• Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
    412 replies, posted
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49886395]No just don't have sex with your sister and it's a lot less likely to pass on. Is ADHD even proven to be genetic?[/QUOTE] Yes it is, if you have it, you're 4 times as likely to have a family member that has it. The specific genes are not known, but is genetic. Doesn't matter who you fuck, you have a good chance of passing it on. But hey, I'm a cunt for wanting kids even though I have a genetic defect :~)
[QUOTE=Swilly;49886430]Or maybe multiracial couples?[/QUOTE] Multiracial couples generally have less genetic defects so why would anyone here be arguing to ban that?
You stupid shits are forgetting that some of the worst genetic defects more likely afflict certain races of people meaning that things like inbreeding would actually be worse [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Swilly;49886438]You stupid shits are forgetting that some of the worst genetic defects more likely afflict certain races of people meaning that things like inbreeding would actually be worse[/QUOTE] Is this how you think you get people to agree with you
[QUOTE=bdd458;49886381]So I'm a cunt for wanting kids even though I have ADHD and that's genetic?[/QUOTE] ADHD isn't a major defect. If you had a crippling spinal condition brought on by inbreeding it would be different.
Because idiots keep bringing up 'bu but but genetic defects occur anyway'.
Both are just disturbing to me. I'd rather keep both of them illegal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49886370]you're ignoring the fact that this law is being proposed in a small country with a small population. again i have to reiterate this is over a long period of time. stop claiming things like "we aren't suddenly going to get families forswearing against non-blood relations en-masse" because you're missing the point we are looking at a gradual growth that will barely register at first - maybe a few percent growth. the point is that growth compounds and if this keeps up you will eventually arrive at the situation i described (in maybe a few centuries).[/QUOTE] I am ignoring that fact, yes. Most people are - we're talking about western society as a whole. I couldn't give less of a shit about Sweden. I'm missing the point? You're not even making a proper point, just talking random nonsense. You're making the -frankly bewildering - assumption that, upon legalisation, incestous relations will eventually spiral out of control, dominating humanity to the point that it will be irreparably damaged. The only evidence you have to back up this claim is based off of communities hundreds of years in the past with greatly reduced population and technology. In the short term, this law won't even mean a great deal, frankly. Most people who engage in incest do so privately, and will likely continue to do so even if legalised simply due to the stigma attached. That, coupled with the westermarck effect, controls incest on a large scale. Incestual births wouldn't count for the slightest fraction of the world's population for any real length of time. And centuries from now (the time you're so worried about), we probably won't even be on this planet in any real capacity. Our gene pool will be so diverse and mixed it'd be nearly impossible to shrink it, except through real effort.
[QUOTE=Lurr;49886442]ADHD isn't a major defect. If you had a crippling spinal condition brought on by inbreeding it would be different.[/QUOTE] His argument has none of that nuance, he does not specify what kind of defect. Just defects.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49886430]Or maybe multiracial couples?[/QUOTE] could you elaborate on exactly what this post means? as to not jump to any conclusions
[QUOTE=Lurr;49886442]ADHD isn't a major defect. If you had a crippling spinal condition brought on by inbreeding it would be different.[/QUOTE] I mean where you set the bar is kind of arbitrary, isn't it? It could be argued that anyone with an undesirable genetic trait is polluting the gene pool by procreating, no matter how minor it is I mean, surely you would want to minimize ALL unwanted traits in this ideal, darwinist society? You would want to be as strict as possible, yes?
-snip-
[QUOTE=bdd458;49886433]Yes it is, if you have it, you're 4 times as likely to have a family member that has it. The specific genes are not known, but is genetic. Doesn't matter who you fuck, you have a good chance of passing it on. But hey, I'm a cunt for wanting kids even though I have a genetic defect :~)[/QUOTE] Yeah but it's minor, it's not exactly cystic fibrosis. You can live a perfectly decent normal life with ADHD. The point if more the incest leads to an increase in serious defects by a significant percentage. The percentage is a big part of it, I don't have a problem with cousin marriage (which is legal here) since it has a very low genetic defect rate (as long as it's not done multigenerationally) sibling incest on the other hand has a much higher genetic defect rate.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49886463]could you elaborate on exactly what this post means?[/QUOTE] Basically, the opposite of incest is multiracial couples.
[QUOTE=Sgt.Kickass;49886331]Incest for me is in a grey area but necrophilia,i don´t have words to express how much that disgusts me.It is appauling on moral,ethical,and basic human rights.That should never be legalised.[/QUOTE] Whose basic human rights are being infringed on if, for some reason, I were to give consent for my body to be used for sex after death? I understand being morally against it, I am too, but I also believe law shouldn't be based on morals, in any circumstance.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49886494]Whose basic human rights are being infringed on if, for some reason, I were to give consent for my body to be used for sex after death? I understand being morally against it, I am too, but I also believe law shouldn't be based on morals, in any circumstance.[/QUOTE] Because leaving dead bodies around is a health hazard, it's why they need to be take care of asap and not left around for some weirdo to fuck.
[QUOTE=xVENUSx;49886451]Both are just disturbing to me. I'd rather keep both of them illegal.[/QUOTE] What a joke. Is this how you honestly come to conclusions on what our laws should be?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49886507]Because leaving dead bodies around is a health hazard, it's why they need to be take care of asap and not left around for some weirdo to fuck.[/QUOTE] That's not what I asked. If having sex with a corpse is a health hazard, which it no doubt is, then I am fine with that being used as a reason for illegality. I'm literally just arguing against the case that it should be illegal because it's 'morally wrong' and I'm curious what human rights he thinks it breaks.
The precedent for being allowed to have children that will almost assuredly have deformities or serious issues is that people are allowed to have children despite the risk as far as I am aware. Taking this into account banning incest between consenting adults for this reason is similar to banning marijuana for it's potential risks while cigarettes are kept legal, not logically consistent. [img_thumb]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/16/21/2F6DE36300000578-0-image-m-71_1450300446627.jpg[/img_thumb] This is Warwick Davis, who I greatly admire, and his family. He and his wife aren't in jail.
[QUOTE=Riutet;49886559]The precedent for being allowed to have children that will almost assuredly have deformities or serious issues is that people are allowed to have children despite the risk as far as I am aware. Taking this into account banning incest between consenting adults for this reason is similar to banning marijuana for it's potential risks while cigarettes are kept legal, not logically consistent. [img_thumb]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/16/21/2F6DE36300000578-0-image-m-71_1450300446627.jpg[/img_thumb] This is Warwick Davis, who I greatly admire, and his family. He and his wife aren't in jail.[/QUOTE] What an asshole, I find Davis and his family morally sick, they should ban his family because I feel weird about it and my opinion should count for some reason.
[QUOTE=xVENUSx;49886451]Both are just disturbing to me. I'd rather keep both of them illegal.[/QUOTE] Congratulations on randomly interjecting your opinion without providing any valuable input towards the debate. The whole argument is that morality is not a cause for legislation. The fact you may be disgusted by something does not give you the right to dictate what others do. I'm sure that the legality of incest and necrophilia is not the sole restraint preventing you from partaking in either of those. If it is made legal, it isn't going to change anything for the worse.
[QUOTE=Riutet;49886559]The precedent for being allowed to have children that will almost assuredly have deformities or serious issues is that people are allowed to have children despite the risk as far as I am aware. Taking this into account banning incest between consenting adults for this reason is similar to banning marijuana for it's potential risks while cigarettes are kept legal, not logically consistent. [img_thumb]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/16/21/2F6DE36300000578-0-image-m-71_1450300446627.jpg[/img_thumb] This is Warwick Davis, who I greatly admire, and his family. He and his wife aren't in jail.[/QUOTE] Obviously you can't ban people from having sex entirely, but you can at least attempt to mitigate genetic problems by banning blatantly obviously harmful relationships like incest. They're only banning you from fucking your mother and sisters, you can still go and have sex with other people.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49886624]Obviously you can't ban people from having sex entirely, but you can at least attempt to mitigate genetic problems by banning blatantly obviously harmful relationships like incest. They're only banning you from fucking your mother and sisters, you can still go and have sex with other people.[/QUOTE] You didn't respond to his post in the slightest way. Having a child as a dwarf carries a very high risk of the child having dwarfism and suffering from the negative health effects that entails. I believe Warwick Davis had one of his children die as an infant due to health complications from dwarfism. So shouldn't he be banned from having children according to your argument?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49886624]Obviously you can't ban people from having sex entirely, but you can at least attempt to mitigate genetic problems by banning blatantly obviously harmful relationships like incest. They're only banning you from fucking your mother and sisters, you can still go and have sex with other people.[/QUOTE] wouldn't two people with the same heritable genetic disease having children fall under "blatantly harmful"? I just don't understand why the argument applies in one instance and not in the other
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49886558]That's not what I asked. If having sex with a corpse is a health hazard, which it no doubt is, then I am fine with that being used as a reason for illegality. I'm literally just arguing against the case that it should be illegal because it's 'morally wrong' and I'm curious what human rights he thinks it breaks.[/QUOTE] That was my reason to claim it violated human rights.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49886558] If having sex with a corpse is a health hazard, which it no doubt is[/QUOTE] I almost thought you said "which I doubt it is" I was getting ready to unleash the biggest shit post in history wow that would've been an EMBARRASSING misread [QUOTE=squids_eye;49886558]That's not what I asked. If having sex with a corpse is a health hazard, which it no doubt is, then I am fine with that being used as a reason for illegality. I'm literally just arguing against the case that it should be illegal because it's 'morally wrong' and I'm curious what human rights he thinks it breaks.[/QUOTE] I'd say its less about just human rights really but that's not what that's about even when it doesn't infringe on rights, it's still causing many issues elsewhere, but I mean, I don't really feel that needs explanation.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49886651]wouldn't two people with the same heritable genetic disease having children fall under "blatantly harmful"? I just don't understand why the argument applies in one instance and not in the other[/QUOTE] You'd have to ban dwarfs from ever having sex with anyone so obviously it's difficult to deal with that without infringing on human rights. Incest on the other hand is quite easily bannable while still allowing the person to have sex with other people. Overall there's no reason to legalise it, it'll only cause more harm than good.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;49885210]You can buy dead flesh in any grocery store though.[/QUOTE] And? Go ahead and keep a beef steak in your fridge for a few weeks and get back to me on that one. If you honestly still think that using that as a sexual aid is perfectly okay I'll come visit you in the hospital.
[QUOTE=Sgt.Kickass;49886726]That was my reason to claim it violated human rights.[/QUOTE] I don't think risk to your personal health counts as a human rights violation unless it's being forced on you by someone else. You are well within your rights to eat your own shit or drink alcohol until your liver is shot, why do the health risks involved in sex with a corpse matter when they don't?
am I missing something or were people actually comparing homosexuality with incest in this thread? is this thread satire :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.