Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8832 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2018 7:08 PM
223 online now:
Coragyps, jar, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), Tangle (5 members, 218 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Nator2
Post Volume:
Total: 830,257 Year: 5,080/29,783 Month: 1,012/1,467 Week: 209/462 Day: 38/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
18192021
22
23Next
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 316 of 344 (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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 317 of 344 (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 responded

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5569
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 318 of 344 (831336)
04-15-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by ringo
04-15-2018 3:52 PM


ringo writes:

You keep referring to "harm" as an absolute.

Do you think shooting your neighbour in the head harms him?


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 317 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:52 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 11:42 AM Tangle has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7657
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 319 of 344 (831338)
04-15-2018 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by ringo
04-15-2018 3:43 PM



But you're advocating a step backwards, a repeal of individual freedoms, the equivalent of reinstating slavery or re-banning gay marriage.

I say I'm advocating for individual freedoms. Nevertheless, precedent as can be seen, is not a justification. In this case, it seems, your justification is about individual freedoms, not precedent - for example.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying.

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?

Yes.

quote:
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

That doesn't justify banning the ones that are.

It wasn't intended to. It was explain why I thought banning the practice would reduce the number of circumcisions.

They don't count. The ones who do believe there is a religious imperative deserve their religious freedom.

It does count, since my claim was that prohibiting it would reduce the numbers.

quote:
I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly. Especially somewhere like the States... If doctors never perform it, never recommend it and insurance never covers it - I'm sure rates would drop in the US hugely.

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 don't know where you're getting that from. Do you still not understand that stoning homosexuals was the law? Not a cultural behaviour?

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.

You can't compare human sacrifice to circumcision.

I'm not, 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.

Death is permanent.

So is circumcision.

Circumcision has no ongoing ill effects in the majority of cases.

That's not an opinion we share. Not having a foreskin is intrinsically an ill effect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:43 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 11:53 AM Modulous has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7657
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 320 of 344 (831341)
04-15-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by ringo
04-15-2018 3:50 PM


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.

No that's not clear. What did you actually want? A million names?

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.

*sigh* fine. How would producing a minority affect the manner in which you are presenting your case?

That's where representative democracy comes in. Hopefully our representatives will smooth out the whims of the majority.

Hopefully? 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:50 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 12:01 PM Modulous has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 321 of 344 (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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 322 of 344 (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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 323 of 344 (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 responded

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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5569
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 324 of 344 (831361)
04-16-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by ringo
04-16-2018 11:42 AM


ringo writes:

We're not talking about shooting people in the head. We're talking about circumcision.

Actually, we're talking about harm.

I'm trying to fathom what you consider harm to be. It doesn't include cutting a baby's penis and it doesn't include cutting off a girls clitoris (and associated parts). It may or may not involve shooting someone in the head - you don't seem to want to be clear about that.

quote:
Circumcision has benefits as well as dangers,
you've never attempted to make that case so I'll ignore it until you do.

so you can't determine absolute harm for circumcision.

I have done so many times of course. Here's a reminder of just one

quote:
Manchester Royal Children's hospital reports that it treats around three cases of bleeding circumcisions every month. In 2009 alone, in one hospital in Birmingham, 105 boys were treated at A&E for complications after circumcisions. One per month had life-threatening injuries. In June, a letter to the newsletter of the British Association for Community Child Health reported on some of the injuries caused by unlicensed circumcision practitioners in the Bristol area. They included a fractured skull caused by a baby falling off a kitchen table during a home circumcision.
An audit of circumcisions conducted at an Islamic school in Oxford, and reported in the Journal of Public Health this year, revealed that 45% of boys had suffered complications. All these examples have one common feature: they were conducted in non-clinical conditions. While it is illegal to tattoo a child in the UK, there is no law to prevent anyone from setting up a business in permanently slicing the sensitive, delicate skin from boys' genitals without anaesthetic. In Rusholme, Manchester, there is a notice on a first floor window offering circumcisions, quite literally in a backstreet above a kebab shop. This is utterly obscene.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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 321 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 11:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 1:17 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 325 of 344 (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 responded

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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7657
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 326 of 344 (831371)
04-16-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by ringo
04-16-2018 11:53 AM


I paid attention to you saying that you'd throw parents in prison for circumcising their children.

My point being it took you a long time to figure this out, as if you hadn't been paying attention to anything I said previously.

...since you've admitted to wanting to jail parents, I have to wonder where you draw the line.

Are you saying parents should be immune from prosecution of any offence?

Your slippery slope argument of 'you want parents who arrange to have their children's genitals to be cut to be penalized, up to and including custodial sentences' to 'handing over Jews to the Gestapo' is outrageous and disgusting. Just because I want to add one more thing to the list of practices parents can already be jailed for - on the same grounds, is no reason to wonder where the line is drawn.

Religious practices are protected by law. I agree with that protection.

But they aren't. They can be, in some circumstances, as we can see. But not as a general principle.

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.

Well, as in my example, the sacrifice victim and the sacrificing community disagree with you that there are long term ill effects in sacrificing humans. So how do we resolve that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 11:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by ringo, posted 04-19-2018 11:46 AM Modulous has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7657
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 327 of 344 (831373)
04-16-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by ringo
04-16-2018 12:01 PM


I want you to take a poll worldwide.

