• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

The Great Foreskin Debate

daniel_gudman said:
...how is utilitarianism an emotional argument?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You are not showing that it is directly harmful. You have shown it carries risks.

Playing videogames carries risks. Everything carries risks. What you are saying is not utilitarianism, as that type of argument would look at eerything available, like the hygiene argument.
 
No, see, taking a risk is a potential harm. On a societal scale you add up the aggregate cost and benefit. On a personal scale you discount the harm you suffer by the risk rate, to arrive at the theoretical cost that you're weighing against the benefit. To go back to the car example, let's say you could buy a car with a low safety rating for $6000 and a car with a high safety rating for $8000; you weigh the risk-amortized costs of the lower-rated car being more dangerous if you get in an accident, vs the definite cost of the $2000 difference. And whether you take the risk or not is dependent on your personal decisions about your relative values.

So with circumcision specifically, the question is whether it's okay for parents to make that decision for their son. And as a society, if the risk-weighted benefits are worth less than the risk-weighted costs, then you can say on average it's a bad decision. Whether The State can take away people's right to make bad decisions for themselves is a really tough question, but taking away people's ability to hurt others via bad decisions is much clearer, it's the entire premise of "reckless endangerment." Going back to cars, it's not like driving drunk will definitely hurt someone, but it increases the risk so much it's a punishable offense.

So treating a "risk" as "zero cost" is socially irresponsible and thus, unethical.
 
daniel_gudman said:
No, see, taking a risk is a potential harm. On a societal scale you add up the aggregate cost and benefit. On a personal scale you discount the harm you suffer by the risk rate, to arrive at the theoretical cost that you're weighing against the benefit. To go back to the car example, let's say you could buy a car with a low safety rating for $6000 and a car with a high safety rating for $8000; you weigh the risk-amortized costs of the lower-rated car being more dangerous if you get in an accident, vs the definite cost of the $2000 difference. And whether you take the risk or not is dependent on your personal decisions about your relative values.

So with circumcision specifically, the question is whether it's okay for parents to make that decision for their son. And as a society, if the risk-weighted benefits are worth less than the risk-weighted costs, then you can say on average it's a bad decision. Whether The State can take away people's right to make bad decisions for themselves is a really tough question, but taking away people's ability to hurt others via bad decisions is much clearer, it's the entire premise of "reckless endangerment." Going back to cars, it's not like driving drunk will definitely hurt someone, but it increases the risk so much it's a punishable offense.

So treating a "risk" as "zero cost" is socially irresponsible and thus, unethical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And you deciding what is acceptable risk and what isn't is ethical all of a sudden?
 
Uh... yes?

Well to be painfully precise, I'm saying I think the cost-benefit is such that I don't think it's right for people (ie parents) to make that choice for someone else (their infant son).

I mean you're making the exact same thing.

You're just applying a much greater discount rate to the risk, such that you're assuming the amortized cost to the individual is functionally zero.
 
daniel_gudman said:
Uh... yes?

I mean you're making the exact same thing.

You're just applying a much greater discount rate to the risk, such that you're assuming the amortized cost to the individual is functionally zero.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am not in fact doing so, I believe that it's a personal choice. I am neither for nor against it, I see the benefits and I see the risks, so fuck off with your moralizing bullshit.
 
Yeah if it's one person making a choice for another it's not a personal choice is it? Cuz there's two people involved. That's more than one, which is the number of people who would be making the decision if it was a personal choice.
 
daniel_gudman said:
Yeah if it's one person making a choice for another it's not a personal choice is it? Cuz there's two people involved. That's more than one, which is the number of people who would be making the decision if it was a personal choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Tell me, what do you think of abortion?
 
Malbutorius said:
Kids never wash behind their ears, you think they're going to wash their dicks properly?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a training issue, not to mention that as an orifice it's mostly self cleaning! The care required down there is minimal.

Besides, cutting your ear off so you don't have to clean behind it seems like a rather extreme solution to the problem.
 
vyor said:
Unless you believe that circumcision is necessary to avoid being sent to hell. You know, is jewish and some christian's belief.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is not the concern of the state. I mean, I'm too lazy to go hunt for examples now, but I'm sure we can all agree that there are a thousand religious practices that are harmful and should hence not enjoy state protection. What people believe for themselves shouldn't enter the equation; what people believe is after all a purely private matter.

vyor said:
Personal choice for the parent, I know thinking is hard, but please at least try?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Parents should only have caretaker authority over their children. Nothing more than that. So, if their decisions harm the children (and as was noted, risk is potential harm), then they should not be allowed to make those decisions for the children.

Also, abortions? Really? Foeti aren't people.
 
vyor said:
How was that a concession?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because she's an asshole.

Seriously, anybody who does "Consession Accepted" is an asshole. Anyways.

daniel_gudman said:
Yeah if it's one person making a choice for another it's not a personal choice is it? Cuz there's two people involved. That's more than one, which is the number of people who would be making the decision if it was a personal choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because children are fucking retarded that's why.

Susano said:
Also, abortions? Really? Foeti aren't people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They respond to stimuli in complex manners, that's enough for people to not kill animals.

Hell, fetuses that are like three months old respond to music.
Splodge said:
Besides, cutting your ear off so you don't have to clean behind it seems like a rather extreme solution to the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
False equivalency. The ear is actually important, the foreskin is a bit of skin.
 
Last edited:
vyor said:
How was that a concession?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's 'cause rather than responding to or refuting my argument, you brought up a completely different (and even more inflammatory) social disagreement. I guessed you were going on a fishing expedition for a way to call me a hypocrite, and I didn't appreciate that.

