Circumcision

[jedusor]

I can't believe this is even debatable. I can't believe that in a society we consider civilized, I have to actually present a structured argument against cutting off pieces of babies when they're born.

Comments

[gerald_duck]

OK. Have a more formal and painstaking refutation:

For the statement to have any merit, something being harmful has to mean people will stop doing it — otherwise the logic falls at once. In the cases still under consideration, the statement reduces to "if it was as harmful as you make it seem, people would have considered it harmful a long time ago", or "if X, people would have believed X time T ago".

Now consider the converse: "if people have gone time T without believing X then X is false". What is this value of T? Clearly, every example of something true going some time without being believed sets a lower bound on T.

To pick just one example at random, people didn't believe blood circulated until 1242CE, having held contrary views since antiquity. That sets a lower bound on T that is far longer than the 3500 years people have believed in circumcision.

Yes, you can probably pick holes in that, but I'll pick holes in the holes. I honestly can't tell to what extent you were playing devil's advocate: to me it's completely obvious that the original logic was deeply flawed, so I'm not sure quite how detailed an explanation I need to give of why.


As for the second point, the distinction is that hannahrorlove was saying "you are wrong because I am offended", where I'm only saying "I am being forthright and uncompromising because I am offended".

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

I'll tackle the second one first, as it's less involved.

"You can't say things like that and expect people to not be wildly offended."

and

Basically, hannahrorlove has, in the space of a few short comments, spouted a lot of bile that demonstrates attitudes, beliefs and values much more sickening than mere support for circumcision, and on that basis the attack is entirely justified.

and

As for the second point, the distinction is that hannahrorlove was saying "you are wrong because I am offended", where I'm only saying "I am being forthright and uncompromising because I am offended".

I don't see Hannah saying J was/is wrong in the statement you quoted, merely that it seems obvious that some people would take the content and/or the way it was expressed as offensive. I do see you saying Hannah's attitudes, values, and beliefs are sickening. If that's not saying Hannah is wrong (because you are offended), it's awfully close.

As for the other part:

a) people generally stop doing harmful things as soon as they realize it's harmful to do those things. When did people realize that surgery needed to be done in a clean and sterile environment? And how quickly did medical people decide to start performing surgery in a clean and sterile environment?

You represent Hannah's argument as "if it was as harmful as you make it seem, people would have considered it harmful a long time ago" when it is more accurately stated as "if it was as harmful as you make it seem, people would have realized it {was} harmful a long time ago {and thus discontinued it}." Accordingly, while your refutation may or may not be correct, it is irrelevant.

and

b) As with pictures, examples are worth the proverbial thousand words. It is much better to show someone their inconsistencies without comment that it is to tell that person that their words and their actions disagree.

I guarantee you that almost every person you meet believes he or she has the moral high ground. Not only that, most of these people think they are entirely justified in that belief. Simple math (the number of different opinions to be had divided by the number of people who have them) indicates there are a lot of people out there with a lot of wrong opinions, and the law of averages indicates that at least some of the time, it's you and it's me. I mention this because you appear to have considered this possibility - that you might be wrong - less than most of the people I encounter.

This is only advice, and I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you take it, but if you are thinking of claiming the moral high ground in public, I would advise you to be very, very sure that you are both a gentleman (kind, courteous, and apt to listen and understand before responding), and a sportsman (humble in victory, gracious in defeat, and determined to be entirely fair regardless). Not only will this endear you more to the people around you, but when the inevitable time comes when you are publicly discovered to be wrong about something, you will not have to worry about being hoist on your own petard.