The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
Lot's of harmful cultural practices have and still are practiced as they have beeen through thousands of years, by different peoples, however that in no way justifies their continuation. Everything is relative however looking at what is not regarded as relatively harmless these days, amputating a significant, unique part of the genitals leaving a permanent disfigurement can hardly be described as relatively harmless.
Your comparison to cutting nails and hair is shocking. This is the cutting of dead tissue which is produced all the time through constant growth. No nerves are cut, no pain, no bleeding, no disfigurement etc etc.
You also have a strange notion of what is harm. Do you consider upskirting as harmless if the victim never knows about it?
Male circumcision (in my opinion) is a relatively benign cosmetic surgery. It is an important confirmation of membership in certain religious groups. Female circumcision is often similarly benign, and sometimes more intrusive. That's my opinion.
Freedom of religion might be trumped by some "amputations" or "disfigurements". Most circumcision is sufficiently benign to fail to trump freedom of religion. Why are you obsessed with this minor issue? Is it because you think feminist objections to female circumcision are unfair to us poor, picked-upon men? I refuse to see myself as a victim, mainly because I am not one.
Lot's of harmful cultural practices have and still are practiced as they have beeen through thousands of years, by different peoples, however that in no way justifies their continuation. Everything is relative however looking at what is not regarded as relatively harmless these days, amputating a significant, unique part of the genitals leaving a permanent disfigurement can hardly be described as relatively harmless.
Your comparison to cutting nails and hair is shocking. This is the cutting of dead tissue which is produced all the time through constant growth. No nerves are cut, no pain, no bleeding, no disfigurement etc etc.
You also have a strange notion of what is harm. Do you consider upskirting as harmless if the victim never knows about it?
Male circumcision (in my opinion) is a relatively benign cosmetic surgery. It is an important confirmation of membership in certain religious groups. Female circumcision is often similarly benign, and sometimes more intrusive. That's my opinion.
Freedom of religion might be trumped by some "amputations" or "disfigurements". Most circumcision is sufficiently benign to fail to trump freedom of religion. Why are you obsessed with this minor issue? Is it because you think feminist objections to female circumcision are unfair to us poor, picked-upon men? I refuse to see myself as a victim, mainly because I am not one.
Even if you consider it benign, the freedom of religion is an individual freedom, it is not the freedom to carve your belief into another person even in what you consider a benign way. A 70 year old man got $24,000 in compensation after being mistakenly circumcised last year, so hardly so benign according to UK law at least. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/05/heal ... index.html
Victims of harmful cultural practices are socially conditioned not to see themselves as victims, that doesn't mean they aren't. In fact making them believe they are not through such social conditioning in which what is abnormal is normalised makes them even more of a victim.
You didn't answer the question concerning upskirting....
Ecurb wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 12:50 pmWhy are you obsessed with this minor issue? Is it because you think feminist objections to female circumcision are unfair to us poor, picked-upon men? I refuse to see myself as a victim, mainly because I am not one.
It is the single most widespread serious basic human rights abuse and the damage done to keep it that way is very considerable. It corrupts ordinary people, politicians, and not least medical science apart from all the direct suffering it causes. Not least in these days of the pandemic, we should all be concerned about corruption of medical science.
I'd suggest that a relatively harmless ritual that has been practiced for 3 millenia without horribly ill effects constitues a reasonable choice. Obviously, you disagree about the effects being minimal, although Jews and Muslims seem to be thriving. Much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare might say.
Sould parents be allowed to cut their children's hair, or clip their finger nails? Same principle, isn't it?
No ill effects if you are ignorant.
I mean that literally. The harmful effect are well known and a matter of public record.
Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 7:48 am
Greta is right . There is plenty of authentic social anthropology relating to for instance the Poro secret society of the Temne and Mende peoples of Sierra Leone. The secret society initiates boys into adult life and is vastly important for continuation of societal governance and practice. Psychologically, rituals help people to cooperate.
There is also a secret society for girls' initiation.
And that is exactly the same for many Islamic sub-cultures in the case of FGM.
That does not mean its not child abuse.
It is child abuse. And woman abuse. Long standing traditions don't justify invasive, painful, and disabling surgery. Education and enabling of women lets them refuse FGM . Lack of education and marketable skills force women to remain shut into traditional custom. Ergo those tribal women are deprived.
The ethic that applies is: ends do not justify means
It is the single most widespread serious basic human rights abuse and the damage done to keep it that way is very considerable. It corrupts ordinary people, politicians, and not least medical science apart from all the direct suffering it causes. Not least in these days of the pandemic, we should all be concerned about corruption of medical science.
I suppose, that all those Uyghur reeducation camps are justified, since they might stamp out "the most widespread serious human rights abuse". I admit my ignorance; I've never thought this topic sufficiently important to spend any time studying it. Fifty years ago the medical consensus was that male circumcision was beneficial; it may have changed. I still think it's a minor issue.
There's only one reasonable explanation for Simon and Sculptor's obsession: they are anti-Uyghur tools of the Chinese Communist Party.
And that is exactly the same for many Islamic sub-cultures in the case of FGM.
That does not mean its not child abuse.
It is child abuse. And woman abuse. Long standing traditions don't justify invasive, painful, and disabling surgery. Education and enabling of women lets them refuse FGM . Lack of education and marketable skills force women to remain shut into traditional custom. Ergo those tribal women are deprived.
The ethic that applies is: ends do not justify means
MGM is child abuse.
For some reason you are not big enough to admit that.
Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2020, 10:19 am
It is child abuse. And woman abuse. Long standing traditions don't justify invasive, painful, and disabling surgery. Education and enabling of women lets them refuse FGM . Lack of education and marketable skills force women to remain shut into traditional custom. Ergo those tribal women are deprived.
