Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

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.

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.

considering that 80% of fgm procedures are type 2, that places a strong majority above the "equivalency" line. i don't think it's a significant enough concern to even discuss fgm 1. i think it's only under the term because of it's role in the continuum. no. it isn't. there are a laundry list of complications, but that term generally refers to what happens when shit wasn't done right. true enough. so get these people proper medical care. oh wait. we might be infringing on their cultural freedom with our western medicine. i imagine they're done the same way fgm is. with fairly blunt tools in wretched conditions. but, i'd imagine any kind of surgery is this way there for the most part. unless you think surgery is a mondern thing. then that's not circumcision, is it? you're not even aguing the same issue with me. if you're offended by a word that denotes degree, i can't help you. as best i can tell, the us and south korea seem to be the countries with the greatest prevalence and number of circumcisions. both of these countries are pretty modern and both avail themselves of generally satisfactory medical conditions. it is my perception, that thus, most of the circumcisions in the world occurr under generally good conditions. now. as i have said before, the consent issue is huge. but. south korea only practices circumcisions because the gis were mostly circumcised. (and, i'd imagine, they didn't want to lose all their women to these large white men with large white penises with prominent heads, and less smegma which is nasty in the mouth, or whatever.) the reasons for circumcision in the us and south korea are plainly cosmetic. sure, people defend the practice by saying that it reduces the risk of penile cancer or aids or whatever, but they do it because then it doesn't look like a sandworm. if you're used to it, generally, circumcised penises are more attractive. it's just the way it is. but this is not a decision that should be made by parents of infants. if it's not binding, then don't do it. if timmy wants his dick to have a prominent head, he can have the procedure done later.

culture and laws are not equivalent. stop equating the two. piss off. i did not say that all nations agreed to the stated agreements, just the necessary majority or plurality. there are often political agreements made within the un, like in congress, to get things passed. you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. but there's not a great deal of potential for overtly forcing some country to agree with a human rights declaration. please. it was passed in 1948. and, have you read it? cause it's really not that groundbreaking. no, because people have decided that they will not allow someone else to beat their children just because they "own" them. same deal, just on a national level. no. but they are supposed to participate in formulating international laws and standards of behavior. they don't tell people how to feel, but they are supposed to aid governments in forming treaties defining norms. norms form naturally. the un is simply a forum for communication.the icc and the icj have some power of enforcement, the un does not. the un decrees depend on the actions of members. the un depends on member states keeping the treaties they agreed to. unfortunately, people are assholes and have decided that because the un is involved, they no longer have to respect their own treaties. exactly. it's a building which creates a forum for diplomacy. it's there to facilitate norm formation. there is no way to interpret the un resolutions to allow action such as the us participated in, especially since instead of bringing sadaam to justice under the icc, he was allowed to be murdered by a sectarian interim government. as i said above. member states are expected to stand by their word in treaties. if states break the law, their leaders must be brought to trial under the icc. unfortunately, the us has consistently defied the international courts and consistently protected their leaders from justice. if we had been interested in defending human rights in iraq, we would have done something about the rape camps in the mid 80s or even after the first gulf war. in the midst of the first gulf war, we found TONNES of documents detailing victims of institutional rape and murder and all manner of evils. i've seen them. my advisor worked on the translation committee. but the us almost never does anything like that. we're run by realists. realists are only concerned with issues of national security. we're also run by business men. business men are only interested in profit. between this, we have a false national security claim used to defend a grab for power. no one brought up the "oh yeah, and he was a human rights nightmare" until after it was clearly demonstrated that there was no national security threat whatsoever. it's an excuse to continue a power and profit grab. no reason, he just didn't and wouldn't. period. just because you could say it might have potentially succeeded in removing a despot (you know, if it hadn't made an even bigger humanitarian nightmare) doesn't mean that's why it was done.the unfortunate thing is that international law is designed by people with conflicting interests. as such, international law can be contradictory. while international law and norms demand that we interfere to prevent demonstrable human rights abuses, it also condemns interfering with national security. bill clinton's strike in croatia was a perfect example. it was the right thing to do. it was demanded by international law and norms regarding genocidal actions. it was also clearly illegal. but. it was done well and cleanly and successfully contributed to the end of the genocide. too bad it hadn't been done a few years before when the serbs were murdering people in bosnia.****if buz starts some off-topic shit about how muslims deserve to be massacred, i suggest he be suspended. i don't feel like dealing with it today.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

that's exactly what i'm referring to. it's not common if less than 1% of people suffer from it. death is very rare.

you're still not paying attention. i said done properly. why aren't you reading? i've said fifty times that even most cosmetic procedures cannot properly be done on a person unable to consent. you cannot properly circumcise and infant. are you really that dense? jesus. i said, in that post no less, that you cannot properly circumcise an infant because you cannot use anethesia. L.I.T.E.R.A.C.Y. is amazing. and it's wrong. it can be done properly, just not to infants. in much of the rest of the world, it's at least done to adolescents as a coming of age ritual. and, when done properly, it is just a tiny piece of flesh. the problems then are associated with reduced standards of medical care. if they changed fgm to a consentual procedure done on adults in a clean environment and banned infibulation, which is inherently harmful, only allowing fgm1 (which i don't really consider qualifying as fgm) then i would have no problems with it. i would disagree with it's use, but that's not my business.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

