Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Multiculturalism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 406 of 1234 (739123)
10-20-2014 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by ringo
10-20-2014 1:15 PM


I'm advocating for using the process.
And the process is being used, as I provided evidence for. I can provide more if you'd like, but since this is kind of what legislators and judges do for a living (for better or worse) it seems a bit pointless.
Isn't it already illegal under existing laws to cut up an 11-year-old girl without anesthetic?
No. Only certain kinds of cutting are illegal in some countries. It is legal for me to have some of my daughter's genitals sliced off, if she existed, in the UK and the USA for example - though some heavily technical legal arguments may be raised as to why even that is illegal, there is no explicit law against it. Indeed - as a result of multiculturalism (in my opinion, but not Jon's, see earlier in the thread) - the practice looks like it will be entrenched as a legal procedure for many years to come.
However, your answer misses the point by ignoring the conditional, 'if it isn't illegal'.
It definitely has benefits, or don't you like pizza? It may well have harmful effects too. So does water. We have to consider the good with the bad.
That's the whole point of this thread. Do you have intent on taking part in a discussion on whether the bad wins over the good as multiculturalism exists in practice today?
Do you have any personal views about what should be considered the 'line'? With all due philosophical tentativity of course. That is - is there anything you personally would object to being made legal for the purposes of cultural diversity? You know, if cutting children's genitals off is too much of a border-line or corner-case for you.
I have no @#$%ing idea what you're disputing.
I was disputing the notion that governments should avoid enacting laws that target the criminal practices of cultural minorities etc. I was arguing that there are reasons why specific FGM laws were enacted rather than relying on pre-existing child abuse laws. I was disputing the contribution to the thread that is: 'we should think about things'. It only happened like yesterday and a bit of the day before. I'm not sure how you forgot and lost the ability to look back through the thread.
After all, it breaches human rights to perform it.
Does it?
Yes, again the easiest demonstration of this I can find is Article I of the Declaration of Human Rights and German Basic Law, but jurisprudence surrounding rights listed in the ECHR can also make the case, I believe and there are legal minds in the UK that believe they can make a case that even the 'perfectly benign' male circumcision is prohibited by law in the UK with recourse to human rights laws.
What about the human rights of the 1000 Maasai women who have experienced it and still advocate it?
I believe the typical response would go along the lines of 'their rights end where their children's genitals begin'. We are of course, talking about the response of Western cultures to the practice occurring in their territory. But looking at it from a more domestic perspective - Kenya is part of the UN. That means it accepts, as binding, the UN Charter -which defines human rights in terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is widely regarded as customary international law. So there is potentially an argument that could be made even there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by ringo, posted 10-20-2014 1:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by ringo, posted 10-21-2014 12:53 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 407 of 1234 (739126)
10-20-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by ringo
10-20-2014 1:30 PM


The same way we'd test, "Eating pizza is immoral and should be a criminal offense."
Show me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by ringo, posted 10-20-2014 1:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by ringo, posted 10-21-2014 12:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 408 of 1234 (739133)
10-20-2014 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Modulous
10-20-2014 1:01 PM


Lets. But unless you propose that DUI is typically performed by a specific cultural group or related groups, it wouldn't really be on topic. You can't be suggesting putting a moratorium on legislation until one specific crime is wiped out permanently can you?
I have supported why I believe the law criminalizing FGM is stupid and ineffective and only makes things worse. Try reading.
And no, again try reading. What I said was deal with real issues before worrying about almost irrelevant issues. Deal with things that do harm to far more people every year.
But I understand, your politicians are about as stupid as our politicians.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2014 1:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2014 4:14 PM jar has replied
 Message 410 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2014 4:40 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 409 of 1234 (739136)
10-20-2014 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by jar
10-20-2014 3:48 PM


