Multiculturalism

I personally would object to FGM being done. I also personally object to smoking being done but I don't object to it being "made legal". But that's a circular argument. The practices of cultural minorities are not in and of themselves "criminal" until laws are enacted that target them. And when you target a practice that is done only by Muslims, it's hard to ignore the implication that you're targeting Muslims. Are you seriously suggesting that you have no existing laws that can address cutting pieces off an eleven-year-old girl without anesthetic? So we go from "it breaches human rights" to "maybe a case can be made for it breaching human rights". Nicely tentative. That's what I'm saying: Potentially an argument can be made. I'm objecting to the position taken by Jon, Tangle and vimesey that there is no potential for argument because they are Absolutely Right™.

As I said, "We'd need to start with a reassessment of our idea of morality."When we agree on a definition of "morality" we can discuss the morality of eating pizza and the morality of FGM.

I would say that it is simply an indication of the general lack of morals; pretty much universal I fear and a sad commentary on the general public.Yet people still get caught speeding. And thus the real value of the law.But what we find is that even there we do not seem able to apply law evenly or universally. The rich and powerful seem somehow able to avoid consequences.

Again, that is simply a very sad commentary on general morality. But if even one person does not slow down then the law was ineffective as a deterrent.

And your support for that statement is?Sorry charlie, but you are once again simply wrong.

Is there anything you personally would object to being made legal for the purposes of cultural diversity? It wasn't an argument, it was brief summary about what we were arguing about over the weekend. If you want to criticize my actual argument rather than a single-sentence summary of one aspect of it, go back to where I made it. FGM was probably illegal before we enacted laws specifically about it. No - you just did, but I'm not. I already gave reasons why specific laws were enacted and you said they might be 'valid'. And my argument wasn't that Muslims are not targeted, my argument is that them being targeted is not intrinsically a problem. I cited jurisprudence from over a century ago that "targets" Mormons that stands to this day as an example. If only Hindus committed murder, criminalising murder would still be a sensible and moral course of actions. It does breach human rights. I gave you some of the rights in question. The tentativity in my post was about the commonly-regarded-as-legal male circumcision, which might be against the law in the UK and about foreign language jurisprudence I haven't studied fully. Article I UDHR and German Basic Law is pretty unequivocal. It was against the law in Germany because it breached established human rights.If you aren't going to attempt to criticize my actual position, is there any point to this discussion? Although you keep saying this, you'll note I didn't disagree with you. You asked questions, I provided my answer to them.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If you'll accept a bet of, I dunno, say 10,000. I'll pay for the device that insurers use to reduce insurance policies - otherwise known as the 'spy in the cab.' and prove it to you beyond doubt. But you know that it is simply impossible to drive for any length of time without breaking some traffic law, so let's not worry about it.But I note, you swerve from the actual meat of my post......I'd like to hear the evidence you have to support your claim that laws and punishments do not deter. And so would the entire criminology profession.

So show me. Naturally. But you didn't make the claim 'we should discuss morality', you made the claim that we should test it: How? By agreeing our ideas are good with one another? Not really much of a test, is it? Where is the similarity to science?

Are you saying that the police don't tackle a diverse range of crimes? Are you saying I do think this is stupid, and that I am not fond of it?I'll provide evidence for any of those claims, if you insist. If it is ineffective as a deterrent, then children would have access to hygienic conditions for their abuse. This would undermine your argument. Support? Take for instance, the laws of the Netherlands, where it was quite clear it was illegal to harbour the likes of Anne Frank for a time. I'm sorry, did you just make the claim that law abiding folk abide by the law? OK, your sample size of one doesn't seem compelling - especially when it's you, the person 'arguing'. But if the penalty for exceeding them was death for one and one's family to the third generation...others who would have ignored the risk of a small fine may decide to not speed as if they had been deterred. Perhaps you could support your argument with evidence rather than just repeating your position? That would look something like this.

quote:

---

One-third of all families with backgrounds in countries where circumcision is the norm plans to continue the practice. It assesses women who participated in a study by the Karolinska Institute. "The social pressure to secure the family's honor is so strong," says researcher Vanja Berggren.

---

I'm pretty sure that FGM is practiced at a higher rate than this where these people originate from recently. So something about Sweden seems to be 'deterring' the practice. You can get up to 10 years imprisonment in Sweden for the act, but only two people have been convicted.

Or they're wrong.

You are right about one thing: You have not taken an actual position other than 'dats da way it is, folks' this entire thread.As for demonstrating that equality before the law, individual liberties, etc. are better than their alternatives you can refer to my earlier posts in this thread.Of course, if you're a moral relativist, you'll never get it; but that's your problem and not mine.

Well, let's agree that it's OK as a voluntary procedure performed on an adult ...

Because I don't need to. I am not required to respect the opinions of everyone who happens to have opinions.

What is?Driving at 35MPH in a 30MPH zone?Or practising female genital mutilation?Or both?

I am intrigued to hear an example of a moral absolute and what it is that makes it unquestionable. Can you give an example?