Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


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


Message 211 of 357 (830697)
04-05-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Modulous
04-04-2018 9:13 PM


Modulous writes:
What people who commit an act, or society as a whole consider harmful is immaterial to whether it is in fact harmful.
On the contrary, society considers the "net" effect of good and bad effects. In the case of circumcision, most modern societies seem to conclude that the "harm" caused by circumcision is less harmful in the long term than the harm caused by trampling on individual freedoms.
Modulous writes:
And I'd like to persuade people that it is harmful and that 'but it's my religion' is not a suitable excuse for committing that harm.
Good luck with that. I have no axe to grind here. I'm not in favour of circumcision, just like I'm not in favour of abortion. But I am in favour of preventing self-appointed do-gooders from meddling with individual freedoms. I'm just pointing out why your argument doesn't work.

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 209 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2018 9:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2018 2:04 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 212 of 357 (830698)
04-05-2018 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by ringo
04-05-2018 11:54 AM


ringo writes:
Special pleading hinges on whether or not the act is justifiable. Circumcision is justifiable on the grounds of religious freedom.
Religious belief does not grant people rights to harm others that otherwise they wouldn't have. We know this because we do not allow fgm. It's simply a matter of history that the circumcision of male babies is allowed. If it didn't exist today, it would not be allowed for a new religion - an obvious point you have failed to challenge a dozen times or more.

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 210 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 11:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 12:33 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 213 of 357 (830699)
04-05-2018 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Tangle
04-05-2018 12:13 PM


Tangle writes:
Religious belief does not grant people rights to harm others that otherwise they wouldn't have.
And yet people clearly do have that right, so the justice systems must not be using the same definitions as you are.
Tangle writes:
If it didn't exist today, it would not be allowed for a new religion - an obvious point you have failed to challenge a dozen times or more.
There's no need to challenge that. You might even be right about that. There's a first time for everything.
But we can't undo the past based on what we probably would do in the future. There's a long history of the consequences of trampling on individual rights - in the case of Jews, a particularly horrendous history.
Future religious sects have not been persecuted yet. If the Jews had never been persecuted, you might be able to get away with predicting that the slope will not be slippery. But we do remember history.

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 212 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 12:13 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 1:01 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 214 of 357 (830700)
04-05-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ringo
04-05-2018 12:33 PM


ringo writes:
And yet people clearly do have that right, so the justice systems must not be using the same definitions as you are.
Some modern countries do not allow religions to have that right; it was removed because it was found to be harmful. Several modern countries are now challenging the right - Iceland is the current example in the news.
Rights are granted and taken away by our secular laws, they are not god given and they change as we learn more. Currently the male cicumcision of babies is a historical anomoly which will be stopped eventually by all modern societies. Arguing for its continuance is merely special pleading.
There's no need to challenge that. You might even be right about that.
If we accept that a practice is so harmful that we wouldn't allowed it to start, why would we allow it to continue?
If the Jews had never been persecuted, you might be able to get away with predicting that the slope will not be slippery. But we do remember history.
We can agree then that this is purely a historic anomoly. We are prepared to continue harm babies because Jews were persecuted historically? Presumably then you would therefore have no objection to allowing jewish circumcision but not Muslim (male) circumcision?

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 213 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 12:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 1:33 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 215 of 357 (830701)
04-05-2018 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Tangle
04-05-2018 1:01 PM


Tangle writes:
Rights are granted and taken away by our secular laws, they are not god given and they change as we learn more.
That's what I'm sayng. in fact, it has little to do with religion at all. It's about individual rights.
Tangle writes:
Currently the male cicumcision of babies is a historical anomoly which will be stopped eventually by all modern societies.
I doubt that. I certainly will not live to be proven wrong.
Tangle writes:
Arguing for its continuance is merely special pleading.
I'm not arguing for circumcision. I'm arguing for individual freedom.
Tangle writes:
If we accept that a practice is so harmful that we wouldn't allowed it to start, why would we allow it to continue?
For one thing, as I have already mentioned, we have learned that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition of abortions didn't stop abortions from happening but it probably increased the bad effects. Same with prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs, etc. And sensible people question whether the effect of prohibiting sugar or fat would be any different.
Tangle writes:
We are prepared to continue harm babies because Jews were persecuted historically?
We are prepared to recognize that it isn't very "harmful" if the Jews could survive the persecution and, Mother of Mercy!, survive the circumcisions too.
Tangle writes:
Presumably then you would therefore have no objection to allowing jewish circumcision but not Muslim (male) circumcision?
I was thinking that might be your position.
My position remains more or less consistent: individual freedom.

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 214 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 1:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 2:32 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 216 of 357 (830702)
04-05-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by ringo
04-05-2018 12:03 PM


On the contrary, society considers the "net" effect of good and bad effects. In the case of circumcision, most modern societies seem to conclude that the "harm" caused by circumcision is less harmful in the long term than the harm caused by trampling on individual freedoms.
This isn't contrary to my position at all. Weighing conflicting interests is a social process. Whether or not harm is done - particularly physical harm - is not dictated by opinion.
You missed of course another issue which is the individual freedom to not be circumcised, which neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision robs people of. So we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced. Sure - that's a socially derived opinion. But whether cutting skin off or smoking causes damage or is harmful is less about opinion.
Good luck with that. I have no axe to grind here. I'm not in favour of circumcision, just like I'm not in favour of abortion. But I am in favour of preventing self-appointed do-gooders from meddling with individual freedoms. I'm just pointing out why your argument doesn't work.
Well indeed. Individual freedoms. I am saying the individual should be free to choose - not have it chosen for them - except where medically necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 12:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 11:39 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 217 of 357 (830704)
04-05-2018 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by ringo
04-05-2018 1:33 PM


ringo writes:
That's what I'm sayng. in fact, it has little to do with religion at all. It's about individual rights.
Jewish circumcision is entirely religious.
As for individual rights, you have put the superstition based rights of the parents above the rights of the child not to be harmed. What right have you to do this?
I'm not arguing for circumcision. I'm arguing for individual freedom.
You are arguing male circumcision. You have already conceded that parents do not have the freedom to circumcision females: your position is therefore not one of freedoms.
People do not have a right to harm children. And the child has a right not to be harmed. The balance of freedoms is clearly in favour of the child.
My position remains more or less consistent:
Well you're half right.
As you have abandonned the special pleading argument of Jewish history, you're left with the personal freedom to harm another versus the personal freedom not to be harmed by another.
It's very obvious where the balance lies. You're in an untenable position.

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 215 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 1:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 11:49 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 218 of 357 (830749)
04-06-2018 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Modulous
04-05-2018 2:04 PM


Modulous writes:
So we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced.
It isn't "other people's genitals". It's the freedom to make decisions for people who are dependent on 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 216 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2018 2:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 12:17 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 219 of 357 (830750)
04-06-2018 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Tangle
04-05-2018 2:32 PM


Tangle writes:
Jewish circumcision is entirely religious.
Jewish religion is also religious - but circumcision is not. As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue.
Tangle writes:
As for individual rights, you have put the superstition based rights of the parents above the rights of the child not to be harmed.
I haven't done that; society has. Society has the sense to understand that children can not make their own decisions. And society also has the sense not to let you dictate to them what is "superstition".
Tangle writes:
You have already conceded that parents do not have the freedom to circumcision females:
They should.
Tangle writes:
You're in an untenable position.
The reality is that I'm in the same position as the justice systems of most modern democracies. Your position may become tenable some day but now it is not.

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 217 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 2:32 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 12:39 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 220 of 357 (830751)
04-06-2018 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by ringo
04-06-2018 11:39 AM


It isn't "other people's genitals".
It is. It really is. A child is a person, and they are seldom their own parent.
It's the freedom to make decisions for people who are dependent on them.
Which we both support. And we both agree there are and should be limits to that freedom. We even agree, I'm sure, that deciding to cut a child resulting in scarring them goes beyond those limits in almost all cases that are not medically required goes beyond the freedoms we should grant parents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 11:39 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 12:32 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 221 of 357 (830752)
04-06-2018 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Modulous
04-06-2018 12:17 PM


Modulous writes:
A child is a person, and they are seldom their own parent.
A child is not an independent person.
Modulous writes:
We even agree, I'm sure, that deciding to cut a child resulting in scarring them goes beyond those limits in almost all cases that are not medically required goes beyond the freedoms we should grant parents.
If we agreed on that, what have we been talking about?

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 220 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 12:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 12:40 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 222 of 357 (830753)
04-06-2018 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by ringo
04-06-2018 11:49 AM


ringo writes:
Jewish religion is also religious - but circumcision is not.
According to the chief rabbi of the UK, Jews circumcise their boys entirely for religious reasons. It is a requirement of their religion. You're factually wrong.
I haven't done that; society has.
No. Society has never made a decision on it; it's a historical anomoly. Currently most countries are looking the other way but several Western democracies have already made it illegal. For very obvious reasons.
They should.
Then your position is untenable. FGM is illegal in most Western democracies; the maiming of girls in this way is abhorrent. Parents do not and should not, have the right to harm their children. You're on the wrong side of history and I find it difficult to believe that you actually hold this obnoxious view.
The reality is that I'm in the same position as the justice systems of most modern democracies. Your position may become tenable some day but now it is not.
This is a silly argument. The correct position is what is morally right today, not what might be legally right in the future. If you admit that it will change - and we can see that it is - then it's a wrong today. The position is only as it is because of special pleading.

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 219 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 11:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 1:06 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 223 of 357 (830754)
04-06-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by ringo
04-06-2018 12:32 PM


A child is not an independent person.
Immaterial to the point that we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced. I didn't mention the word independent there.
We even agree, I'm sure, that deciding to cut a child resulting in scarring them goes beyond those limits in almost all cases that are not medically required goes beyond the freedoms we should grant parents.
If we agreed on that, what have we been talking about?
Circumcision. I didn't say we agreed on all cases. Unless you think scarring a child's face, arms, legs, etc by removing skin from them for no medical purpose should be something parents are free to do. It's certainly not something they currently are free to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 12:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 12:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 226 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 1:11 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 224 of 357 (830756)
04-06-2018 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Modulous
04-06-2018 12:40 PM


Modulous writes:
Circumcision. I didn't say we agreed on all cases. Unless you think scarring a child's face, arms, legs, etc by removing skin from them for no medical purpose should be something parents are free to do. It's certainly not something they currently are free to do.
Sadly ringo appears to think FGM is ok if the parents want it. If he'll allow that, he'll have absolutely no problem with a little facial scarring.

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 223 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 12:40 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 1:14 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 225 of 357 (830757)
04-06-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Tangle
04-06-2018 12:39 PM


Tangle writes:
According to the chief rabbi of the UK, Jews circumcise their boys entirely for religious reasons. It is a requirement of their religion. You're factually wrong.
You should try reading what I wrote: "As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue."
Tangle writes:
it's a historical anomoly. Currently most countries are looking the other way but several Western democracies have already made it illegal.
You could say that slavery was a historical anomaly. One or two changes don't necessarily indicate a trend.
Tangle writes:
You're on the wrong side of history....
History ain't over yet. It's premature to predict a final outcome.
Tangle writes:
The correct position is what is morally right today, not what might be legally right in the future.
There is no "correct position", Mr. Absolute.
Tangle writes:
If you admit that it will change - and we can see that it is - then it's a wrong today.
I don't think it will change. I think - and hope - that freedom will prevail.

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 222 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 12:39 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 2:10 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