I have supported why I believe the law criminalizing FGM is stupid and ineffective and only makes things worse.
You have not supported it. You have said that unhygienic operations result in increased infections and other complications. That's stating your position, not supporting it. You haven't provided any evidence that the net effect is that things would be 'worse' if FGM is criminalised. In fact, you haven't posted a single link, nor referenced any document of any kind that might be usable in the context of this discussion in this entire thread.
What I said was deal with real issues before worrying about almost irrelevant issues. Deal with things that do harm to far more people every year.
That sounds like the same thing. You want to deal with DUIs BEFORE we worry about 'irrelevant' issues. That is to say you want to not legislate until another crime you think is a more pressing concern is 'dealt with'. This seems absurd to me. Is DUI the crime the police should be 100% focussed on to the exclusion of all else?
But I understand, your politicians are about as stupid as our politicians.
I'm personally fond of having a police force that tackles both child abuse and traffic violations as well as also tackling sex crimes, murder, robbery etc. I don't think that's a stupid way of doing things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by jar, posted 10-20-2014 3:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 8:41 AM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 410 of 1234 (739139)
10-20-2014 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by jar
10-20-2014 3:48 PM


try reading
That's the fifth time you've said something like that in this thread and to three different people.
At what point do you do some self-reflection on your posting habits and try to figure out where the problem lies?
When everyone has trouble reading you, then perhaps the problem is on your end and not their's.
Try writing more explicitly.
Edited by Cat Sci, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by jar, posted 10-20-2014 3:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 8:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 411 of 1234 (739158)
10-21-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Modulous
10-20-2014 4:14 PM


I'm personally fond of having a police force that tackles both child abuse and traffic violations as well as also tackling sex crimes, murder, robbery etc. I don't think that's a stupid way of doing things.
Which mighjt actually be a reasonable position if it were true, but I have seen no evidence that it is.
You admit that FGM still happens in the UK, If so, the law was ineffective as a deterrent, which is reasonable. The purpose of laws is not to deter acts as much as to make it possible to punish folk after the fact.
Law abiding folk will follow reasonable procedure whether or not those procedures carry the force of law. Put up speed limit sings and I would follow them even if there was no penalty for exceeding them.
Sorry but I still see your position as simply stupid.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2014 4:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2014 9:09 AM jar has replied
 Message 414 by vimesey, posted 10-21-2014 9:11 AM jar has replied
 Message 415 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2014 9:58 AM jar has replied
 Message 416 by Phat, posted 10-21-2014 10:34 AM jar has not replied
 Message 429 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2014 1:48 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 412 of 1234 (739159)
10-21-2014 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by New Cat's Eye
10-20-2014 4:40 PM


I assume I am corresponding with adults.
Sorry but all three of those people do not seem to be able to read within context.
NMP.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-20-2014 4:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2014 9:57 AM jar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 413 of 1234 (739161)
10-21-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by jar
10-21-2014 8:41 AM


jar writes:
Put up speed limit sings and I would follow them even if there was no penalty for exceeding them.
Here in the UK well known speed limits are contravened almost as a matter of course. In a 30MPH zone everyone drives round at about 35MPH. Until that is a speed camera is present. Then everyone miraculously slows down to the speed limit or below as they pass the camera. Such cameras can be used as an effective method of enforcing the speed limit.
What, aside from the penalty of being caught speeding by the camera, is your explanation for this readily observable behaviour?
Is it a cultural thing....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 8:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 1:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 414 of 1234 (739162)
10-21-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by jar
10-21-2014 8:41 AM


Law abiding folk will follow reasonable procedure whether or not those procedures carry the force of law. Put up speed limit sings and I would follow them even if there was no penalty for exceeding them.
Here's a question for you. Picture a fairly busy piece of road you know, and imagine someone secretly recording the speed of every passing car for, say, an hour. Then picture the same piece of road, with the same amount of traffic and the same secret observer, but this time picture also a police car with a policeman standing beside it with a speed gun pointed at the traffic. In which scenario do people break the speed limit ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 8:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 1:09 PM vimesey has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 415 of 1234 (739165)
10-21-2014 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by jar
10-21-2014 8:41 AM


Jar writes:
You admit that FGM still happens in the UK, If so, the law was ineffective as a deterrent, which is reasonable. The purpose of laws is not to deter acts as much as to make it possible to punish folk after the fact.
Law abiding folk will follow reasonable procedure whether or not those procedures carry the force of law. Put up speed limit sings and I would follow them even if there was no penalty for exceeding them.
The existence of laws and agencies to enforce them do have an overall deterrent effect on societies. That's established and accepted.
They produce a feedback loop: they become normative when they are seen as fair and right by the society they are applied to. So most people do not break most laws, not because of the punishment they might receive if caught, but because they think it wrong. They think it wrong because children are taught by their parents, schools and institutions that its wrong and they get that from society's laws and culture.
If you doubt that laws and the punishments for breaking them deter, you need to consider for a moment what would happen if they didn't exist.
As for speeding, the effect of speed cameras is instrumental not normative. The majority of people generally do not accept the rules for speeding so they ignore the law unless they know they will be caught. The certainty of being caught deters the offence for as long as the certainty exists. After the danger is past, normal driving resumes.
Despite your protests, you will break the law every time you get in your car and drive more than a couple of miles.

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 411 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 8:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 1:10 PM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 416 of 1234 (739171)
10-21-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by jar
10-21-2014 8:41 AM


Obeying The Law When Nobody Is Watching
jar writes:
Law abiding folk will follow reasonable procedure whether or not those procedures carry the force of law. Put up speed limit signs and I would follow them even if there was no penalty for exceeding them.
It depends on what their concept of law and honor are and how deep it carries over into their personal convictions.
Many if not most of we otherwise law abiding citizens will run a red light on a deserted road at 3 am if, after scanning the horizon we see no cars approaching nor any danger at amending that law...if but for a moment. I believe in law but I also believe in common sense and that there are exceptions to every rule. My sense of honor is not as absolute as yours is. You live by the adage that you try to do your best at all times. I live by the adage that I don't really want to follow any law when it seems useless to me and to others. Thou shall not steal. If my family and I were starving and walking down a deserted highway and we came upon a gas station that was closed and we saw food through a window we would knock first and perhaps break the window next. We would, of course, leave a note for the owner and promise to pay for the window later. If you were that owner, would you press charges?

...."When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by jar, posted 10-21-2014 8:41 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 417 of 1234 (739177)
10-21-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Jon
10-20-2014 1:29 PM


Jon writes:
Ours are better.
Since "you" and "I" (and the people whom you're complaining about) don't agree on what is "better", that statement fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Jon, posted 10-20-2014 1:29 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Jon, posted 10-21-2014 4:53 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 418 of 1234 (739178)
10-21-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Jon
10-20-2014 1:33 PM


Re: Multiculturalism and Crime
Jon writes:
What's lacking is your demonstration that your believed way is better.
I'm not saying that what I believe "is" better. Since "my way" is what the courts are doing and what you are complaining about, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your way would be better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Jon, posted 10-20-2014 1:33 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Jon, posted 10-21-2014 5:05 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 419 of 1234 (739179)
10-21-2014 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Jon
10-20-2014 1:38 PM


Jon writes:
Writing a law that says sentencing considerations should pay "particular attention to aboriginal offenders" is explicit Multiculturalism.
In Canada, we have treaties with the aboriginal peoples in which they are considered to be "nations". They are entitled by those treaties to separate treatment under the law. There is no escaping that explicit multiculturalism.
And since we are required by law to treat one cultural group differently, we are also morally obligated to at least consider treating other cultural groups differently according to their cultures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Jon, posted 10-20-2014 1:38 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 420 of 1234 (739180)
10-21-2014 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Jon
10-20-2014 1:44 PM


Jon writes:
We don't need to reassess our idea of morality to conclude that eating pizza is okay but that Type III FGM is not.
A thousand Maasai women who have had the procedure disagree with you about FGM. Why don't you respect their opinions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Jon, posted 10-20-2014 1:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2014 5:09 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 433 by Jon, posted 10-21-2014 6:40 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