|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,783 Year: 4,040/9,624 Month: 911/974 Week: 238/286 Day: 45/109 Hour: 2/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Multiculturalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8551 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AZPaul3 writes: Plucking out the boy's eyelashes versus plucking out the girl's eye certainly is a difference in degree.
AZPaul3 writes: Destroying a child’s chance of ever experiencing one of the greatest moments of pleasure this life has to offer by cutting out the only organ that produces that pleasure is butchery.
For FGM, I have already drawn the line. It is butchery. It is patriarchal misogynistic bullying on a cultural level. It needs to be destroyed worldwide, everywhere, without exception. So now you want to muddy the waters bringing up other procedures asking for some impracticable hard and fast line that FGM crosses where these others do not. Each case is analyzed on its own merits. But then you knew that. You’re just blowing smoke.
ringo writes: There are plenty of decisions that parents make for their children: appendectomies, vaccinations, dentistry.
Good god, man, you cannot seriously equate these to FGM.
Bullshit. You are directly equating decisions on medical necessity with cultural butchery. In these cases the line you would ask for is between those two, btw. Is that line really that unclear for you? I do not believe you cannot see it. You're blowing smoke again, aren't you.
AZPaul3 writes: Just understand that when you take an abhorrent, disgusting, detestable and somewhat unpopular position you will get the same treatment as anyone else advocating such inanity
The so-called "opposition" in this thread hasn't even amounted to a mosquito bite. I could do this standing on my head.
You could probably do this sitting on the john, too, but so what? And I don’t know where this word opposition (in quotes even) came from. I didn't use it. On your head, on the john, it doesn't matter. When you advocate stup*dity (there is my damn banned word again. How droll.) you are going to get "opposition" whether it bites you or not.
ringo writes: I've been trying for damn near 800 posts to get anybody to answer that question honestly. Why do you suppose the rest of them won't - or can't? Because it is irrelevant to the topic. But, you knew that. It may be irrelevant to the ruse that these guys are using to avoid the topic but it isn't irrelevant to the topic, which is multiculturalism.
We're talking about trying to stop FGM, aren't we?
From your Message 690. See? You did know what we were talking about and knew your question for 800 posts was irrelevant to both the present discussion and the greater topic. You were blowing smoke for 800 messages. You do know smoking's not good for you, right? Since you bring up the greater subject of this thread, multiculturalism, I'll put in my 2₵. That’s fine and dandy. Have all the sub-cultures you want within this larger culture. Practice all your old cultural customs to your heart’s content. Just be aware that if your custom grossly violates the norms of the larger culture you have entered (like mutilating children), we’re going to throw your ass in jail. And before you ask, that determination will be made on a case-by-case basis by those organs of our society that we charge with determining such things (courts, legislatures, me).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Malcolm writes:
You contradict yourself. The doctor is only recommending a procedure. It is the parents who must give consent.
But the parents are not making that decision, the doctor or dentist is making that decision. The parents only agreed to the recommended procedure being carried out. Malcolm writes:
At one time it was not unheard of for children to have a pre-emptive tonsillectomy.
How likely do you think, for example, that a surgeon would agree to a parents request to carry out an appendectomy when the child does not have appendicitis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
You haven't drawn a line at all. You've only said that FGM is on one side of the line. That's like saying that Moose Jaw is in Canada. I want you to name a town on the border, one inch inside Canada. I want you to name a procedure that is not "butchery" but is right next to "butchery" - you know, with nothing but the width of a line separating them. That's what it means to draw a line.
For FGM, I have already drawn the line. AZPaul3 writes:
You contradict yourself. You claimed that you already drew that line.
So now you want to muddy the waters bringing up other procedures asking for some impracticable hard and fast line that FGM crosses where these others do not. AZPaul3 writes:
That's what I'm saying. Every case of FGM ought to be analyzed on its own merits. Some of them may be "abuse" but you have no basis for painting them all with the same brush. Each case is analyzed on its own merits. And if you're going to claim that "it's all black" then you have to be able to demonstrate what else is black and what is white. On the other hand, if you understand that it's all gray, as I have been saying, then there is no hard and fast line.
AZPaul3 writes:
Medical necessity doesn't enter into it. Parents make decisions based on a doctor's recommendations or on a priest's recommendations or on a pastor's recommendations or on an imam's recommendations or on a teacher's recommendations.
You are directly equating decisions on medical necessity with cultural butchery. AZPaul3 writes:
Again, you're just saying that the line is between Calgary and Denver. You're not saying where the line is. If you can't be more specific, I tend to think that it's no more than an imaginary dotted line in your head.
In these cases the line you would ask for is between those two, btw. AZPaul3 writes:
You think the people who are calling me "stupid" and "disgusting" and "a bad person" aren't opposed to what I'm saying? I'm glad to hear it.
And I don’t know where this word opposition (in quotes even) came from. I didn't use it. AZPaul3 writes:
Ya see, I might think that "stupidity" included the inability to understand such simple phrases as, "I do not support FGM," even after it has been repeated several times and explained several times. But I'm willing to concede that you're just illiterate, or perhaps to lazy too read the thread, if that's what you prefer.
When you advocate stup*dity .... AZPaul3 writes:
Everything I have said in this thread is in the context of multiculturalism. What you quoted from Message 690 is a small aside.
You did know what we were talking about and knew your question for 800 posts was irrelevant to both the present discussion and the greater topic. AZPaul3 writes:
So we'll chalk up another one who's in favour of throwing the mothers (who were once the victims) in jail. I'm still agin it.
Just be aware that if your custom grossly violates the norms of the larger culture you have entered (like mutilating children), we’re going to throw your ass in jail. AZPaul3 writes:
Indeed they will. Each case will be decided on the basis of whether or not it is abuse; hopefully the courts are not as foolish as you guys in taking an all-or-nothing approach. And each case will be decided on the basis of whether or not culture is a mitigating factor, which is all I have been saying.
And before you ask, that determination will be made on a case-by-case basis by those organs of our society that we charge with determining such things (courts, legislatures, me).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I said that that seems to be what they're thinking, since they're in favour of FGM. You're the one who says, "No, they don't really think what they say they think." Actually, UNICEF says that and its based on objective analyses of the available data.
YOU claim there is harm being done. THEY claim there isn't. Why should we take your opinion over theirs? You claim they're being coerced into saying what they don't really think. Why should we accept your conspiracy theory? Because its not a conspiracy theory, its the objective conclusion that UNICEF came to from analyzing the empirical data.
FGM is what's off topic. The topic is multiculturalism in general. You're right, my bad. It is amazing, though, to see just how low you will stoop to in the name of multiculturalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8551 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
You haven't drawn a line at all. Bullshit. You wanted a line, you got a line. In fact you got three of them. Appendectomies vs FGM: Yes there is a line. One is a medical necessity the other is misogynistic torture and butchery. Vaccinations vs FGM: Yes there is a line. One is a medical necessity the other is misogynistic torture and butchery. Dentistry vs FGM: Yes there is a line. One is a medical necessity the other is misogynistic torture and butchery. These are the three procedures you yourself brought up in comparison with FGM. I drew the line you wanted for each of them. Is the difference really this hard for you to see?
Again, you're just saying that the line is between Calgary and Denver. You're not saying where the line is. You contradict yourself. First you say I said where the line is then you say I didn't say where the line is. Do try to be consistent - at least in consecutive sentences.
Each case is analyzed on its own merits. That's what I'm saying. Every case of FGM ought to be analyzed on its own merits. In Context: quote: Not every case of FGM, you idiot. Every case for the other procedures you were want to bring up as compared to FGM. If you are going to quote me don't twist it out of context. Bad form. Keep your head in the game, man. But, since you bring it up ...
That's what I'm saying. Every case of FGM ought to be analyzed on its own merits. Bullshit. There are no "merits" to FGM, only demerits: 1. misogynistic2. torture 3. butchery These are the attributes of FGM, every case of FGM, and they suck. The only question for the courts should be, "Did you cut or aid and abet in the cutting?" If so then go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
So we'll chalk up another one who's in favour of throwing the mothers (who were once the victims) in jail. Did they cut or aid and abet in the cutting? If so then go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
I want you to name a procedure that is not "butchery" but is right next to "butchery" - you know, with nothing but the width of a line separating them. That's what it means to draw a line. Let's take this slowly. You wanted a line. I gave you three of them. If you don't like the width of the line or where it is or it's the wrong shade of blue that is your own account, not mine. But to be generous to you I'll let you chose some other procedure or three. Bring them here and, since you're so insensitive to what is butchery, I'll tell you if they are on the FGM side of the line or not. Edited by AZPaul3, : cuz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: The doctor is only recommending a procedure. It is the parents who must give consent. In your examples doctors are recommending medical procedures for medical reasons that are deemed to be in the best medical interests of the child. How can you fail to see that FGM is NOT in that category?
link quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat's Eye writes:
You can't objectively analyze what a whole culture thinks. You can produce a plausible explanation for why they think certain things but you can't use that as an excuse for denying their expressed opinions.
Actually, UNICEF says that and its based on objective analyses of the available data. Cat's Eye writes:
Are you not saying that there's a conspiracy of some sort among African Muslim men to keep their women chaste and to brainwash their women into thinking they like it? How would that differ from a conspiracy to brainwash the American public into thinking there are no aliens among us?
Because its not a conspiracy theory.... Cat's Eye writes:
I stand tall in the name of equality and freedom for all people and all cultures.
