• Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
    412 replies, posted
[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] Ease is a poor argument. Murder trials would go along much more smoothly if we used an easier standard of evidence to prosecute. But the purpose of a murder trial is to determine guilt and dole out punishment if guilt exists, not to run smoothly. The operation of the courts is balanced with individual rights, and precedent is set at preservation of individual rights being more important than the courts running smoothly. It's easy to blanket ban incest, but it isn't right. If the harm that might occur from incest is mitigated, there is no reason to punish it. It's already such a niche act that legalising it would merely be an act of setting the record straight because the people who do it already do it and there is no stopping them. I'd say, rather than continuing to argue, let's wait a long while and see how Rhode Island turns out considering it has made it legal, then we will have the answer as to whether a ban is justified or not.
[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] We use blanket bans for all sorts of things. It's one of the reasons why we don't allow consensual murder because it becomes a fucking mess for the police when they're trying to deal with murder cases, hence why its better to leave it as banned blanketly and makes the life easier for just about everyone. [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] [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] I'm not comparing the crime, I'm saying something being difficult to stop doesn't mean it should be legal.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888473]I must now redirect you back to page 3, including but not limited to my post, post #82.[/QUOTE] [quote]Very bad comparison, utterly missing the point. You're right when you say people are scared of the legal ramifications, they're scared of the cops getting to them, but behind closed doors between two people that have consented, that chance is 0, and thinking anybody will not do it because of "respect to the law" is delusional.[/quote] well, one and a half thousand years of hard work just went down the toilet in that case
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888463]If legalizing murder makes murder rates go up, why wouldn't legalizing incest cause incest rates to go up?[/QUOTE] In fact, not only on page 3, but onwards, people have been adressing exactly this and pointing out the Westermarck effect etc., and as soon as I noticed you were conveniently ignoring/not replying to those posts adressing your fallacies, I knew that you were doing it so that you could later turn the argument back in a circle like you are doing now and making other people go in circles with you. You always do this in every argument.
Consensual 'crimes' are an absurdity in free society, despite issues in morality. It's implicit with many law codes, especially negative-right ones, that the purpose of laws is to prohibit people from doing harm to others. The slippery-slope argument is odd too, because then people will be like 'what about pedophiles' and others will say 'wait but you forgot the consenting adult part'. Also, Sobotnik, that doesn't mean that the law codes of entire countries have to go down the drain. Acts that are directly harmful to the happiness of others are illegal (and should be). The problem is figuring out what is an acceptable degree of harm to others (decadence/decline is a part of this too).
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888512]We use blanket bans for all sorts of things. It's one of the reasons why we don't allow consensual murder because it becomes a fucking mess for the police when they're trying to deal with murder cases, hence why its better to leave it as banned blanketly and makes the life easier for just about everyone. [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] I'm not comparing the crime, I'm saying something being difficult to stop doesn't mean it should be legal.[/QUOTE] You can't have a blanket ban on murder, by definition a murder is an unlawful killing. You could have a blanket ban on killing but we don't because that would be terrible, it would seriously gimp our military and police and send a lot of people to prison after a self-defense situation.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888539]In fact, not only on page 3, but onwards, people have been adressing exactly this and pointing out the Westermarck effect etc., and as soon as I noticed you were conveniently ignoring/not replying to those posts adressing your fallacies, I knew that you were doing it so that you could later turn the argument back in a circle like you are doing now and making other people go in circles with you. You always do this in every argument.[/QUOTE] but your argument literally does not apply in reality laws (to a degree) have a deterring effect. it's extremely obvious that in a country with well-enforced laws (like sweden ostensibly has) if you stopped enforcing them then people will break the laws more i don't see why you can argue that murder rates would go up but incest rates wouldn't
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888585]You can't have a blanket ban on murder, by definition a murder is an unlawful killing. You could have a blanket ban on killing but we don't because that would be terrible, it would seriously gimp our military and police and send a lot of people to prison after a self-defense situation.[/QUOTE] Yeah and we don't have a blanket ban on sex either, we just ban specific things.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888587]but your argument literally does not apply in reality laws (to a degree) have a deterring effect. it's extremely obvious that in a country with well-enforced laws (like sweden ostensibly has) if you stopped enforcing them then people will break the laws more i don't see why you can argue that murder rates would go up but incest rates wouldn't[/QUOTE] Sweden doesn't go around peeking into people's rooms to make sure that a brother and a sister aren't having sex. People would murder more beacuse getting away with murder is fucking hard but they wouldn't need to, they could just go ahead and do it. With incest, inside a room in the privacy of a home, what's there even to worry about? [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] See, you'be baited me. You're playing the Sobotnik game, this is exactly what I've already said before.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888598]Yeah and we don't have a blanket ban on sex either, we just ban specific things.[/QUOTE] Then it can get more specific. The law should be as thorough as possible to prevent injustice.
It's a little ironic that so called 'progressives' are actually leading society to ideas and customs of the barbaric past.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888648]Then it can get more specific. The law should be as thorough as possible to prevent injustice.[/QUOTE] You have to be realistic about things like this, policing things like this are hard enough as it is without adding a load more bollocks. It's not like incest is some important right, it's safer for just about everyone is people just stay away from it entirely and then nobody gets fucked up.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888614]Sweden doesn't go around peeking into people's rooms to make sure that a brother and a sister aren't having sex. People would murder more beacuse getting away with murder is fucking hard but they wouldn't need to, they could just go ahead and do it. With incest, inside a room in the privacy of a home, what's there even to worry about? [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] See, you'be baited me. You're playing the Sobotnik game, this is exactly what I've already said before.[/QUOTE] you're ignoring the fact that people are observant. if a brother is sexually abusing his sister its common for them to phone up some kind of support line or tell a person they trust. if they have children, people start asking questions as well. i mean, legalizing incest pretty much normalizes this behaviour and blurs the lines, especially in countries where the age of consent is like 14
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888672]You have to be realistic about things like this, policing things like this are hard enough as it is without adding a load more bollocks. It's not like incest is some important right, it's safer for just about everyone is people just stay away from it entirely and then nobody gets fucked up.[/QUOTE] It sounds like you're trying really hard to rationalize this.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49888659]It's a little ironic that so called 'progressives' are actually leading society to ideas and customs of the barbaric past.[/QUOTE] i'm deep into clownworld territory, well beyond supply lines
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888678]you're ignoring the fact that people are observant. if a brother is sexually abusing his sister its common for them to phone up some kind of support line or tell a person they trust. if they have children, people start asking questions as well. i mean, legalizing incest pretty much normalizes this behaviour and blurs the lines, especially in countries where the age of consent is like 14[/QUOTE] Why are you bringing up abuse.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888686]Why are you bringing up abuse.[/QUOTE] because generally incest involves a family member abusing the other. most incest is in the form of father-daughter relationships and it involves a very unhealthy and abusive power dynamic the point is that by legalizing incest you implicitly say to people that this is acceptable (or at least won't be as stringently enforced)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888587]but your argument literally does not apply in reality laws (to a degree) have a deterring effect. it's extremely obvious that in a country with well-enforced laws (like sweden ostensibly has) if you stopped enforcing them then people will break the laws more i don't see why you can argue that murder rates would go up but incest rates wouldn't[/QUOTE] An interesting thing about the behaviour of people, is that laws are not required to shape their behaviour, as there exist multiple explicit and implicit systems that also shape the behaviour of people. For example, manners. There is no legal requirement to be polite, but when you are rude you face social stigma, so without there being a law requiring it, many people nowadays are very polite. Of course there are many rude people as well. Social standards, stigma and taboo, and the opposite end, social rewards for virtuous behaviour are alternative influences that shape people's behaviour and in the absence of law would continue to shape people's behaviour. I wonder how many people actually know that incest is illegal, I'd wager that more people know it's taboo than know it's illegal, and that what discourages people from engaging in it is taboo (or more likely lack of desire to do so) more than it is the legal repercussions. With that spoken about I will address your statement, would incest increase if it were made legal, if murder would increase if it were made legal. Probably to a very small degree? I think the primary reasons people do not engage in incest are two factors, the Westermarck effect being the element that removes any desire someone might have for their siblings and parents, and social taboo which makes people think it's wrong. I don't really feel like the law has much influence on whether people engage in it, I don't think it even has any real influence on whether people would be open about it if they were doing it. If the law were repealed nothing would probably change, everyone who already doesn't want to do it would not do it and everyone who does is probably already doing it and would just carry on, only a total nerd would be like, "Well gee whiz I guess I can go pork my sister now, oooh eeee."
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888703]because generally incest involves a family member abusing the other. most incest is in the form of father-daughter relationships and it involves a very unhealthy and abusive power dynamic[/QUOTE] No one wants that to be legal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888703]because generally incest involves a family member abusing the other. most incest is in the form of father-daughter relationships and it involves a very unhealthy and abusive power dynamic[/QUOTE] You're moving the goalposts; we are talking about, and have always been talking about since the beginning of the thread, a consensual relationship between adults.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888711]No one wants that to be legal.[/QUOTE] Then don't legalize incest, it's as simple as that. [QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888719]You're moving the goalposts; we are talking about, and have always been talking about since the beginning of the thrad, a consensual relationship between adults.[/QUOTE] There rarely is such a thing as consent in incest. To divorce one from the other is dishonesty.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888721]Then don't legalize incest, it's as simple as that.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888721]There rarely is such a thing as consent in incest. To divorce one from the other is dishonesty.[/QUOTE] Well done, you've crafted a master shitpost with a 9 page build-up.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888730]Well done, you've crafted a master shitpost with a 9 page build-up.[/QUOTE] Except "consensual" incest doesn't exist. It's a euphemism for rape. Like we can go all down into the nitty gritty of it, but virtually all incest involves abusive relationships with extremely unequal power dynamics in which one family member exploits the other for varied reasons ranging from blackmail to sexual pleasure.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888758]Except "consensual" incest doesn't exist. It's a euphemism for rape. Like we can go all down into the nitty gritty of it, but virtually all incest involves abusive relationships with extremely unequal power dynamics in which one family member exploits the other for varied reasons ranging from blackmail to sexual pleasure.[/QUOTE] I can't believe that I'm reading a serious post. You literally pulled all of this nonsense out of your ass and are trying to present it as objective statistical fact. "Consensual incest doesn't exist, it's rape". Congratulations.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888758]Except "consensual" incest doesn't exist. It's a euphemism for rape. Like we can go all down into the nitty gritty of it, but virtually all incest involves abusive relationships with extremely unequal power dynamics in which one family member exploits the other for varied reasons ranging from blackmail to sexual pleasure.[/QUOTE] two people, separated at birth, later meet, fall in love, and fuck, without ever knowing that they are related this is rape?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888758]Except "consensual" incest doesn't exist. It's a euphemism for rape. Like we can go all down into the nitty gritty of it, but virtually all incest involves abusive relationships with extremely unequal power dynamics in which one family member exploits the other for varied reasons ranging from blackmail to sexual pleasure.[/QUOTE] If you're just going to make up unsubstantiated bullshit, there isn't much point in you posting.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888807]two people, separated at birth, later meet, fall in love, and fuck, without ever knowing that they are related this is rape?[/QUOTE] it's pretty obvious i'm not referring to those sorts of situations which rarely happen. i'm talking about the bulk of incestual relationships, which are extremely unhealthy and largely abusive in form
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888758]Except "consensual" incest doesn't exist. It's a euphemism for rape.[/QUOTE] What?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888838]it's pretty obvious i'm not referring to those sorts of situations which rarely happen. i'm talking about the bulk of incestual relationships, which are extremely unhealthy and largely abusive in form[/QUOTE] well then evidently incest and rape aren't the same thing and there can be consensual incest
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888807]two people, separated at birth, later meet, fall in love, and fuck, without ever knowing that they are related this is rape?[/QUOTE] Even if you don't go to that extreme, if two people who are related and know it and are both 20 years old and decide to have sex with each other, how is that rape? And how do you decide which of the two people the fabricated rapist is? If we're talking brother and sister, "The male because the male sibling holds more power in the relationship"? That seems to be the vibe I'm getting from this conversation, what's the deal here? What about two ten year olds "playing doctor" mutually, is that rape too? And who is the rapist? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888838]it's pretty obvious i'm not referring to those sorts of situations which rarely happen. i'm talking about the bulk of incestual relationships, which are extremely unhealthy and largely abusive in form[/QUOTE] Even if what you are saying was true, a minority of people in a group are still people. Saying obvious bullshit like "100% of incest is abuse and rape" to cover it up is no good.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.