11.4% of heart surgery patients died from their surgery in an nyu study of death rates due to complications. should we ban heart surgery? how many people with hearts must die for you to care? that sounds like a cosmetic reason. these are used to defend the procedure along with claims it reduces exposure to aids. they are generally not used as reasons to get it done. in these cultures, it's generally done when the men are old enough to consent. it's not my concern. i hope you aren't referring to jews, because they don't exactly believe in heaven. and muslims? their view of circumcision is mixed. christians mostly do it for cosmetic reasons. appeal to emotion. again, being irrational. which, again, are unbelievably rare. the rate of any complication at all (including a sneeze) is less than 1%. that puts the risk of any one complication very, very low. stop telling me that the rates are higher WHEN THEY AREN'T. that's called LYING. which is why they treat penile cancer with circumcision? the risk of penile cancer is very, very low. but it's lower for circumcised men than uncircumcised men, and circumcision is a common treatment for penile cancer. therefore, it must be connected in some way. it's not worth getting the snip, imo, but it must be connected. oh look everyone! rhain's still not paying attention! it's not. but some people cite this as a concern, including some men who get circumcised later. but. it might be very difficult to clean the penis of another person, especially one who tends to get poop smeared under his junk. again. i don't think this warrants body modification, but someone might choose to reduce his efforts. which are 1 in 500,000. that's only significant because of the number of people who are circumcised. but it's far far far far far far far far fewer than die from complications of heart surgery!*edit* i later demonstrate the particular significance of those 1 in 500,000 deaths.should we ban heart surgery because 6-11% of people die from it? appeal to emotion. and unneccessary conclusion.
it's because the procedures are not equivalent. period.and we're not just talking about the risks to women. there is an added risk to any children a woman who has been infibrulated may have. btw. according to WHO, 15% of cases are of infibulation. 80% are type 2. that leaves 5% or less for types 1 (more or less equivalent to male circumcision and not, imo, a severe form of body modification) and 3. less than 5%.but. see? we're not just talking about women and their vaginas. we're talking about women, their vaginas, and their children. if 15% undergo infibulation, then if 2 billion women were circumcised (with the same distribution as now), then 300 million women would be infibulated. if 10 to 20 thousand babies die due to maternal infibulation now, imagine how many babies would die then. WHO estimates that so 15% of the midline 120m is 18m.so, let's go halfway with the dead babies and say 15 thousand die. 15k into 18m is 1200. so 1 child dead per 1200 women. so if there were 2 billion women being infibulated, 15% of them is 300m divided by 1200 is 250 thousand dead babies.about 2 billion men are circumcised (30% of the world population). if 1 in 500 thousand male people die of circumcision, then 4000 men die each year of circumcision. so. if women were mutilated at anyhere near that rate, the comparable effects are... simply uncomparable. how many babies have to die for you to care? hell. already the babies who die in africa alone because their mothers are infibulated already outweighs the number of men who die from circumcision. your argument of 'oh so many men die from being flayed alive"' is lost.do you see that we're not talking about equivalent procedures yet? let me show you a picture.side note: there seem to be two different definitions floating around for type 1 fgm, i'm referring to that which invilves only the removal of the clitoral hood. the following picture demonstrates both type 1a and 1b and skips type 3. however, the WHO sources describe infibulation as type 3, so i'm guessing that type 4 is an expansion to separate types 1a and 1b further into 1 and 2 and these definitions are only used here.do you see yet that we're not talking about equivalent procedures? it doesn't really matter whether more men die of circumcision than women. i'm talk talking about defending women at the expense of men. i'm talking about the fact that it's dishonest to use terminology that suggests equivalence when the procedures are CLEARLY NOT EQUIVALENT. that's all this whole godawful bullshit argument with you has been about. i'm concerned with the truthfulness of terminology, and you think i like bathing in the blood of sacrificed baby boys. get the fuck over it. you're making up an argument where it doesn't exist.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

it is about building norms. norms are cultural standards. they are developed by people in communication. the entire purpose of international organization is to build international standards of behavior. read a book or two. read this. look, it's even a cheap copy. look. i know this is hard to believe. but i promise you i know what i'm talking about. i don't need you to break it down simple for me. i'm an elective and a dead adviser away from having a master's in this shit. yes. they will do what's in their interests. but interests are complicated things. only realists are dense enough to believe that interests only means short or long term specific national security. interests include what's best for the nation, the whole nation, and what's best for the leader. that's the thing about norms. they aren't defined by writ. they're defined by developed standards in the international system. because of the increase communication, there is a singular international culture. there really is. what you don't seem to get is that there are lots of "cultures" and they intertwine and overlap and diverge all over the place. the culture of the international system is continually developing and standards are changing and strengthening. one of those normative standards is that you don't interfere with national sovereignty. another is that you keep your word. these sound like very simple, obvious things, but they're the very heart of normative standards. you misunderstood. norms form on their own. they really, really do. the un is a facility. it helps build norms by increasing communication and the freedom to do it. then, the codify some of the norms that are developed. if nations fail to follow their standards, they pay the consequences. they won't pay them legally yet, but they will pay them in their relationships with other nations. nations who don't play nice don't have friends. notice anything with the us recently? that no one wants to play with us? probably not.

