Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


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 292 of 357 (831175)
04-13-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Tangle
04-13-2018 12:51 PM


Tangle writes:
Every single baby/boy/youth/man that is circumcised suffers harm. They all bleed, all feel extreme pain and stress for some days.
All humans bleed and feel pain and stress. Show us a million or so circumcised men who think the operation "harmed" them.
Tangle writes:
Adults are allowed stupid choices, but not for others.
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.
Tangle writes:
Jews will claim this is religious discrimination, it's not, it's a child protection issue.
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".
Tangle writes:
So far you are saying that a parent's freedom to harm trumps a child's right not to be harmed.
No, I'm saying that a parent's idea of harm trumps yours.

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 291 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2018 12:51 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2018 1:18 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 300 of 357 (831260)
04-14-2018 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Tangle
04-13-2018 1:18 PM


Tangle writes:
Point one is that ALL babies are harmed - that is very obvious and impossible to deny.
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.
Tangle writes:
Secondly, the research shows that it would be very easy to produce your million adults who now feel that they were harmed.
Then do it. And for extra credit you can explain why they continue to do it to their own children generation after generation.
Tangle writes:
Harm is exceptionally easy to demonstrate objectively - I have done this and you have been unable to rebut it.
Obviously false.

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 293 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2018 1:18 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2018 4:41 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 301 of 357 (831262)
04-14-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Modulous
04-13-2018 2:15 PM


Modulous writes:
Criminalising behaviour can serve to inhibit that behaviour.
"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.
Modulous writes:
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?
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?
Modulous writes:
However, likelihood of being caught, a and the nature of punishment have been shown to be factors that influence behaviour.
The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour.
Modulous writes:
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?
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.
Modulous writes:
I did not demand a yes or no answer. I asked the following:
quote:
which of {the actions in the list} were you thinking {maybe should be allowed} - all of them?
How is that not a yes-or no question? Tick each item in the list either yes or no.

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 294 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2018 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2018 4:11 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 305 of 357 (831322)
04-15-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Tangle
04-14-2018 1:23 PM


Tangle writes:
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.
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.

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 302 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2018 1:23 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:00 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 306 of 357 (831323)
04-15-2018 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Modulous
04-14-2018 4:11 PM


Modulous writes:
You don't get to decide if it's a minor problem...
I'm not deciding. It's the millions of people involved who are deciding.
Modulous writes:
... the tenacity of a practice is not a justification for it.
It kinda is though, isn't it? Our laws depend to a great extent on precedent.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Throwing parents into prison because it might conceivably reduce the numbers slightly seems wildly inappropriate.
I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly.
Seriously? You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions?
Modulous writes:
Especially somewhere like the States.
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?
Modulous writes:
The point in question was:
quote:
While you may doubt that the prohibition against stoning homosexuals or abusing children is a good idea - I think it should be obvious I'm not talking about a generally philosophically healthy degree of doubt, but significant doubt to the point of thinking that maybe we should be turning a blind eye to stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc.
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.
Modulous writes:
We were talking about your skepticism regarding prohibition. Stoning homosexuals is prohibited.
No. Homosexuality was prohibited. And stoning was the prescribed enforcement of that prohibition.
In fact, you are the one who advocates enforcing a prohibition on circumcision by throwing the parents into prison, aren't you?
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour.
Well that's neither true, nor relevant.
You can't be that ignorant. Maybe you should explain yourself.
Modulous writes:
And I pointed out that stoning homosexuals was cultural.
You keep missing the point. See above.
Modulous writes:
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.
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.
Modulous writes:
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.
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.

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 303 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2018 4:11 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 3:21 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 307 of 357 (831324)
04-15-2018 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Modulous
04-14-2018 4:41 PM


Modulous writes:
The least number I've seen in surveys suggests 10% - higher figures put it closer to 50%
I`d have to question that validity of that poll. Where was it taken?
Modulous writes:
So why are you asking for a minority opinion now?
I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority.

