Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2018 12:50 AM
232 online now:
AdminPhat (Phat), foreveryoung, PaulK (3 members, 229 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,127 Year: 8,950/29,783 Month: 1,197/1,977 Week: 335/380 Day: 0/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
Faith
Member
Posts: 28533
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 271 of 354 (830991)
04-09-2018 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Modulous
04-09-2018 9:17 PM


OK, so you believe it is pharisaical to punish criminals. There's nothing to say to someone who would take such a stance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Modulous, posted 04-09-2018 9:17 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Modulous, posted 04-09-2018 9:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 272 of 354 (830992)
04-09-2018 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
04-09-2018 9:26 PM


OK, so you believe it is pharisaical to punish criminals

No. I absolutely did not say that. But I see you've found your reason to disengage, so go in peace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 04-09-2018 9:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14649
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 273 of 354 (831001)
04-10-2018 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Modulous
04-09-2018 1:59 PM


Modulous writes:

The utility of prohibition is not to eradicate that which is prohibited (though that might be considered an ideal outcome), but to allow society an orderly and agreed upon way in which to handle those that engage in prohibited behaviour.


So how can you tell whether or not it's "working"?

Modulous writes:

So that's a 'no', then.


You asked the equivalent of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The answer is neither yes nor no.

Modulous writes:

You think 'in some cases, maybe they should be allowed'....


What part of "it shouldn't be about 'allowing' things at all" was unclear?

Society should not be in the habit of "allowing" people to do things.

Edited by ringo, : Question mark.


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Modulous, posted 04-09-2018 1:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Modulous, posted 04-10-2018 2:08 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14649
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 274 of 354 (831002)
04-10-2018 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Tangle
04-09-2018 3:41 PM


Tangle writes:

ringo writes:

Ask him if a Christian doctor performing a circumcision on a Christian baby in a Christian hospital is performing a Jewish religious act. My guess is that he'll say no.


Which is obviously irrelevant.

On the contrary, non-religious people performing circumcisions for non-religious reasons is obviously relevant to whether or not circumcision is a religious act.

If you use your car to drive children to Sunday School, then that specific case of driving could be considered a religious act. But that doesn't make all driving of all cars at all times a religious act.

Tangle writes:

If it's a medical necessity it does.


But not all medical circumcisions are a medical necessity.

Tangle writes:

Except we both know that shooting your neighbour in the head for fun actually IS murder.


Unless your neighbour is on the "wrong" side in a war. So, not an absolute.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2018 3:41 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 12:36 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5773
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 275 of 354 (831005)
04-10-2018 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ringo
04-10-2018 11:51 AM


ringo writes:

On the contrary, non-religious people performing circumcisions for non-religious reasons is obviously relevant to whether or not circumcision is a religious act.

Crap. A circumcision performed for (admitted) religious reasons is performed for religious reasons. End.

But not all medical circumcisions are a medical necessity.

Yeh, like I've said not quite a dozen time so far - the last time being the one you're replying to and have deliberately quote mined - non-medically required circumcisions should require the consent of the individual whose dick is being cut.

Unless your neighbour is on the "wrong" side in a war. So, not an absolute.

My neighbour and your neighbour are not on the wrong side of a fictitious war, so yes it is an actual absolute. Or, does being a non-absolute in your mind make it wrong to intervene in someone's personal freedom to shoot your neighbour in the head for fun? How absurd are you going to get with this? So far it's further than FGM and getting towards murder.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 04-10-2018 11:51 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by ringo, posted 04-10-2018 12:54 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14649
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 276 of 354 (831006)
04-10-2018 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Tangle
04-10-2018 12:36 PM


Tangle writes:

A circumcision performed for (admitted) religious reasons is performed for religious reasons. End.


And a circumcision performed for non-religious reasons is performed for non-religious reasons. Thus, circumcisions can not be blanket-labelled as religious.

Tangle writes:

... non-medically required circumcisions should require the consent of the individual whose dick is being cut.


You've said that a few dozen times too and it's still just as wrong. Children do not have the capacity to give consent.

Tangle writes:

My neighbour and your neighbour are not on the wrong side of a fictitious war, so yes it is an actual absolute.


It happened in Britain. It happened in the US. It's happening in Syria right bloody now. There IS such a thing as a civil war. "Murder" is NOT an absolute. And war is only one example.

Tangle writes:

Or, does being a non-absolute in your mind make it wrong to intervene in someone's personal freedom to shoot your neighbour in the head for fun?


I'm just pointing out that you're wrong.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 12:36 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 1:56 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5773
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 277 of 354 (831007)
04-10-2018 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by ringo
04-10-2018 12:54 PM


ringo writes:

Thus, circumcisions can not be blanket-labelled as religious.

Why would anyone think that they were?

You've said that a few dozen times too and it's still just as wrong. Children do not have the capacity to give consent.

That's exactly why it should wait until they can.

It happened in Britain. It happened in the US. It's happening in Syria right bloody now. There IS such a thing as a civil war. "Murder" is NOT an absolute. And war is only one example.

It is not happening in my street or yours. Nor in my country or yours. So is it ok to do it?

I'm just pointing out that you're wrong.

Nope, what you're doing is evading and obfuscating. Where is you line? To the right of FGM; all the way to murder for fun? Where is it?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by ringo, posted 04-10-2018 12:54 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 04-11-2018 3:14 PM Tangle has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 278 of 354 (831008)
04-10-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by ringo
04-10-2018 11:42 AM


So how can you tell whether or not it's "working"?

If people get caught and are then being dealt with in an orderly and agreed upon fashion, then it's working.

You asked the equivalent of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The answer is neither yes nor no.

So we should neither permit nor forbid child labour, child foot-binding, child labour, domestic violence or the flogging adulterers?

I'm not sure that's a state of affairs that can make sense.

What part of "it shouldn't be about 'allowing' things at all" was unclear?

Society should not be in the habit of "allowing" people to do things.

The part where you said "maybe they should be allowed" and then said 'it shouldn't be about 'allowing' things when I asked for you to be specific about what is included in the word 'they'.

In Western law, that which is not forbidden is permitted. This is sometimes thought of as a marker of freedom. It's either one or the other. So do you have an opinion with regards to which items in the list should be which, and will you reveal it here along with your arguments as to why?

If you think this legal principle is flawed, perhaps you could expand on that instead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ringo, posted 04-10-2018 11:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 04-11-2018 3:24 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14649
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 279 of 354 (831051)
04-11-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Tangle
04-10-2018 1:56 PM


Tangle writes:

ringo writes:

Thus, circumcisions can not be blanket-labelled as religious.


Why would anyone think that they were?

You keep doing it. It's the entire premise of this topic.

Tangle writes:

ringo writes:

Children do not have the capacity to give consent.


That's exactly why it should wait until they can.

That isn't practical with things like education. So why give special treatment to circumcision?

Tangle writes:

It is not happening in my street or yours. Nor in my country or yours. So is it ok to do it?


If it's happening anywhere, you can't say there's an absolute definition of murder.

Tangle writes:

Where is you line? To the right of FGM; all the way to murder for fun? Where is it?


As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Your position is that because swinging of fists may cause injury a few times in a million, everybody should be prohibited from ever swinging their fists.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 1:56 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2018 5:07 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14649
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 280 of 354 (831055)
04-11-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Modulous
04-10-2018 2:08 PM


Modulous writes:

If people get caught and are then being dealt with in an orderly and agreed upon fashion, then it's working.


By that standard, prohibition of alcohol worked and prohibition of abortion worked and prohibition of drugs is working. It seems like you're setting the bar pretty low.

By that standard, if your car won't start and you have the option of scrapping it, your car is working.

Modulous writes:

So we should neither permit nor forbid child labour, child foot-binding, child labour, domestic violence or the flogging adulterers?


Forbidding them may be "working" according to your standard but they're still happening.

Modulous writes:

In Western law, that which is not forbidden is permitted. This is sometimes thought of as a marker of freedom.


So fewer prohibitions would suggest more freedom?

Modulous writes:

So do you have an opinion with regards to which items in the list should be which, and will you reveal it here along with your arguments as to why?


