Multiculturalism

There is only one right answer. But that doesn't mean there is only one inherently right answer. If you have a question to ask that is not related to terminology (and even better, one that is related to Multiculturalism), then, please, ask it. I've told you that I do not consider my position one of moral absolutism. So you should know that you aren't going to get anywhere by asking me questions about moral absolutes. If your only question is what I label things, then perhaps a different thread discussing my view on morality would be a good place to ask it.For this thread, I took it for granted that we would have general agreement on basic morals. I didn't really anticipate there would be anyone who thought it was okay to practice infibulation on little girls so long as other people's cultures find it acceptable (or even desirable). The discussion you and I had about circumcision was not, in my opinion, a moral argument. I think you and I both agree that parents have the right to make decisions for their children that affect their safety and bodily integrity but that children also deserve to have their basic safety guarded against poor parenting decisions. Our disagreement is on where circumcision lies in relation to these two, occasionally conflicting, standards. But that is really a scientific dispute; not a moral one.Anyway. As far as this all concerns Multiculturalism, we just have to ask ourselves if we want a society full of tribalism, patriarchy, child sex trafficking, diseased bushmeat and all of the other problems suffered in other cultures. If we don't want that, then I think we can agree that runaway Multiculturalism (promoted in some cases) is also not something we want. It's really a matter of "what's in it for us?".So let's ask that question: There was a lot of quibbling at the start of this thread over whether there were really any negativities associated with Multiculturalism. But now I think most of us are at the point of admitting that there are enough negativities related to Multiculturalism that it is worth considering just how much Multiculturalism (if any) we want. Maintaining Multiculturalism typically requires intentional effortit's work. There are established costs (the negativities + work).Are there any benefits? What's in it for us?

What does 'inherently right' mean, in your mind? To me it simply means 'this answer has the quality of always being right'. Which seems to be your position regarding, say, FGM - no? But the thread is fundamentally about differences of view with regard to basic morals. Since the people that hold the view that FGM is good aren't participating, it seems reasonable to probe your absolute position on it: if you didn't want it to be part of the discussion, you could have not repeatedly raised it. What do you consider moral absolutism, then? If it isn't the view that there is in fact, one right moral response on the issue of FGM. It can help assimilation, increase our awareness of other ways of doing things, allowing a more reflective and hopefully more informed view of the world. It can help with reducing the desire for international conflict, can benefit those who wish to vote, allow people to settle disputes in ways of their choice, allows parents to feel comfortable sending their minority culture children to public schools, helps women from foreign cultures acquire an education they may have been denied in the home country. Fulfilment of labour shortages, a more interesting social climate, more informed citizens, more spreading of our True and Right Cultural/Moral system to people around the world. But what is 'runaway' multiculturalism? Where is it happening in practice? Well let's not pretend that society wouldn't be full of all this without immigrants. To the extent that immigrant populations may increase propensity - what policy do you think would inhibit this? Your article says this is smuggling. The U.S. Department of Agriculture rules state that it is illegal to import the stuff, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 69,000 items over four years. It mentions a number of agencies that can be involved in inspections - FWS, FDA, CDC, USDA and blames failings in the system on a potential 'diffusion of responsibility' and insufficient cooperation from the African governments. It talks about how the bushmeat trade has diminished because Africans are concerned about Ebola. You seem to not be complaining about multiculturalist policies here as I don't see any referenced in the article. At best you are complaining about multiculturalism as a descriptive fact - something you have rigorously avoided and argued was not the topic. At worst you are just complaining about immigrants.

Learn to read what I have written. It really is that simple.Laws also have the purpose of providing a framework to punish those who do not obey the laws. In the first two examples, yes, they are equally moral. In the third example it depends on the cultural context. Rape is wrong within both my particular moral example but it is also illegal regardless of whether or not it is moral or immoral.

Jon writes: Well, I guess the lesson is that we can't take that for granted. It appears to me that the discussion rapidly ascended to one about basic morals. Shoot, it almost flew up into a meta-debate about debating. Everyone in the thread is against FGM, clearly enough. But some, like Zombie Ringo, are sort of asking themselves "wait a minute - how did I arrive at that conclusion so fast?" Some might say "it's absolute" or "it's obvious". The discussion seems to be about the internal mechanism that led to this conclusion.There have been some extreme outlier examples in attempts to draw a line in the sand somewhere, similar to the punchline of the bad joke about the man offering the woman money for sex, "...now we're just haggling over the price"....

