-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should incest be banned?
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
rageoftyrael
Veritas
a lot of people won't let it go, because you won't admit that your arguments have been countered. they have been, pretty much everyone, you just won't admit it.
McBell
Unbound
Now if we could just get you to stop...
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
I would say that I have countered all the arguments in favour of incest.
the only thing is that you don't agree - so that in no way makes you correct.
How can I admit that incest should be legal - it shouldn't.
Zoe Doidge
Basically a Goddess
At the point where their mistakes directly cause physical harm or loss to others. In this case that is obviously at the point where children come of it, which is why the point where the law should intervene is at the point of possible conception.
Bollocks. That's a slippery slope fallacy because you haven't shown why we must allow anything else because we allow incest.
McBell
Unbound
:biglaugh:we would have to get you to stop first though.
if you stop first then maybe I will
Please be so kind as to point out where, in this thread I have presented a false dichotomy.
McBell
Unbound
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Well actually I would suggest that his birth defects argument is a possible one to make; yet his unwillingness to examine the parallel to non-incestuous unions with as high or higher chances of defect significantly detracts from the feasibility of the position as it has all the hallmarks of special pleading.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by nnmartin
And where do we draw the line between freedom and protecting the public?
are you referring to incest exclusively here?
if not, then that point of yours really does allow for all sorts of things that are currently banned for good reason.
And where do we draw the line between freedom and protecting the public?
are you referring to incest exclusively here?
if not, then that point of yours really does allow for all sorts of things that are currently banned for good reason.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
some of your pals have, many times.
but I'm not going to trawl through 700 posts to dig up an old quote.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
OK, regarding the birth defects as you have pointed out in non incestuous unions - yes, they should be banned as well.
So we ban incest on abnormal offspring grounds.
And we also ban abnormal offspring production through other unions too.
So , now we have cleared that up - what do you have to counter the claim of incestuous births being wrong?
McBell
Unbound
Yet you did not say that my pals have presented false dichotomies.
You said I have presented them.
If you were to trawl through them you would find that it is you who has used the most logical fallacies in this thread.
Well, seeing as you have shown that you do not know what is and what is not a fallacy, YOU probably won't...
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
back to the old sematics routine again I see.....
so, by using the word 'most' are you admitting that some of your pals have used some logical fallacies? - sounds like it to me!
I do have better things to do with my time than spend hours going over this thread.
let's keep it moving forward I reckon.
rageoftyrael
Veritas
Nnmartin, your last little statement is exactly why you've lost, and can't admit it. To quote you "so, by using the word 'most' are you admitting that some of your pals have used some logical fallacies? - sounds like it to me!" You completely failed to consider that you aren't the only person to try and claim that incest is wrong, and that "your" pals may have been the ones doing it. Thus, mestemia wasn't admitting that any of her "pals" had been making any logical fallacies.
I point this out, because if you are so thoughtless as to not see this blatantly obvious possibility, and are only trying to score really, really minor points over on other posters, than clearly you are the wrong person to be trying to defend this belief. Honestly, i've already said as much, having asked for someone who would be willing to put up some honest facts to back up their positions, but honestly, the only people willing to battle on your side of the fence on this argument, are all worse than you. Maybe you should take that into consideration as well. When only the foolish are one your side, mayhap your side is not the side to be on, hmmm?
I point this out, because if you are so thoughtless as to not see this blatantly obvious possibility, and are only trying to score really, really minor points over on other posters, than clearly you are the wrong person to be trying to defend this belief. Honestly, i've already said as much, having asked for someone who would be willing to put up some honest facts to back up their positions, but honestly, the only people willing to battle on your side of the fence on this argument, are all worse than you. Maybe you should take that into consideration as well. When only the foolish are one your side, mayhap your side is not the side to be on, hmmm?
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
keep on talking to yourself , way to go - at least someone is listening this time!
I always thought Mestemia was a man - oh well, live and learn I guess - he he!
I always thought Mestemia was a man - oh well, live and learn I guess - he he!
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
How about dealing with some of the key issues here rather than just pointless nitpicking.
Now, what do you think of the idea that we not only ban incestuous conception but also ban it in other cases in which birth defects would be likely?
Zoe Doidge
Basically a Goddess
No I'm not referring exclusively to incest, although other issues might have additional reasons I find that's a decent guideline.
Like what?
McBell
Unbound
It is not my fault that you are so slopppy with your wording.
Of course, in this particular case you are merely trying to back pedal.
Of course it sounds like it to you.
But then, you have shown that you are most skilled at seeing what you want regardless of the truth of presented facts.
Of course you do.
Nothing like a good back pedaling when you put your foot in your mouth.
Yes, divert the topic away from your blunder...
McBell
Unbound
You really should take your own advice.
So you propose to ban all sex or just all conception?