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 304 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2018 4:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 2:55 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 310 of 357 (831328)
04-15-2018 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Tangle
04-15-2018 3:00 PM


Tangle writes:
Do you deny circumcision harms children?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:49 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 312 of 357 (831330)
04-15-2018 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Modulous
04-15-2018 2:55 PM


Modulous writes:
"Young Americans less supportive of circumcision at birth"
So only Americans? Then that poll is pretty much worthless.
Take a poll in Iran before you claim that most people are against circumcision.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority.
Exactly.
That doesn't answer the question. Exactly what? Why do you think the minority should dictate to the majority?
Modulous writes:
So why are you asking for a minority opinion (a million adults)?
Because the majority shouldn't oppress minorities either. The minority should be consulted.
Modulous writes:
Will it change your mind?
My mind isn't at issue here. If the majority changes its mind and decides to oppress the minority, I'm still against that.

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 308 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 2:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 3:40 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 314 of 357 (831332)
04-15-2018 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Modulous
04-15-2018 3:21 PM


Modulous writes:
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.
But you're advocating a step backwards, a repeal of individual freedoms, the equivalent of reinstating slavery or re-banning gay marriage.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions?
Yes. If the parents are involved in the circumcision. The circumciser should also be punished.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Not only does the US have religious freedom entrenched in its Constitution
Which I've explained with a notable Supreme Court decision, doesn't prevent laws prohibiting actions.
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?
Modulous writes:
But most circumcised males in the US are not Jewish. Most non-therapeutic circumcisions are not religiously motivated.
That doesn't justify banning the ones that are.
Modulous writes:
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?
They don't count. The ones who do believe there is a religious imperative deserve their religious freedom.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
And you're seriously contemplating herding them off into concentration camps?
No. I suggest imprisoning those that transgress the law.
So, if the law required you to turn Jews over to the Gestapo, you'd be happy to do it?
Modulous writes:
So it is OK to prohibit cultural behaviours that are designed to prohibit behaviour.
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?
Modulous writes:
So let's move on to another example: human sacrifice.... Is it OK to prohibit this behaviour?
You can't compare human sacrifice to circumcision. Death is permanent. Circumcision has no ongoing ill effects in the majority of 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 3:21 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 4:02 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 316 of 357 (831334)
04-15-2018 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Modulous
04-15-2018 3:40 PM


Modulous writes:
You asked for a million. I gave you ten million.
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.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
My mind isn't at issue here.
As a debate, it kind of is.
No it isn't. You should know better than that.
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:
But if the majority doesn't change its mind, and continues to oppress the minority what then?
That's where representative democracy comes in. Hopefully our representatives will smooth out the whims of the majority.

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 313 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 3:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 4:19 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 317 of 357 (831335)
04-15-2018 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Tangle
04-15-2018 3:49 PM


Tangle writes:
Do you deny FGM harms girls?
You keep referring to "harm" as an absolute. I don't accept that. Sometimes the benefits outweigh the perceived "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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:49 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:55 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 321 of 357 (831357)
04-16-2018 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Tangle
04-15-2018 3:55 PM


Tangle writes:
Do you think shooting your neighbour in the head harms him?
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.

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 318 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:55 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2018 1:05 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 322 of 357 (831358)
04-16-2018 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Modulous
04-15-2018 4:02 PM


Modulous writes:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying.
I paid attention to you saying that you'd throw parents in prison for circumcising their children.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
So, if the law required you to turn Jews over to the Gestapo, you'd be happy to do it?
I'd hope not.
I'd hope not too - but since you've admitted to wanting to jail parents, I have to wonder where you draw the line.
Modulous writes:
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 20:13
There are people who want to bring it back - for religious reasons.
And you want to do the same thing - bring in a law prohibiting an accepted practice.
Modulous writes:
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.
Religious practices are protected by law. I agree with that protection.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Death is permanent.
So is circumcision.
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.

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 319 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Modulous, posted 04-16-2018 2:17 PM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 323 of 357 (831359)
04-16-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Modulous
04-15-2018 4:19 PM


Modulous writes:
What did you actually want? A million names?
I want you to take a poll worldwide.
Modulous writes:
How would producing a minority affect the manner in which you are presenting your case?
It wouldn't. I support the protection of minorities.
Modulous writes:
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?
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.

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 320 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 4:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Modulous, posted 04-16-2018 2:24 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 325 of 357 (831362)
04-16-2018 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Tangle
04-16-2018 1:05 PM


Tangle writes:
I'm trying to fathom what you consider harm to be.
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?
Tangle writes:
you've never attempted to make that case so I'll ignore it until you do.
Faith made the case in Message 136.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
so you can't determine absolute harm for circumcision.
I have done so many times of course. Here's a reminder of just one
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.

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 324 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2018 1:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2018 2:57 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