The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => General Discussion => Topic started by: stands2reason on July 16, 2019, 09:52:37 PM

Title: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 16, 2019, 09:52:37 PM
I found this while looking up info on population trends. It seems totally benign, and has no chance of actually happening as written, but damn that is a perfectly conspiratorial-sounding title.

(https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E)

Quote
Sustainable Development Goals
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and
promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote
lifelong learning opportunities for all
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all
Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern
energy for all
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth,
full and productive employment and decent work for all
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialization and foster innovation
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine
resources for sustainable development
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial
ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification,
and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all and build
effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the
Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 17, 2019, 04:02:37 AM
This is why any law and general declaration needs to avoid using gendered language (or if it does, it needs to use all versions of gendered language equally), when talking about the desired end result;

Quote
5.3  Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation

To specifically state eliminating female genital mutilation is to specifically ignore male genital mutilation and intersex genital mutilation, and that not all are born one way or the other. All persons should be empowered to make their own choices about their own bodies when they're old enough, regardless of religion and culture.

This is a better phrasing;

Quote
We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

E.g. it could've been "genital mutilation, including female genital mutilation", to put an emphasis on female genital mutilation. Instead of specifying female genital mutilation as if that's the only kind of genital mutilation to worry about.

Quote
7.a  By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and  cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology

So who snuck "cleaner fossil-fuel technology" in there? The only way fossil fuels can be a part of a sustainable agenda is in the phasing out of it. You don't state a desire for cleaner fossil fuel technology, you impose limits on emissions, and ban anything that can't stay within the limits, or make it so expensive that it's impossible to profit from breaking them.

Increasing the share of renewables isn't actually going to help us, unless there's an absolute reduction in emissions.

I didn't read the whole thing, but overall it doesn't seem to say much about how to be sustainable. It doesn't bring to the front the problems with meat consumption and high fertility rates, or the need for taxing emissions. Things like eradicating poverty should of course be a goal, but achieving sustainability is more straightforward than that. Cut consumption, cut emissions. There's a lot of fluffy language in the document that doesn't help recognize that.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 17, 2019, 09:51:04 AM
This is why any law and general declaration needs to avoid using gendered language (or if it does, it needs to use all versions of gendered language equally), when talking about the desired end result;

Agreed.

Quote
It doesn't bring to the front the problems with meat consumption and high fertility rates, or the need for taxing emissions.

Part of section 5 includes making birth control universally available; it is mentioned strictly as a female reproductive rights issue. It doesn't say anything specifically about sustainable population growth or fertility rate.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: Beef Wellington on July 17, 2019, 02:14:08 PM
I found this while looking up info on population trends. It seems totally benign, and has no chance of actually happening as written, but damn that is a perfectly conspiratorial-sounding title.

You are correct. The only thing I think when I see the words sustainable and agenda in the same sentence is Alex Jones. As I've stated in other threads, a good portion of my 20s and early 30s was dedicated to his brand of nonsense. I can still hear his gravely rants against Agenda21 and the Biological Diversity Act act of 2002 echoing through my mind. His decades-long mission to "defeat the globalists" has largely failed, but little things like that have helped to impede any real progress. I know too many people who will automatically vote against anyone or anything that aims to reduce carbon output, cuz freedom or something.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 18, 2019, 10:34:14 AM
(http://www.lakesideworshipcenter.com/uplimg/cms/Wednesday%20Studies/New%20World%20Order/ConspiracyTheNewWorldOrderIntro.pdf)

Quote
Conspiracy: The New World Order
Introduction
Agenda 2030 is a
reference to a
document
adopted by the United Nations
called
Transforming Our
World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
. This document was finalized on September 27
th
in New York City by the U
.
N
.
during their summit meeting involving 193 member nations all bound by
the
Declaration of Human Rights
adopted after the atrocities of World War II
. I think it is by no
coincidence that this all occurred during the 4
th
lunar eclipse/blood moon, and during
the Feast of
Tabernacles.
The U.N. uses a lot of important terms regarding this new agenda, including “global goals”
and “new universal agenda.” This agenda is supported by major companies, celebrities, and obviously
world leaders, including the pope, the
figure head of the Catholic Church. This agenda is designed
to
bring the world into complete unity against poverty, disease, inequality and a host of other issues.
They
realize that if we consume the world’s resources at the current rate, and the populatio
n continues to
grow we are going to run out of natural resources, and even contaminate existing resources. This
agenda is about putting controls in place to evenly share the world’s resources so that the richer nations
do not get all the resources while th
e poorer ones suffer. It is an aggressive, and elaborate place with
lots of good goals, but minus the one thing it needs in order to accomplish it, Jesus, and a new kingdom
without corruption and sin. God is eliminated.

...

T
he Bible actually foretells the U.N.’s
vision in Revelation and Daniel. Let’s take a look.
Revelation 13:1
-
5 (NIV)
1
And the dragon sto
od on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and
seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a
leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth l
ike that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and
his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, b4 Men
worshipped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshipped
the beast and
asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?" 5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud
words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty
-
two months. but the fatal wound had been healed.
The whole world was ast
onished and followed the beast. 6 He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander
his name and his dwelling
-
place and those who live in heaven. 7 He was given power to make war against the
saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over ev
ery tribe, people, language and nation.
This
portion of the
text refers to the one world government. All the world powers give their authority
to one leader operating in the spirit of Satan himself. This person is referred to throughout the
Scripture as th
e antichrist.
Revelation 13:8
-
15 (NIV)
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast
--
all whose names have not been written in the book of life
belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.  9 He who has an ear, let him hear
. 10 If
anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he
will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints. 11 Then I saw another
beast, coming
out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12 He exercised all the
authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal
wound had been healed. 13 And he per
formed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from
heaven to earth in full view of men. 14 Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast,
he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up a
n image in honour of the beast who was
wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it
could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
This portion of the text r
efers to a one world religion. Finally this second beast will not only operate in
authority over the first beast, but he will implement a new world
-
wide religion with him as the object
of worship under penalty of death.
Revelation 13:16
-
18 (NIV)
16 He also
forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on
his forehead, 17 so that no
-
one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the
number of his name. 18 This calls fo
r wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it
is man's number. His number is 666.
This portion of the text refers to a one world economy. No one is certain what this mark will be,
although there have been several conspi
racy theories over the years. One thing is clear, once
someone receives the mark, they have made an irreversible
covenant with Satan himself and they are
doomed for destruction.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark on July 20, 2019, 01:36:29 AM
This is why any law and general declaration needs to avoid using gendered language (or if it does, it needs to use all versions of gendered language equally), when talking about the desired end result;

Quote
5.3  Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation

To specifically state eliminating female genital mutilation is to specifically ignore male genital mutilation and intersex genital mutilation, and that not all are born one way or the other. All persons should be empowered to make their own choices about their own bodies when they're old enough, regardless of religion and culture.

This is a better phrasing;

Quote
We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

E.g. it could've been "genital mutilation, including female genital mutilation", to put an emphasis on female genital mutilation. Instead of specifying female genital mutilation as if that's the only kind of genital mutilation to worry about.

Quote
7.a  By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and  cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology

So who snuck "cleaner fossil-fuel technology" in there? The only way fossil fuels can be a part of a sustainable agenda is in the phasing out of it. You don't state a desire for cleaner fossil fuel technology, you impose limits on emissions, and ban anything that can't stay within the limits, or make it so expensive that it's impossible to profit from breaking them.

Increasing the share of renewables isn't actually going to help us, unless there's an absolute reduction in emissions.

I didn't read the whole thing, but overall it doesn't seem to say much about how to be sustainable. It doesn't bring to the front the problems with meat consumption and high fertility rates, or the need for taxing emissions. Things like eradicating poverty should of course be a goal, but achieving sustainability is more straightforward than that. Cut consumption, cut emissions. There's a lot of fluffy language in the document that doesn't help recognize that.
Female genital mutilation is a couple order of magnitude worse than circumcision.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 20, 2019, 03:00:10 AM
Female genital mutilation is a couple order of magnitude worse than circumcision.

Depends on the case. Either way, both are unnecessary, and there's no reason to add a qualifier to make sure you don't stop a certain kind of mutilation.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark on July 20, 2019, 10:44:52 AM
That’s a false equivalence.

Female genital mutilation as it’s done is far worse than circumcising.

Do some research.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 20, 2019, 10:47:00 AM
Death is equal to death. Amputation is equal to amputation. Lifelong pain is equal to lifelong pain. Being robbed of your right to choose for yourself is equal to being robbed of your right to choose for yourself.

There's variety in how adults decide to cut the genitalia of infants and young children, and there's variety in the statistical results. But why is it controversial to be opposed to all forms of genital mutilation?
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark on July 20, 2019, 11:21:08 AM
Death is equal to death. Amputation is equal to amputation. Lifelong pain is equal to lifelong pain. Being robbed of your right to choose for yourself is equal to being robbed of your right to choose for yourself.

There's variety in how adults decide to cut the genitalia of infants and young children, and there's variety in the statistical results. But why is it controversial to be opposed to all forms of genital mutilation?

Do some research.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 21, 2019, 03:17:40 AM
What exactly are you questioning? Circumcision injuries can be a disturbing topic to research, here's a study; "Amputation of Glans Penis: A Rare Circumcision Complication and Successful Management with Primary Anastomosis and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045722/)", which includes a botched circumcision of a 7-year old and photos.

Here's an article that talks about various complications, also with photos; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/)

It's not really something I feel like looking that much more into. But it is established that it can lead to death or other permanent injuries, and it is completely pointless unless it's already a medical issue before you do it. There are no benefits to weigh the risks up against, for performing ritual alterations of children's genitals.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 21, 2019, 10:16:15 AM
I guess the real issue is that all rules should be equal, but the problems they are aiming to solve aren't equivalent.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark on July 21, 2019, 12:13:52 PM
The two procedures are not equivalent. Circumcision removes the foreskin, a tiny bit of skin at the tip of the penis, and has no impact on sexual performance or enjoyment.

Female Genital Mutilation removes the clitoris   That’s the anatomical equivalent of removing the head of the penis. And it seriously impacts sexual enjoyment along with other very common side effects.

There are very very rare issues that come up with Circumcision, due to mistakes mostly, that may cause long term performance and enjoyment issues. The purpose, goal and function of FGM is to cause long term sexual dysfunction and enjoyment issues.

On the scale of bad mutilation of babies Circumcision Is closer to ear piercing. FGM is orders of magnitude worse.   

There is no equivalency. And arguing that they are the same weakens the credibility of your argument from both directions.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 21, 2019, 01:36:22 PM
I don't see why someone would pierce the ear of someone who didn't consent to it, but punctures heal if you remove the obstruction. A successful circumcision does not heal.

I'm not saying they are the same in every way, I'm saying there are more types of genital mutilation than female genital mutilation. For that matter, more types of FGM, all of which are treated as something that should be stopped, as they should be. But it takes nothing to not use the qualifier, and broaden the objective to eliminate all genital mutilation. Instead it's an implicit approval of routine cutting of the genitalia of any children not recognized as female.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove on July 21, 2019, 03:42:42 PM

I don't see why someone would pierce the ear of someone who didn't consent to it, but punctures heal if you remove the obstruction. A successful circumcision does not heal.

I'm not saying they are the same in every way, I'm saying there are more types of genital mutilation than female genital mutilation. For that matter, more types of FGM, all of which are treated as something that should be stopped, as they should be. But it takes nothing to not use the qualifier, and broaden the objective to eliminate all genital mutilation. Instead it's an implicit approval of routine cutting of the genitalia of any children not recognized as female.
All lives matter!

FTFY

2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 22, 2019, 01:21:23 AM
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: arthwollipot on July 22, 2019, 01:23:01 AM
There is no reason other than religion to circumcise anyone, male, female or otherwise.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: arthwollipot on July 22, 2019, 01:23:43 AM
So who snuck "cleaner fossil-fuel technology" in there?

America, of course. Probably aided and abetted by Australia.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark on July 22, 2019, 03:12:32 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove on July 22, 2019, 05:02:02 PM
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

(Edited to correct the position of the word 'invalid'.)
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark on July 22, 2019, 06:43:40 PM
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

(Edited to correct the position of the word 'invalid'.)

The term "Female Genital Multilation" came has replaced the term "Female Circumcision" for the exact reason that it is not circumcision. And, no, the "female" does not imply there is other genital mutilation occurring. It is used to describe what is happening and to whom.

Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 22, 2019, 09:02:30 PM
Water you waiting for?

https://twitter.com/pharouknucleus/status/1149328522793639936
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 22, 2019, 09:04:40 PM
(https://rbutterworth.nfshost.com/Conspiracy/Agenda21)

Quote
A more recent UN publication, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, lists 17 goals to be achieved by 2030, and lists 169 targets that would ensure that the goals have been reached. This document is commonly referred to as Agenda 2030.

Again, even though it sounds like a specific plan, Agenda 2030 is very vaguely worded and full of weasel words. For instance, consider Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Assuming we know what this goal actually means, we might expect the 11 associated targets to be explicit measures of what it hopes to achieve by the year 2030. But instead the targets are items like:

12.5 — By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
12.6 — Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
12.c — Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities
Does substantially reduce mean make a token effort, or almost totally eliminate? Does encourage mean make gentle suggestions or force under threat? Does rationalize … actually mean anything? If it did, wouldn't it simply say Eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies?

...

The communist ideals of equality for women (by free abortions, the elimination of marriage and family, and making child raising and domestic work community activities), and of social and economic equality (by the elimination of private property (property is theft)), fit very well into the Agenda 21 model.

Both groups would welcome a world in which everything is a service or a consumable and nothing is a commodity, a world in which family farms and small businesses don't exist, a world in which interchangable people are packed and stacked along transit corridors, a world in which all individuals rely on the government for their existence.

The original experiment in the Soviet Union failed mostly because it was blatantly and forcefully imposed from above. The citizens could accept that the world might be a better place to live in without religion, family, or property, but those citizens were already used to their current lifestyle and didn't want to give it up.

Today though, the world, especially the western world, is becoming more and more of a social welfare state. Marriage and organized religion are becoming obsolete, while more and more people are relying on the government for welfare and social assistance. People are demanding government supported day-care, an end to all forms of discrimination against sexual orientation, minimum guaranteed incomes, and so on. Many are rejecting the idea of local police, and want policing and enforcement at the national level (something that goes very much against the basic principles of the American constitution). Private property too is becoming less and less important; people collect things on their phones and other devices, they don't care so much about physical possessions.

Even the concept of what rights are has changed completely, from The government shall pass no law restricting citizens from … to The government shall provide each citizen with …. Everyone's freedom from government intervention is rapidly turning into everyone's dependence on entitlements from government

The Communist conspiracy is real and has been operating for nearly a century. Communists are patient; they know they will eventually win. Agenda 21 provides an excellent tool by which they can change society and win the common people over to their view of the world without ever calling it communism. Instead of having communism forcefully imposed on them from above, as it was a hundred years ago, people will soon be welcoming and even demanding that form of government.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: arthwollipot on July 22, 2019, 09:06:19 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove on July 23, 2019, 12:00:37 AM
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

(Edited to correct the position of the word 'invalid'.)

The term "Female Genital Multilation" came has replaced the term "Female Circumcision" for the exact reason that it is not circumcision. And, no, the "female" does not imply there is other genital mutilation occurring. It is used to describe what is happening and to whom.

That is not the question I asked. For your reference: "2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms?"
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove on July 23, 2019, 12:06:27 AM
On a separate note, I only came across the 2030 Agenda for the first time a few weeks ago. I'm developing a course for a university here and had to put together a case study for a fake company. I drew inspiration from the Co-operators - a surprisingly green organization - and have integrated this agenda into the made-up company's strategic goals. I will have the students take a look at SDG11 Sustainable Cities and Communities, Vancity on p37 of the SDGsEmergingPracticeGuide-firstedition.pdf, found at https://www.globalcompact.ca/sdgs-emerging-practice-guide/.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 23, 2019, 03:14:14 AM
2397, is the degree of risk and harm in any way relevant to discussions of risks and harms? You appear to be saying that we should restrict discussion to the class of behaviour without any consideration of the nature of the consequences. By that logic I think I can argue fairly persuasively that your disagreeing with me is the same as murder (and other conclusions that you can invent when dividing by zero).

I'm not saying restrict discussion, I'm saying expand it. I'm challenging the notion that we should limit the topic of genital mutilation to only female genital mutilation. I'm not against the use of categories, I'm against jumping straight into FGM as if that is all there is, when the very term FGM recognizes that there is other genital mutilation going on. If not, then there would only be the term genital mutilation, and no need to qualify it.

2397 could you answer the question I asked instead of answering the reframing I am challenging as invalid?

I already answered that question. The level of risk is not relevant, because there are no benefits to outweigh the risks. The best case is that they don't mind having been cut when they're older and realize what you've done to them. The worst case is that they die.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove on July 23, 2019, 01:42:57 PM
No, you did not. You answered a question about a specific subject. My question is about how logic and argumentation work.

Based on your responses I can infer that you believe that the degree of risk and harm is not relevant to discussions that relate to risk and harm. Do you see how this is not a reasonable position to take?
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 on July 23, 2019, 02:38:01 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove on July 23, 2019, 06:52:24 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark 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)
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark 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.

Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: arthwollipot 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: arthwollipot 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 23, 2019, 09:39:37 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/yfOF31w.png)

Bonus points for this picture because the article in question doesn't even say anything about gun control.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove 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?

(https://i.imgur.com/yfOF31w.png)

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

...the second bullet about disarmament, maybe?
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: CarbShark 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.

Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason on July 23, 2019, 11:58:52 PM
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/yfOF31w.png)
[close]

...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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: brilligtove on July 24, 2019, 04:48:01 AM
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/yfOF31w.png)
[close]

...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?
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: stands2reason 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.
Title: Re: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Post by: 2397 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.