Dak
mentat
Are protections from the acts of non-governmental actors "rights" though? The language is much too fuzzy.
If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
If the government only protected one group from murder but it was legal to kill the other group, but it wasn't the government doing the killing, sure I would consider that a right or a lack of a right.
Bodily autonomy is probably the most important right a state could protect too.
Bodily autonomy is probably the most important right a state could protect too.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
It's really a semantical point of contention though, happy to supplant rights with privileges or something.
After all, this all started from a sign that claimed guns have rights, which is obviously stupid.
After all, this all started from a sign that claimed guns have rights, which is obviously stupid.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Okay, you started this. You can't be so theoretically illiterate as to assume that the absence of legal protection/regulation entails the infringement of some elemental right.
The point is that there is no regulation on male circumcision - they are free to either have it performed, or not (or rather, their parents are). The regulations are, in fact, stricter for women: it cannot be performed. If we're talking about rights between men and women, men actually have more of a right in this scenario. The government is actually admitting their bodily autonomy. Get it?
rms
Active Member
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
So women are further oppressed because it's not okay for adults to violate their bodily autonomy in their infancy? Huh.
That makes absolutely no sense since women can get circumcised as an adult the same as a man can, what I'm pointing out is actually a protection female children have that male children do not.
Irrelevant. It's a permanent action taken unnecessarily against a child. There are men who have disabilities as a direct result of being circumcised as an infant.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I never said that. I'm working with your admittedly frustrating notion of "rights."
Invoking oppression necessarily opposes it to something else, that something else being freedom. In terms of legality and governmental regulation, male children have a wider range of "choices" (scare quotes b/c of parental oversight) than their female counterparts do. So, in this ridiculous conception of rights and freedom, yes - women are "oppressed."
Parents of male children have a greater amount of freedom when it comes to circumcision: they can either choose to have it done, or not. For female children this isn't an option. Even granting your proposal that the "right" in question is that to a "complete body," that would be the only right being protected here for women. When it comes to the male child, there are two rights: the right to have a circumcision performed, or the right not to have it performed.
You can reverse that to be a freedom that male children have that female children don't. See? This is why "rights" don't play by the same rules that you want them to.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Choice has no meaning without the ability to consent so framing this as the male infant having more choices available to them is illogical.
Einherjar86
Active Member
This entire premise/topic is illogical because you're dictating what the right to be focusing on is! I could say sure, female girls are guaranteed the right to a complete body, but male children are guaranteed the right to a healthier physiology. I could say that male children are guaranteed the right not to be embarrassed in the gym locker room because their foreskin hangs over their dick like a Jedi robe (although who knows, maybe your dick being a Jedi would be kinda cool - lightsaber jokes to follow).
You're arbitrarily choosing what right is important, and how that right is constituted.
You're arbitrarily choosing what right is important, and how that right is constituted.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
It's not arbitrary at all, you're merely jumping through hoops because I began the premise as a statement on gender disparity and you feel the need for whatever reason to make sure women's place at the top of the has it worse pyramid is secured.
If I had merely stated that it's quite horrendous that male infants are unnecessarily mutilated for pseudo-health reasons that actually have much more to do with primitive religious habits we haven't yet shaken off, I'd wager we'd be basking in the glory of agreement right now.
The fact is, female infants are rightfully protected against having their genitals permanently tampered with and male infants are not. It's not a choice as they are unable to consent and therefore unable to choose.
It's irrelevant whether it's different to female circumcision or whether you favour circumcision.
If I had merely stated that it's quite horrendous that male infants are unnecessarily mutilated for pseudo-health reasons that actually have much more to do with primitive religious habits we haven't yet shaken off, I'd wager we'd be basking in the glory of agreement right now.
The fact is, female infants are rightfully protected against having their genitals permanently tampered with and male infants are not. It's not a choice as they are unable to consent and therefore unable to choose.
