5 ms·
“Child-abuse” is an especially good example of what you’re getting at because one of those groups has institutional male genital mutilation as part of its doctr
by remarkEon 4y ago
“Child-abuse” is an especially good example of what you’re getting at because one of those groups has institutional male genital mutilation as part of its doctrine, while the other has high profile cases of child sexual abuse. It’s difficult to see how the model would treat those things neutrally.
- Y_Y 4y agoYou'll find that the newspaper will criticize one much more than the other.
- elil17 4y agoBecause they're not even vaguely equivalent? I do not think it is right to perform unnecessary body modification on someone who is too young to consent to it. But child sexual abuse can absolutely destroy the life of a child. They're not the same thing.
- account42 4y agoThey are also done at different scales though, one is (hopefully) only the people in power abusing that power, the other one is accepted by the majority of the faith.
- elil17 4y agoI think by that logic you could also equate getting a punch in the gut with being murdered. Sure, it's worse to get murdered, but it happens much less frequently then just a simple fistfight. Therefore, newspapers should talk less about how bad murderers are and more about people who got into bar fights.
- erichocean 4y ago> But child sexual abuse can absolutely destroy the life of a child. A botched circumcision can (and has) destroyed the life of a child. It's unconscionable that in 2023 American society still condones cutting off health body parts of male children because of the prejudices and superstitions of a middle-Eastern, iron age religion.
- AussieWog93 4y agoOK, so let's be generous and say that 1% of circumcisions end up negatively affecting a child's life in a serious way. What percentage of child rapes/molestation cause harm? They're not the same.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- edanm 4y ago> one of those groups has institutional male genital mutilation as part of its doctrine It is disingenuous at best to describe male circumcision as male genital mutilation.
- tspike 4y agoHow so?
- DonHopkins 4y agoIt's just grooming! ;)
- ldh0011 4y agoChopping off body parts without consent? Really? It isn't as bad as FGM but I think it could definitely qualify as mutilation even if it is socially acceptable in the US and Jewish/Muslim communities.
- edanm 4y agoIt is not generally accepted by most people that it is mutilation. "Chopping off body parts" makes it sound a lot worse than I believe most people consider it. I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made against circumcision (though I don't agree with it, currently.) But it's kind of ridiculous to just go "oh, people mentioned Jews and child abuse in this article, I can just casually mention that Jews perform child abuse" and just assume it is a totally unquestioned stance.
- account42 4y agoThat the prevailing view is in the US culture is that it is not abuse doesn't mean it is not abuse though. This entire discussion is precisely about current US polular culture biases being enforced in the models. FGM isn't seen as abuse by those that practice it either and I suspect many other child abusers also have plenty of excuses why their acts are not that bad.
- ldh0011 4y ago
- kennyloginz 4y agoCatholics promote circumcision too.