• Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
    412 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49887759]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] Quite frankly, this is the first time I've seen some type of "call" for legalization of this behavior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is a popular trend. (Of all the things people could debate about, lol.)
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49887731]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.[/QUOTE] Except a perfectly sane and sound of mind person could still allow for their body to be eaten or used for sex. Additionally, given that euthanasia is regrettably becoming increasingly commonplace this can still happen. Assuming somebody left in the will "I want my body to be eaten/fucked by X person" before they then went to the doctors and sought euthanasia all of these things could feasibly happen.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887776]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 it.[/QUOTE] why is eugenics bad? is eugenics bad because it infringes on the rights of people to fuck whoever they want and have babies with whoever they want? because if that's the reasoning, then why doesn't the same thing apply to incest? and if that isn't the reason eugenics is bad, then what is? Because we clearly agree that it's bad.
[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] There are and yet somehow mistakes still happen Wonder whyyyyyy
if you sign away your body for sex i've gotta wonder who handles all the safety matters for it. like can you use government medical institutions to see how bloated and diseased your new corpse is, or do you have to go private like with a vet? is a check-up obligatory so you know if it poses a serious health hazard to you or others, like it might burst while you're doing it and spread diseased miasma like that one king did as he was being lowered into the grave? and if that's the case do they take the corpse back the same way they shut down unhygienic restaurants?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49887794]why is eugenics bad? is eugenics bad because it infringes on the rights of people to fuck whoever they want and have babies with whoever they want? because if that's the reasoning, then why doesn't the same thing apply to incest? and if that isn't the reason eugenics is bad, then what is? Because we clearly agree that it's bad.[/QUOTE] Well eugenics doesn't just stop people from fucking who they want, it stops them from fucking full stop. Incest on the other hands just bans a certain type of relationship and doesn't have the same slippery slope as eugenics. You can argue on technicalities that it's close, but it doesn't change the fact that banning incest is less harmful overall than eugenics as it doesn't target a specific type of person while still helping to keep the rate of genetic disease down, unlike in the middle east where it's a huge problem.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;49887791]Quite frankly, this is the first time I've seen some type of "call" for legalization of this behavior. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this is a popular trend. (Of all the things people could debate about, lol.)[/QUOTE] There have always been people calling for the legalization of pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and all that shit. It's just that they're a lot more visible on the internet. They're a teeny tiny minority and they're never going to get any mainstream acceptance. People switched their opinion on homosexuality because there are plenty of perfectly upstanding, productive, nice homosexual couples who were unfairly harmed by the stigma. People didn't want their friends and family members to be discriminated against when they weren't doing anything to hurt anyone. Nobody is ever going to care that someone isn't allowed to jerk off onto a dead body. [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887816]Well eugenics doesn't just stop people from fucking who they want, it stops them from fucking full stop. Incest on the other hands just bans a certain type of relationship and doesn't have the same slippery slope as eugenics. You can argue on technicalities that it's close, but it doesn't change the fact that banning incest is less harmful overall than eugenics as it doesn't target a specific type of person while still helping to keep the rate of genetic disease down, unlike in the middle east where it's a huge problem.[/QUOTE] Eugenics doesn't have to mean that. It could just mean sterilizing people with unwanted genetic traits. In fact, I think that's what it usually referred to historically.
