Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2018 10:37 AM
274 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, jar, Stile, Tanypteryx (5 members, 269 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,917 Year: 8,740/29,783 Month: 987/1,977 Week: 125/380 Day: 9/66 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 301 of 354 (831262)
04-14-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Modulous
04-13-2018 2:15 PM


Modulous writes:

Criminalising behaviour can serve to inhibit that behaviour.


"Can inhibit" is pretty weak. We're talking about a pretty minor "problem" in the first place, a practice that has been well-established for centuries and is protected by law. Throwing parents into prison because it might conceivably reduce the numbers slightly seems wildly inappropriate.

Modulous writes:

So if you're friend or a brother was stoned to death for being homosexual, or a young family member was sexually abused by a guardian you don't think society would be better with that offender being taken out of general circulation?


You're twisting it. I was talking about laws allowing the stoning of homosexuals, etc. Taking those laws off the books would certainly improve society, so why do you advocate adding more such laws?

Modulous writes:

However, likelihood of being caught, a and the nature of punishment have been shown to be factors that influence behaviour.


The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour.

Modulous writes:

Are you going to say anything of substance. Such as what you think should be done with someone who rapes a child, stones homosexuals etc?


I'll say that it's a strawman. The subject of stoning homosexuals was brought up because that was the law. That's the sort of thing that I'm against and you're advocating. Should we stone rapists? I'd say no. Should we stone people for speeding? That probably causes more harm than circumcision. I'd say no.

Modulous writes:

I did not demand a yes or no answer. I asked the following:

quote:
which of {the actions in the list} were you thinking {maybe should be allowed} - all of them?

How is that not a yes-or no question? Tick each item in the list either yes or no.

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 294 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2018 2:15 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2018 4:11 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5760
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 302 of 354 (831267)
04-14-2018 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by ringo
04-13-2018 11:46 AM


If you're going to flat out deny that cutting the skin of an 8 day old baby's penis doesn't cause bloodshed, pain and stress and that this process can and does lead to further complications, including death - despite the evidence presented demonstaring this - there's no point in further discussion.

You're simply lying to yourself.


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 289 by ringo, posted 04-13-2018 11:46 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 2:08 PM Tangle has responded

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


Message 303 of 354 (831275)
04-14-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by ringo
04-14-2018 11:59 AM


"Can inhibit" is pretty weak.

I was making a universal statement. As I said, human behaviour is complex and the impact of prohibitions and punishments vary depending on that which is prohibited and the nature of the punishment, the background culture and numerous other factors. There may be some laws in some places at some times that have no impact on how much a behaviour is practiced. As a simple example, a 15th Century law prohibiting climbing a ladder to the moon wouldn't inhibit that practice.

We're talking about a pretty minor "problem" in the first place, a practice that has been well-established for centuries and is protected by law.

You don't get to decide if it's a minor problem and the tenacity of a practice is not a justification for it.

Throwing parents into prison because it might conceivably reduce the numbers slightly seems wildly inappropriate.

I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly. Especially somewhere like the States. As has been pointed out, merely not having it covered by the NHS dramatically reduced the practice in the UK. If doctors never perform it, never recommend it and insurance never covers it - I'm sure rates would drop in the US hugely. They're already dropping dramatically as a result of social change. About 80% of US men are circumcised, but only about 60% of children are getting circumcised today.

You're twisting it. I was talking about laws allowing the stoning of homosexuals, etc

The point in question was:

quote:
While you may doubt that the prohibition against stoning homosexuals or abusing children is a good idea - I think it should be obvious I'm not talking about a generally philosophically healthy degree of doubt, but significant doubt to the point of thinking that maybe we should be turning a blind eye to stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc.

We were talking about your skepticism regarding prohibition. Stoning homosexuals is prohibited. What's your view on this?

The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour.

Well that's neither true, nor relevant.

I'll say that it's a strawman. The subject of stoning homosexuals was brought up because that was the law.

Stoning homosexuals was brought up because you said

quote:
Prohibition of scarification is cultural and, for practical purposes, racial oppression.

And I pointed out that stoning homosexuals was cultural. Would prohibiting it be racial oppression? Your reply was that they are

quote:
not cultural practices in our society

I responded with

Modulous writes:

Some of them have been cultural practices in general western culture. Until they were prohibited. And if they weren't prohibited, immigrants from cultures where they are practiced may continue to practice them unhindered.

quote:
And in some cases, maybe they should be allowed to.

Then you avoided answering the follow up question of which cases and why. So I took one example to see if you'd be willing to defend that one. Stoning homosexuals.

That's the sort of thing that I'm against and you're advocating.

In the case of the UK, it's not clear that non-therapeutic circumcision is legal.


How is that not a yes-or no question? Tick each item in the list either yes or no.

Because it calls for a list of items, and in full context, justifications for leaving items on or off that list. Here it is again:

Indeed. And in some cases, maybe they should be allowed to.

Do you have the courage to say which ones you think should be allowed, which ones should be prohibited and give your reasons?

It's not loaded, it's not calling for an over simplified answer; it's a natural follow up to someone saying 'in some cases...' to ask them to say which cases.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by ringo, posted 04-14-2018 11:59 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 2:39 PM Modulous has responded

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


Message 304 of 354 (831280)
04-14-2018 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by ringo
04-14-2018 11:39 AM


Secondly, the research shows that it would be very easy to produce your million adults who now feel that they were harmed.

Then do it.

The million adults would constitute globally of about 0.2%

The least number I've seen in surveys suggests 10% - higher figures put it closer to 50%

You've already said that 10% was insufficient, even though that would be about 10 million Americans alone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-it-comes-to-circumcision

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...464-410x.1999.0830s1085.x

Your response was

quote:
if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority.

So why are you asking for a minority opinion now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by ringo, posted 04-14-2018 11:39 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 2:46 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 305 of 354 (831322)
04-15-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Tangle
04-14-2018 1:23 PM


Tangle writes:

If you're going to flat out deny that cutting the skin of an 8 day old baby's penis doesn't cause bloodshed, pain and stress and that this process can and does lead to further complications, including death - despite the evidence presented demonstaring this - there's no point in further discussion.


What I've said is that the vast majority of people it has been done to consider it worthwhile enough to do it to their own children. Your opinion doesn't outweigh theirs.

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 302 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2018 1:23 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:00 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 306 of 354 (831323)
04-15-2018 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Modulous
04-14-2018 4:11 PM


Modulous writes:

You don't get to decide if it's a minor problem...


I'm not deciding. It's the millions of people involved who are deciding.

Modulous writes:

... the tenacity of a practice is not a justification for it.


It kinda is though, isn't it? Our laws depend to a great extent on precedent.

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

Throwing parents into prison because it might conceivably reduce the numbers slightly seems wildly inappropriate.


I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly.

Seriously? You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions?

Modulous writes:

Especially somewhere like the States.


Again, you could hardly have picked a worse example. Not only does the US have religious freedom entrenched in its Constitution but it also has one of the most influential and vocal Jewish peopulations in the world. And you're seriously contemplating herding them off into concentration camps?

Modulous writes:

The point in question was:

quote:
While you may doubt that the prohibition against stoning homosexuals or abusing children is a good idea - I think it should be obvious I'm not talking about a generally philosophically healthy degree of doubt, but significant doubt to the point of thinking that maybe we should be turning a blind eye to stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc.

Yes, that's where you twisted it 180 degrees. Stoning homosexuals was a law intended to enforce the prohibition against homosexual behaviour. I am against the prohibition - i.e. I am against the stoning. I have never advocated turning a blind eye to anything. I am saying that the prohibition is ineffective and, in that case, downright unjust.

Modulous writes:

We were talking about your skepticism regarding prohibition. Stoning homosexuals is prohibited.


No. Homosexuality was prohibited. And stoning was the prescribed enforcement of that prohibition.

In fact, you are the one who advocates enforcing a prohibition on circumcision by throwing the parents into prison, aren't you?

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour.


