Religious Special Pleading

I'm saying that if the result is ludicrously bad, we shouldn't even consider making it an offense.

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?

But you've already drawn the line well beyond the pale. You think children growing up without parents is better than children growing up without foreskins. History shows again that you are wrong.

No, I don't think that. I'm aiming for an outcome where children can have both a foreskin and parents.

As you said yourself, what is not explicitly prohibited by law is implicitly permitted. So yes, religious practices are protected by law unless explicitly excepted from that protection.

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.

Are you snickering to yourself as you compare circumcision to human sacrifice?

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 degree

Human 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.

Tangle writes: They do it for superstitious religious and cultural reasons.

If you don't like their reasons, that's not an excuse for violating their freedom.

Tangle writes: ringo writes: Faith made the case in Message 136. And I answered it.

No. There were no replies to that message.

Tangle writes: So you agree with Faith?

Yes.

Tangle writes: The absolute harm is caused to every circumcised child when their dick is cut. This has been explained and the medical evidence provided.

Your evidence shows that there is harm in some cases. You can not extrapolate some to all.

Tangle writes: Right, 45% of jelly bean eaters suffer from complications...best not to interfere, it's a matter of personal freedom?

So you think that justifies banning jelly beans?

Modulous writes: If beating your child can get you 10 years in prison - is that a 'ludicrously bad' result?

If circumcising your children produces healthy and happy children up to 90% of the time, then depriving those children of their parents is a ludicrously bad result.

Modulous writes: I'm aiming for an outcome where children can have both a foreskin and parents.

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

Modulous writes: 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.

I think, "Religious practices are protected by law" covers that quite nicely. We already have laws that are working pretty well. Leave them alone.

Modulous writes: 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.

Since you're restricting the discussion to Western societies, there's no need to consider human sacrifice at all. There is no demand for human sacrifice, hence no need for prohibition. If a new sect arose that wanted human sacrifice protected, it would fall under existing laws. There would be no reason for new prohibitions. So, I'm in favour of the status quo - i.e. there is no need for new restrictions in a system that already works pretty well.

If you're trying to claim that a substantial proportion of circumcised men regret being circumcised, I think it's an entirely reasonable request.

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.

And 50% of the people support Brexit, which is why referenda are such a bad idea.

Then why ask for numbers if you think they're not relevant?

I wouldn't have been surprised if it was higher than that.

Well there you go - you have well over a million people.

But there's not excuse for the 10% to impose their views on the other 90-%.

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%

If the 10% don't like circumcision, they're perfectly free to not circumcise their own children.

Naturally. But they should also not have circumcision imposed upon them.

Because I wanted to know.

Well now you know. Apparently it makes no difference, but I'm glad we got there.

They're not relevant because it's none of their damn business.

Their penis is their business, so to speak.

If I don't like vanilla ice cream that's no excuse for imposing my preference on you.

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.

Circumcisers are not trying to circumcise you. They are forcing nothing on you.

They are trying to circumcise those that will not want to be circumcised though.

Parents get to - and have to - make decisions for their children.

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.

If circumcising your children produces healthy and happy children up to 90% of the time, then depriving those children of their parents is a ludicrously bad result.

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.

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

I can also control the number of circumcisions that are carried out.

I think, "Religious practices are protected by law" covers that quite nicely.

It does not. It simply states what the current state of affairs is.

Since you're restricting the discussion to Western societies, there's no need to consider human sacrifice at all. There is no demand for human sacrifice, hence no need for prohibition.

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.

If a new sect arose that wanted human sacrifice protected, it would fall under existing laws. There would be no reason for new prohibitions.

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

I'm in favour of the status quo

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.

Ringo writes: If you don't like their reasons, that's not an excuse for violating their freedom.

Their reasons are irrelevant if the practice is causing unnecessary harm. Which it is, as I've shown. If it was done just for fun, it would also be wrong. If it was done for no obvious reason at all, it would be wrong. In this case it's for religion.

Your evidence shows that there is harm in some cases. You can not extrapolate some to all.

I've shown harm in ALL cases. Bloodshed, pain, stress and in some cases further complications and death.

So you think that justifies banning jelly beans?

Of course, until the jelly beans were shown not to cause harm. Would you allow them to continue to be sold?

Modulous writes: Then why ask for numbers if you think they're not relevant?

I was challenging your claim. As it turns out, if you narrow the focus of your claim far enough, it has some validity.

Modulous writes: I'm just saying the 90% shouldn't trample on the rights of the 10% just because they are the 90%

And they're not. The 90% who aren't complaining had nothing to do with the circumcisions of the ones who are complaining.

Modulous writes: But they should also not have circumcision imposed upon them.

Nobody is imposing circumcision on anybody else.

Modulous writes: Their penis is their business, so to speak.

No, my penis is not your business. My child's penis is my business.

Modulous writes: 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?

We've been through that. We don't leave other decisions until the children are ready. That would be irresponsible. You think circumcision should be an exception. (Special pleading?) Others don't.

Modulous writes: I don't think the answer 'but God says Vanilla ice cream is mandatory' is sufficient justification for forcing that opinion on others.

First, it doesn't matter what you think is sufficient justification. Individual rights are protected whether you like it or not.

Second, nobody is forcing anything on anybody. parents are making decisions for their children.

Tangle writes: Their reasons are irrelevant if the practice is causing unnecessary harm. Which it is, as I've shown.

You haven't shown that the supposed harm outweighs the good.

Tangle writes: I've shown harm in ALL cases.

You can insist until the cows come home that millions of Jews and Muslims have been "harmed" by circumcision. As long as they disagree, your insistence is worthless.

Tangle writes: Of course, until the jelly beans were shown not to cause harm. Would you allow them to continue to be sold?

Of course. There are thousands of products on the shelf that have been "proven harmful". Tobacco is a prime example. Few people think that banning it is a reasonable response. Sugar, fat, cholesterol, glutin.... Read the ingredients on any package. Everything is harmful. That's why we give warnings. Warnings are a reasonable response. Prison is not.

And they're not. The 90% who aren't complaining had nothing to do with the circumcisions of the ones who are complaining.

They're just the ones that organise and carry them out. Actually, that's quite significant.

Nobody is imposing circumcision on anybody else.

In the case of neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision, that's exactly what is happening.

No, my penis is not your business.

As I said, their penis is their business.

We've been through that. We don't leave other decisions until the children are ready.

Yes we do. I've listed a number of such decisions multiple times.

You think circumcision should be an exception.

Nope. I think non-therapeutic circumcision should be treated like any other cosmetic surgery.

First, it doesn't matter what you think is sufficient justification.

It does matter, obviously.

Individual rights are protected whether you like it or not.

It is the protection of individual rights I am arguing for.

Second, nobody is forcing anything on anybody. parents are making decisions for their children.

Parents can decide to force something on children. They're not mutually exclusive.

Modulous writes: I can also control the number of circumcisions that are carried out.

You mean you wish you could. So far, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands.

Modulous writes: western nations take in refugees an immigrants with different cultural opinions.

I'm not aware of any immigrants who want to practice human sacrifice.

Modulous writes: I'll take this as a final refusal to explain which acts you think should be prohibited and which ones should be allowed.....

I can keep repeating it as long as you can keep asking: I don't believe in prohibition.

Modulous writes: ringo writes: I'm in favour of the status quo Conclusion You now retract the claim that 'in some cases, maybe they should be allowed'...

I'm in favour of the status quo. If we change it, we should move forward, not backward.

Modulous writes: ringo writes: First, it doesn't matter what you think is sufficient justification. It does matter, obviously.

Nope. The law still protects us from your opinion.

Could be interesting....

quote:

---

A mother whose baby son was in so much pain after he was circumcised that he could not wear a nappy is taking legal action against the doctor who carried out the surgery without her consent. She said the law should give boys the same protection as girls get from female genital mutilation.

“Somebody needs to be held accountable for what they are doing to little boys,” she told The Sunday Times.

---

https://scroll.in/...male-circumcision-in-the-united-kingdom

You mean you wish you could.

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.

I'm not aware of any immigrants who want to practice human sacrifice.

Your awareness is immaterial.

I can keep repeating it as long as you can keep asking: I don't believe in prohibition.

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?

I'm in favour of 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.

If we change it, we should move forward, not backward.

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.

Nope. The law still protects us from your opinion.

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

Modulous writes: It is also true that I can control how many circumcisions are performed.

If that was true, why wouldn't you use your awesome powers to stop them entirely?

Modulous writes: ringo writes: I'm not aware of any immigrants who want to practice human sacrifice. Your awareness is immaterial.

Then maybe you can list some for us.

Modulous writes: 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?

As I said, "If we change it, we should move forward, not backward."

Modulous writes: Thus you are in favour of prohibition, in certain cases.

Don't be obtuse. I'm in favour of the status quo but if we do make changes it should be to remove prohibitions rather than add them.

Modulous writes: I argue that we should move away from the ancient practice of skinning children's genitals and that this is a movement forward.

As I have said, I am not in favour of circumcision. If we stopped circumcising, that might indeed be an "improvement" of some sort.

But it ain't gonna happen.

People are going to drink alcohol and prohibition isn't going to stop them.

People are going to do drugs and prohibition is not going to stop them.

People are going to have abortions and prohibition is not going to stop them.

Even if reducing the number of circumcisions is a step "forward", disrupting happy families by depriving children of their parents is a huge leap backward into a very dark past.

Modulous writes: I am not contending my opinion alone overrules the law.

And yet you claim you can control how many circumcisions are performed.