[QUOTE=blerb;47797771]That's a fair point. That leads me to another question, though. If both parties are considered dysfunctional in this sense in adulthood, would it be wiser to reverse that dysfunction (try to, anyway) or let them continue? I would have originally said that they should be free to continue their relationship, but considering your point (along with the myriad other reasons to not be incestuous) makes me inclined to lean the other way.[/QUOTE]
I'd try to discourage it. The problem with relationships that start unhealthily is that they rarely improve. In the case of siblings, it's common for one to abuse the other, and it's common for this to keep on poisoning the relationship for long after they've grown up.
Even in the best case scenario, a relationship like that wouldn't improve, and would likely remain dysfunctional and probably with the abuse factor in it too. In that instance I would strongly encourage the relationship ending sooner rather than later when it has the potential to worsen.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;47797786]I'd try to discourage it. The problem with relationships that start unhealthily is that they rarely improve. In the case of siblings, it's common for one to abuse the other, and it's common for this to keep on poisoning the relationship for long after they've grown up.
Even in the best case scenario, a relationship like that wouldn't improve, and would likely remain dysfunctional and probably with the abuse factor in it too. In that instance I would strongly encourage the relationship ending sooner rather than later when it has the potential to worsen.[/QUOTE]
My question would be how this would affect other family members in the household. What if the couple had adopted/had children? At that point the abuse factor could extend to them or anyone else in the home.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47797703]
this is because progressives are morally autistic in a very precise sense. they only natively work in the care/harm and maybe liberty/tyranny foundations of morality, leaving the others stunted and atrophied. conservatives are more balanced (they make up for this by being singularly uninterested in combining them into a halfway-rigorous unified framework, and thus retreat on all fronts when leftists use their well-developed care/harm principles .. conservatives are bad at arguing harm and they conceded control of the memetic battlefield long ago)
[/QUOTE]
so how, in your opinion, are tradition, authority, and "purity" to be included in a rational framework?
[QUOTE=J!NX;47797681]ok maybe it isn't my place to say idk but if you think incest babies are ok you're p. fucked in the head
not directed to anyone specific at all, idk if anyones even justifying that here but just sayin'[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, though I would also say that any couples who are aware that any children they might have would have very high risk of being born with severe birth defects shouldn't have children, and if you agree with one but not the other, you're being pretty inconsistent.
Not aimed at you specifically either, I don't know how you feel about that, but in general.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;47797693]In most cases it'd be hurting the recipient of said incest from the incest-er.
And the family dynamic involved in the formation of an incestuous couple to begin would be fucking horrific.[/QUOTE]
Can you generalise that to [I]every[/I] incestuous couple? No, you just said "in most cases".
So in others, all the harm comes from the outside, from people like you, and there's still no justification for that, right?
Try to have some [I]empathy[/I] for the people you're dismissing here.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47797703]i can fathom it, i just don't condone it.
it's you that literally can't imagine why people would be against incest. you say it's because of bigotry, going against core beliefs and the usual new atheist nine yards (leftists recycle rhetoric along with their plastics) - but if I asked you to tell me the etiology of those beliefs and how they viscerally feel on the inside you couldn't, nor do you even have the ability to fake it without it looking like a strawman.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I am entirely aware that you personally are worried about the bigger picture. Your remarks about Jonathan Haidt's six moral foundations didn't pass by me.
Not caring about those other three that liberals supposedly don't think about doesn't mean I don't realise you do.