Well that's neither true, nor relevant.

You can't be that ignorant. Maybe you should explain yourself.

Modulous writes:

And I pointed out that stoning homosexuals was cultural.


You keep missing the point. See above.

Modulous writes:

Then you avoided answering the follow up question of which cases and why. So I took one example to see if you'd be willing to defend that one. Stoning homosexuals.


Again, see above. Stoning homosexuals was not a "cultural practice". It was the law, a law intended to enforce the prohibition of homosexuality. You are the one who advocates harsh measures for enforcing prohibition, not me.

Modulous writes:

It's not loaded, it's not calling for an over simplified answer; it's a natural follow up to someone saying 'in some cases...' to ask them to say which cases.


Of course prohibited/allowed is a yes/no question. And of course it's calling for an over-simplified answer. If you care to pick one issue, we can discuss at length the pros and cons.

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 303 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2018 4:11 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 3:21 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 307 of 354 (831324)
04-15-2018 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Modulous
04-14-2018 4:41 PM


Modulous writes:

The least number I've seen in surveys suggests 10% - higher figures put it closer to 50%


I`d have to question that validity of that poll. Where was it taken?

Modulous writes:

So why are you asking for a minority opinion now?


I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority.

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 304 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2018 4:41 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 2:55 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 308 of 354 (831326)
04-15-2018 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by ringo
04-15-2018 2:46 PM


I`d have to question that validity of that poll. Where was it taken?

https://today.yougov.com/...3/younger-americans-circumcision

I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority.

Exactly. So why are you asking for a minority opinion (a million adults)? Will it change your mind?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 2:46 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:26 PM Modulous has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5760
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 309 of 354 (831327)
04-15-2018 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by ringo
04-15-2018 2:08 PM


Ringo writes:

What I've said is that the vast majority of people it has been done to consider it worthwhile enough to do it to their own children. Your opinion doesn't outweigh theirs.

Do you deny circumcision harms children?


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 305 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 2:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:18 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 310 of 354 (831328)
04-15-2018 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Tangle
04-15-2018 3:00 PM


Tangle writes:

Do you deny circumcision harms children?


Have you stopped beating your wife?

Let's just say that the benefits of circumcision usually outweigh the potential harm.


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 309 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:00 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Tangle, posted 04-15-2018 3:49 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 311 of 354 (831329)
04-15-2018 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by ringo
04-15-2018 2:39 PM


the tenacity of a practice is not a justification for it.

It kinda is though, isn't it?

No.

Our laws depend to a great extent on precedent.

Precedent is how we determine application of laws. It's not a justification. You can't say 'we've been enslaving black people for a century so...' or 'we've never allowed gays to marry before...' as justification for the practice.

Seriously? You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions?

Yes. If the parents are involved in the circumcision. The circumciser should also be punished.

Again, you could hardly have picked a worse example.

I think its a pretty good example, actually.

Not only does the US have religious freedom entrenched in its Constitution

Which I've explained with a notable Supreme Court decision, doesn't prevent laws prohibiting actions.

it also has one of the most influential and vocal Jewish peopulations in the world.

But most circumcised males in the US are not Jewish. Most non-therapeutic circumcisions are not religiously motivated. How many people would continue to circumcise if they don't believe there is a religious imperative to do so AND it was not being performed by doctors in hospitals AND it was a criminal offence?

And you're seriously contemplating herding them off into concentration camps?

No. I suggest imprisoning those that transgress the law.

Yes, that's where you twisted it 180 degrees. Stoning homosexuals was a law intended to enforce the prohibition against homosexual behaviour. I am against the prohibition - i.e. I am against the stoning

But you are for prohibiting the prohibition? OK. So it is OK to prohibit cultural behaviours that are designed to prohibit behaviour.

quote:

a) stoning adulterers, homosexuals and those that work on the Sabbath
b) slavery / indentured servitude
c) Flogging adulterers and unbelievers
d) removing the hands of thieves
e) human sacrifice (what if the victim consents? What if they were 'brainwashed' all their life into that consent?)
f) beating children with rods
g) Declining to employ people of the 'wrong' religion.
h) Marrying children off and the consummation thereof
i) Footbinding
j) Beating one's spouse

So let's move on to another example: human sacrifice. This is not to prohibit anything, but a religious/cultural practice designed to win favour with the gods / nature by showing a complete dedication to them.

Is it OK to prohibit this behaviour? On what grounds?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 2:39 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:43 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 312 of 354 (831330)
04-15-2018 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Modulous
04-15-2018 2:55 PM


Modulous writes:

"Young Americans less supportive of circumcision at birth"


So only Americans? Then that poll is pretty much worthless.

Take a poll in Iran before you claim that most people are against circumcision.

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority.


Exactly.

That doesn't answer the question. Exactly what? Why do you think the minority should dictate to the majority?

Modulous writes:

So why are you asking for a minority opinion (a million adults)?


Because the majority shouldn't oppress minorities either. The minority should be consulted.

Modulous writes:

Will it change your mind?


My mind isn't at issue here. If the majority changes its mind and decides to oppress the minority, I'm still against that.

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 308 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 2:55 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 3:40 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 313 of 354 (831331)
04-15-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by ringo
04-15-2018 3:26 PM


So only Americans? Then that poll is pretty much worthless.

You asked for a million. I gave you ten million.

Take a poll in Iran before you claim that most people are against circumcision.

I didn't claim that. I pointed out that to meet your criteria only requires 0.2% - hardly 'most people'.

That doesn't answer the question. Exactly what? Why do you think the minority should dictate to the majority?

I don't think they should.

Because the majority shouldn't oppress minorities either. The minority should be consulted.

Well they have. Now what?

My mind isn't at issue here.

As a debate, it kind of is.

If the majority changes its mind and decides to oppress the minority, I'm still against that.

But if the majority doesn't change its mind, and continues to oppress the minority what then?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:50 PM Modulous has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14630
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 314 of 354 (831332)
04-15-2018 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Modulous
04-15-2018 3:21 PM


Modulous writes:

You can't say 'we've been enslaving black people for a century so...' or 'we've never allowed gays to marry before...' as justification for the practice.


But you're advocating a step backwards, a repeal of individual freedoms, the equivalent of reinstating slavery or re-banning gay marriage.

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions?


Yes. If the parents are involved in the circumcision. The circumciser should also be punished.

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

Not only does the US have religious freedom entrenched in its Constitution


Which I've explained with a notable Supreme Court decision, doesn't prevent laws prohibiting actions.

I have a short memory and I'm a slow reader. Did your example cover prohibiting an accepted religious practice which is also an accepted medical practice?

Modulous writes:

But most circumcised males in the US are not Jewish. Most non-therapeutic circumcisions are not religiously motivated.


That doesn't justify banning the ones that are.

Modulous writes:

How many people would continue to circumcise if they don't believe there is a religious imperative to do so AND it was not being performed by doctors in hospitals AND it was a criminal offence?


They don't count. The ones who do believe there is a religious imperative deserve their religious freedom.

Modulous writes:

ringo writes:

And you're seriously contemplating herding them off into concentration camps?


No. I suggest imprisoning those that transgress the law.

So, if the law required you to turn Jews over to the Gestapo, you'd be happy to do it?

Modulous writes:

So it is OK to prohibit cultural behaviours that are designed to prohibit behaviour.


I don't know where you're getting that from. Do you still not understand that stoning homosexuals was the law? Not a cultural behaviour?

Modulous writes:

So let's move on to another example: human sacrifice.... Is it OK to prohibit this behaviour?


You can't compare human sacrifice to circumcision. Death is permanent. Circumcision has no ongoing ill effects in the majority of cases.

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 311 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 3:21 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Modulous, posted 04-15-2018 4:02 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5760
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 315 of 354 (831333)
04-15-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by ringo
04-15-2018 3:18 PM


ringo writes:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Do you deny FGM harms girls?


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 310 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:18 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by ringo, posted 04-15-2018 3:52 PM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018