And they explained away Khan's original appearance being transformed into Khanberbatch as just futuristic cosmetic surgery in the prequel comic I think.

But yes, it's still stupid. In their defense, how else were they going to do Khan? The person would have had to have looked like Montalblan otherwise.

But going back to stupid since it was just stupid to reboot the Khan storyline. Cuz yeah, a genetic superman from the 1990s would be a really big help fighting a war in 2200s. Obviously war in the 2200s is exactly the same as it was in 1900, no leap in logic for this fossil to design a hyper advanced starship that dwarfs the flagship of the day...not at all.

besides, being put through years of psychiatric and medical and legal inquiry before a procedure like this can be done is by no means a magic failsafe that this could never happen to the wrong person who didn't really "need it"

people can be bought. Just take a look at regular cosmetic surgery. You think for one second those people care about the ethics of what they're doing? Nope, it's just a price tag that needs to be met and they'll do whatever cutting on a whim if someone pays the right price. All most of these people see is a market to be exploited and weak-minded people to prey upon their insecurities

Petras couldn't even articulate in a mature way how people react to her when they find out that she used to be a boy. But yet we just accept it at face value that she's mature enough to make a lifelong decision like this?

Surprised that this guy wasn't featured in the piece!

The "medical ethics" they refer to at the end of the piece is not that much different than cosmetic surgery (which might even include limb lengthening).

Also wondering why there was no mention of this documentary which came out a few years ago and is all about transhumanism.

I merely stated my opinion on what I view as an easy moral dilemma. No need to call me names. You seem to base your argument on freedom. That's exactly what I do too: The freedom of males to make their own choices regarding cosmetic surgery on their genitals. It seems to me you value the freedom of the parents higher. I can see where you're coming from, but to me the individual concerned always weighs heavier in such moral arguments.

Let it be known that I don't want a ban on circumcition per se. If someone wants to make that decision for themselves when he comes of age, for religious reasons or otherwise, I have no problem with it. My problem is when someone else (in this case parents) removes irreversibly the opportunity to choose yourself.
>> ^VoodooV:

Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.
and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.
As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

I dug Rise of the Planet of the Apes too. Part of the reason Ceasar seemed so human was that Andy 'Gollum' Serkis did the motion capture.

I do love me some dystopian apocalyptic fiction, and had no problem cheering on the apes, but I certainly don't have a societal death wish. Quite the contrary. I think these films are more of a warning of what may happen if we don't get our collective shit together as a planet. I think these films are an exaggeration of the problems of the present - greed, selfishness, conformity, commercialization, corporatism, the devaluation of humanity, disconnectedness, environmental destruction, weapons of mass destruction, cosmetic surgery, prescription drugs, a return to base human violence, loveless sexuality, prejudice, etc. The post apocalypse is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

I am asking, and this is my main point, which you need to address, can parents make any decisions related to cosmetics? Or is it limited to what you and I use as our subjective standards? For example, can a parent have the earlobe removed because it will make the baby more beautiful/handsome to the parent? It is, after all, reasonable to point out that both are harmless cosmetic adjustments. (And why note that a parent has a right to have one cosmetic surgery but be a hypocrite and say that the same parent does not have the right to have another.)

Can a parent have a harmless lip-reduction done on a child? Or how about removing the nipples on boys? I ask because some parents do have these surgeries done... and it seems you are fine with them...because they do not leave trauma.

Also, we can speculate a bit on the extent of damage, but damage to the body does rewire the brain. You blind a man, you just don't take his sight, his brain rewires to the physical trauma...

Some studies suggest that ripping an infant's dick skin off creates aggressive tendencies later in life. Do I "have an idea of" how far that damage or violence caused might be. No. But we all DO know that physical trauma does propagate violence.

And removing some of the earlobe is not like removing all of the foreskin. All the earlobe and all the foreskin. Just because you leave actual dick skin, that doesn't equate to the foreskin...

