|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Multiculturalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I think that it is moral to obey laws. jar writes: Laws should never be connected to morals. If laws and morals are unconnected what has obeying the law (or not) got to do with morality?
Straggler writes: Is there any reasoned basis to this idea that it is moral to obey laws? jar writes: I'm not at all sure there is any reasoned basis for any personal belief as much as the it being the result of upbringing and culture. Has it occurred to you the culture you exist in may employ, rightly or wrongly and probably imperfectly, a connection between laws and morals which you have apparently unthinkingly adopted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Why should I think something other than that they might be valid? They might work in one context but not in another. It might take a while to see if they do work.
So what do you think of the given justifications for having such laws that I posted some time ago? Other than it 'might' be 'valid', of course. Modulous writes:
No. I don't think children should be forcibly tested for any kind of abuse. I don't think children should be forcibly tested for drugs, either.
Do you think at risk children should be given periodic medical examinations, in part, to check for FGM? Modulous writes:
If the victims don't cooperate, I don't think the legal system should be further victimizing them by looking up their skirts.
Do you think we should engage in more significant surveillance to detect the crime and its perpetrators, given that its victims rarely cooperate with the legal system? Modulous writes:
I would consider trying an approach similar to what some jurisdictions are using for heroin addiction. Instead of imprisoning people, help them. Clean needle exchanges don't do anything to stop those horrible, horrible perverts from commiting their despicale acts, but they prevent a domino effect of related problems.
What do you think will improve the situation? Modulous writes:
I would have thought that the word "restraint" connoted a negative direction, negative to the direction they want to go, anyway. But what is negative for the police may well be positive for society.
ringo writes:
Do you think it ever puts a negative constraint on them? I think multicultural considerations can put a valuable constraint on police investigations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Like the prohibition of alcohol "could be enforced"? It's a law, it can be enforced. Edited by zombie ringo, : Fixed quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
That's a poor analogy. That would be like legalizing FGM to protect the health of the mothers, which makes no sense and I have not suggested. Do you think we should make rape, as it is defined in your country, legal in order to protect the health of rapists who might get injured in their pursuit of crime? I'm not sure a better analogy to rape is possible, since FGM is motivated by culture and rape is not.
Modulous writes:
I personally have no problem wth that. Ethically, I don't know how doctors can justify revealing their patients' particulars anyway.
If a person comes in to a hospital with a gun shot wound, should doctors treat the individual without alerting law enforcement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why should I think something other than that they might be valid? So you call the laws into question, but you have no comment to make on some reasons for the law to exist? Do you have anything to say about anything in this topic?
I don't think children should be forcibly tested for any kind of abuse. Forcibly? Who said forcibly?
If the victims don't cooperate, I don't think the legal system should be further victimizing them by looking up their skirts. That's fine - but what is your answer to the question which was nothing to do with looking up victim's skirts?
I would consider trying an approach similar to what some jurisdictions are using for heroin addiction. Instead of imprisoning people, help them. Again, you aren't saying anything here other than 'we should do the right thing' which is tautalogous. What help do you think should be given? Do you think parent's that get their children addicted to heroin should face no penalty?
I would have thought that the word "restraint" connoted a negative direction, negative to the direction they want to go, anyway. But what is negative for the police may well be positive for society. You really don't want to answer straight questions do you? You complain that I am nit-picking! Do you think cultural sensitivity ever puts a constraint on police activities to the detriment of society?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That's a poor analogy. That would be like legalizing FGM to protect the health of the mothers, which makes no sense and I have not suggested. It might not make any sense - but you are the one who said maybe we should and thought this was a good contribution. Now you seem to be saying we shouldn't because it doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure a better analogy to rape is possible, since FGM is motivated by culture and rape is not. The point is to see if there is any point at which the side effects for criminalisation are better than the side effects for decriminalisation. The justifications were irrelevant to this point.
