INCEST=worng or not

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think you are getting my point...

I'm not saying that a 1 in 50 or a 1 in 25 risk is too much risk or too little, nor am I saying people should or shouldn't take those risks.

I'm simply pointing out some errors in the way you were using statistics, however, given the article you got that from, it clearly isn't your fault.

In no uncertain terms, the difference between a 2% risk and a 4% risk is huge, no matter what we are talking about.

If you want me to connect this to incest, I would allude to the post I made above to Tac where I ask about other completely legal things people do every day that present huge risks. Obviously I don't think the presence of risk alone, especially in consensual behaviour, should be grounds to criminalize it.

I get everything you said right up until it being legal to sleep with your parents, or siblings.

Not sure why anyone would care, if someone who lived a few miles away from me was having sex with their siblings or w/e I wouldnt give a damn...why do you?

Originally posted by Stoic
There you go again bringing statistics into this, when the question is whether it is wrong or right to sleep with a sibling or a parent.

?

Burning Thought presented stats about incest and pregnancy. His use of those statistics was confusing and imho inaccurate, therefore I am explaining how to better understand percentages and percentage increases.

In no part of my discussion of statistics did I say they were in favor or opposed to incest. I was simply trying to correct the use of numbers in the debate, because it is very easy to manipulate arguments with incorrect application of statistics, especially if you are reporting them from second or third hand sources.

Originally posted by Stoic
You then deflected by saying [b]"consenting adults should be left to themselves regardless of what I think."[/B]

I don't think deflected is the correct term, but if you can't infer my opinion from the statement that it is none of my business, here:

I do not think incest is morally/ethically/legally wrong so long as it is consensual and between adults

let me know if there is still something unclear about this statement, as I thought I had answered you earlier...

Originally posted by Stoic
Can you explain the concept of strawman tactics, I seem to be missing something here.

ok, so a strawman refers to an argument that presents an opposing argument nobody is making, then argues against it to make the point.

In the case here, I thought AbnormalButSane (ABS) was making the actual point that the number of people on the planet was an argument against incest, because there was always someone else out there.

If this were the case, abs' position would be a strawman, because nobody was suggesting that incest is ok because there aren't enough people to be with otherwise.

however, abs clarified and I admit I misinterpreted abs' point

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well I guess "huge" is a point of view, its just double. If I got £10 and then someone took it and gave me £20 because they were generous, I wouldnt say its a "huge" amount of extra cash.

yes, because you are defining "huge" in absolute rather than relative values

Originally posted by inimalist
?

Burning Thought presented stats about incest and pregnancy. His use of those statistics was confusing and imho inaccurate, therefore I am explaining how to better understand percentages and percentage increases.

This is likely a Strawman as well because the point in showing the percentages was to prove that its not a big deal at all. If you printed "you have a 2% chance of conceiving a child with a defect" on every pregnancy testing kit women would not stop conceiving, if anything it would be meaningless. No more than I would stop driving to work if numbers stated that I had a 2% chance of having a crash on my road.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not sure why anyone would care, if someone who lived a few miles away from me was having sex with their siblings or w/e I wouldnt give a damn...why do you?

The topic is Incest=Wrong or Not. If it is illegal to sleep with a sibling, or parent, does that not make it wrong? There is no doubt about it. How can it be wrong, if the two people involved consent to the act, even if the two people committing the act were parent and child, as disgusting as it is to me. It being illegal in whatever part of the world that you live in however makes it wrong. Then again, if the laws of the land accepts it then technically it is not wrong.

This topic completely depends on the person viewing it, and their opinion/s of it.

Well yes it does, your right in that sense imo. opinions, also law has nothing to do with it really, its stll opinion. One persons murder and canobolism is anothers well earned and fought for dinner.

Originally posted by Stoic
It being illegal in whatever part of the world that you live in however makes it wrong. Then again, if the laws of the land accepts it then technically it is not wrong.

That's some hardcore moral relativism you've got going on. So when in places where its illegal to be gay the government is not acting wrongly when it executes gays?

maybe everyone should be executed, then theres no discrimination or in-equality...

Originally posted by Stoic
Then again, if the laws of the land accepts it then technically it is not wrong.

so, "I was just following orders" is a legitimate excuse?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good thing that's a pure strawman then.

I don't think so, considering I wasn't responding to anyone's specific argument when I said that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who says they're having children, though?

The risk is always there whenever you have sex.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Between adults? I imagine there might be some family relationship drama, that's about it.

I don't think so. Technically 18 is "adult". And people are having sex much younger than that usually.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can also send that message simply from people making a face when someone mentions incest.

But then your face would get stuck like that. It's easier to send the message this way.

Originally posted by inimalist
we should criminalize personal choices that cause psychological damage?

EDIT: sorry, let me rephrase: we should criminalize personal choices that [b]have a chance of causing psychological damage?

would you be in favor of criminalizing all things which people can become addicted to, then? [/B]

All things? No, I don't think so. I don't think lumping incest in with cigarettes and alcohol is really the same thing, though.

cigarettes and alcohol can lead to death, of not only the one using them but people around them and actually does so....incest? no, not so much, yes theres infant mortality but incest is not simply giving birth, its just sexual intercourse.

While those you mentioned make death a near certainty on a regular basis, labeling "smoking kills" and showing teenages dieing because they had too much to drink may not be sending enough of a message so by your logic lets go straight to legal action. Outlaw it completly!

Originally posted by Burning thought
No more than I would stop driving to work if numbers stated that I had a 2% chance of having a crash on my road.

if there were a 2% chance of a crash when you drove to work the costs would be astronomical. I'd venture it would be foolish to drive to work in those circumstances.

Given weekends and holidays, there are about 255 working days in a year. At a 2% chance, that is 5 accidents per year.

You would still drive to work if you could be assured you would be in 5 accidents every year?

That is one every 2.5 months.

Forget injuries, repair costs and all that, can you imagine how high insurance premiums would be if the statistics said you would be in an accident 5 times a year? now take into account how often you would have to repair/replace your car. now take into account how likely it is that you seriously harm or kill yourself. or other people.

to throw some stats at it, of ~6 420 000 accidents in America in 2005, 2.9 million people were injured and 42 636 were killed. Sure, still only about .5% of accidents end up being fatal, but at a 2% chance of being in an accident, that means anyone who drives to work for 30 years is expected to die in a car crash (its a little more complicated, it would be that every 30 years of driving to work would mean that someone is killed in an accident you are involved in). Worse, it would predict 2-3 accidents a year in which someone was seriously hurt. This only includes driving to work. All of this doubles if we include driving home from work (ie, 1 accident every 1.25 months, 4-6 injuries a year, death in 15 years), and increases further if you include all the driving you do when not at work (~110 days + driving on workdays that isn't to or from work).

so, you are saying that you would still drive to work if you were essentially guaranteed 1 accident every 2 and a half months, half of which end in you or someone else seriously injured, and, if you continue for 30 years, causes a death or kills you?

A two percent chance of something you do more than 100 times is not a small probability at all. It only seems small when talking about children because people don't have 100 of them.

on a side note, humans are notoriously poor at grasping probability

Originally posted by TacDavey
All things? No, I don't think so. I don't think lumping incest in with cigarettes and alcohol is really the same thing, though.

what is special about incest?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's some hardcore moral relativism you've got going on. So when in places where its illegal to be gay the government is not acting wrongly when it executes gays?

When has railing against the government, and the powers that be ever gotten anyone anywhere. In some parts of the world women are whipped for driving, so no it doesn't make it right to condemn a person for their sexual orientation. Killing a person or locking them in jail for their sexual choices is certainly wrong. It's like i said though, depending on the persons view of what is right and wrong, sleeping with a sibling, or a parent is absolutely wrong.

If you want my opinion, I don't think it would be right in the least, if I slept with my sisters, or mother. I won't justify my reasons to anyone, and I don't have to, it's just something that I would never think of doing, and that's not because I was raised with someone telling me that it is wrong to sleep with mom, but because it was a conviction that I have always had. If someone else is not convicted by the act of sleeping with their mother or father, and all parties are cool with the act, then I say that they should, "Do it, Do it Do it til their satisfied". Or until they are arrested.

Originally posted by Stoic
I won't justify my reasons to anyone, and I don't have to

I'm not sure you fully grasp the concept of an internet discussion forum then

If a bunch of kids had sex is it wrong because they are minors, even though they consented to the act?

What if the kids were having sex with an adult pedophile, is it wrong if the child consented to it, even though the law says that its wrong?

How do we decide what is right and what is wrong?

Where do we decide to draw the line on the acceptable vs the unacceptable?

Originally posted by Stoic
If a bunch of kids had sex is it wrong because they are minors, even though they consented to the act?

What if the kids were having sex with an adult pedophile, is it wrong if the child consented to it, even though the law says that its wrong?

How do we decide what is right and what is wrong?

Where do we decide to draw the line on the acceptable vs the unacceptable?

age of consent is a tricky issue, but it is supposed to be based on the cognitive development of the child in terms of their ability to judge the consequences of their actions.

minors are considered not to be of a developed enough mind-set to fully grasp the consequences of sexual acts.

hence why everyone in this thread has specified we are talking about consenting adults.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure you fully grasp the concept of an internet discussion forum then

But what I said was justification enough, and therefore you typing what you just did, was in fact you nit picking.

Originally posted by Stoic
But what I said was justification enough, and therefore you typing what you just did, was in fact you nit picking.

"it should be illegal because I don't want to do it"

was the extent of your justification, and you have refused to expand on the issue and I can't make you so there!