[QUOTE]those weren't positive changes.
sorry, appealing to the current date ("IT'S 2015, BIGOT!") isn't a valid way to argue.[/QUOTE]
I am not trying to convince people with conservative/neoreactionary/etc. beliefs here, that's another battle for another time. I am arguing that you shouldn't let any position of yours be untouchable, as if any one of your positions is incompatible with one an earlier society held as untouchable, you should realise that it's not a good foundation to dismiss a position upon. Of course this fails if you believe that literally every social change ever has been a bad thing, but this wouldn't be anywhere near the right place to start arguing against that.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;47797708]I seriously cant understand why you feel the need to defend something that is objectively wrong in nearly every way, other than that you want to feel like you're fighting the good fight for a section of the populace who probably deserve to be in prison for molesting their family members.[/QUOTE]
Moral objectivity? Really?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;47797843]so how, in your opinion, are tradition, authority, and "purity" to be included in a rational framework?[/QUOTE]
the meta level framework is tradition, the others flow naturally from that, including care/harm, fairness and liberty/tyranny .. the dialectic of chestertonian conservatism and natural european ideological inventiveness gives a system that evolves towards local optima (and is potentially capable of making step changes to avoid the giraffe nerve trap) in a risk-averse manner
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47797857]Oh, I am entirely aware that you personally are worried about the bigger picture. Your remarks about Jonathan Haidt's six moral foundations didn't pass by me.
Not caring about those other three that liberals supposedly don't think about doesn't mean I don't realise you do.
I am not trying to convince people with conservative/neoreactionary/etc. beliefs here, that's another battle for another time. I am arguing that you shouldn't let any position of yours be untouchable, as if any one of your positions is incompatible with one an earlier society held as untouchable, you should realise that it's not a good foundation to dismiss a position upon. Of course this fails if you believe that literally every social change ever has been a bad thing, but this wouldn't be anywhere near the right place to start arguing against that.[/QUOTE]
not nrx, but sorry for assuming you didn't understand my viewpoint
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47797152]What about incestuous couples that never have children (or not "their own", at least)? What have they ever done to anybody?
Do you [I]honestly[/I] think just because people who happen to be closely related to each other happen to love each other, some switch in their mind flicks and suddenly they don't care whether any children they would have would be born with disabilities?
Besides, what about people who have hereditary diseases? In many (though not all) of those cases, their children would 100% have the same disease. But I don't see you telling them they mustn't have sex, or a relationship. Hell, I don't see most people who are against incest telling them not to have children. If similar laws to those prohibiting incest were made, there would be an outcry.
I'm guessing the real reason is "eww a [del]gay[/del] incest couple". And society perpetuating it is ruining the lives of people like in OP, with absolutely no justification. Like homophobia might have just a short while ago.[/QUOTE]
in normal people there is actually a switch in your brain that says "no you should NOT want to bury your face in your sisters boobs"
hth
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
every animal starts as a girl, then is turned into a boy through demethylation of genes. Being gay is this happening to a female in the area responsible for sexual attraction when it shouldn't, or not happening for a boy.
completely different process to not having the part of your brain that says "dont fuck your siblings" which is partly controlled by contact with them as you/they grow up
[QUOTE=AaronM202;47797646]Taxi, are you by chance attracted to other members of your family.[/QUOTE]
You may as well accuse him of being attracted to other men if he were to be defending homosexuality. Honestly, I feel that you're being kind of a hypocrite for replying like that if you are indeed an advocate for homosexuality.
I want incest to remain a taboo because incest porn is hotter that way.
[QUOTE=Skerion;47797907]You may as well accuse him of being attracted to other men if he were to be defending homosexuality. Honestly, I feel that you're being kind of a hypocrite for replying like that.[/QUOTE]
On one hand, you might have a point.
On the other hand, i cant imagine many people who would justify and defend wanting to fuck family members unless they wanted to fuck family members.
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
Like, again, theres a pretty big difference between a man bum-fucking another, unrelated man and a boy being bum-fucked by his uncle.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;47797802]My question would be how this would affect other family members in the household. What if the couple had adopted/had children? At that point the abuse factor could extend to them or anyone else in the home.[/QUOTE]
It would further perpetuate the abuse, most likely.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;47797921]On one hand, you might have a point.
