Atheists and Incest? Yay or Nay?

Dudess

c0rk3r wrote: »

Because what people say on the internet and what they say (and do) in real life are two entirely separate things. Imagine sitting around a pub with a group of people, which is what boards has been described as numerous times and admitting that you thought Incest was ok...

What do you think would happen in the real world ?

Galvasean wrote: »

Well for starters if they're just spitting in a public place their moral fibre is dubious to begin with....
Cheek aside, if I were to say 'If some people wanna do incest stuff that's none of my business' in real life I don't think anyone would call me on it.

c0rk3r wrote: »

lulz. Really? Im pretty sure whatever reputation you had would be tarnished in an instant.

Galvasean wrote: »

Perhaps the people I hang out with are less judgmental than your piers?

And less... stupid? And again, people here aren't saying incest is ok (is this oversimplification deliberate or a genuine mistake?), they're saying consenting adults who engage in it should not face the prospect of a prison sentence.

I know if I said the above in a pub discussion, some people might debate it with me, but my reputation would hardly be "tarnished"...

seamus

Tigger wrote: »

emotion is not irrelavant to discussion

When attempting to decide rights or wrongs, it's fair to say that the individual who is making the decision needs to detach themselves from their own emotion.

Why?

Because your feeling about something differs from mine. Just because I feel one particular emotion on a subject, does not mean anyone else feels that same emotion. Thus, in order to discuss the subject rationally, we need to detach our own emotions from the situation, in order to leave us all on a level where a discussion can take place.

That is, if emotional disgust is to be a consideration, where you feel emotional disgust and I don't, how is that resolved? Your emotional disgust holds no extra weight than my lack of it - just because you have an emotional reaction, that doesn't somehow give your opinion more weight. Yet until it's resolved, there can be no agreement. So therefore you need to detach those items which cannot be discussed/resolved (such as emotion) and then you can discuss the tangible/logical items.

In order to be a participant in such a discussion, you cannot bring your emotion to the table. Since I cannot discuss/examine/disprove your emotion (nor you mine), then bringing it to the table serves no purpose except to stifle debate.

That's not to say that the emotion of non-participatory third parties is irrelevant. Much of morality deals with causing the least amount of distress to others.

Hivemind187

Tigger wrote: »

emotion is not irrelavant to discussion

emotion is real if a person ignores his emotional life it will not be fulfilling

Yes. It is entirely irrelevant.

Emotion is reletive only to the person feeling that emotion. It therefore cannot be used as any supporting wieght in an argument becasuse to do so relies on a single, utterly biased source.

Take a simple philosophical position, for example; "I will not interfere with you unless your practices directly interfere with me".

The logical and rational conclusion of which (in relation to this discussion) is "You are free to engage in whatever sexual activity you choose to provided it does not interfere with me directly".

Curbed by agreed upon standards of law (in this case in relation to the age of consent - a factor that varies from culture to culture in a similar way to the notion of "family"); "You are free to engage in whatver sexual practices you choose to where those practices do not interfere with me and they are conducted within the parameters set by our system of law".

The question is, should our laws restrict people who, save for a particular moral or emotional repugnance to the act from a cross section of our culture, are doing no harm to anyone and who are not interfering with anyone else?

Given the philosophical position above (simplified though it is) there is not logical or rational argument against it.

Consider that there are still a lot of sexual practices that are technically illegal but go unprosecuted because those who engage in these practices are doing it consentually and without any interference with those who do not wish to be interfered with. The S&M scene, bondage and certain role-play fetishes are technically illegal due to the law stating that you cannot consent to be injured, or that being restrained by anyone for purposes other than your (or those around you) safety or the percieved absense of consent - are all examples where this goes on.

So other than the potential for unwanted mutation (handily circumvented by contraception) - what arguement is there against it other than you personal repugnance?

Is that not you inflicting your moral and emotional attitudes on everyone else?

Zombrex

Tigger wrote: »

in the absence of clarification of concent i found that in france the age of concent for sexual acts is 15

this is not a strawman this is a question i have asked whether anyone here can tell me they approve of parent child sexual congress and if so at what age

france was an example

It was a strawman because you haven't established if anyone agrees with the age of consent being 15 for sex between a girl and a middle aged man. That is before you bring in the middle aged man being her father.

