Multiculturalism

Hey Straggler, Hmmm. It seems you are saying a total stranger can take a child without a parent's knowledge/consent, slice off the child's genitals, and be soley responsible. I think you are working backwards . . . No, I think the parents should be primarily responsible. Thusly, the main aim and practical effect of the law SHOULD be to separate mothers who solicit the butchery of their child. It's not like the circumcisers could get business without the complicit mother's help, right?

I think Straggler asked you: is there ANY practice that you would find so reprehensibly abhorrent that you would want stopped immediately in your culture?

So, outside of examples of physics that are impossible to prevent, is there any CULTURAL practice that you would find so reprehensibly abhorrent that you would want stopped immediately in your culture?

Wow, I find that chilling.Ringo, do you concur with Jar?

No, I think word replies are adequate, but thanks for asking. Hmmm. Okay, then it seems you are okay with children being legally mutilated during an intermittent stage.Could you answer personally HOW LONG you would allow for children being muttilated before the transition is completed?Could you answer personally HOW MANY children would you find acceptable being mutilated before the transition is completed?

Yes. No, I didn't miss that part. I still find your stance chilling.

Thanks for that reply, but here is the actual question I keep asking:

quote:

---

Is there any CULTURAL practice that you would find so reprehensibly abhorrent that you would want stopped immediately in your culture?

---

There is no need to re-invent the wheel. A social case worker goes into the field with risk assessment tools. If a child is at immediate risk of emotional/physical harm, it is removed from the home. The current tools and laws are pretty effective. So I draw the line with them.

Okay . . .

quote:

---

Mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation
Wikipedia
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.

---

Male circumcision does not degrade the pleasurable function. (it often increases pleasure because woman like it more)
Female circumcision (especially removal of the clitoris) degrades the pleasurable function.

It does seem like a difficult question for SOME. Personally I don't know why, we already imprison parents who harm their children.

And you know this particular action is impossible because . . .?

Hmmm.Did you come to this conclusion using research, data, analysis, pie-charts, comprehensive ethnographic studies, scientist's white papers . . .. . . or are you just pulling your 'conclusion' out of your arse?Since the possible outcome is mutilated children and an on-going cultural nightmare, I am fervently hoping it is the former.

Errrm, yes it is. That is the reason they are removing the clitoris. They don't want woman to have sexual pleasure and be promiscuous.

Hey Xong, Sheesh Xong, . . . when I wrote reprehensibly abhorrent, I was only referring to other relatively mild irritations in life, . . . you know, things like religious-beheadings, satanic-snuff-films, drug-war-assassinations.But nothing like your cataclysmic example!!!SHEEESH!!!

I'll try, but I think he's currently tied up watching the BBC. I and others have already specified many times: we think removing the clitoris is not merely circumcision, but rather mutilation. Removal of the entire penis would also be mutilation, not circumcision.

No, for the third time, my simple question is:

quote:

---

Is there any CULTURAL practice that you would find so reprehensibly abhorrent that you would want stopped immediately in your culture?

---

So stop being weaselly. (It's what separates man from the animals. 'Cept the weasel) An interesting conjecture. On what basis do you believe the removal of the clitoris is less harmful than gambling?