Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 251 of 357 (830895)
04-08-2018 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Tangle
04-07-2018 1:37 PM


Tangle writes:
No, I'm claiming that what doctors do is irrelevant. Now answer my question - are Jews circumcised for religious reasons?
What's irrelevant is why Jews are circumcised. As long as circumcision is practiced in a secular context, you can not call it a religious practice.
Tangle writes:
I am indeed arguing that religious based circumcision of children below the age of consent should be banned.
That is not what I asked. I asked if you want to ban ONLY religious circumcisions. Because that would be blatant religious discrimination.
Tangle writes:
And who do they get to remove the hearts they replace them with, trolls?
Doctors.
Tangle writes:
There you go avoiding answering again. You can't answer can you?
I haven't avoided anything. We've already been through the difference between circumcision and murder. Hint: death.
Tangle writes:
You think deliberate murder is wrong. Fine, we agree. The bible agrees. Society agrees. All societies agree. So there *is* an absolute.
Well, no, not really. "Deliberate murder" is defined by law and there are a fair number of exceptions. So it is not absolute.
Tangle writes:
Now I think that FGM is also an absolute and so do all modern Western democracies but you don't - you think it's fine.
There you go again. You think it's an absolute except for the exceptions: non-modern, non-Western, non-democracies, etc. Ironically, it's the modern Western democracies that are trampling on a woman's right to choose. History has slipped in that direction sometimes but it's hardly a historical trend.

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 239 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2018 1:37 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2018 3:08 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 252 of 357 (830896)
04-08-2018 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Modulous
04-07-2018 2:15 PM


Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Prohibition is a part of our culture that doesn't work
It works just fine.
So Prohibition of alcohol worked just fine? Everybody stopped drinking alcohol? You're just fine with the rise of organized bootlegging?
So prohibition of drugs is working just fine? Nobody is using non-medicinal drugs? You're just fine with the rise of organized drug-dealing?
So prohibition of abortion worked just fine? No abortions were performed by unqualified hacks? You're just fine with women dying from botched abortions?
Modulous writes:
You earlier argued that majority opinion is significant and meaningful when it comes to this discussion. Then you argued that majority opinion is oppressive in the context of this discussion.
And you think that's inconsistent? It isn't an either-or situation you know. We don't have to decide that either the majority tramples on the minority or we don't consider majority opinions at all. We are (sometimes) capable of compromise. And sometimes compromise comes in the form of letting individuals make their own decisions and everybody else keeping their noses the hell out of it.
Modulous writes:
Some of them have been cultural practices in general western culture. Until they were prohibited.
Yes, sometimes things are prohibited and sometimes things are un-prohibited. It isn't a one-way street.
Modulous writes:
And if they weren't prohibited, immigrants from cultures where they are practiced may continue to practice them unhindered.
Indeed. And in some cases, maybe they should be allowed to.

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 240 by Modulous, posted 04-07-2018 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Modulous, posted 04-08-2018 8:19 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 254 of 357 (830899)
04-08-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Tangle
04-08-2018 3:08 PM


Tangle writes:
Watch my lips, it's not me saying it's a religious practice, it's the head of the Jewish religion.
There is no head of the Jewish religion but if there was, his opinion is irrelevant. If the Pope thinks wearing his hat is a religious activity, that doesn't make every hat religious.
Tangle writes:
I want to ban all non-medical circumcision of children.
Why distinguish between medical and non-medical?
Tangle writes:
Nope I think it's absolute and so do modern Western democracies.
Clearly not, since they all define it differently.
Tangle writes:
As we learn more, we get to understand that harming people for no sensible reason is wrong.
But we don't agree on what is "harm" and what is a "sensible reason". Most of your precious modern Western democracies consider religious freedom to be a sensible reason - and they're unlikely to change.

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 253 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2018 3:08 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2018 3:54 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 261 of 357 (830938)
04-09-2018 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Tangle
04-08-2018 3:54 PM


Tangle writes:
Here in the UK, we have our own Chief Rabbi, and he tells me that according to his book, the circumcision of male babies is a religious act. So, I guess I'll go with his view over yours thanks.
Ask him if a Christian doctor performing a circumcision on a Christian baby in a Christian hospital is performing a Jewish religious act. My guess is that he'll say no.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Why distinguish between medical and non-medical?
'Cos, you know, one is necessary in order to function properly and the other isn't.
It's the same procedure. Necessity doesn't enter into it in either case.
Tangle writes:
Forgotten shooting your neighbour in the head so soon?
Are you forgetting that we were talking about an absolute definition of murder? There is none.

