Post from Scipio -
We don't have to agree with or condone practices such as female genital mutilation, but can we really point the finger at them and call them uncivilized or savage? After all, there are some who would call Americans savages because of our love for firearms...
View Quote
I think we need to brand this as 'universalist nonjudgmentalism', and not just moral equivalency.
For it to be true 'moral equivalency' the comparison should between ritual female genital 'circumcision' and routine medical male circumcision.
As you can see, there is no moral equivalency between the two. No medical expert that I know of, or read, has ever claimed medical benefits for clitorectomies (female 'circumcision'), whereas numerous experts claim so for male circumcision.
Now, the comparison made in this post between ritual female genital 'circumcision' and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is truly an example of 'universalist nonjudgmentalism' as, while one can think of very worthy and noble goals for supporting the RKBA, what can one possibly say in defense of female genital mutilation?
But, under universalist nonjudgmentalism, they are easily compared.
Folks, we've lost it!
We can't even get people to understand the very clear differences between idiotic acts based upon archaic rituals designed to keep womenz in their place, and the Providentially granted right to keep and bear arms for self defense and the defense of the nation.
Help!
Eric The('Help',ISay!)Hun[>]:)]