|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Special pleading hinges on whether or not the act is justifiable. Circumcision is justifiable on the grounds of religious freedom. ringo writes:
Yes, because of special pleading. And circumcision is legal.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
On the contrary, society considers the "net" effect of good and bad effects. In the case of circumcision, most modern societies seem to conclude that the "harm" caused by circumcision is less harmful in the long term than the harm caused by trampling on individual freedoms.
What people who commit an act, or society as a whole consider harmful is immaterial to whether it is in fact harmful. Modulous writes:
Good luck with that. I have no axe to grind here. I'm not in favour of circumcision, just like I'm not in favour of abortion. But I am in favour of preventing self-appointed do-gooders from meddling with individual freedoms. I'm just pointing out why your argument doesn't work. 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.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
And yet people clearly do have that right, so the justice systems must not be using the same definitions as you are.
Religious belief does not grant people rights to harm others that otherwise they wouldn't have. Tangle writes:
There's no need to challenge that. You might even be right about that. There's a first time for everything. If it didn't exist today, it would not be allowed for a new religion - an obvious point you have failed to challenge a dozen times or more. But we can't undo the past based on what we probably would do in the future. There's a long history of the consequences of trampling on individual rights - in the case of Jews, a particularly horrendous history. Future religious sects have not been persecuted yet. If the Jews had never been persecuted, you might be able to get away with predicting that the slope will not be slippery. But we do remember history.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
That's what I'm sayng. in fact, it has little to do with religion at all. It's about individual rights.
Rights are granted and taken away by our secular laws, they are not god given and they change as we learn more. Tangle writes:
I doubt that. I certainly will not live to be proven wrong.
Currently the male cicumcision of babies is a historical anomoly which will be stopped eventually by all modern societies. Tangle writes:
I'm not arguing for circumcision. I'm arguing for individual freedom.
Arguing for its continuance is merely special pleading. Tangle writes:
For one thing, as I have already mentioned, we have learned that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition of abortions didn't stop abortions from happening but it probably increased the bad effects. Same with prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs, etc. And sensible people question whether the effect of prohibiting sugar or fat would be any different.
If we accept that a practice is so harmful that we wouldn't allowed it to start, why would we allow it to continue? Tangle writes:
We are prepared to recognize that it isn't very "harmful" if the Jews could survive the persecution and, Mother of Mercy!, survive the circumcisions too.
We are prepared to continue harm babies because Jews were persecuted historically? Tangle writes:
I was thinking that might be your position. Presumably then you would therefore have no objection to allowing jewish circumcision but not Muslim (male) circumcision? My position remains more or less consistent: individual 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
It isn't "other people's genitals". It's the freedom to make decisions for people who are dependent on them. So we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Jewish religion is also religious - but circumcision is not. As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue.
Jewish circumcision is entirely religious. Tangle writes:
I haven't done that; society has. Society has the sense to understand that children can not make their own decisions. And society also has the sense not to let you dictate to them what is "superstition".
As for individual rights, you have put the superstition based rights of the parents above the rights of the child not to be harmed. Tangle writes:
They should.
You have already conceded that parents do not have the freedom to circumcision females: Tangle writes:
The reality is that I'm in the same position as the justice systems of most modern democracies. Your position may become tenable some day but now it is not. You're in an untenable position.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
A child is not an independent person.
A child is a person, and they are seldom their own parent. Modulous writes:
If we agreed on that, what have we been talking about? We even agree, I'm sure, that deciding to cut a child resulting in scarring them goes beyond those limits in almost all cases that are not medically required goes beyond the freedoms we should grant parents.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You should try reading what I wrote: "As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue."
According to the chief rabbi of the UK, Jews circumcise their boys entirely for religious reasons. It is a requirement of their religion. You're factually wrong. Tangle writes:
You could say that slavery was a historical anomaly. One or two changes don't necessarily indicate a trend.
it's a historical anomoly. Currently most countries are looking the other way but several Western democracies have already made it illegal. Tangle writes:
History ain't over yet. It's premature to predict a final outcome.
You're on the wrong side of history.... Tangle writes:
There is no "correct position", Mr. Absolute.
The correct position is what is morally right today, not what might be legally right in the future. Tangle writes:
I don't think it will change. I think - and hope - that freedom will prevail. If you admit that it will change - and we can see that it is - then it's a wrong today.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I did. The legal weight is on the side of the parents making the decision because the child is not capable - i.e. the child is not independent.
Immaterial to the point that we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced. I didn't mention the word independent there. Modulous writes:
Prohibition of scarification is cultural and, for practical purposes, racial oppression. It should be the Unless you think scarring a child's face, arms, legs, etc by removing skin from them for no medical purpose should be something parents are free to do. It's certainly not something they currently are free to do.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I think it should be an individual decision. Denying a woman the right to make her own decision is the same as denying her the right to make her own decision about abortion. It's the same kind of oppression as forcing her to be circumcised or forcing her to have an abortion or forcibly sterilizing her. Sadly ringo appears to think FGM is ok if the parents want it.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Don't be silly.If doctors do it for non-religious reasons, how can it be a religious issue?
I did read what you wrote, it's irrelevant. Tangle writes:
Abortion, prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs.... The list of ending government interference in individual freedoms is also long.
Child labour, women's emancipation, abolition of capital punishment (sic). The list of progressive social reforms that 'injured' somebody else's priveldeged rights is very long. Tangle writes:
Are you being deliberately dishonest or did the goalposts wander off on their own volition? We were talking about male circumcision specifically. It is not correct to shoot your neighbour in the head just for fun. Neither is it correct to cut off a child's clitoris without consent or medical reason. Some things are absolutely wrong.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
That's a pretty broad statement. There's no such thing as "the law" which applies in all jurisdictions.
For surgical type procedures it's only on the parent's side in the case of circumcision and medical needs. Otherwise the law states the decision should be stalled until the child reaches an age where they are capable of making a decision. Modulous writes:
Prohibition is a part of our culture that doesn't work, which is why we need special pleading for 15-year-olds having sex with other 15-year-olds.
Prohibition of sex with 15 year olds is too. Law is part of our culture. Modulous writes:
I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate.
This of course puts you in disagreement with yourself Modulous writes:
As I have said, my argument is not a religious one. Those examples, with the exception of employment, are not cultural practices in our society that we need to concern ourselves with. I should point out that there are religious/cultural practices that are banned and I suspect you agree, to some extent, with those bans. Lets list some: a) stoning adulterers, homosexuals and those that work on the Sabbath b) slavery / indentured servitudec) Flogging adulterers and unbelievers d) removing the hands of thieves e) human sacrifice (what if the victim consents? What if they were 'brainwashed' all their life into that consent?) f) beating children with rods g) Declining to employ people of the 'wrong' religion. h) Marrying children off and the consummation thereof i) Footbinding j) Beating one's spouse 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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You can't divorce childhood circumcision, either male or female, from adult circumcision, either male or female. In all cases, it's the adult who makes the decision - because the child can't. It doesn't matter if you think it's "unnecessary". It's the decision of the individual involved that should count. We're talking about parents forceably mutilating children - not the women making their own choice. The children do not make an individual decision.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
A few centuries ago, the question was whether the decisions regarding the child are best left up to the parent or to the king. Then we invented democracy. In other words, the argument is basically whether the decisions regarding the child are best left up to the parent or to society-at-large? Thomas Paine said something to the effect that locally-made decisions tend to be better than decisions made by some goober on the other side of the ocean. I would suggest that issues about the "best interests of the child" are best understood by those who are closest to the child.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 736 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Are you claiming that doctors perform circumcisions for religious reasons? If they don't, then it is not a religious issue. It really is that simple. What dictors do is totally irrelevant, are you really denying that Jews don't perform circumcision for religious reasons? Are you aiming to ban only religious circumcisions? Talk about doubling the height of the religious freedom barrier.
Tangle writes:
Doctors don't remove hearts; they sometimes replace them.
An Aztec removing a heart in a human sacrifice to the gods can't be a religious practice because a doctor sometimes does it too? Tangle writes:
Don't confuse "we" with "you".
Yeh, we change the law when we think we got it wrong. Circumcision is one such required law change. Tangle writes:
No. I'm arguing that in the case of circumcision in general the parents have the right and responsibility to make decisions for their children, who can not. I am not discriminating either for or against Jews. Nothing I have said would change if there were no such thing as Jews. Nothing I have said would change if there was no such thing as religion.
You are arguing that in the case of Jewish male circumcision, the right of freedom of choice for the parents to cut their baby son over-rides the rights of the baby not to be cut until he has the ability to consent. Tangle writes:
There go the goalposts again.
if FGM isn't absolute enough for you how about shooting your neighbour in the head for fun? Tangle writes:
There quite obviously isn't. You can't equivocate deliberate murder with a relatively minor procedure that the child is unlikely to remember. There's a continuum of "harm" from none at all up to murder. It's ridiculous to pretend that you can assign an absolute value to every point on the scale. There is quite obviously an absolute.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