Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2018 9:47 AM
136 online now:
creation, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 130 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,541 Year: 15,364/29,783 Month: 1,308/1,502 Week: 65/241 Day: 18/47 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
Modulous
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 346 of 354 (831539)
04-20-2018 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by ringo
04-20-2018 11:50 AM


If that was true, why wouldn't you use your awesome powers to stop them entirely?

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.

Then maybe you can list some for us.

It's unnecessary. I'll do you a solid though. I'll include 'Ringo is not aware anyone wants to engage in the practice' as a criteria.

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

So - what's next? Let's do 'beating one's spouse'. That's certainly something that people do in the US. Why should that remain prohibited?

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.

I don't see why we can't inhibit the practice.

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.

But prohibition does inhibit the practices.

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.

I don't expect it would happen with many. See female circumcision as a comparison.


And yet you claim you can control how many circumcisions are performed.

I claim only that prohibition of circumcision will inhibit the number of circumcisions. I told you to pay attention to the scope. You claimed I could control whether we took parents away. That's not strictly true, but in so far as it is, I can also assert control over the numbers by inhibiting the practice by making it illegal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by ringo, posted 04-20-2018 11:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by ringo, posted 04-20-2018 12:51 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15414
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 347 of 354 (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 responded

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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 348 of 354 (831541)
04-20-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by ringo
04-20-2018 12:51 PM


You said you could control the number of circumcisions. Did you mean you could influence the number?

You said I could control taking parents away from their children. Did you mean I could only influence it?

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.

Whether its taboo depends on the society and / or cultural context - even within the US. Some people disagree with you. And it is working. Are you saying we should allow it?

But prohibition does inhibit the practices.

Sez you.

Yep. It's what is observed. If Doctors stop performing it, if insurance stops covering it -- it's inevitable rates will decline in the US.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by ringo, posted 04-20-2018 12:51 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by ringo, posted 04-20-2018 1:22 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15414
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 349 of 354 (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 responded

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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 350 of 354 (831545)
04-20-2018 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by ringo
04-20-2018 1:22 PM


You said I could control taking parents away from their children. Did you mean I could only influence it?

Yes.

Well there you go, quite straight forward really.

I'm saying, as I said, that it is not a prohibition, per se.

Well, it is. It was lawful in the 19th Century to beat one's spouse. The US outlawed it in 1920. The justice system started to take it more seriously in the 70s and prosecutions went up. Marital rape was legal in some states in the 1990s!

It would be a social/cultural taboo with or without any specific legal prohibition.

That's disputable. It was made illegal in the 1920s, but most people, the legal system included, seldom bothered prosecuting it because, though it might be distasteful - it was essentially socially acceptable. It took 50 years after the legal prohibition for society to put its foot down and begin to make it a social taboo, and even then it took another couple of decades to complete the process.

It is not clear that adding a specific legal prohibition would reduce the incidence.

Not only is it quite clear to me - it also gives people recourse to get abusers out of their lives, gain custody of children etc.

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?

Yes.

There is some interesting area when it comes to addiction - as legalizing something may help fight addiction for a variety of reasons. But I said this back in Message 288:

quote:
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

quote:
you can't jump from what is true of nouns to what is true of verbs (murder, abuse etc).


So now you're moving the goalposts to circumcision. But it isn't medical circumcisions that you want to prohibit, is it?

Circumcision has been the main goalpost here from the outset. My primary concern is with regards to non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. That's what I want to prohibit above all else. Once that's done we can start discussing the exact age at which non-therapeutic circumcision is appropriate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by ringo, posted 04-20-2018 1:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by ringo, posted 04-21-2018 11:47 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15414
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 351 of 354 (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 acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6184
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 352 of 354 (831995)
04-28-2018 3:01 PM


One case of special pleading has been resolved - coroners must prioritise religious funerals over others even if it means others are delayed because of it.

quote:
A London coroner has been ordered by the High Court to change her "cab-rank" queuing policy for handling burials after it was ruled "unlawful".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43922000

I've no problem factoring in the stupid beliefs of believers so long as it doesn't impact on those of different beliefs or none but I guess this is one of the smaller inconveiences religionists impose on others.


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.


  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6184
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 353 of 354 (833334)
05-20-2018 4:03 AM


Next week the Irish have a referrendum on abortion - their 6th attempt to remove the article banning it from their constitution. A real anomaly - few constitions have a such an amendment, created, of course by the Catholic church that had/has a total grasp on Irish life. 93% of Irish primary schools are Catholic.

In the past - and currently - the church's obsessions with all things sexual tried to stop such things as tampon sales and contraception.

The Catholic church in Ireland is losing its influence as a younger generation learns more of the world and the disgusting activities of priests and nuns over child abuse, cover-up and mother and baby homes are exposed. Attendance at mass is low and falling and priests are getting hard to recruit. But there is support for the anti-abortion from a growing Muslim community there.

It looks quite close, but the odds are that Irish women will finally get the right to choose.


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.


  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6184
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 354 of 354 (833906)
05-28-2018 3:18 AM


The vote was 66% in favour of abortion, so another brick in religion's wall is kicked out.

Northern Ireland has a similar ban in place which is now coming under pressure for change. This one might be harder.


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.


  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018