Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 226 of 357 (830758)
04-06-2018 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Modulous
04-06-2018 12:40 PM


Modulous writes:
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.
I did. The legal weight is on the side of the parents making the decision because the child is not capable - i.e. the child is not independent.
Modulous writes:
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.
Prohibition of scarification is cultural and, for practical purposes, racial oppression. It should be the

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 223 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 12:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 2:16 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 227 of 357 (830759)
04-06-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Tangle
04-06-2018 12:49 PM


Tangle writes:
Sadly ringo appears to think FGM is ok if the parents want it.
I think it should be an individual decision. Denying a woman the right to make her own decision is the same as denying her the right to make her own decision about abortion. It's the same kind of oppression as forcing her to be circumcised or forcing her to have an abortion or forcibly sterilizing her.

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 224 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 12:49 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 2:18 PM ringo has replied
 Message 235 by Phat, posted 04-07-2018 12:14 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 228 of 357 (830761)
04-06-2018 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ringo
04-06-2018 1:06 PM


ringo writes:
You should try reading what I wrote: "As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue."
I did read what you wrote, it's irrelevant.
You could say that slavery was a historical anomaly. One or two changes don't necessarily indicate a trend.
One or two? You're not that ignorant of history. Child labour, women's emancipation, abolition of capital punishment (sic). The list of progressive social reforms that 'injured' somebody else's priveldeged rights is very long.
There is no "correct position", Mr. Absolute.
Of course their fucking is. It is not correct to shoot your neighbour in the head just for fun. Neither is it correct to cut off a child's clitoris without consent or medical reason. Some things are absolutely wrong.

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 225 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 1:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 11:46 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 229 of 357 (830762)
04-06-2018 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by ringo
04-06-2018 1:11 PM


I did. The legal weight is on the side of the parents making the decision because the child is not capable - i.e. the child is not independent.
But this is not a universal rule. For surgical type procedures it's only on the parent's side in the case of circumcision and medical needs. Otherwise the law states the decision should be stalled until the child reaches an age where they are capable of making a decision. This applies to (legal) recreational drugs, sex, performing military service, cosmetic surgery, labour... Hence the special pleading theme of this thread.
Prohibition of scarification is cultural...
Prohibition of sex with 15 year olds is too. Law is part of our culture.
...and, for practical purposes, racial oppression.
This of course puts you in disagreement with yourself:
quote:
I think the job of our institutions is to follow the public will
quote:
Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you about what is "harmful".
quote:
I'm the one who agrees with the current laws
quote:
No. You're advocating that the minority...should be allowed to impose their view on the majority
quote:
Your "points" fly in the face of medical practice
In any case I think allowing a person to choose scarification is less oppressive than preventing people from imposing it on those that cannot voice an opinion on the matter.
quote:
It should be the
I can guess where this is going but I'm not going to, I assume however it was just intended as emphasis on the previous sentence.
In conclusion, since there doesn't seem to be any advance in the discussion - a parent - or someone else such a spouse or someone with power of attorney - may be allowed to consent by proxy on certain things - things it has been demonstrated empirically are timely in nature - medical procedures such as heart surgery, provision of certain risky medications, education...where delays can be seen to cause significant harm to the individual who is incapable of making a decision be they children or otherwise incapacitated. But this fails as a justification for allowing universal powers to consent to all possible activities that would normally require consent. And thus you can't argue 'parents can give consent for circumcision therefore it is morally justifiable'.
The best argument, indeed your only good one, is related to religious persecution. I expect however, you would not agree to banning circumcision unless there is a religious reason. And if you were to agree with that you would necessarily be arguing for religious special pleading.
I should point out that there are religious/cultural practices that are banned and I suspect you agree, to some extent, with those bans. Lets list some:
a) stoning adulterers, homosexuals and those that work on the Sabbath b) slavery / indentured servitude
c) Flogging adulterers and unbelievers
d) removing the hands of thieves
e) human sacrifice (what if the victim consents? What if they were 'brainwashed' all their life into that consent?)
f) beating children with rods
g) Declining to employ people of the 'wrong' religion.
h) Marrying children off and the consummation thereof
i) Footbinding
j) Beating one's spouse
Is this also racial oppression?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 1:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 11:57 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 230 of 357 (830763)
04-06-2018 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by ringo
04-06-2018 1:14 PM


ringo writes:
I think it should be an individual decision. Denying a woman the right to make her own decision is the same as denying her the right to make her own decision about abortion. It's the same kind of oppression as forcing her to be circumcised or forcing her to have an abortion or forcibly sterilizing her.
You're equivocating. We're talking about parents forceably mutilating children - not the women making their own choice. The children do not make an individual decision.

