INCEST=worng or not

Originally posted by inimalist
"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!

Your ability to defend incest is truly disturbing, even though you never directly came out and said that you would sleep with your sister or mother, or father.

Not sure if you're a lawyer, but you should think of taking up the practice, you may be even able to get brutal murderers off with a slap on the wrist. keep up the good work.

Originally posted by Stoic
Your ability to defend incest is truly disturbing,

thanks

Originally posted by Stoic
even though you never directly came out and said that you would sleep with your sister or mother, or father.

because I don't /shrug

Originally posted by inimalist
guaranteed

Originally posted by inimalist
on a side note, humans are notoriously poor at grasping probability

I agree with this part. You can never guarantee anything with probability unless its 100%

Originally posted by Burning thought
I agree with this part. You can never guarantee anything with probability unless its 100%

hence why what I said was "essentially guaranteed"

though you can be forgiven for misquoting me, not like the qualification change my point entirely... or wait....

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

Exactly. No one said anything related to that so presenting and defeating the idea is a strawman.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The risk is always there whenever you have sex.

Anal and oral sex have a chance of making babies? Learn something new every day.

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

Another strawman! No one has said anything about letting people **** children.

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

Actually its easiest to do nothing at all...

Originally posted by Stoic
When has railing against the government, and the powers that be ever gotten anyone anywhere.

Lybia.
America.
France.
Egypt.
Russia.

Originally posted by Stoic
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.

How can it be wrong if its legal?

Originally posted by Stoic
I won't justify my reasons to anyone

Originally posted by Stoic
But what I said was justification enough

Well at least your consistent within each post.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lybia.
America.
France.
Egypt.
Russia.

How can it be wrong if its legal?

Well at least your consistent within each post.

I'm trying to figure out why you're taking pieces of my posts, and using them in a way as to ignore the context? Is it that you are so bored with your life, that you have the need to be annoying?

What's the point in doing this?

Originally posted by Burning thought
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.

Which always has a chance to lead to pregnancy. Even the best birth control can fail. And then where would you be if they did get pregnant? Certainly you wouldn't indorse forced abortions. And what about forced birth control anyway?

Originally posted by Burning thought
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!

If this was meant to show my stance as flawed I don't think it worked. Cigarettes and Alcohol probably SHOULD be outlawed. The only reason they aren't is because last time they tried to do that people decided to start burning things down.

That being said, the original point was about the potential psychological damage incestuous relationships can produce. Not whether or not it can kill those involved. My point was that addictive things like cigarettes and alcohol do not produce the same level of psychological stress incest can.

Originally posted by inimalist
what is special about incest?

It's completely different psychologically from addictions. Which, as far as I've seen, don't really hurt anyone psychologically just by having them.

Originally posted by Stoic
I'm trying to figure out why you're taking pieces of my posts, and using them in a way as to ignore the context? Is it that you are so bored with your life, that you have the need to be annoying?

What's the point in doing this?

Except that they're not out of context at all.

So are you trolling or are you actually an idiot?

Originally posted by TacDavey
That being said, the original point was about the potential psychological damage incestuous relationships can produce. Not whether or not it can kill those involved. My point was that addictive things like cigarettes and alcohol do not produce the same level of psychological stress incest can.

Where is this stress coming from? You keep mentioning it but you haven't done anything to justify the claim.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Which always has a chance to lead to pregnancy. Even the best birth control can fail. And then where would you be if they did get pregnant? Certainly you wouldn't indorse forced abortions. And what about forced birth control anyway?

If this was meant to show my stance as flawed I don't think it worked. Cigarettes and Alcohol probably SHOULD be outlawed. The only reason they aren't is because last time they tried to do that people decided to start burning things down.

That being said, the original point was about the potential psychological damage incestuous relationships can produce. Not whether or not it can kill those involved. My point was that addictive things like cigarettes and alcohol do not produce the same level of psychological stress incest can.

It's completely different psychologically from addictions. Which, as far as I've seen, don't really hurt anyone psychologically just by having them.

No because your playing on a lot of chances here, the chance "birth control" fails, the chance the defect actually happens.

So your belief is that taking this part of freedom, whom to have a relationship with will not anger anyone?

