Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I will however retract the "two lightest" and stick with "Lightest" (as I forgot the second lightest, well assuming the second lightest on that page wasn't the third worst in circumcision), so long as it follows the circumcision methodology... and is ONCE AGAIN a religious practice with religious precedent.

Not... America 1950s "keeping women pure" sort of stuff.

[Neonivek]

I'd like to see some article or description of this "lightest" form, preferably from the WHO or some other internationally recognized organization.

I can't even find normal circumcision on WHO

[Jopax]

I will however retract the "two lightest" and stick with "Lightest" (as I forgot the second lightest, well assuming the second lightest on that page wasn't the third worst in circumcision), so long as it follows the circumcision methodology... and is ONCE AGAIN a religious practice with religious precedent.

Not... America 1950s "keeping women pure" sort of stuff.

So because it's religious and based in misguided thinking much older than that of 1950's America it's somehow ok?

Ninja Edit: It was linked literally posts ago by Ispil :V

[Neonivek]

I will however retract the "two lightest" and stick with "Lightest" (as I forgot the second lightest, well assuming the second lightest on that page wasn't the third worst in circumcision), so long as it follows the circumcision methodology... and is ONCE AGAIN a religious practice with religious precedent.

Not... America 1950s "keeping women pure" sort of stuff.

So because it's religious and based in misguided thinking much older than that of 1950's America it's somehow ok?

Ninja Edit: It was linked literally posts ago by Ispil :V

I meant the same mentality of "Keep them pure by injuring them in order to prevent it"...

Also Ispil did not

At least I didn't SEE anything on male circumcision.

[Jopax]

But it's misguided all the same, how is one form of idiocy acceptable and another isn't?

Also, yes he did:

The two lightest forms are not acceptable, actually. They are all a violation of human rights.

(Also also, I feel we should probably wrap this up or move to another thread or something, this is hardly Brexit stuff now)

[Neonivek]

It is something that is a bit culturally ingrained in some religions... As long as it isn't excessive (and arguably it is already excessive) I feel I should accept it.

Despite seeing many arguments like this in the past few years, I'll never understand why I 'should' be impelled to accept something that is instinctively and logically abhorrent to me, as if it somehow makes me a bad person (and in whose eyes? Certainly not my own, or those of my community) to oppose practices like these.

I might not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.

Remember, no one can prevent you from getting an abortion (well... SORT OF). Your judge cannot prevent a divorce because they or you are Catholic.

We kind of accept that as a society.

Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support

Then there we go! Easy peasy, there is no excuse.

[Neonivek]

FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are clean and beautiful after removal of body parts that are considered unclean, unfeminine or male.

So you're saying there's no excuse for FGM, and that it should not be practiced in your country even by immigrant groups who regard it as a cultural norm? Is that not violating your principles of multiculturalism?

The Babies and children have no say in this exchange. If as an adult they wish to go through this procedure then go ahead. Plus Religious and Cultural Norms are separate.

It is also a part of multiculturalism.

I know, I know, this is all a bit off the deep end, but I feel that only with such an extreme example can I really make the point that there can be exceptions to absolute preservation of every shred of identity/culture/religion.

Ok THANK YOU for this add on! (not sarcasm) I was worried you were attacking me this entire time... I was sitting in my chair peeved going through this entire hoop waiting for the "And now you see Neonivek, you are EVIL!!! or STUPID!!! or A MONSTER!!!"

I understand there is a limitation to multiculturalism and how far it should go... (I still question the whole "we will let a child DIE!" part... but then again I don't like children dying)

But... Yeah... Letting a bunch of people set up Sharia law in a section of a town and allow them to bully unrelated people into following it... sounds like it is directly opposed by multiculturalism.

[Neonivek]

Multiculturalism and homophobia are contradictions.

Well... At least in terms of how they are allowed to act upon it.

People are allowed to get Religious Courts appealed in normal courts right? Because that is a fairly typical law.
-Then again... Her divorce could reeaaaallly only be real through the religious court. Since I doubt she was seeking a legal divorce but a spiritual one.

[Radio Controlled]

So, apparently Thatcher Light is calling a snap election now, fixed-term Parliaments Act be damned.
Not entirely unexpected though I guess,

Spoiler: given her previous statements (click to show/hide)

And, more recent:

There will be no early general election, Downing Street says
Theresa May's spokesperson explicitly ruled out an early contest
Monday 20 March 2017

A interesting situation either way, a party calling for a new election while still under investigation for fraud in the previous one. But hey, at least we'll be able to see her defend her positions in some juicy debates. Then again, maybe not.

But, one wonders, will they have any time to spend on an election in the middle of Brexit negotiations?

Spoiler: Why, let's ask the woman of the hour herself. (click to show/hide)

[...]
May said: "When the SNP government say that now is the time to start talking about a second independence referendum, I say that just at this point all of our energies should be focused on our negotiations with the European Union about our future relationship.
[...]

Guess I can't really fault her for trying to strengthen their position when it seems they could make some gains and cement a stronger majority to get their preferred flavor of Brexit through. And as I've seen people point out this could prevent an election occurring just before the end of the negotiation period, which admittedly would also lead to uncertainty and potential spanners in the works.
And if this is any indication, at least Germany doesn't think this should interfere with the process:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

UK snap elections do not affect Brexit timetable, says Germany
The German government has expressed confidence that Brexit negotiations will not be delayed by snap elections in the UK after British MPs approved plans for a general election on June 8.

At least we can count on the British media to give us an unbiased view of the proceedings

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Welp, so much for that.
_{^{Yes, I know using the Daily Mail is akin to cheating at this point, but still. You can practically feel the erection of whoever made that poking you in the eye.}}

In related news, come one come all, be amazed! Witness the Amazing Jeremy Corbyn,

Spoiler:  The Man Who Finishes Third In a Two Person Race (click to show/hide)

On who would make the best Prime Minister:

Theresa May: 50% (+1)
Jeremy Corbyn: 14% (-2)

Not sure: 36% (+1)

(via YouGov)

Now taking bets as to when exactly the UK will become a de facto one-party state, given the performance of the opposition.

[Dorsidwarf]

I mean, it makes sense for her to get the whole "you arent an elected leader" sorted out while there is absolutely no real threats to tory control.

My hot bet is a surprise storm to power by the greens, who cancel brexit, the monarchy, and the economy in order to focus all of the governments resources on the important matter of discovering what their platform actually is

[Silverthrone]

Good Lord, am I out of the loop, some three pages out. Well, to summarise; Islamism is the common denominator for an awful lot of trouble, but it is often ignored and given undue space and privilige. Not particularly good at all. It is, however, a very wide denominator, as well. Not every single person to which it applies is part of the problem, and should be left out of the entire business. There is, after all, wheat and chaff. I think Islamism, and the negative behaviours that are tied to it, should be suppressed and discouraged. I think that it is perfectly warranted to do so. Partly because of the violence, and the risk to the public. Partly because I think it is well within the rights of native citizens in a country to declare that they want and do not want to see introduced.

Further, if we must go down that route, I do believe that drawing a direct comparison between islamophobia and the repression of the Jewish population in Nazi Germany is a ruddy, great simplification. It can be probed further, but it will only become more gauche as it goes.

Now back with the program:

I do not think that multi-culturalism, at its core, is wrong, that it is a bad thing. However, it is also not a good and great thing in an off itself. Further, it happens by itself, all the time. Every now living culture is a result of exchange and growth (frankly speaking, some excellent, some terrible). It carries on, and at its own pace. Indeed, a united England with one shared and cherished culture would likely have been a very strange notion for a bronze age Briton.
However, what rather irritates me is when this ideal of diversity is ham-handedly pushed into places not ready nor willing to accomodate them. One can imagine many of its cosmopolitan preachers, looking at the country-side (quite white and traditional, be it Britain or Bavaria), and thinking "Oh, my, these poor people have never known the joy of diversity, their lives must be a stagnant quagmire!". Then, they believe that a great service has been done to the poor provinsials when a few busloads of uprooted Afghan men is sent for them to manage as they can. That this act alone has enriched them. Meanwhile, the locals are left with a situation they did not want and cannot handle, and the newly arrivals are most likely left to fend for themselves (as always, some of those people are good, some of them are not).
It would no doubt have been an enrichment, had it occured at its own pace. Indeed, worcestershire sauce, chutney and tea are all (in my opinion) great examples of enrichment. Christmas, and most that is a part of it, is another. However, this enrichment ought to not be forced. Multi-culture will come with culture clash, and there will also come the point where one must decide what cultural traits are welcome and which are not.
One can post-pone this decision through cultural relativism, but why would anyone do such a dreadful disservice?

[martinuzz]

Hah, another brexit cartoon in my newspaper

http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon-2~p4368444/4443835/

[redwallzyl]

Good Lord, am I out of the loop, some three pages out. Well, to summarise; Islamism is the common denominator for an awful lot of trouble, but it is often ignored and given undue space and privilige. Not particularly good at all. It is, however, a very wide denominator, as well. Not every single person to which it applies is part of the problem, and should be left out of the entire business. There is, after all, wheat and chaff. I think Islamism, and the negative behaviours that are tied to it, should be suppressed and discouraged. I think that it is perfectly warranted to do so. Partly because of the violence, and the risk to the public. Partly because I think it is well within the rights of native citizens in a country to declare that they want and do not want to see introduced.

