Multiculturalism

No, I think word replies are adequate, but thanks for asking. Hmmm. Okay, then it seems you are okay with children being legally mutilated during an intermittent stage.Could you answer personally HOW LONG you would allow for children being muttilated before the transition is completed?Could you answer personally HOW MANY children would you find acceptable being mutilated before the transition is completed?

No I didn't. I said this:"Because sometimes imprisoning mothers, grandmother, fathers, imams - whatever - might be necessary if the offence is serious enough to warrant it. If it isn't, then they won't be imprisoned."A qualitatively and quantitatively different thing - you're behaving badly again.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

As I have said earlier in the thread, there may be some cultural practices that we "should" discourage. Pertaining to the topic, I think we discourage far more cultural practices than we "should".Where would YOU draw the line? If you think FGM should be stopped "immediately", what cultural practices do you think should be stopped next week? Which ones would you be willing to tolerate until next year?

There are those loaded words again. The culture practicing FGM does not consider it mutilation.The number involved is totally irrelevant.

Yes. No, I didn't miss that part. I still find your stance chilling.

No. Not exempting mothers from the law isn't the same as advocating mass imprisonment of mothers. We both know that in reality those who actually undertake the cutting will be the ones who face the full force of the law. Whilst mothers who are complicit but not the actual practitioners in the FGM practise are likely to be treated relatively sympathetically with non-custodial sentences where these are deemed to be in the best interests of the child.the aim of the law is not to make orphans. What if that is exactly what had happened to the mother in question when she herself was 4 years old? And all her sisters? And her mother before her and her grandmother before her and so on and so forth.At what point does an "individual act of abuse" become a cultural practice to which you find the application of the term "abuse" so objectionable? How? Be specific. Will you please quit with this bullshit straw man of "the mothers will be imprisoned, the mothers will be imprisoned". There are not going to be swathes of imprisoned mothers leaving behind a morass of orphans in their wake.

Thanks for that reply, but here is the actual question I keep asking:

quote:

---

Is there any CULTURAL practice that you would find so reprehensibly abhorrent that you would want stopped immediately in your culture?

---

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. A social case worker goes into the field with risk assessment tools. If a child is at immediate risk of emotional/physical harm, it is removed from the home. The current tools and laws are pretty effective. So I draw the line with them.

You need to make a distinction between circumcision and mutilation. Tattooing is a form of mutilation that I wouldn't regulate at all, except as to hygiene. Male circumcision is a bit more extreme but it's generally accepted by our culture. Female circumcision is still more extreme and I'm in favour of tolerating it as long as it's practiced as a cultural norm and not an individual act of abuse. I'm also willing to tolerate anybody discouraging any of the above forms of mutilation.IF female circumcision does disappear entirely, I have no timetable. It can take as long as it takes.

Can you or can you not answer a question honestly?I asked you, "Are you in favour of imprisoning mothers who have their daughters circumcised?"

Okay . . .

quote:

---

Mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation
Wikipedia
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.

---

Male circumcision does not degrade the pleasurable function. (it often increases pleasure because woman like it more)
Female circumcision (especially removal of the clitoris) degrades the pleasurable function.

In the case of murder or assault, the one who does the hiring is considered as guilty as the one who does the act. Are you suggesting that FGM would not be treated the same way? Simple: at the point where a whole culture practices it. Read the thread. When women who have been "victims" of FGM grow up, they often realize that they were not "abused" at all, much like children grow up to realize that forcing them to go to school was not "abuse". When those same women advocate for the continuation of the practice, they are not in fact "victims" at all, even if UNICEF characterizes them as such. I'm glad to hear it. If everybody in the thread will agree with you, I'll stop bringing it up.

The question you keep asking is stupid. There is nothing impossible that I want.

It does seem like a difficult question for SOME. Personally I don't know why, we already imprison parents who harm their children.

And you know this particular action is impossible because . . .?

We've covered that already. Pleasure is not necessarily considered "the function" by the people involved.