|
Obdicut posted:Yes, you think that children can realistically give consent, which I think is an incredibly, depressingly naive view of the world. There are extremely good reasons why that is not something held to be true. Are you seriously positing that most people in the world don't consider a child being able to give consent to simple things like whether or not he wants to play a sport or whether or not he wants his dick cut? Are you saying that the issue of sport is as important as a custody hearing and unless there is a full court hearing, nobody considers that the child has given their consent in the issue? What are you saying? Because unlike you, most people in the world do think that a child is capable of giving consent in simple things and do obey their children's wishes in those simple things because they are not horrible parents. quote:Children under the age of 16 are presumed to lack capacity, but can consent to their own treatment if it is thought that they have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what is involved in their treatment. NHS. I would imagine other medical associations have similar policies. How much intelligence, competence, and understanding do you think it takes to fully gather what circumcision is about? Here's some more. I literally just googled "children informed consent" http://www.rit.edu/research/hsro/informed_consent_process_children http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-children-practices/ http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/briefings/ethical-research-factsheet_wda97712.html#voluntary quote:When children are involved in a research activity it is necessary to obtain their assent and the permission of their parents. Assent is defined as a child's affirmative agreement to participate in research. This gives a child the opportunity to decide if they want to take part, and to decline if they are not interested. gently caress here are entire works about consent and children, and a template of how to approach children when asking their informed consent in medical issues http://www.hdc.org.nz/education/presentations/the-informed-consent-process-and-the-application-of-the-code-to-children http://www.who.int/rpc/research_ethics/informed_consent/en/ So, it looks like the world at large DOES consider children capable of giving consent and actually recommends that this is done in medical treatment, medical research and documentaries among other things, even if it isn't required by law. What naive idiots! How does this radical new information change your position? Obdicut posted:This is the weird hyperbole that makes the 'care a lot' thing ring true. Circumcision isn't 'ultimate power' over someone's dick. They can literally decide whether or not their child has a foreskin, for the rest of their life. They can literally decide the cosmetic look of their child's dick. That is ultimate power that isn't applied to anywhere else in the body in law in first world countries. Obdicut posted:Nobody is saying that it would be okay to perform an operation that had the actual effect of reducing pleasure or making it harder to achieve orgasm. So it's really, really not about 'ultimate power', and putting it in those terms is just incredibly out of proportion. But it's not. It's basically going as far as you can without affecting the functioning of the dick. A cosmetic surgery that has no actual need to be performed on individuals not capable of giving consent. There are people who have had a circumcision and who did not want it, yes or no? How would you approach solving this problem? Because with my way, everyone who wants a circumcision still gets it. What is so horrific about that particular thing that you can't even TRY and answer what is so horrific about it? I've received only one answer from one pro-infant circ people here, and it wasn't very comforting as far as the logic of your position goes. (The answer was that less people would be circumcised, that was the bad thing). DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Aug 20, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Are you seriously positing that most people in the world don't consider a child being able to give consent to simple things like whether or not he wants to play a sport or whether or not he wants his dick cut? Yes, I'm saying in general, in ethics and law, we consider the consent of a child impaired because of their inexperience, less intelligence compared to adults, and most especially, the enormous emotional sway that parents have with their children. Do you honestly believe that all the kids going to church actually want to go to church? quote:Are you saying that the issue of sport is as important as a custody hearing and unless there is a full court hearing, nobody considers that the child has given their consent in the issue? Well, in a way. Most people know that the 'consent' of a child is impaired, and so they don't talk about consent and children in those terms: in general, we leave issues of child consent for things like sport up to the parents. quote:(You posting lots of evidence showing that consent with children is an incredibly tricky subject and to make any determination of competence requires a lot of dedication and consideration of the particular situation of the child, with the end result sometimes being that children are not, in fact, competent to participate in the decision) Thanks for proving my point? quote:They can literally decide whether or not their child has a foreskin, for the rest of their life. They can literally decide the cosmetic look of their child's dick. That is ultimate power that isn't applied to anywhere else in the body in law in first world countries. Just don't call it 'ultimate power over the penis', because it's not. Why can't you just climb down from that bit of hyperbole? Why is it so important to put things in sloppy, overemphatic terms? quote:But it's not. It's basically going as far as you can without affecting the functioning of the dick. A cosmetic surgery that has no actual need to be performed on individuals not capable of giving consent. There are people who have had a circumcision and who did not want it, yes or no? How would you approach solving this problem? Because with my way, everyone who wants a circumcision still gets it. I don't see that there's any particular problem, but what age do you think a child can consent to circumcision? quote:What is so horrific about that particular thing that you can't even TRY and answer what is so horrific about it? I've received only one answer from one pro-infant circ people here, and it wasn't very comforting as far as the logic of your position goes. (The answer was that less people would be circumcised, that was the bad thing). I can't even understand what you're asking. What's horrific?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is the weird hyperbole that makes the 'care a lot' thing ring true. Circumcision isn't 'ultimate power' over someone's dick. Nobody is saying that it would be okay to perform an operation that had the actual effect of reducing pleasure or making it harder to achieve orgasm. So it's really, really not about 'ultimate power', and putting it in those terms is just incredibly out of proportion.  v
