|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
All humans bleed and feel pain and stress. Show us a million or so circumcised men who think the operation "harmed" them.
Every single baby/boy/youth/man that is circumcised suffers harm. They all bleed, all feel extreme pain and stress for some days. Tangle writes:
Unless the others are their children. Parents are allowed to make stupid choices like home-schooling their children. You can't take every stupid choice away from people.
Adults are allowed stupid choices, but not for others. Tangle writes:
Again, show us ten thousand Jews or ten million Muslims who think they need to be "protected" from circumcision. Persecution, religious or otherwise, likes to hide behind a screen of "protection".
Jews will claim this is religious discrimination, it's not, it's a child protection issue. Tangle writes:
No, I'm saying that a parent's idea of harm trumps yours. So far you are saying that a parent's freedom to harm trumps a child's right not to be harmed.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
But I do deny it. Millions who have been circumcised disagree with you. And whatever "harm" you imagine has to be balanced against the benefits.
Point one is that ALL babies are harmed - that is very obvious and impossible to deny. Tangle writes:
Then do it. And for extra credit you can explain why they continue to do it to their own children generation after generation.
Secondly, the research shows that it would be very easy to produce your million adults who now feel that they were harmed. Tangle writes:
Obviously false. Harm is exceptionally easy to demonstrate objectively - I have done this and you have been unable to rebut it.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
"Can inhibit" is pretty weak. We're talking about a pretty minor "problem" in the first place, a practice that has been well-established for centuries and is protected by law. Throwing parents into prison because it might conceivably reduce the numbers slightly seems wildly inappropriate.
Criminalising behaviour can serve to inhibit that behaviour. Modulous writes:
You're twisting it. I was talking about laws allowing the stoning of homosexuals, etc. Taking those laws off the books would certainly improve society, so why do you advocate adding more such laws?
So if you're friend or a brother was stoned to death for being homosexual, or a young family member was sexually abused by a guardian you don't think society would be better with that offender being taken out of general circulation? Modulous writes:
The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour.
However, likelihood of being caught, a and the nature of punishment have been shown to be factors that influence behaviour. Modulous writes:
I'll say that it's a strawman. The subject of stoning homosexuals was brought up because that was the law. That's the sort of thing that I'm against and you're advocating. Should we stone rapists? I'd say no. Should we stone people for speeding? That probably causes more harm than circumcision. I'd say no.
Are you going to say anything of substance. Such as what you think should be done with someone who rapes a child, stones homosexuals etc? Modulous writes:
How is that not a yes-or no question? Tick each item in the list either yes or no. I did not demand a yes or no answer. I asked the following:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
What I've said is that the vast majority of people it has been done to consider it worthwhile enough to do it to their own children. Your opinion doesn't outweigh theirs. If you're going to flat out deny that cutting the skin of an 8 day old baby's penis doesn't cause bloodshed, pain and stress and that this process can and does lead to further complications, including death - despite the evidence presented demonstaring this - there's no point in further discussion.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I'm not deciding. It's the millions of people involved who are deciding.
You don't get to decide if it's a minor problem... Modulous writes:
It kinda is though, isn't it? Our laws depend to a great extent on precedent.
... the tenacity of a practice is not a justification for it. Modulous writes:
Seriously? You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions?
ringo writes:
I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly. Throwing parents into prison because it might conceivably reduce the numbers slightly seems wildly inappropriate. Modulous writes:
Again, you could hardly have picked a worse example. Not only does the US have religious freedom entrenched in its Constitution but it also has one of the most influential and vocal Jewish peopulations in the world. And you're seriously contemplating herding them off into concentration camps?
Especially somewhere like the States. Modulous writes:
Yes, that's where you twisted it 180 degrees. Stoning homosexuals was a law intended to enforce the prohibition against homosexual behaviour. I am against the prohibition - i.e. I am against the stoning. I have never advocated turning a blind eye to anything. I am saying that the prohibition is ineffective and, in that case, downright unjust.
The point in question was:
quote: Modulous writes:
No. Homosexuality was prohibited. And stoning was the prescribed enforcement of that prohibition. We were talking about your skepticism regarding prohibition. Stoning homosexuals is prohibited. In fact, you are the one who advocates enforcing a prohibition on circumcision by throwing the parents into prison, aren't you?
Modulous writes:
You can't be that ignorant. Maybe you should explain yourself.
ringo writes:
Well that's neither true, nor relevant. The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour. Modulous writes:
You keep missing the point. See above.
And I pointed out that stoning homosexuals was cultural. Modulous writes:
Again, see above. Stoning homosexuals was not a "cultural practice". It was the law, a law intended to enforce the prohibition of homosexuality. You are the one who advocates harsh measures for enforcing prohibition, not me.
Then you avoided answering the follow up question of which cases and why. So I took one example to see if you'd be willing to defend that one. Stoning homosexuals. Modulous writes:
Of course prohibited/allowed is a yes/no question. And of course it's calling for an over-simplified answer. If you care to pick one issue, we can discuss at length the pros and cons. It's not loaded, it's not calling for an over simplified answer; it's a natural follow up to someone saying 'in some cases...' to ask them to say which cases.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I`d have to question that validity of that poll. Where was it taken?
The least number I've seen in surveys suggests 10% - higher figures put it closer to 50% Modulous writes:
I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority. So why are you asking for a minority opinion now?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Have you stopped beating your wife? Do you deny circumcision harms children? Let's just say that the benefits of circumcision usually outweigh the potential harm.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
So only Americans? Then that poll is pretty much worthless. "Young Americans less supportive of circumcision at birth" Take a poll in Iran before you claim that most people are against circumcision.