um. no. try again. if you choose to post from ignorance, that's your prerogative. but do not accuse the rest of us of your sin.

i am actually currently very much studying international organizations. you don't have to fly off anywhere to do it.

dear. international standards have a great deal of play on internal standards. people who don't treat their people well don't get traded with. you are aware that it was international and transnational behavior that ended south african apartheid, right? in fact, it was specifically individual divestment and refusal to trade and support companies that supported the government.the distinction between foreign and domestic no longer exists. everything internal affects the external. disagree all you want; it doesn't change reality. kind of both. the international norms define a set of acceptable and unacceptable behavior for national leaders in both domestic policy and international action. the best part is that because of the increased level of communication in the world, even citizens in china hold their leaders to international standards. environmental activists in china have had a unique opportunity because their protests deal with what the government does, not the authority of the party. they've been able to change government policy on several of the dams that were to be built. and. some that were built are demonstrating exactly the negative impact the activists said they would and, it seems, this might strengthen their voice and potentially encourage to party to listen to the people. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

except that you claimed that more men die of circumcision than women who suffer fgm and i demonstrated that that's not true. it's not okay to just say oh, 1 billion people (i went with 1/3 of the world population, oops) get this so that must be a big enough number to make random claims about it. in my last post, i demonstrated (incorrectly, so let me fix the numbers) the number of men who die of circumcision. so 1 in 500,000 out of 1 billion is 2000. so 2000 men have died during this generation of men being circumcised. how many million women receive the fgm procedures? 100-140 million. you were dead wrong. i'm not. but i have to correct your claims. if the procedure is limited from infibulation and is done in medicalized, safe environments to individuals capable of and who have given consent, i cannot argue with it beyond "i don't think it's the right thing to do". what isn't? death by circumcision? then find me a better source. but it has to be one that doesn't use your genocidal language, cause that's already been demonstrated to be bullshit.

and? just because something is done wrongly doesn't mean it can't be done correctly. outlaw the incorrect procedure. you haven't been paying attention. we're not talking about just the clitoris. only 5% of women undergoing fgm have only their prepuce or clitoris removed. with proper medical care, a ban on infibulation, and a consenting adult recipient, i can't condemn it any more than modern labioplasty or vaginoplasty. it's not something i would do, but i can't deny it to someone else.and since you asked about men and i know you'll ask about women... the last one is clearly an example of non-consent. the others... just because someone is intellectually distant from you doesn't mean they're incapable of responsible adult consent. we do let people do other cosmetic procedures to their genitals. we let people do all kinds of cosmetic procedures. if there is no real medical concern, then everything else is cosmetic. just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you get to ban it. it's this magical thing we call medical privacy. i honestly don't know why we don't let people cut off their limbs. *shrugs* we let people do all kinds of weird shit to themselves.

no, remember my whole discussion of consent? but, just because it's non-consentual doesn't make it non-cosmetic. i am aware. but it's really not why people do it. it may become why people do it, but generally it isn't currently. just because someone is intellectually distant from you doesn't mean they're incapable of making responsible adult decisions. it does because i'm unaware of anyone who believes they won't go to heaven if they aren't circumcised. if that's not really your argument, then don't use it. not all of them do. ok, so that's a non-consenting medical procedure. great. i've already discussed that. then why are complications listed as less than 1%?
and, i know you don't want to hear this, but i've never been circumcised (and i don't have a penis) and i often get ulcers on my genitals. well. they're actually cystic acne. and guess when it started? bingo, puberty. guess what causes it. sebum. ewwwww. same crap that causes it on my fucking face. so. prove to me that circumcision causes these horrifying, debilitating sores. no. they treat adult males with foreskins and penile cancer by removing the foreskin.jerk ad absurdium. any reason a person gives for modifying their own body is acceptable and legitimate. i've already discussed non-consensual circumcision and you should stop bringing it up. it's no longer an issue. it can be difficult to clean between a babies fingers. but this isn't really an issue since i've already removed non-consensual circumcision from acceptable and proper procedures. depends on whether you consider penile cancer life-threatening. it can be if it metastasizes. and since penile cancer is treated with circumcision (i'm not talking prevention, try reading), then you're wrong, and you've been wrong. the complications may be equivalent, but since they do not occur at equivalent rates, it is an illegitimate claim. the procedures are not equivalent. period. no, you are. i'm not interested in comparing these procedures because they're not comparable. you're trying to equate them by using the same term. it's dishonest. there are things to be concerned about, such as consent and cleanliness. but i'm not convinced the procedure is inherently damaging and i'm not in a position to tell an adult man what he can't do with his penis, unless it involves me.

i highly doubt that considering tuberculosis can spread through the air and does not require an open wound.i can only work with the information available.