• Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
    412 replies, posted
[QUOTE=honestfam;49887497]If you actually went back and read the thread you'd understand how it's not. There's logical and practical reasons for thinking it shouldn't be illegal besides the desire to fuck your dead sister, mostly because people wouldn't fuck their sisters any more than they already do if it was legal to do so.[/QUOTE] No one has stated any practical reasons for allowing incest, it all just seems to be "b-b-but dwarfs can fuck so why cant I bang my sister!?" with no real positive reasons of how incest being legal will help the world in any way
[QUOTE=honestfam;49887497]If you actually went back and read the thread you'd understand how it's not. There's logical and practical reasons for thinking it shouldn't be illegal besides the desire to fuck your dead sister, mostly because people wouldn't fuck their sisters any more than they already do if it was legal to do so.[/QUOTE] there's also logical and practical reasons why it should remain illegal cousin-fucking and corpse-fucking are well established to be pretty insane behaviours by civilized society
[QUOTE=honestfam;49887497]If you actually went back and read the thread you'd understand how it's not. There's logical and practical reasons for thinking it shouldn't be illegal besides the desire to fuck your dead sister, mostly because people wouldn't fuck their sisters any more than they already do if it was legal to do so.[/QUOTE] Just because it's logical (at least to you) doesn't mean we should do it. I know this is going to sound strange, but morals ARE important as well as logic, and combining both can give a much better and practical answer to a problem than "If Johnny wants to go to town at a graveyard or funeral home, that ain't my business".
So do things have to be beneficial now to not be illegal? Like god damn, I don't have any urges to fuck family members but logical consistency is a great thing to have.
Incest is hot and the fact that its illegal makes it hotter! But as long as both parties are fine with it of course, then its no different than rape. The other one is fucked up though.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49887304]It's uncomfortable to defend, I'm morally against both but at the same time I'm against morals being used as a basis for law. If someone can come in here and give a solid reason beyond morality or personal health I'd be more than happy to accept it.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this, if you can't construct a logical reason for banning something then you shouldn't have a law against it. The practices are not something I can say I agree with, but harkening back to the same-sex marriage debate, they couldn't come up with logical arguments to defend the ban, so under the scrutiny of law they lost (though with judges like scalea who toss logic out the window, does i t even matter...)
[QUOTE=bdd458;49887549]So do things have to be beneficial now to not be illegal? Like god damn, I don't have any urges to fuck family members but logical consistency is a great thing to have.[/QUOTE] If they cause harm (like making genetically buggered kids) with no actual positive reasons other than horny weirdos getting to feel less bad about lusting after their sisters, then yes it should stay illegal.
But with more than enough effective contraceptives available today, kids are not an issue. And that also brings us back to the other point of people with genetic defects.
[QUOTE=Govna;49887464]It's full of stupidity. Someone else compared the restrictions to being borderline-Fascism. There's no compelling argument why this shit should be legal, and thankfully for Sweden, the LPP are [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals_%28Sweden%29]hilariously insignificant[/url] and won't get anywhere with this.[/QUOTE] 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=bdd458;49887568]But with more than enough effective contraceptives available today, kids are not an issue. And that also brings us back to the other point of people with genetic defects.[/QUOTE] Contraceptives aren't perfect and there's no reason to assume they'll all use contraceptives. You can't ban everyone with genetic defects from fucking without crossing into eugenics territory, however banning incest is at least one way of limiting them occurring without crossing into eugenics territory. It's literally just one big plus for society at large.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887562]If they cause harm (like making genetically buggered kids) with no actual positive reasons other than horny weirdos getting to feel less bad about lusting after their sisters, then yes it should stay illegal.[/QUOTE] And again, it'd take generations of dedicated inbreeding for effects to manifest in people who do not already possess genetic defects. So again, it comes down to - if not siblings, then why allow anyone else with genetic defects to breed?
[QUOTE=Sableye;49887553]Pretty much this, if you can't construct a logical reason for banning something then you shouldn't have a law against it. The practices are not something I can say I agree with, but harkening back to the same-sex marriage debate, they couldn't come up with logical arguments to defend the ban, so under the scrutiny of law they lost (though with judges like scales who toss logic out the window, does i t even matter...)[/QUOTE] The problem there however is that accepting that morality has no bearing upon the law (which is a strange position to take), then you can pretty much justify any behaviour if you interpret the law cunningly enough. Let us imagine that incest and necrophilia are both legalized based on prior consent given to the act. What about cannibalism? Provided the person gave consent, there is nothing wrong. Thus going down this road we can argue that if a person gives consent to being killed, then they can be killed by somebody and their body cut up and eaten by a cannibal - all completely legal because there is consent given.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49887553]Pretty much this, if you can't construct a logical reason for banning something then you shouldn't have a law against it. The practices are not something I can say I agree with, but harkening back to the same-sex marriage debate, they couldn't come up with logical arguments to defend the ban, so under the scrutiny of law they lost (though with judges like scales who toss logic out the window, does i t even matter...)[/QUOTE] 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=Sobotnik;49887593]The problem there however is that accepting that morality has no bearing upon the law (which is a strange position to take), then you can pretty much justify any behaviour if you interpret the law cunningly enough. Let us imagine that incest and necrophilia are both legalized based on prior consent given to the act. What about cannibalism? Provided the person gave consent, there is nothing wrong. Thus going down this road we can argue that if a person gives consent to being killed, then they can be killed by somebody and their body cut up and eaten by a cannibal - all completely legal because there is consent given.[/QUOTE] I agree with making all of these illegal, yes.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;49887591]And again, it'd take generations of dedicated inbreeding for effects to manifest in people who do not already possess genetic defects. So again, it comes down to - if not siblings, then why allow anyone else with genetic defects to breed?[/QUOTE] Already explained it above. And even if it is true that it takes generations (pretty sure that isn't true for close relatives, only distant ones) that's still not great, it's had a pretty nasty effect in the middle east where genetic problems are rampant thanks to incest. It's just a big fucking negative to allow it. On top of that with parent child incest there's also the problem of parents using parental authority to coerce or influence kids into doing it, which is fucked up in and of itself.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887585]Contraceptives aren't perfect and there's no reason to assume they'll all use contraceptives. You can't ban everyone with genetic defects from fucking without crossing into eugenics territory, however banning incest is at least one way of limiting them occurring without crossing into eugenics territory. It's literally just one big plus for society at large.[/QUOTE] Condoms have a 98% success rate, and the pill has a 99% success rate. What if the man has had a vasectomy? Woman had a tubectomety? And as mentioned previously, it takes many generations for those sorts of differences to appear. So again, if the people are having consensual safe sex, why is it banned? If everyone is of legal age, and it's being done safe why do you care what they do behind closed doors?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49887593]The problem there however is that accepting that morality has no bearing upon the law (which is a strange position to take), then you can pretty much justify any behaviour if you interpret the law cunningly enough. Let us imagine that incest and necrophilia are both legalized based on prior consent given to the act. What about cannibalism? Provided the person gave consent, there is nothing wrong. Thus going down this road we can argue that if a person gives consent to being killed, then they can be killed by somebody and their body cut up and eaten by a cannibal - all completely legal because there is consent given.[/QUOTE] Generally if a person is willing to die like that, they have underlying mental issues and therefore are incapable of proper consent.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49887624]Condoms have a 98% success rate, and the pill has a 99% success rate. What if the man has had a vasectomy? Woman had a tubectomety? And as mentioned previously, it takes many generations for those sorts of differences to appear. So again, if the people are having consensual safe sex, why is it banned?[/QUOTE] 98% is pretty crap, that means if you fuck 100 times you'll likely have a child at some point. When it comes to sterile people that's a bit of a different issue, it doesn't bother me as much morally but really it's too much effort to change laws just for little technicalities, it's far easier just to leave it banned and be done with it and save everyone from dealing with all the bullshit associated.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885747]the only zoroastrians who practised incest was the nobility a few centuries of inbreeding is enough to turn any human into a malformed freak of nature - just look at the hapsburgs. the only zoroastrians that are really around in significant numbers (like the parsi) are (surprise surprise) people who don't practice incest[/QUOTE] most people generally agree that all classes of zoroastrians practiced incest. besides that any biologist will tell you that short term incest can be beneficial to a species as it passes down beneficial traits. it's not for a half dozen or so generations that the kids start coming out wrong
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49887625]Generally if a person is willing to die like that, they have underlying mental issues and therefore are incapable of proper consent.[/QUOTE] Says who? The law only demands that consent be given, therefore if a person gives consent it should be fine no? Assisted suicide is already a thing. What's there to stop somebody from arguing for assisted suicide and then having somebody eat (or fuck) their body afterwards?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885840]And what benefit is there to society and individuals by legalising incest? Almost all incest is of the child/sibling abuse kind. Homosexual relationships are generally pretty healthy ones because they don't involve child rape.[/QUOTE] rape is rape and that's a totally different subject. you'll have trouble finding any sane person who advocates rape. maybe it would help your argument if you kept it relevant and stopped shoving words in our mouths
[QUOTE=butre;49887665] besides that any biologist will tell you that short term incest can be beneficial to a species as it passes down beneficial traits.[/QUOTE] Wait, what?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49885946][url]http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS75.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] most reported sexual abuse is committed by men. women are every bit as capable of rape. again an irrelevant argument anyway
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887473]Dwarfs and other people with genetic problems is a grey area. It's mostly not bannable because you can't really ban it without putting in some naziesque policies so it's not really doable.[/quote] It is doable though, you just don't want to because it reminds you of eugenics. You mention further on in your post that a family relationship is "something easily pointed out" so that screening is not required. But what is even more easily pointed out is that two people are dwarfs and are likely going to produce offspring that share their affliction, but you don't wish to make dwarfs having children together illegal. Consider that if their condition isn't autosomal dominant then if they merely just avoid having children with each other but with people who don't have the condition that causes their dwarfism or are carriers for it then the risk of having a child who shares their condition is decreased significantly. Why not just make two dwarfs having a child illegal, considering they could just find someone else instead? [quote]Incest can be banned without any great infringement upon peoples lives and overall is a net positive for society at large, as you don't end up with as many fucked up children without massive human rights infringement and since it's already in place it might as well stay there.[/quote] You can argue that any small thing can be banned without any great infringement upon people's lives because niche things by their nature do not affect the majority of the population. You can ban weird transformers porn because like, 300 people in the world like that stuff and it'd probably get them out of the house more if they couldn't jerk it to Starscream, doesn't make it right though. You could easily reach a middle ground where you say, just don't have children even though the risk of problems occurring are low anyway and you can fuck each other. Rhode Island legalised incest, the only thing that happened is they stopped putting people in jail on the rare occasion that they got caught having consensual relationships (that happen to be socially taboo) with each other. [quote]Yes you probably won't stop all of them, but it being illegal will make people think twice and also keep it as a taboo.[/quote] Weed is a social taboo and illegal, it stops no one, it just puts people in jail, costing society money to keep them there and ruins their lives by giving them a criminal record and denying them their liberty. [quote]There's just no real positives to allowing incest, it's just a complete net negative overall to unban it.[/QUOTE] It's a question of individual liberty, i.e the ability to pursue a consensual relationship, versus the mitigation of an unfortunate circumstance for offspring. So long as you avoid offspring, there is no problem, and even if conception occurred there's a very low chance of there being a problem anyway. There is no real positive to it being banned in this day and age (it's current year™ after all), and there's a small positive for a very small number of individuals if it were unbanned. I find the idea that tax money goes towards putting these people in jail to be ludicrous, that's a negative for the whole of society that society is forced to pay to keep these people in jail over such an act.
