Well to each there own I guess
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
Bryn, I read that three times and I am afraid I am not getting it. To me it just sounds like word games. How does the car scenario work? And why am I not understanding? 
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;830938 wrote: [quote=spot]So tell me, which legal system do you think is healthier? There's the English approach which is "you can do anything that's not against the law" and there's the continental alternative which is "if the law allows it you can do it".There's supposed to be a discernable difference in the two? It's semantics again.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure how to even start to answer that. It's the one major division between law systems across the world. Half the countries base their law on the Napoleonic and Roman System, half on the English development of Common Law. They're poles apart and their essential difference is as I describe. It's not remotely a semantic distinction.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;830985 wrote: Bryn, I read that three times and I am afraid I am not getting it. To me it just sounds like word games. How does the car scenario work? And why am I not understanding?
On is restrictive the other is proscriptive.
You have a book, in that book you write everything that you are / are not allowed to do.
A year down the line someone come up with a new invention - say they invent the car. Do you have the freedom to try it?
In the one instance you can - it is not illegal.
In the other you cannot - it is not legal.
Given the the legislature errs on the side of caution and tends to be slow to change laws you have more freedom if the laws define what you cannot do than if the laws list what you can do.
On is restrictive the other is proscriptive.
You have a book, in that book you write everything that you are / are not allowed to do.
A year down the line someone come up with a new invention - say they invent the car. Do you have the freedom to try it?
In the one instance you can - it is not illegal.
In the other you cannot - it is not legal.
Given the the legislature errs on the side of caution and tends to be slow to change laws you have more freedom if the laws define what you cannot do than if the laws list what you can do.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
Okay then, that makes some sense.
I've pretty much said all I can say about why I think it's a terrible idea, but if some of you support it, why? And do you really support this couple's behavior or are you playing devil's advocate?
I've pretty much said all I can say about why I think it's a terrible idea, but if some of you support it, why? And do you really support this couple's behavior or are you playing devil's advocate?
Well to each there own I guess
If they couldn't stay out of each others' pants that is sick enough but to willingly produce children from a union that should never have been, knowing they may be crippled, deformed or imbecilic, is selfish, ignorant, and morally reprehensible.
This begs the question- Are couples who suffer some sort of genetic disorder, physical abnormality, psychological impariment, etc. who are at a high risk of passing it on to their offspring to also be held to the same standards? If one of the parents has ectrodactyly, for example, where there is a 50% chance of the gene being passed on, is it morally reprehensible for them to have children? What about women over 40 who are at higher risk of having a child with autism?
The line gets muddled there. While I see your point, that argument alone is not enough support for why incest should be outlawed.
It is not a matter of semantics...it's a matter of contingency. Depending on your angle- what is moral, ethical, or legal?
This is a bit OT, but Miami, a city reknowned for its gay commmunity, is in a state where sodomy is illegal.
This begs the question- Are couples who suffer some sort of genetic disorder, physical abnormality, psychological impariment, etc. who are at a high risk of passing it on to their offspring to also be held to the same standards? If one of the parents has ectrodactyly, for example, where there is a 50% chance of the gene being passed on, is it morally reprehensible for them to have children? What about women over 40 who are at higher risk of having a child with autism?
The line gets muddled there. While I see your point, that argument alone is not enough support for why incest should be outlawed.
It is not a matter of semantics...it's a matter of contingency. Depending on your angle- what is moral, ethical, or legal?
This is a bit OT, but Miami, a city reknowned for its gay commmunity, is in a state where sodomy is illegal.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
---------------- Listening to: Janis Joplin / Janis Joplin - Ball & Chain (Live at Woodstock 69) via FoxyTuneselixer;831023 wrote: This begs the question- Are couples who suffer some sort of genetic disorder, physical abnormality, psychological impariment, etc. who are at a high risk of passing it on to their offspring to also be held to the same standards? If one of the parents has ectrodactyly, for example, where there is a 50% chance of the gene being passed on, is it morally reprehensible for them to have children? What about women over 40 who are at higher risk of having a child with autism?
The line gets muddled there. While I see your point, that argument alone is not enough support for why incest should be outlawed.
It is not a matter of semantics...it's a matter of contingency. Depending on your angle- what is moral, ethical, or legal?
This is a bit OT, but Miami, a city reknowned for its gay commmunity, is in a state where sodomy is illegal.
I've been waiting for that to come up. I even used the 50-50 chance notion on myself...what would I do if...and I have to say that yes, I think it's a rather poor thing to create a child when you know it has a high risk from the start of being deformed or retarded. I know it can happen to anyone and I'm not striving for a eugenically enhanced world or saying there's anything wrong with people who are born having some kind of difficulty or impediment. That aside and the issue of disgust aside, I think these two people were incredibly selfish to create that baby, incredibly so.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say about the Miami gay community but if people want badly enough to do something, they won't be stopped. I don't think for a minute that that disgusting couple is going to end their relationship; the best society can do is ostracize them.
I do think that illness or deformity or whatever is a viable argument on its own for keeping incest illegal. In case the wrongness factor doesn't work for someone, they could at least think of the future kids.
I'm amused when these things come up because even people who think the issue is wrong will fight to the death to defend it. That I don't understand. I know what I stand for and support of people to create kids with their parent or child is not it. This thread makes me want for a shower.
The line gets muddled there. While I see your point, that argument alone is not enough support for why incest should be outlawed.
It is not a matter of semantics...it's a matter of contingency. Depending on your angle- what is moral, ethical, or legal?
This is a bit OT, but Miami, a city reknowned for its gay commmunity, is in a state where sodomy is illegal.
I've been waiting for that to come up. I even used the 50-50 chance notion on myself...what would I do if...and I have to say that yes, I think it's a rather poor thing to create a child when you know it has a high risk from the start of being deformed or retarded. I know it can happen to anyone and I'm not striving for a eugenically enhanced world or saying there's anything wrong with people who are born having some kind of difficulty or impediment. That aside and the issue of disgust aside, I think these two people were incredibly selfish to create that baby, incredibly so.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say about the Miami gay community but if people want badly enough to do something, they won't be stopped. I don't think for a minute that that disgusting couple is going to end their relationship; the best society can do is ostracize them.
I do think that illness or deformity or whatever is a viable argument on its own for keeping incest illegal. In case the wrongness factor doesn't work for someone, they could at least think of the future kids.
I'm amused when these things come up because even people who think the issue is wrong will fight to the death to defend it. That I don't understand. I know what I stand for and support of people to create kids with their parent or child is not it. This thread makes me want for a shower.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831075 wrote: when you know it has a high risk from the start of being deformed or retarded.There's a quantitative difference between a high risk and a small but significant risk. The only time these things become high risk is where two parents bring recessive problems together for something that's life-threatening, deforming or mentally disabling. Every other combination is small but significant risk whether they're genetically related individuals or not.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
Spot, in all seriousness, should we banish incest laws and think nothing when parent/child/ brother/sister,/niece/uncle, kid/grandparent, etc, decide it's the thing to do? I know the disgust factor would keep most at bay of doing such and that a normal person would find incest repellent so there wouldn't probably be many to contend with, but would you suggest that's what we do?
RJ brings up a person's freedom. Free to sleep with a father or a child because it's no one else's business; they're consenting adults and no one's getting hurt. (well...) So by this logic, since rules impinge on my person freedoms and I don't need to follow them because I'm an adult and not hurting anyone, I should be able to:
start a campfire in a national park even though the sign says "don't" because it's dry season....
I should be able to throw my McDonalds bag out the car window even though littering is against the law, because it's only biodegradable paper....
I just don't see how any normal, thinking person could support a father having sex with his daughter. It's beyond repulsive. And some things don't need to be justified anyway. They're wrong, we know they are and why.
But I suppose that's not politically correct.
RJ brings up a person's freedom. Free to sleep with a father or a child because it's no one else's business; they're consenting adults and no one's getting hurt. (well...) So by this logic, since rules impinge on my person freedoms and I don't need to follow them because I'm an adult and not hurting anyone, I should be able to:
start a campfire in a national park even though the sign says "don't" because it's dry season....
I should be able to throw my McDonalds bag out the car window even though littering is against the law, because it's only biodegradable paper....
I just don't see how any normal, thinking person could support a father having sex with his daughter. It's beyond repulsive. And some things don't need to be justified anyway. They're wrong, we know they are and why.
But I suppose that's not politically correct.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831181 wrote: Spot, in all seriousness, should we banish incest laws and think nothing when parent/child/ brother/sister,/niece/uncle, kid/grandparent, etc, decide it's the thing to do? I know the disgust factor would keep most at bay of doing such and that a normal person would find incest repellent so there wouldn't probably be many to contend with, but would you suggest that's what we do?I just went back to check, since I was so astonished by this paragraph. I haven't written a single word in favour of legalizing any form of incest, not a single word suggesting that it's normal or desirable or to the benefit either of society or of any individuals. Why go at me like that?
If you're asking my opinion then yes, of course there's not the slightest reason why there should be laws penalizing adult incest, it's a hangover from burning witches. We don't do that any more either. The entire system should be controlled by the laws of informed consent with none of this Christian mumbo-jumbo rubbish glued on top. People have minds to be used, it should be no business of the state in the slightest.
If you're asking my opinion then yes, of course there's not the slightest reason why there should be laws penalizing adult incest, it's a hangover from burning witches. We don't do that any more either. The entire system should be controlled by the laws of informed consent with none of this Christian mumbo-jumbo rubbish glued on top. People have minds to be used, it should be no business of the state in the slightest.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
fuzzy butt;831210 wrote: If you want to know how legal incest ends up, have a look at the Pitcain Island case.What does the Pitcairn Island case have to do with the thread?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
^ That's what I was just trying to figure out.
I have an example of the product of incest- Albert Einstein.
I have an example of the product of incest- Albert Einstein.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
rjwould;831185 wrote: Give me a break, Red. I'm laughing so hard it's difficult to type. How on Gods green earth do you misconstrue my meaning so badly?
Did I misconstrue? Or did you not clarify, RJ? Where did I get you wrong?
spot;831220 wrote: I just went back to check, since I was so astonished by this paragraph. I haven't written a single word in favour of legalizing any form of incest, not a single word suggesting that it's normal or desirable or to the benefit either of society or of any individuals. Why go at me like that?
Spot, are you being serious? I'm not having any kind of a "go" at you. Not at all. I think you might be having a sensitive day because I'm not here to argue.
By what you've written in this thread it certainly sounds like you think incest is okay if it happens between consenting adults. Do I have that part right or no?
If you're asking my opinion then yes, of course there's not the slightest reason why there should be laws penalizing adult incest, it's a hangover from burning witches. We don't do that any more either. The entire system should be controlled by the laws of informed consent with none of this Christian mumbo-jumbo rubbish glued on top. People have minds to be used, it should be no business of the state in the slightest.
There's quite a bit of difference between witchburning and incest. One is wrong and based in ignorance and one isn't. So I don't find a comparison there. My personal beef with incest is not based on religion or christianity either. I'm sure some others do have a biblical issue with it but I'm telling you mine. I've already mentioned how I feel about bringing up incest-conceived kids and well, actually all of it, so there's no point in me reiterating that. Normally I would totally agree with you that sex is not the state's business. Totally! But when it comes to kids and their health/wellbeing, I think that's reason enough to make it a crime. I mean, we make meth a crime and so what if consenting adults want to rot out their teeth and skin? But we haul them away for it. Yet we shouldn't make sex with a parent a crime? I guess I just don't understand.
Did I misconstrue? Or did you not clarify, RJ? Where did I get you wrong?
spot;831220 wrote: I just went back to check, since I was so astonished by this paragraph. I haven't written a single word in favour of legalizing any form of incest, not a single word suggesting that it's normal or desirable or to the benefit either of society or of any individuals. Why go at me like that?
Spot, are you being serious? I'm not having any kind of a "go" at you. Not at all. I think you might be having a sensitive day because I'm not here to argue.
By what you've written in this thread it certainly sounds like you think incest is okay if it happens between consenting adults. Do I have that part right or no?
If you're asking my opinion then yes, of course there's not the slightest reason why there should be laws penalizing adult incest, it's a hangover from burning witches. We don't do that any more either. The entire system should be controlled by the laws of informed consent with none of this Christian mumbo-jumbo rubbish glued on top. People have minds to be used, it should be no business of the state in the slightest.
There's quite a bit of difference between witchburning and incest. One is wrong and based in ignorance and one isn't. So I don't find a comparison there. My personal beef with incest is not based on religion or christianity either. I'm sure some others do have a biblical issue with it but I'm telling you mine. I've already mentioned how I feel about bringing up incest-conceived kids and well, actually all of it, so there's no point in me reiterating that. Normally I would totally agree with you that sex is not the state's business. Totally! But when it comes to kids and their health/wellbeing, I think that's reason enough to make it a crime. I mean, we make meth a crime and so what if consenting adults want to rot out their teeth and skin? But we haul them away for it. Yet we shouldn't make sex with a parent a crime? I guess I just don't understand.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
elixer;831235 wrote: ^ That's what I was just trying to figure out.
I have an example of the product of incest- Albert Einstein.
How so , Elixir??
I have an example of the product of incest- Albert Einstein.
How so , Elixir??
Well to each there own I guess
I'm opposed to any notion that Person A's private moral values should be imposed on person B through a legal system. Laws have a lot of use but that's abuse.
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position. What bit of respectable law have I left out?
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position. What bit of respectable law have I left out?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831244 wrote: when it comes to kids and their health/wellbeing, I think that's reason enough to make it a crime.I think you're simply misinformed about the potential harm.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
spot;831248 wrote: I'm opposed to any notion that Person A's private moral values should be imposed on person B through a legal system. Laws have a lot of use but that's abuse.
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position. What bit of respectable law have I left out?
But what if my personal moral values said rape as okay? Should we all just sit back and say 'oh well, not my cup of tea, but each to their own'!!
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position. What bit of respectable law have I left out?
But what if my personal moral values said rape as okay? Should we all just sit back and say 'oh well, not my cup of tea, but each to their own'!!
Well to each there own I guess
Pheasy;831257 wrote: But what if my personal moral values said rape as okay? Should we all just sit back and say 'oh well, not my cup of tea, but each to their own'!!
Covered by the second clause - "A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position"
Rape is always out as it is by definition doing uninvited harm to the victim.
Covered by the second clause - "A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position"
Rape is always out as it is by definition doing uninvited harm to the victim.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831075 wrote: ---------------- Listening to: Janis Joplin / Janis Joplin - Ball & Chain (Live at Woodstock 69) via FoxyTunes
I've been waiting for that to come up. I even used the 50-50 chance notion on myself...what would I do if...and I have to say that yes, I think it's a rather poor thing to create a child when you know it has a high risk from the start of being deformed or retarded. I know it can happen to anyone and I'm not striving for a eugenically enhanced world or saying there's anything wrong with people who are born having some kind of difficulty or impediment. That aside and the issue of disgust aside, I think these two people were incredibly selfish to create that baby, incredibly so.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say about the Miami gay community but if people want badly enough to do something, they won't be stopped. I don't think for a minute that that disgusting couple is going to end their relationship; the best society can do is ostracize them.
I do think that illness or deformity or whatever is a viable argument on its own for keeping incest illegal. In case the wrongness factor doesn't work for someone, they could at least think of the future kids.
I'm amused when these things come up because even people who think the issue is wrong will fight to the death to defend it. That I don't understand. I know what I stand for and support of people to create kids with their parent or child is not it. This thread makes me want for a shower.
I personally don't condone incest, but then who am I to project my own personal beliefs upon anyone else?
The reason I challenge your statement about the child being at risk of deformity is because the crux of your argument is backed by your own personal ideologies. You are entitled to your own opinion, but opinion, (in my opinion) does not warrant the government the right to infringe upon certain rights.
In an earlier post you wrote:
Another thing- the father says "it's illegal, so what?" So what? So if you're going to continue to do your own daughter, what's to stop you from molesting that little girl you so wrongfully created.
That’s incredibly unfair. There is no reason to assume that this man is a pedophile. This is entirely unfounded. It is nothing more than conjecture.
I bring up Miami to further illustrate that even though sodomy has been made illegal, both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples partake in the activity. I don’t want to make this into a debate on homosexuality, or try to equate incest with homosexuality- but to ask how does what people do behind closed doors pose a threat to greater society?
Einstein’s parents were cousins: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Stor ... 516&page=1
I've been waiting for that to come up. I even used the 50-50 chance notion on myself...what would I do if...and I have to say that yes, I think it's a rather poor thing to create a child when you know it has a high risk from the start of being deformed or retarded. I know it can happen to anyone and I'm not striving for a eugenically enhanced world or saying there's anything wrong with people who are born having some kind of difficulty or impediment. That aside and the issue of disgust aside, I think these two people were incredibly selfish to create that baby, incredibly so.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say about the Miami gay community but if people want badly enough to do something, they won't be stopped. I don't think for a minute that that disgusting couple is going to end their relationship; the best society can do is ostracize them.
I do think that illness or deformity or whatever is a viable argument on its own for keeping incest illegal. In case the wrongness factor doesn't work for someone, they could at least think of the future kids.
I'm amused when these things come up because even people who think the issue is wrong will fight to the death to defend it. That I don't understand. I know what I stand for and support of people to create kids with their parent or child is not it. This thread makes me want for a shower.
I personally don't condone incest, but then who am I to project my own personal beliefs upon anyone else?
The reason I challenge your statement about the child being at risk of deformity is because the crux of your argument is backed by your own personal ideologies. You are entitled to your own opinion, but opinion, (in my opinion) does not warrant the government the right to infringe upon certain rights.
In an earlier post you wrote:
Another thing- the father says "it's illegal, so what?" So what? So if you're going to continue to do your own daughter, what's to stop you from molesting that little girl you so wrongfully created.
That’s incredibly unfair. There is no reason to assume that this man is a pedophile. This is entirely unfounded. It is nothing more than conjecture.
I bring up Miami to further illustrate that even though sodomy has been made illegal, both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples partake in the activity. I don’t want to make this into a debate on homosexuality, or try to equate incest with homosexuality- but to ask how does what people do behind closed doors pose a threat to greater society?
Einstein’s parents were cousins: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Stor ... 516&page=1
Well to each there own I guess
rjwould;831274 wrote: Perhaps you should reread his post, Pheasy. Rape is a violation of a persons rights. We are talking about consenting adults...
No RJ, we are now talking about the product of their selfishness !!
No RJ, we are now talking about the product of their selfishness !!
Well to each there own I guess
Pheasy;831257 wrote: But what if my personal moral values said rape as okay? Should we all just sit back and say 'oh well, not my cup of tea, but each to their own'!!
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position.
How on earth can you pretend that doesn't cover rape?
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position.
How on earth can you pretend that doesn't cover rape?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
spot;831248 wrote: I'm opposed to any notion that Person A's private moral values should be imposed on person B through a legal system. Laws have a lot of use but that's abuse.
Tell that to the people who want school prayer to be a law. We have all kinds of laws based on somebody's collective morality.
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position. What bit of respectable law have I left out?
But morality aside...you didn't mention Person C. The offspring. Choosing to have a child when they know it could come out wrong because of them can be seen as a form of endangerment, abuse. Do you disagree with this?
spot;831252 wrote: I think you're simply misinformed about the potential harm.
I don't think I am. I mean the states have laws against *cousins* marrying for good reason, the risk factor and seriousness of deformity/illness go way up when we're talking about parent/child.
I consider having a kid by incest to be the same type of abuse and endangerment as a mother smoking while pregnant. I just see no difference. If you're going to let them marry/pork then make it a crime to breed if for no other reason, for the sake of that kid who should never be born anyway.
Tell that to the people who want school prayer to be a law. We have all kinds of laws based on somebody's collective morality.
A law has value where it penalizes Person B for causing harm to person A that person A had not voluntarily invited from a responsible informed position. What bit of respectable law have I left out?
But morality aside...you didn't mention Person C. The offspring. Choosing to have a child when they know it could come out wrong because of them can be seen as a form of endangerment, abuse. Do you disagree with this?
spot;831252 wrote: I think you're simply misinformed about the potential harm.
I don't think I am. I mean the states have laws against *cousins* marrying for good reason, the risk factor and seriousness of deformity/illness go way up when we're talking about parent/child.
I consider having a kid by incest to be the same type of abuse and endangerment as a mother smoking while pregnant. I just see no difference. If you're going to let them marry/pork then make it a crime to breed if for no other reason, for the sake of that kid who should never be born anyway.
Well to each there own I guess
jimbo;831250 wrote: you saying albert is a clever mother focker 
well i thought it was funny :rolleyes::rolleyes:
:wah: actually, he married his cousin too...
well i thought it was funny :rolleyes::rolleyes:
:wah: actually, he married his cousin too...
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
elixer;831289 wrote: :wah: actually, he married his cousin too...
I actually don't have a problem with cousins. It's the parent/child thing that I think is too close for so many reasons.
I actually don't have a problem with cousins. It's the parent/child thing that I think is too close for so many reasons.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831287 wrote: But morality aside...you didn't mention Person C. The offspring. Choosing to have a child when they know it could come out wrong because of them can be seen as a form of endangerment, abuse. Do you disagree with this?Of course I do because it's plainly wrong. The figures for the degree of endangerment are only trivially different for those of any random couple. You can easily destroy my position by demonstrating that I'm mistaken. I did all the figure-gathering for cousin marriages last time this was discussed, it's someone else's turn this time.
The endangerment goes up in a small closed society with little genetic variation. That's not the position we're discussing, it's the position of some isolated community of a dozen families in a mountain sanctuary which has been interbreeding for several hundred years with no more fresh blood than they can capture from passing coaches.
The endangerment goes up in a small closed society with little genetic variation. That's not the position we're discussing, it's the position of some isolated community of a dozen families in a mountain sanctuary which has been interbreeding for several hundred years with no more fresh blood than they can capture from passing coaches.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831295 wrote: I actually don't have a problem with cousins. It's the parent/child thing that I think is too close for so many reasons.
And you're not prepared to accept an informed opinion that you're wrong about the danger posed.
And you're not prepared to accept an informed opinion that you're wrong about the danger posed.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
fuzzy butt;831294 wrote: The Pitcain Island stuff only came out because someone took a closer look at the geanology of the Island . The only thing that really upset people was the cultural aspect of breaking girls in at age 10 and 12 years old. I believe that the liberal attitude towards who you had sex with created the recent problems and indeed the court case.
Fuzzy, ity's a small isolated closed community, of course it has genetic problems. What we're discussing has nothing at all to do with child incest, we're discussing informed adults.
Fuzzy, ity's a small isolated closed community, of course it has genetic problems. What we're discussing has nothing at all to do with child incest, we're discussing informed adults.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
spot;831297 wrote: And you're not prepared to accept an informed opinion that you're wrong about the danger posed.
If its informed then provide the information :p
If its informed then provide the information :p
Well to each there own I guess
So can I clarify Spot and Rj, are you saying it is okay in your book to have sexual relationships with your child and have children by them?
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
Spot you can give me any kind of averages and they will be lost on me because I don't care about numbers. I care about common sense. If two out of five children get hurt every year by firecrackers, and it's a known, accepted, truthful fact, are you going to say "that's only two! My kid might be one of the other three!"
I'm saying it DOES NOT matter. If I had a congenital deformity or disease, and I chose to tempt the numbers and have a child, I would be wrong. This is not the same as parents being told their fetus has a 50-50 chance of having Down's or some such, where the baby is already in existence; this is about thinking of the kid's best interest beforehand and not having one.
If they have that kid knowing they themselves are putting it at risk, they are very, very selfish induhviduals.
I'm saying it DOES NOT matter. If I had a congenital deformity or disease, and I chose to tempt the numbers and have a child, I would be wrong. This is not the same as parents being told their fetus has a 50-50 chance of having Down's or some such, where the baby is already in existence; this is about thinking of the kid's best interest beforehand and not having one.
If they have that kid knowing they themselves are putting it at risk, they are very, very selfish induhviduals.
Well to each there own I guess
Pheasy;831313 wrote: So can I clarify Spot and Rj, are you saying it is okay in your book to have sexual relationships with your child and have children by them?
Not while they're below the age of consent, obviously.
There are words I've used before. Voluntary, informed, consent. That's why an age of consent is higher where there's a position of authority involved - teachers face being taken to court if they know their students below... I've no idea. at least two years higher than other people anyway. That would make sense within families too from the point of view of voluntary and informed.
Not while they're below the age of consent, obviously.
There are words I've used before. Voluntary, informed, consent. That's why an age of consent is higher where there's a position of authority involved - teachers face being taken to court if they know their students below... I've no idea. at least two years higher than other people anyway. That would make sense within families too from the point of view of voluntary and informed.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831317 wrote: Spot you can give me any kind of averages and they will be lost on me because I don't care about numbers.That's merely a repeated confession of "I'm ignorant and proud of it". It doesn't leave me impressed with your opinion, given what it's based on.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831317 wrote: If they have that kid knowing they themselves are putting it at risk, they are very, very selfish induhviduals.
You already walked past this earlier in the thread. The minor added risk at, say, 30 is less than the added risk of having a child over the age of 45 and yet you're uncritical of women taking that degree of risk.
You already walked past this earlier in the thread. The minor added risk at, say, 30 is less than the added risk of having a child over the age of 45 and yet you're uncritical of women taking that degree of risk.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831295 wrote: I actually don't have a problem with cousins. It's the parent/child thing that I think is too close for so many reasons.
Why? If you are going to argue the case against intermediate incest through the potential risks posed to the offspring, should we then also make it illegal for people afflicted by dwarfism to have children? Women over 40? Autistic? Color-blind? Hell, should there be an I.Q. prerequisite?
In this case, the child is healthy. I will have to do further research, but I think spot's right. If I remember biology accurately, the risk of abnormalities is contingent upon the recessive genes.
But do you honestly believe the government has the right to intervene in the above instances?
Why? If you are going to argue the case against intermediate incest through the potential risks posed to the offspring, should we then also make it illegal for people afflicted by dwarfism to have children? Women over 40? Autistic? Color-blind? Hell, should there be an I.Q. prerequisite?
In this case, the child is healthy. I will have to do further research, but I think spot's right. If I remember biology accurately, the risk of abnormalities is contingent upon the recessive genes.
But do you honestly believe the government has the right to intervene in the above instances?
Well to each there own I guess
Well i'm sorry but.. as someone who had no choice in her life .... and only wished that the moral people had helped her when she needed it ... I exit this thread .... I do not need to see you feeding them. Nighty night!!
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
---------------- Listening to: Stone Temple Pilots / Sex Type Thing via FoxyTuneselixer;831281 wrote: I personally don't condone incest, but then who am I to project my own personal beliefs upon anyone else?
The reason I challenge your statement about the child being at risk of deformity is because the crux of your argument is backed by your own personal ideologies. You are entitled to your own opinion, but opinion, (in my opinion) does not warrant the government the right to infringe upon certain rights.
In an earlier post you wrote:
That’s incredibly unfair. There is no reason to assume that this man is a pedophile. This is entirely unfounded. It is nothing more than conjecture.
I bring up Miami to further illustrate that even though sodomy has been made illegal, both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples partake in the activity. I don’t want to make this into a debate on homosexuality, or try to equate incest with homosexuality- but to ask how does what people do behind closed doors pose a threat to greater society?
Einstein’s parents were cousins: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Stor ... 516&page=1
Wow Elixir, where do I start? It seems the government only has rights when it is convenient for us.
Here's the best way I can say it: some things are just wrong and their wrongness is inherent, needing no justification.
I think it's time we stopped all this "who am I to judge" because we all judge, even those who say they don't. It's a human tendency that we cannot escape. More importantly. not to be cliche but if you don't stand for something...you'll fall for anything. Society has a right to judge its members. To say that incest is nobody's business but the ones involved, makes it look like *we* are abnormal for accepting it.
But the thing that got me was when you said the father isn't a pedophile and that my assessment was unfair. He may not be a pedophile but my God, he's doing his own daughter! How much credit do you want me to give?? That's like when convicted murderers say "Hey, I may have killed my wife but I'm no child molester!" Like do we hand out a brownie point for that?
No, I think this couple should be treated the same way we treat OJ- like pariahs. They are mentally sick, spiritually sick and have no business teaching a child what is right and wrong.
I have to back away from this thread now and cool off. I feel I'm going in circles.
The reason I challenge your statement about the child being at risk of deformity is because the crux of your argument is backed by your own personal ideologies. You are entitled to your own opinion, but opinion, (in my opinion) does not warrant the government the right to infringe upon certain rights.
In an earlier post you wrote:
That’s incredibly unfair. There is no reason to assume that this man is a pedophile. This is entirely unfounded. It is nothing more than conjecture.
I bring up Miami to further illustrate that even though sodomy has been made illegal, both heterosexual as well as homosexual couples partake in the activity. I don’t want to make this into a debate on homosexuality, or try to equate incest with homosexuality- but to ask how does what people do behind closed doors pose a threat to greater society?
Einstein’s parents were cousins: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Stor ... 516&page=1
Wow Elixir, where do I start? It seems the government only has rights when it is convenient for us.
Here's the best way I can say it: some things are just wrong and their wrongness is inherent, needing no justification.
I think it's time we stopped all this "who am I to judge" because we all judge, even those who say they don't. It's a human tendency that we cannot escape. More importantly. not to be cliche but if you don't stand for something...you'll fall for anything. Society has a right to judge its members. To say that incest is nobody's business but the ones involved, makes it look like *we* are abnormal for accepting it.
But the thing that got me was when you said the father isn't a pedophile and that my assessment was unfair. He may not be a pedophile but my God, he's doing his own daughter! How much credit do you want me to give?? That's like when convicted murderers say "Hey, I may have killed my wife but I'm no child molester!" Like do we hand out a brownie point for that?
No, I think this couple should be treated the same way we treat OJ- like pariahs. They are mentally sick, spiritually sick and have no business teaching a child what is right and wrong.
I have to back away from this thread now and cool off. I feel I'm going in circles.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
spot;831320 wrote: That's merely a repeated confession of "I'm ignorant and proud of it". It doesn't leave me impressed with your opinion, given what it's based on.
Spot I know this will blow you away, but I'm not here to impress you.
Spot I know this will blow you away, but I'm not here to impress you.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831337 wrote: Here's the best way I can say it: some things are just wrong and their wrongness is inherent, needing no justification.That, then, is an ideal statement of what's wrong with your method of persuading people. With or without figures (since you say figures are meaningless to you) you still need to have reasons if you're to be persuasive. By all means hold your opinion without reason but surely you can't expect to persuade anyone to accept it if you're not prepared to give reasons in favour of the position. "I think" is possibly interesting but it's not going to change anyone's opinion. Reasons do. Reasons that can be substantiated do even more.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
Nature spoke and didn't disagree, the child is fine.
A child born earlier died ?
Nature screamed a warning.............it fell on deaf ears.
A child born earlier died ?
Nature screamed a warning.............it fell on deaf ears.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831337 wrote: ---------------- Listening to: Stone Temple Pilots / Sex Type Thing via FoxyTunes
But the thing that got me was when you said the father isn't a pedophile and that my assessment was unfair. He may not be a pedophile but my God, he's doing his own daughter! How much credit do you want me to give?? That's like when convicted murderers say "Hey, I may have killed my wife but I'm no child molester!" Like do we hand out a brownie point for that?
It's not worth my energy to even try to debunk this. That is so skewed.
You are completely entitled to your opinion, but I have a hard time standing here listening to a sanctimonious argument that champions passing judgment on others based upon a personal sense of entitlement. The strength of your argument is in morality, and within the right context, your argument is a strong one, but to demand that others be subject to Levitical law is something that I can not relinquish.
I agree to disagree.
But the thing that got me was when you said the father isn't a pedophile and that my assessment was unfair. He may not be a pedophile but my God, he's doing his own daughter! How much credit do you want me to give?? That's like when convicted murderers say "Hey, I may have killed my wife but I'm no child molester!" Like do we hand out a brownie point for that?
It's not worth my energy to even try to debunk this. That is so skewed.
You are completely entitled to your opinion, but I have a hard time standing here listening to a sanctimonious argument that champions passing judgment on others based upon a personal sense of entitlement. The strength of your argument is in morality, and within the right context, your argument is a strong one, but to demand that others be subject to Levitical law is something that I can not relinquish.
I agree to disagree.
Well to each there own I guess
Pheasy;831313 wrote: So can I clarify Spot and Rj, are you saying it is okay in your book to have sexual relationships with your child and have children by them?
Mmmm no one answered my direct question with an honest answer ... strange that!!
Mmmm no one answered my direct question with an honest answer ... strange that!!
Well to each there own I guess
Oh Spot did ... I just want a yes or a no?
Well to each there own I guess
Pheasy;831361 wrote: Oh Spot did ... I just want a yes or a no?
Is okay in your book to have sexual relationships with your child and have children by them? No, they're children, they're incapable of giving voluntary consent because they're in your charge.
Is okay in your book to have sexual relationships with your adult son or daughter once they're older than, say, 21 (to pick a number) and both want to go for it and have children together? Yes, it's none of my business nor anyone else's. Both are capable of giving voluntary consent and of being properly informed.
The "have you stopped beating your wife" part of your question is the word "child" which is rarely used to describe an adult.
Is okay in your book to have sexual relationships with your child and have children by them? No, they're children, they're incapable of giving voluntary consent because they're in your charge.
Is okay in your book to have sexual relationships with your adult son or daughter once they're older than, say, 21 (to pick a number) and both want to go for it and have children together? Yes, it's none of my business nor anyone else's. Both are capable of giving voluntary consent and of being properly informed.
The "have you stopped beating your wife" part of your question is the word "child" which is rarely used to describe an adult.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Well to each there own I guess
RJ- try not to be so snide. I've done nothing to you.
I just have this to say:
Spot, I don't come here to change anyone's mind. I come here to express my opinions and I don't need to back up my feelings with any kind of proof.
Elixir, we'll agree to disagree. Sanctimonius? Not hardly. Passionate? Absolutely.
It makes me wonder about you people who don't think this is wrong. Maybe our society is worse than we thought. It makes me wonder indeed.
When we have to justify why something like sex with your dad is wrong, we are in some serious trouble.
I just have this to say:
Spot, I don't come here to change anyone's mind. I come here to express my opinions and I don't need to back up my feelings with any kind of proof.
Elixir, we'll agree to disagree. Sanctimonius? Not hardly. Passionate? Absolutely.
It makes me wonder about you people who don't think this is wrong. Maybe our society is worse than we thought. It makes me wonder indeed.
When we have to justify why something like sex with your dad is wrong, we are in some serious trouble.
Well to each there own I guess
I can see that you are very passionate, as am I.
The basis of your argument is rooted in your sense of morality. There is nothing wrong with your opinion, but to suggest that others should submit to the same belief system is sanctimonious. We're talking about two very different things here- legality and morality.
What they do in their own bedroom poses no great threat to the rest of society. It may affront our senses, but just because we think it is gross doesn't give us the right to dictate to them how to live their lives.
The basis of your argument is rooted in your sense of morality. There is nothing wrong with your opinion, but to suggest that others should submit to the same belief system is sanctimonious. We're talking about two very different things here- legality and morality.
What they do in their own bedroom poses no great threat to the rest of society. It may affront our senses, but just because we think it is gross doesn't give us the right to dictate to them how to live their lives.
Well to each there own I guess
RedGlitter;831368 wrote: When we have to justify why something like sex with your dad is wrong, we are in some serious trouble.When we fail to even try then one wonders how civilization even got off the ground or why we bother to have schools.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Well to each there own I guess
A lot of children die.
Oh no they dont......what a stupid bloody answer
Oh no they dont......what a stupid bloody answer
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth