Multiculturalism

Not for me. I do not argue that multiculturalism is poisoning society. By-and-large I think it's a good thing. My argument is that the immigrant population should expect to modify their culture and practices to those of their hosts so that they abide by its laws.

Sample size of one. Why don't you look at the evidence from France where children are routinely given medical examinations. Perhaps they wouldn't. But perhaps the parent's consent is not required. Mandatory, if you like. Why wouldn't there be much child abuse if the State has powers and the willingness to remove custody rights from parents? Which they are prepared to do.
Here is a random example. Well obviously, but I'd prefer some people to have to take active steps to avoid detection of their abuse and for others to not do it at all than for everyone to be able to do it with impunity Obviously. Returning to the question I just asked you - What do you think of the specific ones we have discussed in this thread? Do any of the claims of cultural sensitivity causing harm have any merit in those particular cases.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sorry, I'm not following your logic. By analogy, the mothers would be the "rapists". Their health is not an issue. The children's welfare is at issue if the mothers are imprisoned but the rape victim's welfare is not hampered by imprisoning the rapist. Hence, poor analogy.I don't know what analogy you're refering to that I created. I was refering more to the choice about whether to commit the crime in the first place. But as I said, I think the problem many violent criminals have is that they don't have a hard time making choices - which is why they often make bad ones. This is a discussion thread, not a marriage. Commitment is optional. When I send you an invitation, you'll recognize it by the calligraphy.I prefer to get my information by pot luck. I don't think cultural concerns outweigh children's rights. In the case of FGM, the children have a right to parents who are not in prison. That right may outweigh the right to "protection" which is applied by outsiders.Is it in the public interest to fill up the prisons with parents who have their children's interests at heart?

So what's the difference between mandatory without parental consent, and forcible? Presumably the removal of custody rights is supposed to prevent further abuse. So why would there still be ongoing abuse if the process was working?

The importance is the target. The children are not forced, the parents are. And it does. Like imprisoning Anders Breivik has prevented him from murdering en masse, taking children away from their abusers has a history of inhibiting the capacity for their abusers to abuse them. Your claim was

quote:

---

If authorities were prepared to do that, there wouldn't be much child abuse

---

I showed the authorities were prepared to do that. If you want to argue there is still 'much' child abuse, you are arguing against yourself.The answer, as blindingly obvious as it is: there is more than one abusive person and victim.

I agree largely with that. But there are some exceptions. Even without immigrants, we find the occasional ill-considered law that is a bad fit for some of our own citizens who are a bit different. Immigrants are perhaps more likely to run into some of those laws than others, and sometimes we ought to reconsider the law.So far, we don't seem to be talking much about laws I think reasonably fit into that category. I certainly don't think rape or FGM are among them. Laws about who can wear makeup when they get their drivers license picture taken, which some fellow from NC ran into recently might well be in that category.

I don't recall saying there are unquestionable moral absolutes. So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to give an example of.

It's your analogy. Mine wasn't an analogy, it was a straight question.
The analogous conditions of its birth were regarding health concerns of avoiding hospital to avoid detection of a crime (eg., FGM).

quote:

---

That would be like legalizing FGM to protect the health of the mothers

---

Again - you said maybe we should legalize rape some considerable time ago. Now you say this makes no sense. Which is it? I wasn't, and I'm the one who raised it. So this is a red herring, then. Let's go back to the question, isn't this fun and productive?

quote:

---

If a person comes in to a hospital with a gun shot wound, should doctors treat the individual without alerting law enforcement?...Side effects are always going to exist. Doctor's report gun shot wounds, but this deters people from visiting a hospital if they have been involved in criminal activity...{Should we} {d}ecriminalise acts that might result in you getting shot? 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 choice I have been discussion is nothing to do with the choice to commit the crime, and everything to do with choosing between hospital treatment plus probable prison and potentially dying from injuries sustained during a crime. This is a debate forum, holding a position and defending it is part of the territory. I'm not sure your non-committal tactic has produced much in the way of interesting discussion. And you said 'maybe' was meant to 'foster a broader discussion.' It didn't. On the other hand, you've said something to the effect of 'I don't know' at least twice and both times it has fostered someone trying to engage you in discussion. The evidence is with me it seems, despite your puerile response. And do children have a right to decide what happens to their genitals? No child has this right, in any law of any land that I can think of. They have a right to a family life, at best - but that does not mean we should avoid imprisoning people just because they've had reproductive sex. It depends what those parents did really. If they raped the child in order to drive out demons, I do think it in the public interest to put such parents into prison. If they asked them to pay rent in order to impress upon them the value of money, then probably not.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's the Western culture. That is the culture that is right and true.

---

quote:

---

What is right is right

---

quote:

---

No one operates under a framework of moral relativism

---

quote:

---

There is only one right answer.

---

quote:

---

People can differ all they want. But there is only one right answer.

---

quote:

---

Of course, if you're a moral relativist, you'll never get it; but that's your problem and not mine.

---

If nothing else, that certainly seems to be an absolutist position to me.

Believing in absolute morals is different than absolute morals existing. For example, no morality at all exists outside of humanity as far as we can tell.Asking me to point out moral absolutes that I've never claimed exist is stupid. If Straggler wants to reword his question to actually reflect the position I've taken, then I'd be glad to answer it.

Presumably, though, if your parents had been present, and had consented to the tip of your dick being cut off, you'd be cool with that ? Because that's your position in relation to the daughters of Somali women who put their children through FGM.

Why not give him an example of something you believe is morally absolute, then?

Straggler's a big boy. I think he can ask his own questions.I'm certainly not going to go shooting out answers for potential questions that he hasn't even asked yet.

Why not? You've spent 130 words over 4 posts avoiding answering it and we're no further in understanding your position. You claim to be a moral absolutist. Clearly Straggler is looking for information on that. You could have easily given a couple of examples, explained they weren't objectively absolute right from the off. It would have taken fewer posts, possibly fewer words, and the discussion might have been able to move forwards.But if you insist on this pedantic obstinance then I suppose have at it.

I think God has an absolute morality laid out for us but we're practically unable to get enough of the details to nail down what one is.So I believe in absolute morals but I can't give you an example of one.