Making genital mutilation illegal and means of enforcement.

[Politesse]

I didn't say I agreed with the practice. My gut emotional reaction to things is not the best guide to social policy, nor yours. If you try to abuse government powers to stamp out every cultural practice you disagree with by force, that power will eventually be wielded against you. History has taught us this uncounted times.

Its not about what one person disagrees with morally (Though that definitely applies to me.) Its about what is and is not in accordance with the basic principles upon which our society is based. mutilating someone's physiology for religious purposes without their knowledge or consent is a violation of their basic rights.

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

 

[LordKiran]

I didn't say I agreed with the practice. My gut emotional reaction to things is not the best guide to social policy, nor yours. If you try to abuse government powers to stamp out every cultural practice you disagree with by force, that power will eventually be wielded against you. History has taught us this uncounted times.

Its not about what one person disagrees with morally (Though that definitely applies to me.) Its about what is and is not in accordance with the basic principles upon which our society is based. mutilating someone's physiology for religious purposes without their knowledge or consent is a violation of their basic rights.

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

The only way my position becomes authoritarian is if we don't assume that children are individuals whom the state has a vested interest in protecting as individuals. So basically children and youth is authoritarian I guess.

I got something to tell you. Most people in America aren't circumcised because their parents genuinely observe an ancient cultural practice from the other side of the world. It happens because doctors push it onto new parents claiming medical benefits of having it done.

 

[Politesse]

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

The only way my position becomes authoritarian is if we don't assume that children are individuals whom the state has a vested interest in protecting as individuals. So basically children and youth is authoritarian I guess.

Well, yes, it is. Governments are authoritarian by nature. I don't think it's wrong to prosecute crimes against children. I do think it is ineffective, and as dangerous to the children themselves as anyone else, to define a widespread cultural practice as abuse and attempt to end it coercively through criminalization.

 

[LordKiran]

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

The only way my position becomes authoritarian is if we don't assume that children are individuals whom the state has a vested interest in protecting as individuals. So basically children and youth is authoritarian I guess.

Well, yes, it is. Governments are authoritarian by nature. I don't think it's wrong to prosecute crimes against children. I do think it is ineffective, and as dangerous to the children themselves as anyone else, to define a widespread cultural practice as abuse and attempt to end it coercively through criminalization.

Sorry but no. Its not authoritarian for the state to protect its citizens from other citizens. Its one of the basic functions of the state in fact.

 

[Politesse]

Well, yes, it is. Governments are authoritarian by nature. I don't think it's wrong to prosecute crimes against children. I do think it is ineffective, and as dangerous to the children themselves as anyone else, to define a widespread cultural practice as abuse and attempt to end it coercively through criminalization.

Sorry but no. Its not authoritarian for the state to protect its citizens from other citizens. Its one of the basic functions of the state in fact.

Protect? You're trying to use the state as a weapon against your fellow citizens. You are well-intentioned, but that won't help how such actions will be perceived by the targeted community. Giving someone "rights" they see as punishments generally does not end well.

 

[LordKiran]

Well, yes, it is. Governments are authoritarian by nature. I don't think it's wrong to prosecute crimes against children. I do think it is ineffective, and as dangerous to the children themselves as anyone else, to define a widespread cultural practice as abuse and attempt to end it coercively through criminalization.

Sorry but no. Its not authoritarian for the state to protect its citizens from other citizens. Its one of the basic functions of the state in fact.

Protect? You're trying to use the state as a weapon against your fellow citizens. You are well-intentioned, but that won't help how such actions will be perceived by the targeted community. Giving someone "rights" they see as punishments generally does not end well.

The rights aren't for the parents they're for the children of the parents. You might think that the parent's religious rights trump the child's human rights and you're free to think that, but I disagree. If an older child wishes to take on a religious disfigurement then fine but they can do it when they're consciously capable of making that choice.

 

[Politesse]

Protect? You're trying to use the state as a weapon against your fellow citizens. You are well-intentioned, but that won't help how such actions will be perceived by the targeted community. Giving someone "rights" they see as punishments generally does not end well.

