Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2018 9:36 AM
186 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), ramoss, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 181 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,195 Year: 19,018/29,783 Month: 963/2,043 Week: 8/507 Day: 8/85 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 91 of 354 (829758)
03-13-2018 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
03-12-2018 2:38 PM


Modulous writes:

Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary.


There's no clear line between "medically necessary" and "a good idea". There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide.

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

Everything is risky.


A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever.

On the contrary, banning something because its risky has justified nothing. Crossing the street is risky but we don't ban it.

Modulous writes:

Not really - one has to cause damage in order to complete a circumcision. If you fail to damage the skin, it won't come off.


That's a self-serving definition of damage.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2018 2:38 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 1:28 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6394
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 92 of 354 (829762)
03-13-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
03-13-2018 11:40 AM


ringo writes:

It isn't up to you do decide what's unnecessary.

Is conversation restricted to those who make laws now?

And there are doctors doing it for medical reasons, not religious.

You do love your repetitions don't you? All here agree that circumcision for medical reasons is perfectly fine. No need to bring it up again, eh?

It isn't banned. You lose.

If it was banned, we wouldn't be haven't this discussion would we? Raising the consciousness of bad practices in the minds of others is how bad practices are stopped. It's already changing.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 11:40 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 1:14 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 93 of 354 (829763)
03-13-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tangle
03-13-2018 1:05 PM


Tangle writes:

Is conversation restricted to those who make laws now?


Making laws is restricted to those who make laws.

You're entitled to blather whatever you want but if you claim something "is" harmful you can expect to be challenged.

Tangle writes:

All here agree that circumcision for medical reasons is perfectly fine.


We're already having the same problems with medical marijuana. There's no clear distinction between "medical reasons" and other reasons, which is one reason why the ban is being lifted.

Tangle writes:

Raising the consciousness of bad practices in the minds of others is how bad practices are stopped. It's already changing.


See above. It's changing in the direction of not banning things.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2018 1:05 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2018 2:26 PM ringo has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 94 of 354 (829765)
03-13-2018 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
03-13-2018 11:48 AM


There's no clear line between "medically necessary" and "a good idea". There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide.

Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people.

On the contrary, banning something because its risky has justified nothing. Crossing the street is risky but we don't ban it.

Then we agree. Since I am not suggesting we ban something just because it is risky we can move on.

That's a self-serving definition of damage.

It's the definition of damage. That it supports my position can hardly be used against my point. Feel free to put forward an alternative.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 11:48 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 1:34 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 95 of 354 (829766)
03-13-2018 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Modulous
03-13-2018 1:28 PM


Modulous writes:

Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people.


Those factors are already in there.

Modulous writes:

It's the definition of damage.


Since the human body is self-repairing, there's no such thing as "the" definition of damage. "Damage" that the child doesn't even know about shouldn't be counted as damage.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 1:28 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 2:07 PM ringo has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 354 (829769)
03-13-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ringo
03-13-2018 1:34 PM


Those factors are already in there.

Yup. And this thread is part of that.

Since the human body is self-repairing, there's no such thing as "the" definition of damage. "Damage" that the child doesn't even know about shouldn't be counted as damage.

First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair.
Second point:


  1. Babies do know about it, that's why they cry and why it is recommended to use localised anaesthesia during the process, which everyone agrees does not eradicate the pain.
  2. If you mean that the child doesn't remember then

    1. So if I painfully pinch a baby constantly for two weeks is that morally OK if it grows up not remembering I did it? Is it even legally acceptable to torture a child...heck is legally or morally acceptable to inflict pain on anybody as long as they subsequently forget it happened?
    2. Not all circumcisions happen at an age that results in memory loss. Are you going to argue that circumcising should only be done on the 2 year olds and younger or 18 year olds and older - but should be considered immoral or illegal for, say, a 12 year old?

      If so - how do you avoid charges that you have crafted a legal/moral system that criminalises/demonizes Muslims (some of whom may circumcise early, but many wait until later) while allowing Jews to continue their practice as-is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 1:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 3:20 PM Modulous has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6394
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 97 of 354 (829770)
03-13-2018 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by ringo
03-13-2018 1:14 PM


ringo writes:

... if you claim something "is" harmful you can expect to be challenged.

I do claim it is harmful 200+ unnecessary deaths in the US alone. I am waiting to be challenged on this. As I am on the other tests I've rised. What I'm getting in response is your usual divertionary nonsens. No attempt to challenge fact or bring your own evidence. Just flat contradiction.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 1:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 3:23 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 98 of 354 (829815)
03-14-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
03-13-2018 2:07 PM


Modulous writes:

First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair.


Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.

