Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 56 of 270 (435234)
11-19-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
11-18-2007 6:50 PM


Silent H writes:
quote:
I think one of the problems here is that this involves not so much these people, but that it involves children. We want to say that they are individuals and that the parents should not be able to do X with them. But isn't that their right? Isn't that part of individual rights, or rather couldn't they view parental rights to continue their traditions as they see fit as an individual right?
Universally? Of course not. As crashfrog pointed out, if the parent wants the child dead, then clearly others need to step in and point out that no, the parents do not have the right to kill their children.
On a question of human rights: When a question of conscience requires a modification of the body, it would seem appropriate that such decisions be left to the person whose body is about to be altered. If a religious rite requires body modification, then we should wait until the person is capable of making that religious decision for himself.
Now, is that a universal? Of course not. But it is a place to start. One has to explain why someone other than the person being altered is in a position to force that alteration. If you feel like you need to alter your body, you go ahead and do it...but it is your decision to make and not someone else's.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2007 6:50 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 11:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 57 of 270 (435235)
11-19-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by macaroniandcheese
11-18-2007 8:19 PM


brennakimi writes:
quote:
i really dislike this use of the idea of mgm. male circumcision, while not the greatest idea in the world, does not amount to a comparable practice. using this term is dishonest.
Considering that more males will die from MGM than the total number of females who undergo FGM, I agree: Using this term is dishonest.
It's part of the socialization of being male: Your life is not important.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-18-2007 8:19 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-19-2007 11:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 63 of 270 (435245)
11-20-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Silent H
11-19-2007 11:21 PM


Silent H responds to me:
quote:
What do you mean by that first question "Universally?"
Is there some definition of "universal" I am unaware of?
I think it's pretty clear that I am saying that no right is absolute. Parents do have the right to raise their children and to impose their wills upon their children.
But that right is not universal. There are some things they are not allowed to do. Since we all agree there is a line, the question reduces to deciding where to draw it. That task is much more difficult than deciding if there should be a line in the first place.
quote:
For the rest, that seems to be an absolutist moral position.
Which would be the complete opposite of what I was saying. Have we wandered into conservative-land where every day is Opposite Day?
quote:
Why don't parents have the right to kill their children?
For the same reason that killing isn't a right in general.
Please, let us not be disingenuous and come up with trivial cases such as the child is physically attacking the parent who is afraid for his life and kills his child in self-defense.
This goes back to what I said before: Universally? Of course not. You will notice, however, that the above scenario doesn't really fall under the heading of "parenting." It is a question of self-survival. We can come up with examples of parents withholding treatment to their terminally ill children that would, but we're back to my basic point: Universally? Of course not.
But that would be playing with trivialities.
Let us not trivialize this.
quote:
Why is this so? Who says?
We do. As a society. If we are going to value the ability for people to make their own decisions of conscience (for we certainly wish we would have that ability for ourselves), then it makes sense that we do what we can to let them make those decisions. It's a bit hypocritical to value freedom of thought and not allow people to exercise it. If we're going to take that decision away from them, then we had better come up with a pretty good reason why (see..."Universally? Of course not.")
quote:
No I would agree that in our culture it sort of falls out from the concept of individual rights, but even those have limits.
Hmmm...what was it that I said...I think it was, "Universally? Of course not." Now what might that mean? Is there a definition of "universal" I am unaware of?
quote:
Particularly with regard to children, parents and society tends to be able to make decision for them, when it is viewed in their best interest, and even if it might have long lasting negative effects.
Indeed. What was it that I said? Something about, "Universally? Of course not." Parents have a job to do. There will always be impositions on children by their parents. And there will always be impositions on parents by society.
But to use your Jewish example, if it's an affront to forcibly convert Jews to Christianity (witness the post-humous baptism of Jews that has been carried out by Mormons and the actions of the Catholics on Jews), isn't it also an affront to forcibly submit an infant to the Covenant? There is no going back. Therefore, we need to be very sure about what we're doing.
quote:
And yes, that can also include death.
But not trivially.
Why are you trivializing this? Since I have admitted from the get go that we're not talking about universals, why are you trying to focus on the trivial examples where the non-existent universal does not apply?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 11:21 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 1:39 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 64 of 270 (435247)
11-20-2007 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by macaroniandcheese
11-19-2007 11:21 PM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
i've heard a lot of things about circumcision. this i have not heard.
Think about it: What is the complication rate of MGM? And how many men in the world have undergone MGM? Therefore, how many men will die because of MGM? How many will need to undergo sex re-assignment surgery? How many will have that "permanent, infected wound" you find so horrendous?
How many women undergo FGM?
Hint: This doesn't mean FGM is something other than horrendous. It means that trivializing MGM as "snipping off a little tiny bit of flesh" is to treat men as worthless.
Which one is larger?
quote:
quote:
It's part of the socialization of being male: Your life is not important.
did i say that? i said snipping off a little tiny bit of flesh doesn't equate to excising large amounts of tissue and creating a permanent, infected wound.
There, you just did. That "little tiny bit of flesh" means the boy DIES. More dead boys. More dead boys than all of the females that undergo FGM. And here you are, trivializing it. And thus, you perpetuate the notion: Men's lives are not important. The death of a male is not as important as the disfigurement of a female.
quote:
don't put words in my mouth, jerk.
I don't have to, fool.
Now that we have the ad hominem out of the way....

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-19-2007 11:21 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-20-2007 9:01 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 83 by molbiogirl, posted 11-20-2007 4:08 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 67 of 270 (435250)
11-20-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by molbiogirl
11-20-2007 12:36 AM


Re: Evidence!
molbiogirl writes:
quote:
In addition, in recent years, millions of Africans have migrated to Europe and North America, bringing their traditions with them.
Not really. Legislation was passed banning FGM in the United States despite the fact that we couldn't find a single instance of it having happened here. Since the pasage of the legislation, not a single prosecution has ever been carried out. Does that mean there are no women in the US who have undergone FGM? Of course not.
It means that the girls are sent back home to have it happen. We have cases of women seeking asylum to prevent being sent back to Africa to have it performed (which is a recognized category of asylum in the US), but there is very little evidence of it happening here in the US.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by molbiogirl, posted 11-20-2007 12:36 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by molbiogirl, posted 11-20-2007 2:46 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 69 of 270 (435252)
11-20-2007 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
11-20-2007 1:25 AM


Re: shorter moblio response
Silent H responds to molbiogirl:
quote:
quote:
I would argue, however, that no parent has the right to kill his/her child, whether thru medical neglect or mutilation.
You aren't pro-choice?
A fetus is not a child.
And to bring up abortion is to trivialize the issue. Since we all recognize that no right is absolute, focusing on trivial examples where a non-universal does not apply is disingenuous at best.
quote:
How about pro-immunization?
The expected outcome of immunization is the prevention of death, not the cause of death. While we know that immunization presents a risk of death, the risk of death from the diseases we're innoculating against is greater.
And once again, it trivializes the discussion. Since we all recognize that no right is absolute, focusing on trivial examples where a non-universal does not apply is disingenuous at best.
quote:
How about parents with conjoined twins and can have one killed for the proposed better life of the other?
To do nothing will lead to the death of both.
And thus, bringing it up is to focus on trivia. Since we all recognize that no right is absolute, focusing on trivial examples where a non-universal does not apply is disingenuous at best.
quote:
Isn't it possible for another culture to view the nature of the parent/child relationship differently?
Of course. All morality is arbitrary.
Some methods are more effective than others.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 1:25 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 2:01 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 270 (435256)
11-20-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Silent H
11-20-2007 1:39 AM


Silent H responds to me:
quote:
It wasn't clear what you meant by "Universal?"
There is some other definition of "universal" I am unaware of?
quote:
Isn't asking better than assuming something wrong and starting a false argument?
Playing dumb is a good thing? Barring complete ignorance, confusion only arises when there are multiple possible outcomes. There is some other definition of "universal" I am unaware of?
quote:
It isn't an insult.
Playing dumb is.
quote:
But I'm not sure it is true to say there MUST be a line of some kind.
All I said is that we all agree there is a line. Since we're talking about arbitrary systems, "must" only applies in the sense of the system we have arbitrarily created.
quote:
Some cultures may very well place none.
Really? Where?
quote:
Even if not seen much or at all in practice, don't you agree that that is theoretically a possibility?
We're back to the question of whether or not there is an absolutist in the world:
No, there isn't. Everybody is a relativist. It doesn't matter if they say they are. All you have to do is watch them and you see that circumstances affect their reactions.
So if we're never going to see it, how can we base any results upon what never happens?
quote:
I'm willing to take the example as is without addition.
Here we go with the playing dumb again. Your response to molbiogirl's similar claim was to cite abortion, immunization, and separation of conjoined twins.
Do you think I'm stupid?
quote:
That said, the question is if the rights within WC have any meaning or necessary connection to other cultures who might NOT have that proscription?
Certain arbitrary constructions of morality are more effective than others.
quote:
You'd think it'd have to be worse than killing since in some cases it would be thought destroying their soul.
According to their own traditions, god can wait. Otherwise, there'd be no way to convert.
quote:
Please remember, next time I ask, just answer and not use it to insult me all post long. Okay?
Please remember, next time you post, don't play dumb. Okay? And don't treat others as if they were stupid. Okay?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 1:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 2:22 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 270 (435259)
11-20-2007 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Silent H
11-20-2007 2:01 AM


Re: shorter moblio response
Silent H responds to me:
quote:
First, a fetus is a child
No, it isn't. It is on the way to becoming a child, but it isn't there yet.
quote:
My discussion of immunization was not trivial
Yes, it was for we are talking about arbitrary killing, not unexpected outcomes. Your example is interesting only in an academic sense and is thus a piece of trivia, tangentially related to the question at hand.
I did not say it was without effect. I said it was trivial.
quote:
FGM is practiced not with the intent to kill, but with an expected outcome of preventing death
Oh, I agree that they aren't trying to kill the women outright. The idea that they are "preventing death" is risible.
However, the intent is to control women and to try and say that the discussion is about the specific outcome of the bodily alteration (death versus disfigurement) and not the forced bodily alteration regardless of outcome is to play dumb.
Do you think we're stupid?
quote:
Since our exchange was generated by FGM, this example is pertinent.
Incorrect. It is trivial. It is an attempt to bog the discussion down in trivial details when the point is the process leading to those details.
Again, notice that I am not saying there are no effects or that those effects are not of any concern. By "trivial," I do not mean "innocuous."
quote:
quote:
To do nothing will lead to the death of both.
I did not say that at all.
Again with the playing dumb.
You said, and I quote:
How about parents with conjoined twins and can have one killed for the proposed better life of the other?
The separation of conjoined twins where it is known that the separation will lead to almost certain death of one of them is not carried out unless leaving them conjoined will kill both of them.
Otherwise, the separation of conjoined twins is carried out with the hope of saving both of them. The parents aren't killing their child.
quote:
There are cases where conjoined-ness would lead to diminished quality of life for both (not death for either) and so parents sometimes have a choice to have one die so that the remaining child can live a full life.
No, there aren't. Conjoined twins are never separated where remaining conjoined is not life-threatening but separation will most certainly lead to the death of one. Try and find the team of doctors to carry it out and a hospital that will provide the operating theaters.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 2:01 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 77 of 270 (435263)
11-20-2007 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Silent H
11-20-2007 2:22 AM


Silent H responds to me:
quote:
If you think my question means I'm dumb
No, I think your question means you are playing dumb. And your pretending to not understand the difference only means you are unwilling to engage in serious discussion. You want to bog it down in trivia.
quote:
Since all it was, was a single word with a question mark
No, it wasn't. It was part of a continued expression of ideas. To pretend that the entire sequence has no effect on the meaning of the individual words is to play dumb. Especially since I went on to give an example that even though it is accepted doesn't lead to a "universal" claim. In short, I used a word and then proceded to define precisely what I meant by it. And then you claimed confusion?
Do you think I'm stupid?
quote:
Maybe you were trying to ask what I meant by universal, or why I would use that term.
Well, considering that you didn't use that term, I am hard pressed to comprehend how anybody could interpret my use of the word as a request for you to clarify your use of it.
Unless you're playing dumb again.
quote:
No I don't think you are stupid. My argument with her was directly related (spun off from) FGM, which is why I introduced the other elements.
And yet, here you are saying that you weren't talking about what you directly posited to molbiogirl when she made the same argument crashfrog and I were making.
Are you playing dumb again?
quote:
As far as between you and I, if you want it just straight out killing for no other reason, I can go with it. Until I add something else in a discussion with you directly, don't include what I am saying to someone else. We have a different debate arc.
And there you go with the playing dumb again.
We all made the same argument to you, Silent H:
crashfrog writes:
So, what about a physical change to being dead? When a parent chooses to murder their children because they think being dead is in the child's best interest, is that a cultural practice you get behind, because parents universally know best?
Rrhain writes:
As crashfrog pointed out, if the parent wants the child dead, then clearly others need to step in and point out that no, the parents do not have the right to kill their children.
molbiogirl writes:
I would argue, however, that no parent has the right to kill his/her child, whether thru medical neglect or mutilation.
We're all using the same argument. To pretend that you were responding to "different debate arcs" is disingenuous at best.
Do you think we're stupid?
quote:
quote:
Certain arbitrary constructions of morality are more effective than others.
This isn't something I'd dispute. However, isn't there a line drawn on how to improve a morality's effectiveness, drawn from our own concept of individual rights?
Only in the sense of observing the results.
quote:
I won't play dumb, and I won't treat someone as stupid.
And yet, here you are, an entire post of playing dumb and treating others as stupid.
quote:
I have changed during the time I was gone and I do not feel I have time to waste on vain bickering.
And yet, here you are, bickering.
quote:
Can we agree to keep things civil?
You reap what you sow.
quote:
By the way, I like your new avatar.
Thanks. It's me as Adam as Jess as Hamlet from The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) doing the "What a piece of work is man" speech...about the only serious moment in the entire play. Second time I've done it (previously playing Daniel). All I need is one more as Jess and I'll have the hat trick.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 2:22 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2007 11:58 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 78 of 270 (435264)
11-20-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by molbiogirl
11-20-2007 2:46 AM


