Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[evolution]

I challenge your view that the genital cutting of children is essentially less harmful when the child is a boy, but first I need you to confirm that is your view.

What do you mean by 'harmful' here?

How could the cutting of what may well be labeled the exact same thing, that is; the genitals, be less or more harmful when what is actually being cut is essentially a completely DIFFERENT thing?

This would be like 'trying to' "argue" that the genital cutting of boys is not more harmful when the whole scrotum and both testicles are cut when compared with when the foreskin of the penis is cut. OBVIOUSLY they are both VERY DIFFERENT things.

Of course the connection between the cutting of genitals on ANY child, by adult human beings, is UNNECESSARY and DOES CAUSE HARM, (it HURTS no matter if boy or girl). But the words 'less harmful' are in direct relation to where exactly is the 'cut', and to just how deep and just how long the 'cut' is, and not to if one is, classed and labeled, a 'boy' or a 'girl'.

[SimonP]

... until the views within that head are freely expressed. Which, if one Truly wished to have their views challenged, then they would PRESENT their views. But until then, how about challenging the views expressed above?

Can views be freely expressed, or does it depend on the view, depend on one is willing and able to accept the expected negative consequences etc?

[SimonP]

I challenge your view that the genital cutting of children is essentially less harmful when the child is a boy, but first I need you to confirm that is your view.

What do you mean by 'harmful' here?

How could the cutting of what may well be labeled the exact same thing, that is; the genitals, be less or more harmful when what is actually being cut is essentially a completely DIFFERENT thing?

This would be like 'trying to' "argue" that the genital cutting of boys is not more harmful when the whole scrotum and both testicles are cut when compared with when the foreskin of the penis is cut. OBVIOUSLY they are both VERY DIFFERENT things.

Of course the connection between the cutting of genitals on ANY child, by adult human beings, is UNNECESSARY and DOES CAUSE HARM, (it HURTS no matter if boy or girl). But the words 'less harmful' are in direct relation to where exactly is the 'cut', and to just how deep and just how long the 'cut' is, and not to if one is, classed and labeled, a 'boy' or a 'girl'.

Both the physical and psychological injury caused. This encompasses pyschological harm that is not recognised or even known. An example of such a harm would be a women who is the victim of upskirting but never knows it. However we can limit it to the physical harm of the unjury caused as this is where the essential difference is usually claimed to be.

What you write about being labelled the same but completely different applies also to female genital cutting, in fact to a far greater extent ie the spectrum of what is cut is far bigger with girls than it is with boys. So does this mean you think the different types of cutting of girls genitals are very different things and not essentially the same phenomena?

[evolution]

... until the views within that head are freely expressed. Which, if one Truly wished to have their views challenged, then they would PRESENT their views. But until then, how about challenging the views expressed above?

Can views be freely expressed,

YES. VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

or does it depend on the view, depend on one is willing and able to accept the expected negative consequences etc?

Just expressing ANY view can be VERY FREELY done. But how ANY view is accepted, or not accepted, is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

Also, as you alluded to; Having 'expectations', (of, or from, "others") can drastically reduce how, when, and even if, one chooses to 'FREELY EXPRESS' a view, or not.

Could you propose a view, which you think or believe that could not be freely expressed, to me?

[evolution]

What do you mean by 'harmful' here?

How could the cutting of what may well be labeled the exact same thing, that is; the genitals, be less or more harmful when what is actually being cut is essentially a completely DIFFERENT thing?

This would be like 'trying to' "argue" that the genital cutting of boys is not more harmful when the whole scrotum and both testicles are cut when compared with when the foreskin of the penis is cut. OBVIOUSLY they are both VERY DIFFERENT things.

Of course the connection between the cutting of genitals on ANY child, by adult human beings, is UNNECESSARY and DOES CAUSE HARM, (it HURTS no matter if boy or girl). But the words 'less harmful' are in direct relation to where exactly is the 'cut', and to just how deep and just how long the 'cut' is, and not to if one is, classed and labeled, a 'boy' or a 'girl'.

Both the physical and psychological injury caused. This encompasses pyschological harm that is not recognised or even known.

"Not recognized nor even known", by who EXACTLY?