[QUOTE=butre;49887745][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] heterozygote advantage is actually in favour of outbreeding (because of heterosis). i can't believe you cited outbreeding depression as an argument in favour of inbreeding. are you an expert in things that have never ever happened? [url]https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/inbreeding/[/url] [quote]They find that the offspring of first cousins suffer an average reduction of 1.2 cm in height and 0.3 sd in g ( ~4.5 IQ points) . They directly measured runs of homozygosity – more accurate than estimating from genealogy, and better in other ways as well. Children of first cousin marriages also suffer an elevated incidence of significant genetic disease, roughly 1.5-2 times the non-inbred risk. Some retards (British papers) have been spinning this as saying that there are big benefits to mixed-race marriage. Untrue: to avoid lots of ROH (runs of homozygosity), just marry someone who isn’t from the same isolated population as you. We’re talking outside the valley or across the river : intercontinental travel is not necessary. Now there might be a degree of hybrid vigor in some distant crosses (currently unclear) – but likely not enough to compensate for someone coming from a group that has low trait values. Marry a Pygmy and your kids are going to be short. Marry someone from a population whose average IQ is below 90 (much of the world) and your kids will on average be less smart. Naturally, enlightened opinion increasingly supports legalization of first-cousin marriage, due to its usual ignorance, perversity, and nihilism.[/quote] also the thing about genetic purging is just flat out wrong. selection is less effective in smaller isolated populations (not more). mutations accumulate
[QUOTE=Cone;49887798]if you sign away your body for sex i've gotta wonder who handles all the safety matters for it. like can you use government medical institutions to see how bloated and diseased your new corpse is, or do you have to go private like with a vet? is a check-up obligatory so you know if it poses a serious health hazard to you or others, like it might burst while you're doing it and spread diseased miasma like that one king did as he was being lowered into the grave? and if that's the case do they take the corpse back the same way they shut down unhygienic restaurants?[/QUOTE] fuck at that point you might as well get a realdoll or some shit, if the demand for necrophilia is so large i am sure thy can make their dolls more corpselike
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49887843] Eugenics doesn't have to mean that. It could just mean sterilizing people with unwanted genetic traits. In fact, I think that's what it usually referred to historically.[/QUOTE] Well exactly so you have to forcibly sterilise people, whereas with banning incest you don't. That alone shows the clear difference between the two.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49887792]Except a perfectly sane and sound of mind person could still allow for their body to be eaten or used for sex. Additionally, given that euthanasia is regrettably becoming increasingly commonplace this can still happen. Assuming somebody left in the will "I want my body to be eaten/fucked by X person" before they then went to the doctors and sought euthanasia all of these things could feasibly happen.[/QUOTE] I know you're going to find this idea objectionable by your opinion on euthanasia, but if someone is of a perfectly sound mind and they still want to die, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Looks like the slippery slope fallacy isn't so fallacious after all, at least in politics it isn't.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49887857]heterozygote advantage is actually in favour of outbreeding (because of heterosis). i can't believe you cited outbreeding depression as an argument in favour of inbreeding. are you an expert in things that have never ever happened? [url]https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/inbreeding/[/url] also the thing about genetic purging is just flat out wrong. selection is less effective in smaller isolated populations (not more). mutations accumulate[/QUOTE] "wikipedia is wrong because I'm smarter than wikipedia" heterozygote advantage can go either way depending on whether or not the trait in question is overdominant and whether or not it's a favorable trait
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887863]Well exactly so you have to forcibly sterilise people, whereas with banning incest you don't. That alone shows the clear difference between the two.[/QUOTE] so forcing people not to have babies by sterilizing them is worse than forcing people not to have babies by imprisoning them?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49887894]so forcing people not to have babies by sterilizing them is worse than forcing people not to have babies by imprisoning them?[/QUOTE] We're not forcing people not to have children, just not specifically with their family members. So yeah, sterilising people is worse than that.
[QUOTE=butre;49887887]"wikipedia is wrong because I'm smarter than wikipedia" heterozygote advantage can go either way depending on whether or not the trait in question is overdominant and whether or not it's a favorable trait[/QUOTE] [quote]A new paper in Nature (Directional dominance on stature and cognition in diverse human populations) finally gives us a good quantitative estimate of just how bad it is. They find that the offspring of first cousins suffer an average reduction of 1.2 cm in height and 0.3 sd in g ( ~4.5 IQ points) . They directly measured runs of homozygosity – more accurate than estimating from genealogy, and better in other ways as well. Children of first cousin marriages also suffer an elevated incidence of significant genetic disease, roughly 1.5-2 times the non-inbred risk.[/quote] i mean i don't want to fuck my sister (i don't know if you have a sister and what your opinions on her are), but even if I did, it's pretty obvious that incest leads to extremely bad results
[QUOTE=butre;49885336]it's not though. many native cultures and old religions permit or even encourage incest[/QUOTE] It might not be taboo through all cultures, but the idea that it's dangerous in the long run is not unfounded. There's a damn good reason that Ashkenazi Jews have such a ridiculously high number of ethnically specific genetic disorders; when your population of millions is almost entirely descendant from a few hundred, or low thousands of individuals and you continue to largely marry within your own ethnic community problems arise (and that's not even incest per se! It'd be far worse if they were actively fucking their own family as opposed to just people within the same community causing family lines to criss-cross and blur together every few generations).
that's sort of a no brainer. you're also 1.5-2 times more likely to have positive traits passed down on you
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887909]We're not forcing people not to have children, just not specifically with their family members. So yeah, sterilising people is worse than that.[/QUOTE] well let's say we're not forcing people with heritable diseases to not have children, they just can't have children with other people with those heritable diseases would that be acceptable?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49887944]well let's say we're not forcing people with heritable diseases to not have children, they just can't have children with other people with those heritable diseases would that be acceptable?[/QUOTE] Again hard to implement without public out cry but I'm not particularly against the idea. I mean having a kid that you know will be fucked with cystic fibrosis is pretty messed up.
[QUOTE=butre;49887942]that's sort of a no brainer. you're also 1.5-2 times more likely to have positive traits passed down on you[/QUOTE] ....no you're not i mean, seriously this is really basic and it's right in your face i linked the page saying how the children lost IQ points, height, etc ok let me break it down for you, most mutations are detrimental (less commonly neutral and rarely good) you are a complicated system and chances are if you change one thing you are gonna fuck up something somewhere this is like basic biology
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887976]Again hard to implement without public out cry but I'm not particularly against the idea. I mean having a kid that you know will be fucked with cystic fibrosis is pretty messed up.[/QUOTE] I kind of agree, tbh The problem is, where do you draw the line? Who draws that line? How much risk is too much risk? It isn't that I disagree with the sentiment, I just don't know how you could implement such a system in a fair and logical way. And if it can't be fair or logical, do you really have the right to enforce it on other people?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49888021]I kind of agree, tbh The problem is, where do you draw the line? Who draws that line? How much risk is too much risk? It isn't that I disagree with the sentiment, I just don't know how you could implement such a system in a fair and logical way. And if it can't be fair or logical, do you really have the right to enforce it on other people?[/QUOTE] Well again this is the problem, when you start specifically targeting genetic problems it becomes a slippery slope towards banning stuff that isn't even particularly harmful like needing glasses, which is why something more blanket like a ban on incest is a better defence against it than banning based on what genetic problems someone has.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49887776]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.[/QUOTE] First of all, you can ban dwarfs from having sex and having children, it just isn't going to work because you would need 24/7 surveillance to stop them and it would be very costly, it is the same case with people who engage in incest, they're going to do it whether you stop them or not, the only question is on the rare occasion that they are found out, what do you do about it. My opinion is do nothing. The issue with eugenics in the past was why they were doing it and how they went about it. Modern eugenics looks more like gene therapy to eliminate objectively undesirable defects and discouraging people from having a child together (keyword: together) when it looks to be all but certain that they're going to produce a deformed child, I don't think there's anything wrong with modern eugenics because modern eugenics is about the quality of life of the child that is to be born and not about putting down the untermensch. Now, if you argue that the quality of life for the child is to be born trumps the right of the parents to conceive (or even have sex) as in the case of incest, then there is no reason other than logistics to oppose stopping certain people from having children when it is demonstrable that they will produce a child who will be born only to suffer, as in the case of dwarfs, but not exclusively dwarfs. If you disapprove, but allow people such as dwarfs to have children despite the near certainty that they will produce defective offspring, but believe their individual liberty, their ability to pursue a relationship with whomever they want provided they can consent, allows them to do so, then it makes no sense to me that you would oppose incest. Either you should want to see incest made legal or conception between those who will clearly produce fucked up children made illegal. You talk a lot about how no one has offered you any decent argument for why it should be legal, but in truth the only arguments you have offered are "it's convenient to keep it illegal" and your strange brand of selective eugenics, as well as an appeal to utilitarianism over individual liberty, the latter being the closest you have come to a valid argument. That is not really what I wanted to pick on though, what I wanted to pick on is your apparent blindness to the cost of imprisonment of people. People cost money to put in jail and keep there, it costs money to investigate people for a crime, it costs money to care for people once they leave prison with a record and can no longer find a job, yet you say that there is no negative when there clearly is. The cost of imprisoning someone over something such as consenting incest is one very good reason why it should no longer be illegal, among others such as individual liberty. I also want to point out that your understanding of odds is somewhat faulty. You understand, for example, that if a condom has a 98 percent chance success rate, then over the course of 100 acts of sex there is the chance that 2 of those acts will result in conception, however you fail to take into account that by combining different contraceptive methods, your odds of conceiving are reduced even more so. If the pill is 98 percent effective, and a condom is 98 percent effective, then those two methods combine to decrease the odds even more so, and the more methods you add in combination with each other can reduce your odds to the point where you would need to make a job of fucking to have a reasonable chance at having a child. That is, ignoring that even if conception occurs termination is a small matter.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49887873]I know you're going to find this idea objectionable by your opinion on euthanasia, but if someone is of a perfectly sound mind and they still want to die, why shouldn't they be allowed to?[/QUOTE] Mainly because suicide is a terrible choice that isn't made by people in sound mind, while euthanasia is just a euphemism for murder. but if the law allows people to do both, it sets a precedent you will find disturbing the further down you go.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49888032]Well again this is the problem, when you start specifically targeting genetic problems it becomes a slippery slope towards banning stuff that isn't even particularly harmful like needing glasses, which is why something more blanket like a ban on incest is a better defence against it than banning based on what genetic problems someone has.[/QUOTE] yeah but the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy "this is bad even though I think it's good because it would lead to X" isn't an argument the fact that you think the thing is good but X is bad implies that X and this thing are different, so why would one lead to the other?
