male circumcision of minors should be a felony
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(23-06-2017 02:32 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I'm always amazed at how pissed people get when i point out that it's sexist. It's against the law to circumcise a female child but not a male. Sexism is wrong. Period.

While technically correct, your assesment is a false equivalence in that female ''circumcision'' and male circumcision aren't equivalent in terms of impact on general health, procedure and in meanning as a religious ritual within one's community. The two, while similar aren't equivalent. Yes, sexism is wrong, period. But so are false equivalency. I totally agree with you that male circumcision should only be done for medical reasons or if it's a decision made by a concenting adult. It should be illegal to circumcise a boy based one the fact that body modifications, even if harmless, are permanent and should be concented, not due to a fallacious appeal to equality. Since your appeal to equality is fallacious, people react negatively to your comment, because they fear you might delegitimise the concept of sexism and equality by turning it into a ''point game'' instead of a approach to human rights.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
27-06-2017, 09:29 AM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 12:26 AM)JesseB Wrote:  
(23-06-2017 02:32 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I'm always amazed at how pissed people get when i point out that it's sexist. It's against the law to circumcise a female child but not a male. Sexism is wrong. Period.

This statement is correct, however they get mad at you for pointing this out because you're not allowed to think that, or see that or know that and you're sure as hell not allowed to voice an opinion or thought that isn't in the approved category of the ideology they ascribe to. They get pissed because people who think what you just said are evil Nazis. At least in their brainwashed incapable of rational thought minds. Any rational person would agree with you on this statement, even if they disagree with you on every other thing you say.

Rational person instead of agreeing would point to the fact that circumcision means different thing when we talk about men and women. Both should be illegal but it's a mistake to conflate said two things. But Epronovost said it better than me.

Edit: Don't see need to bring Nazis into debate.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
27-06-2017, 10:01 AM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 09:22 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(23-06-2017 02:32 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I'm always amazed at how pissed people get when i point out that it's sexist. It's against the law to circumcise a female child but not a male. Sexism is wrong. Period.

While technically correct, your assesment is a false equivalence in that female ''circumcision'' and male circumcision aren't equivalent in terms of impact on general health, procedure and in meanning as a religious ritual within one's community. The two, while similar aren't equivalent. Yes, sexism is wrong, period. But so are false equivalency. I totally agree with you that male circumcision should only be done for medical reasons or if it's a decision made by a concenting adult. It should be illegal to circumcise a boy based one the fact that body modifications, even if harmless, are permanent and should be concented, not due to a fallacious appeal to equality. Since your appeal to equality is fallacious, people react negatively to your comment, because they fear you might delegitimise the concept of sexism and equality by turning it into a ''point game'' instead of a approach to human rights.

Very well-said. I notice that a lot of people who otherwise don't care about sexism will bring out this sort of argument only when they think something is sexist against men. I'm not suggesting that BlkFnx did this, but I think it's important to point out that this sort of thing does happen. And it does contribute to the delegitimization of arguments against sexism.

Sexism is bad, and can happen to both men and women. And misogyny is strongly at play in female circumcision traditions, while it's not as much at play in male circumcision traditions. They are, as you said, similar, but not the same thing. In men, it's not done to restrict or control men. It is done for that reason to women.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Emma's post
27-06-2017, 10:48 AM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 09:29 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(27-06-2017 12:26 AM)JesseB Wrote:  This statement is correct, however they get mad at you for pointing this out because you're not allowed to think that, or see that or know that and you're sure as hell not allowed to voice an opinion or thought that isn't in the approved category of the ideology they ascribe to. They get pissed because people who think what you just said are evil Nazis. At least in their brainwashed incapable of rational thought minds. Any rational person would agree with you on this statement, even if they disagree with you on every other thing you say.

Rational person instead of agreeing would point to the fact that circumcision means different thing when we talk about men and women. Both should be illegal but it's a mistake to conflate said two things. But Epronovost said it better than me.

Edit: Don't see need to bring Nazis into debate.

The Nazi bit is a dig at the social justice crowd that like to equate anything that disagrees with them (even a little) as being evil Nazi's (remember that whole let's go punch Nazi's campaign earlier this year?)

In fact my entire comment was entirely about that specific group alone as was the original comment. Normal people don't get pissed off over statements of fact, however I did highlight the only part of the comment I really agree with and was listing as correct.

"Although technically correct" BUT.... false equivalence... comes off as a method to undermine the "technically correct" part of the statement. No one said that male genital mutilation is on par with how horrific female genital mutilation is (and I do think female genital mutilation is horrific). It's not a competition here. Wrong is wrong and no one is winning a prize for being more abused than anyone else. I find it disturbing the general tone that seems to imply people think otherwise.

What I'm saying is, no it's not a false equivalence no one said it's "the same" or even "similar" in outcomes or harm, all that was said is both are wrong and both are sexism. It's not technically correct, it's just correct. And it takes nothing away from women to acknowledge that male genital mutilation is wrong too. The sexism part of the claim was exclusively limited to the legal aspect of one being illegal and the other being totally ok. If the statement did try to create a false equivalence I'd be disagreeing with the original comment, because the health implications of one are far more destructive than the health implications of the other and only a very dishonest person would lie about that (Female genital mutilation is very destructive, where as male genital mutilation is less destructive from a health prospective). So I fail to see the grounds upon which there has been disagreement here.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2017, 11:20 AM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 10:48 AM)JesseB Wrote:  The Nazi bit is a dig at the social justice crowd that like to equate anything that disagrees with them (even a little) as being evil Nazi's (remember that whole let's go punch Nazi's campaign earlier this year?)

Don't remember, or to be more accurate wasn't even aware.

Quote:In fact my entire comment was entirely about that specific group alone as was the original comment. Normal people don't get pissed off over statements of fact, however I did highlight the only part of the comment I really agree with and was listing as correct.

Normal people do get pissed about facts. Say that Smolensk catastrophe was accident in Poland and you may not like results. Still people believing in it being murder are ignorant not insane. Mostly at least I think.

Quote:"Although technically correct" BUT.... false equivalence... comes off as a method to undermine the "technically correct" part of the statement. No one said that male genital mutilation is on par with how horrific female genital mutilation is (and I do think female genital mutilation is horrific). It's not a competition here. Wrong is wrong and no one is winning a prize for being more abused than anyone else. I find it disturbing the general tone that seems to imply people think otherwise.

It's not competition but woman are more abused given what circumcision really mean when it comes to them.

Also I agree with what Epronovost said but don't expect that I will answer for him. I say nothing about x being technically correct.

Quote:What I'm saying is, no it's not a false equivalence no one said it's "the same" or even "similar" in outcomes or harm, all that was said is both are wrong and both are sexism. It's not technically correct, it's just correct. And it takes nothing away from women to acknowledge that male genital mutilation is wrong too. The sexism part of the claim was exclusively limited to the legal aspect of one being illegal and the other being totally ok. If the statement did try to create a false equivalence I'd be disagreeing with the original comment, because the health implications of one are far more destructive than the health implications of the other and only a very dishonest person would lie about that (Female genital mutilation is very destructive, where as male genital mutilation is less destructive from a health prospective). So I fail to see the grounds upon which there has been disagreement here.

You said something about rational person and I pointed what rational person would - in my opinion - do. I also agreed that both things should be illegal so I see no need for this tirade, nor I can say that there is much disagreement here.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
27-06-2017, 11:22 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2017 11:26 AM by JesseB.)
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 11:20 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(27-06-2017 10:48 AM)JesseB Wrote:  The Nazi bit is a dig at the social justice crowd that like to equate anything that disagrees with them (even a little) as being evil Nazi's (remember that whole let's go punch Nazi's campaign earlier this year?)

Don't remember, or to be more accurate wasn't even aware.

Quote:In fact my entire comment was entirely about that specific group alone as was the original comment. Normal people don't get pissed off over statements of fact, however I did highlight the only part of the comment I really agree with and was listing as correct.