Not answer but practice. If something is inherently wrong, for example, it means that the thing itself possesses qualities that make it wrong. But as I already said: this cannot be. Right/wrong do not exist outside of our world of morals. Lions are not evil if they chase down defenseless people and maul them to death. But I think that chasing people down and mauling them to death is certainly wrong. It is wrong not because chasing people down and mauling them to death has any inherent properties that make it wrong. There is nothing inherent in the act that makes it wrong.As for FGM, I have no single view on 'FGM' just like I have no single view on 'upper-arm stabbing'. The term is so broad that it includes things clearly wrong and things in potential grey area. What does it matter what I think of moral absolutism? It's not a position I hold, so I don't see how my opinion of it can matter. Okay. I provided a lot of evidence of the negativities. I expect you'll provide evidence of these 'benefits'. Check the links in this thread. No sooner has the West finally started realizing its principles of individual freedom and liberty than it is letting those principles erode in the name of preserving or respecting cultural diversity/differences. Expulsion from the host country (and other countries where the behaviors are outlawed; supported by international agreements, etc.) for non-native-born residents. Refugee or otherwise.I have a feeling that if people knew they were going to find themselves back in their poverty-stricken, war-torn homelands if the host nations catch them continuing the practices that destroyed those homelands, they'd drop their dysfunctional cultural baggage pretty quickly.And if not? Good riddens. We don't want their tribalism. We don't want their child sex trafficking.

quote:

---

Jon in Message 24:

​

At issue are the different ways people and government's can address the concerns that arise from culture contact.

---

The topic always has been about the negativities of Multiculturalism: how they can be mitigated and how official or unofficial policy promotes those negativities by promoting (and allowing) Multiculturalism.

Did I disagree with that? Laws often have more than one purpose. Often deterrence is one of those purposes. So apparently it is okay on occasion to have laws that match our morals. Can you explain why it would have been wrong to enact laws against rape because we find hurting innocent people repulsive and immoral? Despite the fact that you feel differently (and who can say what a person who thinks lying in court is as moral as telling the truth might actually feel regardless of what they say), others find lying in court and stealing from others to be immoral acts. And despite the fact that people still commit those acts, deterrence is one reason why we have laws against them. Your silly 'contention' not withstanding.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's not a valid comparison. Note the Maasai women who have had the procedure and want the right to pass the tradition on to their own daughters. Their intent is in the best interest of the children even if it seems icky to you. Children who were beaten with a rubber hose and injected with heroin are less likely to campaign for the legal right to do it to their children. I would definitely limit imprisonment to cases where it was necesary for the immediate protection of the public - e.g. for repeat violent offenders who are almost certain to reoffend. I would not use imprisonment for retribution and I'm skeptical about the value of deterrence. And how do you know what that "something" is? If 80% of the population in nation X are practicing Catholics but only 30% of the X immigrants in Canada continue to practice Catholicism, is that because a law against Catholicism deters them? Or might it be because there is less social pressure (and I don't mean pressure in a negative sense) in a minority environment than in a majority environment?

I guess you screwed up somewhere. Sure, but that isn't absolutism. When we say 'inherent' we don't mean 'external to humanity'. You say it mauling someone to death is morally wrong for a human. That is an absolute position. The inherent quality is within our minds, where morality resides. It has the moral quality of being morally wrong. Always. Regardless of cultural context. Whatever you want to call the position that a practice is wrong regardless of cultural context - replace 'absolute' with that and answer that question instead. Name a practice that is wrong regardless of cultural context. Non-therapeutic Type III FGM on eight year olds? Hunting and mauling people to death? I already have for many of them. Here are some examples:
File Not Found - Ministry of the Attorney General
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1170952.pdf
Page Not Found | Error code 404 | Hamline University There are many. I haven't seen anything I would consider 'runaway'. What do you think of the way this is already happening? Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements? I'm pretty sure this is going on too. The men in the Rotherham child sex exploitation scandal were born in Britain - so in at least one of the cases this thread has discussed this policy would not help. Can you reference any cases where it would? I know, but Multiculturalism in this thread is about the policy of promoting cultural diversity and cultural diversity awareness. Or to provide the full paragraph:

quote:

---

At issue are the different ways people and government's can address the concerns that arise from culture contact. Multiculturalism, as political and social advocacy of cultural diversity, is one approach. It goes beyond simple respect of diversity (which I think we all agree is important) and outright promotes cultural diversity

---

There is no political or social advocacy for the illegal bushmeat trade in that article. So why bring it up?

You made the claim in Message 495 but you didn't back it up there either. You refered back to Message 359 where I answered, "Maybe," to the question, "Should we stop the need to report? Decriminalise acts that might result in you getting shot?" which refers to gunshot wounds.Why don't you just quote me where I said maybe we should legalize rape? For the same reason that children don't have the right to decide about vaccinations or going to school - because adults are responsible for making those decisions for them.