The rights aren't for the parents they're for the children of the parents. You might think that the parent's religious rights trump the child's human rights and you're free to think that, but I disagree. If an older child wishes to take on a religious disfigurement then fine but they can do it when they're consciously capable of making that choice.

I see things in terms of outcomes, not intent. If you try to use authoritarian means to combat the practice, it will do nothing to actually stop it. People aren't going to just accept what they consider an unjust and persecutorial law with a "ho-hum, okay, guess we won't do that now". Nor will those directly involved thank you; the girls won't become un-circumcised because you arrested their parents, they're just going to be short two parents.

 

[LordKiran]

Protect? You're trying to use the state as a weapon against your fellow citizens. You are well-intentioned, but that won't help how such actions will be perceived by the targeted community. Giving someone "rights" they see as punishments generally does not end well.

The rights aren't for the parents they're for the children of the parents. You might think that the parent's religious rights trump the child's human rights and you're free to think that, but I disagree. If an older child wishes to take on a religious disfigurement then fine but they can do it when they're consciously capable of making that choice.

I see things in terms of outcomes, not intent. If you try to use authoritarian means to combat the practice, it will do nothing to actually stop it. People aren't going to just accept what they consider an unjust and persecutorial law with a "ho-hum, okay, guess we won't do that now". Nor will those directly involved thank you; the girls won't become un-circumcised because you arrested their parents, they're just going to be short two parents.

They can think of it however they want. If a parent can't respect their child's basic human rights then fuck'em. I really don't see any particular need to compromise on that point either. Maybe they come from another country and aren't used to thinking of their children as individuals possessing rights, and that's okay it's what the naturalization process is for.

By the by, if people weren't by and large willing to follow the law then states and societies wouldn't be able to function. Unless you're one of those "The state only exists as a projection of power" types...

So yeah, as a matter of fact I do think most of them will go "ho-hum, okay, guess we won't do that now".

 

[Politesse]

I see things in terms of outcomes, not intent. If you try to use authoritarian means to combat the practice, it will do nothing to actually stop it. People aren't going to just accept what they consider an unjust and persecutorial law with a "ho-hum, okay, guess we won't do that now". Nor will those directly involved thank you; the girls won't become un-circumcised because you arrested their parents, they're just going to be short two parents.

They can think of it however they want. If a parent can't respect their child's basic human rights then fuck'em. I really don't see any particular need to compromise on that point either. Maybe they come from another country and aren't used to thinking of their children as individuals possessing rights, and that's okay it's what the naturalization process is for.

By the by, if people weren't by and large willing to follow the law then states and societies wouldn't be able to function. Unless you're one of those "The state only exists as a projection of power" types...

So yeah, as a matter of fact I do think most of them will go "ho-hum, okay, guess we won't do that now".

I don't understand why it doesn't matter to you whether your punishment is effective or not.

 

[LordKiran]

I see things in terms of outcomes, not intent. If you try to use authoritarian means to combat the practice, it will do nothing to actually stop it. People aren't going to just accept what they consider an unjust and persecutorial law with a "ho-hum, okay, guess we won't do that now". Nor will those directly involved thank you; the girls won't become un-circumcised because you arrested their parents, they're just going to be short two parents.

They can think of it however they want. If a parent can't respect their child's basic human rights then fuck'em. I really don't see any particular need to compromise on that point either. Maybe they come from another country and aren't used to thinking of their children as individuals possessing rights, and that's okay it's what the naturalization process is for.

By the by, if people weren't by and large willing to follow the law then states and societies wouldn't be able to function. Unless you're one of those "The state only exists as a projection of power" types...

So yeah, as a matter of fact I do think most of them will go "ho-hum, okay, guess we won't do that now".

I don't understand why it doesn't matter to you whether your punishment is effective or not.

Sorry? I literally just said I think it would work.

 

[Arctish]

You said a 'different kind of surgery'. That's what I was asking about. Sadly, it didn't work for my FIL and he ultimately had to have a penectomy. Not a good outcome for any man.

Your FIL had a life saving surgery that involved removing a diseased body part in order to stop the spread of something that could have killed him. It's comparable to my father's partial amputation of his foot to stop the spread of gangrene.

Circumcision as religious or cultural expression removes a healthy body part. It's unnecessary for the preservation of life. That's a different kind of surgery even though it involves the same body parts. I have no problem with it if the person being circumcised is a consenting adult. I don't think it's right to impose it on a child.

A different kind of surgery in the sense that it's cosmetic surgery done for aesthetic, religious, or cultural reasons, as opposed to a surgery done out of medical necessity.

If there's no urgent medical need to remove a kid's foreskin then IMO there's no justification for doing it. Let the kid decide for himself if he wants to be circumcised when he's old enough to make that decision. It's his penis. It should be his choice.

Not to inflame the discussion, but what other body parts are parents allowed to clip off their kids?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right, so I'd like to ask:

Are you suggesting, saying and/or implying that it's not immoral on their part to engage in any of the practices in question as long as they're accepted within a culture and/or that people from a different cultural background are not capable of assessing whether it's immoral?
I'm asking because if you only object to effectiveness but agree it's immoral, I'm not sure why you bring "naive realism", or say it's "my cultural principles". On the other hand, you said.

I didn't say I agreed with the practice. My gut emotional reaction to things is not the best guide to social policy, nor yours. If you try to abuse government powers to stamp out every cultural practice you disagree with by force, that power will eventually be wielded against you. History has taught us this uncounted times.

That suggests you might consider it immoral (or do you just refrain from saying it's morally acceptable?), but consider a ban on it immoral (that much seems implicit in your considering it an "abuse" of government powers).

By the way, what do you think about banning cultural practices such as, say, honor killings, selling young girls to men for marriage, slavery, racially-based exclusions in bars, clubs, etc., and so on?
My take on this is that those practices are all immoral, though to very different degrees, and in the first 3 cases, criminal punishment is deserved. In the fourth, I'm inclined to think it's not, though a ban not involving criminal punishment is in some circumstances justified.

 

[Politesse]

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right, so I'd like to ask:

Are you suggesting, saying and/or implying that it's not immoral on their part to engage in any of the practices in question as long as they're accepted within a culture and/or that people from a different cultural background are not capable of assessing whether it's immoral?
I'm asking because if you only object to effectiveness but agree it's immoral, I'm not sure why you bring "naive realism", or say it's "my cultural principles". On the other hand, you said.

I didn't say I agreed with the practice. My gut emotional reaction to things is not the best guide to social policy, nor yours. If you try to abuse government powers to stamp out every cultural practice you disagree with by force, that power will eventually be wielded against you. History has taught us this uncounted times.

That suggests you might consider it immoral (or do you just refrain from saying it's morally acceptable?), but consider a ban on it immoral (that much seems implicit in your considering it an "abuse" of government powers).

By the way, what do you think about banning cultural practices such as, say, honor killings, selling young girls to men for marriage, slavery, racially-based exclusions in bars, clubs, etc., and so on?
My take on this is that those practices are all immoral, though to very different degrees, and in the first 3 cases, criminal punishment is deserved. In the fourth, I'm inclined to think it's not, though a ban not involving criminal punishment is in some circumstances justified.

You are referring to the idea of moral relativism. No, I do not hold to it. I consider engaging in war between cultures to be more foolish and dangerous than immoral as such. When one group tries to use the government as a weapon against another, no one wins and everyone loses rights. I don't think emotional appeals are the best way to make decisions about social policy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are referring to the idea of moral relativism. No, I do not hold to it. I consider engaging in war between cultures to be more foolish and dangerous than immoral as such. When one group tries to use the government as a weapon against another, no one wins and everyone loses rights. I don't think emotional appeals are the best way to make decisions about social policy.

Cultural relativism is one of the potential views I was considering (i.e., one of the hypotheses about your position that I was evaluating), but there are others, so I was asking for more details, but that reply doesn't make things much clearer for me. I would like to ask which groups you're talking about, and how is that different from other cases of criminalization?