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, I'm saying in general, in ethics and law, we consider the consent of a child impaired because of their inexperience, less intelligence compared to adults, and most especially, the enormous emotional sway that parents have with their children. Impaired does not mean incapable of giving it, just the neccessity of giving it in a different way. Obdicut posted:Do you honestly believe that all the kids going to church actually want to go to church? No? Do you believe going to church has a permanent physical effect on a person? Obdicut posted:Well, in a way. Most people know that the 'consent' of a child is impaired, and so they don't talk about consent and children in those terms: in general, we leave issues of child consent for things like sport up to the parents. Yes, we do, and we consider a parent who forces their child to play a sport a bad parent. Obdicut posted:Thanks for proving my point? Haha, no, you don't get to do that. You said that the world doesn't consider that children can realistically give consent, I posted a ton of proof that it does. Either address the proof or admit you're wrong. Obdicut posted:Just don't call it 'ultimate power over the penis', because it's not. Why can't you just climb down from that bit of hyperbole? Why is it so important to put things in sloppy, overemphatic terms? There's nothing sloppy about it. If a parent had the ability to do whatever they want to their child's face in cosmetic terms I'd call that ultimate power over the face too. Obdicut posted:I don't see that there's any particular problem, There are people who would not have chosen a circumcision but were forced to undergo it anyway. They are sad or pissed about this. That is a problem to me even if there was only one person who didn't want to be circumcised. It is not a problem to you but you don't get to decide how someone feels about their own penis. Obdicut posted:but what age do you think a child can consent to circumcision? Like...twelve? I would imagine a medical expert can explain circumcision to a four year old but in many cases there would be religious implications involved too. Obdicut posted:I can't even understand what you're asking. What's horrific? People who don't want circumcision aren't forced to undergo it, everybody who wants it can still do it. You seem to be against it. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Claiming that there is no difference between the ability of a 12-year-old to consent and that of an infant is pretty ridiculous. This sports analogy is just bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Only that is exactly how this whole thing started in the US and everything that came after it were ex post facto rationalizations? v Except it's not, because Jews and Muslims in the US, along with some American Indians, were circumcising before white people decided it was cool? It is kind of funny that Americans decided circumcision helped stop kids from masturbating: they could have just asked Jews and Muslims if it did. quote:No? Do you believe going to church has a permanent physical effect on a person? No, I don't. The point of asking that was to demonstrate that you do, indeed, acknowledge that 'consent' for a child participating in sports is difficult to determine. If you acknowledge there's a lot of children going to church who don't actually want to, why can't you acknowledge there's a lot of kids playing sports who don't actually want to? quote:Yes, we do, and we consider a parent who forces their child to play a sport a bad parent. This isn't true, though. There's some styles of parenting that involve just letting a kid do what they want, but we also have a lot of regard for the style of parenting that says that you should force/encourage/make your child do things they don't want to because it'll be good for them in the long run. And beyond that, it is very difficult to tell, with the average child, if they're 'forced' to play a sport or not. quote:Haha, no, you don't get to do that. You said that the world doesn't consider that children can realistically give consent, I posted a ton of proof that it does. Either address the proof or admit you're wrong. That's not what happened, though. Did you read your own links? They all talk about how problematic it is to determine if a child is actually capable of meaningful consent, due to questions about their capacity to understand the consequences, to emotionally handle the choice, etc. quote:There's nothing sloppy about it. If a parent had the ability to do whatever they want to their child's face in cosmetic terms I'd call that ultimate power over the face too. What would you call the ability to do whatever you want to the face, including going beyond the cosmetic? quote:Like...twelve? I would imagine a medical expert can explain circumcision to a four year old but in many cases there would be religious implications involved too. How did you arrive at the age of 'twelve'? What age do you think a child can figure out the medical issues involved in playing football--which involves understanding probability and the long-term effects of concussions? quote:People who don't want circumcision aren't forced to undergo it, everybody who wants it can still do it. You seem to be against it. I'm against criminalization of infant circumcision, that's all, because even if you think that circumcision is an actual bodily autonomy issue, I think the only reason it's a hot-button issue is because it's a cultural shibboleth--there are much more important issues of bodily autonomy for children, and like with most things I don't think criminalization is a good solution. I don't have a particular problem with physicians saying "Why not wait until the child can make a rational choice?" except that I think it's just self-reassurance, because there's plenty of cultures that delay circumcision until the ages of 12, 13, whatever, and still have extremely high rates of compliance with circumcision--this is because 12 and 13 year olds are generally going to go along with what their parents and culture expect. VitalSigns posted:Claiming that there is no difference between the ability of a 12-year-old to consent and that of an infant is pretty ridiculous. This sports analogy is just bad. I'm not claiming there is no difference, though. Why would you say that, when it's entirely untrue? The sports thing is not really an analogy. The sports thing is an example of another way that we deny children bodily autonomy, and how consent is a very difficult issue to get at with children. It's also an example of how cultural blindness works: it's a lot easier to see the problems in the cultural practices of the other than it is to follow that logic to where it connects with your own cultural practices. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Except it's not, because Jews and Muslims in the US, along with some American Indians, were circumcising before white people decided it was cool? quote:It is kind of funny that Americans decided circumcision helped stop kids from masturbating: they could have just asked Jews and Muslims if it did. quote:This isn't true, though. There's some styles of parenting that involve just letting a kid do what they want, but we also have a lot of regard for the style of parenting that says that you should force/encourage/make your child do things they don't want to because it'll be good for them in the long run. And beyond that, it is very difficult to tell, with the average child, if they're 'forced' to play a sport or not. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Oh poo poo, my bad, I never realized that there was a mass conversion to judaism and islam in the end of the 19th century. There wasn't. There were a small number of Jews and Muslims in the US. But they still existed. Or in other words, wouldn't we still be having this debate if that crazy idea that it affected sexual pleasure hadn't taken hold, because Jews and Muslims would still be doing it? quote:I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is it that the movement to introduce circumcision was retarded from the start or that curtailing masturbation was never the goal? That it was stupid, because it obviously doesn't work. Maybe it partially came from some stereotype of Jews as undersexed? I dunno. But it was definitely part of the goal, and it was definitely stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:There wasn't. There were a small number of Jews and Muslims in the US. But they still existed. Or in other words, wouldn't we still be having this debate if that crazy idea that it affected sexual pleasure hadn't taken hold, because Jews and Muslims would still be doing it? quote:That it was stupid, because it obviously doesn't work. Maybe it partially came from some stereotype of Jews as undersexed? I dunno. But it was definitely part of the goal, and it was definitely stupid. Stupid or not that was the reason circumcision spread in the general population. After that point the sheer element of "hey my daddy MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Jews and Muslims would still be doing it but they don't pretend to do it for reasons other than their religion. That's not really quite true: lots of secular Jews, and people from Muslim cultures who are secular, also circumcise. It's a cultural thing as well as a religious thing. And do you think this would have changed the WHO's recommendation of circumcision as a (small) protection against HIV transmission? quote:Stupid or not that was the reason circumcision spread in the general population. After that point the sheer element of "hey my daddy used to beat me with a belt had me circumcised as a baby and I turned out OK so I'll be doing it to my kids, it's no big deal" was enough to carry the practice long after the sexual repression element was lost. Why is the origin of the practice in the least bit important?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's not really quite true: lots of secular Jews, and people from Muslim cultures who are secular, also circumcise. It's a cultural thing as well as a religious thing. And do you think this would have changed the WHO's recommendation of circumcision as a (small) protection against HIV transmission? quote:Why is the origin of the practice in the least bit important? As that paper a few pages back pointed out US doctors went from "circumcise, it will make it harder for him to masturbate" to "circumcise, it won't affect his ability to masturbate" in the span of a single generation. You don't think such a 180º turn on the reasoning to do something is incredibly suspect in an off itself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, I don't. The point of asking that was to demonstrate that you do, indeed, acknowledge that 'consent' for a child participating in sports is difficult to determine. It's not though. "Freddy, do you want to play football?" "Yes." Nine times out of ten, that is it. Like half the time the child himself is initiating it. Cases where the child says no or is too SCARED to say no, yet is forced to play are considered ACTUAL PROBLEM SITUATIONS by teachers and coaches and are only a handful of the children under their care. Obdicut posted:If you acknowledge there's a lot of children going to church who don't actually want to, why can't you acknowledge there's a lot of kids playing sports who don't actually want to? There aren't a lot of them. Not only is football pretty fun, it also has lucrative opportunities if you are good at it, and gets you the admiration of your peers in whatever school you go to. Vast majority of kids playing football do it because they enjoy the game, the prestige or both. Stop pretending otherwise. Obdicut posted:This isn't true, though. There's some styles of parenting that involve just letting a kid do what they want, but we also have a lot of regard for the style of parenting that says that you should force/encourage/make your child do things they don't want to because it'll be good for them in the long run. Those parenting styles encourage you to force them to TRY, not have them go to matches for an entire season when they don't want to play or are scared of getting hurt. Obdicut posted:And beyond that, it is very difficult to tell, with the average child, if they're 'forced' to play a sport or not. It's not if you don't have Aspergers. Kid that is constantly bullied because he doesn't contribute to the team and seems to have no interest in the game? Probably not into it. Ask him why he is here in the first place. Kid that lounges around on the bench, telling the coach to suck it when he asks him to participate? Probably not into it. Ask him why he is here in the first place. etc. Obdicut posted:That's not what happened, though. Did you read your own links? They all talk about how problematic it is to determine if a child is actually capable of meaningful consent, due to questions about their capacity to understand the consequences, to emotionally handle the choice, etc. Yes, because medical operations involving cancer, etc. are way way way way more difficult to explain to a child then "Hey see this flap of skin on your ding-dong? Gonna cut it off." AND THEY STILL DO IT. Difficult is not impossible. Not only do the links come to the conclusion that children ARE capable of giving informed consent, they ORDER their employees to do so in EACH AND EVERY CASE. Presumably they don't have massive problems with it because while there are hundreds of millions of professionals explaining children what is about to happen, there is no profession dedicated to fixing the issue of those previous professionals failing in it. Suprisingly enough a specialist who has worked with children near-exclusively for years and has trained to determine if a child understands what is going on (pediatric doctors, coaches, teachers, children's lawyers, etc. etc.) can be trusted to determine a child's capability in giving consent! And when these people fail horribly at it, they are usually widely publicized in local papers and sometimes worldwide. You lose this one by a long shot, sorry. Obdicut posted:What would you call the ability to do whatever you want to the face, including going beyond the cosmetic? Fine, I was wrong, ultimate power over their child's dick's cosmetic look, you sure got me on this one. Obdicut posted:How did you arrive at the age of 'twelve'? Uhh, I think around that time children start to understand religious aspects beyond going to somewhere with their parents and a moralistic entity with supernatural powers watching them all the time. You can intimidate a six-year old into getting a circumcision if you tell him god is mad, a you're going to have a much harder time getting someone who's just hit puberty to take a knife to their dick no matter how mad god is if he doesn't. There is a reason all those circumcision ceremonies for non-infants include crying children and bunch of old creeps holding them down. You know, instead of a crying baby and one person holding him down. Obdicut posted:What age do you think a child can figure out the medical issues involved in playing football--which involves understanding probability and the long-term effects of concussions? A child can understand the idea of getting hurt because he does all the time. A child can understand long-term injury because he sees people afflicted by them all the time. A child can understand that some people aren't as mentally capable as others, sometimes because of an injury, because any parent worth his salt has explained these things to him. So uhh, six years old? Unless he's retarded or his parents have done a terrible job in raising him? Obdicut posted:I'm against criminalization of infant circumcision, that's all, because even if you think that circumcision is an actual bodily autonomy issue, I think the only reason it's a hot-button issue is because it's a cultural shibboleth--there are much more important issues of bodily autonomy for children, You don't get to decide what someone considers their bodily autonomy. If I'm over 16, have a tumor growing from my neck with a face on it and I want to keep it, gently caress you I'm keeping it (naturally as a child I might have a whimsical attachment to the tumor which isn't really a good reason to keep it, over 16 whatever reason goes). You nor my parents certainly don't have the right to remove my dick skin against my will when it is a completely natural part of a body. Obdicut posted:and like with most things I don't think criminalization is a good solution. When it comes to people being forced to undergo cosmetic surgery when they have no capacity of consent, criminalization is a loving excellent solution. Obdicut posted:I don't have a particular problem with physicians saying "Why not wait until the child can make a rational choice?" except that I think it's just self-reassurance, because there's plenty of cultures that delay circumcision until the ages of 12, 13, whatever, and still have extremely high rates of compliance with circumcision--this is because 12 and 13 year olds are generally going to go along with what their parents and culture expect.      ...yeah, those cultures aren't really big on the idea of children consenting into anything, including in many cases getting married, etc. Don't think it ever enters the picture in most cases. You're not really helping yourself here. And if people are still going to consent to be circumcised, what's the problem with criminalizing doing it to people who can't consent? EDIT: Typos, clarifications, should stop writing while I'm high 'cause this post is a mess DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:And if pro-circumcision people argued that they did it for cultural/religious reasons instead of HIV protection we'd have a much more honest debate. But that's literally what you just said most people do: "hey my daddy had me circumcised as a baby and I turned out OK so I'll be doing it to my kids, it's no big deal" quote:They were circumcised because their fathers were circumcised and they'll circumcise their children because they themselves are circumcised. I agree that this is largely the case, as is the converse: most people who aren't circumcised aren't because their fathers weren't and they won't circumcise their kids because they themselves aren't circumcised. Though it's complicated in the US because there are recommendations by medical professionals that circumcision is generally, if mildly, a health benefit. quote:Because if the practice is perpetuated by nothing more than cultural inertia then how it started is important. This is just restating your promise. Why is it important? quote:As that paper a few pages back pointed out US doctors went from "circumcise, it will make it harder for him to masturbate" to "circumcise, it won't affect his ability to masturbate" in the span of a single generation. You don't think such a 180º turn on the reasoning to do something is incredibly suspect in an off itself? Suspect of what? Also, doctors weren't unanimous in thinking circumcision helped to prevent masturbation, either. A large part of the medical push for circumcision was a belief that it helped to prevent the spread of venereal diseases like syphilis. If you're going to say that the origins are important, then pretending that this all came from an anti-masturbation angle is silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not claiming there is no difference, though. Why would you say that, when it's entirely untrue? It's implied by the structure of your argument. Your argument would apply perfectly well to considerations of doing surgery on a 12-year-old, but it doesn't work with newborns. Yes, the issue of when children can give consent and how much they're influenced by their parents is a tricky one, but when it comes to unnecessary medical procedures if the child says no, you have to respect that. You don't just sidestep the whole issue and go "eh, consent is complicated, just do it when they're too young to talk", and I don't think you would accept this line of argument in any other circumstance. The question of whether a 12-year-old or a 16-year-old can consent to something like getting ear gages to be cool like daddy isn't 100% clear-cut, but unless you would agree with someone who said "I'm gaging my kid's ears as a newborn because I like how they look and I don't want to deal with asking him when he's older", then