Normal people do get pissed about facts. Say that Smolensk catastrophe was accident in Poland and you may not like results. Still people believing in it being murder are ignorant not insane. Mostly at least I think.

Quote:"Although technically correct" BUT.... false equivalence... comes off as a method to undermine the "technically correct" part of the statement. No one said that male genital mutilation is on par with how horrific female genital mutilation is (and I do think female genital mutilation is horrific). It's not a competition here. Wrong is wrong and no one is winning a prize for being more abused than anyone else. I find it disturbing the general tone that seems to imply people think otherwise.

It's not competition but woman are more abused given what circumcision really mean when it comes to them.

Also I agree with what Epronovost said but don't expect that I will answer for him. I say nothing about x being technically correct.

Quote:What I'm saying is, no it's not a false equivalence no one said it's "the same" or even "similar" in outcomes or harm, all that was said is both are wrong and both are sexism. It's not technically correct, it's just correct. And it takes nothing away from women to acknowledge that male genital mutilation is wrong too. The sexism part of the claim was exclusively limited to the legal aspect of one being illegal and the other being totally ok. If the statement did try to create a false equivalence I'd be disagreeing with the original comment, because the health implications of one are far more destructive than the health implications of the other and only a very dishonest person would lie about that (Female genital mutilation is very destructive, where as male genital mutilation is less destructive from a health prospective). So I fail to see the grounds upon which there has been disagreement here.

You said something about rational person and I pointed what rational person would - in my opinion - do. I also agreed that both things should be illegal so I see no need for this tirade, nor I can say that there is much disagreement here.

Well I'm glad we mostly agree then.

Edit^ I'm sick and don't feel up to getting into this more than I already have. I think I was fairly clear here, however that bit about "technically" wasn't specifically directed at you and I was very unclear on that point, I did not expect you to speak for anyone else. It was more a response to the general tone of people's responses to the original comment, and admittedly my comment may be a bit knee jerkish itself.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2017, 01:43 PM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
@JessyB

My use of the term ''technically correct'' in my precedent post is due the following fact. FGM and male circumcision aren't equivalent. FMG is obviously more damageable to a women's health and sexual life than male circumcision. Thus both things, while similar shouldn't be compared. It thus looks logical, thus correct but not valid, thus misrepresentative and fallacious. In the same vein, insulting someone is rarelly if ever a crime, punching them usually is. Both are meant to hurt people and express a certain form of anger, disgust or hatred, but they aren't the same and thus shouldn't be treated in the same way. Since the outcome and the circomstances of FMG vs male circumcision are different, asking them to be treated equally would be wrong. Saying that one should be illegal because the other one is, is a fallacious appeal to equality.

Male circumcision has more in common with permanent body modification like liming teeth into points, removing ear lobes or the smallest toe. It's a permanent change to one's body that has very little impact on health. The reason I find male circumcision to be wrong is because it's a permanent change taken without the concent of the person who will be submitted to it. Any permanent change to a person body must require the concent of that person. The only possible exception would be if it was recommanded by a doctor.

Does that seems more clear?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
27-06-2017, 02:11 PM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2017 02:14 PM by JesseB.)
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 01:43 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @JessyB

My use of the term ''technically correct'' in my precedent post is due the following fact. FGM and male circumcision aren't equivalent. FMG is obviously more damageable to a women's health and sexual life than male circumcision. Thus both things, while similar shouldn't be compared. It thus looks logical, thus correct but not valid, thus misrepresentative and fallacious. In the same vein, insulting someone is rarelly if ever a crime, punching them usually is. Both are meant to hurt people and express a certain form of anger, disgust or hatred, but they aren't the same and thus shouldn't be treated in the same way. Since the outcome and the circomstances of FMG vs male circumcision are different, asking them to be treated equally would be wrong. Saying that one should be illegal because the other one is, is a fallacious appeal to equality.

