Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Why? What does voting rights have to do with this? Do people with no voting rights in their own country have no say about their own culture now? You keep using the word 'force'. What do you mean by it? And there is tacit agreement that this works internationally too. You got the 'right' to not allow royalty by force, remember? Fine, and when they come into contact with one another, if there are any differences in wolf culture - there will be a change. Since humans come into contact with one another all the time - directly and indirectly - this is much more common in humans than it is with wolves. Also - we have a much more complex culture than wolves will have due to superior communication. So...what exactly is your problem then? Has somebody here suggested action above and beyond economic sanction or political consequence as a result of of FGM or similar? No.What I have been saying since the first post is that we should And that many nations make up a community of nations. As a person I limit my social consequences and allow the government to be responsible for some of them. The government here limits its social consequences amongst the community of nations. Only if you don't understand my position. I explained why it isn't a problem for my position...any country that wants to nuke us should have their culture changed so that they don't want to nuke us when they get hold of nukes. I don't think we should try and preserve a nuke-happy culture. Right - and I wouldn't want people going to war with us over Brit-pop but I could understand them going to war with us over torturing women. However, if they don't want to buy Brit-pop CDS that's fine as a social consequence. The limits are defined by us, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything I haven't seen any lack of limitations. Could you show me this 'lack'? I thought international law was pretty much a 'document' of limitations on what consequences are acceptable and what are not.

OK, this is a bit off topic, but is there any chance that you'll stop making up your own abbreviations/acronyms for certain words and/or phrases? Your post are (as usual) often long and difficult to get through...and then to add to the difficulty of deciphering your comments, I have to pause and try to figure out what the hell you mean by things like: "WC", "L-K", "CA". Just type the words "western culture", or "Lightfoot-Klein", or "cultural anthropologists", it's not that difficult and it most certainly will not significantly add to your already "War and Peace" like tomes. Trying to shorten your posts by leaving a few letters off of what are often key words or phrases is like trying to measure the rising levels of the Pacific Ocean after taking a piss in it.Just a thought.Thanks

where? i never said they weren't just as real. i said they didn't warrant wording which suggests equivalence. if the suffering isn't equivalent, the wording shouldn't be either. men get circumcised in very few places, relatively. in the us, some 85% are circumcised. in europe, it's quite low. it's also high in the middle east and africa, and among muslims in asia, oh and south korea, thanks to us. that's about it. (i'd imagine australia is low, except among immigrants of various faiths). that leave gigantic chunks of high populations without it and fairly good reason to cite us experience. if it causes no serious harm, there's no real reason to oppose it. if it's merely a cosmetic procedure, then the only issue is consent, which is how i see the male circumcision issue. this is no less a valid plaint, but it's certainly not the creation of a fistula.in such cultures that participate in these practices by tradition and not by force at a legitimate age of consent, i see little issue. yes, coercion is a problem, but, for the most part, these individuals -if forced out of the group- will not risk death by exposure. the world is small enough now. but when these practices are done by force to people to young to consent, we have a significant issue. even worse when they cause life or health threatening problems.

it wasn't. you're just feeling threatened by the impending doom of the knife it's not that men survive the procedure. that's not my claim. your claim is that this causes a fatal injury. it clearly does not. my complaint is that fgm always creates an unhealable wound. circumcision does not. i'm not. no one will show them to me. you keep making vague claims about mass genocide and i keep asking you to demonstrate it. you refuse. hence, i must assume you're lying. using the same word to describe inequivalent things is unnecessarily confusing to the public. that's why we have a separate term for crimes against humanity and genocide. one requires a specific intent to destroy in whole or in part. lethal injection is barbaric. it is less barbaric than hanging. hanging, in turn, is less barbaric than boating. see this magical thing we have the capability to express? degree. it's amazing.see. the problem here is that you think i'm all warm and squishy about circumcision. i'm not. it's certain inescusable to do to someone by force before an age of consent. i just take issue with the equivalency of the term. learn to keep up. it saves me a lot of work.

I don't believe my posts in this thread have been as long as you are making out... except perhaps the first? And I have been keeping them within the length of the posts I am replying to. This is an effort I have been making since my return.I will continue to try to improve my brevity, but I think your characterization isn't quite so fair these days.That said, on abbreviations, I think they are useful and I usually don't pull them out of thin air. For example I explicitly set up WC as an abbreviation within the OP. I admit I used L-K and CA when talking with molbio without officially creating the acronym first, but I though the context would make them obvious if the prior posts had been read.I will try to refrain from their use as much as possible. However, I will not stop using WC. If someone doesn't understand what that means, then they either didn't read the OP, or they didn't understand it. In either case, I really wouldn't care what they have to say or if they are lost.Is that a fair compromise?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Sure...I just hate having to jump back and forth between posts to make sure I'm following the discussion as intended. You may now carry on...so to speak.

The stats were way back on message #60. I think someone repeated the same kind of stats later. Then why are type 1-4 all lumped under FGM? Or, why are you not differentiating between them with different terms. They certainly change the stats if we do that. ???? Compared to FGM? I'm sorry but it is NOT just a cosmetic procedure. While I am not going to act the horribly abused victim, the fact is that circs definitely can have lasting effects, negative ones including pain, even when done properly. If you want to argue degree of severity then that might be a valid position, but to reduce it to "merely cosmetic surgery" is off by a great margin.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Holmes, is it possible that you could actually defend your position against the rebuttals that have been presented, rather than continuing to use a false equivalence between female genital mutilation and male circumcision as a smokescreen to derail the debate?I was under the impression you had made a promise to comport yourself in a manner that improved upon your prior dishonest conduct. Is it not apparent to you that you're simply acting the same way now as you've always done, before?

Rrhain,I am not insinuating you somehow support FGM. I cited my stat.Care to cite yours? Estimated Worldwide Incidence of Male Circumcision ComplicationsThis is a rough estimate. And this is an anti-circumcision site. Here is another estimate: Male circumcision: a review of the evidence
The Journal of Men's Health & Gender
Volume 2, Issue 1, March 2005, Pages 21-30I am unable to find an estimate for worldwide MGM death rate.The WHO estimates that 3 million/year undergo FGM.That's 30,000 dead/year. And the "complication" rate is nearly 100%. By "accident" I didn't mean death. And that was a U.S. stat. Diagnosis and Classification of Urethral Injuries
Urologic Clinics of North America - Volume 33, Issue 1 (February 2006)As for your other stat (5%), please provide the cite.This is what I found: Male neonatal circumcision: indications, controversies and complications
Urologic Clinics of North America - Volume 31, Issue 3 (August 2004)1.5% is right in the middle of this range.btw.I agree with you that MGM is barbaric and should be stomped out.Couple other things.From Message 96: A one year old or a four year old cannot seek emancipation. Are you assuming most children who are shipped off and mutilated are old enough to seek emancipation?Re: FGM and the U.S.I most certainly am not implying that FGM is a "huge" problem here in the U.S.You're projecting, Rrhain.Edited by molbiogirl, : added more quotes

oh, i see. well. considering no one has an estimate of how many men are circumcised, those numbers mean nothing. but, even without that, those numbers amount to very rare issues all dealing with improperly performed procedures. it would seem that rhain would have us believe that every other boy circumcised is killed because it's such an inherently heinous procedure. do you notice that they are divided into separate terms? or did you think those numbers were decoration. no. relative to the world population centers and to rhain's vague references to worldwide genocides. there's only one negative effect when the procedure is performed properly, and that is a slightly reduced degree of sensitivity at the tip of the penis. they certainly have lasting effects, but they are still cosmetic procedures. it's not deep tissue surgery we're talking about. now. if you're going to argue that "proper" circumcisions can be performed on newborn babies with trauma to fresh mucosa tissue, i'll say you haven't been paying attention. cosmetic procedures can almost never be "properly" executed on a non-consenting individual. but. even some very deep surgeries are cosmetic and can be quite life-threatening, especially with even some minor mistakes, so i don't see why you're so offended by the use of the word.but let's be realistic. done properly, the flesh is cut, not torn. the area is sanitized. sharp tools are used, along with proper anesthesia. see? this is why they can't possibly be properly done to infants... people won't anesthetize infants.

Okay, I don't want to accuse you of playing dumb, but I don't understand how you don't understand people within nations directly influence each other's cultures (or sub-cultures if that makes it easier) through legislative force? When you start appealing to what nations agree between each other, then that is not inherently your DIRECTLY effecting another culture in another nation. That would only be the case, if you enlist your gov't to force a change within another nation. If you cannot understand that people without voting rights in their own country do not have an EQUAL say in their culture, and may have NO say in the fate of their culture, then I'm not sure what to say. That is exactly why voting rights for minorities are considered so important within western nations. See it's comments like that which really make me thing you're just trying to joke around. The formation of our nation, by splitting from yours, was an act of creating our own political system (which we could consider our political subculture splitting from its original culture to form a new one). It was NOT one nation forcing another to do something through violence.In fact, if anything it is an example of what I have been talking about since the OP. We democratically split from Britain to form our own nation... create our own community. Britain said that was not possible and sent troops to force us to obey (we didn't send troops to force you to do anything). And even after our victory over that form of coercion, Britain attempted to coerce us. Thus developed key concepts that nations do not have a legitimate right to force other nations to do what they want them to do by any and all means. ??? Again, this seems like a joke. Yes things change in relation to each other, that does not make them a single community with inherent beliefs/codes applicable to all. And your argument sort of defies the concept that was getting built around human rights anyway... was it our shared humanness or the reality that people change through interaction?After all, a community of humans will influence and change the behavior of a wolf pack they come into contact with, and vice versa. Does that mean wolves and humans are the same community with rights afforded naturally base on their very existence? Now THAT is a more relevant question (in a practical sense). But I guess I'll have to turn it around to everyone else claiming that cultural practices should be ended if they violate current concepts of human rights. What is on the table?When there are statements like the enforcement of human rights is more important than cultural diversity or national sovereignty, then I suppose it seems to me more than boycotts and argumentation are on the table. That's what I said too. I am discussing a shift toward dropping some of those limitations based on a growing power of western nations who wish to spread their own cultural concepts of individual rights.This is mirrored in comments by others... if it doesn't apply to you then I'm not talking about you... who seem to suggest limits can be dropped when the rights of "others" are violated, wherever that is. Again, the community of humankind thing. Yeah, but you also said you embraced the idea that you could fail and have the other guys win out. That is where I am suggesting there might be a problem. What if these nukers win out... are you then going to embrace it? This is another interesting point. However, doesn't this suggest you ARE in favor of dropping limits on forms of coercion between nations, when it suits your cultural understandings? Frankly I would not see reason to go to war in either case. In both, it is a society inflicting damage on itself.As it is why shouldn't another nation want to go to war over BritPop as a form of degrading humanity from their view point? But maybe you should wait to reply to this point. I am reworking my previous responses to molbio, with a more detailed line on this very point. Again, people with their documents. As it is yes I can show you this "lack". The coalition of the willing invaded a nation in violation of "documents" all had signed restricting them from unilateral invasion, without direct threat to themselves.It is roundly agreed that this was against international law regarding warfare, and has led to many violations of agreed to "human rights". That is not to mention those committed in the name of the war on terror in general... for example the ending of habeas corpus, and beginning of relatively unrestricted torture.In all cases this was done with the idea that human rights impelled us to act in the way we did, in violation of these previous limits. Bush and Co extol the concept of how anything but democratic govts are a violation of human rights, and so all others must be made to change, one way or another. And they have consistently gloated over the idea that raw military power exercised on one community in this name is creating the necessary coercive threat for others to change.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