That seems like an unreasonable request. I can point out that in Israel, about 1-3% of Jewish males are not being circumcised on the grounds that it is either 'disfiguring' or 'painful'.

So that gives us a reasonable range of 1-10%

In the UK about 60% of people support banning circumcision

In Switzerland, about 12% of circumcised men wished they hadn't been circumcised and about 60% want the practice banned.

So I think it's also reasonable to say that 10% of those that believe they themselves were harmed is reasonable in the broad Western culture. Which, given we're principally discussing the West's legal response to it, should suffice. Europe plus North America is over a billion people. I suggest that should cover your one million target quite easily.

It wouldn't. I support the protection of minorities.

So why did you ask for it? What purpose does it serve if it doesn't impact the argument?

Those who object to circumcision, whether they're a majority or a minority, are not relevant.

Of course they are. What makes you think they are not relevant?

They're entitled to have their opinions but they're not entitled to force their opinions on others.

But circumcisers are entitled to force their opinions on others? Why do they get to do that?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 12:01 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by ringo, posted 04-19-2018 12:03 PM Modulous has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5569
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 328 of 344 (831381)
04-16-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by ringo
04-16-2018 1:17 PM


ringo writes:

It doesn't include circumcision as far as millions of men who have been circumcised are concerned.

I disagree and so do several countries. Besides, the harm is self-evident.

If they considered it harmful, why would they continue to do it generation after generation, century after century?

They do it for superstitious religious and cultural reasons.

Faith made the case in Message 136.

And I answered it. So you agree with Faith?

A few cases is not absolute harm.

The absolute harm is caused to every circumcised child when their dick is cut. This has been explained and the medical evidence provided. You have never refuted this because it's self-evident.

Sometimes the harm that all receive ends in further complications and death.

It's isolated cases of harm.

Isolated?

quote:
An audit of circumcisions conducted at an Islamic school in Oxford, and reported in the Journal of Public Health this year, revealed that 45% of boys had suffered complications.

You could probably find isolated cases of harm frm jelly beans but that doesn't justify banning jelly beans.

Right, 45% of jelly bean eaters suffer from complications...best not to interfere, it's a matter of personal freedom?


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 325 by ringo, posted 04-16-2018 1:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by ringo, posted 04-19-2018 12:17 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 329 of 344 (831492)
04-19-2018 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Modulous
04-16-2018 2:17 PM


Modulous writes:

Are you saying parents should be immune from prosecution of any offence?


I'm saying that if the result is ludicrously bad, we shouldn't even consider making it an offense.

Modulous writes:

Your slippery slope argument of 'you want parents who arrange to have their children's genitals to be cut to be penalized, up to and including custodial sentences' to 'handing over Jews to the Gestapo' is outrageous and disgusting.


On the contrary, it's history.

Modulous writes:

Just because I want to add one more thing to the list of practices parents can already be jailed for - on the same grounds, is no reason to wonder where the line is drawn.


But you've already drawn the line well beyond the pale. You think children growing up without parents is better than children growing up without foreskins. History shows again that you are wrong.

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

Religious practices are protected by law. I agree with that protection.


But they aren't. They can be, in some circumstances, as we can see. But not as a general principle.

As you said yourself, what is not explicitly prohibited by law is implicitly permitted. So yes, religious practices are protected by law unless explicitly excepted from that protection. And our society is becoming more sensitive toward stepping on religious and cultural toes, not less.

Modulous writes:

Well, as in my example, the sacrifice victim and the sacrificing community disagree with you that there are long term ill effects in sacrificing humans. So how do we resolve that?


Are you snickering to yourself as you compare circumcision to human sacrifice?

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 326 by Modulous, posted 04-16-2018 2:17 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 12:09 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14497
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 330 of 344 (831493)
04-19-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Modulous
04-16-2018 2:24 PM


Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

I want you to take a poll worldwide.


That seems like an unreasonable request.

If you're trying to claim that a substantial proportion of circumcised men regret being circumcised, I think it's an entirely reasonable request.

Modulous writes:

In the UK about 60% of people support banning circumcision


And 50% of the people support Brexit, which is why referenda are such a bad idea.

Modulous writes:

So I think it's also reasonable to say that 10% of those that believe they themselves were harmed is reasonable in the broad Western culture.


I wouldn't have been surprised if it was higher than that. But there's not excuse for the 10% to impose their views on the other 90-%. If the 10% don't like circumcision, they're perfectly free to not circumcise their own children.

Modulous writes:

So why did you ask for it?


Because I wanted to know. But even if you could demonstrate that 90% of the circumcised men in the Western world are against circumcision, that's not an excuse for imposing their will on the others.

Modulous writes:

What makes you think they are not relevant?


They're not relevant because it's none of their damn business. If I don't like vanilla ice cream that's no excuse for imposing my preference on you.

Modulouss writes:

But circumcisers are entitled to force their opinions on others?


Circumcisers are not trying to circumcise you. They are forcing nothing on you.

Parents get to - and have to - make decisions for their children.


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 327 by Modulous, posted 04-16-2018 2:24 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 12:32 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
18192021
22
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018