Male circumcision has more in common with permanent body modification like liming teeth into points, removing ear lobes or the smallest toe. It's a permanent change to one's body that has very little impact on health. The reason I find male circumcision to be wrong is because it's a permanent change taken without the concent of the person who will be submitted to it. Any permanent change to a person body must require the concent of that person. The only possible exception would be if it was recommanded by a doctor.

Does that seems more clear?

It does, thank you, then let me make my point more clear.

They both should be illegal, but NOT because FGM is illegal. There's plenty of justification for having both be illegal on their own merits (not the least of which no one should be forcing such body modifications on any child before they have the capacity to consent). Again you're pointing to arguments that weren't being made by anyone, no one said the two are equivalent in the level of harm done to the body, that doesn't justify saying that one should be illegal and the other should be legal. There's plenty of justification for both and the resistance to dealing with this is what I'm pointing out and taking issue with, especially when people start putting words in other peoples mouths. Does that make my position clear?

I'm also hard set against parents choosing a gender of an intersexed baby and having their genitals mutilated at birth. There are even more examples of forced body modifications i'm against but I can't think of them all right now. If it's not medically mandatory for quality of life or survival the decision should be given to the person who has to live with that body, and if that means waiting till they can understand then that's what should happen. I'm pretty sure very few people would sign up for circumcision if it was banned until adulthood.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
27-06-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 02:11 PM)JesseB Wrote:  They both should be illegal, but NOT because FGM is illegal. There's plenty of justification for having both be illegal on their own merits (not the least of which no one should be forcing such body modifications on any child before they have the capacity to consent). Again you're pointing to arguments that weren't being made by anyone, no one said the two are equivalent in the level of harm done to the body, that doesn't justify saying that one should be illegal and the other should be legal. There's plenty of justification for both and the resistance to dealing with this is what I'm pointing out and taking issue with, especially when people start putting words in other peoples mouths. Does that make my position clear?

Yes, it totally does. It turns out we have pretty much the same position for the same reason on this issue.

The reason I pointed out that FMG and male circumcision aren't equivalent is that the comment of BlkFnx is that due to his phrasing, it's very easy to infer that he believes that male circumcision should be treated like FMG and that not doing so is sexist. Of course, this is fallacious since both aren't equivalent thus cannot be judged on the same basis. The fact that FMG and male circumcision aren't treated in the same fashion has little to do if at all with sexism all to do with the fact that these are two different procedure, made for different reasons and with different circomstances. He might not consider those two things to be equivalent and much like you and me consider that it should be forbidden for other reasons, but since there are people who make this false equivalence, one shouldn't be surprised that one's position is conflated with that of another when its expressed in vague terms.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like epronovost's post
27-06-2017, 03:00 PM
RE: male circumcision of minors should be a felony
(27-06-2017 02:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(27-06-2017 02:11 PM)JesseB Wrote:  They both should be illegal, but NOT because FGM is illegal. There's plenty of justification for having both be illegal on their own merits (not the least of which no one should be forcing such body modifications on any child before they have the capacity to consent). Again you're pointing to arguments that weren't being made by anyone, no one said the two are equivalent in the level of harm done to the body, that doesn't justify saying that one should be illegal and the other should be legal. There's plenty of justification for both and the resistance to dealing with this is what I'm pointing out and taking issue with, especially when people start putting words in other peoples mouths. Does that make my position clear?

Yes, it totally does. It turns out we have pretty much the same position for the same reason on this issue.

The reason I pointed out that FMG and male circumcision aren't equivalent is that the comment of BlkFnx is that due to his phrasing, it's very easy to infer that he believes that male circumcision should be treated like FMG and that not doing so is sexist. Of course, this is fallacious since both aren't equivalent thus cannot be judged on the same basis. The fact that FMG and male circumcision aren't treated in the same fashion has little to do if at all with sexism all to do with the fact that these are two different procedure, made for different reasons and with different circomstances. He might not consider those two things to be equivalent and much like you and me consider that it should be forbidden for other reasons, but since there are people who make this false equivalence, one shouldn't be surprised that one's position is conflated with that of another when its expressed in vague terms.

That is a reasonable concern and I can totally accept it. Thanks for the clarification.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: