Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
This is some serious fucked up shit.
Topic Started: Feb 18 2009, 05:59 AM (259 Views)
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Like, seriously.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
It is quite funny though. Particularly her line "Oh, he's not too bad".

I suppose the question is, had she been 18, should this be a crime at all? At 15 you can say it's an abuse of trust and underage but at 18 it's an adult decision from both parties.

As wrong as incest is, I'm not convinced it's any of my business what other people choose to do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theDootle
Member Avatar
Saviour Valid
That is so fucking disgusting.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
I'd agree Henry, but it's the breeding that makes me wonder if it is society's business.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
I think a lot of breeding is society's business... but those views are sometimes controversial. -_-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Incest is illegal for several reasons - the main reason being the genetic inferiority of the children produced in an incestual relationships, and the strengthening of congenital diseases.

It is society's business because it's a broken law.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
That's circular logic. Society makes laws and breaking a law makes it society's business?

Anyway, the control of genetics does not exist in reproduction between the mentally subnormal, for example. A far greater concern on the pyramid of intelligence is that those of a high intellect produce many times fewer children as they have a sense of responsibility for their offspring. Human excrement however, at whatever level you wish to draw this line, has five children before it can even read.

Now, bearing in mind everyone on earth has at some point had incest involved in their bloodline, is it really our place to interfere?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
No, it's not circular logic. Why do you think societies that once practiced and accepted incest no longer exist? Because they were replaced with superior, non-incestual societies. Incest was used as a form of maintaining power amongst a royal family - the result was genetically inferior leaders who produced dead or weak offspring.

We can laugh and say that dumb people are everywhere, but compared to a few mere centuries ago, even our poorest are still quite educated.

It is our place to interfere. I've already explained why - the carrying on of congenital defects was proven in the above-mentioned father-daughter relationship. Their firstborn died of congenital defects. Had it not died, it would have been society's burden.

Your next move then would be to complain that society doesn't have a right to interfere with low intelligence people breeding, or people with congenital defects breeding, so why should incest be any different. The question would be why should society interfere with any sort of breeding, then? If society shouldn't interfere between a father and daughter breeding, why should they interfere with consentual sex between a 14 yr old and a 40 yr old?

Why should society interfere with anything, then? Why have laws, if as you believe, society is only following them because they created them?


Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Pestiferous
Feb 18 2009, 02:02 PM
It is society's business because it's a broken law.

This is circular logic and I'm not sure why you're arguing against it. Any law created is not automatically just. Anyway, moving on...

I believe in far more interference, not less. I think it's society's role to remove children from unfit parents and even more, to force education onto everyone, across a standard syllabus, regardless of whether they wish it or not.

Both of these systems exist in Britain and its offspring countries and I don't think many people (bar Plague) object to these intrusions.

There are also laws that ban anal sex between husband and wife (hmm) and some extremely bizarre rules about eating garlic in public.

When it comes to telling people who they can have sex with, when both people are adult and agree to it (which is not the case in the article of course) I think it's very slippery ground. What we find objectionable, or against nature, could very well be said about a great number of things on the grounds of decency. We should avoid that altogether.

On the grounds of medical health, rather than social cleanliness, I think there are a great many utter fuckwits stumbling around fucking each other. They make babies without care or apparent knowledge of the rudiments of procreation and society pays for it, figuratively and literally. I think we should interfere with that too. Perhaps a limit on children? Perhaps forced sterilisation in certain cases.

That would be a horrific society to live in I would imagine. It seems attractive at first though...

When it comes to the danger of two people creating a baby which has a high chance of being defective, such as incest, we're quick to pass judgement. We don't jump so easily when two people have disabilities, such as blindness, mental illness, etc. If it's truly about genetic backwash we should have a very clear stance.

Incest certainly can't be held up as a "special case" due to moral repugnance alone.


*edited for spelling
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
You can't have it both ways. Surely you wouldn't be arguing that laws enforcing society's right to interfere in cases of rape is "circular" considering society created those laws. Incest is far more complicated than simply saying we should let two adults have sex with eachother. As much as you would like to argue that it's a victimless crime, it's not. That child they produced is a victim of the crime of incest.

Either you agree that society has to have laws, or you don't. You can't merely say some laws are ok. while other laws are "interfering" and created with circular logic. Yes, people take measures to make sure mentally disabled people do not procreate - is it law that they don't? No, but guardianship is granted by law to those caring for mentally disabled people, which gives them power to ensure procreation doesn't happen.

Quote:
 
When it comes to telling people who they can have sex with, when both people are adult and agree to it (which is not the case in the article of course) I think it's very slippery ground.


Why? You believe in removing children from unfit families, so why would a pre-emptive legal step-in before these children are even created seem too severe? How is stopping sex somehow more personal than taking away someone's child?

Quote:
 
We don't jump so easily when two people have disabilities, such as blindness, mental illness, etc. If it's truly about genetic backwash we should have a very clear stance.



Yes, we do. Perhaps not blindness, as it is a physical disability alone therefore having no impact on a person's mental capacity to care for an infant, but with mental illness people are always ready to step in and remove the child upon birth. Unfortunately, just because a person is mentally ill doesn't negate their rights to procreate - being mentally ill isn't breaking a law. Having a disease isn't breaking a law. That is why depressives and alcoholics are free to have relationships with eachother and procreate - because the degree of a person's disability or disease is individual, and cannot be encompassed in a law.

Incest, however, can.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Lots of things here I disagree with so sadly I shall need to dissect.

Quote:
 
You can't have it both ways. Surely you wouldn't be arguing that laws enforcing society's right  to interfere in cases of rape is "circular" considering society created those laws.


Just to explain this. It's circular because you can't say - "it's wrong because you broke the law". A law existing is not the same as a law being correct or you have no room to question the status quo. That's why it's circular logic. I think you might think I mean something else, maybe? Hope that's clear now.

Quote:
 
Either you agree that society has to have laws, or you don't. You can't merely say some laws are ok. while other laws are "interfering"


Of course you can. Society has laws, those laws are constantly shifting. That's what society is. It's not Moses and his tablets here. Some laws ARE intrusive and laws do change. I'm really a bit surprised you typed that.

Quote:
 
Yes, people take measures to make sure mentally disabled people do not procreate - is it law that they don't? No, but guardianship is granted by law to those caring for mentally disabled people, which gives them power to ensure procreation doesn't happen.


Something I'm quite pleased about. Hopefully that will stay away from civil liberties lawyers for a long time. A mong with kids is many shades of wrong.

Quote:
 
You believe in removing children from unfit families, so why would a pre-emptive legal step-in before these children are even created seem too severe? How is stopping sex somehow more personal than taking away someone's child?


Because one presumes fault, the other is fault.


Quote:
 
Unfortunately, just because a person is mentally ill doesn't negate their rights to procreate - being mentally ill isn't breaking a law. Having a disease isn't breaking a law. That is why depressives and alcoholics are free to have relationships with eachother and procreate - because the degree of a person's disability or disease is individual, and cannot be encompassed in a law.

Incest, however, can.



Unfortunately mentally ill people have the right to attempt sexual intercourse. I think that's because intrusion is seen as being a step too far into someone else's business. I agree too that mental illness is subjective. What one person may consider unhealthy another may consider to be a character trait. I will take you up on blindness though.

Blind people, deaf people. Should society let them perpetuate their vile genetic code?

And the answer to that should be one step closer to accepting the point I was making earlier:

Quote:
 
When it comes to the danger of two people creating a baby which has a high chance of being defective, such as incest, we're quick to pass judgement. We don't jump so easily when two people have disabilities, such as blindness, mental illness, etc. If it's truly about genetic backwash we should have a very clear stance.

Incest certainly can't be held up as a "special case" due to moral repugnance alone.



<_<
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
If it's truly about genetic backwash we should have a very clear stance.



Ah, that's your problem. You don't truly comprehend the rammifications accepted incest can have on a society. You think incest is merely two related people having consensual sex.

Read up on incest, will you? I don't think you're getting past the sex part.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theDootle
Member Avatar
Saviour Valid
I have to agree with Pest.

I don't really have much to say though because she pretty much said it all.

Oh and I'll add...


Fuck...eww
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
We all know you've munched Mori's box before. :tongueroll:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
If there are any minds at work (that is a pointed reference to you, Monkey) could you please wade in with an argument here.

The only reason I can see for reticence is that it sides with my point and that looks too cosy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
theDootle
Feb 18 2009, 05:48 PM
I have to agree with Pest.

I don't really have much to say though because she pretty much said it all.

Oh and I'll add...


Fuck...eww

No this is actually not what we're discussing. The "ew" factor has been put to one side deliberately for a while.


I'm happy to come back to the moral repugnance idea but each element, please, in time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theDootle
Member Avatar
Saviour Valid
Blah Blah Blah



And yes Ergo, I have.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Geez. It's not like it's our problem anyhow. The link is from Australian news. :rolleyes:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ConfusedMonkey
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Evil_Henry
Feb 19 2009, 01:42 AM
If there are any minds at work (that is a pointed reference to you, Monkey) could you please wade in with an argument here.

The only reason I can see for reticence is that it sides with my point and that looks too cosy.

I'm undecided on the topic, and would be boringly somewhere in the middle.

Also not that interested.
There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
That would be boring.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply