Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Sheldon]

Your understanding is wrong. That is why a better solution would have been to ask what it was rather than assume.

Poor reasoning and argument, why is his understanding wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since this is a debate forum, why not explain what you mean by the term?


Pretty sure that is not hat he did, but he is entitled to an opinion on it, whether you like it or not.

What do you explain what you mean by your post up thread?

You know a good thing and unevidenced. Can you do that?

 

[Sheldon]

Your statement here proves what I stated earlier that your understanding comes from a western Christian background.

Do you know what a poisoning of the well fallacy is?

You keep using it, and an argument from authority fallacy. You may be particularly impressed by your own opinion, but others will probably need more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Poor reasoning and argument, why is his understanding wrong?

Because he assumes the standard of a different religious system and because he understand dictatorship based on a limited Westen cultural understanding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know what a poisoning of the well fallacy is?

You keep using it, and an argument from authority fallacy. You may be particularly impressed by your own opinion, but others will probably need more.

Just answer about a good thing and evidence. You are evading your own cultural bias as always.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your understanding is wrong. That is why a better solution would have been to ask what it was rather than assume.

Then show how it is wrong. Especially when you make the accusation of declaring that the person that you are debating with made an assumption. Claiming that someone assumed something takes on its own burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because he assumes the standard of a different religious system and because he understand dictatorship based on a limited Westen cultural understanding.

This might be projection on your part. What do you think is wrong with a western cultural understanding? And if you want to claim that it is limited once again you take on a burden of proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then show how it is wrong. Especially when you make the accusation of declaring that the person that you are debating with made an assumption. Claiming that someone assumed something takes on its won burden of proof.

Then give empirical evidence for your claim of beneficial. You know observational data or measurements from an instrument. Or clarify what you mean by evidence. You have the burden of proof. Now live up to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This might be projection on your part. What do you think is wrong with a western cultural understanding? And if you want to claim that it is limited once again you take on a burden of proof.

Well, of course it is limited, because it is subjective. I know what I think is wrong, is subjective, because I think it. It is my opinion and without evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor reasoning and argument, why is his understanding wrong?

I think that we may have a simple attempt to dismiss an argument without showing how it is wrong at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then give empirical evidence for your claim of beneficial. You know observational data or measurements from an instrument. Or clarify what you mean by evidence. You have the burden of proof. Now live up to it.

Empirical evidence is for the sciences. Different concepts require different evidence. I haven't seen you provide one lick of evidence for your claims. I did give some basic evidence for mine, but you ignored it. If you ignore evidence there is no requirement for me to supply you with any more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that we may have a simple attempt to dismiss an argument without showing how it is wrong at all.

It is wrong, because what makes a dictator wrong, is subjective, yet you claim claim evidence. So ask @Sheldon to ask you for evidence that a dictatorship is bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, of course it is limited, because it is subjective. I know what I think is wrong, is subjective, because I think it. It is my opinion and without evidence.

So what? Everything is subjective when it comes to human interactions. But it can still be rational and consistent if one has rational basis for good and bad. That is one of the problems with nihilism. It leads nowhere. All one has is denial.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Empirical evidence is for the sciences. Different concepts require different evidence. I haven't seen you provide one lick of evidence for your claims. I did give some basic evidence for mine, but you ignored it. If you ignore evidence there is no requirement for me to supply you with any more.

I can give you no evidence for the fact that something is morally bad or even beneficial.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what? Everything is subjective when it comes to human interactions. But it can still be rational and consistent if one has rational basis for good and bad. That is one of the problems with nihilism. It leads nowhere. All one has is denial.

So do that. Give the definition of rational and then the rational evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is wrong, because what makes a dictator wrong, is subjective, yet you claim claim evidence. So ask @Sheldon to ask you for evidence that a dictatorship is bad.

And yes, it is demonstrably "wrong" if one has a rational basis for what is right and wrong. My only mistake would have been in assuming that you had one too.

Your turn now, how would you form a basis for right and wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can give you no evidence for the fact that something is morally bad or even beneficial.

Then you have no business debating the topic. You should be working on your basis of morality instead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do that. Give the definition of rational and then the rational evidence.

It is worrisome that you have no rational basis for right and wrong.

My goal is to maximize human happiness and well being. To me the best way to guarantee that is to maximize personal freedom limited only by limiting one's rights to harm others. In other words "Your right to swing your arms ends at my nose."

Do you see a problem with that concept? Can you think of a better one?

 

[Koldo]

I can give you no evidence for the fact that something is morally bad or even beneficial.

This is looking more like a matter of definition than of evidence.
For instance, if I define 'morally bad' as that which leads to suffering, the discussion that would follow would be to further develop the definition and barely revolve around any evidence per se.

 

[Sheldon]

This might be projection on your part. What do you think is wrong with a western cultural understanding? And if you want to claim that it is limited once again you take on a burden of proof.

Very well put, I must say. I have to say the statement did sound like simple bigotry to me. There is plenty wrong with most human cultures, but those kind of sweeping generalisation's about hundreds of millions of people, usually set alarm bells off.