INTERVIEW TEASER: Tony (who still sucks and isn’t sweet at all)

Yes, loyal readers, the Tony saga continues. Because I’m quite frankly getting sick of hyperlinking back to every single goddamn article in this ongoing epic, I will summarize thus:

Tony is a dude who isn’t sweet and thinks Mike Gatto supports genital mutilation. (Seriously. He does. I couldn’t make this shit up.) But as we all know, there are at least 10 compelling reasons why Mike Gatto is a sweet dude, and I have little to no patience for dudes like Tony and Restoring Tally who choose to project their own phallic insecurities onto the magnificent Stud Sheriff of Sacramento himself.

In his latest attempt at a cohesive rebuttal, Tony states:

“I don’t expect a newborn baby to make this decision, or any decision. But the standard for proxy consent (i.e. parental authority) is not “babies can’t make decisions for themselves”. And you have a curious understanding of what “force” entails. I think that every single male should be able to choose, absent medical need before he is able to decide for himself. No male should be forced to live with a circumcision he does not need, probably won’t need, and may not want. I don’t think this requires that he wait until he’s an adult to choose, but it should never be forced on him without need or his consent.”

Here is the first question I would like to ask Tony:

If this is truly what you believe, isn’t it the parents of circumcised children and not Mike Gatto who are the real genital mutilators?

Stay tuned. The full interview is coming soon.

Advertisements

About Daulton Gatto (no relation to Mike Gatto)

I am a sweet dude, but nowhere near as sweet as Mike Gatto. (I am not related to Mike Gatto. Our identical last name is purely a coincidence.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to INTERVIEW TEASER: Tony (who still sucks and isn’t sweet at all)

  1. Tony says:

    “Tony is a dude who isn’t sweet and thinks Mike Gatto supports genital mutilation. (Seriously. He does. I couldn’t make this shit up.) …”

    The number of incorrect claims about my position that you should retract increased again. In my last post, I wrote: “Mike Gatto protected genital mutilation. I do not know if he supports genital mutilation. …” I can’t make it clearer than that. And earlier, I wrote: “… I don’t even assume that [Mike Gatto] and his wife would have any sons circumcised. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. …” It’s this continued apparent failure to comprehend that made me laugh when I read Jarvis’ comment on your last post to me that we’re reaching a mutual understanding.

    Anyway:

    “If this is truly what you believe, isn’t it the parents of circumcised children and not Mike Gatto who are the real genital mutilators?”

    Of course it’s parents – and the individual who performs the circumcision – who violate the child’s bodily integrity. Mike Gatto introduced legislation to protect their (illegitimate) legal authority to violate male children. The violation and the protection to violate are distinct issues. The latter is contemptible on its own, which is my criticism of Mike Gatto in his capacity as a legislator bound to protect the rights of all California citizens.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s