It's shifting the goalposts, basically; it looked like you couldn't respond to what I said so you simply changed to a different angle of attack.

So I was using an inflammatory meme to point out you didn't have a counterargument, so much as a counterattack.
 
daniel_gudman said:
It's 'cause rather than responding to or refuting my argument, you brought up a completely different (and even more inflammatory) social disagreement. I guessed you were going on a fishing expedition for a way to call me a hypocrite, and I didn't appreciate that.

It's shifting the goalposts, basically; it looked like you couldn't respond to what I said so you simply changed to a different angle of attack.

So I was using an inflammatory meme to point out you didn't have a counterargument, so much as a counterattack.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The same logic can be applied to both situations, one is merely more extreme than the other. You are using an emotional argument, it's literally impossible to refute it because it's based on feelings and personal morals, neither of which can actually be debated.
 
I dunno where you're getting the idea I'm making an emotional argument though.

I mean, even if we remove emotions entirely and still talk just about the cost in time and money, the same cost/benefit analysis applies. Circumcisions cost money, they have risks that also could cost money, and the benefit is that it reduces a risk of having to spend money (on drugs or whatever).

That's starting to get more into political economy rather than shared values, but you can still do it.



And I mean ultimately

Humans have emotions about stuff, and sometimes as a society we have to make decisions about stuff, and convince other humans to change their mind about what decision to make?

You totally can argue about stuff dealing with human emotions and morals, it just requires that you appeal to shared values, maybe reframe it in terms they do agree with, or even try to convince them to change their mind about how they feel about things. That last one can actually be pretty hard though.

I mean maybe you personally can't. Once you say something like "I don't give a fuck about what you feel" you've given up the ability to find common ground, which is always, like, step one in reaching a compromise.

But that's just, like, a lack of communication skill or maybe a deficit of empathy getting in the way, it's not some kind of absolute principle.
 
vyor said:
The same logic can be applied to both situations, one is merely more extreme than the other. You are using an emotional argument, it's literally impossible to refute it because it's based on feelings and personal morals, neither of which can actually be debated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except they're not. They're saying on a risk/reward analysis, the risks outweigh the rewards. They're not even including 'risks' like 'kid will not look like dad' or 'kid may be looked at funny in school.' They're just looking at possible medical complications from the procedure vs. future medical benefit. That's starkly utilitarian and not emotive at all.

I get that you're trying to say that there isn't evidence of actual 100% harm from the procedure, but that doesn't make the argument he's making an emotional one.
 
daniel_gudman said:
I dunno where you're getting the idea I'm making an emotional argument though.

I mean, even if we remove emotions entirely and still talk just about the cost in time and money, the same cost/benefit analysis applies. Circumcisions cost money, they have risks that also could cost money, and the benefit is that it reduces a risk of having to spend money (on drugs or whatever).

That's starting to get more into political economy rather than shared values, but you can still do it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They do not in fact cost money and take about 30 seconds to perform.
 
Malbutorius said:
Ad hominem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do you even fucking know what an ad hominem is? Hint: It isn't using insults or swearwords.

vyor said:
They do not in fact cost money and take about 30 seconds to perform.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...you're shit at arguing, aren't you? I mean goddamn. How could there possibly be a debate when you answer to well-considered posts with stupid oneliners, refuse to engage any actual argument and start insulting (yes, I do it as well, but that's merely responding in kind) people? And also use the same wrong statement ("emotional arguments") over and over again despite having been corrected countless times?
 
vyor said:
They do not in fact cost money and take about 30 seconds to perform.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do you even check before you say these things? It does not look good when you make statements so obviously wrong and easily disproven with, like, a 10-second google search.

It costs at least $200, and significantly more if there's complications. Sometimes your insurance doesn't charge a copay, but that means you're paying to have it be covered by your insurance plan!
 
Susano said:
Do you even fucking know what an ad hominem is? Hint: It isn't using insults or swearwords.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well since the thing he quoted contained neither of those things...

daniel_gudman said:
Do you even check before you say these things? It does not look good when you make statements so obviously wrong and easily disproven with, like, a 10-second google search.

It costs at least $200, and significantly more if there's complications. Sometimes your insurance doesn't charge a copay, but that means you're paying to have it be covered by your insurance plan!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A more accurate statement would have been "doesn't cost anything in relation to the cost of birth and aftercare," but forgive me for engaging in slight hyperbole.

That also says that it costs at least 150$ without insurance, so you didn't even read that very well...
 
Malbutorius said:
You ignored my arguments and justified it by stating it was a tantrum.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That still isn't the ad hominem fallacy. I didn't dismiss your argument out of hand because it's you who wrote it; that would be the ad hominem fallacy. I dismissed your argument as temper tantrum because it consisted of idiotic one-liners like "Because children are fucking retarded that's why.". You really can't argue for shit.
 
Susano said:
That still isn't the ad hominem fallacy. I didn't dismiss your argument out of hand because it's you who wrote it; that would be the ad hominem fallacy. I dismissed your argument as temper tantrum because it consisted of idiotic one-liners like "Because children are fucking retarded that's why.". You really can't argue for shit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So you ignored my arguments because there were swear words in it?

Besides, it is foolish to write several paragraphs when the answer can be boiled down to a few words.

"Kids are stupid, and don't know what's good for them."

Short, and to the point. Anything more is irrelevant.
 
Malbutorius said:
Or if you're Jewish you can get it done for free.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even then, that just means that the parents aren't paying anything for it. The procedure itself still costs time and money for someone, if for no other reason than because whoever is doing the circumcision still needs to buy the proper surgical tools and (hopefully!) spend time sterilising said tools in between each circumcision that is performed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top