|
if it's bad for live stock breeding it's got to be bad for humans.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Is everyone in support of gay marriage gay or do you understand why this line of reasoning is obnoxious and you're being willfully obtuse? All I understand is you're not denying you have a smokin hot mom, and I have needs. Needs that need to be fulfilled.By your mother.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:And that results in the awful justice system the US has where it's basically a modern socailly acceptable way of oppressing minorities and other economic underclasses. Law should be based on reducing overall harm to society. You should find the most objective metric as possible for that (such as stuff that financially or physically hurts people), then make laws around reducing that harm. In cases like this where you can't present any sort of harm outside of laws that would already be covered (ie laws against sexual abuse), then there's really no reason to outlaw the fringe "two thirty year olds who didn't know they were related met and fell in love" case. If you can think of cases where no one involved is evenly remotely negatively affected by what's going on, but the law saws it's illegal, it's probably a bad law. So you support laws outlawing conventional incest within actual family units or are you just using the convenience of this case as a shield for your warped opinion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Most people don't want it to be legal, legalizing doesn't really make sense. Or that's at least my impression, but maybe germany is different. If it is, then that brings up interesting questions. Good thing the court system does not function based on mob rule or popular opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
woody allen is for legal incest i'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Good thing the court system does not function based on mob rule or popular opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Miltank posted:So you support laws outlawing conventional incest within actual family units or are you just using the convenience of this case as a shield for your warped opinion? e: as far as eugenics go (as people occasionally mentioned the "think of the children with 11 toes" angle), it's not an illogical argument but it does sort of ignore that there's absolutely no ban on people with all sorts of inheritable defects from having kids. It's a very niche case to get mad at when literal deaf parents debate over whether or not they'll give their kid surgery to make them not deaf because of concern about them fitting in with the deaf community and that's entirely legal. ArbitraryC fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
the only good argument really is the woody allen thing or people manipulating family members into sex due to the power dynamics of the family but that is already covered under rape legislation I think (or should be)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:This thing is icky and goes against my beliefs therefore I believe I have the right to imprison and generally ruin the lives of the people who do it even though it does not harm anyone and there are much more important issues that we can deal with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:anime childporn is bad just slither out of the current argument and try to argue about something else pretty standard tactic
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:I support laws outlawing harm. If there is no evidence of harm, no one should go to jail. Do you really think anyone needs to have their life ruined because "thems the rules champ" or do you think they had to do something that actually hurt someone or something? If you can present evidence they hurt someone, book them with that crime. If you can't, then there's no crime. I feel like laws against incest as a concept are redundant morality laws, we already have laws against sexual abuse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Here's a big problem with incest that can't be dismissed as being basically eugenics. Also applies to other really stupid arguments ITT. There is no sane reason for, no beneficial upside of, legalizing incest. You at-best wannabe smug quibblers at-worst aspiring family tree straighteners. The Snark fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
i feel that a bro/sis can never consent because their brains are already addled beyond all reason to even consider banging each other make an exception for long long siblings or w/e and be done with it
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Also applies to other really stupid arguments ITT. There is no sane reason, no beneficial upside, of legalizing incest, you at-best wannabe smug quibblers at-worst aspiring family tree straighteners. what you mean other than keeping morality laws out of the legal code? and not legislating what two consenting adults might care to do? handwaving away the entire debate and declaring yourself correct - the other typical tactic
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
bunch of weird Thomas Friedman negative freedom motherfuckers itt asking me to prove why incest shouldn't be permitted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
why yes I would like my tax dollars to go to investigating and regulating the sexual activity of consenting adults that sounds like an awesome use of public funds
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:just slither out of the current argument and try to argue about something else your current argument of "incest is nbd" is not very convincing
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Child grooming is a bad thing and it's a reasonable issue to be concerned about. Seems to me like it would apply to any interaction between older and younger children, though, not just family.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Miltank posted:your current argument of "incest is nbd" is not very convincing right because that's my argument lol nothing about legal precedent or legislating morality or anything like that Cardiovorax posted:Child grooming is a bad thing and it's a reasonable issue to be concerned about. Seems to me like it would apply to any interaction between older and younger children, though, not just family. yeah but I can't imagine anyone nutty enough to do something like that would be stopped by incest being illegal
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Dr. Carwash posted:i feel that a bro/sis can never consent because their brains are already addled beyond all reason to even consider banging each other
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Also applies to other really stupid arguments ITT. There is no sane reason, no beneficial upside, of legalizing incest. You at-best wannabe smug quibblers at-worst aspiring family tree straighteners. The idea of a parent molesting their underaged kid is obviously gross, but it's also already illegal under non incest related laws. Outlawing incest in general literally only covers fringe cases where people aren't harmed, because if anyone is harmed it's already violating other laws. It's not that I support incest or sexual abuse among family members, it's just that I don't support reactionary laws that don't accomplish anything productive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Child grooming is a bad thing and it's a reasonable issue to be concerned about. Seems to me like it would apply to any interaction between older and younger children, though, not just family. Quite possibly, but parents and siblings should be there to block that poo poo. Not get jealous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Why make the fringe cases illegal though? Do you really think "well these people shouldn't be allowed to do this thing that doesn't hurt anyone because some people might do it in a way that hurts people" is a reasonable argument? You could apply that to pretty much anything it's so vague. Outlaw harm, don't outlaw things that "could potentially lead to harm" without a ton of evidence that says outlawing it reduces harm on a statistical level. You dare accuse others of being willfully obtuse? I addressed fringe cases. Good luck getting scientists to prove incest is psychologically harmless for you though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:yeah but I can't imagine anyone nutty enough to do something like that would be stopped by incest being illegal
