You're essentially saying "unless someone's desires make sense to me, they aren't morally relevant and shouldn't be respected." And you accuse others of fascism?
I get what you are saying, but how far does this go? Why is the body treated like a temple when the mind is not? Parents get to indoctrinate their kids with their culture, language, diet, religion, etc. In comparison, the lopping off of the foreskin is nothing. Can you really say that your foreskin is more important than your culture or religion?
Attitudes can change. They still have a freedom of choice when it comes to their culture in their adult lives. Forcing a culture upon them by permanently modifying their physical body is a different story altogether. The line is between teaching and physical coercion. If you raise a boy a Muslim or a Jew, he may in later life reject his faith, eat pork, not live up to his religious obligations--but he has no way to grow back his foreskin.
There's something wrong with getting prosecuted 18 years after a "crime" that has no measurable effect on someone.
There most certainly is a measurable effect: the man is missing his foreskin.
In fact, I'm still having trouble with the concept of how someone's rights can be trampled without any measurable harm being inflicted upon them. I can't think of another example of where this is the case.
Here's one: Jon want to go out and buy some delicious bacon from the grocery store. Since Jon was raised Jewish, there's a new law that gives his parents the legal right to force him to eat kosher, even though he's a full grown man and not particularly religious anymore. So when he gets to the grocery store, they refuse to sell him bacon, having been given a notice from the government. Jon goes home with some kosher breakfast sausages instead. They're probably healthier for him, and he still enjoys them, although he'd prefer the bacon. No "measurable harm" done by your standard, but his rights are still trampled.
Circumcision is just like this, except instead of your breakfast, it's your penis that's at stake. Think about it.
I support the right of parents to pierce the ears of their baby, for instance.
Ear piercings can actually grow back. Foreskins can't.
I think this is a perfect example of how the situation is improving. Before things like TLC or Discovery, there were almost no infotainment outlets. Even though the balance is skewed more towards the "tainment," and less toward the "info," it is still a net positive.
No, no it isn't. By associating that crap with actual science in the slightest we're giving it an unearned legitimacy and credibility. People with no understanding of the scientific method and no ability to reason like a scientist get to pretend they know something about science. This only gets in the way of actually educating them.
You still are trying to change someones rights (or in this case two sets of rights) without any backing other than your own ideology.
You're trying to keep those rights the same without any backing other than your own ideology. It's a fallacy to privilege the status quo.
That's a pretty broad definition of "damage" IMHO. To me "damage" implies harm, and yet you can show none.
The harm is that the boy's missing part of his penis, and that he lost it without his consent. Maybe he thought it would look better intact, maybe he would prefer a more sensitive glans, maybe he would rather have gliding action when he masturbates--that's a choice that should fundamentally be left to him. Making it at birth limits his freedom to control his own body. It's not a question of whether he's objectively worse off--it's a question of whether his individual freedoms to control the basic physical structure of his body are respected. There's also the part about cutting through highly sensitive tissues without anaesthetic, but that's a minor and more-easily-corrected issue.
Checking kids' gonads for damage via government edict is just as frightening to me as cameras in the house.
The gonads are, in this case, the testicles--the foreskin is part of the penis, a separate organ. That aside, consider that we already check womens' (and even young girls') vaginas to gather evidence against rapists, there's nothing inherent to the practice of checking someone's genitals to gather evidence for a crime. In fact, were female genital mutilation to occur in this country, the physical evidence would certainly be collected.
I'm not at all suggesting an indiscriminate examination of everyone's penis. As with any other crime, circumcision would only be investigated under due process. If a circumcised boy or man wanted his parents prosecuted, he would volunteer the evidence himself, just as rape victims need to consent for a rape kit to be collected. My only point was that such a law would be easily enforceable.
You think Jews will just stop the practice? Some will, but many will just avoid doctors except those who are known not to be snitches, or who will sign off on the procedure as being "medically necessary".
Traditional Jewish circumcisions are performed by mohels, who are not necessarily doctors but often are. Again, Judaism (along with the rest of society) will have to reform significantly before banning circumcision is politically tenable, but that says nothing about the moral status of the act itself.
Maybe, but to me that word implies a sort of dictatorship.
And "fascist" doesn't?
It would be different if you had a definitive link between infant circumcision and some kind of disorder. Then you would have science on your side.
You know, properly treated amputations of any small body part aren't definitely linked to disorders, but you're still missing a body part.
My dad was in the Marines. He wasn't a sniper, but he had to deal with a fair number of them (on the other side). He told me that a sniper only takes one shot. If you only take one shot, they're taken by surprise and don't know where you are. Take a second shot without moving and they've found you. Same lesson, pretty much.
Stripping someone of a right that they currently have has to be done very carefully.
What about granting rights that people don't currently have? They're necessarily two sides of the same coin: if I take away your right to walk down the street punching people in the nose, I give the people down the street the right not to be punched in the nose. Conversely, if I take away your right to not be punched in the nose, I give others the right to punch you in the nose. If I take away your right to circumcise your kids, I give your kids the right not to be circumcised. Likewise, if circumcision was illegal, you'd be the one stripping people (infant boys) of a right they already had in order to give their parents more rights. Your analysis of the situation fails.
The rights of parents to control their children are already restricted by law, particularly when certain actions would cause permanent damage. The most basic argument against circumcision, which I endorse, is that the removal of the foreskin itself is permanent damage. It's also an easily identifiable practice for which physical evidence is always present, making enforceability easy--always important legal considerations. Politically, outlawing circumcision is currently untenable, but making legal reforms for moral reasons is always a long-term process.
As for the term "fascist", the word was overloaded to the point of meaninglessness before the movement itself even died out. In 1944, Orwell wrote:
It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'....
I think in your situation, a more precise word would be "authoritarian". I make this suggestion presuming, in good faith, that you're more interested in precise and honest discourse than with heaping scorn upon your perceived enemies.
No, what we do is have intelligent discussions about what rights we do have, without calling each other fascists. I think it's clear where you fall short in this respect.
Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. So were Rawls and Nozick, who both have more interesting things to say about political philosophy than Dawkins. It sounds like your problem isn't with philosophy, but with continental philosophy--the analytic tradition, which dominates philosophy in the English language, has no problem keeping distinctions separate and thoughts straight, and has focused strongly on that goal.
Homeschooling just segregates them even more and inhibits their socialization. The fact that you want to choose with whom they socialize is kind of disturbing. They aren't some sort of pet that you get to train. You should allow children to grow and develop with guidance, rather than follow some sort of path that you want to vicariously travel. In my opinion it's homeschooling that will hinder your potential child's socialization, rather than public schools.
You could send your kids to prison, too, and they would be socialized that way, but I doubt any responsible parent wants that. Some societies aren't worth socializing in, and public schools are usually one of them.
In fact condoms are one of the two forms of contraception with a 100% success rate, and the only way of preventing the spread of STIs.
Condoms can break. The stress tolerances of latex are finite, and no matter how many nines you'll get in ideal circumstances, even then you'll have some breakage.
As for Extra Large size, I'd wager that you use normal size at best. The vast majority of men use normal size. XL is just marketing.
Normal size is too small for some men. There is a difference between normal sizes and larger sizes, and even between different condom brands, and for someone of wider-than-average girth, the larger condoms do fit better. I would wager you're just speaking outside your personal experience, and that the post you're replying to was trolling maybe a little.
Contrary to the typical medical brochure would have you believe, condoms simply "don't work" for the uncircumsized. And they work even less well for those of who need the... Xtra Large size.
Have you tried rolling back the foreskin? I used to have the same problem.
In my experience, most women are fascinated by an intact penis if they hadn't seen one before. Other women regard it as no big deal. I personally think it looks pretty neat with the foreskin, but if I ever want to look at it the other way I can engage in the perfectly non-destructive act of rolling the foreskin back.
NO. You have the right to your own beliefs. You start to acquire fascist-like tendencies when you foist your beliefs onto others. Come at me with facts, not ideology.
Unless you seriously support anarchism, we have to foist some of our beliefs on others. That's what stops me from saying "I think it's perfectly acceptable to kill my wife for adultery, and if you disagree, nuts to you!" It's not at all fascist to get all up in someone's grill for violating the rights of innocent people. What's fascist is violating the rights of innocent people.
Interestingly enough, Jefferson was later elected president, making a historic peaceful turnover of power from one political party to another. Instead of overturning all the Federalist policies at once, Jefferson consciously chose to maintain continuity.
Gore lost under the electoral college system which has been in place for centuries. The electoral college reflects the fact that the president is elected by the United States of America, which is why Puerto Rico and Guam don't vote for president. If you don't like the rules, then go change the constitution (good luck). Clinton/Gore won under those same rules in 1992 & 1996. I didn't hear any complaining then.
Clinton/Gore won the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, so your point is irrelevant.
If you want to have a fair recount in Florida, you need to recount all the ballots state-wide, which might have led to higher vote totals for Bush.
After further review, no, it wouldn't have--all statewide recount scenarios show a Gore victory.
See, Russ, we're not all that much different. We just believe in a more progressive umbrella of rights than you do. Richard Dawkins discusses this in his recent book, The God Delusion if you're interested in a more modern discussion of rights than you'll find in Locke, Hume, and Friedman.
Or, instead of Dawkins, you could read actual political philosophers of the past century or so, instead of a windbag biologist. That guy's getting more annoying than Chomsky. You should also read philosophers who don't work so much in terms of rights, if you really want to broaden your perspective.
Again, if Japan re-arms and spends its money on its military, the entire region is destabilized. And South Korea can't afford the burden of keeping up with the North in the arms race. Europe remains an exception, but if they have to increase their military spending, it'll be more difficult for them to keep up their social welfare programs.
South Korea, Japan, and the nations of Europe are all free countries. They have the ability and the responsibility to decide whether or not to host American troops on their soil. They choose to continue accepting American military assistance, and as long as they do that, American military responsibility remains as extensive as it is. This may be in the national interest of the United States, but it's ultimately in the interests of our allies as well.
There will still be a mechanism with the SDK to sign code (for testing, obviously), so the only problem would be elements of the SDK not being GNU (as the compiler is still GCC).
Just as I resent snotty European idiots suggesting that we didn't make a difference. I still maintain that without American support during and after the war, Europe and the world would be a poorer and less free place even today. Defeating Germany wasn't the goal--maintaining a free and democratic Europe was. And in that respect, the Soviets were as much the enemy as the Germans.
The B-2 only flies out of its 2 bases for any mission. Yes, that's right- For a b-2 to fly a mission over Afghanistan, it takes off from Missouri, flies all the way there (subsonic), and returns to Missouri. The missions can take 24-36 hours. There are beds in the cockpit for a relief crew.
I thought we redeployed a lot of our B-2 fleet to Diego Garcia?
Slashdot Mirror
It should also be noted that the parent post shows borderline incompetence in identifying a joke.
You're essentially saying "unless someone's desires make sense to me, they aren't morally relevant and shouldn't be respected." And you accuse others of fascism?
What if he'd prefer to have his foreskin back?
Attitudes can change. They still have a freedom of choice when it comes to their culture in their adult lives. Forcing a culture upon them by permanently modifying their physical body is a different story altogether. The line is between teaching and physical coercion. If you raise a boy a Muslim or a Jew, he may in later life reject his faith, eat pork, not live up to his religious obligations--but he has no way to grow back his foreskin.
There's something wrong with getting prosecuted 18 years after a "crime" that has no measurable effect on someone.There most certainly is a measurable effect: the man is missing his foreskin.