Modulous writes:

Babies do know about it, that's why they cry....


Babies cry about a lot of things.

Modulous writes:

So if I painfully pinch a baby constantly for two weeks is that morally OK if it grows up not remembering I did it? Is it even legally acceptable to torture a child...heck is legally or morally acceptable to inflict pain on anybody as long as they subsequently forget it happened?


Morality is a separate issue. What we're talking about here is damage. Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening.

Modulous writes:

Are you going to argue that circumcising should only be done on the 2 year olds and younger or 18 year olds and older - but should be considered immoral or illegal for, say, a 12 year old?


Up to 18 years old, the decision is up to the parent. It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done.

Modulous writes:

If so - how do you avoid charges that you have crafted a legal/moral system that criminalises/demonizes Muslims (some of whom may circumcise early, but many wait until later) while allowing Jews to continue their practice as-is?


First, I haven't crafted any legal system; I'm just going with the one we have.

Second, nothing I've said is about morality.

Third, it's the Muslims and Jews that I'm defending. They make decisions for their children and if those decisions are actually harmful for their children, our existing legal system is capable of handling them equally.


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 2:07 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2018 5:14 PM ringo has responded
 Message 134 by Astrophile, posted 03-19-2018 7:23 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 99 of 354 (829817)
03-14-2018 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tangle
03-13-2018 2:26 PM


Tangle writes:

I do claim it is harmful 200+ unnecessary deaths in the US alone.


That's a bogus argument. It's the equivalent of saying that cars are harmful because some people die in cars. We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2018 2:26 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:48 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6394
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 100 of 354 (829826)
03-14-2018 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
03-14-2018 3:23 PM


ringo writes:

That's a bogus argument. It's the equivalent of saying that cars are harmful because some people die in cars.

No it isn't. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life.

We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority.

Of course we do, female circumcision is banned.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 3:23 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 4:16 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 101 of 354 (829833)
03-14-2018 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Tangle
03-14-2018 3:48 PM


Tangle writes:

Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life.


I don't have a car. Neither do either of my circumcised brothers. Apparently their doctor thought circumcision had its value.

Tangle writes:

ringo writes:

We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority.


Of course we do, female circumcision is banned.

It shouldn't be. That's discrimination against women. A woman should be able to choose.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:48 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 4:29 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6394
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 102 of 354 (829834)
03-14-2018 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by ringo
03-14-2018 4:16 PM


ringo writes:

I don't have a car. Neither do either of my circumcised brothers. Apparently their doctor thought circumcision had its value.

Right, you and your brothers do not use any kind of transport...I think not. You're sqirming.

It shouldn't be. That's discrimination against women. A woman should be able to choose.

Exactly. So should a man. So we're agreed, let them choose when they're of an age to be able to.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 4:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 4:34 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15774
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 103 of 354 (829835)
03-14-2018 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tangle
03-14-2018 4:29 PM


Tangle writes:

Right you and you brothers do not use any kind of transport...I think not.


We were talking about cars. Broadening that to all transport is like broadening circumcision to all elective surgery.

Tangle writes:

So we're agreed, let them choose when they're of an age to be able to.


They can. And until they're of age, their parents choose for them.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 4:29 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 PM ringo has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 104 of 354 (829838)
03-14-2018 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
03-14-2018 3:20 PM


Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.

A healed wound (often with a scar) is not a self-repaired foreskin. Foreskins don't grow back, you remove it - no human self-repair mechanisms are going to cause its return.

Babies do know about it, that's why they cry and why it is recommended to use localised anaesthesia during the process, which everyone agrees does not eradicate the pain.

Babies cry about a lot of things.

So that justifies inflicting pain on babies in your view?

Morality is a separate issue. What we're talking about here is damage.

The thread is about the morality of causing that damage. But if we're talking about damage alone then in that case it is not defined by the state of knowledge of the one damaged. If you shoot somebody in the head and they survive but they are in a persistent vegetative state - it is still called brain damage.

Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening.

Again - this justifies doing all manner of things to babies that most people would regard as immoral or illegal. So it must fail as an argument.

Up to 18 years old, the decision is up to the parent. It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done.

Continuing the theme of being able to do many things to babies such as sexually abusing them, amputating body parts, inflicting pain through extended pinching, letting them sit in dirty diapers for hours etc etc

But hey - it turns out that things that happen to babies can influence them, almost as if their brains are keyed in to learning at a tremendous rate. And well let's take a look at some evidence

Taddio et al conclude

quote:
Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants.

