Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
412 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Riutet;49888121]So basically you're logically inconsistent but justify it as pragmatism, in addition to only caring about individual liberty when it affects perceived discriminated against groups.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do generally prefer the pragmatic approach. You have to weigh pros and cons of things.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888102]I think it's a perfectly good argument, if you start targeting based specifically on genetic problems then you end up with the issue of deciding what exactly constitutes as a genetic problem that merits a ban. Incest bans get around this since it doesn't target any specific problem and universally bans the act of fucking relatives, thus getting around that issue while still helping to limit the problem of genetic defects.[/QUOTE]
Devil's advocate: what's incest? Is fucking your first cousin incest? How about your second cousin? Your third cousin? If you're going to talk about a slippery slope, at what point is somebody considered unrelated enough to you that you're allowed to fuck them, and who decides that?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888102]I think it's a perfectly good argument, if you start targeting based specifically on genetic problems then you end up with the issue of deciding what exactly constitutes as a genetic problem that merits a ban. Incest bans get around this since it doesn't target any specific problem and universally bans the act of fucking relatives, thus getting around that issue while still helping to limit the problem of genetic defects.[/QUOTE]
so the ban on incest is better because it's arbitrary?
Isn't the precedent that it's okay to ban things solely because we just don't like them much more dangerous than a precedent built on a solid logical foundation? I mean you could justify any law no matter how abhorrent with "well it feels right to me".
Or is the idea that you ban incest because of the health risks, but just never bring it up so that the logic won't be used to justify laws you don't like?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888130]Yes, I do generally prefer the pragmatic approach. You have to weigh pros and cons of things.[/QUOTE]
The pragmatic approach would be to allow incestuous sex but ban incestuous birth.
What's your opinion on gay or lesbian incest? There can't be any kids involved so surely if that is your only qualm it should be fine right?
[QUOTE=sltungle;49888134]Devil's advocate: what's incest? Is fucking your first cousin incest? How about your second cousin? Your third cousin? If you're going to talk about a slippery slope, at what point is somebody considered unrelated enough to you that you're allowed to fuck them, and who decides that?[/QUOTE]
Well it's already been decided as aunts and anyone closer than that. There is a level of debate on whether cousin incest poses a real threat overall since it has a very low genetic defect rate (like 4% compared to the general populations 2%) but at the same time there's the problem of multigenerational cousin relationships which do cause problems.
[editline]7th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Riutet;49888142]The pragmatic approach would be to allow incestuous sex but ban incestuous birth.[/QUOTE]
You can't really stop incestuous birth without stopping incestuous sex.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888155]You can't really stop incestuous birth without stopping incestuous sex.[/QUOTE]
So I take it you're pro-life.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888148]What's your opinion on gay or lesbian incest? There can't be any kids involved so surely if that is your only qualm it should be fine right?[/QUOTE]
Honestly don't really care about gay incest, doesn't bother me really. Except for parents since there's obvious abuse issues that can arise from that.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888088]I find the idea that someone should be forced to suffer for decades instead of being able to choose to end it more disturbing.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. What I find more disturbing is the fact that people are increasingly unable to accept death and suffering, so they try to speed it up and get it out of the way.
When you have doctors and the like helping people to commit suicide, there's really nothing that separates that act from murder. When it becomes increasingly commonplace it will be used only to get rid of the "undesirables" that society does not want. If somebody feels awful and unaccepted, they will consider suicide a better alternative to "a life of suffering" and thus will seek euthanasia.
I mean I struggled with suicidal thoughts for half a decade and during that time I kept wondering why euthanasia wasn't legal due to the fact that people should be able to consent to it. But I now no longer think it's the acceptable answer, that to help aid somebodies suffering and misery you should help them to end their life entirely.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888148]What's your opinion on gay or lesbian incest? There can't be any kids involved so surely if that is your only qualm it should be fine right?[/QUOTE]
Should be fine IMO, and as stated earlier, is technically already legal here in Sweden.
[QUOTE=Riutet;49888164]So I take it you're pro-life.[/QUOTE]
It's not really a matter of pro lifeness, it's just more pragmatic to stop it at the source than demand every incestous couple that gets knocked up to get an abortion.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888155]You can't really stop incestuous birth without stopping incestuous sex.[/QUOTE]
it is possible to sterilize people, you know
-snipped, answered-
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888181]it is possible to sterilize people, you know
and there's also the case of infertile and gay people[/QUOTE]
Again very difficult to sterilise people without serious rights infringement.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888192]Again very difficult to sterilise people without serious rights infringement.[/QUOTE]
what if the deal was that if you want to engage in incest legally, you could voluntarily have yourself sterilized
would that be ethically acceptable
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888204]what if the deal was that if you want to engage in incest legally, you could voluntarily have yourself sterilized
would that be ethically acceptable[/QUOTE]
I guess, but then sterilisation isn't always 100% and of course there's the problem of proving such things, it can make the laws a bit of a mess.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888192]Again very difficult to sterilise people without serious rights infringement.[/QUOTE]
So rather than violate the rights of someone by sterilising them, you'd rather just violate their rights by putting them in jail, but only if they're healthy and able bodied. Cool.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888204]what if the deal was that if you want to engage in incest legally, you could voluntarily have yourself sterilized
would that be ethically acceptable[/QUOTE]
That actually seems reasonable. If you can prove that you can't produce offspring, then what's the problem?
there's an awful lot of hair-splitting over a law that quite frankly doesn't need to be changed to permit more incest
[QUOTE=Riutet;49888216]So rather than violate the rights of someone by sterilising them, you'd rather just violate their rights by putting them in jail, but only if they're healthy and able bodied. Cool.[/QUOTE]
A lot less is being violated by saying "don't fuck your sister" than forcibly sterilising all people under the nebulous definition of "people with genetic defects" which without a clear definition of what counts as a genetic defect can become a massive mess. It's just a much better, cleaner way of preventing it and I think most people can realistically avoid banging their relatives.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888231]there's an awful lot of hair-splitting over a law that quite frankly doesn't need to be changed to permit more incest[/QUOTE]
there are two parts of all this
there's the practical part, where yeah, it might not be a good idea to legalize something like incest. Like, how many healthy, happy, non abusive incestuous couples could there possibly be out there to oppress in the first place?
and there's the philosophical part, where you ask why incest is a bad thing. And that's where I think hair splitting is entirely reasonable, and I think where a majority of the conversation is.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888252]A lot less is being violated by saying "don't fuck your sister" than forcibly sterilising all people under the nebulous definition of "people with genetic defects" which without a clear definition of what counts as a genetic defect can become a massive mess. It's just a much better, cleaner way of preventing it and I think most people can realistically avoid banging their relatives.[/QUOTE]
The question he asked, was that that if you got sterilised, could you have incestuous sex then. To which you responded that it's a serious rights infringement. To sterilise yourself so you can engage in incest.
I responded, that rather than allow people to do that, you'd rather just punish them with jail if they fuck their sister.
A mistake in reading has happened somewhere, and it's not on my end. Maybe there was something else he said that he cut out before I saw it.
Your support of a blanket ban of the act is entirely arbitrary and ignorant of any other costs other than those that are immediately obvious to you. Even when presented with totally unnecessary (but working) concessions to assuage your worries you still are unmoved, so I don't know what to say.
[QUOTE=Ziron;49887602]Just because something is "logical" (whatver the fuck that means) doesn't mean that it's automatically good. Executing mentally disabled people would be logical from a financial standpoint because of how much money they suck up from private citizens and the government while giving little to nothing back. Blow away every Downs, developmentally delayed, and other conditions kid and you've suddenly found yourself with a nice surplus of money that can be used to help productive members of society. Perfectly logical.
Thankfully, we we have this little thing called "morals" that prevents us from doing so because the idea of taking human life, especially so we can save some bucks, is abhorrant to us.[/QUOTE]
um no, there are plenty of logical arguments to NOT execute mentally disabled people, i'm simply saying if you can't support a law on a firm logical argument that isn't colored by morals or religion, then it isn't a solid law
we don't outlaw murder because the bible said so, we outlaw murder because someone has no right to take the life of another in a civil society
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888263]there are two parts of all this
there's the practical part, where yeah, it might not be a good idea to legalize something like incest. Like, how many healthy, happy, non abusive incestuous couples could there possibly be out there to oppress in the first place?
and there's the philosophical part, where you ask why incest is a bad thing. And that's where I think hair splitting is entirely reasonable, and I think where a majority of the conversation is.[/QUOTE]
the main problem with it is that the philosophical discussion seems to be considering only "care/harm" in isolation. like about 90% of people these days come up with the following argument:
"There is no harm at all resulting from an incestuous union, for if both adults consent to it then who are we to object?" It's been used a number of other times in the past, but it practically considers the question in near-isolation. The question of genetics or relationships are considered small quibbles that do not impact the basic question, whereas longterm impacts are not even considered at all (or even recognized).
The "care/harm" view of morality is a pretty weak one in itself that doesn't do well because its pretty shiftless and seems to change depending upon legal whims. I don't think that the law should strictly dictate morality.
Although a lot of people don't like to think about it, pretty much any behaviour involving sex can be justified as long as you get consent involved and there is no apparent harm resulting from it (if we wish to go down that route).
[QUOTE=Sableye;49888295]um no, there are plenty of logical arguments to NOT execute mentally disabled people, i'm simply saying if you can't support a law on a firm logical argument that isn't colored by morals or religion, then it isn't a solid law[/QUOTE]
what do you think the law is based on? like, remove morals and religion entirely
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888155]You can't really stop incestuous birth without stopping incestuous sex.[/QUOTE]
Stopping incestuous sex is not feasable though so there's no point in banning it. If rates of incestuous birth don't increase because of incestuous sex being legalized (wouldn't have any effect whatsoever, as has already been clarified earlier), then the ban is useless and should be removed, because that's how democracy should work.
[editline]8th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888231]there's an awful lot of hair-splitting over a law that quite frankly doesn't need to be changed to permit more incest[/QUOTE]
"more incest" wouldn't happen, as has been discussed already
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888372]Stopping incestuous sex is not feasable though so there's no point in banning it. If rates of incestuous birth don't increase because of incestuous sex being legalized (wouldn't have any effect whatsoever, as has already been clarified earlier), then the ban is useless and should be removed, because that's how democracy should work.
[editline]8th March 2016[/editline]
"more incest" wouldn't happen, as has been discussed already[/QUOTE]
Stopping all murder isn't feasible either but we don't just make it legal.
[editline]8th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Riutet;49888292]The question he asked, was that that if you got sterilised, could you have incestuous sex then. To which you responded that it's a serious rights infringement. To sterilise yourself so you can engage in incest.
I responded, that rather than allow people to do that, you'd rather just punish them with jail if they fuck their sister.
A mistake in reading has happened somewhere, and it's not on my end. Maybe there was something else he said that he cut out before I saw it.
Your support of a blanket ban of the act is entirely arbitrary and ignorant of any other costs other than those that are immediately obvious to you. Even when presented with totally unnecessary (but working) concessions to assuage your worries you still are unmoved, so I don't know what to say.[/QUOTE]
sterilising yourself technically might be alright, but as sobotnik pointed out thats really just technical hair splitting, it's easier to just have a blanket ban and be done with it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888383]Stopping all murder isn't feasible either but we don't just make it legal.
.[/QUOTE]
Again with the rubbish comparisons. First rape, now murder. Totally comparable to two people having consensual sex. Not to mention missing the point, making murder legal [I]would[/I] make murder rates shoot up. Maybe you should have read the thread instead of sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "LALALA".
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888428]Again with the rubbish comparisons. First rape, now murder. Totally comparable to two people having consensual sex. Not to mention missing the point, making murder legal [I]would[/I] make murder rates shoot up. Maybe you should have read the thread instead of sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "LALALA".[/QUOTE]
If legalizing murder makes murder rates go up, why wouldn't legalizing incest cause incest rates to go up?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888463]If legalizing murder makes murder rates go up, why wouldn't legalizing incest cause incest rates to go up?[/QUOTE]
I must now redirect you back to page 3, including but not limited to my post, post #82.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888383]Stopping all murder isn't feasible either but we don't just make it legal.
[editline]8th March 2016[/editline]
sterilising yourself technically might be alright, but as sobotnik pointed out thats really just technical hair splitting, it's easier to just have a blanket ban and be done with it.[/QUOTE]
Since when was the easy option a good idea when it comes to something as important as law? Blanket bans are pretty much always a terrible idea.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888478]Since when was the easy option a good idea when it comes to something as important as law? Blanket bans are pretty much always a terrible idea.[/QUOTE]
"Blanket bans are alright so long as they fit nicely into my moral standards. It's icky so who cares."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.