|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Modulous writes:
It repairs to the point that the baby doesn't remember anything happening.
A healed wound (often with a scar) is not a self-repaired foreskin. Modulous writes:
It isn't about "justifying" anything. If the parents and the doctor agree on it and the baby doesn't remember it, it's nobody else's business.
So that justifies inflicting pain on babies in your view? Modulous writes:
Bad analogy. A better one would be stealing a penny from a billionaire. He can't detect the loss so he isn't really damaged.
...if we're talking about damage alone then in that case it is not defined by the state of knowledge of the one damaged. If you shoot somebody in the head and they survive but they are in a persistent vegetative state - it is still called brain damage. Modulous writes:
And following the will of "most people" leads to oppression of minorities.
Again - this justifies doing all manner of things to babies that most people would regard as immoral or illegal. Modulous writes:
That's a good question. An even better one that I anticipated is: Should the parents be consulted when a teenage girl wants an abortion? So if the current legal system permits people to circumcise their 10 year old child for non-therapeutic reasons are you for or against that? Maybe we need to rethink what "under age" means. Maybe a girl who is old enough to get pregnant is adult enough to choose an abortion on her own. Maybe a 10 year old boy is adult enough to choose circumcision on his own.
Modulous writes:
I'd say that what is is pretty close to what should be.
The question in this thread isn't about describing what is, it is about what should be. Modulous writes:
That cuts both ways. If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc. Our forefathers may not have been as dumb as you think when they emphasized the importance of freedom of religion. ... religious special pleading is likely to impede legislative reform or the will to prosecute in this matter as it has other situations in the past and present.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Again, so do a lot of elective surgeries. There are also perceived benefits, whether you can perceive them or not. That's why it's up to the individual and/or the parents and/or the mohel/physician to make the decision, not you. Similarly, it is up to the individual whether or not to ride in a car, jump out of an airplane, etc., not you.
Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Tangle writes:
If you understand that infants do not have the capacity to give consent, why do you keep bringing it up? Not if they're 7 days old.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
What if the procedure is necessary? Heart surgery for newborns is becoming pretty common. By your logic, the infant's consent would be needed. ... an unnecessary, risky and harmful procedure should only done with the consent of the person undergoing the procedure.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I'm the one who agrees with the current laws, so I don't know what your point is.
What you've said can be used to justify a wide range of unpleasant things to children that our current laws forbid. So are the current laws wrong - or is your argument? Modulous writes:
No, I have not justified sexual abuse of children, as I said explicitly in another post. I agree with the present laws that have different applications in different situations - not your simplistic idea of banning everything that babies don't like.
You just justified sexually abusing or otherwise torturing babies - that isn't defended or even addressed by a discussion of the tyranny of the majority. Modulous writes:
The Nazis did make being Jewish illegal for all intents and purposes. If you make enough practices illegal, it becomes impossible to function.
The government cannot make being Jewish illegal just like they could not make being a Mormon illegal in that case. Modulous writes:
That's what I told Tangle in my first post in this thread. But if you target an activity that belongs to one or two specific groups, it begins to look like you're targeting the group and not the activity. Non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision is also an activity not a belief. Remember that the Mormons were persecuted before the practice of polygamy was made public.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
But it isn't up to you to decide what's necessary. The rational approach is to leave such decisions to the individual or the person who is authorized to make decisions for the individual. If an operation is not necessary for medical reasons and also carries risk and direct harm, there's no rational reason why it should be allowed until the person is able to consent to it.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Indeed we have. And yet you keep coming back to the same old same old rationale for intruding in other people's lives. We've done this.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Facts and evidence don't justify trampling on individual rights. Your debating technique is to bore people to death with repetition but provide no fact or evidence. So be it. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Cutting ears off is not the same as circumcision. A child with no ears will be reminded of it every time he looks in the mirror and every time the other children mock him. On the other hand, a circumcised child might not ever notice the difference.
Because we both agree that child sexual abuse or cutting a child's ears off is still harmful and/or damaging even if the child forgets the harm or damage as it grows older. Modulous writes:
Yes, the Nazis are my forefathers. And yes, the German people were considered among the most enlightened in Europe except for the Nazi interlude. And yes, we can hopefully learn from their mistakes.
Are the Nazis our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion? Modulous writes:
But it has not been shown to be generally harmful, as the Jews and Muslims can testify. If banning circumcision was for the express purpose of persecuting Jews and Muslims, would it still be justifiable in your eyes?
... the fear of appearing to target a group should not be a reason to tolerate practices by that group if it is shown those practices are harmful. Modulous writes:
It's true enough for us to err on the side of caution and not ban things willy-nilly.
ringo writes:
This is not universally true, unless you want to argue banning child sexual abuse has caused more problems than it has solved or torture or... Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves Modulous writes:
No. Preventing the minority from tyrannizing the majority.
ringo writes:
Tyranny of the majority? Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you Modulous writes:
Maybe I haven't mentioned this before but children are not capable of giving consent.
ringo writes:
Non therapeutic neonatal circumcision is something done to other people, not oneself. I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me. Modulous writes:
Then let it be their problem and don't let them impose their solution on people who don't think it's a problem.
ringo writes:
People do talk about circumcision as a problem if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem. Modulous writes:
Ask a parent. Most of them would rather be harmed themselves than see their children harmed.
ringo writes:
Nonsense Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent. Modulous writes:
Obviously not, since most circumcised men don't consider themselves damaged or harmed.
ringo writes:
It's pretty well defined Damage is a matter of opinion. Modulous writes:
So deal with the ones that do do harm and leave the others to do their job.
ringo writes:
Doctors are capable of doing harm - See Mengele since Nazis are on the table There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide. Modulous writes:
It pretty much does, unless you want to say that every car rolling down the street is damaged.
ringo writes:
Just because amputation wounds heal it does not mean amputation is not damage, particularly amputation of a healthy body part the human body is self-repairing Modulous writes:
It isn't damage at all unless the owner considers it damage.
ringo writes:
Damage doesn't become not-damage if you forget that it happened. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him. Modulous writes:
Then you might as well throw freedom of opinion out the window. ringo writes:
Belief should not be a defence against something being criminalised. If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The fact I have is that circumcision is an accepted practice.
ringo writes:
ie, you have no facts and are forced to admit that I have. Facts and evidence don't justify trampling on individual rights. Tangle writes:
So you're calling my parents irrational. And if the facts are that babies are dying because of an unnecessary operation, rational people decide against the operation.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
tangle writes:
You could mention some things that used to be banned but the ban was lifted: abortion, alcohol, marijuana (in progress), interracial marriage, integrated schools, integrated restaurants, integrated buses, integrated water fountains.... Need I go on? ringo writes:
So was bear baiting, knuckle fighting, slavery, racial discrimination, homosexual imprisonment, speeding, drunk driving, smoking in public, urinating in the street, corporal punishment.....need I go on? The fact I have is that circumcision is an accepted practice.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Then the question becomes, How harmful? Does the end (eliminating harm to penises) justify the means (persecuting religious groups)?
ringo writes:
And if it was? But it has not been shown to be generally harmful Modulous writes:
No. People who complain about circumcision are the minority.
So parents are the minority? Modulous writes:
Greater-than-or-equal is not equivalent?
ringo writes:
So they're not equivalent. Ask a parent. Most of them would rather be harmed themselves than see their children harmed. Modulous writes:
Of course it is. There isn't some absolute standard of damage that you can impose on everybody. Let the individual decide whether or not he is damaged.
What people consider themselves is not a relevant consideration when it comes to whether the foreskin is damaged by circumcision. Modulous writes:
No. I'm saying that just because doctors are capable of doing harm is not justification for you to impose your idea of harm on them.
Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm. Modulous writes:
Because the chances are that it has been damaged and repaired - e.g. worn tires replaced. Your view seems to be that once damaged, always damaged whereas mine is that once repaired, good as new.
Why would a car rolling down the street be considered damaged in my view? Modulous writes:
And I'm saying that it's no different than not giving them the choice to go to school. They are not capable of giving consent at the time consent is required.
I'm just arguing that there is no reason to not give them the choice. Modulous writes:
We've already been through that. Sexual abuse is demonstrably harmful in virtually 100% of cases. If only 30% of child sexual abuse victims considered it harmful - would that justify its continuing practice - in your view? But if 30% of circumcised males considered it harmful, no, that would not justify banning circumcision for the other 70%.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
No. You're advocating that the minority, who oppose circumcision, should be allowed to impose their view on the majority, who don't.
ringo writes:
So using the majority position against the minority would seem to be the tyranny of the majority. People who complain about circumcision are the minority. Modulous writes:
Parents say, "Nonsense."
Harming a child is not harming the parent. Modulous writes:
Then let them decide whether or not to go to school when they're old enough to give consent.
And since children cannot consent, they cannot make this decision. Wait until they can consent, and they can make that decision. Modulous writes:
I'll take a doctor's opinion about whether it's harmful over yours.
You did say doctors are capable of harm, after all. And that being the case 'Doctors do it' is not an argument against it being harmful. Modulous writes:
And you don't need to.
But you can't replace a foreskin like you can replace tyres. Modulous writes:
From the viewpoint of consent, I think they're the same. I think amputating body parts is very different from educating someone.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
And circumcision has not been "proven to be harmful". It can occasionally have harmful effects in some cases, just as abortion, alcohol, marijuana, etc. can have harmful effects in some cases. Progressive societies understand that you can't eliminate harmful effects just by banning something and they understand that sometimes the ban has harmful effects too.
... progressive societies ban things that are proven to be harmful and unban or regulate/licence things that are not or that have been proven to be harmful when prohibited. Tangle writes:
And, in the case of medical procedures, we let adults make the decision for minors under their care.
When we know things are harmful but can't or don't want to prohibit them, we make them available only to adults who are capable of making informed decisions. Tangle writes:
We'd have to, because of the legal precedent. Would we allow a new religious organisation to cut the penis's of baby boys?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I agree with the principles of democracy, yes. And you are arguing that the views of the majority should be imposed on the minority. And remember that the minority is not forcing the minorities to circumcise their children. The majority is allowing the minority to make individual decisions.
Modulous writes:
I didn't use the word "only".
I see - so those parents that beat their children, rape them, murder them, neglect them, etc etc etc are only harming themselves - so it should be permissible? Modulous writes:
Sez you. Muslims and Jews could argue that their religions contribute to the general welfare much like education does.
There is utility in educating children that is lacking in the circumcision discussion. Modulous writes:
Nobody made that argument. My argument is that circumcision is an accepted medical procedure, so you can't override the medical profession with your view that it's yucky.
That's fine - but the argument 'if Doctors do it, it is not harmful' is still defeated. Modulous writes:
Congratulations on convincing yourself but the argument still stands. If it repairs itself to the extent that the recipient can't tell the difference, it can't be considered damage.
The argument 'the human body is self-repairing' is still defeated as a justification for the practice. Modulous writes:
We've already been through that. Those procedures make the child visibly different. So if a parent consents to amputating a child's ears, legs, nose etc - where there is no medical need to do so -- that's cool with you?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Astrophile writes:
I'm sixty-five years old and I've never noticed the difference in anybody. The only reason I know two of my brothers were circumcised is because mom said so. I don't know if I could pick a circumcised penis out of a lineup. The child may notice that he is different from other boys and men whom he sees in public lavatories, or in his school lavatory.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024