Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 166 of 357 (830309)
03-26-2018 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by ringo
03-26-2018 11:57 AM


You're making the same mistake as Tangle, trying to argue from the specific to the general.
Nope. Your argument relied on a universal statement. I simply showed it was not universal. Since parents can harm children without harming themselves, one cannot say the two are harmed with equivalence and therefore you can't say that just because a parent consents it is not harmful.
But that doesn't change the fact that for most parents, if you harm their child you're also harming the parents. it's a pretty obvious point.
And I have not disagreed with this obvious point. It's not a relevant point, so I'm not sure why you place such importance on it in this discussion. You can't justify all actions a parent takes against a child by saying the harm is equivalent so the parent's consent is all that matters morally. The problem we have here is about knowledge of harm. If a parent doesn't know their actions are harmful - they won't feel any harm - even if they are wonderful people. But if the actions are harmful, the child is harmed regardless of the parent's state of knowledge. Thus they are not equivalent and one cannot simply say 'the parent's consent is sufficient' or argue something similar.
Parental consent makes sense for cases where a decision must be made (and even then, it is not always the ultimate decider). So if an infection occurs and the Doctor says there are two options
1) Circumcise. Good chance of success of relieving the infection, but permanent bodily modification with it's own set of risks - the consequences of which can be lifelong.
2) Antibiotics. Also a good chance of success but if they fail the consequences can become increasingly severe, and antibiotics in the very young carry their own set of risks. However, on complete success there is little chance of long term problems and the child will grow up without having their body altered.
At this point - it probably makes sense to seek parental consent as the child cannot consent and the parents are the next best advocate for the child's health etc.
However, if the options are weighed heavily - eg., 90% chance of death if you don't circumcise - then the doctors may choose to overrule parents who decide to not circumcise through the courts.
In cases where there is no compelling need to make a decision, I see no reason for the doctor to even entertain the notion - let alone seek parental consent. If a parent insists that their child be given a long term course of antibiotics - 'just in case' (ie as a prophylactic against infection rather than as a cure), it seems to me to be reasonable for a doctor to refuse. And any doctor that doesn't is probably doing more harm than good - regardless of the parent's wishes and consent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ringo, posted 03-26-2018 11:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 03-27-2018 12:09 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 167 of 357 (830343)
03-27-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Modulous
03-26-2018 3:30 PM


Modulous writes:
Your argument relied on a universal statement. I simply showed it was not universal.
I don't think anything I said implied universality. I simply said that when you harm a child you harm the parent. It's still a point that you should address if you want to discuss the topic honestly.
Modulous writes:
... you can't say that just because a parent consents it is not harmful.
And I haven't.
Modulous writes:
The problem we have here is about knowledge of harm. If a parent doesn't know their actions are harmful - they won't feel any harm - even if they are wonderful people. But if the actions are harmful, the child is harmed regardless of the parent's state of knowledge.
The problem we have here is that you're trying to dictate what is harmful, even if the child, the parent and the doctor all agree that it is not.
Modulous writes:
In cases where there is no compelling need to make a decision, I see no reason for the doctor to even entertain the notion - let alone seek parental consent.
And the doctor sees no need to seek your consent.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2018 3:30 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2018 4:37 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 168 of 357 (830355)
03-27-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ringo
03-27-2018 12:09 PM


I don't think anything I said implied universality.
Well in that case, the argument instantly fails. If I'm wrong, make whatever argument you are making in the form of
Because parents are sometimes harmed when their child is harmed ....{your argument here}..... circumcision is either not harmful, or the harm is justifiable.
I simply said that when you harm a child you harm the parent.
Which is not true. It is only possibly true. There are cases where it isn't true.
It's still a point that you should address if you want to discuss the topic honestly.
Which I did in the very post you are replying to.
... you can't say that just because a parent consents it is not harmful.
And I haven't.
Good news. Hopefully we can both agree this is a ludicrous argument.
The problem we have here is that you're trying to dictate what is harmful
I'm not sure how expressing my opinion and providing evidence and reason in support of that opinion, as well as the informed opinion of relevant professionals in a variety of fields --- and hoping those reasons and evidence are persuasive to others such that social policy changes could be characterised as dictating anything.
even if the child, the parent and the doctor all agree that it is not.
We agree that
a) a child can't give an informed opinion on the matter
b) a parent doesn't know with certainty whether everything they do is harmful or not
c) a doctor can cause harm, unwittingly or deliberately.
So although their opinions may have merit in a discussion - they aren't the final word. A doctor who persuades a parent into consenting to have a child's ears amputated is still causing a harm - even if the child is lead to believe they aren't harmed and the parent also holds that belief.
And the doctor sees no need to seek your consent.
Obviously, I'm not asking the doctor to seek my consent. I'm busy enough as it is - I don't need to add reviewing every doctors' actions to it.
I am however, advising why consent by proxy makes sense at times of need, but why I do not think it does for cosmetic purposes. And indeed, in every single other case of cosmetic surgery - everybody else seems to agree with me on this. Circumcision seems to have carved out (ahem) for itself an exception...and this largely seems to continue today because being uncool to Jews is a big problem. If it was just Muslims - I'm sure the practice would have been banned in the US alongside its female counterpart.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 03-27-2018 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2018 4:58 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 3:23 PM Modulous has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 169 of 357 (830357)
03-27-2018 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Modulous
03-27-2018 4:37 PM


Rrhain writes:
Circumcision seems to have carved out (ahem) for itself an exception...and this largely seems to continue today because being uncool to Jews is a big problem.
Hence special pleading.
If it was just Muslims - I'm sure the practice would have been banned in the US alongside its female counterpart.
In the UK similar reluctance was shown for fgm because of a fear of offending cultural practice. We can at least now see the start of an intolerance to cultural and religous harm.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2018 4:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2018 5:26 PM Tangle has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 170 of 357 (830360)
03-27-2018 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Tangle
03-27-2018 4:58 PM


In the UK similar reluctance was shown for fgm because of a fear of offending cultural practice.
Are you sure? The practice panned in the 80s - my understanding - based up on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the UK, Moira Dustin, LSE GENDER INSTITUTE, 2010 (see page 8) is that the issue hadn't come to legislation due to a lack of public awareness and once the awareness came to light the delay in passing legislation was due to making sure the legal language was both tight enough to ensure it was effective, while also allowing for legitimate female circumcision to take place:
quote:
Thedelayinpassingthe1985Actwascausedbydisagreementovertwo
sentences, one referring to ‘mental health’, the other to ‘custom or ritual’,
and the relationship between the two. The Bill as originally introduced
said that the operation of female circumcision must not be performed
except where necessary for the physical health of the patient. This recog-
nized that there are cancerous, pre-cancerous and other conditions that
necessitate genital surgery and that the legislation needed to be defined
tightlyenoughtoallowthoseoperationstobecarriedoutlegally.However,
Lord Glenarthur for the (Conservative) government, was concerned that
‘There are operations of what might be called a cosmetic nature, which
may properly be undertaken but which are not required for the direct
physical health of the woman’, which would not be permitted under the
original terms of the legislation. Therefore, the Bill would only have
the government’s blessing if it were amended to allow surgery where
necessary for the physical or mental health of a person; in determining,
however, whether there was a threat to physical or mental health, no
account should be taken of beliefs based on ritual or custom (Prohibition
of Female Circumcision HL Bill, 10 November 1983 and 23 January 1984).
The 'cultural sensitivity' charge is usually laid against the notion that there has been an unwillingness to detect and/or prosecute cases for that reason.
{The article above raises an interesting point regarding the hypocrisy of the law which suggests that a western girl who is suffering mental anguish at the state of her labia as a result of cultural pressures to confirm more closely to the 'ideal' genital shape could opt to have genital surgery for mental health reasons - but someone who has also expressed mental anguish at their labia for cultural reasons (but from a different culture) may be prohibited - and (in principle) anybody aiding them could be prosecuted}
That law had a large loophole allowing people to go overseas to have the operation - meaning prosecution was more or less impossible without direct evidence that the practice occurred on British soil (and few children of that background were ever likely to stand as witness against their family). This was corrected in 2003 (and it passed without a problem in the house).
{again the article raises an interesting point:
quote:
the 2003 Act distinguishes between the illegal reinfibulation
after childbirth of an adult woman of African origin, regardless of her
own wishes, while permitting British women to have surgery to create
‘designer vaginas’.
It concludes:
quote:
One way would be to argue for the application of consistent principles
of choice and the recognition of all non-therapeutic bodily modifications
as ‘cultural’. This could mean making a distinction between adults who
can choose how to modify their bodies in irreversible ways — however
muchthemajoritymightdeploretheirchoices—andchildrenwhocannot.
Application of this framework would have several implications. It would
mean saying that male circumcision of boy babies, where it has been
established that it has no medical benefits, is unacceptable; it would mean
that it would be illegal to circumcise a girl under the age of consent; and
it would mean that if an adult woman wants to have her genitals ‘tidied
up’ after childbirth or her labia reduced through ‘cosmetic’ surgery, then
she should be allowed to make that choice. This may not be a satisfactory
position but it is a way of avoiding double standards while the real work
of changing the attitudes that produce these practices takes place.
So while there may be a reticence to prosecute or detect the practice there are
1) Actual cultural sensitivity issues surrounding the law
2) Actual difficulties detecting the issue in children and securing prosecution when all parties are cooperating with one another against the prosecution. (And as the case you highlighted earlier demonstrates, even when this isn't the case, a successful conviction is not certain as proving criminal responsibility is still difficult in a he said-she said case).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2018 4:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2018 7:47 AM Modulous has replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 171 of 357 (830366)
03-27-2018 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by ringo
03-20-2018 12:11 PM


ringo 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.
That's odd, because I noticed the difference when I was at primary school. Also, if you google 'circumcised and uncircumcised penis' and look at the images you will see that there are obvious differences.
Edited by Astrophile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 3:27 PM Astrophile has replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


(1)
Message 172 of 357 (830368)
03-27-2018 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by ringo
03-20-2018 12:13 PM


ringo writes:
That's for them to decide.
Yes, I agree. Perhaps some of them would like to contribute to this discussion.
Edited by Astrophile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:13 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 173 of 357 (830380)
03-28-2018 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Modulous
03-27-2018 5:26 PM


Rrhain writes:
Are you sure?
Pretty much, yes.
So while there may be a reticence to prosecute or detect the practice there are
1) Actual cultural sensitivity issues surrounding the law
2) Actual difficulties detecting the issue in children and securing prosecution when all parties are cooperating with one another against the prosecution. (And as the case you highlighted earlier demonstrates, even when this isn't the case, a successful conviction is not certain as proving criminal responsibility is still difficult in a he said-she said case).
There was and still are practical difficulties in prosecuting this offence but over and above this there has been a general reluctance to interfere in sensitive areas of religion and culture. The recent sexual abuse by Pakistani Muslims men on vulnerable white girls in the North of England had the same problem and this has been admitted by the services involved - police and social services.
quote:
The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal has been described as the "biggest child protection scandal in UK history".[14] From the late 1980s until the 2010s, organised child sexual abuse continued almost unchallenged by legal authorities[15] in the northern English town of Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It was first documented in the early 1990s, when care-home managers investigated reports that children in their care were being picked up by taxi drivers.[16] From at least 2001, multiple reports passed names of alleged perpetrators, several from one family, to the police and Rotherham Council. The first group conviction took place in 2010, when five British-Pakistani men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12—16, but the ringleaders remained at large.[17] Other major convictions regarding child sexual exploitation included one in 2007 of a lone male offender who "abused over 80 boys and young men".[18] From January 2011 Andrew Norfolk of The Times pressed the issue, reporting in 2012 that the abuse in the town was widespread, and that the police and council had known about it for over ten years.[a]
There were many variables at work here but significant ones involved race/culture/religion causing a reluctance to see the crimes for what they were.
quote:
The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gendercontemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources.[31][32][15]
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - Wikipedia
On fgm, similar things were happening. This is part of the Parliamentary Select Committee Enquiry summary
quote:
The work that has been done by the media, politicians and most importantly by survivors and campaigners has raised the profile of FGM, so that many more people are aware of this horrendous form of child abuse. However, it is still the case that there have been no successful prosecutions for FGM in the UK in the last 20 years.
In Heartlands Hospital in Birmingham alone, 1,500 recorded cases of FGM were recorded over the last five years, with doctors seeing six patients who have undergone the procedure each week.
There seems to be a chasm between the amount of reported cases and the lack of prosecutions. Someone, somewhere is not doing their job effectively.
Chair's comments
Rt. Hon Keith Vaz MP, Chairman of the Committee, said:
"FGM is an ongoing national scandal which is likely to have resulted in the preventable mutilation of thousands of girls. Successive governments, politicians, the police, health, education and social care sectors should all share responsibility for the failure to respond adequately to the growing prevalence of FGM in the UK.
In our report last year, we called for immediate action. In that time there have not been any successful prosecutions, and the number of referrals to the police has barely increased. This record is lamentable. The DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) informed the Committee that she could only prosecute on the basis of evidence, the police said that they could only investigate on the basis of referral, and the health professionals told us that they could not refer cases because their members were not fully trained and aware of the procedure. While agencies play pass the parcel of responsibility, young girls are being mutilated every hour of every day. This is deplorable. This barbaric crime which is committed daily on such a huge scale across the UK cannot continue to go unpunished.
The law relating to female genital cosmetic surgery is ambiguous and must be clarified. We cannot tell communities in Sierra Leone and Somalia to stop a practice which is freely permitted on Harley Street. Doctors are on the front line. Their professional organisations must do more to encourage their members to report cases of FGM. Without their active reporting of these cases, the full extent of FGM will remain hidden."
Just a moment...
Behind the excuses there's a similar reluctance based on offending a minority, in a similar way to not interfering with male circumcision. However, fgm being an obvious violent and life changing assault on children is beginning ti build some momentum and we'll eventually see some successful prosecutions.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2018 5:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2018 3:41 PM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 174 of 357 (830408)
03-28-2018 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Modulous
03-27-2018 4:37 PM


Modulous writes:
If I'm wrong, make whatever argument you are making in the form of
Because parents are sometimes harmed when their child is harmed ....{your argument here}..... circumcision is either not harmful, or the harm is justifiable.
Your argument takes the form, Some people are harmed by circumcision, therefore everybody should be denied the right to make their own decision. That's where I'm saying you're wrong.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
I simply said that when you harm a child you harm the parent.
Which is not true. It is only possibly true. There are cases where it isn't true.
And I didn't say it was universally true. You're rebutting a strawman.
Modulous writes:
If it was just Muslims - I'm sure the practice would have been banned in the US alongside its female counterpart.
No doubt. All the more reason to tread carefully when intruding on individual rights.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2018 4:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2018 3:57 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 175 of 357 (830409)
03-28-2018 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Astrophile
03-27-2018 7:19 PM


Astrophile writes:
That's odd, because I noticed the difference when I was at primary school. Also, if you google 'circumcised and uncircumcised penis' and look at the images you will see that there are obvious differences.
Maybe it's because I'm old-school but in my experience, men don't look. Men don't even make eye contact in a public washroom.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Astrophile, posted 03-27-2018 7:19 PM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Astrophile, posted 03-29-2018 1:25 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 176 of 357 (830410)
03-28-2018 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Tangle
03-28-2018 7:47 AM


Are you sure?
Pretty much, yes.
There was and still are practical difficulties in prosecuting this offence but over and above this there has been a general reluctance to interfere in sensitive areas of religion and culture
Which is what I said:
quote:
The 'cultural sensitivity' charge is usually laid against the notion that there has been an unwillingness to detect and/or prosecute cases for that reason.
The 'are you sure' was about banning the practice - which was done in the 80s and I'm not aware that there was any problem banning the practice due to cultural sensitivity issues per se.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2018 7:47 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2018 5:18 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 177 of 357 (830411)
03-28-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ringo
03-28-2018 3:23 PM


Your argument takes the form, Some people are harmed by circumcision, therefore everybody should be denied the right to make their own decision. That's where I'm saying you're wrong.
So you can't construct such an argument? I'm not arguing what you claim I am, and have indeed already said as much. In fact my argument is that everybody should be allowed the right to make their decision - not have it made for them while they are not in a position to consent. The only exception to this rule should be if there is a pressing medical need to do so (ie., delaying for 18 years (or whatever) is likely to result in a greater risk of death or injury than not delaying).
Your counter-argument went along these lines:
quote:
Murder is harmful to the victim, to his loved ones, even to society as a whole. I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me.
quote:
What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself.
When it was pointed out that the circumcision in debate was done to other people - not to one's self you elaborated:
quote:
In the case of somebody who can not give consent, "myself' refers to somebody who can. Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.
The counter argument being - they are not equivalent. There are a whole bunch of things you are not allowed to give consent by proxy for (and things you can't even consent for yourself but that's another story). You can't argue as if banning parental consent by proxy for action x is the same as banning action x on a consenting individual. They aren't. Since you insist you aren't making a universal claim, it is necessarily true therefore that they aren't the same thing. This part of your argument therefore should be abandoned or shored up with further argumentation - which you have declined to provide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 3:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 4:17 PM Modulous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 178 of 357 (830412)
03-28-2018 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Modulous
03-28-2018 3:57 PM


Modulous writes:
You can't argue as if banning parental consent by proxy for action x is the same as banning action x on a consenting individual. They aren't. Since you insist you aren't making a universal claim, it is necessarily true therefore that they aren't the same thing.
When I say that harming the child harms the parent, that is a general truth, not a universal claim that no parent in the history of the universe has ever harmed a child. Your point that parents can and do harm their own children does not refute the point that harming a child also harms the parent.
That has nothing to do with whether or not a parent has the right to make medical decisions for his/her child.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2018 3:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2018 4:43 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 179 of 357 (830414)
03-28-2018 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by ringo
03-28-2018 4:17 PM


When I say that harming the child harms the parent, that is a general truth, not a universal claim that no parent in the history of the universe has ever harmed a child. Your point that parents can and do harm their own children does not refute the point that harming a child also harms the parent.
And I agree that harming a child can be said in general to cause harm to the parent - assuming the parent is aware of the harm. My contention is that this does not help us in determining whether a child is harmed and thus whether the practice should be permitted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 4:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 03-29-2018 11:42 AM Modulous has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 180 of 357 (830417)
03-28-2018 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Modulous
03-28-2018 3:41 PM


Modulous writes:
The 'are you sure' was about banning the practice - which was done in the 80s and I'm not aware that there was any problem banning the practice due to cultural sensitivity issues per se.
You may be right, the cultural sensitivity thing - politically correct stuff - came later. Implementing the law seemed to become rather harder as time moved on.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2018 3:41 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024