INCEST=worng or not

Originally posted by TacDavey

You missed the point. Putting a child at risk cannot be defended by claiming risk already exists. It doesn't matter that risk already exists.

This also is irrelevant. The law saying murder isn't allowed isn't going to stop all murderers. That doesn't mean the law is pointless or should be done away with.

I don't know why you think I'm making up a child. I'm not saying we should be protecting a specific child. I'm saying we should be protecting children in general.

Are you one of them? because I'm not. So it seems pretty irrelevant over all.

But you will admit that there are SOME risks that warrant outlawing actions? Such as pushing my child down the stairs. It's possible no harm will come to him.

Or look a pedophilia. Do you think that's okay? You know, it's possible no real harm will come to the child. Why should we deny pedophiles their ability to express their love just because of some risk? The ability to express love is more important, right?

Saying things shouldn't be outlawed just for being risks is true. I never claimed otherwise. On the other side of that, claiming things should be allowed simply because they are nothing but risks is equally faulty. Some risks deserve to be outlawed.

That's a misrepresentation of my stance. I never, at any point, said people who have defects shouldn't be allowed to live. I said people shouldn't be allowed to place the risk of birth defects on children.

As for not being allowed to judge who is allowed to have intercourse, I'm not actually saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to have intercourse. I'm saying people shouldn't be allowed to have intercourse with certain things, like animals, children, and family members.

This is an ad hominum fallacy. You're attacking me instead of my arguments. It would be the same if I said you are only debating this because you like incest and want a relationship with your sister and you like giving birth defects to children. Neither this claim nor yours can actually be defended, nor are they relevant to the discussion.

You're right, though. I don't like the idea of incestuous couples. Though, not for the reason you stated. I am thinking of children. I suggest you spend a little more time combating my arguments, and a little less time flinging baseless accusations.

Risk is your only argument though, so clearly pointing out a large list of risks, far more severe ones sort of dulls your claim that we should stop at nothing to halt risk.

Not all, its going to stop those who dont want to end up with a huge sentence unless your claiming this is alike to murder and deserves an equel sentence then your just making life harder for the child who was born defected by removing its parents.

"children" in general, real children? or those that "may" exist "possibly"? Your not protecting children, your protecting a possibility.

What? pushing your child down the stairs would without a doubt harm it either physically or psychologically and again your trying to use the example of a living child rather than a concept of one which is the case here.

Not sure pedophilia has anything to do with love but more a mental disability.

Not at all, its another point of view on the same logic. By saying this sort of intercourse should be banned your also saying anyone with disabilities should be born or be allowed ot be born as if thats something we have to stop at all costs, yes it may make life difficult but life is difficult and you shouldnt halt the "possiblity" of this person having a fullfilling life just because you cringe at the thought of incest.

Its not because an ad hominum would first require me to attack you when I just pointed something out that was clear to me and second, I would have to use it to claim an argument of yours was invalid when ive countered all your arguments with those of my own and added this at the end because I simply dont belive you when you claim your thinking of nothing but children.

Originally posted by inimalist
so then you do actually think children are capable of giving consent about sex?

That depends on what you would consider "consenting". I believe they can agree to it without being forced into it, yes.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Risk is your only argument though, so clearly pointing out a large list of risks, far more severe ones sort of dulls your claim that we should stop at nothing to halt risk.

It doesn't though. As I pointed out, arguing that risk is okay just because risk already exists is faulty. It doesn't matter that risk already exists. It's completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not all, its going to stop those who dont want to end up with a huge sentence unless your claiming this is alike to murder and deserves an equel sentence then your just making life harder for the child who was born defected by removing its parents.

I never said that incest should be treated like murder. I said that the fact that some people will continue to do a crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

Originally posted by Burning thought
"children" in general, real children? or those that "may" exist "possibly"? Your not protecting children, your protecting a possibility.

You aren't making much sense here. Yes, it isn't absolute that a child will be hurt. But there IS a very real possibility that a very real child will be hurt by very real disabilities. Have you ever heard of preemptive measures? You act first to avoid a bad outcome. Even though the outcome hasn't happened yet, you try to avoid it. I'm thinking about future children who may be hurt by this activity. The simple fact that they don't exist yet is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Burning thought
What? pushing your child down the stairs would without a doubt harm it either physically or psychologically and again your trying to use the example of a living child rather than a concept of one which is the case here.

The concept of one? I don't understand what you're talking about here. I'm not defending the "concept of children". That makes no sense. I'm defending children in general by removing a danger that is posed to them.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not sure pedophilia has anything to do with love but more a mental disability.

Mental disability? In what way?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not at all, its another point of view on the same logic. By saying this sort of intercourse should be banned your also saying anyone with disabilities should be born or be allowed ot be born as if thats something we have to stop at all costs, yes it may make life difficult but life is difficult and you shouldnt halt the "possiblity" of this person having a fullfilling life just because [b]you cringe at the thought of incest. [/B]

What are you talking about? That isn't what I'm saying at all. If someone has a disability, they have every right to be born. I never, at any point, made the claim otherwise. That's like saying restricting sex with children is wrong because you're stopping all the possible babies born of underage kids.

Again, you're going down the same path as "Masturbation is wrong cause it stops kids from being born". If we continue with this line of reasoning, any sexual act that is ever committed that doesn't get someone pregnant should be considered wrong. Which is absurd.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its not because an ad hominum would first require me to attack you when I just pointed something out that was clear to me and second, I would have to use it to claim an argument of yours was invalid when ive countered all your arguments with those of my own and added this at the end because I simply dont belive you when you claim your thinking of nothing but children.

What you think my motivations are is irrelevant to the topic. In the same way I cannot prove through words alone that I'm not simply out to get incest people, you cannot prove that I'm only motivated by a disgust of incest. This is pointless.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That depends on what you would consider "consenting". I believe they can agree to it without being forced into it, yes.

ffs, ya, I'm actually done this time

you convinced me

addiction isn't a major psychological problem and children are mature enough to make consensual decisions about sex

thats a fine example of christian morality, I could learn a thing or two

Originally posted by inimalist
ffs, ya, I'm actually done this time

you convinced me

addiction isn't a major psychological problem and children are mature enough to make consensual decisions about sex

thats a fine example of christian morality, I could learn a thing or two

Actually, I never said they were mature enough to make those decisions. I said they can agree to those decisions, I never said they should be making them. That is, they can choose to have sex without being forced. But again, I never said they should OR that they were mature enough to be making the decision.

Indeed, I highly disagree that children should be sexually active at all.

It's completly ****ed up.

Originally posted by TacDavey

It doesn't though. As I pointed out, arguing that risk is okay just because risk already exists is faulty. It doesn't matter that risk already exists. It's completely irrelevant.

I never said that incest should be treated like murder. I said that the fact that some people will continue to do a crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

You aren't making much sense here. Yes, it isn't absolute that a child will be hurt. But there IS a very real possibility that a very real child will be hurt by very real disabilities. Have you ever heard of preemptive measures? You act first to avoid a bad outcome. Even though the outcome hasn't happened yet, you try to avoid it. I'm thinking about future children who may be hurt by this activity. The simple fact that they don't exist yet is irrelevant.

The concept of one? I don't understand what you're talking about here. I'm not defending the "concept of children". That makes no sense. I'm defending children in general by removing a danger that is posed to them.

Mental disability? In what way?

What are you talking about? That isn't what I'm saying at all. If someone has a disability, they have every right to be born. I never, at any point, made the claim otherwise. That's like saying restricting sex with children is wrong because you're stopping all the possible babies born of underage kids.

Again, you're going down the same path as "Masturbation is wrong cause it stops kids from being born". If we continue with this line of reasoning, any sexual act that is ever committed that doesn't get someone pregnant should be considered wrong. Which is absurd.

What you think my motivations are is irrelevant to the topic. In the same way I cannot prove through words alone that I'm not simply out to get incest people, you cannot prove that I'm only motivated by a disgust of incest. This is pointless.

Of course it matters, if its already extremely risky, its not logical to start outlawring small things. If I had a poster put up saying "electrical hazard, use applince with care" on my Toaster which was just behind my vast network of uncovered wires it would be a bit redundant.

Its very relevent because you cant stop people doing something because theres about 10 different risks that may happen, you could outlaw hundreds of things by your logic that would make life hard for everyone and one of the things youll be preventing with your logic in this case is the possiblity of a happy life, regardless of some defect.

There isnt a danger here posed to children, because no children exist in incest, there "may" be one, at some stage.

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression no other animal mates with very young members of its spiecies, hell I dont think animals can even grow sexually fond of something thats not ready to reproduce anyway.

Also what rubbish are you talking here? you didnt counter my post at all and whats masturbation to do with anything? You think about masturbation too much 🙄

I think its relevent in some way actually considering it concerns the topic, not every post in here "has" to be an argument afterall. Not really because you know my assessment of you based on what youve said so far.

The problem I see with incest, is that the mind forgets what happens, but the body doesn't. and many people may act out later in life, not realizing what is causing them to.

And that is why some may choose an alternative lifestyle, to avoid that painful, albeit most usually psychological pain. period in their life as kids being incestual victim by a older family member.

A bit odd for those who can spot those people and get reap from it, although not good for the person who does not realize just what is happening and being used for sex.

Those is part of why you see drunks and drug addicts and some folks making themselves as unattractive as possible.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Of course it matters, if its already extremely risky, its not logical to start outlawring small things. If I had a poster put up saying "electrical hazard, use applince with care" on my Toaster which was just behind my vast network of uncovered wires it would be a bit redundant.

I'm sorry, Burning Thought, but you're simply incorrect. Just because there are other risks out there does not mean we should allow further risks. It just doesn't. The two are not logically connected.

Let's take two risks. The risk of getting hit by a car and the risk of developing skin cancer. Let's say, hypothetically, we want to work to prevent the risk of skin cancer. But someone points out that there is still the risk of getting hit by a car. Does the simple fact that there are still other risks mean we should not work to prevent this specific risk? No, of course not. Why? Because the two are completely unrelated.

Quite frankly, it simply makes no sense to say that risk is okay because there is other risk. You'll have to explain that one to me. In what logical way does the simple fact that other risks exist somehow mean that this risk shouldn't work towards being avoided?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its very relevent because you cant stop people doing something because theres about 10 different risks that may happen, you could outlaw hundreds of things by your logic that would make life hard for everyone and one of the things youll be preventing with your logic in this case is the possiblity of a happy life, regardless of some defect.

You still aren't making sense. Once again, I never, at any point, said that people with defects don't deserve or shouldn't be allowed to live. I want you to find and quote the specific line from one of my past posts where I said that.

I find it incredibly interesting that you criticize my argument because it concerns a supposed "possible child" and turn right around and defend yours by saying that denying incest will stop all the "possible children" from being born.

Originally posted by Burning thought
There isnt a danger here posed to children, because no children exist in incest, there "may" be one, at some stage.

What are you talking about? Children don't exist in incest? That statement makes no sense at all. Of course children don't exist in incest. It's an act, not a place. However, the act of incest can cause children. And it can cause children to be born with birth defects. Which is something we want to avoid.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression no other animal mates with very young members of its spiecies, hell I dont think animals can even grow sexually fond of something thats not ready to reproduce anyway.

Actually, considering animals don't live all that long, they tend to mate soon after the female becomes able to bear children. Which is, what, 14 for human girls?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Also what rubbish are you talking here? you didnt counter my post at all and whats masturbation to do with anything? You think about masturbation too much 🙄

If I didn't respond to your points then I apologize. Honestly, I'm having a little bit of trouble properly understanding your points.

From what I gather, you said that denying incest is wrong because you would be stopping children with birth defects from being born, is that right?

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think its relevent in some way actually considering it concerns the topic, not every post in here "has" to be an argument afterall. Not really because you know my assessment of you based on what youve said so far.

You cannot possibly know someone's true motivations simply by debating them. It doesn't work that way. It may be possible if they are providing illogical nonsense, contradicting themselves, etc etc to determine that someone is not debating for the reason they say they are. Since I have done none of those things, I find it hard to believe you can know something like that with any amount of certainty. That's like saying "If you disagree with me, you're not doing so because you might have valid reasons to, you're doing so just because you don't like incest." Which is, to be quite honest, remarkably arrogant.

Do you even acknowledge that perhaps there is more than one side to this debate, and that perhaps I have valid reasons for disagreeing with you? Why is that so far fetched?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm sorry, Burning Thought, but you're simply incorrect. Just because there are other risks out there does not mean we should allow further risks. It just doesn't. The two are not logically connected.

Let's take two risks. The risk of getting hit by a car and the risk of developing skin cancer. Let's say, hypothetically, we want to work to prevent the risk of skin cancer. But someone points out that there is still the risk of getting hit by a car. Does the simple fact that there are still other risks mean we should not work to prevent this specific risk? No, of course not. Why? Because the two are completely unrelated.

Quite frankly, it simply makes no sense to say that risk is okay because there is other risk. You'll have to explain that one to me. In what logical way does the simple fact that other risks exist somehow mean that this risk shouldn't work towards being avoided?

You still aren't making sense. Once again, I never, at any point, said that people with defects don't deserve or shouldn't be allowed to live. I want you to find and quote the specific line from one of my past posts where I said that.

I find it incredibly interesting that you criticize my argument because it concerns a supposed "possible child" and turn right around and defend yours by saying that denying incest will stop all the "possible children" from being born.

What are you talking about? Children don't exist in incest? That statement makes no sense at all. Of course children don't exist in incest. It's an act, not a place. However, the act of incest can cause children. And it can cause children to be born with birth defects. Which is something we want to avoid.

Actually, considering animals don't live all that long, they tend to mate soon after the female becomes able to bear children. Which is, what, 14 for human girls?

If I didn't respond to your points then I apologize. Honestly, I'm having a little bit of trouble properly understanding your points.

From what I gather, you said that denying incest is wrong because you would be stopping children with birth defects from being born, is that right?

You cannot possibly know someone's true motivations simply by debating them. It doesn't work that way. It may be possible if they are providing illogical nonsense, contradicting themselves, etc etc to determine that someone is not debating for the reason they say they are. Since I have done none of those things, I find it hard to believe you can know something like that with any amount of certainty. That's like saying "If you disagree with me, you're not doing so because you might have valid reasons to, you're doing so just because you don't like incest." Which is, to be quite honest, remarkably arrogant.

Do you even acknowledge that perhaps there is more than one side to this debate, and that perhaps I have valid reasons for disagreeing with you? Why is that so far fetched?

For what it's worth.. I feel most men would love to "make love" to their daughters and sisters. Sadly in many cases they do.

Originally posted by alltoomany
For what it's worth.. I feel most men would love to "make love" to their daughters and sisters. Sadly in many cases they do.

There may be some who do, but claiming most men do is just sexist, unless you have statistics.

I may also point out that incestuous relationships are a two person gig.

My thought on this subject is that it is no one else's business (much less the government's) to tell two consenting adults what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I have never been attracted to a relative, or another man for that matter, but that is none of the government's business.

Originally posted by truejedi
My thought on this subject is that it is no one else's business (much less the government's) to tell two consenting adults what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Well, technically they already regulate what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Children and Animals are not allowed, for instance.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, technically they already regulate what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Children and Animals are not allowed, for instance.

They are also not allowed to kill the other.

I believe it's wrong...

But then, I haven't had the pleasure of encountering the sort of mind that would not be... under some type of trauma... after committing incest. Most of these cases are also rape cases - obviously. Brother agn. sister, and such.

From what-all I've read, it is "forbidden" to have sex with anyone as close and closer to you than an uncle or aunt, and on the flip side, niece or nephew.

There's cases where the parties don't know they're related this closely, but again, once they find out, they tend to be traumatized.

to be fair, i did say between Consenting adults.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are also not allowed to kill the other.

Facists 😠

Originally posted by truejedi
to be fair, i did say between Consenting adults.

I understand. 😄 I just have never met two consenting adults whose minds wouldn't be somewhat traumatized by knowingly having sex with a very close relative.

really? never?

.... nope.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
.... nope.

The only way you could know that is if you ask everyone you meet if they want to have sex with a relative. You're weird.