Author Topic: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development  (Read 902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2019, 06:56:03 PM »
General or specific, risk is weighed against benefit. If there is no benefit to the person you're doing something to, how do you justify exposing them to potential harm without their consent?

If it's the type of risk where maybe the LHC will destroy the world, and realistically it will never happen, okay, that can be ignored. But if it's something that has known cases of the risks having been realized, then it can't.

That is not how risk assessment works. What you are doing is avoiding an answer that demonstrates how your argument is hollow.

I won't bother you again.

So, does anyone have a reason for why genitals should be cut without consent and without a medical reason to do it?

I'm not sure what exactly I'm avoiding here. Apparently some people think it's okay to cut someone else's genitals without consent for religious or cultural reasons, and I say it's not, regardless of the gender or the extent of the intended cutting. Even if there was zero risk of something other than the intended result occurring, it's still the person whose body that is who should have a say on what to do about it. It being a religious matter doesn't change anything, because it's each of us who should have religious freedom and who should be able to decide how religion affects us individually. Parents can make choices for themselves and their own bodies. Freedom isn't to rob another individual of a choice.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 07:03:10 PM by 2397 »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2019, 08:38:04 PM »
There is no reason other than religion to circumcise anyone, male, female or otherwise.

Agreed. But the same is true for piercing ears, or getting tattoos. But only one of those things (Female Genital Mutilation) is especially egregious.

I have a pierced ear, a tattoo, and no foreskin. Only one of those was not my choice.

Well at least you still have the tip of your penis (I presume).

If you didn't, which would you consider a far more serious mutilation?  (FWIW, babies and toddler regularly get pierced ears and I've heard some get tattoos, with parental consent)
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2019, 08:41:06 PM »


So, does anyone have a reason for why genitals should be cut without consent and without a medical reason to do it?


No. For the longest time it was assumed that circumcision reduced the risk of infection in males, but that has never been shown significant.

And consent is not the issue. Nothing done to a baby or toddler, or even a child, is done with their consent. It's all done with parental consent. Including Female Genital Mutilation.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9429
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2019, 08:48:19 PM »
There is no reason other than religion to circumcise anyone, male, female or otherwise.

Agreed. But the same is true for piercing ears, or getting tattoos. But only one of those things (Female Genital Mutilation) is especially egregious.

I have a pierced ear, a tattoo, and no foreskin. Only one of those was not my choice.

Well at least you still have the tip of your penis (I presume).

If you didn't, which would you consider a far more serious mutilation?  (FWIW, babies and toddler regularly get pierced ears and I've heard some get tattoos, with parental consent)

If you're asking whether I consider tattoos or pierced ears mutilation, the answer is no. Piercing or tattooing infants incapable of giving informed consent is wrong. Any nonconsensual modification of another person's body is wrong, whether that involves cutting off a foreskin or cutting off an arm.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9429
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2019, 08:49:34 PM »
No. For the longest time it was assumed that circumcision reduced the risk of infection in males, but that has never been shown significant.

There are from time to time persistent reports that adult male circumcision reduces the rate of HIV infection, but as far as I know it has never been conclusively demonstrated.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2019, 09:29:45 PM »
There is no reason other than religion to circumcise anyone, male, female or otherwise.

Agreed. But the same is true for piercing ears, or getting tattoos. But only one of those things (Female Genital Mutilation) is especially egregious.

I have a pierced ear, a tattoo, and no foreskin. Only one of those was not my choice.

Well at least you still have the tip of your penis (I presume).

If you didn't, which would you consider a far more serious mutilation?  (FWIW, babies and toddler regularly get pierced ears and I've heard some get tattoos, with parental consent)

If you're asking whether I consider tattoos or pierced ears mutilation, the answer is no. Piercing or tattooing infants incapable of giving informed consent is wrong. Any nonconsensual modification of another person's body is wrong, whether that involves cutting off a foreskin or cutting off an arm.

No one here is arguing that any of that is right. But, to use your example, if people were actually cutting off the arms of infant baby boys, would you be more upset about that than circumcision, or would you just consider them both wrong?

Also there are numerous modifications done to infant bodies with parental consent. Some are done to save their lives. Some are done for cosmetic reasons. Some are done to identify them if they are kidnapped. Some are done to prevent them from masturbating and make them more marriageable.

Babies can't give consent for any of that. Their parents can and do.  We (just about all of human society) accept parental consent for nearly everything.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10838
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2019, 09:39:37 PM »


Bonus points for this picture because the article in question doesn't even say anything about gun control.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7679
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2019, 09:45:04 PM »
I don't understand what is being discussed here. Don't mutilate kids? Sure. Recognizing that there is a cultural component to concepts like 'harm', I think most of us agree?



Bonus points for this picture because the article in question doesn't even say anything about gun control.

...the second bullet about disarmament, maybe?
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2019, 10:03:13 PM »
I don't understand what is being discussed here. Don't mutilate kids? Sure. Recognizing that there is a cultural component to concepts li

I think the disagreement is over lumping female genital mutilation in the same category as circumcision. (At least that's what I'm disagreeing about.)

I don't like circumcision (or earrings or tattoos) for babies, even with parental consent.

But, I really don't care that much about any of those, and I don't think any of those are really worth expending any political capitol in trying to stop. They're all fairly low priority in the grad scheme of things.

However, Female Genital Mutilation should be a crime. It should be a felony for the practitioner and for parents who give consent to have that done to their daughters or do it themselves,which also happens.

Stopping it should be given a high priority by every civilization in the world.

Circumcision? So what? Female Genital Mutlilation, a call to arms.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10838
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2019, 11:58:52 PM »
(click to show/hide)

...the second bullet about disarmament, maybe?

That's the thing (don't have a link to the article). They just rephrased the stuff about disarmament, which is clearly military. It didn't say anything about gun control, which is obviously what a revolver is meant to symbolize.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7679
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2019, 04:48:01 AM »
(click to show/hide)

...the second bullet about disarmament, maybe?

That's the thing (don't have a link to the article). They just rephrased the stuff about disarmament, which is clearly military. It didn't say anything about gun control, which is obviously what a revolver is meant to symbolize.

You appear to be claiming that a work of art can have one and only one interpretation. Is that the case?
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10838
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2019, 10:24:34 AM »
I am under the impression there is a procedure to remove skin flaps, (labia minora, clitoral hood) that is more analogous to circumcision. Since it already has to wait under puberty, it's a different situation than foreskin.

Presumably, the same argument they use for male circumcision: most people who have their foreskin removed don't miss it, ugly, potentially dirty skin flaps, and if you decide to get the procedure as an adult, it is more painful and with more complications.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2019, 11:43:48 AM »
It's probably no less painful for an infant, they're simply too young to understand and form memories about it.

At least when you know what's about to happen, and when it's up to you to choose, you can account for that.

 

personate-rain