Jarlaxle

There are no such thing as rights, only obligations.

snatchbalance

Intensity,

Thank you for catching me, I don't know what I would have done without you.

So let's see, homoerotic rights of passage, well, they're not my cup of tea. But more importantly, what does it have to do with ritual clitectomy, or rights in general?

Are both practices coercive?

If given a choice, how many young men would want to suck an old man's dick and how many would not? What if I convinced them that the seman in question held no magic power, how many then would want to continue the practice? Am I somehow, because of someone else's opinion of proper conduct, confined to the role of passive observer, or do I have an obligation to pass on what I know to be true?

If given the choice of having thier clitoris removed with a sharp stick, or not, how many massi women would choose the former? Unless, of course, if to refuse meant removal from the group?

To say such that behaviors are simply "practices", without deeper sociological import, IMHO, exhibits a rather shallow understanding of such rituals. Are the subjects willing in that they have been made aware of the consequences? What are thier chioces? Can they choose not to without reprecussions? How do these practices enhance the functioning of the societies in question? How do they harm the individuals involved? Is questioning of such practices even allowed within the society in question?

Well, I guess you can shrug your shoulders and say that it's not my business, it'll all come out in the wash any way.(unless you save the dress as a keep sake.)But, being the elitist that I am, I might try to point out some of the downsides of such voluntary practices. In turn, of course, I would be open to thier critisims of my own relatively bizzare practices(such as sitting here looking at pixels on a screen, talk about bizzare)

Snatchbalance

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

snatchbalance

Intensity,

I guess my real point is something like this:

As a thinking person, when I see something that I consider to be "wrong", and I believe there are many degrees of "wrongness", I have both the right and obligation to piont out such "wrongs".

I don't have time right now, but I will attempt to support this contention in the near future.

Snatchbalance

Bill Snedden

/moderator hat on

To all:

While on the whole this discussion has been relatively calm, some of the more recent posts have seemed a bit more, well, polemic. I would like to remind all participants that no actual humans are being harmed in these forums and to request that we all try very hard to be civil to one another no matter how vehement our disagreement might be.

Thank you all for your cooperation. We now return you to your previously scheduled discussion.

/moderator hat off

Bill Snedden

Ted Hoffman

sntchbalance
Look, the practices are performed on kids: people who do what they are told. They are promised and indeed, rewarded with all sorts of things when they actually "brave" those rituals. To the maasai, the young women enter adulthood through circumcision. They are then treated with respect and given milk and honey for quite a protracted period. They are even given young men to marry them.
They grow up knowing its something they not only have to do, but something they should do - something honourable something to be proud of. So when the time comes, they face it with stoic resolution. There are rarely cases of resistance especially for people brought up in those cultures. Pain is involved, death sometimes (from cutting the wrong blood vessels or infections) but it is treated as a passage of life. The pain of the cut is "reduced" through crude means like going to the river early in the morning.

I agree with you that we have an obligation to inform such people that its not the best way to mark those rites of passage and that manhood or womanhood is more than a mutilated genital.
Currently, besides sensitizing them, we are offering them alternative rites of passage but it will take some time before they get acceptance. Mostly, there is a lot of superstition and fear - which of course thrive on ignorance.
No. I turn away in shock at the atrocity.
To snatch away the crude razor from the hands of the cutter results in death.
They are being talked out of it and being sensitized on woman sexuality etc.
But it is ultimately up to them. No one can monitor them day and night. Elitists can rant and rave but more pragmatic approaches are being adopted other than harsh criticism and posturing.
This is totally in order.
They cant consider this important question because its the only world they have known. They dont go to school(until recently), and most of them dont even dwell on the matter of circumcision. Because it has been molded into their life - besides, its done only once in ones lifetime.
Its not just the clitoris that is removed but the labia minora plus majora, only a hole for urine to trickle is left. You would be incensed beyond sanity if you got the real picture.
So now my understanding of such rituals is shallow. Lets focus on the rituals not ad hominems please.
I did NOT say that they are simply "practices", without deeper sociological import.
Don't waste energy attacking a strawman.
The question of willingness is eliminated by their upbringing. To ask if they are willing is like asking if you are willing to go to school when you are a kid: to them, its something they simply have to do. Its a wrong question directed at the wrong person. I am not a clan elder.
To make choices requires info. They are not informed. Nope. Just like someone brought up in a christian family (fundy type) cannot choose not to go to church while they are still kids without repercussions. Most atheists for example are educated adults. Its the same mechanism in place. You need maturity and info to challenge it. They bring people together, like all ceremonies do. They also offer a form of identity within the group and are a means of earning status. They are rites of passage, like baptism of graduation.
There is loss of blood and flesh. Pain is suffered, infections sometimes result in death. Women lack the capacity to enjoy sex.
In exchange, the participants are respected for their bravery and discipline. For honouring the community and are recognised to belong to some rank. Material gifts are provided too. Cases of infidelity are almost totally eliminated (at least from one side). The family as a unit is therefore tightly knit.
The people lack the capacity to question and it would be considered "polemical" to do that. Its like growing up in Iran and questioning why the women wear burka.

/putting on helmet and protective gear for facing moderator

If I am the one Bill is referring to as polemical, I challenge him to mention the specific instance. He is implying that I am
sanctioning or promoting female circumcision and I resent the hell out of that.

/removing helmet and anti-moderator gear

snatchbalance

Intensity,

I guess that my read on your postion was something like: You're not part of the group, it's not your business, stay out of it.

Instead, I now think it's more like: If you see something that you think is wrong, one can and should point out that wrong; but ultimately, only the group in question can decide on the proper course of action.

If this is the case, you and I very close to being in agreement. It was the notion of passive acceptance that was sticking in my craw.

As part of a subculture in my own society (atheist/pacifist in the USA) I am well aware of the problems in dealing with institutionalised practices and attitudes. I think that it is only because most of my thinking falls outside of the mainstream, that I am able to offer critism within my own group. Along the same vien, only by being outside the group mentality, can meanigful critisim be offered to other cultures.

Like you say, the idea of choice becomes meaningles if one is not aware of any choices.

Again, it was only the idea of passive acceptance that raised my ire. Thank you for taking the time to expand on your position.

Snatchbalance

Ted Hoffman

*gives snatchbalance a hug after shatchbalance has regained his balance pats his shoulder*

I am glad I have managed to make my position clear.

*looks around to see if moderator is approachicg with his moderator cap on*

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

jpbrooks

Sorry about not being able to respond sooner.

We don't have to look for "societies" with oppressive governments to find an example. Even "societies" such as ours have laws that apply to children, mentally retarded people, and people who are physically challenged to the point of being invalids. None of these people in our "society" are deemed capable of participating in the law making processes of our "society".

The point is that all of the people who are considered by the "society" to be members of the "society" (and/or to be within its jurisdiction), are not able to participate in the process that determines what constitutes the "Common Good". Thus laws based on the "Common Good", as defined by "competent" members of the "society", are imposed on the other (less "competent") members.

Again, the "Common Good" is determined and used as a basis to create laws only by those members of the "society" who are allowed to participate in its political processes.

I agree.

It is true that humans have a general (psychological) tendency to conform to the social groups that they are members of, but I'm not sure that everyone is comfortable with a body of laws that enforce "conformity" as a general policy. That's what totalitarian regimes are notorious for doing.

It is the case when the "society" provides no way to avoid "rule by majority".

So "murdering" (i.e., wantonly killing) people, for example, is alright as long as it doesn't take place within a "society"?
I would rephrase your statement above as, "no 'society', no need to acknowledge rights". Again, if there are things that most (if not all) "societies" hold to be right or wrong (and it certainly seems that there are such things) then some rights, that will be "identified" by a particular "society" that will come into existence, can exist before the "society" comes into existence.
If there are things that are universally held to be "wrong", then there are "rights" that are relative to something other than the formation of a "society".

But how can it be that the mentally "ill" have any rights to be protected at all since they don't participate in the "society's" political processes? From the viewpoint that we are considering, people are not supposed to have rights until they can "identify" their rights.

And who gets to define "exploitation"?

Very well, but then how does one deal with a situation in which some other "society" tries to destroy one's own? If one ("society") shouldn't render any judgment on the practices of another "society", how is one to proceed in this situation?

No problem. You have raised some good and interesting points that I wish I had more time to address. Most of my time online (outside of deleting e-mail) is divided between studying philosophy, math, computer languages, etc., and looking for ways to increase my income. I'm not doing very well right now in the latter activity.

Again, I'm not at all certain that it has been established that all things that are ("identified" by humans to be) 'wrong" are wrong simply because one's "society" says so. Thus, rights need not all be created by a "society".
If there were no civilization, people would still make personal evaluations of behavior. So even if there could be such a "state of nature" in which no "societal" organizations existed at all, the ideas of "rights" and "wrongs" woud not disappear entirely. They would merely be applied subjectively by each individual.

(Again, my time online is divided, so please excuse any further delays in responding on my part.)

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Ender

This statement does not vary in the least – much less contradict- what I said, and in fact, your statement is only a redressing of Darwin and a bland generalization at that. I specified the exact purpose of the "propagation of life" was to produce the highest- as in the most intelligent, healthiest, strongest, and able- specimens. This coheres quite nicely with the staid, indistinct Darwinistic "survival of the fittest" concept.

Sometimes I think Darwin imported too much teleological flavor (a shadow of god) in his theory of evolution, especially in his wording or word-choices.

Of course we do operate in the vast abyss of chance. The total character of the universe is chaos- not because there is no necessity but whatever order or purpose or beauty we "see" comes from our "aesthetic anthropomorphism." None of our aesthetic or moral judgments apply to the universe. There is no instinct for "self-preservation" or any other instincts.

~WiGGiN~]

Ender

What exactly do you mean that there are too many factors (unknowns) in life to account for? Doesn't this stink of an argument from ignorance? What do you mean by "they?" That statement I wrote was my most optimistic view of the future, that man has been developing the reins (technology) and is about to slap a leather seat on Mother Nature. Whatever ideal man conceives of will more than likely correct the derivative aspects of life (physical ailments) and adhere to some type of conformist concept of health.

Rights are conceived as a logical extension of man's nature. Given that most people's natures vary, that is exactly the template, the breeding ground where rights stem from. For example a person of the conviction that all men are equal may assume that an egalitarian society is the proper goal of mankind. Then the person of that very conviction has a certain nature, which is bottled up of certain impulses and instincts, is open for further examination.
~WiGGiN~