When in doubt, don't prohibit. Some people may think there's such a thing as too much freedom. I don't.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Modulous, posted 04-10-2018 2:08 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Modulous, posted 04-11-2018 5:37 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5773
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 281 of 354 (831074)
04-11-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by ringo
04-11-2018 3:14 PM


ringo writes:

You keep doing it. It's the entire premise of this topic.

The premise of this thread is religious special pleading, male circumcision is simply one example. You're attempting to make it the entire thread. The fact that medical circumcision is sometimes necessary. Is irrelevant to a discussion about non-medically required circumcision.

That isn't practical with things like education.

More obvious crap. By-and-large, people are fairly clear about whether they want their dicks slicing at a relatively early age - phd not required; age of majority is fine.

So why give special treatment to circumcision?

I'm not, you are. Male circumcision is simply one example of religious special pleading. Male circumsion for religious reasons is child abuse - it will be stopped at some point because it's an obvious wrong.

If it's happening anywhere, you can't say there's an absolute definition of murder.

I'm not remotely interested in definitions, and I'm not falling into dictionary discussions. I'm stating quite flatly that it is absolutely wrong to shoot my neighbour in the head for fun and you're pratting around like this, pretending that it isn't? Do try to be honest, otherwise we're going to think you're a psychopath.

As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Your position is that because swinging of fists may cause injury a a few times in a million, everybody should be prohibited from ever swinging their fists.

That's exactly right. Your right to swing your izmel stops at the point of a child's dick.

I see you're still evading the question, where do you intervene? I'm now saying it's way passed FGM, you would allow murder. Where do you stand? Do you stand or do you prefer to wave dictionaries around?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 04-11-2018 3:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 04-12-2018 12:01 PM Tangle has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 282 of 354 (831077)
04-11-2018 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by ringo
04-11-2018 3:24 PM


By that standard, prohibition of alcohol worked and prohibition of abortion worked and prohibition of drugs is working. It seems like you're setting the bar pretty low.

Naturally you can add additional metrics to determine whether prohibition is better than not prohibition for any given thing. For instance, if you believe 'reduction in associated crime' is an essential metric, prohibition of alcohol certainly faces problems in that regard.

So we should neither permit nor forbid child labour, child foot-binding, child labour, domestic violence or the flogging adulterers?

Forbidding them may be "working" according to your standard but they're still happening.

You didn't address the argument that the position I described is nonsensical. To answer yours: I'm confident there is less child labour as a result of its prohibition. As far as one's goal is to inhibit the offence, prohibition has succeeded.

So fewer prohibitions would suggest more freedom?

No, that's not what I said at all. And of course, it wouldn't necessarily be true.

When in doubt, don't prohibit.

I'm not in doubt. You have avoided the question yet again. What items in the list do you have doubts about? What are the nature of your doubts? If you don't want to answer this - you could at least just say so. Save me having to ask over and over again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ringo, posted 04-11-2018 3:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 04-12-2018 12:09 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14649
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 283 of 354 (831123)
04-12-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Tangle
04-11-2018 5:07 PM


Tangle writes:

The fact that medical circumcision is sometimes necessary. Is irrelevant to a discussion about non-medically required circumcision.


On the contrary, as long as circumcision is an accepted medical practice you can't ban it on grounds of "harm". The most you could do is charge non-medical practitioners with practicing without a license. But that would be ridiculous, since it's been a non-medical practice since long before the medical profession even existed.

Tangle writes:

ringo writes:

That isn't practical with things like education.


More obvious crap. By-and-large, people are fairly clear about whether they want their dicks slicing at a relatively early age - phd not required; age of majority is fine.

That's a non-response. You haven't given any reason to distinguish circumcision from education.

Tangle writes:

ringo writes:

So why give special treatment to circumcision?


I'm not, you are.

Nope. I'm saying do the same in every situation: let the parents decide. And when child abuse or rape or shooting your neighbour in the head becomes an accepted medical procedure, I'll say let the parents decide on them too.

Tangle writes:

... it will be stopped at some point because it's an obvious wrong.