[QUOTE=Riutet;49888035]First of all, you can ban dwarfs from having sex and having children, it just isn't going to work because you would need 24/7 surveillance to stop them and it would be very costly, it is the same case with people who engage in incest, they're going to do it whether you stop them or not, the only question is on the rare occasion that they are found out, what do you do about it. My opinion is do nothing. The issue with eugenics in the past was why they were doing it and how they went about it. Modern eugenics looks more like gene therapy to eliminate objectively undesirable defects and discouraging people from having a child together (keyword: together) when it looks to be all but certain that they're going to produce a deformed child, I don't think there's anything wrong with modern eugenics because modern eugenics is about the quality of life of the child that is to be born and not about putting down the untermensch. Now, if you argue that the quality of life for the child is to be born trumps the right of the parents to conceive (or even have sex) as in the case of incest, then there is no reason other than logistics to oppose stopping certain people from having children when it is demonstrable that they will produce a child who will be born only to suffer, as in the case of dwarfs. If you disapprove, but allow people such as dwarfs to have children despite the near certainty that they will produce defective offspring, but believe their individual liberty, their ability to pursue a relationship with whomever they want provided they can consent, then it makes no sense to me that you would oppose incest. Either you should want to see incest made legal or conception between those who will clearly produce fucked up children made illegal. You talk a lot about how no one has offered you any decent argument for why it should be legal, but in truth the only arguments you have offered are "it's convenient to keep it illegal" and your strange brand of selective eugenics, as well as an appeal to utilitarianism over individual liberty, the latter being the closest you have come to a valid argument. That is not really what I wanted to pick on though, what I wanted to pick on is your apparent blindness to the cost of imprisonment of people. People cost money to put in jail and keep there, it costs money to investigate people for a crime, it costs money to care for people once they leave prison with a record and can no longer find a job, yet you say that there is no cost to society when there clearly is. The cost of imprisoning someone over something such as consenting incest is one very good reason why it should no longer be illegal, among others such as individual liberty.[/QUOTE] Banning dwarfs from having kids has the nasty effect of stigmitising dwarfs, which as a group thats already treated like crap isn't particularly good. As I said the post just above, a blanket ban on something like incest is a much better protection against genetic problems than specific bans which only lead to greater prejudice against those people. Again I don't care much for technicalities like how if you support one then you can technically allow another form of ban. Yes you can, but overall a ban on incest is much more reasonable with less damaging effects than direct bans on people with genetic problems. Like I've said, it has an overall net positive effect.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49888037]Mainly because suicide is a terrible choice that isn't made by people in sound mind, while euthanasia is just a euphemism for murder. but if the law allows people to do both, it sets a precedent you will find disturbing the further down you go.[/QUOTE] 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=Mr. Scorpio;49888051]yeah but the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy "this is bad even though I think it's good because it would lead to X" isn't an argument the fact that you think the thing is good but X is bad implies that X and this thing are different, so why would one lead to the other?[/QUOTE] 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=carcarcargo;49888078]Banning dwarfs from having kids has the nasty effect of stigmitising dwarfs, which as a group thats already treated like crap isn't particularly good. As I said the post just above, a blanket ban on something like incest is a much better protection against genetic problems than specific bans which only lead to greater prejudice against those people. Again I don't care much for technicalities like how if you support one then you can technically allow another form of ban. Yes you can, but overall a ban on incest is much more reasonable with less damaging effects than direct bans on people with genetic problems. Like I've said, it has an overall net positive effect.[/QUOTE] 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.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.