897: The Show-ers

[BrownEyedBtch]

I appreciate and respect that you are doing your part to create change, rather than sitting around and waiting for others to do it for you. And I don't believe it's beyond hope. I also do happen to believe it will be much longer than we will see in our lifetimes. But when I leave this world, if I see a world that is better than I saw it coming in, then I will be happy.

I just feel that most of the problems we have in this world can be traced to one society believing theirs to be superior to another, and doing everything they can to show another that they're wrong and should follow the superior society. In some cases, it has led to civilization among cultures and societies that were otherwise considered uncivilized. The Hawaiian people, for example, lived very primitively until the 1800s, when the missionaries brought Protestantism, education, formal English, reading and writing. (And a bunch of diseases that the people had no immune system for which killed them off, but still...) But with few exceptions, the world is not a big pot of uncivilized people anymore. We still see people who live differently from ourselves and think we have an obligation to get them to live like us without much respect or regard to what allows them to live their lives the way they do. I absolutely believe a society that thinks it's okay to mutilate their women, deny their children medical care, and kill others in the name of their god, is barbaric, but I can't think of myself as so superior to them that I have to teach them that I am right, they are wrong, and they have to live like me. I wish I had better answers for why people do what they do and why they think it's okay.

[myq]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

I just feel that most of the problems we have in this world can be traced to one society believing theirs to be superior to another, and doing everything they can to show another that they're wrong and should follow the superior society.

We still see people who live differently from ourselves and think we have an obligation to get them to live like us without much respect or regard to what allows them to live their lives the way they do. I absolutely believe a society that thinks it's okay to mutilate their women, deny their children medical care, and kill others in the name of their god, is barbaric, but I can't think of myself as so superior to them that I have to teach them that I am right, they are wrong, and they have to live like me.

I agree, societies have indeed wrongly forced their ways of life on other societies in the past.

But I don't know why you continue to assume that one has to think oneself "superior" in order to help or teach others.

A poor person might refuse charity because of pride, but that doesn't mean the system that led to/allowed/exacerbated their situation is just or fair, or that attempts shouldn't be made to change it.

I'm just saying that I don't believe everything is as relative as you seem to.
If we can help alleviate suffering among people who would choose that to happen were they to have the freedom to do so, we should.

It's not about pushing my beliefs on someone, it's wanting people to be free enough to choose their own beliefs.
And I believe the traditions that female genital mutilation originated from are oppressive to that end, and obviously objectively painful in the meantime.

[BrownEyedBtch]

I feel like we're arguing the same point, but where I am settled in my understanding of why, you feel like the why I see isn't acceptable. I see that, and I'm cool with it.

I totally agree that we should do what we can do to alleviate the suffering of others if we can. Where I see my disagreement is, my opinion of suffering may not be the same as theirs, though they may be the ones suffering. I wish everyone had the information to allow them to make free, informed decisions which would alleviate the pain and suffering they experience in this world. But at what point do we see that they may not want it, and stop trying to get them to take it? At what do we stop getting people to question the reality in which they exist, and try to get them to favor another? Regardless of your intentions, good as they are, that is at the heart of why we go about to create change in the world. There is something about the reality in which one person exists that isn't good enough, and option B would be better.

[myq]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

But at what point do we see that they may not want it, and stop trying to get them to take it?

Maybe when we see that they are making that decision in an informed way, and not based on warped standards and traditions that are forced on them at such an early age that they can't have the possibility of forming an objective decision on the matter?

I agree that at this point we are either treading over the same ground as before, or dealing with minutiae or semantics, but I'll say one more thing anyway.

I believe that not all value systems are of moral equivalence or validity.
I believe that many do, but not all.
Do you disagree?

Example:
If a family or society raises people to not receive enough nutrition because they value thinness to the point of anorexia over a more objective healthy condition, I believe that is a less valid value system.

If a family or society raises people to beat women if they dress or act a certain way, I believe that is a less valid value system.

I'm not claiming that my way of living, my society, is perfect, and in fact, segments of my society has degrees of the above scenarios prevalent within it, historically and today.

I believe that if the reality someone exists in is not as fulfilling as it could be (not simply by my own terms, but by as objective and universal an assessment as is possible), then there is no time I can think of that would be appropriate to stop trying to help them be as fulfilled as possible.

