Religious Special Pleading

And neither did I. Your opinion is clear, your evidence is lacking. Criminalising behaviour can serve to inhibit that behaviour. So if you're friend or a brother was stoned to death for being homosexual, or a young family member was sexually abused by a guardian you don't think society would be better with that offender being taken out of general circulation? You'd be happy knowing the person who killed your brother was free to kill someone else's brother? You'd be content knowing your cousin/niece whatever was going to continue being raped every night?How do you think other people would feel in that position? Would society truly be no better off either way? Human behaviour is not simple. However, likelihood of being caught, a and the nature of punishment have been shown to be factors that influence behaviour. We can also see that in times when the legal system stops being able to function effectively, crime rises. In lab tests, a larger number of people cheat for financial gain if it seems they can get away with it.Obviously crimes of passion or necessity are less affected than other things. When surveyed confidentially people admit that if they think they can get away with it they will happily commit insurance or credit fraud and many people do indeed admit to having done so. Of course not. You could eat a banana every time someone rapes a child. You could frown and sternly wag your finger. You could tut and write a disapproving message in twitter.Are you going to say anything of substance. Such as what you think should be done with someone who rapes a child, stones homosexuals etc? I did not demand a yes or no answer. I asked the following:

quote:

---

which of {the actions in the list} were you thinking {maybe should be allowed} - all of them?

---

quote:

---

What items in the list do you have doubts about? What are the nature of your doubts?

---

quote:

---

be specific about what is included in the word 'they' {in your sentence "maybe they should be allowed"}

---

quote:

---

You think 'in some cases, maybe they should be allowed', but won't specify which cases and why - nor will you specify which cases this isn't the case for and why.

---

quote:

---

which ones you think should be allowed, which ones should be prohibited and give your reasons?

---

These are not yes or no questions or challenges. These are questions designed to illicit further information from you with regards to your position. You could even answer the questions by expanding on your position that 'maybe some of them should be allowed... {but} it shouldn't be about "allowing" things at all. 'I'm afraid your answer

quote:

---

When in doubt, don't prohibit. Some people may think there's such a thing as too much freedom. I don't.

---

Only confuses the matter. Since in English law (which is the model by which the US, Canada and the UK operate) that which is not prohibited is allowed. So you are saying 'it shouldn't be about allowing' while also arguing things should be allowed if there is doubt - and you have expressed doubt about prohibiting child rape. So despite your earlier protestations, you seem to be once again arguing in favour of giving child rapists the freedom to rape children.If you can't explain yourself any further, that's the impression I'm going to walk away with - that your strongest defence for circumcision and the like, involves you tolerating rape, murder and abuse. I expect I won't be alone in that conclusion. So the choice is yours, I suppose.

I was making a universal statement. As I said, human behaviour is complex and the impact of prohibitions and punishments vary depending on that which is prohibited and the nature of the punishment, the background culture and numerous other factors. There may be some laws in some places at some times that have no impact on how much a behaviour is practiced. As a simple example, a 15th Century law prohibiting climbing a ladder to the moon wouldn't inhibit that practice. You don't get to decide if it's a minor problem and the tenacity of a practice is not a justification for it. I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly. Especially somewhere like the States. As has been pointed out, merely not having it covered by the NHS dramatically reduced the practice in the UK. If doctors never perform it, never recommend it and insurance never covers it - I'm sure rates would drop in the US hugely. They're already dropping dramatically as a result of social change. About 80% of US men are circumcised, but only about 60% of children are getting circumcised today. The point in question was:

quote:

---

While you may doubt that the prohibition against stoning homosexuals or abusing children is a good idea - I think it should be obvious I'm not talking about a generally philosophically healthy degree of doubt, but significant doubt to the point of thinking that maybe we should be turning a blind eye to stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc.

---

We were talking about your skepticism regarding prohibition. Stoning homosexuals is prohibited. What's your view on this? Well that's neither true, nor relevant. Stoning homosexuals was brought up because you said

quote:

---

Prohibition of scarification is cultural and, for practical purposes, racial oppression.

---

And I pointed out that stoning homosexuals was cultural. Would prohibiting it be racial oppression? Your reply was that they are

quote:

---

not cultural practices in our society

---

I responded with

quote:

---

And in some cases, maybe they should be allowed to.

---

Then you avoided answering the follow up question of which cases and why. So I took one example to see if you'd be willing to defend that one. Stoning homosexuals. In the case of the UK, it's not clear that non-therapeutic circumcision is legal. Because it calls for a list of items, and in full context, justifications for leaving items on or off that list. Here it is again: It's not loaded, it's not calling for an over simplified answer; it's a natural follow up to someone saying 'in some cases...' to ask them to say which cases.

The million adults would constitute globally of about 0.2%The least number I've seen in surveys suggests 10% - higher figures put it closer to 50%You've already said that 10% was insufficient, even though that would be about 10 million Americans alone.https://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-it-comes-to-circumcisionJust a moment...Your response was

quote:

---

if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority.

---

So why are you asking for a minority opinion now?

YouGov Exactly. So why are you asking for a minority opinion (a million adults)? Will it change your mind?

No. Precedent is how we determine application of laws. It's not a justification. You can't say 'we've been enslaving black people for a century so...' or 'we've never allowed gays to marry before...' as justification for the practice. Yes. If the parents are involved in the circumcision. The circumciser should also be punished. I think its a pretty good example, actually. Which I've explained with a notable Supreme Court decision, doesn't prevent laws prohibiting actions. But most circumcised males in the US are not Jewish. Most non-therapeutic circumcisions are not religiously motivated. How many people would continue to circumcise if they don't believe there is a religious imperative to do so AND it was not being performed by doctors in hospitals AND it was a criminal offence? No. I suggest imprisoning those that transgress the law. But you are for prohibiting the prohibition? OK. So it is OK to prohibit cultural behaviours that are designed to prohibit behaviour.

quote:

---

a) stoning adulterers, homosexuals and those that work on the Sabbath
b) slavery / indentured servitude
c) Flogging adulterers and unbelievers
d) removing the hands of thieves
e) human sacrifice (what if the victim consents? What if they were 'brainwashed' all their life into that consent?)
f) beating children with rods
g) Declining to employ people of the 'wrong' religion.
h) Marrying children off and the consummation thereof
i) Footbinding
j) Beating one's spouse

---

So let's move on to another example: human sacrifice. This is not to prohibit anything, but a religious/cultural practice designed to win favour with the gods / nature by showing a complete dedication to them.Is it OK to prohibit this behaviour? On what grounds?

You asked for a million. I gave you ten million. I didn't claim that. I pointed out that to meet your criteria only requires 0.2% - hardly 'most people'. I don't think they should. Well they have. Now what? As a debate, it kind of is. But if the majority doesn't change its mind, and continues to oppress the minority what then? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I say I'm advocating for individual freedoms. Nevertheless, precedent as can be seen, is not a justification. In this case, it seems, your justification is about individual freedoms, not precedent - for example. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. Yes.

quote:

---

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

---

It wasn't intended to. It was explain why I thought banning the practice would reduce the number of circumcisions. It does count, since my claim was that prohibiting it would reduce the numbers.

quote:

---

I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly. Especially somewhere like the States... If doctors never perform it, never recommend it and insurance never covers it - I'm sure rates would drop in the US hugely.

---

I'd hope not. It was the law because it was a religious/cultural belief that homosexuality was sinful and tolerating it would bring damnation. It's literally right there in the Old Testament, eg., Leviticus 20:13
There are people who want to bring it back - for religious reasons. I'm not, I'm trying to understand your position regarding what religious / cultural practices should be prohibited and which should not be prohibited by discussing specific examples. So is circumcision. That's not an opinion we share. Not having a foreskin is intrinsically an ill effect.

No that's not clear. What did you actually want? A million names? *sigh* fine. How would producing a minority affect the manner in which you are presenting your case? Hopefully? So you hope that the representatives will smooth out the whims of the circumcisers to protect the minority of those that voice an objection to being circumcised?

My point being it took you a long time to figure this out, as if you hadn't been paying attention to anything I said previously. Are you saying parents should be immune from prosecution of any offence?Your slippery slope argument of 'you want parents who arrange to have their children's genitals to be cut to be penalized, up to and including custodial sentences' to 'handing over Jews to the Gestapo' is outrageous and disgusting. Just because I want to add one more thing to the list of practices parents can already be jailed for - on the same grounds, is no reason to wonder where the line is drawn. But they aren't. They can be, in some circumstances, as we can see. But not as a general principle. Well, as in my example, the sacrifice victim and the sacrificing community disagree with you that there are long term ill effects in sacrificing humans. So how do we resolve that?

That seems like an unreasonable request. I can point out that in Israel, about 1-3% of Jewish males are not being circumcised on the grounds that it is either 'disfiguring' or 'painful'.So that gives us a reasonable range of 1-10%In the UK about 60% of people support banning circumcisionIn Switzerland, about 12% of circumcised men wished they hadn't been circumcised and about 60% want the practice banned.So I think it's also reasonable to say that 10% of those that believe they themselves were harmed is reasonable in the broad Western culture. Which, given we're principally discussing the West's legal response to it, should suffice. Europe plus North America is over a billion people. I suggest that should cover your one million target quite easily. So why did you ask for it? What purpose does it serve if it doesn't impact the argument? Of course they are. What makes you think they are not relevant? But circumcisers are entitled to force their opinions on others? Why do they get to do that?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm no wiser as to what you are saying. Could you be clearer? If beating your child can get you 10 years in prison - is that a 'ludicrously bad' result? Should we therefore legalize beating one's children? Is there a limit to how much beating? No, I don't think that. I'm aiming for an outcome where children can have both a foreskin and parents. I think you've lost sight of the point. I was saying that I was trying to understand your position with regards to which practices should be explicitly exempted from that protection and why - that is, what should be prohibited and what should not and what criteria should be used. Therefore the answer 'Religious practices are protected by law....what is not explicitly prohibited by law is implicitly permitted.' does not address this. The only point of comparison is that they are religious/cultural practices. I assumed earlier that you would think human sacrifice would be something you would agree would be prohibited. That is, you think that 'religious/cultural practice' is insufficient grounds alone to justify permitting it. Thus, I am trying to ascertain by what criteria human sacrifice should be prohibited but circumcision allowed.The criteria so far given for prohibition have been:1) The practice is intended to prohibit other behaviour (eg., homosexual acts)
2) The practitioners or those that it is practiced upon object to some sufficient degreeHuman sacrifice doesn't necessarily meet these criteria. So either you have additional criteria you are using OR you are special pleading.Until you prove you have additional criteria by providing them, I can only assume special pleading must be the answer.

The only laws I'm looking to change are those in the 'West'. Europe and North America specifically. I have given information from those regions. Then why ask for numbers if you think they're not relevant? Well there you go - you have well over a million people. I'm not suggesting their views should be imposed on the 90%. I'm just saying the 90% shouldn't trample on the rights of the 10% just because they are the 90% Naturally. But they should also not have circumcision imposed upon them. Well now you know. Apparently it makes no difference, but I'm glad we got there. Their penis is their business, so to speak. Exactly. And I have no business forcing you to eat vanilla ice cream for the rest of your life. Right?So a parent who signs a contract with some agency whose job is to force feed ice cream to people will, 10% of the time, be imposing the wrong ice cream flavour on someone for the rest of their life. Which is bad. Why not wait until they can express an informed opinion about their ice cream choices and let them sign up for the ice cream agency of their own volition?I don't think the answer 'but God says Vanilla ice cream is mandatory' is sufficient justification for forcing that opinion on others. They are trying to circumcise those that will not want to be circumcised though. But only in certain circumstances. For medical procedures, that would be circumstances where a decision needs to be made for health reasons. Such as an infection. Option 1) Circumcise, Option 2) Antibiotics. That's when a proxy can be called to make a choice when the affected individual is incapable.You don't get to force penis enlargement, or mastectomies on people who can't consent just because you have power of attorney. If a mastectomy has some immediate therapeutic purpose, fair enough - but if it's just for cosmetic purposes, or because the person's ancestors had it done - it's not reason enough.

Unless it results in a steep decline of unhappy people overall. If America has 10 million men who are unhappy about their circumcision and it is banned and this number drops to 100,000 - the fact that a handful of parents, if that, are imprisoned sounds like a reasonable trade-off for 9.9million happier people being around in the US at any given time. I can also control the number of circumcisions that are carried out. It does not. It simply states what the current state of affairs is. But this is false for two reasons:1 - this is an example I am using to understand your position by having you explain why you think it should be banned where a demand may arise.2 - western nations take in refugees an immigrants with different cultural opinions. I'll take this as a final refusal to explain which acts you think should be prohibited and which ones should be allowed as you have resorted to telling me about what 'is' and have avoided what 'ought to be'.Two weeks ago (Message 229) I gave you a list of prohibited religious and/or cultural practices. You said maybe some of them should be allowed. I asked which and why. You tried a few angles but have ultimately fallen back to

Conclusion

You now retract the claim that 'in some cases, maybe they should be allowed', your argument that prohibition of religious/cultural practices is racial oppression is defeated. Therefore the defence in favour of circumcision is indeed special pleading.

They're just the ones that organise and carry them out. Actually, that's quite significant. In the case of neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision, that's exactly what is happening. As I said, their penis is their business. Yes we do. I've listed a number of such decisions multiple times. Nope. I think non-therapeutic circumcision should be treated like any other cosmetic surgery. It does matter, obviously. It is the protection of individual rights I am arguing for. Parents can decide to force something on children. They're not mutually exclusive.

In so far as this is true:

quote:

---

The part that you can actually control is not taking their parents away from them.

---

It is also true that I can control how many circumcisions are performed. Try to keep the scope of the statement in mind. Your awareness is immaterial. Which is it? Are you arguing for the status quo, which includes prohibition of a variety of acts - or are you against prohibition and thus against the status quo? Thus you are in favour of prohibition, in certain cases. Namely, the list of cases of prohibited acts I've already provided. As if 'forward' was an objective criteria. I argue that we should move away from the ancient practice of skinning children's genitals and that this is a movement forward. I'm afraid it does matter what I regard as sufficient justification - I am a voter and a participator in this discourse. I am not contending my opinion alone overrules the law. Obviously