Circumcision

[fls]

Call me crazy, but I find it hard to believe that circumcision alone will make or break any kind of group cohesion.

Cool. Now all you have to do is prove that this is the case and Loss Leader won't circumcise his son.

By my count, you have 15 days, 19 hours.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

Cool. Now all you have to do is prove that this is the case and Loss Leader won't circumcise his son.

By my count, you have 15 days, 19 hours.

Linda

I doubt have the resources to do so.

And it's been my experience that theists aren't very easily persuaded by scientific evidence.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The subtle point that Linda always avoids in the group cohesion argument is that what it is all about really is discrimination. I.e. if LL's son is *not* circumcised, then it is okay for the religious group known as Jews to 'cast him out'. That's the equivalent of hotel owners having signs in the window saying 'no gays here', or a golf club banning blacks. Are religions the only organizations still allowed to practice active discrimination?

But alas, Linda will never have to answer this argument because she can't see it. Perhaps that is why I'm on ignore - I bring up to many difficult questions for her?

 

[Beth]

It's not always possible to convince everyone of anything.

You don't have to convince everyone, just the majority needed to change the laws if that is what you want to do.

If you really feel that putting your child in great risk is better than protecting the rights of the child by limiting the parent's choices, then I'm not sure what I can say to you. Please, oh please think of the children? Is that convincing?

No.

However there are convincing arguments for making the change from allowing personal automony to certain choices being illegal. I've gradually become persuaded that carseat laws are justifiable although I think the evidence for making booster seats required is still lacking.

And I, like Dawkins, consider that a very very dangerous and just plain wrong belief. There is no logical sense to it at all. Do you have evidence that religion is genetic? If so, can we isolate this "religion gene"? Is it dominant or recessive? Does it effect hair color?

Do you have any evidence that nationality is genetic? Is being Canadian dominant or recessive? Why is it reasonable and logical to assume that the child of Israeli parents is an Israeli but not that the child of Jewish parents is Jewish? When grown, the child can change and become whatever religion or nationality they choose.

So they're assumed to believe in Jesus Christ and God and salvation and the saints etc. until they're old enough to actually believe in Jesus Christ?

If that is what their parents believe, then yes, it's reasonable to project those beliefs onto the child until the child is old enough to make their own beliefs known. I also think is reasonable to assume that the child of vegetarian parents is also vegetarian until they are old enough to choose what to eat for themselves. In general, children are assumed to have the same preferences as their parents in all manner of lifestyle decisions until they are old enough to make their own choices.

Which a child cannot proclaim. The default should be "none".

So the default should be your belief? And every child should be presumed to hold the same beliefs you do until they are an adult? Seems awfully convenient for your argument. Why do you think the default should be any belief other than that of the parents? Should we presume the nationality of the child is none as well?

 

[Lonewulf]

The subtle point that Linda always avoids in the group cohesion argument is that what it is all about really is discrimination. I.e. if LL's son is *not* circumcised, then it is okay for the religious group known as Jews to 'cast him out'. That's the equivalent of hotel owners having signs in the window saying 'no gays here', or a golf club banning blacks. Are religions the only organizations still allowed to practice active discrimination?

But alas, Linda will never have to answer this argument because she can't see it. Perhaps that is why I'm on ignore - I bring up to many difficult questions for her?

Quoted.

I'd be curious to see what she has to say about this.

 

[Lonewulf]

You don't have to convince everyone, just the majority needed to change the laws if that is what you want to do.

Okay. Tell me a way to get to every single person and convince them all personally that I'm correct, and I'll get on it.

Though I'm afraid I'm a bit busy with other things to really do that.

No.

I r surprysed!

No, really, I REALLY didn't expect you to say that. Really. Wow, you surprise me with every post you make!

However there are convincing arguments for making the change from allowing personal automony to certain choices being illegal. I've gradually become persuaded that carseat laws are justifiable although I think the evidence for making booster seats required is still lacking.

That's good, then. Except for the booster seats thing, though, but whatever.

Do you have any evidence that nationality is genetic? Is being Canadian dominant or recessive? Why is it reasonable and logical to assume that the child of Israeli parents is an Israeli but not that the child of Jewish parents is Jewish? When grown, the child can change and become whatever religion or nationality they choose.

I agree.

Next?

If that is what their parents believe, then yes, it's reasonable to project those beliefs onto the child until the child is old enough to make their own beliefs known.

If you say so.

You can keep repeating this over and over and over again, but that still doesn't make it "reasonable".

I also think is reasonable to assume that the child of vegetarian parents is also vegetarian until they are old enough to choose what to eat for themselves.

A bit different. Not quite a permanent physical alteration.

So the default should be your belief?

No, the default should be a lack of faith, as they cannot have faith. This is logical, and rational. I can see why you have problems with it.

And every child should be presumed to hold the same beliefs you do until they are an adult?

They should be presumed to not be of mind to decide what they have faith in until they're old enough to make that decision. In Germany, I believe, that age is considered to be 12. I think that's a good enough marker, personally.

Seems awfully convenient for your argument.

Only because you assume that having "no faith" is the same as having faith. Which is a ridiculous mindset, but I'm used to it. Theists usually aren't logical in matters of faith.

Why do you think the default should be any belief other than that of the parents?

Because the children cannot have faith. They are not developed mentally. This is a logical and rational viewpoint. Like I said, I can find why you find it so hard to accept.

Should we presume the nationality of the child is none as well?

Sure, I don't see why not.

I never got why nations demand your loyalty because you happened to be born in their general geographic area. It's not like you signed up to be born there.

 

[fls]

I doubt have the resources to do so.

And it's been my experience that theists aren't very easily persuaded by scientific evidence.

But he has said that he is willing to follow evidence, and I haven't seen any indication otherwise.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

But he has said that he is willing to follow evidence, and I haven't seen any indication otherwise.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not really convinced that I can go around convincing everyone.

Plus, as he put it, "science isn't the only method" to viewing reality. Hence, his faith trumps science here, and if he wants to cut off his baby's penis because his faith proclaims it, who am I to throw that evil science at him? He obviously thinks that his child truly is Jewish because he is. How can I reason with someone like that?

Nah, no thanks. I pick my battles, and I don't think that this is a winnable battle, at all.

 

[Southwind17]

Really?

Nourishment. Protection from predators. Companionship. Sex. Education. Medical treatment.

Ugh? What do these particular 'practices that strengthen groups’ have to do with circumcision? I was asking for examples, within the categories that you cited, of where the 'practice' of circumcision ‘strengthens the group’.

Here:

I also believe that every person, on reaching adulthood (or otherwise a cetain age), should, as a matter of course, opt to choose the name(s) under which they wish to live the rest of their adult life. Clearly, every child needs to have a name, but I fail to see why that child, in adulthood, should be forced to retain a name that's been 'foisted' on it by its parent(s). Yes, I know it can be changed by deed poll, but I think the choice should be routine. Plain and simple; black and white.

In essence, I don't believe that any child should be burdened (if I may use that word) in adulthood with ANYTHING that it might, when duly informed, disagree with, that wasn't absolutely necessary from the now adult's point of view.

I think you should read what I wrote again, but carefully this time (there’s a clue in the emboldening!). I'll ask you again, please direct readers to where I disagreed with naming.

I think a society that has developed a means of dealing with paedophiles and rapists is stronger than a society that has not, even if neither society has paedophiles and rapists at the moment.

Does 'developed a means' mean sending to prison? ... and does 'stronger' mean better? Assuming so, and notwithstanding your last comment (which I don't understand), I interpret your response to mean that a society in which paedophiles and rapists are removed is better off, even if the root cause of their actions requires addressing. I also assume that your response applies equally to suicide bombers, unless you see a distinction, in which case you now seem to be in favour of waving the 'magic wand'. Would my interpretations and conclusion be correct?