Modulous writes:
That doesn't answer the question. Exactly what? Why do you think the minority should dictate to the majority?
ringo writes:
Exactly. I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority. Modulous writes:
Because the majority shouldn't oppress minorities either. The minority should be consulted.
So why are you asking for a minority opinion (a million adults)? Modulous writes:
My mind isn't at issue here. If the majority changes its mind and decides to oppress the minority, I'm still against that. Will it change your mind?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
But you're advocating a step backwards, a repeal of individual freedoms, the equivalent of reinstating slavery or re-banning gay marriage.
You can't say 'we've been enslaving black people for a century so...' or 'we've never allowed gays to marry before...' as justification for the practice. Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Yes. If the parents are involved in the circumcision. The circumciser should also be punished. You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions? Modulous writes:
I have a short memory and I'm a slow reader. Did your example cover prohibiting an accepted religious practice which is also an accepted medical practice?
ringo writes:
Which I've explained with a notable Supreme Court decision, doesn't prevent laws prohibiting actions. Not only does the US have religious freedom entrenched in its Constitution Modulous writes:
That doesn't justify banning the ones that are.
But most circumcised males in the US are not Jewish. Most non-therapeutic circumcisions are not religiously motivated. Modulous writes:
They don't count. The ones who do believe there is a religious imperative deserve their religious freedom.
How many people would continue to circumcise if they don't believe there is a religious imperative to do so AND it was not being performed by doctors in hospitals AND it was a criminal offence? Modulous writes:
So, if the law required you to turn Jews over to the Gestapo, you'd be happy to do it?
ringo writes:
No. I suggest imprisoning those that transgress the law. And you're seriously contemplating herding them off into concentration camps? Modulous writes:
I don't know where you're getting that from. Do you still not understand that stoning homosexuals was the law? Not a cultural behaviour?
So it is OK to prohibit cultural behaviours that are designed to prohibit behaviour. Modulous writes:
You can't compare human sacrifice to circumcision. Death is permanent. Circumcision has no ongoing ill effects in the majority of cases. So let's move on to another example: human sacrifice.... Is it OK to prohibit this behaviour?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Sorry. I thought it was clear that I meant a relevant sample. If that's the best you can do to weasel out, I'm disappointed.
You asked for a million. I gave you ten million. Modulous writes:
No it isn't. You should know better than that. ringo writes:
As a debate, it kind of is. My mind isn't at issue here. In a debate I don't have to be a True Believer. I just have to make a case for one side or the other. In fact, I'm not in favour of circumcision, I'm not in favour of FGM, I'm not in favour of abortion, etc. My opinion on those issues is irrelevant to what I say for or against those issues.
Modulous writes:
That's where representative democracy comes in. Hopefully our representatives will smooth out the whims of the majority. But if the majority doesn't change its mind, and continues to oppress the minority what then?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You keep referring to "harm" as an absolute. I don't accept that. Sometimes the benefits outweigh the perceived "harm". Do you deny FGM harms girls?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
We're not talking about shooting people in the head. We're talking about circumcision. Circumcision has benefits as well as dangers, so you can't determine absolute harm for circumcision. Do you think shooting your neighbour in the head harms him?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I paid attention to you saying that you'd throw parents in prison for circumcising their children.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. Modulous writes:
I'd hope not too - but since you've admitted to wanting to jail parents, I have to wonder where you draw the line.
ringo writes:
I'd hope not. So, if the law required you to turn Jews over to the Gestapo, you'd be happy to do it? Modulous writes:
And you want to do the same thing - bring in a law prohibiting an accepted practice.
It was the law because it was a religious/cultural belief that homosexuality was sinful and tolerating it would bring damnation. It's literally right there in the Old Testament, eg., Leviticus 20:13There are people who want to bring it back - for religious reasons. Modulous writes:
Religious practices are protected by law. I agree with that protection.
I'm trying to understand your position regarding what religious / cultural practices should be prohibited and which should not be prohibited by discussing specific examples. Modulous writes:
I knew you were going to say that. But circumcision usually doesn't have any long-term ill effects. You might think it does but millions of Muslims and Jews disagree with you. ringo writes:
So is circumcision. Death is permanent.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Modulous writes:
I want you to take a poll worldwide.
What did you actually want? A million names? Modulous writes:
It wouldn't. I support the protection of minorities.
How would producing a minority affect the manner in which you are presenting your case? Modulous writes:
Those who object to circumcision, whether they're a majority or a minority, are not relevant. They're entitled to have their opinions but they're not entitled to force their opinions on others. So you hope that the representatives will smooth out the whims of the circumcisers to protect the minority of those that voice an objection to being circumcised?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
It doesn't include circumcision as far as millions of men who have been circumcised are concerned. If they considered it harmful, why would they continue to do it generation after generation, century after century?
I'm trying to fathom what you consider harm to be. Tangle writes:
Faith made the case in Message 136.
you've never attempted to make that case so I'll ignore it until you do. Tangle writes:
You're shooting yourself in the foot again. A few cases is not absolute harm. It's isolated cases of harm. You could probably find isolated cases of harm frm jelly beans but that doesn't justify banning jelly beans. ringo writes:
I have done so many times of course. Here's a reminder of just one so you can't determine absolute harm for circumcision.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024