this whole line of argument of yours is just special pleading for circumcision. Obdicut posted:The sports thing is not really an analogy. The sports thing is an example of another way that we deny children bodily autonomy, and how consent is a very difficult issue to get at with children. It's also an example of how cultural blindness works: it's a lot easier to see the problems in the cultural practices of the other than it is to follow that logic to where it connects with your own cultural practices. Right right, but first most people agree that living out your dreams by forcing your kid to play football is kind of hosed and you shouldn't do it. And I personally think that even adults being pressured to play professional football where they risk lifelong injuries and disability to entertain some fans and make team owners rich is pretty hosed, and there are campaigns to improve safety on all counts. And those campaigns also have to deal with binkered conservatives who go "God it's just sports, why do you care so much you nancies! My dad made me do it and I turned out fine!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What age do you think a child can figure out the medical issues involved in playing football--which involves understanding probability and the long-term effects of concussions? I don't know that we can set an across the board age-barrier that reflects an understanding by every children of the consequences of being circumcised but surely you're not arguing that newborns have that ability so why is this relevant for your argument that kids should be circumcised at birth? Whatever the age of consent for a particular kid is, it's not 3 days old. And it's not like we have a problem establishing arbitrary age limits for other stuff. "Since you can't tell for sure at what age a kid understands the implications of sex there is no reason not to gently caress a newborn" was said by no one, ever. Obdicut posted:But that's literally what you just said most people do: "hey my daddy had me circumcised as a baby and I turned out OK so I'll be doing it to my kids, it's no big deal" quote:I agree that this is largely the case, as is the converse: most people who aren't circumcised aren't because their fathers weren't and they won't circumcise their kids because they themselves aren't circumcised. quote:Though it's complicated in the US because there are recommendations by medical professionals that circumcision is generally, if mildly, a health benefit. quote:This is just restating your promise. Why is it important? quote:Suspect of what? Also, doctors weren't unanimous in thinking circumcision helped to prevent masturbation, either. A large part of the medical push for circumcision was a belief that it helped to prevent the spread of venereal diseases like syphilis. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Suspect of what? Also, doctors weren't unanimous in thinking circumcision helped to prevent masturbation, either. A large part of the medical push for circumcision was a belief that it helped to prevent the spread of venereal diseases like syphilis. If you're going to say that the origins are important, then pretending that this all came from an anti-masturbation angle is silly. Edit: The STD argument for circumcision is also highly flawed anyway. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I don't know that we can set an across the board age-barrier that reflects an understanding by every children of the consequences of being circumcised but surely you're not arguing that newborns have that ability so why is this relevant for your argument that kids should be circumcised at birth? He's just pointlessly nitpicking at details. He knows you can't quote the exact second when a person can magically consent, and it's a pretty common trick to derail arguments about the nature of consent. As long as you can't quote the exact second a kid becomes capable to agree to things then we're all free to
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:It's not though. Can you cite your data for this groundbreaking work on child psychology and the ethical issues of consent in children? How did you get the 'nine times out of ten' number? I assume just your rear end? quote:There aren't a lot of them. Not only is football pretty fun, it also has lucrative opportunities if you are good at it, and gets you the admiration of your peers in whatever school you go to. Vast majority of kids playing football do it because they enjoy the game, the prestige or both. Stop pretending otherwise. You are actually listing some reasons here why consent is constrained: doing it because of peer pressure. As for your 'vast majority' thing: again, I assume that you derived this from your rear end? quote:It's not if you don't have Aspergers. What about the kid who tries his hardest on every single down and seems really, really fixated on winning? quote:AND THEY STILL DO IT. Difficult is not impossible. Not only do the links come to the conclusion that children ARE capable of giving informed consent, they ORDER their employees to do so in EACH AND EVERY CASE. This isn't true, and is contradicted by your own links. Literally one of the first paragraphs of your first link says: quote:Children under the age of 16 are presumed to lack capacity, but can consent to their own treatment if it is thought that they have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what is involved in their treatment. Otherwise, someone with "parental responsibility" can consent for them. ... quote:Fine, I was wrong, ultimate power over their child's dick's cosmetic look, you sure got me on this one. Why not just avoid the hyperbolic language making GBS threads up the conversation? Also, this claim still isn't true, but whatever. quote:Uhh, I think around that time children start to understand religious aspects beyond going to somewhere with their parents and a moralistic entity with supernatural powers watching them all the time. I understand that you think this, I'm asking you why you think this. Just 'common sense' or your gut truthiness? quote:When it comes to people being forced to undergo cosmetic surgery when they have no capacity of consent, criminalization is a loving excellent solution. Okay. The likely result of this would be the imprisonment of many Jews, Muslims, American Indians, and other cultures that have cosmetic traditions with children. Do you see any potential problems with that? quote:...yeah, those cultures aren't really big on the idea of children consenting into anything, including in many cases getting married, etc. You're not really helping yourself here. By 'those cultures', what cultures do you mean? VitalSigns posted:It's implied by the structure of your argument. Your argument would apply perfectly well to considerations of doing surgery on a 12-year-old, but it doesn't work with newborns. It works in both cases: I'm saying that while you can say that