Further, if we must go down that route, I do believe that drawing a direct comparison between islamophobia and the repression of the Jewish population in Nazi Germany is a ruddy, great simplification. It can be probed further, but it will only become more gauche as it goes.

Now back with the program:

I do not think that multi-culturalism, at its core, is wrong, that it is a bad thing. However, it is also not a good and great thing in an off itself. Further, it happens by itself, all the time. Every now living culture is a result of exchange and growth (frankly speaking, some excellent, some terrible). It carries on, and at its own pace. Indeed, a united England with one shared and cherished culture would likely have been a very strange notion for a bronze age Briton.
However, what rather irritates me is when this ideal of diversity is ham-handedly pushed into places not ready nor willing to accomodate them. One can imagine many of its cosmopolitan preachers, looking at the country-side (quite white and traditional, be it Britain or Bavaria), and thinking "Oh, my, these poor people have never known the joy of diversity, their lives must be a stagnant quagmire!". Then, they believe that a great service has been done to the poor provinsials when a few busloads of uprooted Afghan men is sent for them to manage as they can. That this act alone has enriched them. Meanwhile, the locals are left with a situation they did not want and cannot handle, and the newly arrivals are most likely left to fend for themselves (as always, some of those people are good, some of them are not).
It would no doubt have been an enrichment, had it occured at its own pace. Indeed, worcestershire sauce, chutney and tea are all (in my opinion) great examples of enrichment. Christmas, and most that is a part of it, is another. However, this enrichment ought to not be forced. Multi-culture will come with culture clash, and there will also come the point where one must decide what cultural traits are welcome and which are not.
One can post-pone this decision through cultural relativism, but why would anyone do such a dreadful disservice?

I would add that most problems between different peoples in such situations is often some side did not want to be in the situation they are in such as being involuntary up rooted or the local socieaty being stressed in some way. In the long term though many people's we are seeing are the result of both exploiting various peoples then attempting to deny them equal opportunity through discrimination. Turns out systematic oppression backfires. Who could have guessed?

[hector13]

I am backing independence for Scotland, and my main reason for that (self-determination) kinda has me on the fence in terms of Brexit. I like the idea of Europe, but it is like most political things nice looking on paper but in practice, a bit shit. I also don't know that much about EU machinations to shift myself off the fence, one way or t'other. This on a conscious level, anyway.
As I say, my gut likes Europe, and doesn't like the Tories. Thus, a Tory-led charge away from the mainland doesn't sit comfortably.
Presently my desire for Scottish independence is kept separate from my feelings regarding Europe, until I can reconcile them. Which probably won't happen since I'm lazy.

If Jezza was leading Brexit would you still have the same opinion? Also in your opinion, is self-determination irreconcilable within the UK? Pardon my questioning, we've not had much in the way of SNP viewpoints in Bay12 since Owlbread up sticks and went, and it leaves me very much curious

No problem at all.

Anyhow, as you've pointed out a few times already over the course of the thread, Brexit doesn't really have a soft or hard variety, so it kinda defeats the purpose of leaving if in doing so you lose the ability to influence the way things go, but opt to stay in certain parts. It probably wouldn't matter who was leading Brexit, I still wouldn't be entirely on board with it.

As for self-determination within the UK, in an ideal world it could happen, but in practice, I don't think it can. Theresa May has been clamouring on and on about how the country needs to pull together, but failed to inform the Scottish government precisely when she was going to trigger Article 50, despite apparently having discussed it with the Welsh government - who voted to Leave, as opposed to Scotland's Remain.

Seems a bit petty, and a little bit hypocritical after May's call for a grown-up relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations. Further cheekiness from that, when she says she wants the relationships built on "cooperation and consensus" but just outright rejects Scotland's demands to remain a part of the common market as well as the UK. Also the whole "we need to focus on Brexit, you can't have your referendum. We're having a general election, by the way" thing, which essentially wastes two months of your two year negotiation process aimed at disentangling the UK from the past 40+ years of EU law and regulation.

It seems that (at least the current) British government considers Scotland a petulant child that needs to be kept in line, but I'm also aware of my huge bias against the Tories and for Scotland.

[Max™]

Was looking back over the pages and saw the WHO link and typed a search in for a related subject to find nothing there, so I think the lesson is: if you want your backwards views to be accepted under a multicultural banner, make sure you get them in early?