Fankies!Postby Bella Fortuna » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:01 pm
Heya Taqiyya, welcome to Ratz by the way.

Fankies!Postby Bella Fortuna » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:01 pm
Heya Taqiyya, welcome to Ratz by the way.
I can still have an orgasm quite easily. It wasn't done to me to prevent me from having pleasure during sex. It wasn't even set as dogma. It was an example of a rule and the discussion here illustrates some of the sense in it.Coito ergo sum wrote:So, couldn't one argue that mere removal of the clitoral hood would be about the same? Why is it a matter of dogma that FGM is "worse" than MGM. It seems as if it's an enforced value judgment.Robert_S wrote:I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.
Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
Don't conflate social awkwardness with obnoxiousness: Having poor social skills and behaving like a jerk are completely different things. The former can sometimes inadvertently lead to the latter, but the two are not intrinsically linked. Someone can be kind and considerate, but at the same time be poor at picking up social cues and appear shy and awkward in conversation.
hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.
Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
No, it is using one problem to DISMISS another. The fact female cliteroctomies happen should not be used to dismiss me being pissed off that I don't have a foreskin. That females are more likely to get raped should not be used to dismiss males nervous about getting raped.Coito ergo sum wrote:@Robert
And, by the same token, if someone is complaining about fake parody jewelry and swinger cards, one ought not "conflate" that with violence against women....
But, the point is, that while clitoridectomies are extreme and perhaps the argument that male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcisions -- the fact that an argument is weak shouldn't make that argument "against the rules." Where else other than in the context of sexism do we get this kind of rule? Is global warming off the table because the evidence is overwhelming? Is the Big Bang theory off the table? Can I argue that one race has higher average IQ's than another race? Why is it that in the case of women's issues, nobody gets to advance weak arguments, when in every other area of discussion, politics, religion, etc., the substance of the argument is freely discussed?
Luckily radical FGM is rare. Removal of the clitoral hood is more common and there are also illegal types of FGM that don't remove any tissue, like type IV pricking.Coito ergo sum wrote:So, couldn't one argue that mere removal of the clitoral hood would be about the same? Why is it a matter of dogma that FGM is "worse" than MGM. It seems as if it's an enforced value judgment.Robert_S wrote:I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.
Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
That isn't what they're saying. They're saying that you shouldn't be advancing male circumcision as "just as bad" as female circumcision. That is different than what you just said. Why in the world should it be against the rules to take the position that male circumcision is just as bad, or that black is white?Robert_S wrote:No, it is using one problem to DISMISS another. The fact female cliteroctomies happen should not be used to dismiss me being pissed off that I don't have a foreskin. That females are more likely to get raped should not be used to dismiss males nervous about getting raped.Coito ergo sum wrote:@Robert
And, by the same token, if someone is complaining about fake parody jewelry and swinger cards, one ought not "conflate" that with violence against women....
But, the point is, that while clitoridectomies are extreme and perhaps the argument that male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcisions -- the fact that an argument is weak shouldn't make that argument "against the rules." Where else other than in the context of sexism do we get this kind of rule? Is global warming off the table because the evidence is overwhelming? Is the Big Bang theory off the table? Can I argue that one race has higher average IQ's than another race? Why is it that in the case of women's issues, nobody gets to advance weak arguments, when in every other area of discussion, politics, religion, etc., the substance of the argument is freely discussed?
It seems a fair rule to me.
Precisely. This is what I was trying to get at. I mean -- if you advance that argument there, then I guess you're "conflating" male circumcision with FGM....?borealis wrote:Luckily radical FGM is rare. Removal of the clitoral hood is more common and there are also illegal types of FGM that don't remove any tissue, like type IV pricking.Coito ergo sum wrote:So, couldn't one argue that mere removal of the clitoral hood would be about the same? Why is it a matter of dogma that FGM is "worse" than MGM. It seems as if it's an enforced value judgment.Robert_S wrote:I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.
Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
Drewish wrote:I'm starting a new group call "Atheism-" that's dedicated to trolling Atheism+ Applications for the 'unclean' among us are available upon request
OopsCoito ergo sum wrote:That isn't what they're saying. They're saying that you shouldn't be advancing male circumcision as "just as bad" as female circumcision. That is different than what you just said. Why in the world should it be against the rules to take the position that male circumcision is just as bad, or that black is white?Robert_S wrote:No, it is using one problem to DISMISS another. The fact female cliteroctomies happen should not be used to dismiss me being pissed off that I don't have a foreskin. That females are more likely to get raped should not be used to dismiss males nervous about getting raped.Coito ergo sum wrote:@Robert
And, by the same token, if someone is complaining about fake parody jewelry and swinger cards, one ought not "conflate" that with violence against women....
But, the point is, that while clitoridectomies are extreme and perhaps the argument that male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcisions -- the fact that an argument is weak shouldn't make that argument "against the rules." Where else other than in the context of sexism do we get this kind of rule? Is global warming off the table because the evidence is overwhelming? Is the Big Bang theory off the table? Can I argue that one race has higher average IQ's than another race? Why is it that in the case of women's issues, nobody gets to advance weak arguments, when in every other area of discussion, politics, religion, etc., the substance of the argument is freely discussed?
It seems a fair rule to me.
Further, since when are people to be prohibited (in a free and open debating environment) from "dismissing" the arguments or complaints of another? Everybody gets to advance their own arguments. If your argument is weak, and you're being dismissive or "hand waving" the other person's argument away, then their response ought to be to skewer your argument. How in the world is it reasonable to ban, in advance, certain arguments just because some people think it's a bad argument?
Don't dismiss people's problems by appealing to greater problems: For almost every problem, it is possible to find a substantially worse problem. This should not be used, however, to dismiss the original problem. For example, the plight of women under the Taliban is absolutely dreadful, but this doesn't mean that any problem faced by a western woman is trivial
Don't change the topic to less severe problems: If a particular problem is being discussed, it is dismissive to generalise this into a conversation about less severe problems. Such problems may also be very important, but they should be discussed elsewhere. For example, a discussion about female genital mutilation should not degenerate into a debate about the morality of male circumcision.
Some crazy mansplainin' going onorpheus wrote:How long has their site been in existence? They already have their first locked thread: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=900#p900
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests