The Federation, what would it take for you to join?

[Sci]

@Sci
I think I've at least once been there in the other thread, but oh well: Why is it so hard to understand:

It's not hard to understand. I understand you perfectly.

I just disagree.

You cannot assume it doesn't do any harm. It's surgery.

My entire life is a strong piece of evidence that it does no harm.

Circumcision causes neither. It is, in point of fact, a bodily modification that's virtually meaningless.

If it's meaningless, why do it? Especially why do it in a time when the child can't decide for itself? That's abuse, already a mild form of rape, as you harm the child physically without its consent.

You know, I understand that we disagree on this. And I certainly don't think circumcision ought to be in any way obligatory or that anyone should be pressured to have it done to their children.

But how on Earth can you expect me to take you seriously when you essentially accuse my parents of sexually assaulting me? How on Earth can you expect any sort of good-faith debate about the procedure's relative merits when you use language like that? Do you really think anyone is going to listen to you when you make such a vicious personal attack against your debating opponents' loved ones?

 

[T'Girl]

discussions here eventually revolve around dicks

With posts written by same.

This is not appropriate and I would suggest you dial it back T'Girl.

Actual AstroSmurf, I was referring to myself there.

Trust me there is no reason(s) beyond the fact that girls don't like the way it looks.

Not to give away too much, but I personally do like the way it looks.

In term of having the procedure preformed solely for future medical reasons, maybe. I was really responding to a previous posters position that there was no medical benefit. But there are some to be sure, in a country that is as maniac about preventative medicine as America, it's understandable that it has evolve into a social custom.

How many adults do you know who have submitted to circumcision? (Abraham doesn't count.)

For one me!

I'm transgender and was born with the usual maleness, at age nineteen (for appearance reasons) I obtained a "partial" circumcision. The doctor used lidocane, I used a bag of frozen peas and there were no problems.

But if body modification bothered me, I wouldn't be me.

 

[JarodRussell]

But how on Earth can you expect me to take you seriously when you essentially accuse my parents of sexually assaulting me? How on Earth can you expect any sort of good-faith debate about the procedure's relative merits when you use language like that? Do you really think anyone is going to listen to you when you make such a vicious personal attack against your debating opponents' loved ones?

Is rape solely sexually defined? If so, I used the wrong word.

Were you physically harmed without your consent, yes or no?

If people think they need to do it out of religious/cultural reasons, then for fuck's sake, let the person decide for himself.

 

[Sci]

But how on Earth can you expect me to take you seriously when you essentially accuse my parents of sexually assaulting me? How on Earth can you expect any sort of good-faith debate about the procedure's relative merits when you use language like that? Do you really think anyone is going to listen to you when you make such a vicious personal attack against your debating opponents' loved ones?

Is rape solely sexually defined? If so, I used the wrong word.

Yes, you most definitely used the wrong word -- the wrong argument -- when you accused my parents of sexually assaulting me.

Were you physically harmed without your consent, yes or no?

As I have said several times, I don't consider myself to have been physically harmed, no.

If people think they need to do it out of religious/cultural reasons, then for fuck's sake, let the person decide for himself.

And, you know, frankly, if I ever have a son, I don't plan on getting him circumcised. Not because I think it's "wrong," but simply because I don't think there's a strong enough reason to do it, and because I'm more comfortable allowing him to make such a decision for himself upon adulthood.

But neither am I willing to judge people who do have their children circumcised, and I am certainly not willing to accuse them of abusing their children. The vast majority of the men in the United States, according to the World Health Organization, are circumcised; I have yet to meet a single man in real life who considers himself to have been traumatized because of it.

 

[Avechbobo]

As I have said several times, I don't consider myself to have been physically harmed, no.

Then you should look up the meaning of harm.

I have yet to meet a single man in real life who considers himself to have been traumatized because of it.

Have you ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?

 

[AstroSmurf]

I think maybe we should turn this back to the original topic. At this point I think we are getting a little to personal and off topic for this thread to continue for much longer.

With posts written by same.

This is not appropriate and I would suggest you dial it back T'Girl.

Actual AstroSmurf, I was referring to myself there.

You did not make that clear. I am mod not a mind-reader. I would suggest you be more specific next time.

 

[Sci]

As I have said several times, I don't consider myself to have been physically harmed, no.

Then you should look up the meaning of harm.

1. physical or mental injury or damage
2. moral evil or wrongdoing

Hmm. Let's see. All my parts are in working order. I feel okay about life and myself. I'm not sexually dysfunctional. Can't say as I feel injured or damaged.

I'll certainly concede that my body was modified without my consent, but I don't think that rises to the level of saying I was harmed.

I have yet to meet a single man in real life who considers himself to have been traumatized because of it.

Have you ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?

That's a disingenuous argument and an unfair personal attack. It is as unfair to claim that as it would be for me to accuse circumcision opponents of being anti-Semitic. This is not Good Versus Evil, with only one option being the "Right" option, with anyone who disagrees with you being either malicious or deluded. This is people making choices they think are best for their children, and nothing more.

 

[Avechbobo]

This is not Good Versus Evil, with only one option being the "Right" option, with anyone who disagrees with you being either malicious or deluded. This is people making choices they think are best for their children, and nothing more.

I don't think this is leading us anywhere. It should be obvious by now that I indeed think it is an issue of good and evil, good being leaving someone's body alone, bad being cutting something off from someone's body. Also, being deluded as you'll call it is not that big of a problem. Everyone is deluded in some sense. Circumcision-pro-choice people are in my opinion wrong because some things, like all the things written down in the law, are not about choice. I think I've said several times that I don't think it should be one.

The same way I see religious schools as not being open for parental choice, I see circumcision.

EDIT:
I think we've all heard the phrase "One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins". That's what this is all about.

 

[JarodRussell]

Then you should look up the meaning of harm.

1. physical or mental injury or damage
2. moral evil or wrongdoing

Hmm. Let's see. All my parts are in working order. I feel okay about life and myself. I'm not sexually dysfunctional. Can't say as I feel injured or damaged.

Let's say someone would circumcise you today, without your consent. Drugs you, cuts it off. Without asking you. Would you be okay with that?
Hm... what's another body part nobody needs? Pulling wisdom teeth, without your consent. Removing the appendix, without your consent. That's the point here, Sci, nothing else.

 

[AstroSmurf]

I asked you folks to get back on topic and stop being so personal. Keep going down this line and I will close the thread.

 

[Avechbobo]

I asked you folks to get back on topic and stop being so personal. Keep going down this line and I will close the thread.

That's exactly what Jarod was doing. Some things are personal and are best explained if one imagines the issue in question to happen to him/herself.

 

[Sci]

Then you should look up the meaning of harm.

1. physical or mental injury or damage
2. moral evil or wrongdoing

Hmm. Let's see. All my parts are in working order. I feel okay about life and myself. I'm not sexually dysfunctional. Can't say as I feel injured or damaged.

Let's say someone would circumcise you today, without your consent. Drugs you, cuts it off. Without asking you. Would you be okay with that?
Hm... what's another body part nobody needs? Pulling wisdom teeth, without your consent. Removing the appendix, without your consent. That's the point here, Sci, nothing else.

I would indeed be upset if someone modified my body without my consent, as I am an adult and thus have the absolute and inviolate right to decide what to do with my body. (This is also why I object to laws against drug use--I reject the notion that the state has the right to tell me what to do with my body.)

On the other hand, the rights of a child are not the rights of an adult. So long as there is a demonstrable medical benefit to a bodily modification a parent chooses to make to his/her child, and so long as that bodily modification cannot be demonstrated to cause trauma, I do not believe it the right to the state to prevent a parent from making that choice.

 

[AstroSmurf]

I asked you folks to get back on topic and stop being so personal. Keep going down this line and I will close the thread.

That's exactly what Jarod was doing. Some things are personal and are best explained if one imagines the issue in question to happen to him/herself.

That is most definitely not what he is doing.

And right now this thread is becoming a slow motion train wreck. Once you start making an argument personal, emotions inevitably take over. Then there are warnings and tears. I am closing this thread for 24 hours so you kids can figure out how to get back on topic.

 

[The Inquisitor]

Back to the original post. For me to join such an organisation it would have to guarantee me a good quality of life free from corruption, crime and poverty. By the looks of things in Star Trek the federation meets these requirements and more.

With replicator technology and a highly advanced understanding of medicine available universally, one would presume hunger and disease had been dealt with. These two things alone wreak havoc in the world of today and are contributing factors in many conflicts. With hunger and disease eradicated I should imagine life would be much more pleasant.

I tend to go with the assumption there is no money on Earth as stated by Captain Picard on many occasions. The very fact the technology available does away with the need to utilize land to grow crops, rear livestock etc, this tends to point out if all life's essentials available all the time to everyone, why use money?

This sounds like the sort of society I would be comfortable living in. I highly doubt it will ever happen in reality and there are many unanswered questions in regards to its overall structure, but its a nice thought.

On a personal note I would prefer any society I settle in to be free of firearms, have no capital punishment and be tolerant of all sectors of society. Circumcision would come pretty low on my list of priorities to be honest.

 

[T'Girl]

As a possible Utopian society, what you've expressed sounds ideal. Others have advocated such a society as this in the past, on this very board, and to tell you the truth (sorry) it sound kind of, well dull. I can understand desiring to live free from desperation, or even want. But to live in a society where most everything is basically "free" would seem to me to be too easy. I'm not even sure it would be healthy for Humans to live such a "listless" existence, yes I'm sure that many would seek a life in Starfleet, or write the great novel, or create wonderful art ... but all?

I believe we are who we are. And that Humans will not change psychological into radically different beings in only a few centuries. I have seen (and likely you have too) people in our society who have access to near anything they wish and don't have to work all that hard to obtain it. they aren't always shining example of Humanity.

Perhaps I have been indoctrinated by my upbringing and culture, but I think having to strive for things is good, and while I don't think I'm in love with it, I also think money is good too. Don't get me wrong please, our world is far from perfect, it's a work in progress, I just wonder if we should even try to progress toward your utopia.

Would a "everything free' world be really all that desirable?

 

[Stoek]

As a possible Utopian society, what you've expressed sounds ideal. Others have advocated such a society as this in the past, on this very board, and to tell you the truth (sorry) it sound kind of, well dull. I can understand desiring to live free from desperation, or even want. But to live in a society where most everything is basically "free" would seem to me to be too easy. I'm not even sure it would be healthy for Humans to live such a "listless" existence, yes I'm sure that many would seek a life in Starfleet, or write the great novel, or create wonderful art ... but all?

I believe we are who we are. And that Humans will not change psychological into radically different beings in only a few centuries. I have seen (and likely you have too) people in our society who have access to near anything they wish and don't have to work all that hard to obtain it. they aren't always shining example of Humanity.

Perhaps I have been indoctrinated by my upbringing and culture, but I think having to strive for things is good, and while I don't think I'm in love with it, I also think money is good too. Don't get me wrong please, our world is far from perfect, it's a work in progress, I just wonder if we should even try to progress toward your utopia.

Would a "everything free' world be really all that desirable?

Respectfully your argument seems to boil down to, "Things don't work that way now so they shouldn't work that way in the future." It seems to me that if people adhered to this kind of reasoning there'd be no progress of any kind.

Personally I work at a shit job, for shit wages, to keep a roof over my head and food on the table and along the way enjoy some of the bells and whistles. In my alleged spare time I try to read, and write, and do something other than be a fucking wage slave. I am not unique. How much art, and discovery, and growth might we all be capable of if we did not have to work like hamsters on a damned treadmill all the time?

Would there be people who would simply take their share, and contribute nothing in return? Yep. But hey let them. In the current world such people are objectionable because what they take deprives another. But in a future with limitless energy making things like replicators etc possible? Well if they want to piss away their lives it's no skin off my nose.

Personally I'll be over here writing the great Federation novel.

 

[Sci]

But to live in a society where most everything is basically "free" would seem to me to be too easy.

I think that's a sentiment that's much more appealing when one has never faced the prospect of imminently losing one's home or not being able to afford to eat.

Would a "everything free' world be really all that desirable?

I think it's a meaningless question. Even if we eventually develop an economy where the basics of healthy living -- shelter, food, water, hygiene -- can be provided for free to everyone, it would never be possible for everything to be free or for money to cease to exist. Some forms of scarcity can never be overcome -- living space, for instance. And, more importantly, social prestige. People will always want to compete with one-another and form imaginary hierarchies, and money is, as always, the most universally accepted way of doing that.

 

[Myasishchev]

But money is not the only imaginable way.

But then I've always felt the Federation was more interesting as an idealized, functioning Soviet system than The Great Society In Space.

 

[The Inquisitor]

I know what you are driving at T'Girl, I think many people would still be arseholes (no amount of technology will change that) and you would get some people who would literally sit and vegetate.

On the other hand though there would be many people who would make full use of the time and resources given to them. I for one would love to learn Chinese, kung Fu,
computer programming and go on month long treks through the wilderness but in the 21st century I can't due to financial and time constraints imposed on me.

Humans will always strive to learn more and enrich themselves through many means, a trek like future would certainly help to push more people to improve themselves.

As for being bored you must bear in kind the holodeck tech and 'call of duty 900' or whatever number they will be up to by then, that would be me pretty much sorted :-)

 

[Avechbobo]

Would a "everything free' world be really all that desirable?

I think it's a meaningless question. Even if we eventually develop an economy where the basics of healthy living -- shelter, food, water, hygiene -- can be provided for free to everyone, it would never be possible for everything to be free or for money to cease to exist. Some forms of scarcity can never be overcome -- living space, for instance. And, more importantly, social prestige. People will always want to compete with one-another and form imaginary hierarchies, and money is, as always, the most universally accepted way of doing that.

Simple: You take the buildable land, take away necessary industries, divide it by persons living in a household and give away the lots freely. After that, everyone can build their house or villa however they desire, as long as it fits with the environment, the neighbour's houses and doesn't cover the whole land and look like a grey brick.
The more children you have, the bigger your lot is going to be.

Instead of money and wealth, education, degrees, jobs worked in, experience gained and sports could function as an alternative for social prestige.

However, I do agree that money won't ever be abandoned. There will always be some services and work which will have to get done by someone, for example refilling your internal energy source (reactor hopefully), looking after sick people, making sure civil defense is organised, controlling air traffic etc. The only solution to this would be self-replicating, self-repairing, mutation-safe machines and software that you could create once and then let it do all the work.

Maybe some idealists could ask a nation to "rent" them some territory for a few years and try this with a few thousand people. Only under the condition that besides the socialist rules that are in place, they won't try to become independent and adhere to the original nation's constitution, of course.
Has anyone ever tried it?