those "parts of the world" would be the parts where women don't have any rights to begin with....
Muslims and Jews denounce Germany's circumcision ban
- Thread starter salty mud
- Start date
*sigh*
This was and is such a fecal matter of strawmanning and misinformation.
Anyway...
A few facts to appreciate:
So please turn of the slippery slope fallacies in your heads for a second equating that with jewish circumcision and ponder whether you are really fine with that...
Essentially the "feminist" stance regarding male circumcision is to some extent based on male disposability. Which is sexist.
Anyway. All of that being said. what was wrong with the old thread?
It's in the upper half of the second page. Last post: 4 days ago. Four!
Is that how it's going to be now? It's not a forum anymore but a chatbox and i didn't get the memo?
This was and is such a fecal matter of strawmanning and misinformation.
Anyway...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18807040
I wonder if they consider the one's who they are mutilating human rights. I understand this is a sensitive issue, but there comes a time when practices like this must cease.
This comes a few days after a German feminist group also denounced the decision, saying it puts male circumcision on par with female circumcision. Female circumcision should be illegal to them, but doing it to males is perfectly fine.
A few facts to appreciate:
1. German law is by and large a great deal more statute based and less precedent based than American or British law.
So it's not a ban. Other judges may rule otherwise and quite likely will do so.
2. It's not a "regional" court. It's a a city court, a municipal court. Actually it's the second lowest level of courts we have in Germany. And the case only went there instead of the lowest level because it's a criminal case involving a major felony charge (the doctor was charged ith assault). Those start at the second lowest level (for whatever reason).
But still: A municipal court. The improper "upgrading" of that court in Anglosphere media is a result of bad translating (and not really caring about the stuff one reports).
3. In general German law awards a copulating ton more rights to minors than British or American law (which generally emphasize the rights of parents a bit more).
If anything circumcision not being regulated at all is wildly out of line with virtually all others matters where rights of children and parents have to be sorted out by the law.
4. The actual verdict not only does not mention jewish ircumcision (like saying it should be banned) but has very strong implications that a ruling in favor of jewish circumcision would be possible.
The point is that jewish practice of circumcision mandates a very specific timeframe while muslim tradition does not (male Muslims get circumcised anywhere between a few days to a double digit number of years in age).
So (at least it seems so to me) the court felt that there was really no urgency in this particular case and the Muslim parents could have just as well waited for the boy to turn 14 and give some limited consent.
The legal good here weighting in favor of circumcision is the social welfare of the child (acceptance of peers and such), which in this case of a Muslim boy would have not been affected all that much by waiting, in the opinion of the court. It's easy to see how that would not really have been an option in the case of a jewish boy.
In the light of "4" you should also appreciate what the case was about. The case was not about "banning Judaism in Germany" or any such nonsense but about a 4 year old muslim boy who was dragged by his parents to a doctor who put him under local anestesia and then chopped of his foreskin.So it's not a ban. Other judges may rule otherwise and quite likely will do so.
2. It's not a "regional" court. It's a a city court, a municipal court. Actually it's the second lowest level of courts we have in Germany. And the case only went there instead of the lowest level because it's a criminal case involving a major felony charge (the doctor was charged ith assault). Those start at the second lowest level (for whatever reason).
But still: A municipal court. The improper "upgrading" of that court in Anglosphere media is a result of bad translating (and not really caring about the stuff one reports).
3. In general German law awards a copulating ton more rights to minors than British or American law (which generally emphasize the rights of parents a bit more).
If anything circumcision not being regulated at all is wildly out of line with virtually all others matters where rights of children and parents have to be sorted out by the law.
4. The actual verdict not only does not mention jewish ircumcision (like saying it should be banned) but has very strong implications that a ruling in favor of jewish circumcision would be possible.
The point is that jewish practice of circumcision mandates a very specific timeframe while muslim tradition does not (male Muslims get circumcised anywhere between a few days to a double digit number of years in age).
So (at least it seems so to me) the court felt that there was really no urgency in this particular case and the Muslim parents could have just as well waited for the boy to turn 14 and give some limited consent.
The legal good here weighting in favor of circumcision is the social welfare of the child (acceptance of peers and such), which in this case of a Muslim boy would have not been affected all that much by waiting, in the opinion of the court. It's easy to see how that would not really have been an option in the case of a jewish boy.
So please turn of the slippery slope fallacies in your heads for a second equating that with jewish circumcision and ponder whether you are really fine with that...
Colossal strawman.
Quackers has it right.
Essentially the "feminist" stance regarding male circumcision is to some extent based on male disposability. Which is sexist.
Anyway. All of that being said. what was wrong with the old thread?
It's in the upper half of the second page. Last post: 4 days ago. Four!
Is that how it's going to be now? It's not a forum anymore but a chatbox and i didn't get the memo?