For example, when slavery was abolished, one group of people who were in favor of banning slavery used the government to impose their view over another group of people - namely, people who were in favor of not banning slavery, including but not limited to slave owners. Was that a case of using the government as a weapon, or not?
If so, then I would say that it's not the case that one group tries to use the government as a weapon against another, no one wins and everyone loses rights, because surely some people won, including most slaves, and the people who were in favor of banning slavery.
If not, then I would ask how you distinguish between cases in which one group uses the government to prevent another group from doing X but the government is not being used as a weapon, and cases in which one group uses the government to prevent another group from doing X but the government is used as a weapon.

By the way, I don't think they were actually using the government specifically to prevent a group from doing anything, but rather, to prevent individuals from doing stuff (whether they acted in a concerted manner or not), but then, the same applies to LordKiran's proposal to ban (and enforced the ban on) genital mutilation of newborns and young children. He's an individual, not a group, and seems to be targeting the behavior of individuals, however you group them.

 

[Politesse]

For example, when slavery was abolished, one group of people who were in favor of banning slavery used the government to impose their view over another group of people - namely, people who were in favor of not banning slavery, including but not limited to slave owners. Was that a case of using the government as a weapon, or not?

Of course it was. The war that resulted was nearly genocidal in scope, easily the most violent conflict the world had ever seen, and the violence of that war spilled over into literal genocides against the inhabitants of the Plains during the same years. And its influence on actual civil rights was incremental in exchange for the loss of life that it required; much better strides were made through passive resistance and peaceful demonstrations that occurred nearly a century later. On some level, the war was probably necessarily, or at least inevitable. But I would not consider such tactics to be anything like the ideal mechanism of social change. And the behemoth that it created, the federal government and its role, remains a principal source of argument and contention between Americans that seeps into every modern political conflict somehow.

If so, then I would say that it's not the case that one group tries to use the government as a weapon against another, no one wins and everyone loses rights, because surely some people won, including most slaves, and the people who were in favor of banning slavery.

Sort of. I'm glad that slavery was banned, certainly. Given my mixed ancestry, I wouldn't exist if it had not. But I note that this success was very limited, and remains incomplete, with something like ten percent of the target population still performing unpaid labor for the rest of us via the prison system. I do not believe that the emancipation itself can be credited to the war alone; without the acts of many, many courageous writers and activists and lawyers from the creation of the country until and past the war itself, it would not have been possible for these changes to occur no matter how many bullets and shells you used to rip the flesh from the bones of your enemies.

Did the war solve a problem? Yes. Was it the best solution to the problem? That requires more omniscience concerning the alternatives than I in fact possess. But I find it hard to look at such a violent experience as somehow ideal and desirable.

I also note that this "culture" idea of yours is very flawed. Not everyone in the South held exclusively one perspective on the issue, nor everyone in the North. Whose opinion do you decide to nominate as "the" opinion of the "culture" of the North or the South respectively?

If not, then I would ask how you distinguish between cases in which one group uses the government to prevent another group from doing X but the government is not being used as a weapon, and cases in which one group uses the government to prevent another group from doing X but the government is used as a weapon.

I wouldn't. Even if you think a particular instance of it is justified or even necessary, using a state apparatus to detain or murder everyone who disagrees with you still constitutes using the government as a weapon. You just used it as a weapon "for good", if you did.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course it was. The war that resulted was nearly genocidal in scope, easily the most violent conflict the world had ever seen, and the violence of that war spilled over into literal genocides against the inhabitants of the Plains during the same years. And its influence on actual civil rights was incremental in exchange for the loss of life that it required; much better strides were made through passive resistance and peaceful demonstrations that occurred nearly a century later. On some level, the war was probably necessarily, or at least inevitable. But I would not consider such tactics to be anything like the ideal mechanism of social change. And the behemoth that it created, the federal government and its role, remains a principal source of argument and contention between Americans that seeps into every modern political conflict somehow.

Sort of. I'm glad that slavery was banned, certainly. Given my mixed ancestry, I wouldn't exist if it had not. But I note that this success was very limited, and remains incomplete, with something like ten percent of the target population still performing unpaid labor for the rest of us via the prison system. I do not believe that the emancipation itself can be credited to the war alone; without the acts of many, many courageous writers and activists and lawyers from the creation of the country until and past the war itself, it would not have been possible for these changes to occur no matter how many bullets and shells you used to rip the flesh from the bones of your enemies.

Did the war solve a problem? Yes. Was it the best solution to the problem? That requires more omniscience concerning the alternatives than I in fact possess. But I find it hard to look at such a violent experience as somehow ideal and desirable.

I also note that this "culture" idea of yours is very flawed. Not everyone in the South held exclusively one perspective on the issue, nor everyone in the North. Whose opinion do you decide to nominate as "the" opinion of the "culture" of the North or the South respectively?

If not, then I would ask how you distinguish between cases in which one group uses the government to prevent another group from doing X but the government is not being used as a weapon, and cases in which one group uses the government to prevent another group from doing X but the government is used as a weapon.

I wouldn't. Even if you think a particular instance of it is justified or even necessary, using a state apparatus to detain or murder everyone who disagrees with you still constitutes using the government as a weapon. You just used it as a weapon "for good", if you did.

Simply put, when. Someone is wielding weapons against children, it is appropriate to use whatever force is necessary to stop them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course it was. The war that resulted was nearly genocidal in scope, easily the most violent conflict the world had ever seen, and the violence of that war spilled over into literal genocides against the inhabitants of the Plains during the same years. And its influence on actual civil rights was incremental in exchange for the loss of life that it required; much better strides were made through passive resistance and peaceful demonstrations that occurred nearly a century later. On some level, the war was probably necessarily, or at least inevitable. But I would not consider such tactics to be anything like the ideal mechanism of social change. And the behemoth that it created, the federal government and its role, remains a principal source of argument and contention between Americans that seeps into every modern political conflict somehow.

Whether it's the ideal mechanism was not the issue. You said earlier that "When one group tries to use the government as a weapon against another, no one wins and everyone loses rights."
Banning slavery is a case that matches what you count as a case of a group trying to use the government as a weapon against another, and yet many people won, not everyone lost legal rights, and many gained legal rights. So, I was using this as a counterexample.

As for Civil Rights Movement in the 20th century, that (and other factors) also resulted in (among other things) bans on a number of behaviors, such as racial discrimination in public accommodations. Were those not also cases of a group of people using the government as a weapon against another group?

Granted, there were also many attempts to persuade people. And the same happened a century earlier, before slavery was banned at a federal level. And the same happened much earlier too, before slavery was banned in many states. But a lot of people were not persuaded at all. They were forced to change their behavior. In all cases, there were positive and negative results; in all but one, there was no war, and in all of them, there were winners and losers. In some cases, people lost some legal rights (e.g., the right to discriminate on the basis of race in public accommodations), but gained also some legal rights (e.g., the right not to be discriminated on the basis of race in public accommodations); in some cases, some people did not lose any legal rights, but gained some, and so on.

I would say the matter has to be assessed as usual on a case-by-case basis.

Sort of. I'm glad that slavery was banned, certainly. Given my mixed ancestry, I wouldn't exist if it had not. But I note that this success was very limited, and remains incomplete, with something like ten percent of the target population still performing unpaid labor for the rest of us via the prison system. I do not believe that the emancipation itself can be credited to the war alone; without the acts of many, many courageous writers and activists and lawyers from the creation of the country until and past the war itself, it would not have been possible for these changes to occur no matter how many bullets and shells you used to rip the flesh from the bones of your enemies.

Sure, but I wasn't crediting it to the war alone (I wasn't even crediting it to the war, but asking about the ban on slavery).
In fact, before the war began, slavery had already been banned in most American states, in some of them a long time earlier. Those bans did not result in wars. And they did take away some legal rights (e.g., rights to own slaves), while granting other legal rights.

Do you think that those cases were also cases of groups trying to use the (state) government as a weapon against other groups?
If so, as before, I would point out that many people won with those laws.
If not, why would these not be cases of groups trying to use the government as a weapon against other groups?

Did the war solve a problem? Yes. Was it the best solution to the problem? That requires more omniscience concerning the alternatives than I in fact possess. But I find it hard to look at such a violent experience as somehow ideal and desirable.

