Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 121 of 357 (829908)
03-16-2018 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ringo
03-16-2018 1:09 PM


ringo writes:
Facts and evidence don't justify trampling on individual rights.
ie, you have no facts and are forced to admit that I have.
And if the facts are that babies are dying because of an unnecessary operation, rational people decide against the operation. Individuals do not have a right to harm others.

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 120 by ringo, posted 03-16-2018 1:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 03-16-2018 2:50 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:33 PM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 357 (829909)
03-16-2018 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
03-16-2018 2:41 PM


Why do hospitals circumcise infants anyway? Isn't that the job of the rabbis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 2:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 123 of 357 (829910)
03-16-2018 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
03-16-2018 2:50 PM


Faith writes:
Why do hospitals circumcise infants anyway? Isn't that the job of the rabbis?
I've no idea what happens in the US but here in the UK...
quote:
Not many NHS trusts fund circumcision for non-medical reasons, because the risks outweigh the potential health benefits. However, sometimes religious or cultural male circumcision is offered on the NHS, as it is safer than the circumcision being carried out elsewhere.
In Scotland, it's recognised that circumcision in a safe, sterile environment, by a skilled surgeon, is better than the risks associated with unsafe, unregulated ritual practices.
Circumcision in baby boys - BabyCentre UK

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 122 by Faith, posted 03-16-2018 2:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 124 of 357 (829945)
03-18-2018 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Modulous
03-16-2018 1:08 PM


Modulous writes:
Because we both agree that child sexual abuse or cutting a child's ears off is still harmful and/or damaging even if the child forgets the harm or damage as it grows older.
Cutting ears off is not the same as circumcision. A child with no ears will be reminded of it every time he looks in the mirror and every time the other children mock him. On the other hand, a circumcised child might not ever notice the difference.
Modulous writes:
Are the Nazis our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion?
Yes, the Nazis are my forefathers. And yes, the German people were considered among the most enlightened in Europe except for the Nazi interlude. And yes, we can hopefully learn from their mistakes.
Modulous writes:
... the fear of appearing to target a group should not be a reason to tolerate practices by that group if it is shown those practices are harmful.
But it has not been shown to be generally harmful, as the Jews and Muslims can testify. If banning circumcision was for the express purpose of persecuting Jews and Muslims, would it still be justifiable in your eyes?
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves
This is not universally true, unless you want to argue banning child sexual abuse has caused more problems than it has solved or torture or...
It's true enough for us to err on the side of caution and not ban things willy-nilly.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you
Tyranny of the majority?
No. Preventing the minority from tyrannizing the majority.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me.
Non therapeutic neonatal circumcision is something done to other people, not oneself.
Maybe I haven't mentioned this before but children are not capable of giving consent.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem.
People do talk about circumcision as a problem
Then let it be their problem and don't let them impose their solution on people who don't think it's a problem.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.
Nonsense
Ask a parent. Most of them would rather be harmed themselves than see their children harmed.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Damage is a matter of opinion.
It's pretty well defined
Obviously not, since most circumcised men don't consider themselves damaged or harmed.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide.
Doctors are capable of doing harm - See Mengele since Nazis are on the table
So deal with the ones that do do harm and leave the others to do their job.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
the human body is self-repairing
Just because amputation wounds heal it does not mean amputation is not damage, particularly amputation of a healthy body part
It pretty much does, unless you want to say that every car rolling down the street is damaged.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.
Damage doesn't become not-damage if you forget that it happened.
It isn't damage at all unless the owner considers it damage.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc.
Belief should not be a defence against something being criminalised.
Then you might as well throw freedom of opinion out the window.

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 119 by Modulous, posted 03-16-2018 1:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 3:05 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 125 of 357 (829946)
03-18-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
03-16-2018 2:41 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Facts and evidence don't justify trampling on individual rights.
ie, you have no facts and are forced to admit that I have.
The fact I have is that circumcision is an accepted practice.
Tangle writes:
And if the facts are that babies are dying because of an unnecessary operation, rational people decide against the operation.
So you're calling my parents irrational.

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 121 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 2:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 2:45 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 126 of 357 (829949)
03-18-2018 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
03-18-2018 2:33 PM


Ringo writes:
The fact I have is that circumcision is an accepted practice.
So was bear baiting, knuckle fighting, slavery, racial discrimination, homosexual imprisonment, speeding, drunk driving, smoking in public, urinating in the street, corporal punishment.....need I go on?

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 125 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:50 PM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 127 of 357 (829950)
03-18-2018 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tangle
03-18-2018 2:45 PM


tangle writes:
ringo writes:
The fact I have is that circumcision is an accepted practice.
So was bear baiting, knuckle fighting, slavery, racial discrimination, homosexual imprisonment, speeding, drunk driving, smoking in public, urinating in the street, corporal punishment.....need I go on?
You could mention some things that used to be banned but the ban was lifted: abortion, alcohol, marijuana (in progress), interracial marriage, integrated schools, integrated restaurants, integrated buses, integrated water fountains.... Need I go on?

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 126 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 2:45 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 3:50 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 128 of 357 (829951)
03-18-2018 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
03-18-2018 2:29 PM


Cutting ears off is not the same as circumcision. A child with no ears will be reminded of it every time he looks in the mirror and every time the other children mock him. On the other hand, a circumcised child might not ever notice the difference.
Although some percent of people say they don't know their circumcision status - most people do know.
Yes, the Nazis are my forefathers. And yes, the German people were considered among the most enlightened in Europe except for the Nazi interlude. And yes, we can hopefully learn from their mistakes.
But no, the Nazis were not who you were referring to when you spoke of our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion.
But it has not been shown to be generally harmful
And if it was?
If banning circumcision was for the express purpose of persecuting Jews and Muslims, would it still be justifiable in your eyes?
No.
It's true enough for us to err on the side of caution and not ban things willy-nilly.
'Willy-nilly' is an unfortunate choice of words. But no, I'm not proposing we ban things willy-nilly.
No. Preventing the minority from tyrannizing the majority.
So parents are the minority?
Maybe I haven't mentioned this before but children are not capable of giving consent.
Yep, but that doesn't address the fact that it is still doing something to somebody else so arguments about harming ones self are irrelevant.
Then let it be their problem and don't let them impose their solution on people who don't think it's a problem.
It still defeats the argument that nobody is talking about the problem.
Ask a parent. Most of them would rather be harmed themselves than see their children harmed.
So they're not equivalent.
Obviously not, since most circumcised men don't consider themselves damaged or harmed.
What people consider themselves is not a relevant consideration when it comes to whether the foreskin is damaged by circumcision.
So deal with the ones that do do harm and leave the others to do their job.
Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm.
It pretty much does, unless you want to say that every car rolling down the street is damaged.
Why would a car rolling down the street be considered damaged in my view?
It isn't damage at all unless the owner considers it damage.
Again, not so. But as I have shown - there are plenty of penis owners that do consider it damage, and they were never given the choice. I'm just arguing that there is no reason to not give them the choice.
If only 30% of child sexual abuse victims considered it harmful - would that justify its continuing practice - in your view?
Then you might as well throw freedom of opinion out the window.
Why? I still say you are free to your opinions. But not free to carry out any action you like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 3:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 129 of 357 (829953)
03-18-2018 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Modulous
03-18-2018 3:05 PM


Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
But it has not been shown to be generally harmful
And if it was?
Then the question becomes, How harmful? Does the end (eliminating harm to penises) justify the means (persecuting religious groups)?
Modulous writes:
So parents are the minority?
No. People who complain about circumcision are the minority.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Ask a parent. Most of them would rather be harmed themselves than see their children harmed.
So they're not equivalent.
Greater-than-or-equal is not equivalent?
Modulous writes:
What people consider themselves is not a relevant consideration when it comes to whether the foreskin is damaged by circumcision.
Of course it is. There isn't some absolute standard of damage that you can impose on everybody. Let the individual decide whether or not he is damaged.
Modulous writes:
Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm.
No. I'm saying that just because doctors are capable of doing harm is not justification for you to impose your idea of harm on them.
Modulous writes:
Why would a car rolling down the street be considered damaged in my view?
Because the chances are that it has been damaged and repaired - e.g. worn tires replaced. Your view seems to be that once damaged, always damaged whereas mine is that once repaired, good as new.
Modulous writes:
I'm just arguing that there is no reason to not give them the choice.
And I'm saying that it's no different than not giving them the choice to go to school. They are not capable of giving consent at the time consent is required.
Modulous writes:
If only 30% of child sexual abuse victims considered it harmful - would that justify its continuing practice - in your view?
We've already been through that. Sexual abuse is demonstrably harmful in virtually 100% of cases.
But if 30% of circumcised males considered it harmful, no, that would not justify banning circumcision for the other 70%.

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 128 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 3:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 3:42 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 130 of 357 (829954)
03-18-2018 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
03-18-2018 3:26 PM


Then the question becomes, How harmful? Does the end (eliminating harm to penises) justify the means (persecuting religious groups)?
Well I don't see it as persecutory, but I think any harm to a child should be prevented if the only justification is 'but my religion insists upon it'.
So parents are the minority?
No. People who complain about circumcision are the minority.
Exactly. So using the majority position against the minority would seem to be the tyranny of the majority.
Greater-than-or-equal is not equivalent?
Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent.
Let the individual decide whether or not he is damaged.
That's exactly what I'm proposing. And since children cannot consent, they cannot make this decision. Wait until they can consent, and they can make that decision.
Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm.
No. I'm saying that just because doctors are capable of doing harm is not justification for you to impose your idea of harm on them.
It sounds like a 'yes' to me. You did say doctors are capable of harm, after all. And that being the case 'Doctors do it' is not an argument against it being harmful.
Because the chances are that it has been damaged and repaired - e.g. worn tires replaced. Your view seems to be that once damaged, always damaged whereas mine is that once repaired, good as new.
But you can't replace a foreskin like you can replace tyres. The healing of the body, only heals the wounds caused by circumcision - not the body part that was amputated.
And I'm saying that it's no different than not giving them the choice to go to school. They are not capable of giving consent at the time consent is required.
I think amputating body parts is very different from educating someone. Circumcision is not usually required, and it can thus be delayed until adulthood.
We've already been through that. Sexual abuse is demonstrably harmful in virtually 100% of cases.
Even with children who are too young to remember it?
But if 30% of circumcised males considered it harmful, no, that would not justify banning circumcision for the other 70%.
So tyranny of the majority then? Why not allow the 70% to circumcise when they are adults and thus the 30% don't have a lifetime of being unhappy about their genitals? If it were 51% rather than 30% would it then be justified?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 3:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 4:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 131 of 357 (829955)
03-18-2018 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ringo
03-18-2018 2:50 PM


Ringo writes:
You could mention some things that used to be banned but the ban was lifted: abortion, alcohol, marijuana (in progress), interracial marriage, integrated schools, integrated restaurants, integrated buses, integrated water fountains.... Need I go on?
You're making my point - progressive societies ban things that are proven to be harmful and unban or regulate/licence things that are not or that have been proven to be harmful when prohibited. We change things that are wrong as our knowledge grows about them.
We currently allow some harmful things for financial/historical reasons but these are often under pressure from increasing regulatory restrictions, taxation and publicity campaigns. Examples would be smoking, alcohol, guns. Sugar will soon join them.
When we know things are harmful but can't or don't want to prohibit them, we make them available only to adults who are capable of making informed decisions.
Would we allow a new religious organisation to cut the penis's of baby boys? Of course we wouldn't, we'd lock them up for GBH or child abuse.

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 127 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 11:57 AM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 132 of 357 (829956)
03-18-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
03-18-2018 3:42 PM


Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
People who complain about circumcision are the minority.
So using the majority position against the minority would seem to be the tyranny of the majority.
No. You're advocating that the minority, who oppose circumcision, should be allowed to impose their view on the majority, who don't.
Modulous writes:
Harming a child is not harming the parent.
Parents say, "Nonsense."
Modulous writes:
And since children cannot consent, they cannot make this decision. Wait until they can consent, and they can make that decision.
Then let them decide whether or not to go to school when they're old enough to give consent.
Modulous writes:
You did say doctors are capable of harm, after all. And that being the case 'Doctors do it' is not an argument against it being harmful.
I'll take a doctor's opinion about whether it's harmful over yours.
Modulous writes:
But you can't replace a foreskin like you can replace tyres.
And you don't need to.
Modulous writes:
I think amputating body parts is very different from educating someone.
From the viewpoint of consent, I think they're the same.

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 130 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 3:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 4:20 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 133 of 357 (829958)
03-18-2018 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ringo
03-18-2018 4:04 PM


No. You're advocating that the minority, who oppose circumcision, should be allowed to impose their view on the majority, who don't.
And you are arguing that the views of the majority should be imposed on the minority.
Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent.
Parents say, "Nonsense."
I see - so those parents that beat their children, rape them, murder them, neglect them, etc etc etc are only harming themselves - so it should be permissible?
Then let them decide whether or not to go to school when they're old enough to give consent.
There is utility in educating children that is lacking in the circumcision discussion.
I'll take a doctor's opinion about whether it's harmful over yours.
That's fine - but the argument 'if Doctors do it, it is not harmful' is still defeated.
But you can't replace a foreskin like you can replace tyres.
And you don't need to.
The argument 'the human body is self-repairing' is still defeated as a justification for the practice.
From the viewpoint of consent, I think they're the same.
So if a parent consents to amputating a child's ears, legs, nose etc - where there is no medical need to do so -- that's cool with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 4:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 134 of 357 (829989)
03-19-2018 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
03-14-2018 3:20 PM


ringo writes:
Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.
The child may notice that he is different from other boys and men whom he sees in public lavatories, or in his school lavatory.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:11 PM Astrophile has replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 135 of 357 (829990)
03-19-2018 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ringo
03-16-2018 11:50 AM


ringo writes:
The Nazis did make being Jewish illegal for all intents and purposes. If you make enough practices illegal, it becomes impossible to function.
If Jews weren't circumcised, would it make any difference to the practice of their religion? Would it make being Jewish impossible if the Jews took to delaying the operation until the boy or man was of an age to decide for himself whether he wanted to be circumcised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 03-16-2018 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 03-19-2018 8:27 PM Astrophile has not replied
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:13 PM Astrophile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024