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 329 of 357 (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 replied

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

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


Message 330 of 357 (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 replied

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

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


Message 332 of 357 (831495)
04-19-2018 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Tangle
04-16-2018 2:57 PM


Tangle writes:
They do it for superstitious religious and cultural reasons.
If you don't like their reasons, that's not an excuse for violating their freedom.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Faith made the case in Message 136.
And I answered it.
No. There were no replies to that message.
Tangle writes:
So you agree with Faith?
Yes.
Tangle writes:
The absolute harm is caused to every circumcised child when their dick is cut. This has been explained and the medical evidence provided.
Your evidence shows that there is harm in some cases. You can not extrapolate some to all.
Tangle writes:
Right, 45% of jelly bean eaters suffer from complications...best not to interfere, it's a matter of personal freedom?
So you think that justifies 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 328 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2018 2:57 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2018 1:07 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 333 of 357 (831496)
04-19-2018 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Modulous
04-19-2018 12:09 PM


Modulous writes:
If beating your child can get you 10 years in prison - is that a 'ludicrously bad' result?
If circumcising your children produces healthy and happy children up to 90% of the time, then depriving those children of their parents is a ludicrously bad result.
Modulous writes:
I'm aiming for an outcome where children can have both a foreskin and parents.
The part that you can actually control is not taking their parents away from them.
Modulous writes:
I was saying that I was trying to understand your position with regards to which practices should be explicitly exempted from that protection and why - that is, what should be prohibited and what should not and what criteria should be used.
I think, "Religious practices are protected by law" covers that quite nicely. We already have laws that are working pretty well. Leave them alone.
Modulous writes:
I assumed earlier that you would think human sacrifice would be something you would agree would be prohibited. That is, you think that 'religious/cultural practice' is insufficient grounds alone to justify permitting it.
Since you're restricting the discussion to Western societies, there's no need to consider human sacrifice at all. There is no demand for human sacrifice, hence no need for prohibition. If a new sect arose that wanted human sacrifice protected, it would fall under existing laws. There would be no reason for new prohibitions. So, I'm in favour of the status quo - i.e. there is no need for new restrictions in a system that already works pretty well.

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 331 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 12:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 12:49 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 337 of 357 (831502)
04-19-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Modulous
04-19-2018 12:32 PM


Modulous writes:
Then why ask for numbers if you think they're not relevant?
I was challenging your claim. As it turns out, if you narrow the focus of your claim far enough, it has some validity.
Modulous writes:
I'm just saying the 90% shouldn't trample on the rights of the 10% just because they are the 90%
And they're not. The 90% who aren't complaining had nothing to do with the circumcisions of the ones who are complaining.
Modulous writes:
But they should also not have circumcision imposed upon them.
Nobody is imposing circumcision on anybody else.
Modulous writes:
Their penis is their business, so to speak.
No, my penis is not your business. My child's penis is my business.
Modulous writes:
Why not wait until they can express an informed opinion about their ice cream choices and let them sign up for the ice cream agency of their own volition?
We've been through that. We don't leave other decisions until the children are ready. That would be irresponsible. You think circumcision should be an exception. (Special pleading?) Others don't.
Modulous writes:
I don't think the answer 'but God says Vanilla ice cream is mandatory' is sufficient justification for forcing that opinion on others.
First, it doesn't matter what you think is sufficient justification. Individual rights are protected whether you like it or not.
Second, nobody is forcing anything on anybody. parents are making 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 334 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 12:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 1:24 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 338 of 357 (831503)
04-19-2018 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Tangle
04-19-2018 1:07 PM


Tangle writes:
Their reasons are irrelevant if the practice is causing unnecessary harm. Which it is, as I've shown.
You haven't shown that the supposed harm outweighs the good.
Tangle writes:
I've shown harm in ALL cases.
You can insist until the cows come home that millions of Jews and Muslims have been "harmed" by circumcision. As long as they disagree, your insistence is worthless.
Tangle writes:
Of course, until the jelly beans were shown not to cause harm. Would you allow them to continue to be sold?
Of course. There are thousands of products on the shelf that have been "proven harmful". Tobacco is a prime example. Few people think that banning it is a reasonable response. Sugar, fat, cholesterol, glutin.... Read the ingredients on any package. Everything is harmful. That's why we give warnings. Warnings are a reasonable response. Prison 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 336 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2018 1:07 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 340 of 357 (831505)
04-19-2018 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Modulous
04-19-2018 12:49 PM


Modulous writes:
I can also control the number of circumcisions that are carried out.
You mean you wish you could. So far, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands.
Modulous writes:
western nations take in refugees an immigrants with different cultural opinions.
I'm not aware of any immigrants who want to practice human sacrifice.
Modulous writes:
I'll take this as a final refusal to explain which acts you think should be prohibited and which ones should be allowed.....
I can keep repeating it as long as you can keep asking: I don't believe in prohibition.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
I'm in favour of the status quo
Conclusion
You now retract the claim that 'in some cases, maybe they should be allowed'...
I'm in favour of the status quo. If we change it, we should move forward, not backward.