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 255 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2018 3:54 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2018 3:41 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 262 of 357 (830942)
04-09-2018 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Modulous
04-08-2018 8:19 PM


Modulous writes:
Prohibition of murder, assault, theft, child abuse and rape are working just fine.
Really? There are no murders? No assaults? No thefts? No child abuse? No rape?
Those things are limited by social convention and individual conscience, not by laws prohibiting them. People are going to murder, assault, steal, abuse children, rape, drink alcohol, do drugs, perform abortions and circumcisions, etc. regardless of any laws against them. You can't legislate human behaviour.
Modulous writes:
Do you have the courage to say which ones you think should be allowed, which ones should be prohibited and give your reasons?
As I have said several times, I think, it shouldn't be about "allowing" things at all.

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 258 by Modulous, posted 04-08-2018 8:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Modulous, posted 04-09-2018 1:59 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 273 of 357 (831001)
04-10-2018 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Modulous
04-09-2018 1:59 PM


Modulous writes:
The utility of prohibition is not to eradicate that which is prohibited (though that might be considered an ideal outcome), but to allow society an orderly and agreed upon way in which to handle those that engage in prohibited behaviour.
So how can you tell whether or not it's "working"?
Modulous writes:
So that's a 'no', then.
You asked the equivalent of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The answer is neither yes nor no.
Modulous writes:
You think 'in some cases, maybe they should be allowed'....
What part of "it shouldn't be about 'allowing' things at all" was unclear?
Society should not be in the habit of "allowing" people to do things.
Edited by ringo, : Question mark.

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 263 by Modulous, posted 04-09-2018 1:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Modulous, posted 04-10-2018 2:08 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 274 of 357 (831002)
04-10-2018 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Tangle
04-09-2018 3:41 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Ask him if a Christian doctor performing a circumcision on a Christian baby in a Christian hospital is performing a Jewish religious act. My guess is that he'll say no.
Which is obviously irrelevant.
On the contrary, non-religious people performing circumcisions for non-religious reasons is obviously relevant to whether or not circumcision is a religious act.
If you use your car to drive children to Sunday School, then that specific case of driving could be considered a religious act. But that doesn't make all driving of all cars at all times a religious act.
Tangle writes:
If it's a medical necessity it does.
But not all medical circumcisions are a medical necessity.
Tangle writes:
Except we both know that shooting your neighbour in the head for fun actually IS murder.
Unless your neighbour is on the "wrong" side in a war. So, not an absolute.

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 266 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2018 3:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 12:36 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 276 of 357 (831006)
04-10-2018 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Tangle
04-10-2018 12:36 PM


Tangle writes:
A circumcision performed for (admitted) religious reasons is performed for religious reasons. End.
And a circumcision performed for non-religious reasons is performed for non-religious reasons. Thus, circumcisions can not be blanket-labelled as religious.
Tangle writes:
... non-medically required circumcisions should require the consent of the individual whose dick is being cut.
You've said that a few dozen times too and it's still just as wrong. Children do not have the capacity to give consent.
Tangle writes:
My neighbour and your neighbour are not on the wrong side of a fictitious war, so yes it is an actual absolute.
It happened in Britain. It happened in the US. It's happening in Syria right bloody now. There IS such a thing as a civil war. "Murder" is NOT an absolute. And war is only one example.
Tangle writes:
Or, does being a non-absolute in your mind make it wrong to intervene in someone's personal freedom to shoot your neighbour in the head for fun?
I'm just pointing out that you're wrong.

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 275 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 12:36 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 1:56 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 279 of 357 (831051)
04-11-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Tangle
04-10-2018 1:56 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Thus, circumcisions can not be blanket-labelled as religious.
Why would anyone think that they were?
You keep doing it. It's the entire premise of this topic.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Children do not have the capacity to give consent.
That's exactly why it should wait until they can.
That isn't practical with things like education. So why give special treatment to circumcision?
Tangle writes:
It is not happening in my street or yours. Nor in my country or yours. So is it ok to do it?
If it's happening anywhere, you can't say there's an absolute definition of murder.
Tangle writes:
Where is you line? To the right of FGM; all the way to murder for fun? Where is it?
As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Your position is that because swinging of fists may cause injury a few times in a million, everybody should be prohibited from ever swinging their fists.

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 277 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2018 1:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2018 5:07 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 280 of 357 (831055)
04-11-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Modulous
04-10-2018 2:08 PM


Modulous writes:
If people get caught and are then being dealt with in an orderly and agreed upon fashion, then it's working.
By that standard, prohibition of alcohol worked and prohibition of abortion worked and prohibition of drugs is working. It seems like you're setting the bar pretty low.
By that standard, if your car won't start and you have the option of scrapping it, your car is working.
Modulous writes:
So we should neither permit nor forbid child labour, child foot-binding, child labour, domestic violence or the flogging adulterers?
Forbidding them may be "working" according to your standard but they're still happening.
Modulous writes:
In Western law, that which is not forbidden is permitted. This is sometimes thought of as a marker of freedom.
So fewer prohibitions would suggest more freedom?
Modulous writes:
So do you have an opinion with regards to which items in the list should be which, and will you reveal it here along with your arguments as to why?
When in doubt, don't prohibit. Some people may think there's such a thing as too much freedom. I don't.

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 278 by Modulous, posted 04-10-2018 2:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Modulous, posted 04-11-2018 5:37 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 283 of 357 (831123)
04-12-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Tangle
04-11-2018 5:07 PM


Tangle writes:
The fact that medical circumcision is sometimes necessary. Is irrelevant to a discussion about non-medically required circumcision.
On the contrary, as long as circumcision is an accepted medical practice you can't ban it on grounds of "harm". The most you could do is charge non-medical practitioners with practicing without a license. But that would be ridiculous, since it's been a non-medical practice since long before the medical profession even existed.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
That isn't practical with things like education.
More obvious crap. By-and-large, people are fairly clear about whether they want their dicks slicing at a relatively early age - phd not required; age of majority is fine.
That's a non-response. You haven't given any reason to distinguish circumcision from education.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
So why give special treatment to circumcision?
I'm not, you are.
Nope. I'm saying do the same in every situation: let the parents decide. And when child abuse or rape or shooting your neighbour in the head becomes an accepted medical procedure, I'll say let the parents decide on them too.
Tangle writes:
... it will be stopped at some point because it's an obvious wrong.
You're dreaming. Discrimination on the basis of religion is specifically prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No Canadian politician would touch circumcision with a twenty-foot pole. I expect the same applies to the US.
Tangle writes:
I'm stating quite flatly that it is absolutely wrong to shoot my neighbour in the head for fun and you're pratting around like this, pretending that it isn't?
No, I'm saying that you can't extrapolate from one example of something that is pretty clearly wrong to a blanket statement that circumcision is absolutely wrong.
Tangle writes:
Your right to swing your izmel stops at the point of a child's dick.
Not if it's my child. You wish it stopped there but it doesn't.
Tangle writes:
I see you're still evading the question, where do you intervene? I'm now saying it's way passed FGM, you would allow murder.
It isn't about "allowing" murder. I can't prevent murder and neither can you. The laws we have about murder exist to handle the aftermath, particularly to prevent murderers from murdering again. The only analogue with circumcision is what you would do after the fact.
So where do you stand? if parents circumcise their children, would you throw them in jail? Do you think that would improve the child's life?

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 281 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2018 5:07 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Tangle, posted 04-12-2018 12:44 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 284 of 357 (831124)
04-12-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Modulous
04-11-2018 5:37 PM


Modulous writes:
I'm confident there is less child labour as a result of its prohibition.
You can't use one "success story" as a basis for banning things. How confident are you that cocaine usage has decreased since it was banned?
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
When in doubt, don't prohibit.
I'm not in doubt. You have avoided the question yet again. What items in the list do you have doubts about?
I have doubts about everything. Any skeptic should.
Modulous writes:
What are the nature of your doubts? If you don't want to answer this - you could at least just say so. Save me having to ask over and over again.
I'm not going to start beating my wife just so I can stop for the benefit of your question. So I don't mind if you keep asking over and over again. But if you want a different answer, ask a different question.

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 282 by Modulous, posted 04-11-2018 5:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2018 2:58 PM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 286 of 357 (831127)
04-12-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Tangle
04-12-2018 12:44 PM


Tangle writes:
Circumcision for religious/cultural reasons is an unnecessary harm.
You don't get to make that determination.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
You haven't given any reason to distinguish circumcision from education.
Yeh, I wonder why that is? Possibly because it's yet another diversionary irrelevance?
Or because you can't.
Tangle writes:
The existence of medical procedures are irrelevant.
Not at all. You're trying to ban an accepted medical procedure.
Tangle writes:
I've given you examples of countries that have already banned religious/cultural circumcision.
I could give you examples of countries that have persecuted Jews in other ways.
Tangle writes:
Is it a difficult political decision? sure. But is it also a wrong?
It's not as "wrong" as trampling on individual freedom.
Tangle writes:
I'm interested in how far you think it's ok for parents to do other things. At the moment you're equivocating about shooting your neighbour for fun so I guess that's our answer.
You're being dishonest. The question about shooting your neighbour was about absolutes. The question about parents making decisions for their children is unrelated.
Tangle writes:
Parents would stop circumcising their children and everyone will live happily ever after..
And the dream goes on. People do not stop doing things if they're banned: alcohol, abortion, drugs. Children are not better off without their parents. Your conclusion is absurd.

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 285 by Tangle, posted 04-12-2018 12:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Tangle, posted 04-12-2018 1:55 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 289 of 357 (831166)
04-13-2018 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Tangle
04-12-2018 1:55 PM


Tangle writes:
I've given you the objective evidence of the harm. You have been uable to refute it.
On the contrary, there are millions of circumcised men in the world and all you've shown is that a tiny minority have experienced harm.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
You're trying to ban an accepted medical procedure.
No I'm not.
You can't have it both ways. It is an accepted medical practice. If you ban it only for religious use, that's blatant religious discrimination. And if you insist on a medical license for every procedure that could be construed as medical, you'll have to prosecute everybody who puts on a band-aid.
Tangle writes:
The freedom to harm a child is not a freedom parents should have.
Your misguided view of "harm" trips you up again.
Tangle writes:
... where is your line? Do parents have the freedom to do what they like to their children?
There is no simplistic "line". Our society accepts both circumcision and religious freedom. You can't draw a line between them.
Tangle writes:
The fact that some ignorant people with primitive ideas will continue to harm their children until caught is not a reason to try to prevent the majority from doing so.
And imagined "harm" is not an excuse for trampling on individual freedom.

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 287 by Tangle, posted 04-12-2018 1:55 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Tangle, posted 04-13-2018 12:51 PM ringo has replied
 Message 302 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2018 1:23 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 290 of 357 (831167)
04-13-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Modulous
04-12-2018 2:58 PM


Modulous writes:
Nor can you use one failure story as a basis to argue against prohibition.
I didn't use one story; I used a long history: alcohol, abortion, drugs.
Modulous writes:
Towards the end of WWI 2/3 of the shells being fired contained gas payloads rather than explosive ones. It was prohibited, and although it is still used during warfare - it is less common than 2/3.
The use of poison gas in WWI was an anomaly. It was only the fixed positions that made it a moderately effective weapon. It wasn't any ban that reduced the use of poison gas; it just isn't very useful.
Modulous writes:
... significant doubt to the point of thinking that maybe we should be turning a blind eye to stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc.
I have tried to make this clear: I don't think that banning things is an effective means of "control". I doubt that stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc. is going to change society for the better, just as I doubt that banning homosexuality, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc. is going to change society for the better. Human behaviour just doesn't work that way.
Modulous writes:
You are trying to argue against prohibition in general. I am asking how far you are willing to go. Do you think we should take no action as a society against child rapists, people that hurt or maim children, domestic violence?
Prohibition is not the only possible action.
Modulous writes:
To use your questionable analogy: You said 'maybe we should beat women' and I followed that up with 'does that include your wife?' and you replied 'This isn't about beating women'...
That is not the analogy I used. You demanded a yes-or-no answer to a question and I replied that the answer is neither yes nor no.

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 288 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2018 2:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2018 2:15 PM ringo 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