Multiculturalism

Isn't that the opposite of deterence? To avoid getting caught, criminals are more likely to shoot witnesses, to get involved in high-speed chases, etc. When the enforcement side escalates, the criminal side escalates in self-defense.Edited by zombie ringo, : Spellig.

There were two questions. One was about decriminalising acts that are of a certain seriousness and during the commission of which one might receive a GSW. You said maybe to both questions. Yet another reason that 'maybe' was a shit answer. No - you just open mindedly suggested that maybe we should. Probably because you weren't paying attention to what I was asking. If you replace 'the mothers' with 'some mothers' then yes, we agree. But that doesn't really help us with our ethical debate. IF you want to advocate their views on their behalf as to why it is in the child's best interest we can examine if that really is the case. All the reasons I've heard simply don't meet the same kind of standards we'd apply in other cases.

No. That's what happens when there is deterrence. Is this what FGM practicing parents are doing in countries where it is illegal?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Laws may happen to match one set of morals but I have never denied that happens. What I have said is that basing laws on morals is stupid. Another silly question conflating concepts designed to misdirect attention.First, read what YOU right. You find hurting people repulsive and immoral, That is a reflection of YOUR beliefs.And it is unnecessary. Why could we not pass laws against rape regardless of whether or not rape is immoral? Christ, it's clear you do not even read what YOU write.Did you not say :

Your use of 'answer' seemed different than mine. I was talking about answers to questions such as 'what should we do?'. Those answers are practices; but not all answers are practices. I'm just trying to make sure that the point of the discussion remains in focus and it isn't allowed to devolve into arguing over whether it's right to hate one's mother or some other thing like that.I'd like to stay focused on observable practices or observable consequences of beliefs. I'm not interested in quibbling over terminology. If we don't agree on what 'inherent' means, that's fine. People hunting people is generally wrong, though I can imagine it justified in certain contexts, but those contexts do not vary from culture to culture. So I can say that to whatever degree and under whatever circumstances people hunting people is wrong when practiced in culture A it is also wrong when practiced in culture B.And you can call that whatever the hell you want. Can you summarize the central argument of your sources as I've been doing so that I don't have to hunt through each document and guess at what aspects of it you think support your position? Tomayto, tomahto. I think that lessening sentences for murder given cultural considerations is a sign that Multiculturalism has run away with the rationality and equality before the law that makes our societies functionable. Over-sensitivity to cultural differences inhibiting investigations of child sex trafficking doesn't seem like an intended outcome of Multiculturalism; folks got too wrapped up in the ideology and weren't able to keep it under control enough to properly enforce necessary laws that provide for individual and public safety.That kind of snowballing or chain of undesirable consequences is what I mean by 'runaway'. Does this apply to naturalized citizens? It seems to exclude refugees or people who might face harsh living conditions back home:

quote:

---

"Facing Deportation?" from FindLaw UK:

​

Although you may not qualify for leave to remain in the UK, it may in some circumstances be possible to make representations to UKBA against your deportation on compassionate grounds, such as human rights. For example, if you have been living in the UK for many years and fear that you may be subjected to persecution if you are deported. Indeed, a deportation order should not be made against an individual if doing so would lead to a breach of the UK’s duties under the European conventions on human rights and/or refugees.

---

Also, for what types of crimes is this 'punishment' considered? I don't think I said it was applicable to all cases. Things like tribalism, bushmeat, and child sex trafficking may not be legal in the host nations, but they can still be propped up by Multiculturalism policy that seeks to promote diversity by importing people of other cultures whose values don't always dance to the same tune as the host nations.Here is some political and social advocacy for Multiculturalism that effects some of the illegal bushmeat trade in that article:

quote:

---

"African Immigrants in the United States" from Migration Policy Institute:

​

Classes of admission for African immigrants who gained lawful permanent residence in 2010 were also diverse, with 48 percent having done so through family relationships, 24 percent through the diversity visa program, 22 percent as refugees and asylees, 5 percent through employment, and the rest through other means.

---

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Diversity Immigrant Visa:

​

The Immigration Act of 1990 established the Diversity Visa (DV) program, where 55,000 immigrant visas would be available in an annual lottery, starting in fiscal year 1995. The lottery aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants mostly from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States in the previous five years.

---

If we do some rough figuring on the numbers (making a lot of assumptions), we might say that without Multiculturalism policy, the market for bushmeat would be only of what it is now. So, whether intentional or not, Multiculturalism policy is promoting the bushmeat market in the U.S. even as the practice itself remains illegal.Importing criminals by the thousands seems to be another way Multiculturalism is getting away from us.If you want Multiculturalism, you get everything that comes with that: the good and bad.Is the good worth the bad?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Yes, but you don't really have any defense for that contention, do you. Nor can you support the contention that laws do not purposefully provide deterrence. Just blather. It looks to be right on point. I'm asking you to explain why basing a specific law on a specific culturally accepted moral is stupid. I don't really expect an answer. Right. I suspect that it's a very widely held belief. I don't see any reason not to base laws on such a belief. We could do that. The point is to find out from you why laws based on morals are stupid. Yeah, you got me there. Couple of extra negatives.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And there's an answer to Straggler's question. Not so hard, really, was it? I did that when I cited them the first time. Let's explore a specific case you feel is emblematic of this problem. Yet nor has it been demonstrated that this is a particular problem. At best it has been demonstrated that this is perceived as a problem, but cultural insensitivity has probably hampered criminal investigations too. The question is - which is more influential? Do you propose, in order to defend our human rights principles and values, we should ignore our human rights principles and values? Well about 50,000 people are deported from the UK under deportation orders, or under threat of them. About 5,000 of them were criminals. I believe it is a wide array of crimes, the court must state that there is a public interest in deportation. I've seen cases of robbery, rape, assault, looting be given recommendations from the court. Activities surrounding terrorism probably count too. Of course not, which is why I asked you - given one of the main cases discussed in this thread would not be inhibited by deportation threats, can you reference any cases where it would? Seems a bit tenuous to me. A policy which encourages immigration from other countries, which consequentially means Africa will be highly represented in being covered by the policy (Indian subcontinent, Brazil and China being excluded), means there will be more Africans coming to the country and some proportion of them go on to purchase illegally imported foodstuffs.I mean if the Visa didn't exist you'd still be looking at 75,000 Africans migrating to the US every year. I don't think that it constitutes a significant part of the problem. Additionally these visas apply to people who have families in the US or have found employment in the US have a reasonable education and can contribute to the country. I think you'll have to do a bit more in terms of argument before this can be seen to be definitely a bad thing. Exactly, you seem to be ruthless talking about the bad, without giving much consideration to the good.

Yes - as I referenced previously, Forward cite instances of young girls being held down by six adults to inflict FGM. But Ringo, that's not the impression you gave us about your feistiness when it comes to you resisting a pelvic examination from a doctor (something which is orders of magnitude less damaging than FGM). You were telling us you'd have the doctor's fingers off - a hell of a strong reaction to someone even daring to examine your genitals. And yet, when it comes to young girls having the tips of their clitorises cut off - nah, that's ok - because their mums had it inflicted on them. So it's ok for you to object to a simple examination of your genitals - but heaven forfend that anyone should try to prevent a girl's clitoris being mutilated.Oh, and by the way - I've had all four of my wisdom teeth extracted, and I can confirm to you that it is a procedure which has interfered with my life not in the slightest. Will you be willing to pop along to the hospital tomorrow and have the tip of your dick cut off, (not the foreskin, the dick - see reiteration below), so that you can tell us whether or not having that procedure has the same impact as having a bad tooth out ? No ? Well, then, don't make ridiculous comparisons. When was this ? I asked whether you wanted the tip of your dick cut off, but that is not remotely the same as male circumcision. You appear not to understand what the difference is. Circumcision is the removal of part of the foreskin around the penis. The foreskin has comparatively few nerves and blood vessels, and circumcision has little to no adverse impact upon male sexual pleasure (except occasionally, when too much is removed, or the procedure otherwise goes wrong). FGM involves (at the least) the removal of the tip of the clitoris. This would be the equivalent of removing the tip of your dick. Not the foreskin - the dick - the top of your cock - the whole bit where the helmet is - leaving a stump. Do you not understand that this is what is happening, to millions of women ? This isn't a minor thing. This isn't remotely comparable to circumcision. When I compared it to removing the tip of your dick, that is exactly what I meant - the tip of your dick - the whole bit at the top. Did you not realise that this was what was happening to these girls ? (And that's in the mildest cases - it gets worse than that). But my ability to argue that harm is being caused to powerless children is utterly unlimited. If your argument is that the girls suffer no harm, then I challenge you to go and have the tip of your dick cut off (not the foreskin, the tip of your dick). Like you say, it's like having a bad tooth out, right ?

Learn to read.I have explained why I said basing laws on morals is stupid, explained it several times. Note I actually read what you wrote and responded to what you wrote.Reading is essential.

And comprehension includes both semantics and pragmatics.

It never occured to me that rape would be a crime that was likely to result in gunshot wounds. A gunshot wound is more likely to prevent a rape. I'm not advocating their views on their behalf. I'm trying to point out that they have views that should be respected.

Huh? How does taking steps to avoid being caught deter a crime that has already been committed? The point is that prohibition often results in an escalation of crime and a proliferation of crimes. That has to be weighed against any deterent effect.

I don't know how that answers the question as he asked it, but if it does, good deal. I see laws to handle the negativities of Multiculturalism; but where is the discussion of the benefits? Allowing certain cultures different avenues for arbitration is not a clear benefit of Multiculturalism, it is just an expression of it. You have to show how it benefits the host society to show that it's a benefit. No conception of human rights can take into account the welfare of every single person because in many cases people have conflicting interests. I think I was pretty clear with my rough math that I saw the Diversity Visa program potentially responsible for only of the illegal bushmeat trade in the U.S.People with jobs and families are a dime a dozen. I'm not convinced that the risks posed by even a single extra pound of bushmeat are offset by the presence of a few extra educated workers ready to make babies.I am convincible, though”if you'd like to take a stab at it .

I'm not responsible for your impressions. In fact, I am relieved, glad and also thankful for any medical care I received as a child, even though I might have been resistant at the time. So childhood resistance is not an argument against anything. You're missing the point. Regardless of how resistant they may be at the time, when they grow up they want the same procedure done on their daughters.It's not about whether or not you or I think it's okay. It's about how their idea of what's okay changes as they grow up. In Message 506 you asked, "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 ?" to which I replied in Message 521, "If you ask a Jewish or Muslim male who's old enough to answer, my guess is that the overwhelming majority are cool with it," so it should have been clear that I was refering to male circumcision.Then in Message 524 you said, "Having foreskin cut off is not in the slightest comparable to having the tip of the clitoris cut off," indicating that you knew I was talking about male circumcision.We are, after all, comparing male circumcision with female circmcision. It is true that the female variety is more extreme from a surgical point of view but they are quite similar from a cultural point of view, which is what this thread is about. Again you miss the point. I was using a tooth extraction as an example of a procedure which is unpleasant at the time but is recognized as a good idea after the fact. The mothers realize what is happening to these girls. It isn't.Your supposedly infinite powers of argument seem to be limited by your inability to understand English.My argument is that the mothers WHO HAVE HAD THE PROCEDURE DONE TO THEM are better qualified to assess "harm" than you are.Pardon me for raising my voice but you have ignored the point persistently. Are you ever going to have the courage to address the point that the advocates of the procedure are the ones who have had the procedure?

You do like to employ obfuscation. I have been talking about FGM, and asked about whether you'd be cool about having the tip of your dick cut off. I did not ask about male circumcision - because that does not involve having the tip of your dick cut off. So when you say "Male circumcision is what you asked about", that is incorrect. Male circumcision does not involve having the tip of the dick cut off. My opinion is formed by reading the views of the medical professionals. The scientists who deal with FGM. I prefer my opinion, as to the harm caused, based on that information. Have a read of the World Health Organisation website on the topic Female genital mutilation . It's a pretty clear statement from the medical professionals.Bear in mind too, that many women who have undergone FGM campaign vigorously against it. I have heard them speak about it (through interpreters).The fact that someone was abused as a child, does not entitle them to abuse children themselves. And we assess whether a child abuser abuses a child by independent, professional assessment, and not by asking whether the abuser thinks it's ok.