typical refers to most common complications,not complications that are common. if you can't understand the difference, you have serious problems. if .2% of people have complications at all, but 80% of those with complications suffer from something, it gets put on the list. it's not a "side effect". those are much more common. side effect refers to "shit that will probably go wrong and you just have to deal with it," like a stomach ache with antibiotics. complications refers to "shit that probably won't happen, but if it does, we know this is most likely the cause and not some other illness," like with an intestinal implant. that suture could heal shut and your guts could blow the hell up, but they probably will heal just fine.when you mess with (or don't) the human body, funny stuff happens. this is why it should only be messed with when it's necessary, and not for cosmetic reasons, like making timmy's dick look like his dad's. see? that's why people get their sons circumcised. cosmetic reasons. it's stupid. it's generally not dangerous at all, but it's stupid. it's also unethical to permorm this procedure on someone who is unable to consent.but you bring up an important question. percent and number are very different animals. but. your crazed rampage assumes that everyone on here is in favor of circumcision, especially of infants. this is clearly not the case. but. a procedure performed safely in large numbers, with a limited relative number of people suffering any kind of negative complications whatsoever, which is intended, currently to reduce exposure to disease or improve appearance and ease of cleaning is very different in degree and idea from a practice which is relatively very dangerous, causes relatively high numbers of negative complications, and is intended to control the sexuality of a whole half of humanity.circumcision is done irresponsibly and unethically. but the only real issue with it is consent. the issues associated with fgm are quite more serious. my only complaint is that the two should not have synonymous designations. they are not, in any way, congruent.

Just a sec brenna, don't get me wrong. I am with you on doubting Rrhain's claim. I even agree that type 2&3 FGMs are more severe than male circs.I am simply rebutting any idea that they are less equal if the issue is lack of consent, existence of pain, and permanent disfigurement.I did notice that FGM can be divided into 4 categories, however I don't really see them being used by anyone here except me, who brought them up when describing the nature of FGM. Furthermore, you have repeatedly been using FGM. If you actually hold to your argument (as posed to Rrhain) then you should NOT be using the term FGM... just Type 2&4. Right? That is totally incorrect. It doesn't even match general knowledge of the procedure. Now remember I am not claiming equal severity to Types 2&3, but they have other effects, even if done properly.As far as your whole argument about sanitization... that could be true for FGM too. Lack of hygiene is not inherent to FGM... though the issue of later hygiene (based on built up wastes from infibulation are normally). Also, you have clearly not seen how circs are carried out in the same regions that FGMs are. I WISH I had the tape to post here. I watched one once and nearly lost my lunch. It is just as crude and dirty as an FGM. As far as MGM goes, that includes more severe practices such as subincision.When you ask about being offended, I think it was that you had used the term "merely", as if to suggest cosmetic (in the descriptive sense) was nothing. I might add that FGM is cosmetic surgery, under that same concept.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Ok, we get it, guys. You think it's bad that a part of your dick was cut off.I think the exact same thing about mine. On the other hand, unlike the rest of you, I don't think that attention paid to the issue of FGM in other countries somehow represents attention taken away from my penis. But, then again, I'm not a relentless antifeminist, am I?Is it even possible to talk about issues that face women without whiney, entitled men showing up to complain about their penises not being the central issue under discussion? It isn't always about your dicks, you two.

social contract theory (which you seemed to support before) would argue that even those who cannot vote can change their culture. you're confusing culture with laws. they are very different the nations of the world have consented to creating a community of dialogue when they joined the UN. should they desire to, they may revoke their attendance. this community of dialogue changes peoples' minds. it's smith and ricardo's free market-place of ideas. no one's forcing anything on anyone. the udhr was approved by popular vote of the general assembly. the idea behind UN condemnation of such things as torture and genocide is that when someone is harming another human being, we all suffer from the loss of or damage to that person. if you don't agree with this, then i guess you can't understand it. but that is why we feel that we have a right to prevent harm. because they're not acting in the name of human rights. they're fighting for money and power. it was a wholly illegal act. and no one has the balls to stand up to it because of the successful power grab. the war has been a failure, but the increased power of the us executive is very real and very successful. why do you think iran is so rankled? we're on their doorstep and we're not afraid of doing really stupid shit. add us to israel who has no qualms about wiping out people it sees as inherently threatening, and they're scared out of their minds. and we could have prevented all of it with responsible diplomacy in the last century.