Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Randler posted:

Fun fact: That line of thinking does not show up one bit in the committee's report and they explicitly only reviewed reports of half-siblings who met while adults.

(Wait, that's not a fun fact! That means there are people in official positions who basically are as sloppy as goons. )

Its a dumb argument though. There are already laws against raping your minor sibling/child because that's you know, rape. Their reasoning that as long as doesn't hurt anyone its not the government's business is entirely reasonable and the who goons want to immediately go to "anyone who support this wants to bone their sister" should probably sterilize themselves so they don't pass on their stupid genes.

As far as eugenics go, sure I'll accept that argument if we apply it consistently but I don't think anyone actually wants that.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2014 20:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:23

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Im just of the opinion that two consenting adults should be able to have sex with each other if they want to. Rape and pedophilia is already illegal so if we remove factors such as "does not consent" and "Is incapable of consent" then if two adult siblings want to bone it seems ridiculous to make a law specifically against that just because you or I think it's gross. �Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,� is a fantastic conclusion and we really should implement such a philosophy more often. Drug laws for example would be instantly repealed if we looked towards reducing harm rather than legislating morality.

Restrictions of freedoms should be based on tangible evidence that it causes more harm to society as a whole to have that freedom unrestricted. It directly hurts me if I get mugged or murdered, it doesn't hurt me if my neighbors are related and gently caress each other. If it doesn't hurt them either then what is the point of outlawing it?

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 06:33

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Miltank posted:

Criminal law is literally nothing but the enforcement of social taboo.

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.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 06:51

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Hobohemian posted:

Can I have a picture of your mother, I bet she is loving smokin'. My laminated copy of microwave's mom is getting a bit rough.

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?

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 06:53

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

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?

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.

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

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

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.

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.

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

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

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

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

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.

Two people who didn't know they were closely related met and hosed. Ie the case this is literally based off of.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 07:31

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Moridin920 posted:

what specifically about incest should be illegal that isn't already illegal under legislation?

This is seriously what I want to hear. one thing that incest laws ban that hurts people and is not covered by other non incest related laws.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 07:50

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

The Snark posted:

If it's so sad, why the hell then would you argue for something that makes it harder to prevent or investigate.

It doesn't really though, do you really think that if incest outside of abuse were legal it'd be super common? Like dads would consistently start dating and boning their daughters when they turned 18 or something? As far as incest goes, there's pretty much only abusive cases or fringe cases, it's not like it's a common thing.

quote:

As for your references of fringe cases, no one is arguing for prison or death sentences or criminal punishment for such flukes.

You kind of are though, there will be fringe cases caught in the law and that's the entire reason this came up.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 08:13

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

The Snark posted:

Nnno, I'm not. I agree situations warrant exception no matter how disgusting I find it. I do not agree that such exceptions warrant legalization of incest as a whole.

So how do you handle the fringe cases then? It sounds like you're proposing a non solution where you make it completely illegal and arrest fringe cases who shouldn't be in jail. If you're going to make the law "it's illegal if the other person is harmed in some way" then that's already covered by other laws so how isn't it redundant? Criminalize harm rather than trying to make blanket laws with exceptions.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 08:22

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

The Snark posted:

You should really never accuse anyone of being willfully obtuse again.

I've asked you several times and you've never really covered what exactly you're proposing should be illegal that isn't already illegal via laws against abuse (sexual or otherwise). The only people who would not be covered by existing laws against sexual abuse are fringe cases where no one is being hurt or coerced.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 08:30

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

Miltank posted:

i could write a pretty good anti-incest law; just make it illegal to have sex with anyone who is your brother/sister/father/ect and whom you spent X formative years of your life with. Call up a psychiatrist to have them define an ideal X and you've got yourself a workable anti-incest law.

But why not just outlaw harm directly rather than trying to make something general that you hope encompasses it but will also encompass other non harmful stuff. Drug policy is a really good example of laws based on ostensibly good intentions not really accomplishing much in terms of help or reduction of the problem. Family members sexually abusing each other is obviously really sad and regretful but existing incest laws don't really do anything extra to help catch that. It's reactionary legislation that at best does nothing and at worst hurts people not doing anything objectively wrong.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 08:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:23

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number; Pillbug

If only we could attach a turbine to this thread we could power a small country with how quickly it's going around in circles.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 17:41

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says