You're dreaming. Discrimination on the basis of religion is specifically prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No Canadian politician would touch circumcision with a twenty-foot pole. I expect the same applies to the US.

Tangle writes:

I'm stating quite flatly that it is absolutely wrong to shoot my neighbour in the head for fun and you're pratting around like this, pretending that it isn't?


No, I'm saying that you can't extrapolate from one example of something that is pretty clearly wrong to a blanket statement that circumcision is absolutely wrong.

Tangle writes:

Your right to swing your izmel stops at the point of a child's dick.


Not if it's my child. You wish it stopped there but it doesn't.

Tangle writes:

I see you're still evading the question, where do you intervene? I'm now saying it's way passed FGM, you would allow murder.


It isn't about "allowing" murder. I can't prevent murder and neither can you. The laws we have about murder exist to handle the aftermath, particularly to prevent murderers from murdering again. The only analogue with circumcision is what you would do after the fact.

So where do you stand? if parents circumcise their children, would you throw them in jail? Do you think that would improve the child's life?


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2018 5:07 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Tangle, posted 04-12-2018 12:44 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14649
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 284 of 354 (831124)
04-12-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Modulous
04-11-2018 5:37 PM


Modulous writes:

I'm confident there is less child labour as a result of its prohibition.


You can't use one "success story" as a basis for banning things. How confident are you that cocaine usage has decreased since it was banned?

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

When in doubt, don't prohibit.


I'm not in doubt. You have avoided the question yet again. What items in the list do you have doubts about?

I have doubts about everything. Any skeptic should.

Modulous writes:

What are the nature of your doubts? If you don't want to answer this - you could at least just say so. Save me having to ask over and over again.


I'm not going to start beating my wife just so I can stop for the benefit of your question. So I don't mind if you keep asking over and over again. But if you want a different answer, ask a different question.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Modulous, posted 04-11-2018 5:37 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2018 2:58 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5773
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 285 of 354 (831125)
04-12-2018 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by ringo
04-12-2018 12:01 PM


Ringo writes:

On the contrary, as long as circumcision is an accepted medical practice you can't ban it on grounds of "harm".

Of course you can. All surgical procedures carry risks, they're a last resort. Circumcisions for real medical reasons have benefits that outweigh the harm. Circumcision for religious/cultural reasons is an unnecessary harm.

You haven't given any reason to distinguish circumcision from education.

Yeh, I wonder why that is? Possibly because it's yet another diversionary irrelevance?

Nope. I'm saying do the same in every situation: let the parents decide. And when child abuse or rape or shooting your neighbour in the head becomes an accepted medical procedure, I'll say let the parents decide on them too.

The existence of medical procedures are irrelevant.

You're dreaming. Discrimination on the basis of religion is specifically prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No Canadian politician would touch circumcision with a twenty-foot pole. I expect the same applies to the US.

I've given you examples of countries that have already banned religious/cultural circumcision. Is it a difficult political decision? sure. But is it also a wrong? Of course, that's why it will eventually be banned.

You wish it stopped there but it doesn't.

Well yes, that's the point of the thread. I may have mentioned it before.

It isn't about "allowing" murder. I can't prevent murder and neither can you. The laws we have about murder exist to handle the aftermath, particularly to prevent murderers from murdering again. The only analogue with circumcision is what you would do after the fact.

You're wriggling. People will notice. You have already said that it's a parent's right.to cut their girl's clitoris off. I'm interested in how far you think it's ok for parents to do other things. At the moment you're equivocating about shooting your neighbour for fun so I guess that's our answer.

So where do you stand? if parents circumcise their children, would you throw them in jail?

If there was a law passed similar to the law on FGM, the parents would suffer the consequences of whatever punishment was deemed fit. UK law imposes a 14 year maximum sentence. Male circumcision is less damaging so I would expect it to be much less, but my guess would be that jail would certainly be possible.

If that meant Do you think that would improve the child's life?

Yes. Parents would stop circumcising their children and everyone will live happily ever after..


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 04-12-2018 12:01 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by ringo, posted 04-12-2018 1:01 PM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018