It's irrelevant whether it's different to female circumcision or whether you favour circumcision.
rms
Active Member
fucking christ. how you go from SJW to MGTOW/sargon of akkad in the span of a few years is so fucking strange
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
rms
Active Member
you hold a stupid position and made a stupid point yet won't acknowledge how stupid it is
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm sorry, you need to understand something: you're choosing what rights are, and how they're applied. Everything looks correct to you, from your angle, because you're unwilling to entertain the notion that there are multiple "rights" at work in any given scenario. I can't win in this conversation, not because I'm being illogical or irrational, but because you're dictating the limits of discussion with your chosen example.
I'm not even concerned with making sure women have it worse or remain victims, as you so confidently claim. I'm telling you that there's no rational way you can make the argument that men have fewer rights than women. I would even say that under the purview of the law, men and women are pretty much equal (of course, I would say that our culture circumvents this equality in creative yet shameful ways, but that's another conversation).
Furthermore, male circumcision is often advised against by doctors. This is an entirely routine procedure that has health benefits that outweigh risks, but that is not mandated and is not always encouraged. Female circumcision is incredibly dangerous, male circumcision less so. Why does it have to be the case that one medical procedure must bear the same consequences for both men and women? I'm sure you're not trying to suggest that men and women are *gasp* biologically equivalent...?
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
I don't agree it's a stupid position and nothing that has been said in here has convinced me that I should denounce my position, especially not, it must be said, your weak buzzword infested cheap shot.
For all I know Sargon of Akkad isn't even against circumcision.
I believe I already said it's semantics, I wasn't trying to start a debate on the definition of rights and I'm happy to replace it with privileges or protections or advantages etc.
How can there be multiple "rights" in this particular scenario if we're talking about actions taken by adults but not involving their bodies?
An infant can't have a "right" to choose between multiple actions because it's an infant, this is my underlying point. You're saying that since a female infant cannot legally have a circumcision, they are therefore without the same amount of choices as a male infant, I completely understand your point, but please try to understand mine.
The female infant has more choices because the circumcision was not done to them when they could not consent and therefore she will have a true choice once she is old enough to choose, because her bodily autonomy was protected by law. The male infant if circumcised has no choice because once his is an adult, he will still have the permanently changed body which he did not choose for himself.
Grant this and then simply subtract bodily autonomy involving the genitalia at birth from the men and my point carries.
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
Talk about moving the fucking goalposts:
I've been talking about rights because you brought them up. Well done.
I'll grant anything you want at this point. I'll grant you this argument, if it makes you feel any better. Honestly, I already feel like a loser anyway for believing this was a serious conversation.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
I already told you, I wasn't specifically trying to define what rights are. It's just lazy phraseology that one falls into unthinkingly. You obviously wanted to have some epic discussion about what are rights really? and I was just trying to say that girls get to keep all their bits until they're old enough to cut them off! 
But fine. I do think bodily autonomy is a right in the sense that, some of the most important crimes come from the concept of bodily autonomy and most crimes are fundamentally a violation of a right.
Murder being an example. It's a grievous violation of one's bodily autonomy.
But fine. I do think bodily autonomy is a right in the sense that, some of the most important crimes come from the concept of bodily autonomy and most crimes are fundamentally a violation of a right.
Murder being an example. It's a grievous violation of one's bodily autonomy.
Vilden
From the holy kingdom of Harmonia
How anyone can defend male circumcision on infants is beyond me. Why not do some more mutilation for "health (religious/cultural) reasons" while we're at it. Maybe removing the appendix on all children?
And ofcourse it is a Great er violation of rights to be forced into it rather than forced not to (which is always possible later in life if you want to). It's like people saying a Niqab is freedom...
And ofcourse it is a Great er violation of rights to be forced into it rather than forced not to (which is always possible later in life if you want to). It's like people saying a Niqab is freedom...
Einherjar86
Active Member
Children have things removed all the time for health reasons, namely tonsils and adenoids. There are preventative reasons for removing foreskin, and it hasn't been substantially associated with any significant number of health concerns later in life. CIG made some claim about circumcision leading to physical disability, but I don't know anything about that. But then, I'm not an expert on foreskin removal, so whatever.
Similar threads
