Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 196 of 357 (830573)
04-03-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ringo
04-03-2018 11:45 AM


Freedom To Be Scruffy
(I haven't had a haircut since 1972 and I still hate cutting my nails.)
If so, I can picture you looking like this:

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 11:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 12:17 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 197 of 357 (830576)
04-03-2018 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Phat
04-03-2018 11:59 AM


Re: Freedom To Be Scruffy
Phat writes:
If so, I can picture you looking like this:
With glasses.

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 196 by Phat, posted 04-03-2018 11:59 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 198 of 357 (830581)
04-03-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by ringo
04-03-2018 11:54 AM


ringo writes:
So you don't see the irony? Shylock was a Jew. He was clearly not speaking against circumcision.
You're doing the same thing as the creationists who quote Darwin to disprove evolution.
Just in case you think otherwise, I *have* noticed that you are attempting to avoid responding to the only point being made, which is that cutting off the foreskin of a baby causes severe pain and bleeding and occasionally death. ie physical harm.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 11:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 1:03 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 199 of 357 (830582)
04-03-2018 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Tangle
04-03-2018 12:59 PM


Tangle writes:
Just in case you think otherwise, I *have* noticed that you are attempting to avoid responding to the only point being made, which is that cutting off the foreskin of a baby causes severe pain and bleeding and occasionally death. ie physical harm.
Been there, done that. The issue here is not whether circumcision can occasionally have bad effects. The issue is who decides.

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 198 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2018 12:59 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2018 1:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 200 of 357 (830584)
04-03-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by ringo
04-03-2018 1:03 PM


ringo writes:
Been there, done that. The issue here is not whether circumcision can occasionally have bad effects. The issue is who decides.
You seem to be developing Faith's convenient memory. I am responding to your denial that circumcision causes harm.
Tangle writes:
Cutting the skin off the penis is a harm in ALL cases.
Ringo responds
Clearly not.
I assume that having 'been there and done that' you no longer deny that bleeding, pain and death is harm?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 1:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 1:22 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 201 of 357 (830588)
04-03-2018 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Tangle
04-03-2018 1:10 PM


Tangle writes:
I am responding to your denial that circumcision causes harm.
And I'm saying that the issue is who decides what is harm.
Tangle writes:
I assume that having 'been there and done that' you no longer deny that bleeding, pain and death is harm?
"Harm" is not something that is standing out in the middle of a field by itself. "Good effects" and "bad effects" are a spectrum. You can't just say that something "is" bad to justify banning it. You have to weigh the bad against the good.
Edited by ringo, : Typos.

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 200 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2018 1:10 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2018 3:33 PM ringo has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 202 of 357 (830591)
04-03-2018 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by ringo
04-03-2018 11:45 AM


In a way, yes. You seem to define "harm" in some sort of absolute sense.
For any given definition of harm - whether something meets the criteria is either true or false, unless the definition is woolly, is pretty absolute. This may reference objective and subjective criteria - so certainty may not be perfect, but it is either harmful or not.
For instance, smoking tobacco was as harmful in 1920 as it will be in 2020. It makes no difference if doctors were prescribing cigarettes in the twenties and everyone thought they were swell. Their harm remains the same - they reduce life expectancy by increasing risk of heart disease, cancers, bronchial conditions etc etc.
I don't. Slavery, circumcision, etc. are dealt with by society when/if they are deemed harmful to society.
That's just descriptive though. Obviously that's what happens. Who would think otherwise?
Also - we're concerned here about harm to individuals, not necessarily to society. But yes, at some point society decides to deal with things. The central theme here is that even at the point when society has determined harm is being done (and that it always has been done) religion can often get a 'get out of jail free card' where non-religious people do not.
Some examples:
1) A parent's child is ill. The treatment is trivial, low risk and almost always works. The parent's don't seek treatment, but pray to their God. In some areas of the USA they may not be prosecuted if the child dies - and even if they are prosecuted, their God belief is an accepted defence. But if someone were to do that because they were busy with work, or because they don't like their kid or because any reason other than God - prosecution would likely follow and those reasons are not acceptable defence or in many cases even mitigation.
2) We, as a society, have determined that it is harmful to society as a whole for public accommodations to refuse minority groups service because they are part of that minority group. There are those who are fighting to have 'but my God tells me to' to be a reason to ignore this requirement. Historically it was seen as a compelling defence, but thankfully it's becoming less and less tenable.
So imagine, during the height of the American slave trade, a debate. one person stands up and says,
'Slavery is harmful to the enslaved. It reduces their life expectancy, degrades their humanity, breeds misery etc etc etc'
The retort comes
'But most members of society disagree that it is harmful'
Would you regard the retort as compelling? Useful? Does it mean anything? Is it relevant to the discussion about what we, as a society should be doing? Does it prove, in any way that actually matters, that slavery is not harmful to the enslaved?
Likewise, in a debate about smoking would 'But many doctors not only think it is OK, but think it is actually healthy' be a statement that determines whether or not smoking is actually harmful? Or is it just a statement about what many doctors think about the harm?
It's the same principle I use in the case of cutting off any other part of a child.
Hair? Fingernails?
Yes. Bodily integrity is not compromised significantly in the case of nails and hair usually as they grow back. I would object strongly, to permanent alterations to hair and nail growth performed on children for mere cosmetic purposes. There is little to object to in the case of neonatal infants - especially for nails - which can cause injury if not attended to, so its not even purely non-therapuetic. However, cutting an older child's hair without their consent in a manner they strongly object to - for instance shaving 'I am an ugly boy' would be something I could object to.
And I think we can all agree that damaging blood vessels, skin and nerves is more a violation of bodily integrity than hair or nails.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 11:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 04-04-2018 3:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 203 of 357 (830604)
04-03-2018 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ringo
04-03-2018 1:22 PM


ringo writes:
And I'm saying that the issue is who decides what is harm.
No, harm - particularly physical harm - is objective not subjective. If you prick them they bleed. Attempting to pass harm off as dependant on who does it is simply special pleading. Would we allow this practice if it didn't exist is a good test
Harm" is not something that is standing out in the middle of a field by itself. "Good effects" and "bad effects" are a spectrum. You can't just say that something "is" bad to justify banning it. You have to weigh the bad against the good.
Some things are really simple. Cutting the foreskin off a baby (obviously without its consent) for no medical, purpose causing pain, suffering and occasional death is the very definition of harm.
Quite apart from that, there is no 'good'.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 04-03-2018 1:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 04-04-2018 3:20 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 204 of 357 (830642)
04-04-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Modulous
04-03-2018 2:01 PM


Modulous writes:
For any given definition of harm - whether something meets the criteria is either true or false, unless the definition is woolly, is pretty absolute.
That's the point. There is no "given" definition of harm. The people who are doing circumcisions don't consider it "harm". Nor does society as a whole.

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 202 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2018 2:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2018 9:13 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 205 of 357 (830643)
04-04-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Tangle
04-03-2018 3:33 PM


Tangle writes:
No, harm - particularly physical harm - is objective not subjective.
Obviously false. Are tattoos harmful? Are piercings harmful? Are some piercings "more harmful" than others? Is skydiving harmful? Is caffeine harmful? Is "too much" caffeine harmful?
There are as many opinions about "harm" as there are people.
Tangle writes:
Quite apart from that, there is no 'good'.
If there was no "good" to it, why would millions of people be doing it? You're trying to impose your own narrow idea of "good" the same as you're trying to impose your own narrow idea of "harm".

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 203 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2018 3:33 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:26 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 206 of 357 (830660)
04-04-2018 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by ringo
04-04-2018 3:20 PM


ringo writes:
Obviously false.
Oh crap, I thought we'd made progress. (Not really.)
Are tattoos harmful? Are piercings harmful? Etc
Yes if done without consent. But we've done this, I'm not going round this more than a dozen times.
There are as many opinions about "harm" as there are people.
No there aren't. Harm is a well defined legal concept, moreover everyone knows exactly what it means; particularly when they're harmed.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 04-04-2018 3:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 04-04-2018 4:43 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 207 of 357 (830664)
04-04-2018 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Tangle
04-04-2018 4:26 PM


Tangle writes:
Harm is a well defined legal concept....
And circumcision is legal. Does shooting yourself in the foot "harm" your argument?

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 206 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:26 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 5:00 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 208 of 357 (830670)
04-04-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ringo
04-04-2018 4:43 PM


ringo writes:
And circumcision is legal.
Yes, because of special pleading. If the cutting of the genitalia of 7 day old babies was proposed by as a new religious sect today, both you and I know that it would not be allowed.
Does shooting yourself in the foot "harm" your argument?
Consent.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 04-04-2018 4:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 11:54 AM Tangle has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 209 of 357 (830677)
04-04-2018 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by ringo
04-04-2018 3:14 PM


That's the point....The people who are doing circumcisions don't consider it "harm". Nor does society as a whole.
Yes, that's the point. What people who commit an act, or society as a whole consider harmful is immaterial to whether it is in fact harmful. And I'd like to persuade people that it is harmful and that 'but it's my religion' is not a suitable excuse for committing that harm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 04-04-2018 3:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by ringo, posted 04-05-2018 12:03 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 210 of 357 (830696)
04-05-2018 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Tangle
04-04-2018 5:00 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
And circumcision is legal.
Yes, because of special pleading.
Special pleading hinges on whether or not the act is justifiable. Circumcision is justifiable on the grounds of religious 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 208 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 5:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 12:13 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