The ACTUAL physical and psychological harm is very recognized and very known, by me. What I wrote should have been CLEAR EVIDENCE of this.

An example of such a harm would be a women who is the victim of upskirting but never knows it.

If a human being NEVER knows some 'thing', then they obviously could NEVER by psychologically harmed by some UNKNOWN 'thing'. The words 'psychological' and 'not knowing', or 'unknown' PROVES THIS.

Also, a human being can NOT be physically harmed if the physical body has NOT been affected.

However we can limit it to the physical harm of the unjury caused as this is where the essential difference is usually claimed to be.

What you write about being labelled the same but completely different applies also to female genital cutting, in fact to a far greater extent ie the spectrum of what is cut is far bigger with girls than it is with boys.

And you KNOW this how?

By hearing what happens from "others", or by watching the procedures when they are being performed?

So does this mean you think the different types of cutting of girls genitals are very different things and not essentially the same phenomena?

What seems to be the case here, to me, is this is your favorite topic and you are looking for those who disagree with you, or have a different view than you, and then you enjoy debating and disagreeing with them.

You appear to have taken what I have ACTUALLY SAID and STATED and twisted and distort IT so much in an attempt to fulfill your goal and desire here, which appears to be to just 'argue', dispute, with "others".

The 'phenomena' of cutting genitals, to me, is the EXACT SAME, AND, the cutting of the genitals are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. As there are OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT GENITALS and DIFFERENT CUTS.

[SimonP]

Can views be freely expressed,

YES. VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

or does it depend on the view, depend on one is willing and able to accept the expected negative consequences etc?

Just expressing ANY view can be VERY FREELY done. But how ANY view is accepted, or not accepted, is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

Also, as you alluded to; Having 'expectations', (of, or from, "others") can drastically reduce how, when, and even if, one chooses to 'FREELY EXPRESS' a view, or not.

Could you propose a view, which you think or believe that could not be freely expressed, to me?

I used to think so too however my experience of being censored on most forums I have used including this one, has changed my mind. Most people don't hold "extreme" views by which I mean views which depart very significantly from what most people in their culture hold to be true, and therefore never experience the limitations put on the expression of views. It happens occassionally that the suppression of views comes to the forefront when for example it is a famous person or an author, or where the consequences are very grave, to name one there was/is the famous case of Salman Rushdie.

No it is not a completely different matter for if there is a high price in the way of consequences it cannot be said they are expressed freely. A person in Saudi has the option to go out on the street and proclaim he doesn't believe in Allah however that doesn't mean he can freely express himself. Also to be freely expressed must encompas the degree to which views may be heard. Being free to shout out your views from the middle of a Saudi desert with no one in ear shot, does not mean you are free to express views either. It means you are free to post them on SM som Twitter and Facebook etc. and this is not the case.

Yes, I have already.

[SimonP]

Both the physical and psychological injury caused. This encompasses pyschological harm that is not recognised or even known.

"Not recognized nor even known", by who EXACTLY?

The ACTUAL physical and psychological harm is very recognized and very known, by me. What I wrote should have been CLEAR EVIDENCE of this.

I would say most people don't recognise the physical harm of amputating the male foreskin and tgis is especially true of those who have been subjected to it, and this is evidenced in the public discourse on the matter. I don't believe we know of all the harm caused for example we don't know for sure how many cot deaths are caused or how many cases of autism can be attributed to the ritual cutting. How do you know of these factors? It was very far from clear.

An example of such a harm would be a women who is the victim of upskirting but never knows it.

If a human being NEVER knows some 'thing', then they obviously could NEVER by psychologically harmed by some UNKNOWN 'thing'. The words 'psychological' and 'not knowing', or 'unknown' PROVES THIS.

Also, a human being can NOT be physically harmed if the physical body has NOT been affected.

No, that's not obvious at all. However you believe a women who is the victim of upskirting but lives her life happily unaware of it, hasn't been harmed by it? How about if I were to hack your bank account and withdraw a small amount you never realised and also lived your life happily unaware of it, would you also suffer no harm?

Not sure why you write this about physical harm? Did you get the impression I had claimed otherwise??

However we can limit it to the physical harm of the unjury caused as this is where the essential difference is usually claimed to be.

