Multiculturalism

According to that UNICEF report:

quote:

---

In half of the countries, the
majority of girls were cut
before age 5. In the rest of
the countries, most cutting
occurs between 5 and 14
years of age

---

bolding included in original Too:

quote:

---

There is a social obligation to conform to
the practice and a widespread belief that if they
do not, they are likely to pay a price that could
include social exclusion, criticism, ridicule, stig-
ma, or the inability to find their daughters suit-
able marriage partners.

---

Given the choice between losing their genitals and being an outcast, many choose to have their daughters loose their genitals.While that might not be "force", per se, its hardly giving them a "choice".

Of course. At the same time we need to make sure we are not limiting the rights of non-coerced, consenting adults to do as they please to their own bodies.It is definitely a very fine line when it comes to adults.Regarding children, though, I think we can agree that there is little grey area. Forcing FGM on children is simply wrong.

I don't think anybody here would object to an adult doing whatever they want to their genitals. Yup.I don't understand why Ringo can't see that people can say that they are okay with something when they are not. Like with domestic violence victims. Or Stockholm syndrome.I'm beginning to think that he's just being stubborn and doesn't want to back down from his position.

One of my favorite marble types writes of Ringo: Perhaps he has taken up the position of debating something he really doesn't agree with personally. Sort of a debate challenge.I was trying to come up with something like a UK family moving into a Maasai village with their 6-year old daughter and getting pressure to submit her to FGM. No way, the UK parents might argue. But what if it's the LAW there? But this didn't work out in my mind - the opposite side of a foreign culture abiding by the new cultural practices in their new location.Perhaps someone can come up with what I wanted to do. I was hoping to find something that Ringo could not abide....

How about the opposite? That is, practices others might find horrific that you might be willing to abide.1. Elective euthanasia.
2. Elective amputation.
3. Use of highly addictive recreational drugsIf you are willing to consider allowing such practices, how different are your arguments from ringo's?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have absolutely no problem with that.But he is saying patently false things like this:

quote:

---

If she says she ain't abused, she ain't.

---

And then standing by them. That's actually a pretty disgusting thing to say. I wonder what kinds of responses he'd get from a domestic violence forum. What do you think?And he's also twisting responses to meet his own needs: I was obviously not saying that.This is standard trolling behavior, but Ringo doesn't typically troll. So what gives?I dunno, maybe he's high.

Ringo is stuck in an argument he doesn't believe in but can't let go. if he was anyone else we'd call him a troll.Anyhoo, your attempted argument doesn't work simply because Ringo lives in a modern, first world country that rejects such primitive practices. He has choices and would not choose that route.If you're looking for a cultural practice that he would not put up with domestically, it's one he's already ducked answering. 'Would you therefore respect the cultural practices of Aztec human sacrifice in your country?' If not, why not.

If you have a point to make, bring it here.

But it isn't "just like" that at all. Female circumcision crosses whole cultures. It is not an aberrant behaviour within a culture; it is only aberrant to other cultures. Since you have labeled multiculturalism as "poisonous", you clearly have no tolerance for other cultures at all.

I agree with "little" gray area. I don't agree with "no" gray area.

I have said that I don't support FGM.I have also said that the arguments presented against it in this thread are pretty weak. But instead of improving their arguments, the fanatics prefer to misrepresent me. I am not defending FGM; I am defending the people who practice FGM. I don't want to see the prisons filled with them.

The difference there is that the "victims" do not become the advocates, as they often do with female circumcision.

The practice was supported by the entire society. They all advocated it - mostly they preferred to sacrifice prisoners of enemy tribes which also did it, so the odds were that you'd be caught and sacrificed yourself. Which was the highest honour possible in any Aztec community - victims were quite literally regarded as Gods.But apart from that day-to-day stuff, they had their 'specials' and Human sacrifice in Aztec culture - WikipediaSo, should we honour any of those practices in our own countries or not?

As I said, if the victims of human sacrifice advocate the practice, we should take their opinion into account - but they don't seem to be expressing one.

Silly. I gave the examples of the children offered by their parents because with FGM the children are offered by their parents and, as you know, children are not considered capable of informed choice on such matters in our society.Should we honour this cultural practice?