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 335 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 12:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 3:29 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 341 of 357 (831506)
04-19-2018 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Modulous
04-19-2018 1:24 PM


Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
First, it doesn't matter what you think is sufficient justification.
It does matter, obviously.
Nope. The law still protects us from your opinion.

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 339 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 1:24 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 345 of 357 (831537)
04-20-2018 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Modulous
04-19-2018 3:29 PM


Modulous writes:
It is also true that I can control how many circumcisions are performed.
If that was true, why wouldn't you use your awesome powers to stop them entirely?
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
I'm not aware of any immigrants who want to practice human sacrifice.
Your awareness is immaterial.
Then maybe you can list some for us.
Modulous writes:
Which is it? Are you arguing for the status quo, which includes prohibition of a variety of acts - or are you against prohibition and thus against the status quo?
As I said, "If we change it, we should move forward, not backward."
Modulous writes:
Thus you are in favour of prohibition, in certain cases.
Don't be obtuse. I'm in favour of the status quo but if we do make changes it should be to remove prohibitions rather than add them.
Modulous writes:
I argue that we should move away from the ancient practice of skinning children's genitals and that this is a movement forward.
As I have said, I am not in favour of circumcision. If we stopped circumcising, that might indeed be an "improvement" of some sort.
But it ain't gonna happen.
People are going to drink alcohol and prohibition isn't going to stop them.
People are going to do drugs and prohibition is not going to stop them.
People are going to have abortions and prohibition is not going to stop them.
Even if reducing the number of circumcisions is a step "forward", disrupting happy families by depriving children of their parents is a huge leap backward into a very dark past.
Modulous writes:
I am not contending my opinion alone overrules the law.
And yet you claim you can control how many circumcisions are performed.

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 344 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2018 3:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2018 12:12 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 347 of 357 (831540)
04-20-2018 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Modulous
04-20-2018 12:12 PM


Modulous writes:
I thought we had established that prohibition doesn't generally universally prevent a practice but it does have an inhibitory effect in certain cases, circumcision included.
You said you could control the number of circumcisions. Did you mean you could influence the number?
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Then maybe you can list some for us.
It's unnecessary.
And you can't.
Modulous writes:
Let's do 'beating one's spouse'. That's certainly something that people do in the US. Why should that remain prohibited?
Beating one's spouse is a social and cultural taboo. Is there even a specific legal prohibition? If their is, by your own admission it isn't working.
Modulous writes:
But prohibition does inhibit the practices.
Sez you. Unfortunately, we can't rewind history and re-run it with different parameters, so the claim is pretty empty.

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 346 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2018 12:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2018 1:09 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 349 of 357 (831543)
04-20-2018 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Modulous
04-20-2018 1:09 PM


Modulous writes:
You said I could control taking parents away from their children. Did you mean I could only influence it?
Yes.
Modulous writes:
Are you saying we should allow it?
I'm saying, as I said, that it is not a prohibition, per se. It would be a social/cultural taboo with or without any specific legal prohibition. It is not clear that adding a specific legal prohibition would reduce the incidence.
Modulous writes:
But prohibition does inhibit the practices.
ringo writes:
Sez you.
Yep. It's what is observed.
Hold on. Back up a minute there. Notice the plural "practices". You're the one who used it. The practices we were talking about in Message 346 were drinking alcohol, doing drugs and having abortions. Do we really observe that prohibition inhibits those practices?
Modulous writes:
If Doctors stop performing it, if insurance stops covering it -- it's inevitable rates will decline in the US.
So now you're moving the goalposts to circumcision. But it isn't medical circumcisions that you want to prohibit, is 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2018 1:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2018 2:06 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 351 of 357 (831594)
04-21-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Modulous
04-20-2018 2:06 PM


Modulous writes:
It was lawful in the 19th Century to beat one's spouse.
There was a line though. You could still be prosecuted for a sufficiently egregious assault. A similar situation exists to this day with corporal punishment for children. There is a growing social taboo against it but it is still legal in many jurisdictions. In fact, nobody is ever likely to be prosecuted for slapping their child's hand away from a hot stove.
The legal response stems from the existing social change, not vice versa.
Modulous writes:
The Queen of England used cocaine in the 19th Century. Doctors used it. Labourers regularly used it, soldiers used it and so on. I expect consumers have probably decreased since the late 19th and early 20th Century - if total consumption has increased I expect this is a function of increased production due to agricultural and technical improvements ... even if consumption hasn't changed - or gone up - it wouldn't change my original comment from over a month ago
Did they stop using it because it became illegal?

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 350 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2018 2:06 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024