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:yeah but I can't imagine anyone nutty enough to do something like that would be stopped by incest being illegal because a dad loving his 18yo daughter is some messed up poo poo and I want the police to be able to harass his rear end and to keep him from loving all the rest of his kids. Family units are not where sex should be happening because they have inherently unequal distributions of power, christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
what's an unintended consequence? i'm capable of considering only isolated bubble-realms and cannot think holistically. incestual thoughts are common, therefore incestual acts should be legal rather than discouraged, because people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it's not 'hurting anyone' (such as the entire fabric of society)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Miltank posted:because a dad loving his 18yo daughter is hosed up poo poo and I want the police to be able to harass his rear end and to keep him from loving all the rest of his kids. Family units are not where sex should be happening because they have inherently unequal distributions of power, christ. except a dad loving his 18 yo daughter is probably not doing it for the first time and is already illegal under 'pre-existing abuse' laws so... Kyrie eleison posted:incestual thoughts are common, therefore incestual acts should be legal rather than discouraged, because people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it's not 'hurting anyone' (such as the entire fabric of society) lol you always come out of the woodwork and post like you live in 1750 Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
I bet if one explained their flawless defense of incest to a psychologist they would put a down payment on a speedboat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You dare accuse others of being willfully obtuse? I addressed fringe cases. Good luck getting scientists to prove incest is psychologically harmless for you though. So you support outlawing fringe cases or what? You literally believe people who didn't hurt anyone should be in jail because reasons?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I agree. The same could be said about any law, though, so that's not in and of itself much of an argument. Still, it's a really big deal, and I can kind of understand just prohibiting that sort of interaction as a blanket solution. It's well-intentioned, the problem is just that it doesn't work. Like you said, people who would even consider that sort of thing are nutcases to begin with. Not much of an argument indeed. 'Thieves steal despite it being illegal, so clearly laws don't work and we should legalize theft. You know, so long as they don't physically hurt someone in the course of the theft. I am sure social pressure will be sufficient enforcement.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:except a dad loving his 18 yo daughter is probably not doing it for the first time and is already illegal under 'pre-existing abuse' laws so... He certainly isn't doing it for the first time, but you aren't going to prove that. You are right to assume that this example of incest is inherently wrong, now give me an example of conventional incest that isn't inherently abusive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
You have a lot to learn about deterrence.quote:Some research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime, while increasing the certainty of punishment does have a deterrent effect.[11] "Clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment will have little impact on people who do not believe they will be apprehended for their actions.". quote:A 2000 study by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini, A Fine Is a Price, has shown that introducing a fine for a previously unfined behavior may increase, rather than decrease, the unwanted behavior. This happens as the fine replaces a previous set of moral or ethical norms, and if it is low enough, it is going to be easier to overcome than the non-monetary criticism was. In other words, putting a price on something previously not on a market changes its perception drastically, and on occasion it can change it contradictory to what a deterrence theory would predict.[14] of course it depends on the type of crime we're talking about quote:The most recent studies into the matter though have found that deterrence does cause a decrease in criminal acts. A study by Prof. D.S. Abrams found that when one uses "the introduction of state add-on gun laws, which enhance sentences for defendants possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, to isolate the deterrent effect of incarceration. Defendants subject to add-ons would be incarcerated in the absence of the law change, so any short-term impact on crime can be attributed solely to deterrence. Using cross-state variation in the timing of law passage dates, I find that the average add-on gun law results in a roughly 5 percent decline in gun robberies within the first three years. This result is robust to a number of specification tests and does not appear to be associated with large spillovers to other types of crime."[15] it's a complex issue that I'm sure you don't really care about but in essence uh yeah thieves steal because they have no other economic opportunity and need money in this economic system of ours, not just because 'lol thieves steal because they are inherently thieves.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Miltank posted:He certainly isn't doing it for the first time, but you aren't going to prove that. You are right to assume that this example of incest is inherently wrong, now give me an example of conventional incest that isn't inherently abusive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Two people who didn't know they were closely related met and hosed. Ie the case this is literally based off of. "conventional" meaning, "from within the same family unit" I honestly don't care if those two gently caress, it doesn't really have anything to do with the problems that are inherent to incest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Two people who didn't know they were closely related met and hosed. Ie the case this is literally based off of. Ok you willfully obtuse daftard. There are fringe cases which should not be punished because of quite rare extenuating circumstances. This does in no way translate into 'incest as a whole should be legal'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
what specifically about incest should be illegal that isn't already illegal under legislation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:it's a complex issue that I'm sure you don't really care about but in essence uh yeah thieves steal because they have no other economic opportunity and need money in this economic system of ours, not just because 'lol thieves steal because they are inherently thieves.' and yet your argument for why incest is great is "lol people gently caress their dads because they like dad dick"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:what specifically about incest should be illegal that isn't already illegal under legislation? probab;y the part where you rape yopu own children
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Miltank posted:and yet your argument for why incest is great is "lol people gently caress their dads because they like dad dick" you're incapable of rational civil debate aren't you i never said incest was great, just that we shouldn't make it illegal because we don't like it. and I said that if a dad fucks his 18 yo daughter there's probably more going on there than 'hey dad I just turned 18 let's gently caress now I've always wanted to!' like the porn you watch. Vegeta posted:probab;y the part where you rape yopu own children so is raping your own children not illegal or something already where you live
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:so is raping your own children not illegal or something already where you live I don't live in gernamy, so no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:42
|
|