|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Nobody should force harmful things on non-consenting people Exactly the point of this thread.
It has been shown that such things are harmful. If you can show me the harm for doing it to an 8 day old child I'd be interested to see it. I'd be fascinated to see that applying pressure with lips and tongue is harmful but applying pressure with a wetwipe is not harmful and slicing bits off is not harmful.
Children can not consent to sexual activity, education, medical procedures, etc. That was rather my point, yes. I was questioning why your comment - "What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself." was relevant in a discussion about doing things to other people who cannot consent.
My point is that if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem. But as has been established in this very thread, people are talking about this problem. People seek surgery to correct the problem. There are support groups where people talk about this problem. There are legal avenues to sue in some countries because of this problem. That some brothers don't talk to one another about it is not evidence that nobody is talking about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9629 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Ringo writes: Think it through. Slavery was banned because it was harmful to the slaves. A was banned from owning B because it was harmful to B. What we're talking about here is banning B from doing something that is harmful to B. I guess when you said this, you actually meant A not B....so let's forget the whole thing and get back to the point.
It was deemed by society that women should have the right to choose, to give consent. That's what I'm saying. A person should have control over his/her own body. No law should prevent a person from treating his/her body as he/she chooses. We've already agreed this. It's non-contraversial
And if the person is under age - i.e. incapable of making an informed choice - then the choice is made by the parent or guardian. You tried to say that A should not be able harm B. Circumcision is unecessary harm to a child. If B want a lump of his dick removed, fine, let's wait until he can give his consent eh?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 732 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Psychological harm.
If you can show me the harm for doing it to an 8 day old child I'd be interested to see it. I'd be fascinated to see that applying pressure with lips and tongue is harmful but applying pressure with a wetwipe is not harmful.... Modulous writes:
Granted, my brothers are crazy but not half as crazy as I am, so there doesn't seem to be a correlation.
... and slicing bits off is not harmful. Modulous writes:
In the case of somebody who can not give consent, "myself' refers to somebody who can. Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.
I was questioning why your comment - "What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself." was relevant in a discussion about doing things to other people who cannot consent. Modulous writes:
Only a very small minority. More people are talking about UFOs but I wouldn't call them a problem.
But as has been established in this very thread, people are talking about this problem. Modulous writes:
As there should be. There are legal avenues to sue in some countries because of this problem. But if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 732 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
No. I meant what I said. Let's try it again: We banned A from owning slave B because it was harmful to B. You're advocating banning B from doing something that you deem harmful to B. It's the difference between harming yourself and harming something else. Thus, the comparison to slavery doesn't work.
ringo writes:
I guess when you said this, you actually meant A not B.... Slavery was banned because it was harmful to the slaves. A was banned from owning B because it was harmful to B. What we're talking about here is banning B from doing something that is harmful to B. Tangle writes:
What part of "consent" do you not understand?
You tried to say that A should not be able harm B. Tangle writes:
Why not wait until he can give consent to education? Why not start kindergarten at age 18? ... let's wait until he can give his consent eh?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9629 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Ringo writes: No. I meant what I said. Let's try it again: We banned A from owning slave B because it was harmful to B. You're advocating banning B from doing something that you deem harmful to B. In this case B is a 7 day old child, so how can B do anything at all?
It's the difference between harming yourself and harming something else. Thus, the comparison to slavery doesn't work. Nothing works if you think Baby B can slice his own dick.
What part of "consent" do you not understand? I was wondering exactly the same of you. Baby B has not and can not give his consent.
Why not wait until he can give consent to education? Why not start kindergarten at age 18? You're attempting an equivalence between education and penile mutilation? Really?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 732 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Exactly. He requires his parents' consent for any medical procedure.
Baby B has not and can not give his consent. Tangle writes:
Consent is consent. How do you think they differ in terms of consent? You're attempting an equivalence between education and penile mutilation?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9629 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Ringo writes: Exactly. He requires his parents' consent for any medical procedure. So, as I said, you entire A and B argument is total bollox, give it up.
Consent is consent. How do you think they differ in terms of consent? In the first (circumcision), consent is necessary because it involves only harm and risk. In the second (education) it is unnecessary because it is only beneficial.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 732 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
No. it was your attempt to compare circumcision to slavery that was bollox.
So, as I said, you entire A and B argument is total bollox, give it up. Tangle writes:
That claim depends on circumcision being harmful. Medical practitioners and lawmakers don't agree with you. In the first (circumcision), consent is necessary because it involves only harm and risk. In the second (education) it is unnecessary because it is only beneficial.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9629 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Ringo writes: That claim depends on circumcision being harmful. You finally noticed the point of the entire discussion.
Medical practitioners and lawmakers don't agree with you. I have provided the evidence - from medical practitioners - that it is harmful. 200+ deaths per year in the USA alone, directly attributable to circumcision.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you can show me the harm.... Psychological harm. I'm not stopping you, please show me.
Granted, my brothers are crazy but not half as crazy as I am, so there doesn't seem to be a correlation. I remain persuaded that your family life is not going to provide us with any insights.
In the case of somebody who can not give consent, "myself' refers to somebody who can. Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent. Huh?
Only a very small minority. About 10% of circumcised men. It's not that small. It also disproves the concept that 'nobody' is talking about it.
But if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority. The reason is that it's unnecessary, risky, damaging and there's an absence of consent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 732 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
There are risks to any form of elective surgery. Medical practitioners and lawmakers do not agree with you that circumcision should be banned. I have provided the evidence - from medical practitioners - that it is harmful. 200+ deaths per year in the USA alone, directly attributable to circumcision.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 732 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
1. The necessity is a matter of opinion. The reason is that it's unnecessary, risky, damaging and there's an absence of consent.2. Everything is risky. 3. Damage is a matter of opinion. 4. Children can not consent. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9629 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
ringo writes: There are risks to any form of elective surgery. Yes I know, I've pointed that out several times now. It's an unnecessary risk that adults are exposing 7 day old babies to for superstitious reasons.
Medical practitioners and lawmakers do not agree with you that circumcision should be banned. Many medical and lawmakers do agree with me. Now what?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
1. The necessity is a matter of opinion. Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary. Even for those that believe the prophylactic argument, they wouldn't argue it was necessary.
2. Everything is risky. A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever.
3. Damage is a matter of opinion. Not really - one has to cause damage in order to complete a circumcision. If you fail to damage the skin, it won't come off.
4. Children can not consent. Exactly my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 732 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
It isn't up to you do decide what's unnecessary. It's an unnecessary risk that adults are exposing 7 day old babies to for superstitious reasons. And there are doctors doing it for medical reasons, not religious.
Tangle writes:
It isn't banned. You lose. Many medical and lawmakers do agree with me. Now what?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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025