Multiculturalism

What heat? I think the arguments against FGM in this thread have been very weak. I was hoping the opponents would up their game but it's still mostly just hysteria. As I've said to almost everybody else in this thread: I'm not defending the "butchery. I'm defending the "butchers". They're entitled to a defense, even if they are wrong.You shouldn't be surprised that somebody would debate on a debating site.

On the contrary, the others in this thread have been equivocating all cutting of the female genitalia with the most extreme form. In its mildest form it is exactly analogous to male circumcision.Treating all FGM as the most extreme form is equivalent to treating all assaults as murder. THAT is the poor (and false) comparison.

We all know what harm is. One example of harm is mutilating a child's genitals for no medical reason. In my country, those that we elect to govern us make our laws and our independent judiciary decide on the degree of culpability of the offenders and the relative harm they cause and from that, reach a decision on punishment. No, The law is specific to FGM which is a culturally motivated offence. If someone cut a little girls genital for something other than cultural reasons I'm pretty sure he's be charged with a different offence - wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent and maybe a sexual offence too. I suspect it would get a higher sentence because the intent is to harm for no other reason than - well I don't know why. That kind of thing is beyond normal comprehension.

That's like saying we all know what obscenity is.No. We don't. That's what I'm saying.You seem to be intent on disagreeing with me - I guess because I'm not shrieking loudly enough against FGM - but I can't figure out what your disagreement is.

Really, though, comparing FGM and male circumcision is pretty pointless regardless of the nature of FGM in question.That the genitalia of men and women are evolutionarily analogous to one another means relatively little in light of the fact that they are presently quite different from one another and that any government worth its salt that regulates what parents can and cannot do to their children's genitalia should not treat them as identical.Even when the procedures in question remove/modify evolutionarily analogous parts male circumcision and FGM are completely different things.

It's not at all like knowing what obsenity is. The deliberate cutting off of a childs genitals without medical reason will always be classed as harm - otherwise 'harm' has no meaning. I'll agree with you when you stop being an apologist for FGM.

Unless the defense is "diminished capacity" then defending the admitted butcher is defending the butchery. Defending the butcher says that in light of some specified reasons the butcher was justified in committing the butchery and thus the act of butchery was justly committed. When you validate the reasons a person committed an act then you have held the act itself to be valid for those very same reasons.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

In that case, male circumcision would also "always" be classed as harm - and of course it isn't.You can equivocate female circumcision with "cutting off a child's genitals" for its emotive value or you can approach the issue honestly. Once again, where do you draw the line? Is there any "alteration" of the female genitals that you would not consider "harm"? I'm not an apologist for FGM. I'm a defender of women.

Nonsense. Defending the defendant is making sure that he/she gets the full protection of the law from the accusers and from society's thirst for retribution. If we're going to be governed by laws then we have to live by the law too, even when we're dealing with "butchers". Everybody, murderers, war criminals, etc., is entitled to a defense.

Then why won't you (any of you) give an honest answer to the question? Where do you draw the line?Suppose you remove exactly the analogous tissues in the female that are removed in male circumcision. Is it still harm to the female but not to the male? Why?Suppose you remove less tissue from the female than is removed from the male. Is it still harm to the female and not to the male?Why do you guys have to equivocate female circumcision with the most extreme case of FGM? If your case is so strong, why do you have to express it so weakly?Just give me an honest answer to the question: If it's a case of black and white, where is the friggin' line between black and white?

It's all bad.

So STILL no honesty, not even from you. What about the second half of the question? Why?Why is removing less tissue from a female still more harmful?

,It is harm because it's an unnecessary operation on a child. There are some key differences though.1. The degree of harm - male circumcism is in no way comparable to female circumcism, a point you have have refused many times confront.2. Male circumcision is a religious practice and is therefore allowed under most liberal country's laws. FGM is purely cultural. [Not that that should be an excuse for this kind of barbarism anyway.]3. We're stuck with male circumcism - it's mute whether it would be allowable if it had not grown up within our own culture. it's not necessary to draw any arbitrary lines, we know what FGM is because it's defined in law. Utter bollocks.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

In a court of law, yes. This forum is not a court of law. You seem intent in this forum on finding some reason to excuse the butcher from his butchery. It is their culture, practiced for centuries, butchered mothers look kindly upon the butchery of their daughters, etc. If any of these reasons defends the butcher then it also defends the butchery.I find disturbing a defense of this butcher/butchery coming from such a beautiful woman.

First off, that you are willing to refer to FGM as female "circumcision" shows a gross level of ignorance on your part.Haven't I seen you telling people to inform themselves about a topic before they go spouting off on it? For one, FGM is based entirely on sexism and circumcision is not.ABE: My gawd, I hope that is a lie and that you don't honestly believe that.You are an offender of women. They are being wholly abused on a cultural level and you're response is on the order of: Whelp, they're asking for it!That is such a dick maneuver.Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.