Multiculturalism

I don't think I've said that circumcision, no matter how extreme, is not mutilation. I've said it's not necessarily abuse.And you're still not answering the question: Where do you draw the line? What level of "alteration" less than FGM would be acceptable to you?

You're forcing them to choose between the law and their religion/culture. You're forcing them to choose between prison and social rejection. As I often tell Phat, it isn't much of a choice.

Yes, a million social services providers are completely arrogant because they insist that they know and decide what is harmful to a child, and will remove that child from the parents if a threshold is reached.And with that, I can concur of your judgement unto me, . . . if requesting/demanding safe health and safe environments for children makes me arrogant, . . . then arrogant be I.

Maybe English isn't your first language. What do you think is the difference between those two questions?I have said more than once that there is nothing, whether a cultural practice or anything else - NOTHING - that is impossible that I want to do. Stopping things immediately is impossible. Therefore, the set of things that I want to stop immediately is empty. I said "on the whole" - i.e. the whole of society. If a handful of women lose their clitoris, you won't even notice unless you're peeking under their skirts. But we have stories in the newspapers every day about people wholes lives and whose families' lives were ruined by gambling.So gambling is a problem in our society. I would like to see it diminished, though I'm not optimistic that it will be. And I'm certainly not idiotic enough to think it can be stopped, either immediately or eventually.

Read what I wrote again. The word "they" refers to the ones who have (supposedly) been brainwashed - i.e. the women who have been circumcised and who want their daughters to be circumcised. You're arrogant for thinking that you know their minds better than they do.

Remember when I warned you against be weaselly? Don't make me go all schoolmarm on ya. Sheesh, I thought I have been abundantly clear.

By all means go all schoolmarm on me. Point out where I said that circumcision is not mutilation. It may be a typo or it may be your characteristic illiteracy. No, as far as I can tell you've been completely silent. Give us an example of what would be acceptable to you.

Yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, social workers do this type of thing, assessing the welfare of children through the actions and thoughts of parents, all the time.Does this really surprise you? I can assure you It's not through magical processes Ringo.

Now now, play nice. Does the following jog your memory:

quote:

---

Mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation
Wikipedia
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.

​

Male circumcision does not degrade the pleasurable function. (it often increases pleasure because woman like it more)
Female circumcision (especially removal of the clitoris) degrades the pleasurable function.

---

They do that on an individual basis, not across whole cultures. You know, like they might decide that one black man is lazy but they don't project that conclusion on all black men.It may be that some women who favour FGM have been brainwashed and/or coerced but you have no basis for drawing a blanket conclusion about all of them.

No. I'm asking for them to not cut their children and telling them that if they do, they will be subject to UK law. And it's not a religious practice, it's a cultural practice. No. I'm telling them that FGM is illegal in their new country, (which they knew before they arrived) so if they wish to mutilate their child, they must stay in their home country or risk being prosecuted for doing it here. Occasionally, that might result in a prison sentence.By choosing not to mutilate children they will gain wider acceptance in the UK and not be restricted to their old culture - if they come here they need to be prepared to compromise some primitive practices and attempt to assimilate and abide by our cultural practices - ie the law. But it is a choice, a very good one.

So are you withdrawing the accusation that I said circumcision is not mutilation? My memory is long and occasionally accurate. What I asked you was about a line. Are you saying that there is nothing between male circumcision and female circumcision? Because I've been saying that the only difference is in degree and I've gotten some flak over that. If you agree with me, thanks for the support. If not, please answer the question: Where do you draw the line?

That's what Phat always says.But it's you who thinks it's a good choice, not the people who actually have to make the choice. Tell me the two things you'd least like to do and I'll give you a choice between them. Some choice.

I, I have stated female "circumcision" is mutilation. I, I previously wrote "Female circumcision (especially removal of the clitoris) degrades the pleasurable function." Therefore it is a definition of mutilation. The mutilation of children is wrong and should be illegal. Parents who mutilate their children should go to jail.If you wholly agree with my statement above, there is nothing to argue, and naturally, I withdraw my argument against you. I, I have stated female "circumcision" is mutilation. I, I previously wrote "Female circumcision (especially removal of the clitoris) degrades the pleasurable function." Therefore it is a definition of mutilation. The mutilation of children is wrong and should be illegal. Parents who mutilate their children should go to jail.It seems you keep asking me to repeat myself in this thread, so at this point, if you do not agree with my argument above, I'm gonna bow out and let others do the lifting. Good luck Tangle, et al.

It's the UK society that are quite rightly setting out the terms by which foreigners may live in its society. That's the deal, take it or stay at home where your cultural practices are not regarded as inhumane and illegal.