Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

What is this rational you keep claiming?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes, because it doesn't capture all of the social world in my thinking. It is to simple based on how I think. Further you seem to think that because it is better for you as how you think, it must be better for me, because how you think is correct for us both and how I think is not correct, because you decide that. That is an authoritarian because you are the authority of us all.
I don't think about better as something I can decide for other humans. I just agree with some about something and disagree with others. That is how it works as fact of the everyday world. That is not nihilism. That is cognitive, moral and cultural relativism.
I do believe in good and bad, but that is how it is to me.

Further there in no objective fact of what harm is. That depends on how you think/feel for you and I might think/feel differently for me. Then what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure that constitutes objective evidence, but ok.

No, it doesn't. It is socal, cultural, historic and so on. But so is all version of morally right and wrong, because that is what we are debating here. So how come you demand objective evidence, if that doesn't work for this?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

No, it doesn't. It is socal, cultural, historic and so on. But so is all version of morally right and wrong, because that is what we are debating here. So how come you demand objective evidence, if that doesn't work for this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I learned that even religion and non-religion is not an objective fact, but rather a socal, cultural and historic construct that can differ with time and different culture. The moment I got the basics, I stop being a "standard" non-religious person.
So I sometimes "fight" the atheists for the other parts of their world views other than being atheists. In short I am as an atheist a friendly atheist, but that is not "allowed" in the view of some atheists.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, that shows it is subjective as such and for your example depends on what you understand as suffering.

It is not entirely subjective, else you wouldn't be able to understand any given text. But more importantly, I can give evidence that suffering exists (or doesn't) once I define the word, even if you disagree with the definition.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, because it doesn't capture all of the social world in my thinking. It is to simple based on how I think. Further you seem to think that because it is better for you as how you think, it must be better for me, because how you think is correct for us both and how I think is not correct, because you decide that. That is an authoritarian mindset, because you are the authority of us all.
I don't think about better as something I can decide for other humans. I just agree with some about something and disagree with others. That is how it works as fact of the everyday world. That is not nihilism. That is cognitive, moral and cultural relativism.
I do believe in good and bad, but that is how it is to me.

Further there in no objective fact of what harm is. That depends on how you think/feel for you and I might think/feel differently for me. Then what?

I am not sure I understand how exactly you disagree with me on the main point of this topic then, or even if you do.

If you think it is not up to anyone else to say what is better for you, then you definitely also don't feel it is right to impose your views about what is right on anyone, right?

When parents circumcise a baby they are imposing their views of what is right on the their baby. Therefore you don't support that, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not entirely subjective, else you wouldn't be able to understand any given text. But more importantly, I can give evidence that suffering exists (or doesn't) once I define the word, even if you disagree with the definition.

Okay, it rest on how you do all, same, similar and different.
But if you accept some sort of reductionism down to in the end different, then subjective is different than objective.

So here it is for Linear A and B. Look them up if you have to. We can't read Linear A, because we have no subjective reference to its meaning.
Any word is for its meaning subjective, because it require a subjective understanding of the meaning. It can be shared but that is shared subjectivity.
The same with feelings. We can share them, but that doesn't make them objective.

Now if you don't want to do how words and brains work as subjective, then okay. That is your subjective choice and you can call it objective if you want. But it is still subjective as how the world works. And yes, there are objective parts of the world, but this is not one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not sure I understand how exactly you disagree with me on the main point of this topic then, or even if you do.

If you think it is not up to anyone else to say what is better for you, then you definitely also don't feel it is right to impose your views about what is right on anyone, right?

When parents circumcise a baby they are imposing their views of what is right on the their baby. Therefore you don't support that, right?

Yeah, I as I don't support it, but that is subjective. It is not right/true/with proof or evidence like say gravity.

 

[Koldo]

Okay, it rest on how you do all, same, similar and different.
But if you accept some sort of reductionism down to in the end different, then subjective is different than objective.

So here it is for Linear A and B. Look them up if you have to. We can't read Linear A, because we have no subjective reference to its meaning.
Any word is for its meaning subjective, because it require a subjective understanding of the meaning. It can be shared but that is shared subjectivity.
The same with feelings. We can share them, but that doesn't make them objective.

Now if you don't want to do how words and brains work as subjective, then okay. That is your subjective choice and you can call it objective if you want. But it is still subjective as how the world works. And yes, there are objective parts of the world, but this is not one.

It seems you have skipped the second and most important sentence of the post you have quoted.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, I as I don't support it, but that is subjective. It is not right/true/with proof or evidence like say gravity.

It seems like you are really caught up on the 'subjectivity' topic. Ok, so you don't support it. Great, we agree on that then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems you have skipped the second and most important sentence of the post you have quoted.

Please expand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems like you are really caught up on the 'subjectivity' topic. Ok, so you don't support it. Great, we agree on that then.

And that is subjective. And you are really caught up non-subjective subjectively.

 

[Koldo]

Please expand.

You haven't commented on: "But more importantly, I can give evidence that suffering exists (or doesn't) once I define the word, even if you disagree with the definition."

 

[Koldo]

And that is subjective. And you are really caught up non-subjective subjectively.

You are really caught up on talking about what is subjective and what is not....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You haven't commented on: "But more importantly, I can give evidence that suffering exists (or doesn't) once I define the word, even if you disagree with the definition."

Yeah, but there is no one definition of suffering in non-subjective terms. So I use another understanding of suffering and other social and cultural terms and we end with different understandings. And you can't solve that with external sensory observation, rationality and all those other words. We individually think/feel differently. That is where it ends.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are really caught up on talking about what is subjective and what is not....

Yeah, that is important to me because that is a part of individuality as I understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you are now asking rather than assuming I will certainly address your question. See the below.

View attachment 62637

Please note since I am trying convince you of anything or win a debate, if every Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jew looks at this "discussion" and agree that what I posted matches all ancient and modern Torath Mosheh sources that is all I need on my side.

Well that was as clear as mud. So your religion is based upon an event that is known not to have happened and is a mixture of myth and oral tradition. Is that it?

Can you be a little clearer? Here is a hint, it is pointless posting any script in Hebrew, it is not evidence and no one else can read it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, because it doesn't capture all of the social world in my thinking. It is to simple based on how I think. Further you seem to think that because it is better for you as how you think, it must be better for me, because how you think is correct for us both and how I think is not correct, because you decide that. That is an authoritarian mindset, because you are the authority of us all.
I don't think about better as something I can decide for other humans. I just agree with some about something and disagree with others. That is how it works as fact of the everyday world. That is not nihilism. That is cognitive, moral and cultural relativism.
I do believe in good and bad, but that is how it is to me.

Further there in no objective fact of what harm is. That depends on how you think/feel for you and I might think/feel differently for me. Then what?

You appear to be too hung up on subjective and objective. Those concepts work well in the sciences, but not so much in human interaction. Morality is a complex subject, but still understandable. Here is a short talk on it:

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is rational?

That which is logically consistent. If one begins to contradict oneself one's views are not rational.