Yes because parents drinking alcohol has no psychological effect on children, neither does drunkedness, neither do children having to watch their parents in agony or even death if they get cancer or one of hundresds of other defects from that. Your premise is extremely flawed and as Chaos said, youve yet to point or prove these "stresses", incest itself give zero stresses and if your purely talking about children that come from incest then your not really talking about incest itself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that they're not out of context at all.

So are you trolling or are you actually an idiot?

It's funny that you of all people would dare call another person an idiot, when you continue to ask questions after they have been explained to you time and again.

Not to worry though, I see where this is going, and refuse to get into a flaming contest with an obvious instigator of strife, I guess that makes you the troll. You answered my previous questions as expected. You obviously have no life. 😂

Originally posted by TacDavey
It's completely different psychologically from addictions.

why is it different though? it is someone making a choice that may produce an ill effect to their psychology.

you have to provide some logic that differentiates them, because frankly I just don't agree when you say they are different in any meaningful way.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Which, as far as I've seen, don't really hurt anyone psychologically just by having them.

funny enough, one of the clinical diagnostic criteria for addiction is that seeking whatever you are addicted to causes considerable problems in your day to day life. To be addicted, at least how the term is used in clinical psychology, the addiction has to cause problems. It is tautological.

its not a perfect definition, so like, smokers, the most "day to day harm" you would see would be lost time at work or lost money seeking it, so, like all psychological things, its not a perfect black and white issue, but things like tanning or shopping or masturbation addiction, these things HAVE to be problematic to be considered an addiction. Also, in terms of cigarettes, something like buying cigarettes as opposed to other things (food, rent, etc) would be a clear example of this.

further, we are talking about psychological issues. So while someone with a shopping addiction might not be physically be harmed by their addiction, psychologically, they would be highly unstable. Like, I'm not a clinical psychologist, so I've never done one-to-one interviews with people, but its easy to find interviews of people who have these issues, and you can see the obvious psychological issues they deal with. Being obsessed, not being able to concentrate on anything else, etc.

Like, addiction is almost entirely a psychological thing. At its base, addiction can be seen as a way that people gain a form of primary or secondary control in their life when they feel lacking in one of those regards. Its not the whole story, but at its base, that's what it is.

Originally posted by Stoic
Not to worry though, I see where this is going, and refuse to get into a flaming contest with an obvious instigator of strife, I guess that makes you the troll. You answered my previous questions as expected. You obviously have no life. 😂

shit dude, I think you are the coolest guy on the internet, no jokes, for realsies

we should get back to basics boys and girls

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where is this stress coming from? You keep mentioning it but you haven't done anything to justify the claim.

Incest, particularly parent child incest, can cause a number of psychological problems. From what I've heard anyway.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No because your playing on a lot of chances here, the chance "birth control" fails, the chance the defect actually happens.

20 out of 29 children developed birth defects from the study I talked about earlier. It isn't like the chance is so remote that it isn't worth considering. They are putting children at risk. That is unacceptable. Let me ask you before this goes to much farther. Do you think incest couples should be allowed to have children? Even those in favor of allowing incest relationships admit that they should not be allowed to have kids.

And you didn't really answer my question. What happens when the birth control fails? As it does do.

Originally posted by Burning thought
So your belief is that taking this part of freedom, whom to have a relationship with will not anger anyone?

Since when have we based our laws and regulations around what will or will not make people angry? I'm sure murderers and thieves would like it a lot better if both those things are legal.

And whom you have a relationship with is already regulated to some degree. You can't have a relationship with a child, either. I don't see that "limited freedom" as you put it, as a bad thing at all.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes because parents drinking alcohol has no psychological effect on children, neither does drunkedness, neither do children having to watch their parents in agony or even death if they get cancer or one of hundresds of other defects from that. Your premise is extremely flawed and as Chaos said, youve yet to point or prove these "stresses", incest itself give zero stresses and if your purely talking about children that come from incest then your not really talking about incest itself.

I don't know what you mean when you said I'm not really talking about incest itself. That's all part of it. The consequences and the action go together.

As for the drunken parent and cancer part, yes that can be damaging to a child. And as I said before, it probably SHOULD be outlawed. It almost sounds like you're saying "Well, we already allow psychologically destructive actions towards kids, why not allow one more?"

Originally posted by inimalist
why is it different though? it is someone making a choice that may produce an ill effect to their psychology.

you have to provide some logic that differentiates them, because frankly I just don't agree when you say they are different in any meaningful way.

Because the psychological damage is worse than simply needing a drink or a smoke.

Originally posted by inimalist
funny enough, one of the clinical diagnostic criteria for addiction is that seeking whatever you are addicted to causes considerable problems in your day to day life. To be addicted, at least how the term is used in clinical psychology, the addiction has to cause problems. It is tautological.

its not a perfect definition, so like, smokers, the most "day to day harm" you would see would be lost time at work or lost money seeking it, so, like all psychological things, its not a perfect black and white issue, but things like tanning or shopping or masturbation addiction, these things HAVE to be problematic to be considered an addiction. Also, in terms of cigarettes, something like buying cigarettes as opposed to other things (food, rent, etc) would be a clear example of this.

further, we are talking about psychological issues. So while someone with a shopping addiction might not be physically be harmed by their addiction, psychologically, they would be highly unstable. Like, I'm not a clinical psychologist, so I've never done one-to-one interviews with people, but its easy to find interviews of people who have these issues, and you can see the obvious psychological issues they deal with. Being obsessed, not being able to concentrate on anything else, etc.

Like, addiction is almost entirely a psychological thing. At its base, addiction can be seen as a way that people gain a form of primary or secondary control in their life when they feel lacking in one of those regards. Its not the whole story, but at its base, that's what it is.

Well, yes, there is the money problem or the time. Which technically IS hurting them. But that is a relatively small "hurt". A smoker or drinker taking a little more money out for drinks or cigarettes isn't enough of a hurt to consider outlawing it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because the psychological damage is worse than simply needing a drink or a smoke.

/facepalm

Originally posted by TacDavey
Incest, particularly parent child incest, can cause a number of psychological problems. From what I've heard anyway.

Did you not read a word I said?
You can't just assert things, you have to present an actual argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did you not read a word I said?
You can't just assert things, you have to present an actual argument.

You don't think there is any potential psychological damage? I would have to do research to find any specific studies, though there is an article that talk a bit about it.

http://family.jrank.org/pages/847/Incest-Effects-on-Victims.html

Not everything is completely relevant, but I think this part is:

"Although one of the key aspects of incest is the difference in power between the perpetrator and the victim, sexual behavior between two siblings of equal power, where touching, looking, and exploring are mutual decisions, can still pose problems for the participants and/or parents. What Diana Russell (1986) calls the myth of mutuality in relation to sibling incest may put the victim in a psychologically and physically vulnerable position. In her research with adult women, she found that 78 percent of her subjects who had had childhood sexual experiences reported that their sexual behavior with brothers was abusive. When the reported sexual behavior was with a sister, 50 percent of the female subjects experienced the behavior as abusive. Approximately one-half reported sibling incest as extremely upsetting, and another one-fourth as somewhat upsetting."

Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm

Did I not answer your question? You related incest with cigarettes and alcohol, claiming that if incest is outlawed, these should be outlawed as well. I said the two were different. Incest's psychological problems are not simply the need for a smoke or drink. Which are technically hurting the victim but not to any great degree. At least not to the degree that would require them to be outlawed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
http://family.jrank.org/pages/847/Incest-Effects-on-Victims.html

strawman

that article is talking about abused children, not consenting adults

Originally posted by TacDavey
Did I not answer your question? You related incest with cigarettes and alcohol, claiming that if incest is outlawed, these should be outlawed as well. I said the two were different. Incest's psychological problems are not simply the need for a smoke or drink. Which are technically hurting the victim but not to any great degree. At least not to the degree that would require them to be outlawed.

sure, you answered it in such a way that shows me there is little use in continuing this conversation

a) you steadfastly refuse to defend your position on incest without resorting to strawman arguments

b) your position on addiction can, at best, be described as the outcome of living in a naive fantasy world

I can't force you to change these things, but I've been in enough debates in my life that I have learned that such opinions toward mental health issues are pretty intransigent and I hope nobody you love ever is afflicted by one, because that will be a very rude awakening for you (and incredibly terrible for them by itself and I wouldn't wish that on anyone)

do you also think people with clinical depression need to just feel better? people with social anxiety need to just learn to like people? people with adhd need to just settle down?