Boyle et al:

quote:
The body of empirical evidence reviewed here suggests that there is severe pain at the time of circumcision and shortly thereafter in unanaesthetised boys, as well as heightened pain sensitivity for some considerable period of time afterwards. Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well. A variety of forces are converging from fields as diverse as psychology, medicine, law, medical ethics, and human rights, all questioning the advisability of circumcision which originated millenia ago and was promoted in the Victorian era. As Chamberlain (1998) pointed out, "parents are not warned that their infants will endure severe pain and will be deprived of a functional part of their sexual anatomy for life." Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is now being questioned by legal and ethics scholars in an unprecedented way. The mental health community can play an important role in the growing debate about circumcision. We encourage closer examination of this issue and even more empirical research into the psychosexual sequelae associated with circumcision.

Gemmel and Boyle:

quote:
Compared to intact men, circumcised respondents were
significantly more likely to be unhappy about being circumcised...

{This sounds trivially obvious but the question this conclusion is drawn from asks uncircumcised men about their state of happiness regarding their not being circumcised...}

quote:
...expressed feelings of anger ... sadness ...being incomplete... and cheated... Other emotions more common among circumcised respondents included feeling hurt, concerned, frustrated, abnormal
, and violated

Hammond:

quote:
More than 60% of respondents who had gained knowledge about the functions of intact male genitalia recognized that circumcision had harmed them.

quote:
The results of this survey demonstrate that neonatal circumcision has profound psychological and sexual consequences for a significant number of men. The types of physical harm caused by neonatal circumcision remain largely unrecognized by the general population of non-intact males due to society-wide ignorance of the normal anatomy and functions of the intact human penis. Becoming aware of normal human male genital anatomy and function was the most important factor in recognizing the types of physical harm caused by neonatal circumcision. From this survey, it appears that subsequent to this recognition it is common for circumcised men to acknowledge that family members and respected people in the community, for example, doctors or religious leaders, are responsible for permitting this harm to occur. Many circumcised men fail to seek professional assistance because of their well-found mistrust of the medical profession, or because they are unaware of the existence of the many peer resources now available. Others are reluctant to verbalize their feelings for fear of ridicule. Some non-intact men who have sought psychological counseling have been subjected to ridicule or misunderstanding from mental health workers. Until recently, men who understood that they had been psychologically and sexually damaged by circumcision suffered in silence. Those who have verbalized their dissatisfaction with circumcision have risked violating cultural taboos about discussing the penis or questioning their society's traditional practices. The psychological impact of recognizing one's harm, as well as the potential social disapproval from disclosing one's feelings, can be managed successfully through personal foreskin restoration, peer support groups, and altruistic activism to end the practice of neonatal circumcision and spare future generations of males from experiencing the same types of harm.

First, I haven't crafted any legal system; I'm just going with the one we have.

So if the current legal system permits people to circumcise their 10 year old child for non-therapeutic reasons are you for or against that? The question in this thread isn't about describing what is, it is about what should be.

Second, nothing I've said is about morality.

We're talking about harm. This thread is about the morality of circumcision. If you merely wanted to discuss what the present state of affairs is, this is not the thread for that.

Third, it's the Muslims and Jews that I'm defending.

Yet the Muslims regularly wait until later in a child's life to circumcise. your argument has primarily hinged on points that only apply to neonatal circumcision - you have said "It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done." - and thus I asked you - what do you think should be the case...should this be something we should re-examine as legally or morally acceptable behaviour?

They make decisions for their children and if those decisions are actually harmful for their children, our existing legal system is capable of handling them equally.

As it turns out, this is not true - except in a trivial interpretation. If it were proven today without any doubt that circumcision was harmful - the existing legal system would not handle them at all. So in that case it would be 'equally' but there would be no criminal consequences for the harm caused. If the case were proven - religious special pleading is likely to impede legislative reform or the will to prosecute in this matter as it has other situations in the past and present.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 3:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 03-15-2018 12:06 PM Modulous has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6394
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 105 of 354 (829839)
03-14-2018 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
03-14-2018 4:34 PM


Ringo writes:

We were talking about cars.

You attempted a contrived, fake and restricted argument - I didn't fall for it, tough. Transport by motorbike, bus, train, taxi, bicycle, foot, plane, tram, horse - whatever, carries a risk. But not using it is impossible.

Broadening that to all transport is like broadening circumcision to all elective surgery.

Self-evidently it is not. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life.

They can.

Not if they're 7 days old.

And until they're of age, their parents choose for them.

Which is the core of the argument. Their parents harm them. They need to be stopped. Just like we do for female circumcision.

If you're just going to repeat stuff, from here you're talking to yourself. If you have any facts or evidence instead of this circular waffle, feel free to provide them.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 4:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 03-15-2018 1:53 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 03-15-2018 12:13 PM Tangle has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018