The ethic that applies is: ends do not justify means
MGM is child abuse.
For some reason you are not big enough to admit that.
And that is exactly the same for many Islamic sub-cultures in the case of FGM.
That does not mean its not child abuse.
It is child abuse. And woman abuse. Long standing traditions don't justify invasive, painful, and disabling surgery. Education and enabling of women lets them refuse FGM . Lack of education and marketable skills force women to remain shut into traditional custom. Ergo those tribal women are deprived.
The ethic that applies is: ends do not justify means
As is all genital mutilation of children naturally. Why is it women abuse, don't women have agency? The majority of women electing to have their labia trimmed and other such procedures are satisfied wit the result, how is that women abuse? Some women also choose to have a traditional ritual in which their labia are trimmed and likewise are satisfied with the result, why is that women abuse? Is it men abuse when men choose to have their genitals trimmed by either a modern procedure or a traditional ritual? Not all FGC is "invasive, painful, and disabling surgery" in fact the most common form where no permanent injury is caused isn't disabling at all. You presume that women want to refuse FGC when in fact it's very popular especially among educated and liberated women. Cut women in India and Pakistan are among the best educated and enabled women there. You have a very distorted notion about FGC, I suspect from anti FGM campaigners narratives you have swallowed completely uncritically as they fit your prejudices.
Ends do not justify means would apply to those campaigns, here you need a discriminatory ethic along the lines the historically downtrodden deserve special privileges to balance the price their forebears paid.
It is the single most widespread serious basic human rights abuse and the damage done to keep it that way is very considerable. It corrupts ordinary people, politicians, and not least medical science apart from all the direct suffering it causes. Not least in these days of the pandemic, we should all be concerned about corruption of medical science.
I suppose, that all those Uyghur reeducation camps are justified, since they might stamp out "the most widespread serious human rights abuse". I admit my ignorance; I've never thought this topic sufficiently important to spend any time studying it. Fifty years ago the medical consensus was that male circumcision was beneficial; it may have changed. I still think it's a minor issue.
There's only one reasonable explanation for Simon and Sculptor's obsession: they are anti-Uyghur tools of the Chinese Communist Party.
That's a wild stretch! How exactly might reeducation camps for Uyghurs stamp out MGC of boys? There are about 12 million Uyghurs in China with a population of 1.4 billion så less than 1% of Chinese and around the same for the proportion of the world's muslims which account for 2/3 of MGC. Did the Holocaust affect MGC? The Danish PM refuses to support stamping out MGC due to the Holocaust so if that's anything to go by such persecution has the direct opposite effect. What "medical consensus"? And what did it say a century ago and a century and a half ago, that it cured epilepsy, mental illness and not least masturbation? In UK the consensus had turned against MGC already for over 70 years ago and it was not covered by the new NHS. I suspect the consensus you talk of is American? Less than 50 years ago the US consensus was that newborn babies did't feel pain as their nervous system wasn't developed sufficiently and as a result such procedures as open heart surgery was performed with no anaesthesia! That's is just one illustration of the corruption of medical science. Thankfully that "medical consensus" has changed. How many deaths would you consider to be enough to make it a greater than minor issue? If there was a ritual where most children's ears were amputated in many countries, would you also consider that a minor issue?
The long arm of Chinese Communism stretches its taloned claw into the Philosophy Discussion Forum.
By the way. "SomonP"? Wasn't Simon Peter circumcised (in all probablility)? OK, he was also crucified upside down, but, after undergoing circumcision, that constituted a minor inconvenience, by comparison.
The long arm of Chinese Communism stretches its taloned claw into the Philosophy Discussion Forum.
By the way. "SomonP"? Wasn't Simon Peter circumcised (in all probablility)? OK, he was also crucified upside down, but, after undergoing circumcision, that constituted a minor inconvenience, by comparison.
The long arm of Chinese Communism stretches its taloned claw into the Philosophy Discussion Forum.
By the way. "SomonP"? Wasn't Simon Peter circumcised (in all probablility)? OK, he was also crucified upside down, but, after undergoing circumcision, that constituted a minor inconvenience, by comparison.
Do you have the same attitude towards the cutting of female genitals or is it only male genitals that deserve this flippancy?
SimonP wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 6:18 pm
Cutting the genitals of boys is universally accepted whereas cutting the genitals of girls is widely condemned and severly punished. This is reflected in many ways eg there are many explicit videos on YouTube of boys having their genitals cut in a wide variety of settings whereas similar videos showing girls having their genitals cut are taken down. Another example: two cases from Ireland, in the first an infant boy haemorrhages resulting in death and in the second an infant girl haemorrhages and survives, with very different judgements.
Both were never been universally accepted. Here in my country, until now, there are people who condemn cutting the genitals by choice or being a transgender for that matter.
SimonP wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 6:18 pm
Cutting the genitals of boys is universally accepted whereas cutting the genitals of girls is widely condemned and severly punished. This is reflected in many ways eg there are many explicit videos on YouTube of boys having their genitals cut in a wide variety of settings whereas similar videos showing girls having their genitals cut are taken down. Another example: two cases from Ireland, in the first an infant boy haemorrhages resulting in death and in the second an infant girl haemorrhages and survives, with very different judgements.
Both were never been universally accepted. Here in my country, until now, there are people who condemn cutting the genitals by choice or being a transgender for that matter.
Whe I write universally accepted I don't mean found acceptable by every single person in the world, I mean is not punished ie people are free to choose to do this to their son if they so desire and face no punishment nor social ostracism. So even in your country, whichever that might be, it is regarded as an acceptable parental choice and parents who choose to do this to their sons are accepted in society and are not punished. they are free to apply for any job including those with small children which would not be possible if they were merely suspected of unacceptable serious child abuse.