It is amazing, though, to see just how low you will stoop to in the name of multiculturalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I stand tall in the name of equality and freedom for all people and all cultures. Ah yes, standing tall for the freedom of men to beat their wives. That's so noble of you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Ringo, fer cryin out loud, how can you defend cultures? Beyond the fun of ethnic foods and other colorful things that don't impinge on civil rights I mean. The history of western civilization involved giving up cultural biases in order to at least try to develop a just society for all but you sound like you want to go back to the Dark Ages. Racism and slavery could be said to have been cultural habits of part of western culture, and that had to go. Cultural oppression of women had to go. So FGM has to go if those cultures are ever to join the first world with liberty and justice for all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
How does three lines constitute a line? There are three lines between Canada and California. That amounts to a pretty fuzzy definition of where "the line" is.
You wanted a line, you got a line. In fact you got three of them. AZPaul3 writes:
So you claim. Misogyny has not been established, nor is it an excuse for you to overrule the wishes of the women involved. Torture is downright false. "Butchery" is just a silly attempt to invoke emotion.
One is a medical necessity the other is misogynistic torture and butchery. AZPaul3 writes:
The line I've been asking you - or anybody else - to draw is between what YOU would consider acceptable and what YOU do not consider acceptable. The examples of appendectomies, vaccinations and dentistry have to do with consent, not with that line. I drew the line you wanted for each of them. So, can we get an answer? What WOULD you consider acceptable, in the area of modifying a young girl's genitals? What if it was less intrusive than male circumcision? Would you still oppose it and if so, why? And if the young girl consented, would that be acceptable to you?
AZPaul3 writes:
Think that through again. A line is the width of a line. If you're specifying "where" it is, you have to be more specific than within a thousand miles.
ringo writes:
You contradict yourself. First you say I said where the line is then you say I didn't say where the line is. Again, you're just saying that the line is between Calgary and Denver. You're not saying where the line is. AZPaul3 writes:
Your "context" is not at all clear, even now. Before you call me an idiot, try to clarify what the hell you're talking about. That's what I do.
Not every case of FGM, you idiot. Every case for the other procedures you were want to bring up as compared to FGM. If you are going to quote me don't twist it out of context. AZPaul3 writes:
The most obvious merit is that thousands of women want it. It isn't your business to decide that they shouldn't want it or they don't really, really, really want it even if they say they do.
There are no "merits" to FGM, only demerits: AZPaul3 writes:
You're still not getting it. A line is very narrow. I want you to name a procedure very close to FGM but not quite FGM. You're thinking of FGM in terms of black and white so I want to know what's white, but right beside black. ringo writes:
Let's take this slowly. You wanted a line. I gave you three of them. I want you to name a procedure that is not "butchery" but is right next to "butchery" - you know, with nothing but the width of a line separating them. That's what it means to draw a line. Let's start with bringing a scalpel into the same room with a little girl. Would that be acceptable? If so, would touching her with the scalpel be okay? I'm asking you to specify EXACTLY where you draw the line, EXACTLY where white ends and black begins, and ONLY in the area of female genitals. Got it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
The issue is parental consent versus the child's consent. Whether the parent approves a medical necessity or a cultural necessity is irrelevant.
In your examples doctors are recommending medical procedures for medical reasons that are deemed to be in the best medical interests of the child. How can you fail to see that FGM is NOT in that category?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
I'm standing tall for the women's right to say what they want despite what you think they want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That's what I'm saying. But it involved giving up OUR cultural biases, not forcing other people to give up theirs.
The history of western civilization involved giving up cultural biases.... Faith writes:
Exactly. WE had to give up OUR biases and let the Africans have the same rights as we do. Let's keep doing that.
Racism and slavery could be said to have been cultural habits of part of western culture, and that had to go. Faith writes:
Since many of the women support FGM, I think calling it "oppression" is inappropriate. It's just as bad for US to deny them their opinions - no matter how their opinions were formed - as it is for their husbands to deny them their opinions.
Cultural oppression of women had to go. Faith writes:
If FGM "has to go", then let them let go of it themselves, at their own pace. Prohibition doesn't work.
So FGM has to go if those cultures are ever to join the first world with liberty and justice for all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: Whether the parent approves a medical necessity or a cultural necessity is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? "Medical necessity" involves objectively evidenced medical reason to consider a procedure as in the best health interests of a child. "Cultural necessity".... Well perhaps you can explain what you mean by that and why that entitles parents to make life changing decisions for their children which are, in the case of FGM, very far from being in the best health interests of the child?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Because parental consent is not limited to medical necessity. If it was, we wouldn't need parental consent; we'd let the medicos decide.
Why is it irrelevant? Straggler writes:
What YOU consider the "best health interests" of the child is overridden by THEIR desire for their children to be accepted in their culture. And since the children do grow up to live reasonably healthy lives, your subjective ideas about "best interests" mean little to them.
"Cultural necessity".... Well perhaps you can explain what you mean by that and why that entitles parents to make life changing decisions for their children which are, in the case of FGM, very far from being in the best health interests of the child?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024