Re: A nit to pick
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
The tradition is intact.
That's all I meant.
But by coming here where it isn't performed and one can seek asylum from being sent back to Africa where it would be performed, it would seem the tradition is being broken.
If it doesn't happen here and the number of women who eventually undergo it is smaller than would have been the case had they stayed in Africa, how does that keep the tradition "intact"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by molbiogirl, posted 11-20-2007 2:46 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by molbiogirl, posted 11-20-2007 4:25 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 96 of 270 (435445)
11-20-2007 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by molbiogirl
11-20-2007 4:25 AM


Re: A nit to pick
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
A child cannot seek asylum.
Yes, they can. They'll need emancipation, too, but it can be done.
quote:
It's going to take a lot more than a couple of laws on the books to stop this barbarity.
I never said otherwise. You seem to be heading down the road of insinuating that I am trying to defend FGM in some way. Even if it happens once, it is too many times.
But the attitude presented by some (and you're engaging in it to some degree) is that there is a huge problem here in the United States. Just because something is rare doesn't make it other than horrendous, but we have to avoid the opposite illogic: That because it is horrendous, that makes it something other than rare.
Note the attempt to manipulate emotion in the report, conflating those who have undergone FGM with those who are "at risk" while at the same time not defining what "at risk" means. We live in a society where unless something is the apocalypse, nobody will pay attention. Eveything has to described in the most breathless manner lest there be an accusation of bias.
But by treating the situation in the US as identical to the situation in Africa, by insinuating that the West is a heartbeat away from having FGM being as commonplace as MGM, is to do a disservice to the women who are actually undergoing FGM, diverting funds and services from those who need it to those who don't, creating a social climate where people think all women of a certain cultural background have been victimized when they haven't, etc.
Hype never helped anything.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by molbiogirl, posted 11-20-2007 4:25 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 97 of 270 (435446)
11-20-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by macaroniandcheese
11-20-2007 9:01 AM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Men's lives are not important. The death of a male is not as important as the disfigurement of a female.
i didn't say that.
Yes, you did. Here: You say it again:
quote:
if circumcision is done properly
"Properly"? How does one flay a person alive "properly"?
quote:
it's a tony little bit of flesh.
Ahem. Even when done under medical supervision, little boys quite often die from the procedure. Why? Because circumcision is when you [I][B]FLAY SOMEONE ALIVE[/i][/b].
How is that ever done "properly"?
"Tiny little bit of flesh"?
Little boys DIE from that "tiny little bit of flesh."
And thus, you show that you are continuing the sexism: Men's lives are not important. The death of a male is not as important as the disfigurement of a female.
quote:
you're not arguing rationally.
Funny. That's my argument to you.
But then again, sexism isn't rational.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-20-2007 9:01 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-21-2007 12:17 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 101 of 270 (435453)
11-21-2007 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by molbiogirl
11-20-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Complication rate of MGM
molbiogirl writes:
quote:
Here in the United States, 1:500,000
You're off by a factor of at least 1000.
And since when did the United States represent the typical case of MGM?
quote:
The death rate for FGM is 10%!
And yet, how man men undergo MGM compared to women undergoing FGM?
More men will die from MGM than all the women who undergo any type of FGM.
How many men have to die before you consider it something to be ashamed of? Give us a number so we won't have to bother you until we hit it.
Or is the life of a man worth less than the disfigurement of a woman?
quote:
The rate of MGM "accidents" here in the U.S. is 1.5%.
You do realize that you just contradicted your previous stat, yes? 1:500,000 is not 1.5%. Which is it?
And again, what makes you think the medicalized version of the United States is the typical method? The British Journal of Urology puts it at 2-10%. Urologic Clinics of North America has it at about the same at 5% (though about 10% have to undergo the procedure twice which, by my mind, means the complication rate is 15%.)
How does one flay someone alive "properly"?
quote:
since "normal" FGM results in lifelong pain/infections/cysts/fistulae.
Same for MGM. Typical complications are:
Infection
Urinary retention
Meatitis
Chordee
Cysts
Lymphadema
Fistulas
Necrosis (especially with the Plastiball method)
Hypospadias
Epispadias
Impotence
And in those rare occasions where anesthesia is involved, all the complications from anesthesia get added. Of course, MGM is rarely done under anesthesia which means the boy is [I][B]FLAYED ALIVE[/i][/b].
How does one flay somebody "properly"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by molbiogirl, posted 11-20-2007 4:08 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by molbiogirl, posted 11-21-2007 3:02 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 117 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-21-2007 3:24 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 104 of 270 (435458)
11-21-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by macaroniandcheese
11-21-2007 12:17 AM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
i've seen way too many circumcised adult penises for any of these people to have been "flayed".
Then I have to wonder if you've been paying attention. You wanna know why that bizarre pigmentation zig-zag happens between the skin just below the glans and the rest of the shaft? That makes it look like an unusually localized case of vitiligo? Because that's where the skin was literally torn off. The glans is still attached and needs to be torn away from the glans, leaving the entire area covered in scar tissue.
And it seems you've never met a man with a skin bridge.
quote:
hell. there are way too many jewish men for this to be an accurate representation of reality.
Hell, there are way too many African women for this to be an accurate representation of reality.
Hmmm...if the fact that women survive the procedure is no counter to the claim that it is barbaric, why is that not sufficient for the men?
Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting. Men are not as valuable as women.
quote:
i'm going to continue to think you're just angry about your penis.
When was it established that I was circumcized? Does the status of my penis have any effect on whether or not another boy dies from circumcision?
quote:
however, loads of data has been presented here about the very real impacts of fgm.
And they haven't been denied.
One wonders why you're so intent on denying the very real impacts of MGM. But, that's a hallmark of sexism: The attitude that if something bad happens to both men and women, that somehow diminishes and denies the effect it has on women.
How does the fact that X is a barbaric procedure affect the barbarism of Y? Is there only so much compassion to go around? Is this a zero-sum game?
Talk about being insane....

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-21-2007 12:17 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-21-2007 9:24 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 128 of 270 (435811)
11-23-2007 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by macaroniandcheese
11-21-2007 9:15 AM


brennakimi writes:
quote:
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.
Boys die from MGM. Girls die from MGM. They're both just as dead, but for you to then say that they aren't equivalent necessarily means that the life of a male is not as valuable as the life of a female.
quote:
men get circumcised in very few places, relatively.
Incorrect.
What is the world population of men who have been circumcised? Think carefully.
On top of that, of the areas where women undergo FGM, how many of those countries also practice MGM?
quote:
that leave gigantic chunks of high populations without it and fairly good reason to cite us experience.
Incorrect.
More men are circumcised outside the US than inside. Just how many men do you think in the world have undergone genital mutilation?
quote:
if it causes no serious harm, there's no real reason to oppose it.
It causes death.
Oh, but I keep forgetting...the death of a male isn't as significant as the death of a female.
Since you seem to be stuck on the survival rate, would you be happy if FGM became as medicalized as MGM is in the West? We do much more invasive surgeries to women's reproductive organs all the time. Epesiotomies and even sexual reassignment surgeries are common enough. If the rate of death were reduced for FGM, would that make it any better?
quote:
this is no less a valid plaint, but it's certainly not the creation of a fistula.
But that's one of the common complications from MGM.
Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting...when it happens to a man, it isn't as bad as when it happens to a woman.
quote:
in such cultures that participate in these practices by tradition and not by force at a legitimate age of consent
Only if one looks at the West. In other countries, where MGM is more common, that isn't true. It's part of the ritual of becoming a man.
quote:
but when these practices are done by force to people to young to consent, we have a significant issue.
You mean like infants?
quote:
even worse when they cause life or health threatening problems.
You mean like death?
Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting. The life of a man isn't as valuable as the life of a woman.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-21-2007 9:15 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-23-2007 9:47 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024