• Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
    412 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888863]well then evidently incest and rape aren't the same thing and there can be consensual incest[/QUOTE] There's also such a thing as driving safely while drunk, but that doesn't mean we legalize drunk driving. That's actually how most laws work.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49888897]There's also such a thing as driving safely while drunk, but that doesn't mean we legalize drunk driving.[/QUOTE] Driving with alcohol in your system and not being physically affected by it in any way is impossible, the comparison is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49888897]There's also such a thing as driving safely while drunk, but that doesn't mean we legalize drunk driving.[/QUOTE] Like I said, I'm willing to accept the argument that incest is better off being illegal. But absolute statements like "all incest is rape" are just silly. It's obviously untrue.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49888897]There's also such a thing as driving safely while drunk, but that doesn't mean we legalize drunk driving. That's actually how most laws work.[/QUOTE] That's much more strictly enforced because it poses a danger to other people, not just yourself. Consensual incest has no way of harming an unrelated third party.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49888907]Driving with alcohol in your system and not being physically affected by it in any way is impossible, the comparison is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Then take any number of other examples. - It's possible to safely own a bazooka, but that doesn't mean we make it legal. - It's possible to safely drive on the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean we make it legal. - It's possible to have good polygamous relationships, but that doesn't mean we make them legal (for similar reasons to incest) - It's possible for a 12 year old to safely and responsibly drive a car, but that doesn't mean we make it legal for them all. - etc. The existence of exemptions from the general rule are not justification for getting rid of the rule. [editline]7th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=squids_eye;49888917]That's much more strictly enforced because it poses a danger to other people, not just yourself. Consensual incest has no way of harming an unrelated third party.[/QUOTE] A responsible 12 year old driver wouldn't harm any third parties either.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49888942]Then take any number of other examples. - It's possible to safely own a bazooka, but that doesn't mean we make it legal. - It's possible to safely drive on the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean we make it legal. - It's possible to have good polygamous relationships, but that doesn't mean we make them legal (for similar reasons to incest) - It's possible for a 12 year old to safely and responsibly drive a car, but that doesn't mean we make it legal for them all. - etc. The existence of exemptions from the general rule are not justification for getting rid of the rule.[/QUOTE] All of them are due to the risk it poses to someone other than the individuals breaking the law, other than polygamous relationships which should also be legal.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49888942]Then take any number of other examples. - It's possible to safely own a bazooka, but that doesn't mean we make it legal. - It's possible to safely drive on the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean we make it legal. - It's possible to have good polygamous relationships, but that doesn't mean we make them legal (for similar reasons to incest) - It's possible for a 12 year old to safely and responsibly drive a car, but that doesn't mean we make it legal for them all. - etc.[/QUOTE] It's possible to own an AR-15, but not shoot up a school, that doesn't mean we make it le- oh wait.
[quote]A responsible 12 year old driver wouldn't harm any third parties either.[/quote] A responsible one might not but if the law was changed to allow 12 year olds to drive, not all of them would be responsible. That puts the public at risk so no 12 year olds are allowed to drive. There is no circumstance where consensual sex between family members could put the public at risk that wouldn't be covered by another law anyway so the law doesn't have to be as strict.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49888980]All of them are due to the risk it poses to someone other than the individuals breaking the law, other than polygamous relationships which should also be legal.[/QUOTE] The people doing those things are not putting anyone at risk if done safely and responsibly. [editline]7th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=squids_eye;49889003]A responsible one might not but if the law was changed to allow 12 year olds to drive, not all of them would be responsible. That puts the public at risk so no 12 year olds are allowed to drive. There is no circumstance where consensual sex between family members could put the public at risk that wouldn't be covered by another law anyway so the law doesn't have to be as strict.[/QUOTE] There are also laws to stop murder, unsafe driving, etc., The act of banning a bazooka is done for the general good of society even though murder is already illegal. The possible bad consequences outway the possible good consequences. It's the same for incest.
We let dudes fuck dudes even if they might get HIV and spread it to other dudes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49889007]The people doing those things are not putting anyone at risk if done safely and responsibly. [editline]7th March 2016[/editline] There are also laws to stop murder, unsafe driving, etc. The act of banning a bazooka is done for the general good of society. The possible bad consequences outway the possible good consequences. It's the same for incest.[/QUOTE] And what are the possible bad consequences other than the chance of producing a child with a birth defect? (That's pretty much been discussed to exhaustion so if you don't have something new to bring to the table we'll just be going around in circles.)
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49889036]And what are the possible bad consequences other than the chance of producing a child with a birth defect? (That's pretty much been discussed to exhaustion so if you don't have something new to bring to the table we'll just be going around in circles.)[/QUOTE] As Sobotnik said, it opens the door wide open to a massive range of skewed power dynamics and their normalization in society. It allows abuse to hide under the guise of consensual incest, and we gain almost nothing as a society by allowing it. The incredibly few number of people who are actually in or want to be in a totally consual incestual relationship are not worth the negatives to society. It's also good to have the expected norm that a person will go outside of their own family when finding a mate.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49889007]The people doing those things are not putting anyone at risk if done safely and responsibly. [editline]7th March 2016[/editline] There are also laws to stop murder, unsafe driving, etc., The act of banning a bazooka is done for the general good of society even though murder is already illegal. The possible bad consequences outway the possible good consequences. It's the same for incest.[/QUOTE] You're just regurgitating the same nonsense that has already been debunked several times in the thread... stop playing the Sobotnik game.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;49889051]You're just regurgitating the same nonsense that has already been debunked several times in the thread... stop playing the Sobotnik game.[/QUOTE] I just want to make it clear that I'm ignoring you on purpose. You obviously have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49889043]As Sobotnik said, it opens the door wide open to a massive range of skewed power dynamics and their normalization in society. It allows abuse to hide under the guise of consensual incest, and we gain almost nothing as a society by allowing it. The incredibly few number of people who are actually in or want to be in a totally consual incestual relationship are not worth the negatives to society. It's also good to have the expected norm that a person will go outside of their own family when finding a mate.[/QUOTE] Abusive relationships are illegal anyway, it makes no difference if they are related or not. Skewed power dynamics exist in much more than just incestual relationships. The expected norm is unlikely to change, even if incest is legal, it's still considered disgusting by the vast majority of people.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49889036]And what are the possible bad consequences other than the chance of producing a child with a birth defect? (That's pretty much been discussed to exhaustion so if you don't have something new to bring to the table we'll just be going around in circles.)[/QUOTE] Incestuous relationships have some of the most toxic power dynamics you can possibly find in a relationship, to try and legalize that as "normal and healthy" is sending a very disgusting message to the general public on how relationships are expected to operate.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49889068]Abusive relationships are illegal anyway, it makes no difference if they are related or not. Skewed power dynamics exist in much more than just incestual relationships. The expected norm is unlikely to change, even if incest is legal, it's still considered disgusting by the vast majority of people.[/QUOTE] Like I said before, we also have laws against murder and destruction of other people's property, yet we also ban bazookas and hand grenades. It's not a logical conclusion that if we have very general laws covering an action, then we should never have more specific laws that fall under it's jurisdiction.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49889068]Abusive relationships are illegal anyway, it makes no difference if they are related or not. Skewed power dynamics exist in much more than just incestual relationships. The expected norm is unlikely to change, even if incest is legal, it's still considered disgusting by the vast majority of people.[/QUOTE] Incest by it's nature is abusive, dude, that's what we're trying to say. This goal-post keeps getting moved on what the "ideal" form of incestuous relationship is until we're left with "healthy, consenting brother and sister who are both adults" which is such a tiny, minuscule portion of incest-couples that going through the trouble of legalizing [B]only that type[/B] of incest is a waste of paper. It's like saying "we should legalize drunk driving, but only for responsible adults with healthy livers and a very specific body type who's driving on this road with only three drinks in them."
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49889071]Incestuous relationships have some of the most toxic power dynamics you can possibly find in a relationship, to try and legalize that as "normal and healthy" is sending a very disgusting message to the general public on how relationships are expected to operate.[/QUOTE] I agree, for that reason I don't condone the idea of cross generational incestual relationships. The power dynamic is far too skewed when it comes to Mother-Son or Grandfather-Daughter type situations. At the very least they should be held under much higher scrutiny than a regular relationship.
[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] Im very anti~incest but what Consensual rape is an oxymoron
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49889078]Incest by it's nature is abusive, dude, that's what we're trying to say. This goal-post keeps getting moved on what the "ideal" form of incestuous relationship is until we're left with "healthy, consenting brother and sister who are both adults" which is such a tiny, minuscule portion of incest-couples that going through the trouble of legalizing [B]only that type[/B] of incest is a waste of paper. It's like saying "we should legalize drunk driving, but only for responsible adults with healthy livers and a very specific body type who's driving on this road with only three drinks in them."[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that the most common form of incest is between cousins and the legality of that is generally a lot more varied from country to country.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49889067]I just want to make it clear that I'm ignoring you on purpose. You obviously have nothing to contribute to the conversation.[/QUOTE] Because I'm calling you out? How convenient, isn't it. Because I'm not willing to go back and say the exact same things I've said pages ago as you pretend I've never said them or that you didn't see, just to perpetuate this circular agument, I'm not eligible anymore. Right. Because you are fully aware that this: [QUOTE=sgman91;49889043]As Sobotnik said, it opens the door wide open to a massive range of skewed power dynamics and their normalization in society. It allows abuse to hide under the guise of consensual incest, and we gain almost nothing as a society by allowing it. The incredibly few number of people who are actually in or want to be in a totally consual incestual relationship are not worth the negatives to society. It's also good to have the expected norm that a person will go outside of their own family when finding a mate.[/QUOTE] Is exactly almost exactly what Sobotnik was already saying pages ago. You're trying to imply that incestual sex being legalized would mean more incest would actually happen, which has been shown to be a wrong assumption a couple of times with no reasonable counterargument being persented, just bad comparisons to other crimes like murder and rape. Stop perpetuating circular arguments.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49889100]I agree, for that reason I don't condone the idea of cross generational incestual relationships. The power dynamic is far too skewed when it comes to Mother-Son or Grandfather-Daughter type situations. At the very least they should be held under much higher scrutiny than a regular relationship.[/QUOTE] What, so you want them to "just" legalize a very specific type of incest that hardly ever occurs, and on the rare occasions it does occur they usually turn out as abusive anyway? I get that you want to legalize things which won't hurt other people, but incest [I]does[/I], there's a very good reason why it's one of the hardest taboos out there, and it's not just because of the genetics.
Why not just make relationships illegal to finally end the menace that are power dynamics once and for all? Hey, did you guys know it's 2016? (vote bernie sanders btw)
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49889078]Incest by it's nature is abusive, dude, that's what we're trying to say. This goal-post keeps getting moved on what the "ideal" form of incestuous relationship is until we're left with "healthy, consenting brother and sister who are both adults" which is such a tiny, minuscule portion of incest-couples that going through the trouble of legalizing [B]only that type[/B] of incest is a waste of paper. It's like saying "we should legalize drunk driving, but only for responsible adults with healthy livers and a very specific body type who's driving on this road with only three drinks in them."[/QUOTE] You're trying to paint over the definition of "incest" so that it means only "abusive relationship between parent and child" and using asspulled statistics to do so. And for the record, "we should legalize drunk driving but only for people with less than x amount of alcohol per miligram in their system" is already a thing.
There is no reason for laws to be broad and blunt, if making a law more specific saves someone from being unjustly punished for an act which causes no harm to anyone then it's worth talking about at the very least.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49889126]What, so you want them to "just" legalize a very specific type of incest that hardly ever occurs, and on the rare occasions it does occur they usually turn out as abusive anyway? I get that you want to legalize things which won't hurt other people, but incest [I]does[/I], there's a very good reason why it's one of the hardest taboos out there, and it's not just because of the genetics.[/QUOTE] And again with the made-up statistics, where are you pulling this "there are virtually no cases of cousin/sibling incest, it hardly occurs" from? The incest statistics that I can find are all related to abuse reports, and parent/child does dominate those, but there's no actual reliable statistics for consensual incestual relationships, because people who are in such relationships are not telling anyone; I'll let you guess why that is.
_snip I didn't even make sense.lmao_
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49887571]Illegal shouldn't be the default state. There shouldn't need to be a compelling reason for something to be legal, there should be a compelling reason for it to be illegal. There is something in the birth defect argument against incest but I can't bring myself to agree with it fully when there are plenty of other perfectly legal activities that lead to birth defects too. I haven't seen any arguments against necrophilia beyond morals and personal health.[/QUOTE] Well as far as necrophilia and incest are concerned, that's the way it is. They're illegal, and they're going to stay illegal, and there's plenty of reasons behind each one is illegal beyond moral taboos-- mostly revolving around health issues and the fact both are not normal behavioral patterns that can be indicators of underlying mental issues. The LPP is just taking the "anything goes personal freedom" mentality too far here, and they're going to fail thankfully because they're such a tiny party, and beyond that, these are not serious issues which warrant pressing concern in Sweden at this time (probably ever really).
[QUOTE=Govna;49889386]Well as far as necrophilia and incest are concerned, that's the way it is. They're illegal, and they're going to stay illegal, and there's plenty of reasons behind each one is illegal beyond moral taboos-- mostly revolving around health issues and the fact both are not normal behavioral patterns that can be indicators of underlying mental issues. The LPP is just taking the "anything goes personal freedom" mentality too far here, and they're going to fail thankfully because they're such a tiny party, and beyond that, these are not serious issues which warrant pressing concern in Sweden at this time (probably ever really).[/QUOTE] Plenty of posts since that one, give those a read too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.