a 12 year old is more capable of consent than an infant, I'm saying it's still incredibly hard to determine the real consent of a 12 year old. quote:Yes, the issue of when children can give consent and how much they're influenced by their parents is a tricky one, but when it comes to unnecessary medical procedures if the child says no, you have to respect that. You don't just sidestep the whole issue and go "eh, consent is complicated, just do it when they're too young to talk", and I don't think you would accept this line of argument in any other circumstance. So do you think that children should be able to refuse cosmetic orthodistry, as well? And I'm not saying 'just do it when they're too young to talk', I've never said anything like that. Please stop claiming I've said things I haven't: this is already a screwed up enough argument without assigning me positions I haven't taken. quote:The question of whether a 12-year-old or a 16-year-old can consent to something like getting ear gages to be cool like daddy isn't 100% clear-cut, but unless you would agree with someone who said "I'm gaging my kid's as a newborn because I like how they look and I don't want to deal with asking him when he's older", then this whole line of argument of yours is just special pleading for circumcision. I don't think making a comparison between something highly visible and something generally not visible is a good comparison, and once again using language like "Cool like daddy" and "I like how they look" is weird argumentation. But no, I'm not making special pleading for circumcision: i'm also happy to defend stuff like Hawaiians tattooing children. quote:Right right, but first most people agree that living out your dreams by forcing your kid to play football is kind of hosed and you shouldn't do it. If you put it in those terms, sure. But if you put it in terms of "Is it good to heavily encourage your child to play team sports" then you'll get a ton of support for it. The imgainge of a kid saying "I don't want to do it" and the father encouraging them until they do it is not an "Oh my god, abuse" moment, but a totally bog-standard 'that's how childhood is' moment. Beyond that, our culture has a general expectation of (male) children that they'll play sports, and as DarkCrawler showed, there's a strong cultural pressure for them to do so. quote:And I personally think that even adults being pressured to play professional football where they risk lifelong injuries and disability to entertain some fans and make team owners rich is pretty hosed, and there are campaigns to improve safety on all counts. And those campaigns also have to deal with binkered conservatives who go "God it's just sports, why do you care so much you nancies!" I think that you're severely mixing up issues here if you're talking about the right of workers to protest against and reform working conditions, and the ability of children to do the same. I don't think there's anything added to the conversation by introducing that confusion. Kegluneq posted:Pretending that this wasn't a significant factor is also silly. But I didn't pretend it wasn't, so why are you saying this to me? quote:Edit: The STD argument for circumcision is also highly flawed anyway. And I didn't argue it wasn't. VitalSigns posted:He's just pointlessly nitpicking at details. He knows you can't quote the exact second when a person can magically consent, and it's a pretty common trick to derail arguments about the nature of consent. As long as you can't quote the exact second a kid becomes capable to agree to things then we're all free to It's not a goddamn 'trick', it's that issues of consent are actually problematic. Since the accusations that I'm just arguing in bad faith are back again I'm out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. The likely result of this would be the imprisonment of many Jews, Muslims, American Indians, and other cultures that have cosmetic traditions with children. Do you see any potential problems with that? None, for the same reason I don't have a problem with locking up people that have long traditions of not giving insulin to their kids, tattooing their kids in the face, loving their kids or pulling out their nails. We already do this all the time. Their religious freedom ends where the integrity of their child begins, kids are not property to be disposed off at will by their parents. Obdicut posted:So do you think that children should be able to refuse cosmetic orthodistry, as well? Can't you really tell the difference? MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It works in both cases: I'm saying that while you can say that a 12 year old is more capable of consent than an infant, I'm saying it's still incredibly hard to determine the real consent of a 12 year old. Why is this relevant. A newborn can't consent. If you want to say "Hey consent of a 12-year-old to cosmetic procedures is a tricky and unsure thing" then that implies we should move it out even later because cosmetic procedures (that aren't to correct deformities) are unnecessary so there's no good reason to do them if you're not sure the child wants them. Unless you weigh bodily autonomy and individual agency below a parent's aesthetic tastes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unless you weigh bodily autonomy and individual agency below a parent's aesthetic tastes. The US is quite good at ignoring and destroying bodily autonomy and individual agency over the last few decades. If we don't care about the rights of grown women, there's no doubt we'd ignore a child's rights to be a separate entity instead of chattle of their parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:The US is quite good at ignoring and destroying bodily autonomy and individual agency over the last few decades. If we don't care about the rights of grown women, there's no doubt we'd ignore a child's rights to be a separate entity instead of chattle of their parents. Yeah, the US is pretty terrible at respecting bodily autonomy, I agree! That should change!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Can you cite your data for this groundbreaking work on child psychology and the ethical issues of consent in children? Do you live in a cave or something? I presume you went to school, how did children usually begin playing organized sports? Obdicut posted:How did you get the 'nine times out of ten' number? I assume just your rear end? I played organized sports in several schools. I knew children who did not want to play it, they were dropped from the team, usually after a game or two they finally convinced their parents that they would not get anything out of it. Unless the rest of our smiles were secretly hiding tears of anger and hate and our joy after winning a match was faked because behind every child was a parent pushing us there, I think I'm pretty safe in this rear endumption. I don't think that was a radical experience either, in fact I would describe it as a norm. Sports are fun, dude! Plus free pizza after an official game, even if we lost! Obdicut posted:You are actually listing some reasons here why consent is constrained: doing it because of peer pressure. If some kid is willing to endure a sport he hates to earn girls and fame with the possibility of money in the future, who the gently caress am I to tell him that he can't do it? His choice. I did dumb poo poo to be popular. Organized, safe sports have actually a net benefit for a person. It would hardly be a tragedy equivalent of his father threatening to beat him if he doesn't play ball or something. Obdicut posted:As for your 'vast majority' thing: again, I assume that you derived this from your rear end?  No, I derived it from being a human. Who has interacted with human children. And who was a human child who played human child sports himself. And unless the literally billion+ of children around the world who do poo poo like build goals out of sticks to kick a stone through them are secretly hiding their deep loathing of say, soccer...sports are still a pretty big thing for kids and the vast majority of them love it and everything that being good at it brings you. I think your wild claim that there is a large number of hiding children who hate sports requires proof. My proof is pretty easy - right now, at this very moment, hundreds of millions of children are playing sports out of their free will. Do really I need to find a citation for that before you believe me? Some of them are kicking a ball outside my window right now! I don't see an adult hiding in the bushes with a belt so I can safely assume that they actually like it. Obdicut posted:What about the kid who tries his hardest on every single down and seems really, really fixated on winning? If he throws a shitfit or gets afraid when you lose he has a problem. If he is "ah poo poo you guys, here's what we should do differently" and works hard to excel without it becoming an obsession for him, there is probably not a scary dad breathing down his neck. If he is some emotionally conditioned mastermind capable of hiding his hatred of football, he's definitely going to be hosed later. He would also be an extremely rare case and at least in my country would have grounds for social services intervention and psychological therapy. These are all basic concepts one learns when dealing with people... Obdicut posted:This isn't true, and is contradicted by your own links. Literally one of the first paragraphs of your first link says: Some kids are developmentally delayed. Obviously an expert would determine that such a child is not capable of giving informed consent because he doesn't understand the information given to him. Obviously a Down's syndrome 16-year old is incapable of grasping the intricacies of cancer treatment. I'm pretty sure he would however grasp the concept of parting with his dick skin, and in that case a doctor could determine that he is capable of giving concent. My point stands, you're still wrong because you are arguing that it is impossible to determine if a child can give consent or not. It is not in fact impossible, which is why it is assessed in every medical procedure for a child who is old enough. Sometimes the answer is "yes, this child can give consent", sometimes it is "no". Obdicut posted:Why not just avoid the hyperbolic language making GBS threads up the conversation? Also, this claim still isn't true, but whatever. It's true, because it is arguably the greatest modification you can do to a dick without affecting its function. I don't use any language that hasn't been proven wrong, you don't see me making GBS threads up the thread about FGM, do you? Obdicut posted:I understand that you think this, I'm asking you why you think this. Just 'common sense' or your gut truthiness? General human experience again? Around that age people start forming their own religious identity, at least me and all the kids I know did. Some went with their parents identity, so I guess kids like that would go with circumcision. Unless there was an obvious sign of coercion (usually an expert can determine this) they would be free to do so! If later they sue their parents because they coerced them into getting a circumcision and the doctor could not see that I wish them all the luck too. But whatever, if we were ahead of the curve or something (I really don't think we were), whatever age would be generally agreed by psychologists and religious workers. It would be a different age then three days, that much is sure. Obdicut posted:Okay. The likely result of this would be the imprisonment of many Jews, Muslims, American Indians, and other cultures that have cosmetic traditions with children. Do you see any potential problems with that? Nobody said anything about imprisonment. Paying damages that the kid gets when he turns 18 is good enough for me. It's a violation of bodily integrity but it isn't rape or something. Obdicut posted:By 'those cultures', what cultures do you mean? Cultures that practice non-infant circumcision which are overwhelmingly Islamic in developing countries. I guess you need me to cite an exhaustive study about the rights of children in those as well? Obdicut posted:
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Why are people still arguing about this? Like, what people are earnestly defending circumcision as a worthwhile practice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks dicks. Dicks.  Dicks? Dicks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Why are people still arguing about this? Like, what people are earnestly defending circumcision as a worthwhile practice? Circumcision as a practice is not specifically worthwhile or worthless. All freedom to those who want to do it. If together with his parents and doctor a child chooses the avenue because he actually likes his religion, go for it. The problem with me is that some people in this thread are actually arguing that parents should have the ultimate power over how their child's dick looks. Like the child's wishes shouldn't even enter the picture even though it is his goddamn dick. I mean you can't defend that without sounding like a crazy person which is why we have these long-rear end posts about sports and poo poo because they're desperately trying to find a way to say "well this is allowed too, it's pretty much equivalent!" It's not though. Nothing is equivalent to passionately arguing that you should have cosmetic rights over your child's genitals holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Why are people still arguing about this? Like, what people are earnestly defending circumcision as a worthwhile practice? Just the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists but they don't know nearly as much about the topic as people in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists but they don't know nearly as much about