Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Again, like Nomadking earlier, in order to strengthen your argument against male circumcision you appear to want to push the argument on to other practices not under discussion, thereby clinching the argument by association with a neat little straw man.
As a matter of fact, I've not even made the argument 'it must be alright because it's survived' - what I've suggested is that it shows a crushing lack of perspective on your part to hope that millions of people down countless centuries would have behaved differently had they only chosen to think about things in your terms.
|
Which, as a matter of fact I've not suggested either, but hey, we were on the subject of straw men anyway. In fact, I've specifically said that I thought a ban would be wrong. I do think that there is a debate to be had over whether the practice of remove part of a male's anatomy without that male's consent when the intervention serves no medical purpose to speak of has any place in today's society.
Quote:
|
That said, what I do believe is that, while longevity does not automatically equate to rightness, longevity is most certainly a factor to be taken very seriously into consideration if you want to quite suddenly declare 'wrong' something which a lot of people have always considered 'right'.
|
I'm still interested in that list of criteria for what is and isn't acceptable. I'm sure it'll include a notion that the right to religious expression ends where the definition of common assault starts.