Multiculturalism

As I have said twice, the difference is that the dead victims of human sacrifice do not go on to advocate for human sacrifice. They do not change their dead minds.I'm sure you can come up with similarities between FGM and human sacrifice. The perpetrators and the victims all have toes, for example.But you asked for the difference and I told you. If you want a different answer, ask a different question.

You said, "That's discussed in the report too." So tell us in your own words how that discussion in the report supports your point. If your "point" is chasing its own tail, the only way I can catch it is by chasing it in circles. If you had a strong point....

All I'm doing is criticizing your so-called position, so if I'm going in circles it's because your position is going in circles. Bullshit. You're refusing, in this very post, to provide support because it's "hard to copy and paste" from a PDF. If you had a strong point, you'd present it for the lurkers. You wouldn't worry about my eyes being closed.(Mind you, you'd better make sure you're clear on what the point is before you put too much effort into it.)

I did read page 14 but thanks for finally posting it.The question remains: How do you think it supports your position?I have not disputed that FGM is a social norm. I have not disputed the sociological reasons for the continuing existence of FGM.What I am disputing is putting people in prison for praciticing a social norm. What I am suggesting is that social norms should be considered as social norms by our legal system and not equivocated with abnormal behaviour such as child abuse.Edited by ringo, : Spellng.Edited by ringo, : Moar spllinge.

I asked you that very question a number of times. In Message 710 I asked, "So it's "more compassionate" to separate a young girl from her mother by throwing the mother in prison?" and in Message 711 you said, "Sure, we should remove children from abusive homes. Its the right thing to do."

No, it puts other reasons, such as compassionate reasons, ahead of sociological reasons. If a society has ingrained reasons for a certain practice, whether those reasons are good or bad, we are not forced to ignore their stated feelings in favour of our own calculations. We can, and sometimes should, make allowances.

We're talking about blending societies here. If we're going to accept people from other societies to merge into ours, we have to be prepared sometimes to take the bad with the good. It's funny how you guys fixate on the most extreme examples. I have not suggested letting people get away with murder. I have suggested not putting mothers in prison for making decisions for their children, such as about vaccinations, appendectomies or circumcision.

Read the thread. I have asked several times if the mothers should be imprisoned and the general view seems to be that "the law must be enforced".Personally, I don't think the laws are targeted at the mothers - so why can't I get anybody to distance themselves from imprisoning the mothers? I'd like to see opponents of FGM say, flat out, "No!, Don't imprison the mothers!" Why don't they?

Just for the record, you have no reply for:

quote:

---

Female circumcision crosses whole cultures. It is not an aberrant behaviour within a culture; it is only aberrant to other cultures.

---

or for

quote:

---

Since you have labeled multiculturalism as "poisonous", you clearly have no tolerance for other cultures at all.

---

Nobody's demanding that their culture be dominant. They just want to be tolerated. What a bizarre scenario. If I brought my guns to the US, I'd expect a lot more tolerance for them than I would get in Canada.

That's obviously false. There must be people in the UK who want to practice FGM or there wouldn't be a perceived need to prevent it. So you are saying, in fact, that if the law prescribes imprisonment, then the practitioners of FGM should be imprisoned. So how do you propose to enforce the law?

See what I mean about chasing your own tail? We've been over that.We (should) have compassion for the mother, who was once a "victim" herself. We (should) have compassion for the child, whom you propose to "protect" from her mother. Have you asked the child whether or not she wants to be removed from her mother? The way to change societies in Africa would be to try to convince the women that they are victims. Until they think they are victims, effectively they are not. You're missing the point. Since FGM is a social norm in some cultures, they way to eliminate it is by changing those cultures. And until the cultures themselves do change, we have to make allowances in our culture. Oppressing people in our culture who practice FGM is not going to convince anybody to change their culture.

Read the thread. I'm not the one who thinks that. I keep asking if we should imprison the mothers and nobody says, "No." The problem has nothing to do with the law itself. The problem is with the people who rabidly oppose FGM. They seem to be in favour of imprisoning the mothers. If not, why has nobody distanced themselves from the idea? I've given them plenty of chances.

Thank you. Tell it to Straggler.

If I'm driving down the highway and a semi jack-knifes in front of me, I want my car to stop immediately - but it ain't gonna happen. There are possible ways to stop things and there are safe ways to stop things.