Yes, but I haven't the foggiest idea why you are proceeding as though I suggested that.

Oh, I think you have plenty of foggy ideas Linda, but let me see if I can help you see your way through some. You wrote:

The "nope" was in response to whether or not I would whole scale remove a practice if I had the power to do so. The "I don't know" was in answer to whether the world is better off with suicide bombers. One possibility for me to consider is that the process of eliminating the practice strengthens humankind's ability to recognize practices that are harmful and prevent them from arising with the same ease. If I eliminated that process by waving my magic wand, when the suicide bombers disappeared, something else would simply fill the gap.

… and I still think ‘weakens’ is the right word. Then you wrote:

It's not that I simply want a society free of suicide bombings and genocide. It's that I want a society that is free of suicide bombings and genocide because it effectively deals with those things that would eventually lead to suicide bombings and genocide. I don't think that magically eliminating the end result leads to a society that can do that.

Your ‘suggestion’ seems pretty clear to me.

I don't know. It's a common practice and it started out that way, so it seems a reasonable option.

Don't you think it seems more reasonable to consider less controversial options, aligned more with the millenium that we now find ourselves in?

Yeah, I think way better uses could be found for that kind of money. If you made parents pay for it, I bet they'd think twice.

Aah - clarity and logic at last. Strange isn't it that when clarity and logic prevails you tend to be agreeing with the 'anti-circ' crowd!

 

[fls]

Quoted.

I'd be curious to see what she has to say about this.

I have no idea what is required of someone to be a jew. I'm not the one to ask if you need more information on this topic.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh, I think you have plenty of foggy ideas Linda, but let me see if I can help you see your way through some. You wrote:

The "nope" was in response to whether or not I would whole scale remove a practice if I had the power to do so. The "I don't know" was in answer to whether the world is better off with suicide bombers. One possibility for me to consider is that the process of eliminating the practice strengthens humankind's ability to recognize practices that are harmful and prevent them from arising with the same ease. If I eliminated that process by waving my magic wand, when the suicide bombers disappeared, something else would simply fill the gap.

… and I still think ‘weakens’ is the right word. Then you wrote:

It's not that I simply want a society free of suicide bombings and genocide. It's that I want a society that is free of suicide bombings and genocide because it effectively deals with those things that would eventually lead to suicide bombings and genocide. I don't think that magically eliminating the end result leads to a society that can do that.

Your ‘suggestion’ seems pretty clear to me.

I believe Linda's choice of word is correct. Linda is emphasizing the process of eliminating suicide bombers as being the aspect of their elimination that strengthens humankind.

However, as you have said, we can do both in parallel, just as was done in Northern Ireland.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have no idea what is required of someone to be a jew. I'm not the one to ask if you need more information on this topic.

Linda

As usual, Linda provides a totally unrelated answer to the tough question of whether or not a religion should be able to discriminate based on trivial physical characteristics.

 

[Lonewulf]

As usual, Linda provides a totally unrelated answer to the tough question of whether or not a religion should be able to discriminate based on trivial physical characteristics.

Agreed, I hate to say it.

 

[fls]

Ugh? What do these particular 'practices that strengthen groups’ have to do with circumcision? I was asking for examples, within the categories that you cited, of where the 'practice' of circumcision ‘strengthens the group’.

Ah, your questions seemed directed elsewhere.

I would generally place religion under social issues (considering circumcision as strengthening the Jewish religion, for example).

I think you should read what I wrote again, but carefully this time (there’s a clue in the emboldening!). I'll ask you again, please direct readers to where I disagreed with naming.

Naming can be used as a way to carry on traditions and indicate family connections. It's a simple way to indicate membership in a group ("the Snugglefrass family") or interconnectedness that would be lost if the name was changed.

Does 'developed a means' mean sending to prison? ... and does 'stronger' mean better? Assuming so, and notwithstanding your last comment (which I don't understand), I interpret your response to mean that a society in which paedophiles and rapists are removed is better off, even if the root cause of their actions requires addressing. I also assume that your response applies equally to suicide bombers, unless you see a distinction, in which case you now seem to be in favour of waving the 'magic wand'. Would my interpretations and conclusion be correct?

Let me give an example. Let's say there are two community leagues and league A (unbeknownst to them) has a coach who is a pedophile on one of the teams. It is eventually brought to light, the pedophile is tried and convicted, a study is done of the coaching protocol and measures are put into place to make it harder for a pedophile to be hired as a coach or to act on their impulses, and easier for children to report it. In league B, none of these measures are in place. I would call league A stronger.

The second part of my answer refers back to the idea of unintended consequences. Without pedophiles will we be less vigilant in watching over our children (the idea of protecting them from predators drives some of our actions) and expose them to a different, and potentially more harmful, risk? (As an example)

Oh, I think you have plenty of foggy ideas Linda, but let me see if I can help you see your way through some.

I do! My brain is chock full of ideas in various stages of lucidity. I wasn't able to match one up with your statement, but now I'm burning with anticipation.

You wrote:

… and I still think ‘weakens’ is the right word. Then you wrote:

Your ‘suggestion’ seems pretty clear to me.

Rats.

Don't you think it seems more reasonable to consider less controversial options, aligned more with the millenium that we now find ourselves in?

I don't think it's up to me.

Aah - clarity and logic at last. Strange isn't it that when clarity and logic prevails you tend to be agreeing with the 'anti-circ' crowd!

I would be surprised if you didn't find it that way.

Linda

 

[fls]

Agreed, I hate to say it.

Really?

There's hope for you yet.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Okay. Tell me a way to get to every single person and convince them all personally that I'm correct, and I'll get on it.

You might want to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I said that wasn't necessary.

Only because you assume that having "no faith" is the same as having faith.

No, I'm not assuming it is the same, just that they are both sets of beliefs. Why should assuming a child has no faith be preferred to assuming the child has the parent's faith? This is an open question for debate. So far, I have seen no evidence as to why 'no faith' should be the default assumption for a child other than the assertion that it's wrong to assume otherwise. I ask why is it wrong? You say it's because the child can't make up it's own mind yet. IMO, that's not a valid reason to claim your belief (no faith) should be the default over the parents religious beliefs when they differ from yours.

Since the current societal standard is to assume the child has the same faith of the parent, it is up to those proposing that this be changed to provide evidence and other convincing arguments regarding the benefits of doing so. So far, I haven't seen any evidence for changing this default assumption other than the assertion that it is abusive to label a child too young to decide for themselves regarding such beliefs. As I don't consider this to be abusive, I see no justification for the assertion that children shouldn't be considered to have the same faith as their parents until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

Because the children cannot have faith. They are not developed mentally. This is a logical and rational viewpoint. Like I said, I can find why you find it so hard to accept.

It's not that children do or don't have faith. It's that the default assumption in our society (indeed, in all societies that I'm aware of) is that the child is of the same faith as the parents. Why should that default assumption be changed? What evidence do you have that making 'no faith' the assumption would be better for our society? What benefits would there be to doing so? How does the expected improvement compare to the costs of implementing such a change in our default assumptions about children?

I never got why nations demand your loyalty because you happened to be born in their general geographic area. It's not like you signed up to be born there.

A consistent point of view at least. I suppose you can go to work on eliminating the abuse of the assuming infants possess a nationality after you've eliminated the abuse of assuming infants have a religion.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Really?

There's hope for you yet.

Linda

I don't know if I've just been insulted or complemented. Any idea, anyone?

 

[Gurdur]

....A consistent point of view at least. I suppose you can go to work on eliminating the abuse of the assuming infants possess a nationality after you've eliminated the abuse of assuming infants have a religion.

As ever, Beth, I like and admire your humour and logical ability to be able to puncture a balloon of non-sequitur pretensiousness so aptly.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

It's not that children do or don't have faith. It's that the default assumption in our society (indeed, in all societies that I'm aware of) is that the child is of the same faith as the parents. Why should that default assumption be changed? What evidence do you have that making 'no faith' the assumption would be better for our society? What benefits would there be to doing so? How does the expected improvement compare to the costs of implementing such a change in our default assumptions about children?

<snip>

A story from Northern Ireland springs to mind about outsider's assuming that children have the same faith and sets of beliefs as their parents.

It basically ended up with young children having abuse and physical objects hurled at them while being walked to school down a street.

 

[Lonewulf]

You might want to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I said that wasn't necessary.

I meant every single person in the majority.

That's 300,000,000 people in the U.S. >50% = 150,000,001 people. I'll get working on that.

No, I'm not assuming it is the same, just that they are both sets of beliefs. Why should assuming a child has no faith be preferred to assuming the child has the parent's faith?

Because one is actually honest and logical.

This is an open question for debate. So far, I have seen no evidence as to why 'no faith' should be the default assumption for a child other than the assertion that it's wrong to assume otherwise. I ask why is it wrong?

Okay, show me a single infant that is capable of having faith, or understanding even simple concepts such as, "Jesus Christ died for your sins, little one!" If you show me a single example, I'll consider the viewpoint of, "it's possible for an infant to be a Christian" to be valid.

You say it's because the child can't make up it's own mind yet. IMO, that's not a valid reason to claim your belief (no faith) should be the default over the parents religious beliefs when they differ from yours.

Why not? Why should the child be assumed to believe in something he obviously can't?

This has nothing to do with what I believe. And that's your problem -- you're lacing this as if I'm some naturalist evil person that's trying to get people to believe in what I do. I find that dishonest. I am not enforcing my personal belief. Get that into your head, or I will cease discussion, as I loathe people that twist what I say. Saying that someone has no faith is not the same as proclaiming them as anything other than simply someone that has no faith. It does not assume moralistic, philosophical, or religious arguments or beliefs. It says what a child is: A being that is incapable of having religion.

If you consider your infant to be Christian, then I consider my cat to worship FSM. It's just as logical, rational, and comedic.

Since the current societal standard is to assume the child has the same faith of the parent, it is up to those proposing that this be changed to provide evidence and other convincing arguments regarding the benefits of doing so. So far, I haven't seen any evidence for changing this default assumption other than the assertion that it is abusive to label a child too young to decide for themselves regarding such beliefs. As I don't consider this to be abusive, I see no justification for the assertion that children shouldn't be considered to have the same faith as their parents until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

It's not that children do or don't have faith. It's that the default assumption in our society (indeed, in all societies that I'm aware of) is that the child is of the same faith as the parents. Why should that default assumption be changed? What evidence do you have that making 'no faith' the assumption would be better for our society? What benefits would there be to doing so? How does the expected improvement compare to the costs of implementing such a change in our default assumptions about children?

To bring "evidence", I need to counteract the argument that children should be assumed to have the same religion as the parents. What's the validation for that belief? Why are children considered to be able to choose a religion?

So far, the only argument seems to be "because we said so". Or "because it's a societal standard". Or because "it's reasonable".

How can I reason you out of a decision you haven't even reasoned yourself into?

A consistent point of view at least. I suppose you can go to work on eliminating the abuse of the assuming infants possess a nationality after you've eliminated the abuse of assuming infants have a religion.

Sure. Throwing young men into war when they're at a very young age (My grandfather served in war at the age of 16, but he lied, admittedly) for their country because their nationality was "randomly chosen" based on geographic location is perfectly fine for people like you sitting at your computer and having a good ol' time.

Not sure if I would agree with that, though. And in many developed countries, some military service time is required to be a citizen of that country, and that citizenship is forced upon you.

Oh, and by the way:

You were the one that brought up the word "abuse". Another example of dishonesty, or am I misremembering my own argument?