Search Results

- There are birth defects in non-incestuous relationships.
- Incestuous couples can be warned of the health risks of them procreating all the same.
- Making incest illegal has not prevented incestuous relationships.
- Making incest illegal will not stop birth defects.
I can only wonder how you will weasel your way out of saying that you said the exact same thing about homosexuals and HIV. Of if you'd rather have the gist of it: legalising incest doesn't open Pandora's box. Whatever health risk increase it throws at us is not something that's completely out of our control. In fact, the difference may not even be that outspoken.

You were about to ask "Why legalise it then?", but you ought to know by now that I already answered that.

The scientific consensus is that sexuality is partly genetic. Sexuality has an environmentally controlling component though, but I don't see how this takes my point down. You go with whatever you prefer, and ignore that it's illegal. Again, these were your words originally, not mine. Amidst all the new age "experimenting", the vast majority of gays is still more comfortable in same-sex relationships and will not sip from another glass unless their options have whittled down considerably.

And I was pointing out how asinine that sounds in more ways than one, the car accident thing merely being the most idiotic way of doing so.
Minimizing risks is all fine and dandy, but when these risks can be campagined against and sensitized to, we should treat adults like adults and let them have their romance. Incestuous couples do not deserve to be scowled at by default, let alone be discriminated against in law. Making dysfunctional babies is unethical, but denying the freedom to love whatever consensual adult you fancy is too.

Already admitted this, didn't I?

I find it hilarious that you keep needing benefits, especially given your dreamy sidenote on love directly after this. Yes, there are enough people to love, but you don't bump into them every other day of the week. Not that that was even an argument though.
Having feelings of love, knowing they are mutual and not being allowed to express them is a taxing ordeal in the meantime. Love brings satisfaction, satisfaction yields productiveness. This has been proven. Don't we all want people to be as productive as they can? It's a small effort to grant them this satisfaction, and the only even remotely valid reason you give for not granting this is a risk that may increase. So yes, there is a benefit even aside from not being an ass-wipe. As a matter of fact, you deny something that all incestuous couples would benefit from for a health risk in the offspring of some incestuous couples and you find this logical to boot. How high are you?
Not to mention that not granting them the permission to express their feelings openly because it has no "benefits" is more of an insult to love than calling it a luxury will ever be.

That's where "or rather romantic relationships" comes in, which you conveniently overlooked.

Plot twist: humping your sister has become an existential topic.

Seriously though, human rights are always in question as well and are not universal either: I don't think the Al-Qaeda has the same thoughts on human rights as we do. Discussing rights and ethics is perhaps an exercise in futility, but while we're at it we can at least try to strike an emotional nerve and see whether our opinions match our views on right and wrong. More importantly, we have chosen to drag ethics and morality into this discussion and we should stick with it. Putting the relevance of ethics itself into perspective by going all "Why this? Why that? Why the sun? Why the moon?" on me is the debate equivalent of a table flip when you're playing chess.

And all I was getting at is that this is a dangerous line of thinking in its own right.

The only reason I'm continuing this is because I am proud to a fault and because silence is often considered defeat (and on KHV, that's quite often justified). I know that I am not defeated, that I'm not a brain-dead moron and that I have valid reasons to support the legalisation of incestuous relationships. I'm also aware that at least part of our reasoning is irreconcilable and needn't be discussed further. I'm ready to put an end to this when I can make you see this, and only then.

Basically, what you said for homosexuals in that fragment can be applied to incestuous couples all the same. I'm not going to explain it in detail, it's not even that hard to connect the dots.

Except no one with a preference for the same sex is going to have heterosexual sex when other homosexuals are available. And they will consider homosexual sex to be available by ignoring the law, so they will not have heterosexual sex. Thus, the two contradict. Humans are horny but they won't go against their sexual preference so easily.

Of course not, it was a hastily contrived argument to counter your obviously hastily contrived argument of being against the legalisation of incest because it will "increase the likelihood" of incestuous births. I've shown how dumb this sounds in other ways, so it doesn't matter whether the point is moot anyway.

The only thing I was trying to say with that is that averting risks completely is inconceivable in a society that invests highly in welfare. Becoming more risk-prone has its benefits, or in this case, is necessary to grant couples that which should be a given.
Love or rather a romantic relationship, although it should be a basic right, is still a luxury though. I don't think anyone who doesn't have their head in their arse would deny this.

And ironically the analogy I completely pulled out of my ass is making you say almost the exact same thing I said in my previous post.

Who has the right to live without birth defects? And if no one has that right, why is it unethical to allow people with birth defects to be born?
I'm not even trying to prove anything here; I am urging you to consider your arguments more carefully. You don't seem to realize the extent of your opinions, and this shouldn't be confused with me putting words into your mouth.

You make mistakes, but so do I. In fact I make mistakes in the vast majority of my debates, but people somehow have trouble spotting them.
You're an intelligent opponent, and I don't admit this lightly. You are not convincing me that incest should stay illegal, and your whole idea of humans having no inherent rights is flawed as fuck, but you're making me think and reconsider and that's good. I think this debate is reaching its final stages. About time too.

No, I am saying that being against this or that has greater implications than you seem to be aware of, and denying them makes you a hypocrite. I'm not putting words into your mouth; you still have every possibility to prove me wrong.

Just because they are different doesn't mean the difference is relevant in this case. In homosexual couples, HIV is a major risk through sex while in incestuous couples, birth defects are a major risk through procreative sex. They are both minorities that risk compromising the well-being of people not belonging to those minorities. How are you not seeing this and still stubbornly clinging to your sex =/= procreation non-argument?

Replace HIV with birth defects along with some other minor adjustments and see how well this argument works out for me.

Except this contradicts A, which I agree with.

Also, where did I say anything about stopping HIV? Don't seem to remember that. Refresh my memory please. Or were you perhaps putting words in my mouth?
If anything, I was talking about "decreasing likelihoods", which you seem to be fond of. That being said, if legalising incest would increase the likelihood of birth defects according to your infallible logic, then surely prohibiting gay sex would have the opposite effect on the spreading of HIV?
And if not, the point in blue comes into play, which works out for me all the same.

Agreed completely.

They are not necessary. They are luxury items the same way as being allowed to be in a relationship with the one you love is.
Since any kind of extrapolation is considered '"putting words into your mouth" nowadays, I'll explain this one more carefully.
Health risks and keeping them at bay are considered a part of an individual's well-being. Luxury such as cars and love are considered a part of one's welfare.
By arguing that one has more benefits than the other (and by your later point of a human being having no inherent rights), what keeps me from assuming that, at least in this case, you care about well-being more than welfare?

Exactly.

You say "Ban 'em all" because of an increased risk of birth defects due to irresponsible couples.
I say "Allow 'em all" because I don't want responsible couples to be treated like criminals.
It's probably useless to play them out against each other. Honestly, if this was 3 years ago, I wouldn't even have argued your logic. But there's more to heaven and earth, PaW, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I have found a compromise to be the healthiest solution in almost any situation, which the status-quo (incest being forbidden without a second thought) isn't.

This is my favourite part... Reversal time (ding ding ding): should all things that are unhealthy and decrease productivity be illegal? Of course not.

By that logic, there is no such thing as an inherent "right to live" either. This is what I mean when I say that your opinions carry implications beyond what you are saying. By saying that rights are earned, you are saying that newborns (who can't have "deserved" anything) don't have the right to live. Without inherent rights, it's survival of the fittest all around. So who is defending murder exactly? I am not putting word into your mouth; you are putting words into your mouth.

I'll just stick to the most important bits of your text.

Like I said, HIV is more prevalent in homosexual couples. They, more so than heterosexual couples, are keeping HIV alive and thriving in a population. That's the sad truth. This will inevitably affect non-homosexuals at some point (through bisexuals and non-sexual transmission). And somehow, you are more concerned with dilution of the gene pool. Somehow, you do not have enough qualms with irresponsible homosexual sex to be against its legalisation, but you are opposed to irresponsible incestuous sex. If this isn't a double standard to you, then I advise you to look up the term.

I understand that the big difference to you is that gays make a conscious choice of being at risk, whilst the child of an incestuous couple does not. I can see where this is coming from, but read above: heterosexuals will eventually fall victim to gay-transmitted HIV as well. They are the unborn child in the analogy: the ones who suffer from the risk a certain group is carrying. It's not quite the same, but it's close enough.

I don't defend incestuous procreation either. Read again.

And driving cars increases the likelihood of car accidents. Anyway, this is exactly what I mean by targeting well-meaning couples along with irresponsible ones, which you can't justify regardless of which trick in the Grand Debating Book you use. If anything is unethical, it's denying someone a right because of what they might do wrong on no particular basis. Your moral high horse is hereby felled.

I was refering to the double standard of being supportive of homosexual relationships whilst opposing incestual relationships.

Relationships are close bonds.

Which, yet again, can be said for the vast majority of relationships. A pragmatic benefit is not necessary when it comes to relationships, and in fact, it would be unwise to give the practical advantages that do arise too much weight. Arranged marriages have shown how poor those can turn out to be.

Tell me more about how we should only allow things that are good for you, especially when it involves romantic feelings. Also, thank you for playing into my hand and basically stating outright that my "homosexual HIV" analogy is valid.

Perhaps sounding corny will help me get across what should have been a given.
Genuine consensual love should have the right to exist, regardless of how the two lovebirds are related. No other "positive" is necessary. These two people (or three or four or whatever) have the right to take responsibility in any way they want it, instead of some law doing it for them. The mistake you make, and just about everyone else opposing these relationships, is assuming incestuous relationships are irresponsible by default. I am wary of siblings having kids; I never said I wasn't. More importantly though, I am against targeting well-meaning couples along with the bad apples.

Picture perfect example of circle reasoning you got there: it's bad so it's frowned upon so it's bad. Couldn't have done it better. Bravo!

Genetic aversion says hi! Countless generations of evolution has provided us with systems that help prevent inbreeding depression, thank you very much. Incest will be rare even if its social context changes for the better, but the ones that do manage to slip past this natural aversion for similar genes deserve to be acknowledged as relationships as much as any other romantic tale. Long story short: to suggest that inbreeding depression would impact Western civilization, with its easy access to a vast amount of human populations and subpopulations across the globe, in any noteworthy way by legalizing incest may very well be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on the subject.

Completely agreed, but see above. Derogating incest as a whole for this reason alone is comparable to condemning abortion because of horny teenagers.

Me neither, so thank you for re-iterating your point and sorry for being lazy.

And I in turn can't help but feel that this is a bit hypocritical. I must admit that my experience isn't that expansive either, and I myself don't even have siblings.

Found it a weak argument to be honest, though not completely invalid. There are many siblings that grow apart and hardly see each other anymore, if ever. They don't seem to be particularly bothered by it either, which makes me skeptical of the true value of "common blood".

Been there, seen it: majoring in Behavioural & Evolutionary Biology tends to teach me a thing or two about the subject. Analogy still stands; think about it.
That being said, I doubt a handful of incestuous couples diluting our gene pool is going to be the bane of human civilization.

I think I get what you mean, but I don't see how this is a reason for incestuous relationships to be forbidden at all. Again, I was explicitly referring to relationships between consensual adults. Whether these relationships are likely to last happily ever after is irrelevant. Good girls date jerks, good guys date bitches. I'm sure it happens at different rates in different layers of society, for lack of a better term. Hearts will be broken. It happens. This is not a basis for legal judgement, as "It just don't feel right" never is. The only time your point would be even semi-valid is when these kinds of relationships have no chance of working out at all. I'm sure you're wise enough not to go as far as to actually try that argument.

The prevalence of HIV is about 100 times higher in homosexual couples than it is in heterosexual couples (at least here it is). Would you disallow homosexual sex given these health risks? That's basically what you are implying.
Don't get me wrong...I don't automatically defend irresponsible sex. My stance on abortion is pro-choice all the way, but even I scowl when a teenager has a fetus pulled out of her vag because she felt really horny that one time she didn't have a condom on hand and the pill tasted icky. My point is that these higher risks are no basis to prohibit something entirely.

That's a pretty lame argument. When is a relationship, any relationship, not an interplay of manipulation and being manipulated? Being in love means you don't care much about being manipulated. I can understand why coercion is easier in an incestuous context, given the subject's taboo status, but this is not relevant. Coercion is a poor basis for a relationship and not one I'm willing to support, regardless of context.

I don't see the problem with one partner seducing the other (I've seen plenty of healthy relationships develop from it), nor do I acknowledge that the difference between seducer and "seducee" is necessarily larger in siblings. Dominance usually fades over time and by the time serious relationships may develop, it isn't much of a factor anymore. Even people who got used as a kickboxing training dummy by their sibling don't often hold grudges after puberty has passed for both of them.

Russia's a big place, guys. I'm sure it has more than one type of road.

...and see how open-minded y'all still are.

Since the gay marriage thread has not had a heated discussion since who-knows-when, I assume you're all reasonably open-minded people and that even if you oppose gay marriage, you're at least a few evolutionary steps ahead of rednecks that still think that the Westboro Baptist Church is a pretty neat idea. Good, good.




I want to marry my sister though.




There, I said it. (Of course I don't ever want to get married, and I don't even have a sister, but this is all hypothetically speaking and trying to make a point.)
Brothers and sisters, however, cannot get married even if their relationship is consensual, and even though fruitcakes and lesbos can walk up to the altar nowadays. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Am I the only one who sees more than a hint of hypocrisy in this? My country supports gay marriage (our prime minister is openly gay) but not incestuous marriage. I'm assuming the same is true in many American states.
Incest is hardly ever even discussed, let alone considered for legalisation. I know that incestuous relationships aren't as common as same-sex relationships, but I don't think that the prevalence of a relationship pairing should matter for legal grounds. I know all about genetic aversion and whatnot, but I see this as an anachronism rather than a valid reason.

Enlighten me, KHV. Why is supporting gay marriage "cool" and banging your sister taboo? What is your opinion?

"A man chooses; a slave obeys."
- Andrew Ryan (BioShock)

The best way to convince them is by having an airtight long-term plan that demonstrates your common sense and independence. This means planning (and saving) ahead on transport, employment and accomodation. You should also show them that you are familiar with all the necessary paperwork of permanently moving and living independently, including all the legal crap. Of course, you should also know the Korean language and its writing system. Last but not least, you should have an ample cash reserve just in case. Parents like that, as long as it doesn't come from their own pockets. If you can present all that, then your parents really have no good reason not to let you follow your dreams.

So, how far along are you? It would help if you showed us what concrete ideas you've already got.

Flemish. I still understand French well enough and can express myself, but I've gotten too rusty to speak or write it fluently.

It doesn't quite upset me; I just wouldn't do the same thing, for reasons you and I both stated. And yeah, I know that Belgium isn't the only one targeted. He may have forwarded the e-mail to companies stationed in Spain and Italy too for all I know.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure it's legal here, but much like in France no one really does it.

I'm the first to appreciate a good joke, but I understand the Belgian government when it said it wasn't amused. Our prime minister has just given its state of the union after several weeks of less-than-smooth negotiations. They don't need this at the moment. Ford had only recently announced to move its factory from Genk to Valencia which would eliminate roughly 10000 jobs: that's a small disaster. I'm not surprised that our politicians felt that this e-mail was a kick when they were already down and take it more personally than they perhaps should.

Also, I wouldn't take George W. seriously regardless of the subject. XD[DOUBLEPOST=1353856545][/DOUBLEPOST]

Yes, I am Belgian. Always have been.

I know that competition is unavoidable, but I do think that such forms of marketing and advertising require extra careful thought before even reverting to them. Will it reach the effect they hoped, and if not, was it really worth causing a diplomatic squabble? I wouldn't risk making the news by being a dick unless I knew it would really pay off in the end. Switzerland is stable but expensive. Any company that is looking to move its headquarters to make more profit will deduce that much when they consider Switzerland, e-mail or not. I don't think we should actually pass any laws to moralize capitalism, that would indeed be ridiculous, but I advise against kicking countries' shins when there is little to gain.

As for capitalism, I don't really see how it is better or worse than any other model. Any alternative to capitalism is basically just a shift in power, and therefore equally vulnerable to the wiles of those who control the cash. That being said, I'm no expert on economics either. That's part of the reason I even made this thread.

There are no games I regret not buying at launch. Often I will come across them again and a whole lot cheaper to boot.
The only exception to this may be old handheld games (Game Boy or Game Boy Color) whose internal batteries have died, but even then some of these games get remade on new platforms or are available via emulator. And even so, I can't really give an example of a Game Boy Color game I really need to play before I die.

I'm sure she'd love to hear it, it is very touching and feels very honest.