(And certainly, I'm not talking about missionaries thinking "savages" need Jesus.
I'm talking about objective measures of quality of life, the most basic being quantity of physical and/or emotional pain therein.)

I understand what you're saying.
I just believe that lessening that kind of pain is a worthy goal, as is trying to help people release themselves from a mindset where they believe that kind of pain is worth something that it is not.

(But who am I to say it's not, I know.
If only I were a genitally mutilated female escaped from an oppressive society, able to speak on the issue from both sides with experience.
I'm sorry I'm not, though probably more glad to be uninformed as such.)

[BrownEyedBtch]

LOL I think we are in agreement, regardless of what angle we are coming from.

[motownguy]

Originally Posted by myq

Hey, you just did it!

The Socratic Method still works. Yay for fat, balding, gay, Greek guys!

Is it better forum etiquette to have a gigantic message encompassing three different responses to three different ideas? Than to have three distinct, shorter, easier to manage postings that take up the same length in total?

Good question. I'm going to go with "usually." I say that because if your posts come in rapid succession, the effect is the same. Most of the people here can handle paragraphs. There are some in whom the ADD runs strong, however.

My sincere apologies.
I wasn't avoiding multi-quoting to make some statement like "I won't multi-quote until gay people have the same rights to multi-quote as straight people, and polygamists have the right to multi-marriage," or such.

Unless that would work.

I'm told that it would have, but now we'll never know.

[spooky]

No disrespect here, FYI

Originally Posted by myq

I do come from a cultural Jewish background and was circumcised, and have no problem with my experience with it. I don't believe it damaged me or my ability to derive sexual pleasure at all, and I'm told that there are actual health BENEFITS to male circumcision, like decreased risk for transmission of HIV, etc.

So, while I have no horse in the race of the Jewish ritual aspects of the practice, from what I've read and physically experienced, circumcision of a male doesn't do much harm and can do a lot of good, while female genital mutilation destroys a woman's main pleasure center, which does great long term damage.

But sure, I'm all about tearing down ANY faith for moral human rights.
I just don't think this issue is a battleground for that concept.
(But I'm open, show me medical or other documentation that suggests male circumcision is a problem and I and many others just got lucky, and I'm happy to listen.)

There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and psychologic stress. So science says it damaged you, you were just too young to recall it. There's lots of evidence that it reduces sensation, though there is no definitive proof at this point. Reports vary(possibly due to religious influence) but here's a qoute: "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm"

2-10% of circumcisions result in complications. A 1999 study of 48 boys who had complications from traditional male circumcision in Nigeria found that haemorrhage occurred in 52% of the boys, infection in 21% and one child had his penis amputated.

There's no evidence to support it reduces HIV transmission rates, except a study that ended early due to ethical complications. All the other STD transmission rates being reduced have been disproven. HIV being a new disease, it is apparent that religion did not base it correctly on that notion.

On hygeine"...concluded that the net clinical benefit of circumcision is only likely in boys at high risk of urinary tract infection(1%)" Given a choice, I would rather NOT risk losing my penis for that slight benefit.

blah blah blah, it goes on and on, and looks like it is more or less a bunch of wives tales propped up by lots of cons, and a peppering of pros, but there is more evidence to support the harm it causes(I admit the wiki may be biased). If you want to support it in some heathen 3rd world country yet to discover soap, you may have a slight basis towards it's benefit, but only if you could guarantee modern clinical and sterile conditions during the procedure. And since they dont use soap...

Since you made a personal point, I will too. Some guys argue that the decreased sensitivity is worth it, prolonging sex. I personally disagree, as I usually have to go for 40 plus minutes, and no woman is happy with that, not at my size. I can't scientifically prove circumcision is to blame(how on earth could I get my foreskin back?), but I believe it likely. Meanwhile, you can tell all those bleeding vaginas they made it all up, and at least I never got a UTI, right?

Circumcision is a barbaric practice, and deserves only a little more credibility than trepanation. I think you are cherry picking which religious views you like, and which ones you want taken away from everyone else.

Originally Posted by myq

I'm willing to listen to reasoning, but you're not providing any, and I've never heard anyone try.

umm...what? Actually, I did. I absolutely did. Do you want me to quote scripture to you, then tell you about consequences in the afterlife(I know, you Jews don't have any afterlife consequences, but just TRY and look beyond your own religion, just for a second)

Originally Posted by myq

They just say things like you say, definitive statements about the nature of marriage that simply aren't the case.