What you write about being labelled the same but completely different applies also to female genital cutting, in fact to a far greater extent ie the spectrum of what is cut is far bigger with girls than it is with boys.

And you KNOW this how?

By hearing what happens from "others", or by watching the procedures when they are being performed?

Through many years of debatting it!

Are you disputing that female genital cutting rituals are a spectrum where in some cases some parts of the genitals are cut while in others different parts are?

So does this mean you think the different types of cutting of girls genitals are very different things and not essentially the same phenomena?

What seems to be the case here, to me, is this is your favorite topic and you are looking for those who disagree with you, or have a different view than you, and then you enjoy debating and disagreeing with them.

You appear to have taken what I have ACTUALLY SAID and STATED and twisted and distort IT so much in an attempt to fulfill your goal and desire here, which appears to be to just 'argue', dispute, with "others".

The 'phenomena' of cutting genitals, to me, is the EXACT SAME, AND, the cutting of the genitals are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. As there are OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT GENITALS and DIFFERENT CUTS.

You are venturing into ad hominem. How exactly have I twisted and distorted what you wrote? I can assure you it was never the intention.

Your last sentence is very confusing.

Do you believe that the phenomena of cutting limbs is the exact same and the cutting of limbs are very different things, as there are obviously different limbs and different cuts?

[evolution]

YES. VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.



Just expressing ANY view can be VERY FREELY done. But how ANY view is accepted, or not accepted, is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

Also, as you alluded to; Having 'expectations', (of, or from, "others") can drastically reduce how, when, and even if, one chooses to 'FREELY EXPRESS' a view, or not.

Could you propose a view, which you think or believe that could not be freely expressed, to me?

I used to think so too however my experience of being censored on most forums I have used including this one, has changed my mind.

Was there ANYWHERE mentioned about 'freely expressing' views, on this, or ANY other, forum, ONLY?

Most people don't hold "extreme" views by which I mean views which depart very significantly from what most people in their culture hold to be true,

Some, so called, "extreme views", which depart very significantly from what most people in their culture hold to be true are the MOST TRUEST and MOST CORRECT views.

Also, did you notice the OBVIOUS REASON WHY what you claimed in your quote here happens?

If you did not, or have not YET, noticed, then just let me know and I will inform you, that is; if you are curious and want to know as well.

and therefore never experience the limitations put on the expression of views.

I would be pretty sure that EVERY adult human being has experienced an occasion where they have refrained from expressing a view, because of the way "others" would LOOK AT and/or PERCEIVE that view. So, if this is true, then EVERY adult HAS experienced the limitations put on the expression of views.

It happens occassionally that the suppression of views comes to the forefront when for example it is a famous person or an author, or where the consequences are very grave, to name one there was/is the famous case of Salman Rushdie.

No it is not a completely different matter for if there is a high price in the way of consequences it cannot be said they are expressed freely.

IF the one named "salman rush-die" did NOT put that name to those views, which were 'expressed', then those views could have been more 'freely expressed'. Surely that one KNEW putting their name to those kinds of 'expressed views' was a "rush-to-die' proposal. Or, maybe that one did not?

A person in Saudi has the option to go out on the street and proclaim he doesn't believe in Allah however that doesn't mean he can freely express himself.

That one could VERY SIMPLY and QUITE EASILY FREELY EXPRESS views, anonymously.

Just maybe if 'you', human beings, started FREE EXPRESSING, for the RIGHT reasons, anonymously, instead of EXPRESSING, for fame and/or fortune, then 'you' could EXPRESS far more FREELY than you can now, when this is being written? Just a thought.

Also to be freely expressed must encompas the degree to which views may be heard. Being free to shout out your views from the middle of a Saudi desert with no one in ear shot, does not mean you are free to express views either.

I had NEVER thought of this, so thanks for CLEARING THIS UP. But I have ALWAYS been thinking of 'FREELY EXPRESSING', in this thread, with and among "OTHERS".

It means you are free to post them on SM som Twitter and Facebook etc. and this is not the case.

You did not mention before that you were talking about VERY SPECIFIC 'things' and VERY SPECIFIC situations.

Your ORIGINAL question was:
"Can views be freely expressed, or does it depend on the view, depend on one is willing and able to accept the expected negative consequences etc?"