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
>Prepares to write post about how just because one thinks that FGM is worse than MGM in a moral sense doesn't mean they can't be equal in a legal sense
>Metatron's already covered it
NOTHING TO DO HERE
>Metatron's already covered it
NOTHING TO DO HERE
@Metatron: Good post, although I hope the decision will be upheld in superior courts (the judge doesn't seem to be alone with this reasoning among his colleagues, at least).
But the whole "if you outlaw something you make it morally equal to something more heinous" argument is completely ridiculous. Several things from a vast spectrum of reprehensibility are outlawed. So female circumcision is irrelevant. It should be outlawed, and the arguments to outlaw it are way stronger than anything used to justify the ruling on male circumcision. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the arguments to support that ruling are not sufficient.
But the whole "if you outlaw something you make it morally equal to something more heinous" argument is completely ridiculous. Several things from a vast spectrum of reprehensibility are outlawed. So female circumcision is irrelevant. It should be outlawed, and the arguments to outlaw it are way stronger than anything used to justify the ruling on male circumcision. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the arguments to support that ruling are not sufficient.
well, the FGM angle came up because the OP claimed that feminists are somehow hypocritical for wanting to outlaw FGM but not male circumcision.
Btw, even if it was the highest german court, it wouldn't be a ban, it just states that it isn't the parent's right to decide if the kid's going to be cut. I wager a kid that has reached the age of reason could still get a circumsicion, right?
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
That seems to be the conclusion, yes.
I personally don't see a problem with outlawing male circumcision until you're old enough to know what is being done to you. I don't think it "cheapens" female circumcision's horror to have male circumcision be illegal as well. That's sort of like saying it "cheapens" sexual assault to have non-sexual assault be illegal.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
lol @ "ancient ritual" being used as a defense for an ancient ritual
Well, it would be an effective ban on underage circumcision.
I don't know why the Muslims are throwing such a hissy fit about this (I can understand the Jewish community). I suppose it's mainly to reinforce the impression among German politicians and the overall public that Muslim interests are to be handled with kid gloves.
Especially considering what else you could justify with that argument.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Well, exactly. "It's an ancient ritual" is the worst justification ever
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Because this single group represents all feminists, anywhere, ever.
You'd certainly think that Jews, of all people, would be wary of citing historical precedent as a justification for arbitrary violence.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
I believe Quackers here is using the term "feminists" to mean the colloquial for "radical feminists". No one would say that ALL feminists believe this way. For one thing, the group of people who self-identify as feminists is too large.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Not to mention that some women have a similar operation to remove the sheath covering the clitoris so they can better enjoy sex. This medical procedure is even banned in some countries that consider it to be "sexual mutilation" by confusing it with removing the clitoris.
This topic continues to be hilarious based on the hysterical overreaction by many of those who have not had this simple operation for completely legitimate medical and hygienic reasons.
Snorrius
Librivorator
All feminist are evil. Let's hope the hardships world will have to go through will end the feminization of the European civilization.
salty mud
Deity
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Eh, Quackers I'll bother squabbling with, but Snorrius is from another planet. Not worth the energy engaging with him.
Snorrius
Librivorator
Certainly a lot of talks about female circumcision is just hysterical overreaction by many of those who had not had this simple operation for completely legitimate medical and hygienic reasons.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Especially by those who are so dishonest to claim that I support FGM when I clearly don't.
Snorrius
Librivorator
You do not. But supporting MGM because of old superstitions and pseudoscientific views (which rationalize yet another Anglo-Saxon sexual obsession) is just "less bad" then supporting FGM for those reasons.
Do not get me wrong. Unlike many people I do understand that there are cultural differences. In my opinion it is silly to demand from Muslim countries or Israel to stop male circumcision, or to stop female circumcision by certain African countries, or to convince Anglo-Saxons to stop pedohysteria (or homohysteria, or mastubation-hysteria or whatever sexual hysteria they are obsessed with in given historical era). This is a part of their culture after all and they will not stop this sillyness.
But we are talking about Europe. In Europe which have become quite secular there is a clear trend to stop child mutilations because of some ancient rituals or quasiscientific superstitions. Both male and female circumcisions are not the part of European culture so there are two ways to deal with them: respect "ancient rituals" or prohibit parents to impose this on their children. If we are to select protection of child's right for integrity of his body until s/he may decided for him/herself then both practices should be prohibited for parents to impose on their children.
People tend to note that FGM is more radical. I agree but still both practices share one fundamental thing - in both cases it is still a mutilation done because of unscientific prejudices and superstition so they should be dealt in the same way. Either "respect" these "ancient rituals" or prohibit them. For Europe in my opinion it is better to prohibit these practices until one can make this decision for him or herself.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's kind of funny to see somebody who rants about the "feminisation of Europe" criticising "old superstitions and pseudoscientific views"... 
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It's like comparing the cutting off of an earlobe to the cutting off of the entire ear.