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 227 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 1:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 12:02 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 231 of 357 (830781)
04-07-2018 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Tangle
04-06-2018 2:10 PM


Tangle writes:
I did read what you wrote, it's irrelevant.
Don't be silly.If doctors do it for non-religious reasons, how can it be a religious issue?
Tangle writes:
Child labour, women's emancipation, abolition of capital punishment (sic). The list of progressive social reforms that 'injured' somebody else's priveldeged rights is very long.
Abortion, prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs.... The list of ending government interference in individual freedoms is also long.
Tangle writes:
It is not correct to shoot your neighbour in the head just for fun. Neither is it correct to cut off a child's clitoris without consent or medical reason. Some things are absolutely wrong.
Are you being deliberately dishonest or did the goalposts wander off on their own volition? We were talking about male circumcision specifically.

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 228 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 2:10 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2018 12:38 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 232 of 357 (830782)
04-07-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Modulous
04-06-2018 2:16 PM


Modulous writes:
For surgical type procedures it's only on the parent's side in the case of circumcision and medical needs. Otherwise the law states the decision should be stalled until the child reaches an age where they are capable of making a decision.
That's a pretty broad statement. There's no such thing as "the law" which applies in all jurisdictions.
Modulous writes:
Prohibition of sex with 15 year olds is too. Law is part of our culture.
Prohibition is a part of our culture that doesn't work, which is why we need special pleading for 15-year-olds having sex with other 15-year-olds.
Modulous writes:
This of course puts you in disagreement with yourself
I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate.
Modulous writes:
I should point out that there are religious/cultural practices that are banned and I suspect you agree, to some extent, with those bans. Lets list some:
a) stoning adulterers, homosexuals and those that work on the Sabbath b) slavery / indentured servitude
c) Flogging adulterers and unbelievers
d) removing the hands of thieves
e) human sacrifice (what if the victim consents? What if they were 'brainwashed' all their life into that consent?)
f) beating children with rods
g) Declining to employ people of the 'wrong' religion.
h) Marrying children off and the consummation thereof
i) Footbinding
j) Beating one's spouse
As I have said, my argument is not a religious one. Those examples, with the exception of employment, are not cultural practices in our society that we need to concern ourselves with.

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 229 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 2:16 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2018 2:15 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 233 of 357 (830783)
04-07-2018 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Tangle
04-06-2018 2:18 PM


Tangle writes:
We're talking about parents forceably mutilating children - not the women making their own choice. The children do not make an individual decision.
You can't divorce childhood circumcision, either male or female, from adult circumcision, either male or female. In all cases, it's the adult who makes the decision - because the child can't. It doesn't matter if you think it's "unnecessary". It's the decision of the individual involved that should count.

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 230 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 2:18 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Phat, posted 04-07-2018 12:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 234 of 357 (830786)
04-07-2018 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by ringo
04-07-2018 12:02 PM


Detangling religious influence
And Tangles basic argument, I think, is that social consensus should usually over ride individual or parental rights if for the defined best interests of the child. ...though I think he also would love to see religion and archaic religious practices banned using the same criteria. In other words, the argument is basically whether the decisions regarding the child are best left up to the parent or to society-at-large?
Tangle has gleefully noted in the past that archaic religious beliefs are on their way out in society and he would love to see the circumcised children protected as well.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 12:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 12:19 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 235 of 357 (830788)
04-07-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by ringo
04-06-2018 1:14 PM


Not Gonna Happen
Tangle writes:
Sadly ringo appears to think FGM is ok if the parents want it.
ringo writes:
I think it should be an individual decision. Denying a woman the right to make her own decision is the same as denying her the right to make her own decision about abortion. It's the same kind of oppression as forcing her to be circumcised or forcing her to have an abortion or forcibly sterilizing her.
This whole weird idea of a rational science-based utopia is not gonna happen on my watch. The level of harm needs to rise higher than the supposed harm of circumcision before we will allow the law to step in.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by ringo, posted 04-06-2018 1:14 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 236 of 357 (830790)
04-07-2018 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Phat
04-07-2018 12:10 PM


Re: Detangling religious influence
Phat writes:
In other words, the argument is basically whether the decisions regarding the child are best left up to the parent or to society-at-large?
A few centuries ago, the question was whether the decisions regarding the child are best left up to the parent or to the king. Then we invented democracy.
Thomas Paine said something to the effect that locally-made decisions tend to be better than decisions made by some goober on the other side of the ocean. I would suggest that issues about the "best interests of the child" are best understood by those who are closest to the child.

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 234 by Phat, posted 04-07-2018 12:10 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 237 of 357 (830792)
04-07-2018 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ringo
04-07-2018 11:46 AM


ringo writes:
Don't be silly.If doctors do it for non-religious reasons, how can it be a religious issue?
This is such a dumb argument it seems not worth answering. What dictors do is totally irrelevant, are you really denying that Jews don't perform circumcision for religious reasons? An Aztec removing a heart in a human sacrifice to the gods can't be a religious practice because a doctor sometimes does it too? I think you've lost the plot.
Abortion, prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs.... The list of ending government interference in individual freedoms is also long.
Yeh, we change the law when we think we got it wrong. Circumcision is one such required law change.
Are you being deliberately dishonest or did the goalposts wander off on their own volition? We were talking about male circumcision specifically.
The goal posts are stuck were they started - special pleading. You are arguing that in the case of Jewish male circumcision, the right of freedom of choice for the parents to cut their baby son over-rides the rights of the baby not to be cut until he has the ability to consent.
You extend that right to FGM which is an abhorrent practice. You respond that there are no absolutes, I tell you that of course there fucking are - if FGM isn't absolute enough for you how about shooting your neighbour in the head for fun? Does my right to have fun override my neighbour's right to life?
There is quite obviously an absolute. Or maybe you think shooting people in the head is OK too?

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 231 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 11:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 12:56 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 238 of 357 (830795)
04-07-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Tangle
04-07-2018 12:38 PM


Tangle writes:
What dictors do is totally irrelevant, are you really denying that Jews don't perform circumcision for religious reasons?
Are you claiming that doctors perform circumcisions for religious reasons? If they don't, then it is not a religious issue. It really is that simple.
Are you aiming to ban only religious circumcisions? Talk about doubling the height of the religious freedom barrier.
Tangle writes:
An Aztec removing a heart in a human sacrifice to the gods can't be a religious practice because a doctor sometimes does it too?
Doctors don't remove hearts; they sometimes replace them.
Tangle writes:
Yeh, we change the law when we think we got it wrong. Circumcision is one such required law change.
Don't confuse "we" with "you".
Tangle writes:
You are arguing that in the case of Jewish male circumcision, the right of freedom of choice for the parents to cut their baby son over-rides the rights of the baby not to be cut until he has the ability to consent.
No. I'm arguing that in the case of circumcision in general the parents have the right and responsibility to make decisions for their children, who can not. I am not discriminating either for or against Jews. Nothing I have said would change if there were no such thing as Jews. Nothing I have said would change if there was no such thing as religion.
Tangle writes:
if FGM isn't absolute enough for you how about shooting your neighbour in the head for fun?
There go the goalposts again.
Tangle writes:
There is quite obviously an absolute.
There quite obviously isn't. You can't equivocate deliberate murder with a relatively minor procedure that the child is unlikely to remember. There's a continuum of "harm" from none at all up to murder. It's ridiculous to pretend that you can assign an absolute value to every point on the scale.

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 237 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2018 12:38 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2018 1:37 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 239 of 357 (830797)
04-07-2018 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ringo
04-07-2018 12:56 PM


ringo writes:
Are you claiming that doctors perform circumcisions for religious reasons?
No, I'm claiming that what doctors do is irrelevant. Now answer my question - are Jews circumcised for religious reasons?
Are you aiming to ban only religious circumcisions? Talk about doubling the height of the religious freedom barrier.
You have this shitty habit of pretending to be really stupid. And if you continue, I'm going to change my mind about prendindig.
I am indeed arguing that religious based circumcision of children below the age of consent should be banned. This is perhaps the 40th time I've said it. i've faulted on my self-imposed ban of relentless repetition several times now. I know your tactic is to never, ever give up no matter how stupid and repetetive it becomes, but you know, some of us prefer scratching our arses to feeding a troll.
Troll writes:
Doctors don't remove hearts.
And who do they get to remove the hearts they replace them with, trolls? Aztecs?
There go the goalposts again.
There you go avoiding answering again. You can't answer can you?
There quite obviously isn't. You can't equivocate deliberate murder with a relatively minor procedure that the child is unlikely to remember. There's a continuum of "harm" from none at all up to murder. It's ridiculous to pretend that you can assign an absolute value to every point on the scale.
And yet you just did. You think deliberate murder is wrong. Fine, we agree. The bible agrees. Society agrees. All societies agree. So there *is* an absolute. Now I think that FGM is also an absolute and so do all modern Western democracies but you don't - you think it's fine. You're on the wrong side of history.

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 238 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 12:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ringo, posted 04-08-2018 2:15 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 240 of 357 (830799)
04-07-2018 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ringo
04-07-2018 11:57 AM


That's a pretty broad statement. There's no such thing as "the law" which applies in all jurisdictions.
It's as broad as the statement to which I was replying
quote:
The legal weight is on the side of the parents
Prohibition is a part of our culture that doesn't work
It works just fine.
I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate.
You earlier argued that majority opinion is significant and meaningful when it comes to this discussion. Then you argued that majority opinion is oppressive in the context of this discussion.
As I have said, my argument is not a religious one. Those examples, with the exception of employment, are not cultural practices in our society that we need to concern ourselves with.
Some of them have been cultural practices in general western culture. Until they were prohibited. And if they weren't prohibited, immigrants from cultures where they are practiced may continue to practice them unhindered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 11:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Phat, posted 04-07-2018 4:41 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 252 by ringo, posted 04-08-2018 2:26 PM Modulous 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