Religious Special Pleading

"Can inhibit" is pretty weak. We're talking about a pretty minor "problem" in the first place, a practice that has been well-established for centuries and is protected by law. Throwing parents into prison because it might conceivably reduce the numbers slightly seems wildly inappropriate. You're twisting it. I was talking about laws allowing the stoning of homosexuals, etc. Taking those laws off the books would certainly improve society, so why do you advocate adding more such laws? The Jews have been persecuted since always. It hasn't influenced their behaviour. I'll say that it's a strawman. The subject of stoning homosexuals was brought up because that was the law. That's the sort of thing that I'm against and you're advocating. Should we stone rapists? I'd say no. Should we stone people for speeding? That probably causes more harm than circumcision. I'd say no. How is that not a yes-or no question? Tick each item in the list either yes or no.

If you're going to flat out deny that cutting the skin of an 8 day old baby's penis doesn't cause bloodshed, pain and stress and that this process can and does lead to further complications, including death - despite the evidence presented demonstaring this - there's no point in further discussion.You're simply lying to yourself.

I was making a universal statement. As I said, human behaviour is complex and the impact of prohibitions and punishments vary depending on that which is prohibited and the nature of the punishment, the background culture and numerous other factors. There may be some laws in some places at some times that have no impact on how much a behaviour is practiced. As a simple example, a 15th Century law prohibiting climbing a ladder to the moon wouldn't inhibit that practice. You don't get to decide if it's a minor problem and the tenacity of a practice is not a justification for it. I think we can be pretty confident it would reduce the numbers significantly. Especially somewhere like the States. As has been pointed out, merely not having it covered by the NHS dramatically reduced the practice in the UK. If doctors never perform it, never recommend it and insurance never covers it - I'm sure rates would drop in the US hugely. They're already dropping dramatically as a result of social change. About 80% of US men are circumcised, but only about 60% of children are getting circumcised today. The point in question was:

quote:

---

While you may doubt that the prohibition against stoning homosexuals or abusing children is a good idea - I think it should be obvious I'm not talking about a generally philosophically healthy degree of doubt, but significant doubt to the point of thinking that maybe we should be turning a blind eye to stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc.

---

We were talking about your skepticism regarding prohibition. Stoning homosexuals is prohibited. What's your view on this? Well that's neither true, nor relevant. Stoning homosexuals was brought up because you said

quote:

---

Prohibition of scarification is cultural and, for practical purposes, racial oppression.

---

And I pointed out that stoning homosexuals was cultural. Would prohibiting it be racial oppression? Your reply was that they are

quote:

---

not cultural practices in our society

---

I responded with

quote:

---

And in some cases, maybe they should be allowed to.

---

Then you avoided answering the follow up question of which cases and why. So I took one example to see if you'd be willing to defend that one. Stoning homosexuals. In the case of the UK, it's not clear that non-therapeutic circumcision is legal. Because it calls for a list of items, and in full context, justifications for leaving items on or off that list. Here it is again: It's not loaded, it's not calling for an over simplified answer; it's a natural follow up to someone saying 'in some cases...' to ask them to say which cases.

The million adults would constitute globally of about 0.2%The least number I've seen in surveys suggests 10% - higher figures put it closer to 50%You've already said that 10% was insufficient, even though that would be about 10 million Americans alone.https://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-it-comes-to-circumcisionJust a moment...Your response was

quote:

---

if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority.

---

So why are you asking for a minority opinion now?

What I've said is that the vast majority of people it has been done to consider it worthwhile enough to do it to their own children. Your opinion doesn't outweigh theirs.

I'm not deciding. It's the millions of people involved who are deciding. It kinda is though, isn't it? Our laws depend to a great extent on precedent. Seriously? You justify throwing parents into prison because it might reduce the number of circumcisions? Again, you could hardly have picked a worse example. Not only does the US have religious freedom entrenched in its Constitution but it also has one of the most influential and vocal Jewish peopulations in the world. And you're seriously contemplating herding them off into concentration camps? Yes, that's where you twisted it 180 degrees. Stoning homosexuals was a law intended to enforce the prohibition against homosexual behaviour. I am against the prohibition - i.e. I am against the stoning. I have never advocated turning a blind eye to anything. I am saying that the prohibition is ineffective and, in that case, downright unjust. No. Homosexuality was prohibited. And stoning was the prescribed enforcement of that prohibition.In fact, you are the one who advocates enforcing a prohibition on circumcision by throwing the parents into prison, aren't you? You can't be that ignorant. Maybe you should explain yourself. You keep missing the point. See above. Again, see above. Stoning homosexuals was not a "cultural practice". It was the law, a law intended to enforce the prohibition of homosexuality. You are the one who advocates harsh measures for enforcing prohibition, not me. Of course prohibited/allowed is a yes/no question. And of course it's calling for an over-simplified answer. If you care to pick one issue, we can discuss at length the pros and cons.

I`d have to question that validity of that poll. Where was it taken? I'm asking why you think a minority should dictate to the majority.

YouGov Exactly. So why are you asking for a minority opinion (a million adults)? Will it change your mind?

Do you deny circumcision harms children?

Have you stopped beating your wife?Let's just say that the benefits of circumcision usually outweigh the potential harm.

No. Precedent is how we determine application of laws. It's not a justification. You can't say 'we've been enslaving black people for a century so...' or 'we've never allowed gays to marry before...' as justification for the practice. Yes. If the parents are involved in the circumcision. The circumciser should also be punished. I think its a pretty good example, actually. Which I've explained with a notable Supreme Court decision, doesn't prevent laws prohibiting actions. But most circumcised males in the US are not Jewish. Most non-therapeutic circumcisions are not religiously motivated. How many people would continue to circumcise if they don't believe there is a religious imperative to do so AND it was not being performed by doctors in hospitals AND it was a criminal offence? No. I suggest imprisoning those that transgress the law. But you are for prohibiting the prohibition? OK. So it is OK to prohibit cultural behaviours that are designed to prohibit behaviour.

quote:

---

a) stoning adulterers, homosexuals and those that work on the Sabbath
b) slavery / indentured servitude
c) 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

---

So let's move on to another example: human sacrifice. This is not to prohibit anything, but a religious/cultural practice designed to win favour with the gods / nature by showing a complete dedication to them.Is it OK to prohibit this behaviour? On what grounds?

So only Americans? Then that poll is pretty much worthless.Take a poll in Iran before you claim that most people are against circumcision. That doesn't answer the question. Exactly what? Why do you think the minority should dictate to the majority? Because the majority shouldn't oppress minorities either. The minority should be consulted. My mind isn't at issue here. If the majority changes its mind and decides to oppress the minority, I'm still against that.

You asked for a million. I gave you ten million. I didn't claim that. I pointed out that to meet your criteria only requires 0.2% - hardly 'most people'. I don't think they should. Well they have. Now what? As a debate, it kind of is. But if the majority doesn't change its mind, and continues to oppress the minority what then? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But you're advocating a step backwards, a repeal of individual freedoms, the equivalent of reinstating slavery or re-banning gay marriage. I have a short memory and I'm a slow reader. Did your example cover prohibiting an accepted religious practice which is also an accepted medical practice? That doesn't justify banning the ones that are. They don't count. The ones who do believe there is a religious imperative deserve their religious freedom. So, if the law required you to turn Jews over to the Gestapo, you'd be happy to do it? I don't know where you're getting that from. Do you still not understand that stoning homosexuals was the law? Not a cultural behaviour? You can't compare human sacrifice to circumcision. Death is permanent. Circumcision has no ongoing ill effects in the majority of cases.

Do you deny FGM harms girls?