I don't think a father should be able to have sex with his 15 year old daughter. But then I don't think any of his piers in age should be able to either.

Consent laws (here at least) are not designed to allow much older people to be allowed have sex with under 18s. They are designed to allow a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old without being charged with rape.

Dades

Probably should point out this from the OP, also:

JCB wrote:

For the poll: I define incest to be between consenting adults over say 18, not involving children.

Tigger

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Yes. It is entirely irrelevant.

Emotion is reletive only to the person feeling that emotion. It therefore cannot be used as any supporting wieght in an argument becasuse to do so relies on a single, utterly biased source.

Take a simple philosophical position, for example; "I will not interfere with you unless your practices directly interfere with me".

The logical and rational conclusion of which (in relation to this discussion) is "You are free to engage in whatever sexual activity you choose to provided it does not interfere with me directly".

Curbed by agreed upon standards of law (in this case in relation to the age of consent - a factor that varies from culture to culture in a similar way to the notion of "family"); "You are free to engage in whatver sexual practices you choose to where those practices do not interfere with me and they are conducted within the parameters set by our system of law".

The question is, should our laws restrict people who, save for a particular moral or emotional repugnance to the act from a cross section of our culture, are doing no harm to anyone and who are not interfering with anyone else?

Given the philosophical position above (simplified though it is) there is not logical or rational argument against it.

Consider that there are still a lot of sexual practices that are technically illegal but go unprosecuted because those who engage in these practices are doing it consentually and without any interference with those who do not wish to be interfered with. The S&M scene, bondage and certain role-play fetishes are technically illegal due to the law stating that you cannot consent to be injured, or that being restrained by anyone for purposes other than your (or those around you) safety or the percieved absense of consent - are all examples where this goes on.

So other than the potential for unwanted mutation (handily circumvented by contraception) - what arguement is there against it other than you personal repugnance?

Is that not you inflicting your moral and emotional attitudes on everyone else?

i'm an openminded person

i feel that all those fetishes sghould be allowed
i feel that all drugs shouyld be allowed
i tryley believe in the notion that one should be allowed to do what they would as long as it dosenrt hurt others

now the idea that someone will be emotionally hurt is valid and real so it will hurt soceity as a group of humans to allow the practise of incest

arguments about the parents of fellas being chased by gold diggers and men wityh much younger wives are invalid because soceity as a whole will not be damaged by this becoming the norm

incest becoming the norm would contribute the the further decline of the emotional and empathatic state of civilisation as a whole

Tigger

Zillah wrote: »

Define "wrong" for the purposes of the post please. I'm going to define wrong as "harming other human beings" for the my purposes.

Therefore, incest isn't wrong. Now, if you're going to come back with some bullshit argument that is just based on your own irrational feelings then I feel I should be allowed come over to your house and punch you in the face because thats how we're deciding whats legal or illegal now, right?

btw you are moer than welcome to come over to my house and attempt to act in any manner you like i really don't like your tone here but i'm sure that if we were to meet face to face i would find you to be a well mannered and gentle fellow who would never resourt to hitting me

Burial

Tigger wrote: »

it says not i see why god was invented

as an athiest in believe god was invented how is that confusing

So, your saying God was invented by humans and you said incest isn't in the human plan, (Because humans invented God), even though there is countless evidence to prove incest happened quite often throughout history(and was socially accepted) and that incest is a choice made by humans?

Your arguement is horribly flawed. (Not only for what I said above, but "I believe"??? Get facts.) As your probably unaware, my post had more to it than one line or was that the only problem you could argue with my post?

Wicknight wrote:

It was a strawman because you haven't established if anyone agrees with the age of consent being 15 for sex between a girl and a middle aged man. That is before you bring in the middle aged man being her father.

I don't think a father should be able to have sex with his 15 year old daughter. But then I don't think any of his piers in age should be able to either.

Consent laws (here at least) are not designed to allow much older people to be allowed have sex with under 18s. They are designed to allow a 15 year old to have sex with another 15 year old without being charged with rape.

Yes, but you can't argue that consent laws, does allow for the other way around. In fact wasn't there a case where a guy had sex with a minor but got away because she said I'm older and gave consent? It's more of the issue of consent. Like 17 and 18 or 17 and 82. It doesn't matter. In the law they are both adults and are treated as such.

Dave!

Tigger wrote: »

now the idea that someone will be emotionally hurt is valid and real so it will hurt soceity as a group of humans to allow the practise of incest

arguments about the parents of fellas being chased by gold diggers and men wityh much younger wives are invalid because soceity as a whole will not be damaged by this becoming the norm

incest becoming the norm would contribute the the further decline of the emotional and empathatic state of civilisation as a whole

What on earth are you basing this on? How would it contribute to the decline of civilisation?!

And by the way, nobody is saying incest should be put forth as the norm, with conventional unrelated relationships being relegated. If that were the case then perhaps it would have a negative impact (I dunno).

The same could be said of homosexuality. If that were the norm, and everybody was to suddenly turn homosexual, then there would be no human race in 150 years, would there?

But the fact is that most people do NOT feel attracted to the same sex, nor their relatives (indeed most feel repugnance at the idea), and so they're both simply a minority sport. So why shouldn't they be allowed?

Dudess

Tigger wrote: »

arguments about the parents of fellas being chased by gold diggers and men wityh much younger wives are invalid because soceity as a whole will not be damaged by this becoming the norm

incest becoming the norm would contribute the the further decline of the emotional and empathatic state of civilisation as a whole

How? Birth defects? Contraception is the answer to that. Incest has always gone on, and was (perhaps still is) the norm in many cultures.

Tigger

this whole thread is starting to annoy me

not the arguments per say but the agression of some posters
if ye want to ligve in a world ruled by logic and rationality without emotion then thats grand but don't then get angry calling someones points bullsh1t and annopuncing that one wouild like to call around to my house and punch me. some of ye are being respectfull some are being funny and some are being pig ignorant so i bow out of this debate.

Zillah i reported you post but its oviously ok with the mods

pm me if you want details of how to meet up

Dades

Tigger wrote: »

incest becoming the norm would contribute the the further decline of the emotional and empathatic state of civilisation as a whole

/sigh

Making something legal doesn't cause it to become the 'norm'. There aren't dozens of people with incestuous thoughts just waiting for legislative change.

Tigger wrote: »

i'm sure that if we were to meet face to face i would find you to be a well mannered and gentle fellow who would never resourt to hitting me

I'm sure Zillah would be too - as I'm sure he won't continue verbalising thoughts of punching you.

Burial

QUOTE Number 1:

Tigger wrote: »

i'm an openminded person

i feel that all those fetishes sghould be allowed
i feel that all drugs shouyld be allowed
i tryley believe in the notion that one should be allowed to do what they would as long as it dosenrt hurt others

now the idea that someone will be emotionally hurt is valid and real so it will hurt soceity as a group of humans to allow the practise of incest

arguments about the parents of fellas being chased by gold diggers and men wityh much younger wives are invalid because soceity as a whole will not be damaged by this becoming the norm

incest becoming the norm would contribute the the further decline of the emotional and empathatic state of civilisation as a whole

QUOTE Number 2:

Tigger wrote:

btw you are moer than welcome to come over to my house and attempt to act in any manner you like i really don't like your tone here but i'm sure that if we were to meet face to face i would find you to be a well mannered and gentle fellow who would never resourt to hitting me

My Reply for Quote 2:

What is the point of this post? Doesn't even address the issue. He's merely stating that if you upset him, then if his emotions say "act out", then it's ok. You've failed to address that issue (as with so many others).

My reply for Quote1:

So you support humans doing as they like, but only when it doesn't harm others. Fair enough. How does incest harm others? If I have sex with my sister how does it harm you? Last time I checked you weren't my sister.