In fact, I'm still having trouble with the concept of how someone's rights can be trampled without any measurable harm being inflicted upon them. I can't think of another example of where this is the case.Here's one: Jon want to go out and buy some delicious bacon from the grocery store. Since Jon was raised Jewish, there's a new law that gives his parents the legal right to force him to eat kosher, even though he's a full grown man and not particularly religious anymore. So when he gets to the grocery store, they refuse to sell him bacon, having been given a notice from the government. Jon goes home with some kosher breakfast sausages instead. They're probably healthier for him, and he still enjoys them, although he'd prefer the bacon. No "measurable harm" done by your standard, but his rights are still trampled.
Circumcision is just like this, except instead of your breakfast, it's your penis that's at stake. Think about it.
I support the right of parents to pierce the ears of their baby, for instance.Ear piercings can actually grow back. Foreskins can't.
No, no it isn't. By associating that crap with actual science in the slightest we're giving it an unearned legitimacy and credibility. People with no understanding of the scientific method and no ability to reason like a scientist get to pretend they know something about science. This only gets in the way of actually educating them.
You're trying to keep those rights the same without any backing other than your own ideology. It's a fallacy to privilege the status quo.
That's a pretty broad definition of "damage" IMHO. To me "damage" implies harm, and yet you can show none.The harm is that the boy's missing part of his penis, and that he lost it without his consent. Maybe he thought it would look better intact, maybe he would prefer a more sensitive glans, maybe he would rather have gliding action when he masturbates--that's a choice that should fundamentally be left to him. Making it at birth limits his freedom to control his own body. It's not a question of whether he's objectively worse off--it's a question of whether his individual freedoms to control the basic physical structure of his body are respected. There's also the part about cutting through highly sensitive tissues without anaesthetic, but that's a minor and more-easily-corrected issue.
Checking kids' gonads for damage via government edict is just as frightening to me as cameras in the house.The gonads are, in this case, the testicles--the foreskin is part of the penis, a separate organ. That aside, consider that we already check womens' (and even young girls') vaginas to gather evidence against rapists, there's nothing inherent to the practice of checking someone's genitals to gather evidence for a crime. In fact, were female genital mutilation to occur in this country, the physical evidence would certainly be collected.
I'm not at all suggesting an indiscriminate examination of everyone's penis. As with any other crime, circumcision would only be investigated under due process. If a circumcised boy or man wanted his parents prosecuted, he would volunteer the evidence himself, just as rape victims need to consent for a rape kit to be collected. My only point was that such a law would be easily enforceable.
You think Jews will just stop the practice? Some will, but many will just avoid doctors except those who are known not to be snitches, or who will sign off on the procedure as being "medically necessary".Traditional Jewish circumcisions are performed by mohels, who are not necessarily doctors but often are. Again, Judaism (along with the rest of society) will have to reform significantly before banning circumcision is politically tenable, but that says nothing about the moral status of the act itself.
Maybe, but to me that word implies a sort of dictatorship.And "fascist" doesn't?
It would be different if you had a definitive link between infant circumcision and some kind of disorder. Then you would have science on your side.You know, properly treated amputations of any small body part aren't definitely linked to disorders, but you're still missing a body part.
My dad was in the Marines. He wasn't a sniper, but he had to deal with a fair number of them (on the other side). He told me that a sniper only takes one shot. If you only take one shot, they're taken by surprise and don't know where you are. Take a second shot without moving and they've found you. Same lesson, pretty much.
What about granting rights that people don't currently have? They're necessarily two sides of the same coin: if I take away your right to walk down the street punching people in the nose, I give the people down the street the right not to be punched in the nose. Conversely, if I take away your right to not be punched in the nose, I give others the right to punch you in the nose. If I take away your right to circumcise your kids, I give your kids the right not to be circumcised. Likewise, if circumcision was illegal, you'd be the one stripping people (infant boys) of a right they already had in order to give their parents more rights. Your analysis of the situation fails.
The rights of parents to control their children are already restricted by law, particularly when certain actions would cause permanent damage. The most basic argument against circumcision, which I endorse, is that the removal of the foreskin itself is permanent damage. It's also an easily identifiable practice for which physical evidence is always present, making enforceability easy--always important legal considerations. Politically, outlawing circumcision is currently untenable, but making legal reforms for moral reasons is always a long-term process.
As for the term "fascist", the word was overloaded to the point of meaninglessness before the movement itself even died out. In 1944, Orwell wrote:
It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.Two years later, Orwell noted:
Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'....I think in your situation, a more precise word would be "authoritarian". I make this suggestion presuming, in good faith, that you're more interested in precise and honest discourse than with heaping scorn upon your perceived enemies.
No, what we do is have intelligent discussions about what rights we do have, without calling each other fascists. I think it's clear where you fall short in this respect.
Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. So were Rawls and Nozick, who both have more interesting things to say about political philosophy than Dawkins. It sounds like your problem isn't with philosophy, but with continental philosophy--the analytic tradition, which dominates philosophy in the English language, has no problem keeping distinctions separate and thoughts straight, and has focused strongly on that goal.
My understanding is that they move because the target was killed the first time they took a shot.
You could send your kids to prison, too, and they would be socialized that way, but I doubt any responsible parent wants that. Some societies aren't worth socializing in, and public schools are usually one of them.
Condoms can break. The stress tolerances of latex are finite, and no matter how many nines you'll get in ideal circumstances, even then you'll have some breakage.
As for Extra Large size, I'd wager that you use normal size at best. The vast majority of men use normal size. XL is just marketing.Normal size is too small for some men. There is a difference between normal sizes and larger sizes, and even between different condom brands, and for someone of wider-than-average girth, the larger condoms do fit better. I would wager you're just speaking outside your personal experience, and that the post you're replying to was trolling maybe a little.
Have you tried rolling back the foreskin? I used to have the same problem.
In my experience, most women are fascinated by an intact penis if they hadn't seen one before. Other women regard it as no big deal. I personally think it looks pretty neat with the foreskin, but if I ever want to look at it the other way I can engage in the perfectly non-destructive act of rolling the foreskin back.
Unless you seriously support anarchism, we have to foist some of our beliefs on others. That's what stops me from saying "I think it's perfectly acceptable to kill my wife for adultery, and if you disagree, nuts to you!" It's not at all fascist to get all up in someone's grill for violating the rights of innocent people. What's fascist is violating the rights of innocent people.
Interestingly enough, Jefferson was later elected president, making a historic peaceful turnover of power from one political party to another. Instead of overturning all the Federalist policies at once, Jefferson consciously chose to maintain continuity.
Clinton/Gore won the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, so your point is irrelevant.
If you want to have a fair recount in Florida, you need to recount all the ballots state-wide, which might have led to higher vote totals for Bush.After further review, no, it wouldn't have--all statewide recount scenarios show a Gore victory.
Or, instead of Dawkins, you could read actual political philosophers of the past century or so, instead of a windbag biologist. That guy's getting more annoying than Chomsky. You should also read philosophers who don't work so much in terms of rights, if you really want to broaden your perspective.
I could detect the distinct scent of marijuana coming from that comment...
Learn to drive a real car, asshole. Then we'll listen to you whine about the incompetencies of others.
Again, if Japan re-arms and spends its money on its military, the entire region is destabilized. And South Korea can't afford the burden of keeping up with the North in the arms race. Europe remains an exception, but if they have to increase their military spending, it'll be more difficult for them to keep up their social welfare programs.
South Korea, Japan, and the nations of Europe are all free countries. They have the ability and the responsibility to decide whether or not to host American troops on their soil. They choose to continue accepting American military assistance, and as long as they do that, American military responsibility remains as extensive as it is. This may be in the national interest of the United States, but it's ultimately in the interests of our allies as well.
There will still be a mechanism with the SDK to sign code (for testing, obviously), so the only problem would be elements of the SDK not being GNU (as the compiler is still GCC).
Just as I resent snotty European idiots suggesting that we didn't make a difference. I still maintain that without American support during and after the war, Europe and the world would be a poorer and less free place even today. Defeating Germany wasn't the goal--maintaining a free and democratic Europe was. And in that respect, the Soviets were as much the enemy as the Germans.
I thought we redeployed a lot of our B-2 fleet to Diego Garcia?