just trying to keep the debate informed as all real debates should be. Perhaps you object to that. I notice that others who responded to my post did not feel the need to attack me for providing some interesting information.

I have followed this debate with interest and seen the passion that people feel one way or another about this issue. I didn't want to say anything about my own opinion on this issue as I neither wanted to offend anyone nor did I feel that a forum where I don't know anyone personally would be an appropriate place to question people for their beliefs. The only two posts I have made have been in response to comments made of a scientific ilk (of which I do know something above mere opinion) in an effort to help the debate by keeping it informed. That these first two posts came from people for (or possibly in your case not against) circumcision is irrelevant. If someone against had quoted something medical/scientific that was incorrect or tenuous I would still have felt compelled to redress the balance - bad science is bad science whatever opinion it is used to back up. It could certainly be argued that this is a cultural issue and not a scientific one, but in such a case science should not then be used to back up opinions.

Uvlollypop

Many eye pokes </Hides in cupboard/>

StirCrazy

I didn't say they had no function... I said 'useless', as in having no useful purpose (the antonym of useful being useless).

Without copy and pasting "redress the balance" and point out which of those body parts are useful? You can remove everyone of those part simaltaniously and the human body wouldn't even notice.

...and you still ignored my point... the point was the 'mother nature' argument doesn't hold water (as proved in this thread Baby born with a penis on his BACK!)

You can't claim "bad science" when you misquote the orginal argument.