Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 107 of 357 (829854)
03-15-2018 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Modulous
03-14-2018 5:14 PM


Modulous writes:
A healed wound (often with a scar) is not a self-repaired foreskin.
It repairs to the point that the baby doesn't remember anything happening.
Modulous writes:
So that justifies inflicting pain on babies in your view?
It isn't about "justifying" anything. If the parents and the doctor agree on it and the baby doesn't remember it, it's nobody else's business.
Modulous writes:
...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.
Bad analogy. A better one would be stealing a penny from a billionaire. He can't detect the loss so he isn't really damaged.
Modulous writes:
Again - this justifies doing all manner of things to babies that most people would regard as immoral or illegal.
And following the will of "most people" leads to oppression of minorities.
Modulous writes:
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?
That's a good question. An even better one that I anticipated is: Should the parents be consulted when a teenage girl wants an abortion?
Maybe we need to rethink what "under age" means. Maybe a girl who is old enough to get pregnant is adult enough to choose an abortion on her own. Maybe a 10 year old boy is adult enough to choose circumcision on his own.
Modulous writes:
The question in this thread isn't about describing what is, it is about what should be.
I'd say that what is is pretty close to what should be.
Modulous writes:
... 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.
That cuts both ways. If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc. Our forefathers may not have been as dumb as you think when they emphasized the importance of freedom of religion.

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 104 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2018 5:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2018 3:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 108 of 357 (829855)
03-15-2018 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Tangle
03-14-2018 5:18 PM


Tangle writes:
Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm.
Again, so do a lot of elective surgeries. There are also perceived benefits, whether you can perceive them or not. That's why it's up to the individual and/or the parents and/or the mohel/physician to make the decision, not you. Similarly, it is up to the individual whether or not to ride in a car, jump out of an airplane, etc., not you.
Tangle writes:
Not if they're 7 days old.
If you understand that infants do not have the capacity to give consent, why do you keep bringing it up?

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 105 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2018 12:58 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 110 of 357 (829857)
03-15-2018 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Tangle
03-15-2018 12:58 PM


Tangle writes:
... an unnecessary, risky and harmful procedure should only done with the consent of the person undergoing the procedure.
What if the procedure is necessary? Heart surgery for newborns is becoming pretty common. By your logic, the infant's consent would be needed.

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 109 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2018 12:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2018 7:46 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 113 of 357 (829892)
03-16-2018 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Modulous
03-15-2018 3:33 PM


Modulous writes:
What you've said can be used to justify a wide range of unpleasant things to children that our current laws forbid.
So are the current laws wrong - or is your argument?
I'm the one who agrees with the current laws, so I don't know what your point is.
Modulous writes:
You just justified sexually abusing or otherwise torturing babies - that isn't defended or even addressed by a discussion of the tyranny of the majority.
No, I have not justified sexual abuse of children, as I said explicitly in another post. I agree with the present laws that have different applications in different situations - not your simplistic idea of banning everything that babies don't like.
Modulous writes:
The government cannot make being Jewish illegal just like they could not make being a Mormon illegal in that case.
The Nazis did make being Jewish illegal for all intents and purposes. If you make enough practices illegal, it becomes impossible to function.
Modulous writes:
Non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision is also an activity not a belief.
That's what I told Tangle in my first post in this thread. But if you target an activity that belongs to one or two specific groups, it begins to look like you're targeting the group and not the activity.
Remember that the Mormons were persecuted before the practice of polygamy was made public.

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 111 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2018 3:33 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 03-16-2018 1:08 PM ringo has replied
 Message 135 by Astrophile, posted 03-19-2018 7:38 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 114 of 357 (829893)
03-16-2018 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tangle
03-15-2018 7:46 PM


Tangle writes:
If an operation is not necessary for medical reasons and also carries risk and direct harm, there's no rational reason why it should be allowed until the person is able to consent to it.
But it isn't up to you to decide what's necessary. The rational approach is to leave such decisions to the individual or the person who is authorized to make decisions for the individual.

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 112 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2018 7:46 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 12:26 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 116 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 12:28 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 117 of 357 (829900)
03-16-2018 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Tangle
03-16-2018 12:28 PM


Tangle writes:
We've done this.
Indeed we have. And yet you keep coming back to the same old same old rationale for intruding in other people's lives.

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 116 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 12:28 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 12:58 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 120 of 357 (829905)
03-16-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tangle
03-16-2018 12:58 PM


Tangle writes:
Your debating technique is to bore people to death with repetition but provide no fact or evidence. So be it.
Facts and evidence don't justify trampling on individual rights.
Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

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 118 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 12:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2018 2:41 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 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 412 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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 137 of 357 (830041)
03-20-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tangle
03-18-2018 3:50 PM


Tangle writes:
... 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.
And circumcision has not been "proven to be harmful". It can occasionally have harmful effects in some cases, just as abortion, alcohol, marijuana, etc. can have harmful effects in some cases. Progressive societies understand that you can't eliminate harmful effects just by banning something and they understand that sometimes the ban has harmful effects too.
Tangle writes:
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.
And, in the case of medical procedures, we let adults make the decision for minors under their care.
Tangle writes:
Would we allow a new religious organisation to cut the penis's of baby boys?
We'd have to, because of the legal precedent.

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 131 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 3:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2018 7:20 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 138 of 357 (830043)
03-20-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Modulous
03-18-2018 4:20 PM


Modulous writes:
And you are arguing that the views of the majority should be imposed on the minority.
I agree with the principles of democracy, yes.
And remember that the minority is not forcing the minorities to circumcise their children. The majority is allowing the minority to make individual decisions.
Modulous writes:
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?
I didn't use the word "only".
Modulous writes:
There is utility in educating children that is lacking in the circumcision discussion.
Sez you. Muslims and Jews could argue that their religions contribute to the general welfare much like education does.
Modulous writes:
That's fine - but the argument 'if Doctors do it, it is not harmful' is still defeated.
Nobody made that argument. My argument is that circumcision is an accepted medical procedure, so you can't override the medical profession with your view that it's yucky.
Modulous writes:
The argument 'the human body is self-repairing' is still defeated as a justification for the practice.
Congratulations on convincing yourself but the argument still stands. If it repairs itself to the extent that the recipient can't tell the difference, it can't be considered damage.
Modulous writes:
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?
We've already been through that. Those procedures make the child visibly different.

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 133 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2018 4:20 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2018 5:14 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 139 of 357 (830044)
03-20-2018 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Astrophile
03-19-2018 7:23 PM


Astrophile writes:
The child may notice that he is different from other boys and men whom he sees in public lavatories, or in his school lavatory.
I'm sixty-five years old and I've never noticed the difference in anybody. The only reason I know two of my brothers were circumcised is because mom said so. I don't know if I could pick a circumcised penis out of a lineup.

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 134 by Astrophile, posted 03-19-2018 7:23 PM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Astrophile, posted 03-27-2018 7:19 PM ringo 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