the topic as people in this thread. Hmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:And yet neither find themselves able to categorically recommend the practice. And we're back to "if it shouldn't be done to every boy, it shouldn't be done to anyone". They say it should be an option, particularly because they acknowledge that some cultures find the medical procedure problematic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Why are people still arguing about this? Like, what people are earnestly defending circumcision as a worthwhile practice? Because traditions die hard, and nobody likes to admit their parents screwed over their sex life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And we're back to "if it shouldn't be done to every boy, it shouldn't be done to anyone". They say it should be an option, particularly because they acknowledge that some cultures find the medical procedure problematic. Maybe you shouldn't treat a child as your chattle. If he wants to get cut, have him do it when he's older and capable of medical consent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And we're back to "if it shouldn't be done to every boy, it shouldn't be done to anyone". They say it should be an option, particularly because they acknowledge that some cultures find the medical procedure problematic. The problem seems to be far more that some cultures find not doing it for cultural reasons to be problematic, against the principle of primum non nocere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Maybe you shouldn't treat a child as your chattle. If he wants to get cut, have him do it when he's older and capable of medical consent. Once again you're ignoring the medical evidence that circumcision is both more effective and safer when performed on newborns. Parents make important medical decisions for their children all the time without treating them like "chattle" its called "parenting". Try making a better strawman next time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Once again you're ignoring the medical evidence that circumcision is both more effective and safer when performed on newborns. Parents make important medical decisions for their children all the time without treating them like "chattle" its called "parenting".
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Once again you're ignoring the medical evidence that circumcision is both more effective and safer when performed on newborns. Parents make important medical decisions for their children all the time without treating them like "chattle" its called "parenting". Uh, you're going right into my point. The kid isn't yours, and society is the one that should be making the decision, not the parents. Just like you can't beat on a child, and can't sell them off into marriage, you shouldn't be allowed to perform cosmetic genital surgery on them. Would you be fine with a parent forcing their infant to get a nosejob, because a button nose looks better? The idea that parents should have final say over their children is disgusting and should be fought against. That's the only way we're going to be able to move past a lot of this pre-modern garbage that keeps getting thrown at society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Uh, you're going right into my point. The kid isn't yours, and society is the one that should be making the decision, not the parents. Just like you can't beat on a child, and can't sell them off into marriage, you shouldn't be allowed to perform cosmetic genital surgery on them. Would you be fine with a parent forcing their infant to get a nosejob, because a button nose looks better? The idea that parents should have final say over their children is disgusting and should be fought against. That's the only way we're going to be able to move past a lot of this pre-modern garbage that keeps getting thrown at society. Sorry, are you arguing that societies that value circumcision should require it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Once again you're ignoring the medical evidence that circumcision is both more effective and safer when performed on newborns. Parents make important medical decisions for their children all the time without treating them like "chattle" its called "parenting". More effective at what? You're "treating" a non existing problem. And when you qualify your statement with "it's safeR" why would you even be running any unnecessary risk of complications at all? MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Sorry, are you arguing that societies that value circumcision should require it? Incorrect. I'm arguing it holds no actual value, so shouldn't be done to anyone without concent of the child. The whole idea that parent know best is garbage and just leads to piles of abuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Incorrect. I'm arguing it holds no actual value, so shouldn't be done to anyone without concent of the child. The whole idea that parent know best is garbage and just leads to piles of abuse. I thought you said that society gets to make the decision? Now it sounds like you get to make the decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists but they don't know nearly as much about the topic as people in this thread. Except that the benefits apply in all circumcision, and actually have less benefits on newborns since they won't be having unprotected sex with HIV-positive people. Trabisnikof posted:Once again you're ignoring the medical evidence that circumcision is both more effective and safer when performed on newborns. In first world countries all circumcision carries extremely low rate of failure. There is no medical evidence contrary to this. Trabisnikof posted:Parents make important medical decisions for their children all the time without treating them like "chattle" its called "parenting". Infant circumcision is not an important medical decision. The HIV protection doesn't apply, and urinary tract infection rate is as low as 1% in many first world countries. There is no medical reason that makes infant circumcision a better option then a childhood or adult circumcision. There is no factual reason for your defense of infant circumcision, nothing intrinsic about the procedure that means that it absolutely has to be performed on non-consenting infants. You just want to control the aesthetics of a hypothetical dick or dicks that aren't yours and that's really weird dude. 30.5 Days posted:I thought you said that society gets to make the decision? Now it sounds like you get to make the decision. The child gets to make the decision. What is offensive about this to you? Why is it so important to you that parents get to decide what their son's dicks look like over the sons themselves? Why is whatever the parents want the dick to look like worth even one person getting cosmetic penis surgery he doesn't want? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:19
|
|