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
Read the link I posted if you'd like to know how to get rid of your scar. It explains the procedure pretty clearly (and is apparently painless).
I understand that you don't believe ear piercing and male circumcision are equivalent. That doesn't mean they aren't equivalent, though. You just don't agree with me, just as I don't agree with you that circumcision is akin to chopping off earlobes. I'd say shaving the earlobes a little bit would be a better comparison and I suppose it is just a quirk of fate that such a cosmetic change is not considered aesthetically pleasing by any particular cultural group. So, on that point I think we're pretty much at a draw.
As to your second point, it doesn't matter that "you have no idea what happens" to the brain during a circumcision. The medical consensus is that it isn't harmful physiologically or psychologically to children. If there's no evidence, how can you legislate against it? You have no idea if eating apples causes cancer, do you? There's no medical evidence for it. Do you see my point here? Saying "you have no idea what happens" isn't a defensible argument in any way.
My primary concern is the medical consequences of the procedure. If there are none (and there don't appear to be so far--who knows what they'll find in the future) and if the process is reversible (which, if you read the link I posted apparently it is) then I don't see the need to legislate against it other than because of someone's Don Quixotic profound interest in interfering with how other people live their lives. There are far better and more serious issues to campaign for than this.

Tummy Tuck Cost
Plastic Surgery
cosmetic surgery
breast augmentation

The only thing I can think is that as a result of a cosmetic surgery, either the shaving of the adam's apple or perhaps an operation on the larynx to raise the pitch of her/his voice, something went horribly awry and now this person can't really speak properly.

That or they just have a SEVERE speech impediment.

Fat transfer cosmetic surgery can do a lot for her. Too bad they're so poor. Seriously, 7 children wtf? And the mother blaming her bad choices on her syndrome? What a bad example she's setting up for her children.

Looking Major Tom in the molars.

Could the artistry of David Bowie be tied somehow to the appearance of his teeth? That appears to be the subtext of the video. I find it interesting that Rolling Stone’s Alan Light feels that after Bowie cranked out not only Ziggy Stardust, but Hunky Dory, Low, Station to Station, etc., the one thing “holding him back” was a self-consciousness about his teeth. Hmm, by that logic…did cosmetic surgery beget Tin Machine?!

I wonder how long til they make it human sized and they make millions from the latest in cosmetic surgery techniques.

Is this narrated by Rick Steves?

>> ^demon_ix:
Maybe if they didn't feel obligated to Photoshop every single image, 12 year old girls wouldn't be so desperate to get cosmetic surgery...

The good news for them is eventually these algorithms will be real-time, and all physical interaction will be obsolete, so it won't matter what we look like since all our blemishes and imperfections will be corrected on the outgoing feed.

>> ^demon_ix:
I used to think it was cool. Now I'm closer to thinking that Photoshop is destroying society.
Faces become smooth, boobs become bigger, stomach fat disappears, eyes and hair get colored. There's hardly a single photo in a magazine which hasn't been "retouched" before it was published.
Maybe if they didn't feel obligated to Photoshop every single image, 12 year old girls wouldn't be so desperate to get cosmetic surgery...
Some more:
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/25/celebrities-before-and-after-photoshop/



Great link, thanks for that. Of course magazines have always presented unrealistically perfect looking people by means of unnatural lighting, makeup, and simply picking the unusually good looking to be models. Photoshop has taken that to a new extreme, but the "artform" of making people look better for photos was already very far along.

I have sympathy for the young girls who genuinely are naive enough to think there's something wrong with them for looking perfectly normal. But I see more hope in educating young girls (and boys) on photo manipulation and other tricks, then getting the industry to throw out the craft they've painstakingly developed over several decades.

I used to think it was cool. Now I'm closer to thinking that Photoshop is destroying society.
Faces become smooth, boobs become bigger, stomach fat disappears, eyes and hair get colored. There's hardly a single photo in a magazine which hasn't been "retouched" before it was published.



Maybe if they didn't feel obligated to Photoshop every single image, 12 year old girls wouldn't be so desperate to get cosmetic surgery...

Some more:
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/25/celebrities-before-and-after-photoshop/

^ Yeah, I've often thought what a shame it was that he turned into a nutcase. He is and was a cultural icon, and I would've loved to see his music evolve through the last decade without it being overshadowed by whatever it was that was making him do the cosmetic surgery and all the other insane things.