Multiculturalism

Non sequitur.

On the contrary, I'm challenging you to support how your conclusion follows. Show how multiculturalism is causing the downfall of society.

I'm advocating for using the process. Isn't it already illegal under existing laws to cut up an 11-year-old girl without anesthetic? It definitely has benefits, or don't you like pizza? It may well have harmful effects too. So does water. We have to consider the good with the bad. I have no @#$%ing idea what you're disputing. Does it? What about the human rights of the 1000 Maasai women who have experienced it and still advocate it?

"Perhaps" not. "Perhaps" you should take your own advice. Perhaps "perhaps" is a useful word after all. The way things are done in science is to say "maybe this" and then test it. What I'm saying in this thread is that we should be testing our own ideas, not just pontificating on other people's ideas.

So poison isn't a downfall? No. I think the cases you cited made wise decisions. Sentences should be based on individual circumstances and individual circumstances may sometimes include culture. Do you think water is poisonous?

The same way we'd test, "Eating pizza is immoral and should be a criminal offense." We'd need to start with a reassessment of our idea of morality.

You can't pick and choose "kinds" of multiculturalism. When immigrants come you get the whole package of their culture, the good and the bad. You can't accept or reject pizza on different principles than you accept or reject anything else.

Since "you" and "I" (and the people whom you're complaining about) don't agree on what is "better", that statement fails.

I'm not saying that what I believe "is" better. Since "my way" is what the courts are doing and what you are complaining about, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your way would be better.

In Canada, we have treaties with the aboriginal peoples in which they are considered to be "nations". They are entitled by those treaties to separate treatment under the law. There is no escaping that explicit multiculturalism.And since we are required by law to treat one cultural group differently, we are also morally obligated to at least consider treating other cultural groups differently according to their cultures.

A thousand Maasai women who have had the procedure disagree with you about FGM. Why don't you respect their opinions?

I personally would object to FGM being done. I also personally object to smoking being done but I don't object to it being "made legal". But that's a circular argument. The practices of cultural minorities are not in and of themselves "criminal" until laws are enacted that target them. And when you target a practice that is done only by Muslims, it's hard to ignore the implication that you're targeting Muslims. Are you seriously suggesting that you have no existing laws that can address cutting pieces off an eleven-year-old girl without anesthetic? So we go from "it breaches human rights" to "maybe a case can be made for it breaching human rights". Nicely tentative. That's what I'm saying: Potentially an argument can be made. I'm objecting to the position taken by Jon, Tangle and vimesey that there is no potential for argument because they are Absolutely Right™.

As I said, "We'd need to start with a reassessment of our idea of morality."When we agree on a definition of "morality" we can discuss the morality of eating pizza and the morality of FGM.

I don't think making things illegal is the be-all and end-all solution to every problem. That's what I keep saying. I didn't start this discussion. I don't know why you persist in criticizing everything I say when we don't really disagree.

No. That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting. One of the benefits of multiculturalism is that it encourages us to test our own cultural biases. For example, we can look at somebody else's attitude toward FGM to see if it has any validity - and they can look at our attitude to see if it has any validity. The quickest way to find your own biases is to have somebody with different biases point them out to you. In this case the peer group would be "humans".