On the other hand, i cant imagine many people who would justify and defend wanting to fuck family members unless they wanted to fuck family members.[/QUOTE]
Well, I wouldn't really cross out the possibility that some of the people defending incest have no desires to have sex with their relatives, as rare as it may seem.
Because it could very well be possible that the people who defended homosexuality back then were regularly accused of being gay. I'd prefer we don't make the same mistakes as those accusors.
[QUOTE=Teehee;47797885]in normal people there is actually a switch in your brain that says "no you should NOT want to bury your face in your sisters boobs"
hth
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
every animal starts as a girl, then is turned into a boy through demethylation of genes. Being gay is this happening to a female in the area responsible for sexual attraction when it shouldn't, or not happening for a boy.
completely different process to not having the part of your brain that says "dont fuck your siblings" which is partly controlled by contact with them as you/they grow up[/QUOTE]
Abnormal doesn't equal bad. You could go on about growth rates when talking about how the tallest 1% of people are abnormal, but that doesn't mean they're disabled.
And even if you consider having incestuous feelings a bad thing, that doesn't make it immoral, something to judge people about - you'd probably agree that being unable to walk is both abnormal and something negative, but you probably wouldn't say the answer to that is to cast out people who require a wheelchair.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47797947]Abnormal doesn't equal bad. You could go on about growth rates when talking about how the tallest 1% of people are abnormal, but that doesn't mean they're disabled.[/QUOTE]
Bad analogy considering people who get tall enough often end up crippled or with life threatening conditions due to their size.
Just sayin. :v:
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47797947]And even if you consider having incestuous feelings a bad thing, that doesn't make it immoral, something to judge people about - you'd probably agree that being unable to walk is both abnormal and something negative, but you probably wouldn't say the answer to that is to cast out people who require a wheelchair.[/QUOTE]
Well you dont let them actually fuck their relatives, thats not a solution.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;47797921]On one hand, you might have a point.
On the other hand, i cant imagine many people who would justify and defend wanting to fuck family members unless they wanted to fuck family members.
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
Like, again, theres a pretty big difference between a man bum-fucking another, unrelated man and a boy being bum-fucked by his uncle.[/QUOTE]
Did you watch the video in the OP? Even if you don't think they should continue their relationship, do you not feel [I]sorry[/I] for those guys?
It is the combination of that and the fact that there is no harm in their relationship that makes me feel there's an injustice. And injustices should be corrected, yeah?
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47796255]so when can we finally agree that the stigma around incest is pointless[/QUOTE]
Yeah dude I totally want to fuck me sister but she keeps saying it's illegal or something which is totally gay I'm just sayin'
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47797980]Did you watch the video in the OP? Even if you don't think they should continue their relationship, do you not feel [I]sorry[/I] for those guys?
It is the combination of that and the fact that there is no harm in their relationship that makes me feel there's an injustice. And injustices should be corrected, yeah?[/QUOTE]
Yes i feel bad for them but I dont think with that they should knowingly continue the relationship.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;47797968]Bad analogy considering people who get tall enough often end up crippled or with life threatening conditions due to their size.
Just sayin. :v:[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but you see the point in the example.
[QUOTE]Well you dont let them actually fuck their relatives, thats not a solution.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Yes i feel bad for them but I dont think with that they should knowingly continue the relationship.[/QUOTE]
This is the point of contention.
Seriously, [I]why not[/I]? Please give a reason for why this specific non-dysfunctional incestuous couple shouldn't be allowed to exist.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47798000]Fair enough, but you see the point in the example.
This is the point of contention.
Seriously, [I]why not[/I]? Please give a reason for why this specific non-dysfunctional incestuous couple shouldn't be allowed to exist.[/QUOTE]
Now that they know they're bothers, its probably left some sort of permanent psychological scar that any further intimate relationship between the two would only make worse.
idk, I don't like incest as a sexual concept, it doesn't attract me
BUT
sexual relationships between [I]two consenting adults[/I] that do not produce offspring (and even if they do, the risk of defect is actually a lot lower than is publicly assumed) is completely harmless and y'all (esp you Sobotnik) are really pressing the "gay people are all pedophiles look the the slippery slope next we'll be fucking kids and marrying animals" button pretty hard.
If two people want to fuck, who are we to say no? As long as it's a) consensual and b) no babies are made -which is easy enough- then why keep it criminalized? I mean we aren't passing any standards that aren't already set for literally every other type of sex out there, we aren't changing the bar, there's really no ethical dilemma.
I don't think I really have any say on this, but sex is sex. If all parties are consenting adults, understand what they're getting into, and nothing bad comes out (STDs, babies, etc) then I don't see the problem.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47797522]nambla tried it in the 60s when gay lib started to get off the ground .. the public weren't ready for that level of degeneracy yet so they were wisely jettisoned
there's editorials and think-pieces every few months in major newspapers where some psychologist will do the "they're really just mentally ill individuals who would fap to loli and not hurt anyone if the stigma wasn't there, pls feel sorry for them" elevator pitch, im guessing partly to gauge public opinion .. the comments-section outrage gets less and less intense each year so the kulturkampf is working
the intersectional ideological apparatus is there already. it's the kind of thing that grows in potency with every victory, since they can use each new one as a precedent .. more ammunition to equivocate and pivot with. they can probably argue something like the concept of informed-consent being ageist. some kind of edge-case with an unusually-mature 15 year old in a relationship with a guy who's only /just/ old enough for it to be a little creepy - something like that will get their foot in the door.
the technique is always to find an edge case where there isn't any direct harm being done, then, make a generalized argument that assumes that the fortunate conditions in that case always hold, then, unleash it on every case, no matter how degenerate.
basically what we're seeing is a memetic virus that has figured out how to turn a once-healthy societal immune response against itself[/QUOTE]
Isn't 'mentally ill' basically what they are, though? If a pedophile hasn't acted out, know that their urges are wrong, and are getting help for it, that sounds okay to me. I don't at all believe this pedo conspiracy thing you've woven up.
[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;47798139]Isn't 'mentally ill' basically what they are, though? If a pedophile hasn't acted out, know that their urges are wrong, and are getting help for it, that sounds okay to me. I don't at all believe this pedo conspiracy thing you've woven up.[/QUOTE]
sexual deviancy goes thru 3 stages. first it's shunned as completely abnormal and perverted behavior, proscribed by law and subject to ostracism. then some intellectual with more brains than sense says it's a mental illness and it's not their fault. medicalization is a classic way to dissociate a person's moral worth from their actions, by removing their agency (this can be played both ways, cf ussr). once that's the new normal, the narrative switches again, this time that the "mental illness" label is stigmatizing and that it doesn't deserve to be called that, since it doesn't do any harm. then we're supposed to tolerate it.
we're at stage 3+ for homosexuality, stage 2 for transsexualism, stage 1 for pedo
also i use "they" just as a term of convenience, i don't think there's a shadowy cabal or anything
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Homophobic shit posting - be gone" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
Typical how the belligerents in this thread don't use any arguments but "my morality :(" while declaring themselves the sexual police.
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798178]sexual deviancy goes thru 3 stages. first it's shunned as completely abnormal and perverted behavior, proscribed by law and subject to ostracism. then some intellectual with more brains than sense says it's a mental illness and it's not their fault. medicalization is a classic way to dissociate a person's moral worth from their actions, by removing their agency (this can be played both ways, cf ussr). once that's the new normal, the narrative switches again, this time that the "mental illness" label is stigmatizing and that it doesn't deserve to be called that, since it doesn't do any harm. then we're supposed to tolerate it.
we're at stage 3+ for homosexuality, stage 2 for transsexualism, stage 1 for pedo
also i use "they" just as a term of convenience, i don't think there's a shadowy cabal or anything[/QUOTE]
and actively waive off any intellectual arguments without raising counter arguments
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798178]sexual deviancy goes thru 3 stages. first it's shunned as completely abnormal and perverted behavior, proscribed by law and subject to ostracism. then some intellectual with more brains than sense says it's a mental illness and it's not their fault. medicalization is a classic way to dissociate a person's moral worth from their actions, by removing their agency (this can be played both ways, cf ussr). once that's the new normal, the narrative switches again, this time that the "mental illness" label is stigmatizing and that it doesn't deserve to be called that, since it doesn't do any harm. then we're supposed to tolerate it.
we're at stage 3+ for homosexuality, stage 2 for transsexualism, stage 1 for pedo
also i use "they" just as a term of convenience, i don't think there's a shadowy cabal or anything[/QUOTE]
so there's no shadowy cabal behind this or anything, but we are "supposed to tolerate it" and it is a defined plan with distinct stages which thousands of doctors all collectively move between to manipulate public consciousness and destroy their sense of "morality"
/pol/ pls
like I didn't think anyone could top "there's nothing wrong with incest babies" but hot damn son you're off the charts
i'll be sure to read your furry sex advice column
By the way Dain is literally a reactionary who wants to return to some 19th century aristocratic-despotic regime. Take what he says with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798196]so there's no shadowy cabal behind this or anything, but we are "supposed to tolerate it" and it is a defined plan with distinct stages which thousands of doctors all collectively move between to manipulate public consciousness and destroy their sense of "morality"
/pol/ pls
like I didn't think anyone could top "there's nothing wrong with incest babies" but hot damn son you're off the charts[/QUOTE]
those aren't actual real-life stages, it's just where i drew the dividing lines to make sense of the salient features
there's no shadowy cabal; the incentive structures just end up lining up this way
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47798209']By the way Dain is literally a reactionary who wants to return to some 19th century aristocratic-despotic regime and Sobotnik is his literal butt-buddy. Take what they say with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]
you know for such a progressive you're awfully reluctant to let go of ancient history [i.e. take it to pms]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47798209']By the way Dain is literally a reactionary who wants to return to some 19th century aristocratic-despotic regime and Sobotnik is his literal butt-buddy. Take what they say with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]
am I being sam hyde'd here
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798211]those aren't actual real-life stages, it's just where i drew the dividing lines to make sense of the salient features
there's no shadowy cabal; the incentive structures just end up lining up this way[/QUOTE]
what incentive could there possibly be for legalizing pedophilia?
like I get that to you logic doesn't apply and all things you dislike are equally immoral, but most of us logic-prone people think raping children is pretty messed yo
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798218]what incentive could there possibly be for legalizing pedophilia?
like I get that to you logic doesn't apply and all things you dislike are equally immoral, but most of us logic-prone people think raping children is pretty messed yo[/QUOTE]
are you familiar with the idea of "privatized profit, socialized cost"? the intellectuals pushing this aren't in a position to be harmed directly by it (or at least they don't think so). the vulnerable kids are mostly those of non-swpl whites. they get to status signal and get their karma points for fighting for a disenfranchised minority, and reap the political benefits once they win. they also do direct damage to their ideological enemies thru humiliation, and indirect damage by having more weapons against them (don't like man-boy love? say goodbye to your job, BIGOT).
it's literally the most basic human motivation there is, but gentrified and housebroken from its steppe horde mould
[i]Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.[/i]
i mean, you could have asked a couple decades ago "what possible incentive could there be for normalizing homosexuality?"
there's other factors but i cba to write them out, you can probably fill in the blanks. funny you should mention sam hyde ..
Honestly if I found out, I wouldn't really care to be honest. Especially if I were gay? The only reason incest is wrong is because of the possible exploitation of such a relationship and the reproductive issues that come along with it. Obviously these guys didn't know each other as kids, so that takes out the moral argument and they definitely can't reproduce.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