I personally have no problem wth that. Ethically, I don't know how doctors can justify revealing their patients' particulars anyway. It's a balancing act isn't it? Balancing patient confidentiality against justice and potential future victims' welfare. Balancing society's wellbeing with criminal's wellbeing. I don't have the answers, but I'd rather violent criminals had difficult choices rather than their victims being denied protection and justice. the UK authorities have given:
quote: It goes on to say that the police are better suited to making decisions with regards to public safety and there is also a need to gather statistics to understand public safety concerns such as a raise in gun crime (which is typically targeted against other criminals such as drug dealers and smugglers). Can we at least both agree that your answer here is 600 orders of magnitude superior to the mere, 'maybe'? I mean saying 'I don't know' is clearly a more honest approach and it serves as an actual springboard for us to talk - yay!
Emerg Med J 2005;22:84-86 doi:10.1136/emj.2004.016733, Reporting of gunshot wounds by doctors in emergency departments: A duty or a right? Some legal and ethical issues surrounding breaking patient confidentiality, A Frampton quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I did. How else do you propose to find evdence when the victim doesn't cooperate?
ringo writes:
Forcibly? Who said forcibly? I don't think children should be forcibly tested for any kind of abuse. Modulous writes:
I guess I'm just not a penalty-oriented person. Is penalizing the parents good for the children?
Do you think parent's that get their children addicted to heroin should face no penalty? Modulous writes:
It might. But we don't give the police broad powers because it might have a good effect in rare cases. We narrow their powers so that it has a minimum of bad effects in most cases.
Do you think cultural sensitivity ever puts a constraint on police activities to the detriment of society? Modulous writes:
Maybe you should ask better questions.
You really don't want to answer straight questions do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ZR writes: Like the prohibition of alcohol "could be enforced"? Yes, it could be enforced, it was enforced and it still is enforced in those countries whose populous actually agreed/agrees with it. Like laws agianst homosexuality, segregation and hanging sheep, when the laws do not represent the values of the people they get changed. Happily, there are very few people in Western democracies whose values include the mutilation of children. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Refresh my memory. Where did I say we should legalize FGM to protect the health of the mothers? Maybe I can clarify.
ringo writes:
Now you seem to be saying we shouldn't because it doesn't make sense. That would be like legalizing FGM to protect the health of the mothers, which makes no sense and I have not suggested. Modulous writes:
I don't think violent criminals do have difficult choices though. Quite the contrary. A lot of violent crime is the result of reacting on the spur of the moment without taking consequences into account. You can't protect victims from that a priori.
I don't have the answers, but I'd rather violent criminals had difficult choices rather than their victims being denied protection and justice. Modulous writes:
I'm no mathematician but I'm certainly not going to agree with that. My counter offer is 10%, pending a quantitative definition of "superior".
Can we at least both agree that your answer here is 600 orders of magnitude superior to the mere, 'maybe'? Modulous writes:
Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."
I mean saying 'I don't know' is clearly a more honest approach and it serves as an actual springboard for us to talk - yay!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I did. How else do you propose to find evdence when the victim doesn't cooperate? The question you are answering does not presuppose uncooperative children. The children typically don't cooperate by not testifying against their family, not by refusing to see a medical professional.
I guess I'm just not a penalty-oriented person. Is penalizing the parents good for the children? I would have thought so, yes. If parents are acting in a way detrimental to the child's welfare, especially to this degree it seems beneficial to remove children from this environment and show other adults that there are penalties for harming children.
Do you think cultural sensitivity ever puts a constraint on police activities to the detriment of society? It might. Of course it might, we're back to 'maybe' like answers, I see. Specific examples of situations where this is claimed to have occurred have been raised in this thread. Do you think any of them have merit? What about other claims such as witch-hunts by African Christians in the UK are not being prosecuted out of cultural sensitivity issues? Are there any cases you've heard of, or subsequently looked up, where you think it either has or, despite other's claims you don't think it has - or at least the evidence to support the claims.
