Multiculturalism

Learn to read and to read in context. When you can show you know how to read and read in context then come back and maybe we can hold a conversation. Stop thinking in bumper stickers.

That's not even an answer, let alone the answer. The point of the post was about weighing side effects of decisions. Saying 'we can decide either way' is not an answer to this. Can you keep your 'we should think' line to the conversations where it makes some degree of sense?

Absolutely. I doubt that you can point to where I said cutting off a boys penis was involved or something I advocate, but yes, if there was a culture that cut off boys penises then I would prefer it done in a sterile hospital situation with trained medical care.I am not in favor of health care as a for profit industry. Yup, another negative side effect.Laws are simply an example of the failure of societies.

There's no statute of limitations on thinking. It's an ongoing process and necessaily so beause things change. Once again, this whole rabbit hole was dug because vimesey and Tangle objected to my suggestion that we should think about our values. As I've said more than once, I'm not advocating for anything. The way things are may be the best we can do. Or not. There's always "a reason" for any law to exist, whether it's a law gainst FGM or a law against miscegenation. Reasons can change. It isn't for me to decide whether a law in a foreign country is lawful or not. I've pointed out why it might be considered unlawful by the people who do make those decisions. And there's no time limit on that either.

Are the bad side effects worth the risk? The answer "may be" yes or no.

Robbery, murder, rape, arson? Your doubt is well placed. I didn't say you advocated it, but it's the logical conclusion from allowing the exterior genitals of a female to be removed that you'd also allow the homologous male structures to be also. And I was right. Of course this is preferable. But even more preferable is to reduce its occurrence to the point it no longer happens at all. As far as I understand, after concerted global efforts and some of the regions with particular issues with it starting to enact laws to restrict the practice, prosecutions occurring in other places, information being distributed to those that carry out the practice as part of their traditions - the rates of FGM are coming down.FGM is almost universally done in unhygienic conditions whether it is legal or quasi-legal, so despite your preferences, the legality of the issue would not have changed that much in this regard. We have a much better chance of reducing it to near unheard of levels before we manage to get its practitioners into a position where they can afford to have proper medical facilities who perform the ritual in the correct way while minimising risk of unintended side effects (some side effects are obviously intended).

You are just repeating yourself.

I'm replying to repetitive "objections" - many of them objecting to points I did not make.

What does that have to do with me getting shot? Why?Must one follow the other? Is there some rule of equality, balance or consistency of which I am unaware?

Obviously not. Yes, FGM was made illegal quite recently as a result of change. And you questioned why a law should exist and if it was illegal while you were down there. I gave some reasons for why the law should exist and why it was not generally considered illegal. So you didn't in fact say:

quote:

---

The legislators were not convinced that the status quo was absolutely perfect, so they thought about it and came up with what may or may not be an improvement. That's what I'm advocating.

---

And I was mistaken? Aka: the title of the thread, and its central theme. So, the burning question is - which is the way you think we should go? More multicultural and tolerance of other practices even as they breach the rights of citizens? More rigorous measures to assimilate and/or legislating to enable powers to deal with specific cultural crimes against citizens as and when we learn about them? Is there any line?

They are all crimes you might commit or attempt to commit that might result in you getting shot and feeling that you need to avoid hospital to avoid the police being involved. Why was I right? Because in the next sentence you said I was right. No, but I expect you to at least want to give off the impression you were consistent. And I was right.You were arguing from a principle that practices, even against children, can/should be permitted under certain conditions. The removal of the the boy's penis mirrors quite closely the effects of certain FGM operations - so it stands to reason that if you were to stand by your general principle you'd have to accept that infant penisectomy's should be allowed by law. And you do.You want to get back to the side effects issue or would you rather dissect this some more?

What objections? What repetition?You said 'Maybe' in Message 359,
I objected this did not address the issue being raised in Message 362
You repeated 'Maybe' in Message 365
I said you were repeating yourself in Message 367
You now claim I am being repetitive, when in fact I made two posts with two different objections (1: Your post was not an answer to the issue 2: You repeated your non-answer).How is this repetitive? How are these 'many' objections nothing to do with what you were saying?

Well, no they aren't. But I have no real desire to give off the impression you were consistent.In many instances I mam not consistent and only a fool would always want consistency. But that is just misrepresentation on your part.I have no such general principle as you seem to imply.I see the side effects as the major problem when it comes to this particular issue. The LAW is the problem. But it's your law and if you folk like it, that's fine with me. I just think it is a stupid law that causes more damage than it might cure. But as I said, it is YOUR stupid law.

So you are saying that people who get shot never try and avoid hospital? I've never been in the situation before, so is this just an urban legend or something? I'm not sure what you think your point is here jar. How should this factor into my reasoning process? I am not accusing you of being perfectly consistent, jar, rest assured. I was simply stating that you would want to avoid special pleading charges, because (if nothing else) you are an experienced debater. Call it what you will, I was talking about the position you have taken in this thread:

quote:

---

If it is done under hygienic conditions on a very young child within a culture where it is custion I'm not at all sure I oppose it.

---

quote:

---

Probably actions that cause death or serious future disability would be indefensible.

---

quote:

---

Criminalizing the practice forces it to be done outside the health care system. It does not protect the children but instead denies them the chance of getting surgery in hygienic, sterile conditions done by competent trained doctors and surgeons.

---

So - it seems to me, based on the position you have advanced as quoted above, you would agree that that which applies to female genitals likewise applies to male genitals. Since removing the penis is basically as disabling as removing the clitoris and labia it stands to reason, based on your own argument, that you would take this position. I was right in my conclusion, and I'm perplexed that you would query this so much.Your objection seems to be that I assumed you were reasonable. IF you would rather I assumed otherwise, please alert me to this fact. Exactly, so now we're done with the side show perhaps you can answer my question about the side effects of your alternative notions. So let's talk about that, eh? I understand the damage you say the law causes, what damage does allowing people to breach established human rights do and why do you think the balance should go the way you suggest? I'm not sure where you are posting from these days, but I think it is YOUR stupid law too. Is the only line with children a certain degree of injury (serious long term disability or death), should all else be permitted? Is this because of multiculturalism, or is this some kind of failed-societies-require-laws-fix-society-no-need-for-laws schtick that isn't really tremendously on topic?

You are simply covering for the fact that you don't have an argument.You cannot successfully make an argument that drunk driving laws are ineffective just because some people still drive drunk. Drunk driving laws do prevent occurrences of drunk driving. Fewer people driving drunk is a benefit even if some people still do it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.