What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Circumcision and Female genital mutilation.

Spaventa

...
Veteran
I love playing paintball too, wish I could still get a decent crew for an all out paintball war like we did when I was a kid. I blame the internet!! Now whenever I see a childhood friend they can't seem to go 20 fucking minutes without looking into their cell phone!! It really grinds my gears. Lol, Everyone tells me to get a cell phone and I'm just like "fuck that I'm right fucking here!!" Lol

Damn, do I miss the old days, back when Hightimes magazine was still cool. :smokey:

I really feel bad for kids these days, they will never know what life is all about.

I agree, my 4 daughters are all into nature, wildlife, archery, running cross country, playing in bands :woohoo:
 

Spaventa

...
Veteran
Not true.

Adrenochrome is just oxidized epinephrine. Leave a vial of epinephrine in the sun and you get adrenochrome.
Why would anyone belief children are chained up in secret facilities, tortured and then get their blood drained while anything can be synthesized?

Read the following link for some more info about adrenochrome.
It also has tripreports.

https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/adrenochrome/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenochrome

No, it is true, whether you deny it or not.

From the the wiki page you provided the link to

"Several small-scale studies (involving 15 or fewer test subjects) conducted in the 1950s and 1960s reported that adrenochrome triggered psychotic reactions such as thought disorder, derealization, and euphoria."

It does say after that the results of these studies are "hypotheses", despite them actually being the results of studies, and "were never scientifically accepted" but it doesn't provide any evidence to support that. How can any individual or group claim that nobody accepted something - Im quite sure they didn't survey the entire population or even all of the scientific community, because if they had, there would be a source provided.

It also says this under "In popular cultural"

Author Hunter S. Thompson mentions adrenochrome in his book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The adrenochrome scene also appears in the novel's film adaptation. In the DVD commentary, director Terry Gilliam admits that his and Thompson's portrayal is a fictional exaggeration. In fact, Gilliam insists that the drug is entirely fictional and seems unaware of the existence of a substance with even a similar name.

If you can accept the part in bold, that it is pure coincidence, you are lost.

There is an explanation for any tests that did not prove its psychoactive effect - it has to be fresh from a living human donor. The adrenochrome used in labs is obviously not from a living human donor since it is only released into the blood stream when the subject is traumatised, terrorised or in great pain.

This from the wiki page explains why you would get false negatives on that assessment with in vitro adrenochrome - its not real in vivo adrenochrome, fresh from a tortured human.

"In vivo, adrenochrome is synthesized by the oxidation of epinephrine. In vitro, silver oxide (Ag2O) is used as an oxidising agent"

The imitation stuff obviously does have characteristics and features common with adrenochrome, sufficient to call it that but obviously that doesn't make it the same thing - Water and alcohol are both transparent fluids but they are not the same thing, at all. I give this as an example.

Its obvious that if our brains and glands make chemical compounds, that affect our feelings to mitigate pain and trauma, you have a compound that does the opposite - euphoria and physical wellbeing. In someone who is in great pain, this would just help a bit but if harvested and given to someone immediately who feels great already, they will feel AMAZING.

Just common sense really, basic stuff even the average person should be able to understand.

adrenochrome-hillary-as-chappelle-yall-got-an-more-of-that.jpg

images
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Female genital mutilation varies... Some places remove just the clit, and at it's most extreme everything external is removed. It seems to be mostly an African & Middle Eastern practice but some parts of Asia practice this as well. The extent that some countries practice this is pretty disturbing... in many North/Eastern African countries (Somalia, Djibouti, Mali, Sierra Leone, etc) more than 90%+ of women have undergone this procedure.

it is going on here in the US now in certain immigrant enclaves. horror stories...
 

Hempy McNoodle

Well-known member
Both desensitise the victims genitals and have an irreversible, detrimental affect on sexual function.

Both are widely practised in accordance with teaching of Judaism and Islam.

Both are carried out on infants. No choice is given.

If the only difference is that one applies to male infants and the other applies to female infants, why is one of them legal everywhere, socially accepted by all and the other isn't? I thought equality was the thing these days, no?

I think it has a lot to do with the influence of certain religions over others.
 
Top