Maybe you should ask better questions. If you had been paying attention to the thread, you could have used normal English comprehension skills to understand what I was asking. So I reject this possibility without further evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Good point. Yes, it could be enforced, it was enforced and it still is enforced in those countries whose populous actually agreed/agrees with it. Like laws agianst homosexuality, segregation and hanging sheep, when the laws do not represent the values of the people they get changed. Happily, there are very few people in Western democracies whose values include the mutilation of children. But I thought the laws against FGM were not being enforced. I thought the complaint was that they are not being enforced because the enforcers are afraid of being labelled as racist. How do you propose to remedy that situation? Saying that they "should" bite the bullet and enforce the law despite their reservations isn't working, is it? What's the next step? Should we imprison police officers who don't enforce the FGM laws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ZR writes:
But I thought the laws against FGM were not being enforced. I thought the complaint was that they are not being enforced because the enforcers are afraid of being labelled as racist. Yes, that's correct. The result has been quite horrendous with a whole new bunch of allegations just today about police turning a blind eye to abuse in Sheffield. http://www.bbc.com/news/education-29725855
How do you propose to remedy that situation? Saying that they "should" bite the bullet and enforce the law despite their reservations isn't working, is it? What's the next step? Should we imprison police officers who don't enforce the FGM laws? It is working now. It needed the political wind to change and it has now changed. The first FGM prosecutions are now in the system and there are multiple investigations into child abuse in Rotherham and now Sheffield. There have been resignations in several public bodies and there'll be some more. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Well I presuppose uncooperative children because I used to be one. If a doctor had proposed a pelvic exam to me I would have advised him to count his fingers and his ears first because the number was likely to decrease in the process. The question you are answering does not presuppose uncooperative children. I presume that a parent would have to be present (in which case maybe even I could be persuaded) but the parents seem unlikely to consent.
Modulous writes:
If authorities were prepared to do that, there wouldn't be much child abuse. And I think there is.
If parents are acting in a way detrimental to the child's welfare, especially to this degree it seems beneficial to remove children from this environment... Modulous writes:
Or drive them further underground.
... and show other adults that there are penalties for harming children. Modulous writes:
Specific situations may suggest that cultural sensitivity can be detrimental to society. That is not an argument for general insensitivity.
Specific examples of situations where this is claimed to have occurred have been raised in this thread. Do you think any of them have merit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I hope that works out well for the children. The first FGM prosecutions are now in the system and there are multiple investigations into child abuse in Rotherham and now Sheffield. So now that we're done with FGM, maybe we can get back to the more general "poison" of multiculturalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Refresh my memory. Where did I say we should legalize FGM to protect the health of the mothers? Maybe I can clarify. My question was about legalising rape so that rapists don't have to fear seeking medical attention for fear their crime will be detected should they get shot in the process of committing the crime:
Do you think we should make rape, as it is defined in your country, legal in order to protect the health of rapists who might get injured in their pursuit of crime?
That's a poor analogy. That would be like legalizing FGM to protect the health of the mothers, which makes no sense and I have not suggested. You said maybe we should in Message 359. You subsequently argued that legalising rape for the health of rapists doesn't make sense and you created an analogy you used to demonstrate this.
I don't think violent criminals do have difficult choices though. So you murdered someone, but their friend arrives on the scene and shoots you in the belly and you flee while they try and save their friend's life. Are you saying you do not face the tough choice of going to the hospital and being caught by the police, or trying to find less-official and probably inferior medical help to maximise your chances of avoiding prison. Health or freedom isn't a difficult choice?
Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe." Almost, and often. But not quite. Maybe is the same as saying 'I am not going commit myself'. This might be because you don't know, or for some other reason. With 'I don't know', you are inviting someone to inform you. When you say 'maybe' you are just being vague. See how you make this more about the meta-debate than about the actual debate. I gave you information, but you neglected to address it. Let me boil it down to a single question to see if that helps: Given there is a need to balance various obligations and concerns when we create laws - what factors do you think are important and, in the context of the topic of this thread, where does 'cultural concerns' outweigh other ones such as public interest, children's rights etc?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024