Whats more is that your trying to associate incest to a fetish. How about two siblings seperated at birth and marry and find 5 years into their marriage they find out they are brother and sister? Thats not a fetish.

wrote:

arguments about the parents of fellas being chased by gold diggers and men wityh much younger wives are invalid because soceity as a whole will not be damaged by this becoming the norm

What if incest became the norm??? Why is it ok for this practise??? The OP to the comment your referring to, clearly states WHY this harms others. By your logic, it should be stopped too.

wrote:

incest becoming the norm would contribute the the further decline of the emotional and empathatic state of civilisation as a whole

HOW????????? Care to provide proof? Well considering you won't have any, and seeing as incest was there in society and was "normal", please tell me any hypothetical scenario in which I slept with my sister and will as such cause the outright decline of emotional and empathatic state of civilisation in the world??

I realise I'm not going to get a reply from you, and that I said I wasn't going to reply to you, but your outputting too much BS that I'm finding it hard not to reply to you. All I really wanted from you is a reply that actually had meaning. Now I'm kind've annoyed that the only person against incest here isn't actually creating any arguements and as such, it has now become replying to the same subject over and over. I've said the same arguement for incest (as have others) and we've yet to hear a response that actually holds some merit.

Dudess

Tigger wrote: »

some are being pig ignorant

You obviously felt that applied to your signature considering you removed it.

Dades

Tigger wrote: »

some of ye are being respectfull some are being funny and some are being pig ignorant so i bow out of this debate.

That's your prerogative.

To those who can stand the heat in the kitchen, can we do without the "Don't let the door hit your arse" type remarks!
The only way this thread can stay open is if it stays on topic.

Tigger

Burial wrote: »

QUOTE Number 1:


QUOTE Number 2:


My Reply for Quote 2:

What is the point of this post? Doesn't even address the issue. He's merely stating that if you upset him, then if his emotions say "act out", then it's ok. You've failed to address that issue (as with so many others).

My reply for Quote1:

So you support humans doing as they like, but only when it doesn't harm others. Fair enough. How does incest harm others? If I have sex with my sister how does it harm you? Last time I checked you weren't my sister.

Whats more is that your trying to associate incest to a fetish. How about two siblings seperated at birth and marry and find 5 years into their marriage they find out they are brother and sister? Thats not a fetish.



What if incest became the norm??? Why is it ok for this practise??? The OP to the comment your referring to, clearly states WHY this harms others. By your logic, it should be stopped too.



HOW????????? Care to provide proof? Well considering you won't have any, and seeing as incest was there in society and was "normal", please tell me any hypothetical scenario in which I slept with my sister and will as such cause the outright decline of emotional and empathatic state of civilisation in the world??

I realise I'm not going to get a reply from you, and that I said I wasn't going to reply to you, but your outputting too much BS that I'm finding it hard not to reply to you. All I really wanted from you is a reply that actually had meaning. Now I'm kind've annoyed that the only person against incest here isn't actually creating any arguements and as such, it has now become replying to the same subject over and over. I've said the same arguement for incest (as have others) and we've yet to hear a response that actually holds some merit.

if i'm not good enough for you with my "just is" argument i'm sorry but i'm entitled to post any way i like as long as its civil

have sex with your sister if you want. i'm saying it shouldn't be allowed in law but the state is hardly likley to come after you for it

homosexuality was the same and same sex couples still cannot marry properly , ifeel that they should be allowed in law but that incesticers shouldn't

what is so wrong with me having my opinion
why should i have to resourt to you type of rhetoric why should i have to follow your standards of debate .

if you read what he said he said he would like to punch me
you defend his behaviour why? because i annoy you well i'm sorry my friend but i didn't set out to annoy you

Burial

Tigger wrote: »

this whole thread is starting to annoy me

not the arguments per say but the agression of some posters
if ye want to ligve in a world ruled by logic and rationality without emotion then thats grand but don't then get angry calling someones points bullsh1t and annopuncing that one wouild like to call around to my house and punch me. some of ye are being respectfull some are being funny and some are being pig ignorant so i bow out of this debate.

Zillah i reported you post but its oviously ok with the mods

pm me if you want details of how to meet up

Well, we never said we'd live without emotion. Your just putting one and one together and getting 8 million. We've provided the arguements, you've said it's icky. You've provided enough in the thread to know that that doesn't cut it here. We actually need more of a reason and basis to have an arguement. You didn't (and now won't) provide it. Shame really. You were the only one (bar c0rker) who really were on the other side. I was hoping to have a proper debate on the subject, but all that seem to be left are just on my side of the fence.

Zillahs post did nothing wrong. You claimed emotions were just grounds for actions. He gave you his action based on his emotions, which you weren't ok with. Are you seeing why the law isn't based around emotions but on evidence and facts??

Dave!

Does anyone know of actual research done into this? Most people assume that incest will result in hideous birth defects, but what % of people will that affect, or is it inevitable?

Travellers usually breed with family, and while they're often not the most attractive people in the world , it's not like they're being born with 6 arms or anything!

Anyone got links? There seems to be surprisingly little on the interweb

Delirium

Finally voted on this. Have been following this thread for a while and voted yes. Just can't see why someone could end up in prison for sleeping with someone they're related to.

On side note, just asked google to define incest and some of the answers came back as what I'd consider child molestation.:eek:

Tigger

Dades wrote: »

That's your prerogative.

To those who can stand the heat in the kitchen, can we do without the "Don't let the door hit your arse" type remarks!
The only way this thread can stay open is if it stays on topic.

thanks but its not that i can't stand the heat in the kitchen its that my wayb of verbalisim my thoughts on this is annoying some and making some angry and agressive

i'd happily debate this ad infinum if the the manners that i bring (~manners not quality of debate nor precision of rhetoris nor accuracy of logical point) wer not met with this crap

Tigger

Dave! wrote: »

Travellers usually breed with family, and while they're often not the most attractive people in the world , it's not like they're being born with 6 arms or anything!

reported

Dudess

Tigger wrote: »

if i'm not good enough for you with my "just is" argument i'm sorry but i'm entitled to post any way i like as long as its civil

Are you for real? Of course you're not going to be taken seriously if you post "just is" responses. And of course those responses are going to be challenged. I get a major whiff of "everyone's ganging up on me" off you. If you could back yourself up, maybe it wouldn't be like that.

have sex with your sister if you want.

More of it. Except Burial doesn't want to have sex with his sister.

what is so wrong with me having my opinion

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But being unable to back yourself up means your opinion doesn't particularly hold water.

why should i have to resourt to you type of rhetoric why should i have to follow your standards of debate .

Again, this is just clutching at straws because you haven't backed yourself up.

if you read what he said he said he would like to punch me
you defend his behaviour why? because i annoy you well i'm sorry my friend but i didn't set out to annoy you

What behaviour? He used a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. If he had said "I'm gonna find out where you live" he would be banned. And rightly so.

Dave! wrote: »

Does anyone know of actual research done into this? Most people assume that incest will result in hideous birth defects, but what % of people will that affect, or is it inevitable?

Travellers usually breed with family, and while they're often not the most attractive people in the world , it's not like they're being born with 6 arms or anything!

Anyone got links? There seems to be surprisingly little on the interweb

I'd speculate the deformities start after at least two generations of inbreeding. Google Roger Ballen for his pics of people in rural South Africa... /shudder

Galvasean

Tigger wrote: »

i feel that all drugs shouyld be allowed

Because cocaine abuse is less harmful than incest?

Tigger wrote: »

i tryley believe in the notion that one should be allowed to do what they would as long as it dosenrt hurt others

Well then, as has been established, if no one is being hurt then what is your problem?

Burial

Tigger wrote: »

if i'm not good enough for you with my "just is" argument i'm sorry but i'm entitled to post any way i like as long as its civil

have sex with your sister if you want. i'm saying it shouldn't be allowed in law but the state is hardly likley to come after you for it

homosexuality was the same and same sex couples still cannot marry properly , ifeel that they should be allowed in law but that incesticers shouldn't

what is so wrong with me having my opinion
why should i have to resourt to you type of rhetoric why should i have to follow your standards of debate .

if you read what he said he said he would like to punch me
you defend his behaviour why? because i annoy you well i'm sorry my friend but i didn't set out to annoy you

I don't defend his behaviour. I'm saying he's using your logic and you weren't ok with it. I'm also for incest because I've yet to be told why incest should be illegal. If you can tell me why and if it's a good enough reason, I'll change my stance. So will alot of other people.

There is nothing wrong with your opinion, in fact in my previous post I want you to have an opinion, however this is an arguement. You choose a side and defend it. I chose my side and have been defending my stance. Defending isn't good enough to win an arguement though. You have to say why my defence on a subject is wrong. I'm open-minded on this issue, as before reading this topic I was against incest, but I really can't see why I was in the first place now.

Homosexuals can legally marry(AFAIK). However they can't marry in a church because Christianity is agaist that sort of thing. We're saying legally incest couple should be allow do as they like. They're doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

What standard of debate would you like to follow so? And what way would you wish to have this debate?

Dudess

Tigger wrote: »

reported

Why?

Dades

Dave! - let's not go there.
Any comments on travelers on Boards usually end in disaster, nevermind throwaway generalisations.

As you were...

Galvasean

Dudess wrote: »

Why?

Because he's losing his argument badly and needs to thin out the opposition's numbers?

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

Does anyone know of actual research done into this? Most people assume that incest will result in hideous birth defects, but what % of people will that affect, or is it inevitable?

I'm not aware of anything specifically done on incest, but a search on pubmed turns up over 1800 hits, so I'm sure there's something worth reading in amongst that lot.

It's not quite incest, but many (most?) religions have rules stating that marriages must be within the religion. Over long periods of time, this will have similar effects to incest, and indeed, it turns out that many of the older religions have believers with higher than normal levels of genetic defects -- Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi jews, something else within Zoroastrianism, and I recall reading something last year about hospitals in the UK noting that muslims in the UK have significantly higher level of congenital birth defects than non-muslims, and that within-religion marriage was suspected of being the main cause.

Tigger

Burial wrote: »

Well, we never said we'd live without emotion. Your just putting one and one together and getting 8 million. We've provided the arguements, you've said it's icky. You've provided enough in the thread to know that that doesn't cut it here. We actually need more of a reason and basis to have an arguement. You didn't (and now won't) provide it. Shame really. You were the only one (bar c0rker) who really were on the other side. I was hoping to have a proper debate on the subject, but all that seem to be left are just on my side of the fence.

Zillahs post did nothing wrong. You claimed emotions were just grounds for actions. He gave you his action based on his emotions, which you weren't ok with. Are you seeing why the law isn't based around emotions but on evidence and facts??

this is wandering off topic but here goes

i never said icky
i feel that there are certain taboos that soceity must retain to remain what it is

i agree that the romans probably had their sisters but they did loads of things that are now taboo

legalising decriminalising and ignoring are three very different methods of dealing with a situation

if you said "if no one is hurt then should adult siblings be hounded and hunted down for practising incest" then i would say no , no they shouldn't

if you said "should provision be made in law for the protection of their right to do this?" i would say no

so which point would you like me to explain to you


i'll assume that its the latter

here is my reasoning:

making something legal is a route to making it acceptable, i believe that a soceity that has incest as an acceptable practise would be lacking some thing .

here is my reasoning

i still believe in the family unit if we take it as read for my point that the unit has advantages i can continue if not i will be happy to debate the pors of the family unit

the family unit is atb the moment undergoing much pressure from the sexuality of the children involved, myspace and bebo have groups with very young girls pimping themselves out young girls are acting like the women from sex and the city and it seems that unless the parents are very vigalant that their children will become very sexual and more outgoing about it than ever before, (i will debate this point and provide clarity on any part of this you wish to discuss/deny etc) sure i agree that we we up to stuff when we were their age but the flagerancy makes it acceptable to the peer group.
if incest remained taboo then it would not becopme flagerant but if it becomes protected in law then children will try it
why wouldn't they?

sex between two adults very very often leads to feelings of jealousy and of posession(will debate this as a single point if you like) and if siblings start to have sexaul behaviour (not nessiciarly penatrative perhaps mstrabuatory and oral) then aside from the affect on their poor parents if this was as flagarant and blatant as other forms of teen sexuality , there would be issues when they started to form " regular" relationships

Tigger

Galvasean wrote: »

Because he's losing his argument badly and needs to thin out the opposition's numbers?

no because its a scandolous generalisation