Infant Circumcision = Involuntary Mutilation @No

No Avail | Infant Circumcision = Involuntary Mutilation @No_Avail | Uploaded January 2010 | Updated October 2024, 16 hours ago.
Let's hear it...

John V. Geisheker on the marketing of circumcision:
youtube.com/watch?v=SyiBdP4GfO8

Political Essentialism As Anterior Identitarianism

Conservative Reveries: Trickle Down Pixie Dust

Plight Of Taxation: Choose What You Fund vs. More_Of_The_Same

BTW #2: A Mind Numbingly Moronic Suspension Hangs In The Air

Closing Statements Regarding The Profoundly Non-Elitist Voting Idea

Ill Take Literalists Over God Lovin Evoultionists Anyday Of The Week

$Uncancel Molyneux. Rebuke Molyneux. Response to: https://youtu.be/CIBKsqQ-irc Stefan’s new home: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/JqEoP64bHDmk/ See also: https://www.freedomain.com/ Didn’t know that Twitter also deleted him until I went to his site. Everything I said about YouTube’s TOS applies to Twitter’s TOS. Having violated none of it, he should be reinstated. The only petition I could find involving him is a 6 year old one, so if anyone knows about a newer one, point me to it and I’ll include it here. It’s 14 years of work in this case. Wiped out. Without cause. Knowledge and attitudes towards modern genetics and genomics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5256916/pdf/pone.0169808.pdf A scientifically realistic, non-deterministic, non-racialistic view of behavioural genetics is possible/credible and is explored here by Erik Turkheimer: http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/(51)%20Turkheimer%20(1998).pdf Plutocrat against plutocracy: https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming/transcript?language=en Capital markets in the 21st Century: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/capital_markets.pdf Poverty-relief / welfare-trap stuff: Internationally, the long-term effects of tax-transfer safety-net provisions have reduced poverty as intended, and are shown to be better at doing so compared to those in America precisely *because* they are more generous: http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf Study compares the U.S. to 14 other nations economically similar to it (affluent, industrialized, tech-savvy workforces). It examined, for that period “15 of the 18 most affluent OECD-member democracies with populations of at least three million”. The remaining nations (Austria, Japan, and New Zealand) were “not included due to lack of adequate poverty data”. More importantly, this is the only cross-national study that employs an absolute measure of poverty to gauge the pros/cons of welfare programs and other anti-poverty policies. Other cross-national studies employ relative measures of poverty (and run into predictable methodological duds as a result, as the authors explain). The 2nd study also assesses poverty rates across nations: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf “Once again, American transfer programs do least of the nations in this comparison group to help low-income families with children. A substantial fraction of the variance in non-elderly cross-national poverty rates appears to be accounted for not by the variation in work, but by the cross-national variation in the incidence of low pay, as shown in Figure 2. Because the United States has the highest proportion of workers in relatively poorly paid jobs, it also has the highest poverty rate, even among parents who work half-time or more. On the other hand, other countries that have a significantly lower incidence of low-paid employment also have significantly lower poverty rates than the United States.” Wiki’s (easy-to-digest) cross-national comparisons speak to the above findings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_welfare_on_poverty Includes absolute as well as relative/positional poverty figures pre and post welfare. If Molyneux and fans of statelessness wish to abolish all such programs, being charmingly oratorical about the ‘failures’ won’t convince anyone who’s even faintly aware of the above. Opponents must demonstrate with *better* data why the trends are negative rather than positive. But they’re not even trying, because it’s not about the data. Opponents of anti-poverty programs decided what they like and dislike long ago. Semi-related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending And: https://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/ Finally: Censorship not only wrongs the censored but is also, at times, counterproductive to the aims of the censor-happy doofus: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Streisand_effect$

Garys Arguments Just Dont Cut It (Circumcision)