[QUOTE=Ziron;49887545]Just because it's logical (at least to you) doesn't mean we should do it. I know this is going to sound strange, but morals ARE important as well as logic, and combining both can give a much better and practical answer to a problem than "If Johnny wants to go to town at a graveyard or funeral home, that ain't my business".[/QUOTE] Morals have no place in legislation, and what happens in bed with two consenting adults should be of no one else's concern. Johnny would need consent from all the skeletons in that graveyard in order to bone them, so that example doesn't really apply. A better question is how you'd fuck a corpse in a way that isn't a massive health hazard, would you have corpse-fucking brothels ? it's obviously not worth the trouble for a bunch of other reasons.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49887669]Says who? The law only demands that consent be given, therefore if a person gives consent it should be fine no? Assisted suicide is already a thing. What's there to stop somebody from arguing for assisted suicide and then having somebody eat (or fuck) their body afterwards?[/QUOTE] The law is more complicated than that, otherwise you could get consent from a kid or a mentally ill person, thankfully that isn't the case. To be honest, I think necrophilia is far worse than cannibalism so my position doesn't really change.
Well, as far as incest goes, I see no problem with its legality as long as it's not to make inbred children. But necrophilia? I feel like that's a little fucked up. Like, imagine you're a grieving father/mother because your child died and you know someone's still fucking them. That's horrifying to me.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;49887705]Wait, what?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_purging[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression[/url] read up there's a biological reason that some people feel compelled to fuck their sisters. it's not just a chemical imbalance
[QUOTE=Ziron;49887254]God bless Facepunch for having members openly defending incest and necrophilia. I'm not sure if there are genuine beliefs are just stupid "I'm so smart and open-minded" edgelord bullshit, but it is still utterly insane.[/QUOTE] look if you fuck dead bodies or your relatives or animals or whatever you're a fucking creepo and I'm probably not going to hang around you but if I see what I think is an inconsistency in a logical argument, I'm not going to just not point it out because the subject is creepy, obscene, disgusting, and nauseating. Think of it as a chance to make your argument against corpse fucking more persuasive. Or just don't even bother, like it doesn't fucking matter necrophilia is never going to be legalized ever lol
[QUOTE=Riutet;49887728]It is doable though, you just don't want to because it reminds you of eugenics. You mention further on in your post that a family relationship is "something easily pointed out" so that screening is not required. But what is even more easily pointed out is that two people are dwarfs and are likely going to produce offspring that share their affliction, but you don't wish to make dwarfs having children together illegal. Consider that if their condition isn't autosomal dominant then if they merely just avoid having children with each other but with people who don't have the condition that causes their dwarfism or are carriers for it then the risk of having a child who shares their condition is decreased significantly. Why not just make two dwarfs having a child illegal, considering they could just find someone else instead? You can argue that any small thing can be banned without any great infringement upon people's lives because niche things by their nature do not affect the majority of the population. You can ban weird transformers porn because like, 300 people in the world like that stuff and it'd probably get them out of the house more if they couldn't jerk it to Starscream, doesn't make it right though. You could easily reach a middle ground where you say, just don't have children even though the risk of problems occurring are low anyway and you can fuck each other. Rhode Island legalised incest, the only thing that happened is they stopped putting people in jail on the rare occasion that they got caught having consensual relationships (that happen to be socially taboo) with each other. Weed is a social taboo and illegal, it stops no one, it just puts people in jail, costing society money to keep them there and ruins their lives by giving them a criminal record and denying them their liberty. It's a question of individual liberty, i.e the ability to pursue a consensual relationship, versus the mitigation of an unfortunate circumstance for offspring. So long as you avoid offspring, there is no problem, and even if conception occurred there's a very low chance of there being a problem anyway. There is no real positive to it being banned in this day and age (it's current year™ after all), and there's a small positive for a very small number of individuals if it were unbanned. I find the idea that tax money goes towards putting these people in jail to be ludicrous, that's a negative for the whole of society that society is forced to pay to keep these people in jail over such an act.[/QUOTE] Well exactly you cant ban dwarfs because it'd be too close to eugenics, but banning incest isn't so it works out just fine as it has for many many centuries and helps to guard against the spread of more genetic diseases, which of course only punishes the kid really. There's just no negatives to banning it and very reasonable positives that come with leaving it banned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.