logic

[andrewJ]

I believe that we can arrive further at a common ground if we discuss the issue of routine circumcision in a more fundamental way.

so far, we have mainly been debating the logical soundness of each others arguments. Not the logical validity. they are two different things.

before an argument can be said to be logically sound, it must first be logically valid.
an argument can be logically valid, but not logically sound.
for example;

1. All French people live in mud huts
2. Jean-Pierre is a French person
3. therefore Jean-Pierre lives in a mud hut

This IS a logically valid argument, because the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion.
i.e, IF we accept the premises, then we MUST also accept the conclusion.
the problem is that it is not logically sound. the premise - that all french people live in mud huts, is not true.

An argument cannot be logically sound, without being logically valid. It makes little sense therefore to debate the soundness of an argument, before addressing its validity.


I dont think i have ever seen a logically VALID argument in favor of routine circumcision. So here is your chance to offer one.


here is my logically valid argument against it

1. Amputation of healthy body parts of unconsenting children is never justified.
2. Routine Circumcision IS Amputation of healthy body parts of unconsenting children
3. Therefore routine circumcision is not justified


when we present argument like this, it is easier to see exactly where we disagree with each other, and we are less likely to get sidetracked, or confused. we can debate each specific point, knowing its relevance and significance to the argument.
Pro circers for example could identify my first premise as one they reject. They may say that amputation of healthy body parts CAN sometimes/always be justified.

however i have yet to see a logically valid argument for routine circumcision, that does not also allow all sorts of other body part modifications, such as female circumcision and tattooing.

anyway, is anyone brave enough to attempt it?

[peanutbutter&jelly]

Its not as fun that way

Though I do agree with your logically sound argument

[Pax]

Its not as fun that way

Though I do agree with your logically sound argument

yeah you killed the arguement! dont make so much sense

[LilShenanigans]

Your brain is functioning at 1am in the morning and it thought lets discuss circ... ?

[andrewJ]

actually, im from UK

[peanutbutter&jelly]

Makes a lot more sense

Though I will say, my DF's best 'us' discussions are in the wee hours... should that be telling me something

[mamaone]

Nicely done andrewJ

[Father]

1. Amputation of healthy body parts of unconsenting children is never justified.

Would you classify hair and nails as a body part?

Hair and nails are both part of the integumentary system. This system is designed to help the body to waterproof, cushion and protect the deeper tissues, excrete wastes, regulate temperature and is the location of receptors for pain, sensation, pressure and temperature.

Yes, the majority of this system is the skin, but nails and hair a part of this system, yet we regularly prune/amputate parts of this system for hygienic and cosmetic reasons.

Therefore, I disagree with the first point of your 'valid' argument. I would say that it is invalid.

Here is mine.

1. Circumcision helps prevent medical issues with the penis and STDs.
2. No-one males want medical issues with the penis or STDs.
3. Therefore, all males should want a circumcision.

Prevention is the best cure.

In regard to point 1, RACP (a trusted source of anti-circers) does state that there are medical benefits associated with circumcision.

[Tam-I-Am]

Father:

a) Hair and nails are dead tissue - therefore by their very nature they can't be unhealthy, nor healthy. They are dead.

b) When you trim nails or hair, you're not removing them completely. I'm yet to see anybody rip their child's fingernails or hair out by the roots.

c) The parts of the nails/hair that are removed don't hurt the child at the time of the process by which they're trimmed, nor later on.

d) Hair and nails are not an intrinsic part of sexual health.

That part of your argument is illogical.

A more logical comparison would be that

1) Routine appendectomy helps prevent appendicitis, which can lead to pain, illness, and in severe cases sepsis - and even death
2) No body wants pain, illness, sepsis, or to die
3) Therefore, all babies should be subject to routine appendectomy at birth.

Ridiculous - as is the argument for RIC.

[Father]

Hair and nails are dead tissue - therefore by their very nature they can't be unhealthy, nor healthy.

You tell that to the shampoo companies. I take your point on board though.

A more logical comparison would be that

1) Routine appendectomy helps prevent appendicitis, which can lead to pain, illness, and in severe cases sepsis - and even death
2) No body wants pain, illness, sepsis, or to die
3) Therefore, all babies should be subject to routine appendectomy at birth.

Ridiculous - as is the argument for RIC.

Yes, the above one is rediculous.
This just shows that anyone can throw 3 statements together that are valid. This thread isn't going to go anywhere for that reason.

Here is another one:

1. We immunise our children to prevent disease.
2. Circumcision helps prevent disease.
3. Therefore, we should circumcise our children too.

I could make many more, but I don't really see the point. It will result in the same old debate.