Not at all. Are they resisting? If they're squeamish about the procedure, so is anybody, of any age, who is about to have a tooth pulled. But after it's done they're relieved and often glad that it was done.Note the 1000 Maasai women who have had the procedure done and who are presumably glad they had it done since they want their daughters to have it done - or at least have the right to have it done. Why do you dismiss their feelings on a subject that they probably understand better than you do? Male circumcision was what you asked about. But we're not talking about mothers "getting kicks" from abusing their children. Were talkng about mothers who have had the procedure themselves and who think it is valuable for their daughters. It's not about "wielding power" at all. Your right to decide what consitututes "harm" is also limited.

I asked 'Do you think parents that get their children addicted to heroin should face no penalty?', you answered with 'Is penalizing the parents good for the children?' I argued it was. So again - do you think such parents should be punished and potentially have their custody rights removed? What about the grand-daughters?If Person A mutilates their child, person B, aged ten. Then person A goes to prison for ten years. Person B spends the rest of their childhood without Person A, who they were fond of. Person B gives birth to Person C. Regardless of moral/cultural views, might Person B give weight to the idea that if she mutilates Person C, Person C (and Person B) may have to spend the rest of Person C's childhood in prison when deciding whether to do it? If I was claiming to know, I wouldn't have said 'something'. I would have said whatever it was I believed to be the definitive answer. But obviously there is no one definitive answer to complex social questions. Well if there was such a law punishable for longer than rape is, I'm pretty sure that would factor into deconversion just as the Muslim jizya is credited as a significant factor in so many people quickly converting to Islam.In my mind both social and legal pressures are significant factors in the 'something' that might be resulting in the reduction of the practice.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Doctor's report gun shot wounds, but this deters people from visiting a hospital if they have been involved in criminal activity. Should we stop the need to report? Decriminalise acts that might result in you getting shot?

---

Maybe

---

I asked if we should decriminalise what is currently criminal activity, that can result in you getting shot and might realistically deter you from seeking medical attention for the gunshot wound because of the fear of the legal consequences of so doing. Robbery, murder, rape, arson all seem like likely candidates for crimes one might risk one's life to avoid legal consequences in some contexts.You said 'maybe' as in 'maybe we should decriminalize these kinds of acts'. Acts that include rape. School is mandatory, so there is no consent involved.
Vaccinations are necessary, so the consent of the parents is required as the child cannot give it (or it is mandatory).
Slicing pieces off the labia for no medical reason is not necessary or mandatory - nor is there any particularly compelling argument that it is in the child's interests. They are not remotely comparable situations.I have a right to my own genitals. All humans are born with rights to their body. Parents don't get to consent to violating another person's rights. My parents (or more likely, my wife) can make medical decisions for me if I am not able to consent (psychotic, unconscious, confused etc) - but they don't have the right to cut pieces of my body off unless there is some medical necessity for this decision. So what part of the construction of rights means that children don't get this right until...what age? Where is this written? And what age can you no longer impose medically unnecessary genital cosmetic surgery on people for whose best interests you are legally bound to advocate for? 16? 18? 21? 25? Do you think I should request my wife's breasts be enlarged or reduced to my tastes while she is under general anaesthetic and no longer able to consent? Why is it OK to do this if the person is just young?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

As I said, I don't think any letter of the alphabet should be sent to prison unless there is a clear and present danger of reoffending. If mother Q abused daughter R, daughter S, daughter T and daughter U, then judge I might consider it appropriate to send mother Q to prison to protect daughter V. That is, of course, assuming that the "abuse" is in fact abuse.

No. I said, "maybe," to the question you asked, which was about gunshot wounds. I said nothing about any crimes that "seem likely" to be worth risking one's life to cover up. Any suggestion that I was refering to rape in any way is a ridiculous stretch.So, I definitely did NOT suggest making rape legal. You claim it is not in the child's interest. The mothers who have had the procedure themselves disagree with you. They seem to think the argument is compelling.

My answer was in response to your skepticism regarding the value of punishment as deterrence. I was pointing out that such value may be seen over generations.Why do immigrants regularly travel overseas to perform the op, if they are concerned about possible legal consequences in the UK or wherever? Why are French girls being sent to the UK for FGM where the laws are not as well enforced?Clearly people are taking steps to avoid being caught. Is it so unlikely that one of these steps might be to not perpetrate FGM? Especially if more measures are taken towards detection and prosecution of the crimes.