Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

OK, then how about sacrificing them in the big bonfire to Moloch? That is a way of involving the child in what the adherents no doubt believed was a loving culture and tradition. Yet we don't allow it anymore, anywhere. Why not? Is it because it kills the child? Is it better to mutilate the child for life or just send them straight to heaven?In short, do parents own their children? If not, who does? If children own themselves, why shouldn't the young lady who grows up in Egypt and receives their special brand of "circumcision" be entitled to beat her parents to death slowly over a period of many years for allowing such a thing when she couldn't speak for herself or prevent this terrible atrocity?She doesn't want to though, usually. Cultural influences are strong enough to make some women do it to themselves even. (The food you cook for your husband might be contaminated by your femaleness if you don't get it done.) Does that mean it's right? Cultural influences were strong enough to make everyone sacrifice their first-born to Moloch at one point.Where do you draw the line?

I assumed you would draw a line short of infant sacrifice, and that when you specified that line for me I would be able to ask whether that was a logical stopping point or not. But you don't seem to have any trouble with Moloch or eating your mate or whatever is the norm for the subject's culture or species, no line to be drawn at all. That's logical and consistent enough for me.Yes, I do think western culture's emphasis on the individual is superior to the various barbaric cultures and their emphasis on the state, the royalty, the nobility, the priestly hierarchy, the collective farm, anyone other than the freestanding individual. I may think this because it is logically consistent to me, or else because I am a selfish westerner. Either way I have superior firepower and a lower infant mortality rate, so my idea is going to prevail.

Periphrase for setting a moral boundary beyond which a tendency is to be considered "wrong", to avoid repeating the phrase "draw a line" excessively. Again, I got the idea that you had a moral structure and felt it was immoral to interfere with another culture's practices, I wanted to see where that standard would yield to other moral standards as the cultural practices became more extreme. In that sense I misunderstood you completely, you aren't asserting the morality of leaving other cultures alone at all. You just prefer not to do it for some reason, you might give me more information about what that reason is if you want to be helpful. I did try to cover that though, the reason I think such a culture is "better" in the practical sense is because it results in superior firepower and lower infant mortality. In the personal sense though, I may favor that view because I enjoy the freedoms I have and did not appreciate the lesser amount of freedom I have experienced as a guest in cultures with a lower emphasis on the individual like Kuwait and Somalia.It may just be because I have been trained since birth by my culture to deem it superior to other cultures, and superior to the degree that it results in personal freedom for me. That's a fairly easy concept to "prove" to a small child, whether it is true or not. Literally "foreign" but with an implication of greater suffering, more primitive conditions, signicantly less even utilization of resources, greater academic ignorance and a more arbitrary legal system. Normally implies a tribal system like that characterizing the Germanic peoples who took Rome and/or a feudal system like that set up by them thereafterward as they ceased to be migratory. The word used to characterize "us" when we were like "they" are now.Applied by me to the modern pseudo-socialist super-states as well because I characterize the results as the same. Feel free to correct me on this point or any other point where you may be able to make me smarter.