Should incest be banned?

[Tiberius]

^ What she said, Martin.

 

[rageoftyrael]

lol, not to be petty, but i imagine he simply was unable to actually counter any of my arguments, and was unwilling to continue.

 

[nnmartin]

not at all , but at 523 posts it is time to move to a new topic.

 

[McBell]

not at all , but at 523 posts it is time to move to a new topic.

I agree.
If you cannot support anything you say within 523 posts, you really should move on to another thread.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Eh, the problem here is you said you would address my post once you had some time, and now you are saying that you are bored..... That appears to be classic backpedaling. It doesn't make you sound better to say you are bored, that just sounds like an excuse to get out of having to address my points, whereas it would be much more honest to simply say that you are unable to counter my arguments.

 

[nnmartin]

I've not specifically said I'm bored of this thread but it has been going on for a long long time.

I am now on holiday and could really do with focusing on other threads.

although I seem to remember that your point number 1 needed addressing.

surely the reason for law is to stop harm?

 

[nnmartin]

Okay, so i'm gonna answer these in the same way you listed them. Numerically. Each number will address the same number as above.

1. As i have specified, consenting incestuous sex between two adults is not a problem, even if it causes psychological issues, because, since you seem to value the law so much, it is their right to do things, even though they may cause them psychological harm.

yes, I remembered correctly.

this point is no good because society does not benefit from having psychologically harmed people wandering around.

It is more sensible to try and avoid this outcome by banning certain activites, such as incest.


perhaps I may just get back into this thread

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Just because society does not benefit from something does not mean it should be banned - for starters because simply by being a member of society does not mean that we surrender all of our individual rights to society. We might curtail some of those rights to an extent - for example we can still choose what to wear, but we cannot choose to walk out the front of a primary school starkass - however we still have the right to choose what to wear, the extent to which we curtail those rights is fundamental to how free a society it is; if you want an authoritarian society then go ahead - but if you try to enforce it on me I will buy or build a weapon to smack some sense into you and to protect my own rights - which I agree to curtail to an extent but not to surrender them.

 

[connermt]

This topic has been mentioned in passing in a few threads recently so I thought it would be time to address the issue head on.

Should incest be banned and is it wrong?

I'd say yes and yes.

All the supposed logical fallacies apply here:

It's depraved, immoral, leads to retardation, God forbids it, its unnatural and is just out and out weird. Many more issues of course as well.

Subjective, objective or whatever type of reasoning - it is wrong and should be banned.

When I say incest I'm really talking about close family members.

I'll try to be open minded here but I can't really see any justification for legalisation.


Anyone have anything to say on this?

For me, incest is a NO GO, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any god or deity.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

For me, incest is a NO GO, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any god or deity.

Fair enough.

But this thread is about whether or not it should be banned (and obviously the reasoning involved), not about whether or not you'd personally go for it.

 

[connermt]

Fair enough.

But this thread is about whether or not it should be banned (and obviously the reasoning involved), not about whether or not you'd personally go for it.

Should it be banned because god said so?
No.
Should it be banned no matter what "god said"?
I don't much care about what a dad/daughter, brother/sister, etc. do in the privacy of their own home if they're consenting adults..
Which is why I said "For me..." and not "for everyone else...".

 

[McBell]

Should it be banned because god said so?
No.
Should it be banned no matter what "god said"?
I don't much care about what a dad/daughter, brother/sister, etc. do in the privacy of their own home if they're consenting adults..
Which is why I said "For me..." and not "for everyone else...".

Ah, but the real nitty gritty get down to the bare tax of the matter question is....






Should incest be banned because nnmartin thinks it is "yucky"?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Should incest be banned because nnmartin thinks it is "yucky"?

That's reason enough to encourage it!

 

[connermt]

Ah, but the real nitty gritty get down to the bare tax of the matter question is....






Should incest be banned because nnmartin thinks it is "yucky"?

Then what ever would NMartin do with their free time?

 

[rageoftyrael]

You should have been able to tell from my previous posts, nnmartin, that the whole, we got to protect people from themselves argument, won't work on me. The law is supposed to be there to protect people from other people, not from themselves. I personally hate laws designed purely to protect me from myself.

For example, seat belt law. Okay, if they want to make a law where a parent has to make sure their kid has a seat belt, i don't necessarily have a problem with that, but when they make a law that requires an adult to wear the seat belt, that's where i draw the line. I personally almost always wear my seat belt, (i have forgotten a few times) because i want to be safer when i drive. If that isn't important to someone though, then why would we force the issue? Shoot, it isn't like we are sitting here with a tiny population that we absolutely have to protect. Honestly, a little culling of the herd, wouldn't hurt.....

 

[connermt]

Honestly, a little culling of the herd, wouldn't hurt.....

I have a list of people someone could add to this list if they were so inclined....

 

[nnmartin]

For example, seat belt law. Okay, if they want to make a law where a parent has to make sure their kid has a seat belt, i don't necessarily have a problem with that, but when they make a law that requires an adult to wear the seat belt, that's where i draw the line.

yes, but if you don't wear a seatbelt and have an accident that it does affect other people.

medical services etc..and other issues.

drug abuse springs to mind here - we don't want people becoming addicts because of the negative indirect social impacts caused.

incest will warp the idea of family which has been a cornerstone of sociey for many centuries.

legalising it sends out the wrong message to society - banning let's people know its wrong (bear in mind that some people in certain areas may be of low intellect and cannot work this out for themselves).

 

[blackout]

All these things you want 'banned'...

Why on earth do you use the word 'banned'?
Is the world a forum?
Is it your dream to admin the world forum?

I think the word you must be looking for is 'outlawed',
or 'made illegal', 'legislated as illegal'.

Who goes around talking about 'banning' things?



nnmartin wants to moderate the WORLD! MMMMMuuuhhahahahaha! :bat:

 

[nnmartin]

well ,someone needs to.

the world needs to be protected from itself - form the hidden fascist agenda hiding within the liberal sheeps' clothing.

equality and entitlement really mean seflishness, ego and 'me first'.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

well ,someone needs to.

the world needs to be protected from itself - form the hidden fascist agenda hiding within the liberal sheeps' clothing.

equality and entitlement really mean seflishness, ego and 'me first'.

Liberofascism...ah ah ha :no: