Dastardly said:
Jonluw said:
So you're okay with people cutting of any body part of an infant, so long as it isn't essential? i.e. earlobes and toenails are fine?
I covered the distinction in an earlier post, but this is a wholly different argument than what was presented earlier. For one, no one I've seen has ever demonstrated a belief that removing earlobes and toenails provides any health benefit. While science has been showing us that any perceived benefits are negligible or can be reproduced in other ways, circumcision at one point had very wide support--and not just from religious folks.
You covered the distinction between a foreskin and a pinky finger, it would seem. Note that I went out of my way to use bodyparts with equal or less of a function than the foreskin in my example. I fail to see how the removal of the earlobes is in any way worse than the removal of the foreskin. That people do it on account of outdated medical ideas is hardly an argument in favour of it.
The information has changed, and it just hasn't reached the right ears yet. Since there is no "infant circumcision genocide" going on here, and the strongest argument against it is "It doesn't seem to help much," why jump straight to heavy-handed Nanny State tactics like banning?
I would say the strongest argument against it is that you're cutting a newborn child with a knife.
When I was talking about legalizing violence as per your argument, I also meant violent acts performed on adults by adults by the way.
I was wondering if it'd be okay for a person to respond to an insult with a fist to the face.
Not sure what you're getting at, here. This has never been an established legal right. If someone insults you, you can insult them back, sure. But the first person to turn it physical is almost always found more at fault than the other.
Also, I never said anything that could even be misconstrued as "legalizing violence."
I interpreted this:
"Quit trying to ban things. Educate against it."
As saying you'd rather we didn't illegalize undesirable acts, such as cutting your child, but instead encourage people not to perform them. I figured this could be applied to any other form of violence as well.
And banning corporal punishment sure has caused a lot of trouble.
In the US, it's not banned. In some states,
schools are not allowed to use it. As a teacher myself, I fully agree. It's not my place to spank a child. That's the parent's job, and I don't need more responsibility in my line of work.
But for parents? Totally allowed. And I'm a "survivor" of a spanking household. I can tell you that it works. It hasn't made me more violent or less trusting or... well... anything. It kept me from doing stuff I shouldn't do, or that was maybe even harmful. It's not a cure-all, but it's one tool in the box, so to speak. I don't use a hammer for every job, but that doesn't mean I throw it out.
Personally, I believe coporal punishment is too commonly inproperly used, and too easy to use for hiding or justifying child abuse to be tolerable.
What I was replying to in particular was this:
"So to outlaw that particular right of parents would be a humongous problem"
Trying to point out that corporal punishment has been outlawed in all of Scandinavia, and that this has clearly not caused any problems in the societies.
Though I'm aware that's not the point you're trying to make now.
In any case, I'm really tired now (I've been reading a particularly heavy text all day). I do not feel like keeping up the discussion. Let's just agree to disagree. I believe people should not have the right to hurt other people, and that the government should have the authority to remove certain rights when it is exposed that the rights in question are just that beneath it all: Hurting another person for no good reason.
Edit: I mean: Look at what I'm writing. I can't even be made to formulate myself properly.
I will be happy to take up the discussion some other day, but as of right now, I'm too confused about what you're saying, and too tired to make an argument.