We may then leave the war aside, and consider instead bans on slavery at a state level in the 18th and early 19th century, or bans on racial discrimination in public accommodation in the 20th century, and so on. Those bans were also cases of groups using the government as a weapon against other groups (if I understand what you mean by that correctly; else, please let me know), and not everyone lost. In some cases, not everyone lost legal rights, either, it seems to me (e.g., what legal rights did slaves lose?), and in any event, the loss of some legal rights (such as the legal right to own slaves) is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I also note that this "culture" idea of yours is very flawed.

I did not express any idea of culture. I'm trying to go with what you say. I don't know why you bring this up.

Not everyone in the South held exclusively one perspective on the issue, nor everyone in the North. Whose opinion do you decide to nominate as "the" opinion of the "culture" of the North or the South respectively?

I don't know. I did not say anything about the opinion of any culture. I'm not even sure what that would mean. Have you mistaken me for another poster, perhaps?
My only use of the word "culture" was in a question I asked you, in response to a post of yours in which you talked about "my culture's principles", so I would ask you about your idea of culture. I could have objected to your post in a way similar to the way you're now objecting to something you seem to think I said, but I decided to let that pass and focus on a different issue.

Anyway, of course not everyone held exclusively one perspective on the the issue, either in the North or in the South. But also, of course the same goes for any of the behaviors that the OP proposes be banned. In fact, even in California (LordKiran's location), it seems prevalence (in males) is still over 20% of newborns (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preva...ates_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg ) (in the US as a whole, it's not a minority, but a majority practice).

I wouldn't. Even if you think a particular instance of it is justified or even necessary, using a state apparatus to detain or murder everyone who disagrees with you still constitutes using the government as a weapon. You just used it as a weapon "for good", if you did.

But the proposed ban is not about detaining everyone who disagrees, or murdering anyone. It's about banning certain behaviors other than opinions. Disagreement would not count. Also, the proposed ban does not say anything about intended punishment.

That aside, even bans on slavery or bans on racial discrimination in public accommodations do not constitute examples of using a state apparatus to detain or murder everyone who disagrees with the people who proposed the ban. Disagreement was and is indeed allowed. I'm still unsure what you count as using the government as a weapon (and when it's by a group against another group), because on one hand, you seem to indicate a broad use, but on the other hand, you make now an odd claim regarding detaining or even murdering dissenters. So, I'd like to ask:

Do you consider that passing a law imposing a ban on certain behavior (e.g., slavery, rape, bank robbery, etc.), constitute an instance of using the government as a weapon against some group (e.g., people who engage in slavery, rapists, bank robbers, etc.)? If not, how do you go about distinguishing them? (if you have no definition, that's fair enough - if you give me several examples that constitute the behavior in question and let me know whether bans on rape, bank robbery, etc., count, I can work with that.

 

[Frikki]

I didn't say I agreed with the practice. My gut emotional reaction to things is not the best guide to social policy, nor yours. If you try to abuse government powers to stamp out every cultural practice you disagree with by force, that power will eventually be wielded against you. History has taught us this uncounted times.

Its not about what one person disagrees with morally (Though that definitely applies to me.) Its about what is and is not in accordance with the basic principles upon which our society is based. mutilating someone's physiology for religious purposes without their knowledge or consent is a violation of their basic rights.

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

If there was a group of people in America that removed the left nipple of boys at six days to please their gods would you be ok with that?

 

[Politesse]

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

If there was a group of people in America that removed the left nipple of boys at six days to please their gods would you be ok with that?

No. I'm not okay with either variety of circumcision, either. It's fomenting culture wars that I find problematic.

 

[Frikki]

Does it make you feel less authoritarian to describe your beliefs as "basic principles" rather than "my culture's principles"? Feel free to keep doing so, if it makes you feel better, but it will not change the outcome much. People won't respond differently to a perceived cultural invasion just because the invader insists their way is normal for everyone. Naive realism makes us feel better, it does not change the practical impact of our socially relevant decisions.

If there was a group of people in America that removed the left nipple of boys at six days to please their gods would you be ok with that?

No. I'm not okay with either variety of circumcision, either. It's fomenting culture wars that I find problematic.

Do you think it should be illegal for that religious group to cut off the boys nipple?