And what can be CLEARLY SEEN in your question was that there was absolutely NOTHING about "facebook", "twitter", "forums", nor ANY thing else specific, other than what you ACTUALLY WROTE, and ASKED.

Yes, I have already.
[/quote]

What, EXACTLY, was the view, which you thought or believed that could not be freely expressed, to me, but which you now say that you "have already"?

[evolution]

"Not recognized nor even known", by who EXACTLY?

The ACTUAL physical and psychological harm is very recognized and very known, by me. What I wrote should have been CLEAR EVIDENCE of this.

I would say most people don't recognise the physical harm of amputating the male foreskin and tgis is especially true of those who have been subjected to it, and this is evidenced in the public discourse on the matter.

Now writing and saying, "most", contradicts what you previously wrote and said, or, at least, saying "most" now CLARIFIES what you ACTUALLY DID MEAN.

I don't believe we know of all the harm caused for example we don't know for sure how many cot deaths are caused or how many cases of autism can be attributed to the ritual cutting.

We might not. But we can also IMAGINE the most illogical and absurd things, and then write those things down as though they have some truth to them. As EVIDENCED above.

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that that some cot deaths were CAUSED by the cutting of genitals, and/or REALLY BELIEVE that autism can caused by the cutting of genitals?

How do you know of these factors? It was very far from clear.[/quote]

Did you MISS or MISUNDERSTAND what I meant, by what I wrote?

I wrote:
The ACTUAL physical and psychological harm is very recognized and very known, by me.

Are you ABLE TO SPOT THE DIFFERENCE?

If a human being NEVER knows some 'thing', then they obviously could NEVER by psychologically harmed by some UNKNOWN 'thing'. The words 'psychological' and 'not knowing', or 'unknown' PROVES THIS.

Also, a human being can NOT be physically harmed if the physical body has NOT been affected.

No, that's not obvious at all.

What part, EXACTLY, is "not obvious at all", to you?

Until you CLARIFY I do NOT know what you are on about, here.

Are you responding to the former, to the latter, to both, or to a part of any of that?

However you believe a women who is the victim of upskirting but lives her life happily unaware of it, hasn't been harmed by it?

I do NOT believe this. But, then again, I also do NOT believe ANY thing else, (except for one thing, which has absolutely NO bearing at all on this issue, in this thread).

How about if I were to hack your bank account and withdraw a small amount you never realised and also lived your life happily unaware of it, would you also suffer no harm?

OF COURSE.

If i am UNAWARE of some thing, then I can NOT be affect by 'it' [whatever 'it' is], in ANY way, including being 'harmed', and especially in a psychologically way.

Do you think or believe you would "suffer harm" in that example you provided?

If yes, then how, EXACTLY?

What 'harm' would 'you' 'suffer' from, EXACTLY?

Not sure why you write this about physical harm? Did you get the impression I had claimed otherwise??

What part are you actually referring to here?

I am unable to answer your questions, properly and correctly, until I know, EXACTLY, what part you are referring to here, which I wrote.

And you KNOW this how?

By hearing what happens from "others", or by watching the procedures when they are being performed?

Through many years of debatting it!

LOL

So, through just some learned skill of ' picking a "side" ', and then fighting/arguing for that "side", no matter what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, you have gained YOUR KNOWLEDGE, correct?

Are you AWARE that people can, and do, say just about ANY thing, in order to 'try to' back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, or their "SIDE", and their VIEW of things?

Do not forget that, through debating, people want to, so call, "WIN", the argument or debate. So, it could be argued that thee ACTUAL Truth is NOT FREELY given NOR provide in, and through, debating.

Also, YOUR MOST TRUTHFUL ANSWER to my ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION would have been; "By just HEARING, from "others", what happens".

Are you disputing that female genital cutting rituals are a spectrum where in some cases some parts of the genitals are cut while in others different parts are?

NO.

The words 'genital cutting' would provide the CLUE that I would NOT be thinking NOR even imagining such a thing as you have proposed here.

What made 'you' go off on such an extreme ASSUMPTION?

What seems to be the case here, to me, is this is your favorite topic and you are looking for those who disagree with you, or have a different view than you, and then you enjoy debating and disagreeing with them.

You appear to have taken what I have ACTUALLY SAID and STATED and twisted and distort IT so much in an attempt to fulfill your goal and desire here, which appears to be to just 'argue', dispute, with "others".

The 'phenomena' of cutting genitals, to me, is the EXACT SAME, AND, the cutting of the genitals are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. As there are OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT GENITALS and DIFFERENT CUTS.

You are venturing into ad hominem.

You can SEE and LOOK AT what I ACTUALLY WROTE in ANY way you like. I have absolutely NO care at all. But with EVERY other accusation made about me regarding the same thing as here, I can CLEARLY SHOW that NO such thing has EVER taken place, by me.

SEE, by starting my sentence with; 'What SEEMS ...", I have SPECIFICALLY made it CLEAR that I am NOT saying what IS. I am just stating what SEEMS, or what APPEARS, TO ME. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY FALSE, WRONG, and/or INCORRECT.

Absolutely ANY thing that is being stated as just being; What SEEMS to be the case, or What APPEARS to be the case, (to me only, which was ALSO made VERY CLEAR) is making KNOWN that what is being said is NOT being claimed as BEING THE CASE at all.

Now, If ANY thing I said, that SEEMED to be happening, to me, was FALSE, NOT RIGHT, or NOT CORRECT, then you had, and still have, the FREEDOM and CHANCE to make CLEAR what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

Also, I can back up and support what I have said.

How exactly have I twisted and distorted what you wrote?

You ask questions on the ASSUMPTION and/or PRESUMPTION that I have MEANT some 'thing', BEFORE you ask me for CLARIFICATION of what I have ACTUALLY MEANT, FIRST.

This is HOW you have exactly twisted and distorted what I have written. But you are NOT the first and you will CERTAINLY NOT be the last either.

I have YET to find an adult human being who does NOT do this.

I can assure you it was never the intention.

Okay. Thank you for CLARIFYING.

Most people's intention is to NOT twist and distort what "other's" say and write, most of the time. But, this phenomena happens completely UNINTENTIONALLY. This happens because of how the brain works, in relation to, and with, ASSUMPTIONS and the BELIEF-system. Not until this phenomena is further understood can this mis/behavior be rectified, prevented, and gotten rid of completely within society.

Your last sentence is very confusing.

Thank you for thee Truth. But explaining MORE SPECIFICALLY what exactly and why my last sentence is VERY CONFUSING, to you, would help me tremendously in PROVIDING the ACTUAL CLARIFICATION and EXPLANATION NEEDED here.

Do you believe that the phenomena of cutting limbs is the exact same and the cutting of limbs are very different things, as there are obviously different limbs and different cuts?

I do NOT believe ANY thing, (except for one thing).

Hopefully this is CLEAR, now.

Now, think of what the words 'the phenomena of cutting limbs' ACTUALLY MEANS.

To me, this MEANS the act/phenomena of 'cutting limbs'.

And now, think about what the words 'cutting limbs' ACTUALLY MEANS.

To me, this MEANS the act of 'cutting limbs', which could refer to absolutely any DIFFERENT limb at any different depth. Cutting the top layer of skin off a limb is VERY DIFFERENT THING to cutting a limb off, for example. But BOTH involve the 'phenomena of cutting limbs'.

So, if we were to take this back to the discussion about 'cutting genitals', then cutting a, relatively, miniature amount of skin on top off, or around, the genitals, then this is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than cutting a whole genitalia off, or out. BUT, the 'phenomena of cutting the genitals of children', itself, is CHILD ABUSE, perpetrated by adult human beings on children, which does NOT matter if it is perpetrated on a boy or a girl. The UNNECESSARY act/phenomena is JUST WRONG, no matter what sex the human body is.

This can be PROVEN as being ABSOLUTELY MORALLY WRONG. But, that is for ANOTHER discussion, at ANOTHER time.

OBVIOUSLY, cutting DIFFERENT 'things' with DIFFERENT degrees of length and/or depth IS DIFFERENT. But the UNNECESSARY CUTTING is the EXACT SAME issue, act, or phenomena.

Has this CLEARED UP my last confusing, to you, sentence somewhat?