But please, provide me the reasoning behind their stance.

We clearly aren't on the same page, because I don't accept your assessment of marriage as 100% religious(by religious people).
We've already talked about the fact that judges can marry people with no religious ceremony whatsoever, and that in fact a religious ceremony does not itself provide people with the legal rights and benefits that people associate with marriage.
It's not a revision of the definition, it's an accurate description of the situation.

I personally would be fine if all the benefits of marriage were associated with civil unions that could be acquired by any couple of whatever genders.

If you aren't willing to accept that religious people in America see marriage as a religious endeavor, and you are going to dismiss it's historical origin entirely, I think we are done, you can't be talked to, there is no debate to be had.

I acknowledge your different view of the definition(I actually even share it). I am sorry you are unable to simply acknowledge a religious person's view and their right to it. The world will hopefully never be made of like minded individuals, I can't imagine a more horrific fate for humanity. At least then, though, you could defend government and religion growing together, towards becoming a single ruling entity.

But then in your very last paragraph, I think you agree with me? I am lost at this point...

[myq]

Originally Posted by spooky

I think you are cherry picking which religious views you like, and which ones you want taken away from everyone else.

I disagree.
I don't hold any religious views.

I don't really care one way or another about male circumcision, and I'm happy to observe objective scientific analysis of the benefits and disadvantages thereof.

I have personal experience with having been circumcised, and I grant that I am not an ideal experimental sample size, but my psychological and sexual experiences have been just fine thus far, is all I was saying.

If there are studies that suggest more people are negatively affected than positively affected, I'm fine to be on board with a crusade against male circumcision.

All I've been saying thus far is that, from what I know about the female version, it's actually more akin to chopping the penis off at the base than it is to chop off the foreskin.

I'm not cherry-picking, I'm going on information that I've been provided with, and I'm happy to receive more information and shift my assessments accordingly, but thus far, even with your new information, female circumcision certainly seems more barbaric to me than male does, and it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, as I don't particularly have any. I just have beliefs about it being better to cause as little pain and psychological damage as possible.

Originally Posted by spooky

Do you want me to quote scripture to you, then tell you about consequences in the afterlife(I know, you Jews don't have any afterlife consequences, but just TRY and look beyond your own religion, just for a second)

Again, I'm looking at this not from any religious perspective.
I'm looking at it from a reality-based one.
Our nation does not have an official religion, our laws are not intended to reflect the laws of any particular religion or have any relation to the afterlife.

I understand that many religious people view gay people marrying as a sin.
I also understand that many religious people used to view interracial marriage as a sin.
Also that women used to be property of their husbands.
(A concept which essentially still exists in the lives of the very religious today, as I understand it.)

Originally Posted by spooky

If you aren't willing to accept that religious people in America see marriage as a religious endeavor, and you are going to dismiss it's historical origin entirely, I think we are done, you can't be talked to, there is no debate to be had.

I acknowledge your different view of the definition(I actually even share it). I am sorry you are unable to simply acknowledge a religious person's view and their right to it.

I accept that religious people have a right to see the religious institution of marriage however they like; however, I don't accept ignoring that it has a legal definition that exists today, regardless of its history.

Like I said above, historical origin doesn't often have the most relevance in today's society.
Slavery, oppression, racism, sexism, I recognize it's where we came from, and what is what we're heading away from.

I agree that on some issues, there SHOULD be no debate to be had.
When interracial marriage became legal, it wasn't by a majority vote, and it needn't have been.
How do you feel about that?
Do you think civil rights like that should be up to a vote?

Like I said, I'm fine with religious people having their religious ceremonies and institutions, and I'm just concerned with the legal, civil, secular ones for all free people.

[myq]

Originally Posted by spooky

But then in your very last paragraph, I think you agree with me? I am lost at this point...

On this point...
I believe we agree on the practical fact of the matter that if civil marriage exists, it should be allowed between people of any gender.

Part of our disagreement seems to be semantic, and part seems to hinge on how to deal with the practical task of getting towards our agreed-upon practical ideal.

My way is yelling that everyone deserves equal rights (in online forums, or on inline forums).