Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

1234568»

Comments

  • #352
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Soo... not about you at all then, no?

    Oh good, you are finally starting to understand. No it is not all about me. The failures of your flailing attempts to stack a case against the morality of incest are entirely independent of me.

    It is YOU making it about me, because a switch to making a personal commentary about me simply gets you off having to address those failures, or my rebuttals to them.

    Again: I entered this thread unaware of any arguments supporting the contention that incest should be regarded as immoral, unethical or harmful. And I remain that way now.
    Minera wrote: »
    the majority of such interactions are founded by abusive qualities

    Do you have figures or citations or studies to support this contention?
    Minera wrote: »
    what are the chances that incestuous relationships will start maybe pre teen or very early teens?

    And yet we keep pointing out that we are discussing "adult relationships involving informed consent".

    Engaging in sexual activity with pre teen children is a separate issue, nothing to do with incest Per Se. It should be tackled at all levels, incestuous or not.

    Alas because we have this umbrella term "incest" which is applied to all forms, abusive or not, under age or not, informed consent or not, it allows the waters to by muddied on demand.

    One wonders simply how much the conversation would be changed if we had two words for it, not one, and one of those words simply means "Adult informed consent sexual relations between direct relations".


  • #353
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Oh good, you are finally starting to understand. No it is not all about me. The failures of your flailing attempts to stack a case against the morality of incest are entirely independent of me.

    It is YOU making it about me, because a switch to making a personal commentary about me simply gets you off having to address those failures, or my rebuttals to them.


    Excuse me? It was your good self who chose to make a personal commentary about me, and continued to make personal comments about me, simply because you had no way of addressing the content of my posts, and chose to avoid them and instead descend quickly to personal swipes -

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    All you and your cohort really have are crass imagery and "argumentum ad personal distaste". Hardly convincing.


    continuing in that same vein to offer an unwarranted critique of my grammar -

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    As in you and the people who are bringing nothing to bear on the conversation but crass sexual scenarios.

    ...

    Yes. Or at least that is the only answer I can give to this given I am not seeing a question before the question mark. Perhaps if you could endeavour to formulate a sentence next time I can help you further.

    Following the use of sentences you might then even manage to elevate your rhetoric to formulating a relevant argument or point on this topic.


    And so on. I could quote numerous examples of your pedantry and your failure to address the content of my posts, rather than stooping to attacking me personally. It doesn't faze me though, because as you say yourself -
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Repetition of an assertion does not make the assertion true. You wanting it to be about me personally therefore does not make it so....

    Again: I entered this thread unaware of any arguments supporting the contention that incest should be regarded as immoral, unethical or harmful. And I remain that way now.


    And again, just because you continue to ignore the arguments, doesn't mean you haven't been made aware of them. You made some attempt at addressing these arguments, but you failed in every respect to offer anything convincing by way of rebuttal. All you managed to do was fuel the online echo chamber that had made the same "two consenting adults", "nanny state" objections. You cannot parse your personal objections as arguments, no matter how much you would like to think you can.

    Do you have figures or citations or studies to support this contention?


    Because of the nature of the act, you're fully aware that any statistics, citations or studies would be insufficient to present a comprehensive scale of the issue. However, one of the reasons why France introduced laws criminalising incest recently was because of this -

    Louis Fort, an MP from President Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing UMP party who drew up the law, described it as a victory for France's estimated "two million victims of incest".

    Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7085759/France-makes-incest-a-crime.html

    and because you may need another source:
    Current as of 2004


    Research indicates that 46% of children who are raped are victims of family members.(Langan, Patrick and Caroline Harlow. (1994). Child Rape Victims, 1992. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.)
    11% of rape victims are raped by their fathers or step-fathers, and another 16% are raped by other relatives while they were children. (Langan, Patrick and Caroline Harlow. (1994). Child Rape Victims, 1992. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.)
    The study of a nationally representative sample of state prisoners serving time for violent crime in 1991 showedthat of those prisoners convicted of rape or sexual assault, two-thirds victimized children and almost one-third of the victims were the children or step-children of the assailant. (Greenfield, Lawrence, (1996). Child Victimizers: Violent Offenders and Thier Victims: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.)
    Approximately, 28% of adult victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence Against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1994.)
    Incest has been cited as the most common form of child abuse. Studies conclude that 43% of child victims are abused by family members, 33% by somone they know, and the remaining 24% are sexually abused by strangers. (Hayes, Robert. (1990, Summer). “Child Sexual Abuse.” Crime Prevention Journal.)
    There is evidence emerging that as many as one in three incidents of child sexual abuse are not remembered by adults who experienced them, and that the younger the child was at the time of the abuse, and the closer the relationship to the abuser, the more likely one is not to remember. (Jim Hopper, Ph.D., Child Abuse Statistics, Research and Resources. www.jimhopper.com, 2004.)
    Less than 3 percent (2.5%) of parents committed sexual abuse; however, 28.9 percent of other relatives, 19.3 percent of daycare providers, 16.4 percent of residentialfacility staff, and 11.2 percent of unmarried partners of parents committed sexual abuse. More than one-third (36.9%) of perpetrators who were in “other” types of relationships to the child victims— including camp counselors, school employees, and hospital staff—committed sexual abuse. (Child Maltreatment Report 2002. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2004).)
    Incest is an experience which affects survivors’ lives in many ways. The following is only a partial list of possible effects survivors may experience for years into their adult lives:

    Low self-esteem
    Anxiety, need to control relationships
    Self-blame, guilt
    Post-traumatic stress disorder
    Vulnerability to revictimization
    Eating disorders
    Depression
    Dissociative reactions
    Difficulty sustaining relationships & building trust
    Sexual dysfunction
    Alcohol or drug problems
    Flashbacks and traumatic memories
    Incest remains one of the most under-reported and least discussed crimes in our nation, making accurate statistics and information difficult to gather. Because of strong taboos, incest is often concealed by the victim because of guilt, shame, fear, coercion by the abuser, and/or social and familial pressure.

    DEFINITION

    Incest is the sexual abuse of a child by a relative or other person in a position of trust and authority over the child. Additional characteristics include:

    Sexual contact or interaction between family members who are not marital partners;
    Oral genital contact, genital or anal penetration, genital touching of the victim by the perpetrator, any other touching of private body parts, sexual kissing and hugging;
    Sexually staring at the victim by the perpetrator, accidental or disguised touching of the victim’s body by the perpetrator, verbal invitations to engage in sexual activity, verbal ridiculing of body parts, pornographic photography, reading of sexually explicit material to children, and exposure to inappropriate sexual activity (National Center for Victims of Crime).
    Incest is experienced by those of every racial and ethnic descent, all religious traditions, and any socio-economic status. Victims of incest are boys and girls, infants and adolescents. Perpetrators of incest can be aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, parents, step-parents, step-children, grandparents, and grandchildren. In addition, incest offenders can be persons without a direct blood or legal relationship to the victim such as a parents’ lover or live-in nanny, housekeeper, etc.



    MEMORY.

    Many victims of incest may not have memories of it ever happening. Some will not have these memories because the abuse occurred while they were very young. Many abuse vicitms will report that the actual physical sexual abuse was not the worst aspect of the experience; rather, it was carrying such a powerful secret that must be protected. Others may have literally pushed the memories from their conscious mind in order to survive the abuse. In either case, the victim/survivor may feel as if something occurred and may eventually regain the memories of the abuse. Whether they remember the abuse or not, victims / survivors may still experience the effects previously listed.



    HEALING.

    People who experience incest have experienced violation of trust and sexual expoitation, but they can and do survive. There is no one “right way” to heal. Many will heal with the help of a counselor/therapist and/or support group, and others will heal on their own. Once a survivor has made a commitment to address incest issues, it may take an average of 3-5 years of therapy to heal.



    “The incest victim is usually the healthiest in the family: the one closest to the truth and the first to seek help.”

    - Susan Forward, Ph.D., 1989.
    Innocence and Betrayal Overcoming the Legacy of Sexual Abuse


    Source: http://www.wcasa.org/pages/Resources-Info_Sheets-Incest-2004.php

    And yet we keep pointing out that we are discussing "adult relationships involving informed consent".


    And you can keep pointing that out, but it doesn't mean anyone else has to keep to the specific incestuous circumstances that suit you personally. The thread title is -
    Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

    This includes your specific parameters, which you as I said, are free to keep pointing out, but that doesn't mean the discussion is limited to your parameters that suit you.

    Engaging in sexual activity with pre teen children is a separate issue, nothing to do with incest Per Se. It should be tackled at all levels, incestuous or not.


    I agree with you, but specifically what we're talking about here is incestuous relationships, not "incest or not".

    Alas because we have this umbrella term "incest" which is applied to all forms, abusive or not, under age or not, informed consent or not, it allows the waters to by muddied on demand.


    The only person muddying the waters seems to be your good self. Incest is incest, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. It has a very specific meaning -

    sexual intercourse between people who are very closely related

    Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incest

    One wonders simply how much the conversation would be changed if we had two words for it, not one, and one of those words simply means "Adult informed consent sexual relations between direct relations".


    You may continue to wonder, because for now, incest is what it is, and makes no reference to whether the people are adults or children, whether consent is involved, etc. It is as you quite rightly point out - sexual relations between relations.


  • #354
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Excuse me? It was your good self who chose to make a personal commentary about me

    That is simply a fabrication on your part. The ad hominem and point dodging is you and you alone.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    you had no way of addressing the content of my posts

    More of your fabrication. I addressed the content of your posts from the very first one I replied to. You refuse to address those replies and have simply made it personal.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    continuing in that same vein to offer an unwarranted critique of my grammar

    More of your fabrication. I did not critique your grammar. I called you out on offering one word replies with a question mark. A common tactic to make it look like you are replying to a post while A) Not actually replying to the poster in any way really and B) attempting to not give that poster something to reply to in turn. Its a cheap tactic to try and make a poster wander off. I did not wander off.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I could quote numerous examples of your pedantry and your failure to address the content of my posts

    By all means try because the fact I have replied to the content of all the posts since the first one, but you have refused to respond to the content of those replies, even admitting you can not be bothered to, belies the fabrication behind your little attempt at historical revisionism.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    And again, just because you continue to ignore the arguments, doesn't mean you haven't been made aware of them

    Yet I ignored nothing. I responded to your points in detail, and you simply dodged the reply.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    you failed in every respect to offer anything convincing by way of rebuttal.

    yet you were unwilling (unable) to address my rebuttals. So instead, here, you simply call them a "fail" and run. Quite the MO you have there. You cannot parse your personal objections as arguments, no matter how much you would like to think you can, so you simply dodge even trying.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Because of the nature of the act, you're fully aware that any statistics, citations or studies would be insufficient to present a comprehensive scale of the issue.

    So there is no citations, statistics or studies supporting the claim. Nice of you to admit it. Now if only the person who made the contention would be as honest.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    However, one of the reasons why France introduced laws criminalising incest recently was because of this -

    A propoganda move of simply using the word "victims" but without justifying, clarifying or lending substance to the use of the word? THAT is your argument? Really?

    What does he mean "victims"? What does he mean "incest"? Where is he getting the figure 2 million???

    Is he talking about victims of child sexual abuse by family members? Do I once again have to remind you that is NOT what I am talking about here? Or do you just want to pretend you do not already know that, so you can throw made up statistics at me that do not even remotely relate to what I have been espousing?
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    and because you may need another source:

    Another source relating to child rape? Again pretending that I am talking about something I am not? Are you so desperate now that you need to reply to things I am not even talking about? Oh wait.... that is what you have been doing since post 1. I forgot (not).

    Again I am asking what arguments you can offer to suggest the morality of incest but I __VERY__ __CLEARLY__ __STATED__ I was refering to the "informed consent of related adults involved in sexual relations".

    Nothing. To. Do. With. Raping. Children.

    So your little links could not be more irrelevant to replying to me. You just put them in to make it look like you are offering an argument, but you are not respond to a single position I hold. Dodge. Dodge. Dodge. Thats your MO.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The only person muddying the waters seems to be your good self.

    No. It really is just you. And this tactic you have of accusing others of the things only you are engaged in is convincing no one BUT yourself.

    As I said I entered this thread with a point, and I have not had that point rebutted once. Instead you have offered attacks on positions I never held, and positions that wantonly ignore the specifics of my position.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Incest is incest, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

    And "sport is sport" but clearly the difference between lawn bowling and Mixed Martial arts is massive if one is talking about the dangers and harms of sports. No one is naive or petty enough to say "violence is bad, it happens in MMA and Boxing.... they are sports.... sports are sports..... they are what they are.....so all sports are bad!" yet you offer essentially the same "thinking" here by essentially saying "abuse and rape are bad..... abuse and rape happens in some forms of incest.... incest is incest.... it is what it is...... therefore incest is bad". That is not an argument, that is a non sequitur. At best. A flat out canard at worst.

    Similarly "incest" is an umbrella term for too many things for the word to be meaningfully used without clarifications or specifics or contexts.

    I know that is inconvenient for you because you are so desperate to manufacture an argument against incest. So you simply focus on the unsavoury actions that fall under the term "incest" and simply act like this is an argument against "incest" as a whole.

    Once again: Child rape or abuse of another are bad things. They happen in incest. They happen in "normal" sexual relationships between non related individuals. They are not specific to incest and are as such not an argument against incest.

    Rape is bad. Rape != incest.
    Pedophilia is bad. Pedophilia != incest.
    Abuse and manipulation are bad. Abuse and manipulation != Incest.

    You are cherry picking things that happen in all areas of sex and sexuality and attempting to make incest look like it is synonymous with them. It is the same fetid tactic you tried by painting unpleasant sexual scenarios and dropping incest into the middle of them. It is propaganda ploys you offer us here, not arguments.


  • #355
    0byme75341jo28
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,571 ✭✭✭0byme75341jo28


    Can someone please explain to me why the f*ck it's supposed to be a fundamental right? That is absolute nonsense.


  • #356
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is simply a fabrication on your part. The ad hominem and point dodging is you and you alone.


    It looks like you're incapable of acknowledging even your own words, so we have to take this back to the very beginning and go from there. I won't be addressing the rest of your post until you address the following -

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    All you and your cohort really have are crass imagery and "argumentum ad personal distaste". Hardly convincing.


    Now, just in case you need a little help, here is the Pyramid of Debate Techniques -

    http://api.ning.com/files/GQiSZKPZHizx5GSg9t6ES9dXS3ja0BGC97PuCq3KWZaUH2OmIUED5KinEv-4bc1mGva9qtxH6vhDjbx6HXVRBcOY*H6W49jd/PyramidofDebateTechniques.jpg


    Would you care to explain what you mean by "you and your cohort"?


  • #357
    Wurzelbert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,804 ✭✭✭Wurzelbert


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    [...]
    And of course it is worth noting, just in case anyone runs away with this, that what is "natural" or not does not in any way map onto what is ethical or not, or moral or not.

    erm, yeah, of course….just what exactly are you defending here?


  • #358
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Soo... not about you at all then, no?

    The thing is, I'm quite satisfied with the laws as they are in this country. I'm also quite satisfied that the EHCR would uphold any decision regarding those laws, and I'm quite satisfied that those laws are compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    What YOU want then, and what way you wish society to be, is really for me neither here nor there. The arguments work for me, and I will support maintaining the laws regarding incest in Ireland as they are.

    They work for YOU in YOUR opinion but you haven't given a credible logically sound argument why incest between consenting adults is unethical or immoral.


  • #359
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Would you care to explain what you mean by "you and your cohort"?

    Explain it again you mean? I already explained this in an earlier post, but do not let that stop you focusing on this as a means to dodging the entirety of my most recent post.

    I was referring to the tactic you and another user on this thread employed of simply building up unpleasant sexual scenarios and dropping incest in to the middle of them to make incest look bad by proxy.

    "Cohort: a group of people with a shared characteristic."

    You and the other user shared this characteristic.

    Clearer now? I hope the clarification does not harm your attempts at historical revisionism too much. But there certainly is no ad hominem or name calling there. No matter how much you want to fabricate some.
    Wurzelbert wrote: »
    erm, yeah, of course….just what exactly are you defending here?

    I am not aware of "defending" anything in that post. I merely pointed out that the comment that was made can be misconstued or misapplied.


  • #360
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Elle Thankful Soil wrote: »
    Can someone please explain to me why the f*ck it's supposed to be a fundamental right? That is absolute nonsense.

    I am not sure what their point is, but possibly they mean that consensual adult sex in the privacy of ones own bedroom should be a fundamental right, and no ones business but those who are engaged in it.

    If that is their point, then I have to say I agree to that ideal.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Explain it again you mean? I already explained this in an earlier post, but do not let that stop you focusing on this as a means to dodging the entirety of my most recent post.

    I was referring to the tactic you and another user on this thread employed of simply building up unpleasant sexual scenarios and dropping incest in to the middle of them to make incest look bad by proxy.

    "Cohort: a group of people with a shared characteristic."

    You and the other user shared this characteristic.

    Clearer now? I hope the clarification does not harm your attempts at historical revisionism too much.


    So it WAS an ad-hominem then?

    I said I would address your most recent post once we have cleared matter up. There's no point in going any further otherwise. You have not provided sufficient clarification for your unnecessary personal attack. I am not attempting to rewrite history, I merely seek clarification for your use of a basic logical fallacy. Then once that is done, we can move on to the next one.


  • #362
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Tigersliding wrote: »
    They work for YOU in YOUR opinion but you haven't given a credible logically sound argument why incest between consenting adults is unethical or immoral.

    In YOUR opinion.

    See how that works?


  • #363
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am not sure what their point is, but possibly they mean that consensual adult sex in the privacy of ones own bedroom should be a fundamental right, and no ones business but those who are engaged in it.

    If that is their point, then I have to say I agree to that ideal.


    Their point was this -

    The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.


    Hope that clarifies it for you.

    Their point is moot regardless because it refers to siblings as a couple in a sexual relationship, rather than an individuals fundamental human right to sexual self determination.


  • #364
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    In YOUR opinion.

    See how that works?

    No that's the fact of logic and reason.


  • #365
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Tigersliding wrote: »
    No that's the fact of logic and reason.


    You've lost me now.

    Oh well.


  • #366
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You've lost me now.

    Oh well.

    I think you lost yourself a long time ago.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Minera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭Minera


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Oh good, you are finally starting to understand. No it is not all about me. The failures of your flailing attempts to stack a case against the morality of incest are entirely independent of me.

    It is YOU making it about me, because a switch to making a personal commentary about me simply gets you off having to address those failures, or my rebuttals to them.

    Again: I entered this thread unaware of any arguments supporting the contention that incest should be regarded as immoral, unethical or harmful. And I remain that way now.



    Do you have figures or citations or studies to support this contention?



    And yet we keep pointing out that we are discussing "adult relationships involving informed consent".

    Engaging in sexual activity with pre teen children is a separate issue, nothing to do with incest Per Se. It should be tackled at all levels, incestuous or not.

    Alas because we have this umbrella term "incest" which is applied to all forms, abusive or not, under age or not, informed consent or not, it allows the waters to by muddied on demand.

    One wonders simply how much the conversation would be changed if we had two words for it, not one, and one of those words simply means "Adult informed consent sexual relations between direct relations".

    Due to the abrasive tone of your compositions ( and thats all they are tbh) I do not wish to get into a debate with you on this subject matter. You do not appear to have any substantial comments on the topic. I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post but find your debate closed minded rather than open to differing views. I do request that you re read my post and consider it appropriately, as I believe you may have missed the point I was making!


  • #368
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Minera wrote: »
    Due to the abrasive tone of your compositions ( and thats all they are tbh) I do not wish to get into a debate with you on this subject matter. You do not appear to have any substantial comments on the topic.

    So you think there is something wrong with my comments but you have offered a cop out excuse as to why you will not be addressing them. That's a nice tactic right there. That way you simply get to declare someone is wrong, but you do not have to substantiate that claim in any way.

    Your cop out aside, I have made many comments on the thread, and added much substance to why I was saying them. I addressed many of the arguments against incest people have offered, at length, and explained exactly how and why they fail.

    You can either address those comments from me, or run away from them, and that is all the same to me. But do not pretend your running away is a fault of mine and not yours.
    Minera wrote: »
    I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post but find your debate closed minded rather than open to differing views.

    That is simply false. I am always open to differing views. Especially on moral issues. What I am NOT open to is views expressed by assertion or repetition. I am open to views where people say not just "This is what I think" but "This is what I think and HERE is why.....".

    Opinions are like ass holes as they say, everyone has them. So the opinions do not interest me so much as their basis. The basis interests me greatly.
    Minera wrote: »
    I do request that you re read my post and consider it appropriately, as I believe you may have missed the point I was making!

    I do not think I missed it. Not agreeing with your point != missing the point. You started your post off with the claim "the majority of such interactions are founded by abusive qualities" and "majority" is a numerical claim. So I merely asked what data you have on which you are basing this claim. Where there am I missing the point?

    Similarly you went on to speak of pre teen sexual relationships. My response to this is also not missing the point. It is CLARIFYING the point. I think we all agree here that pedophile or under age sex are bad things. We agree on this regardless of incest or not. We simply do not think pre teens should be engaged in sex.

    But this is a thread specifically about incest..... and I do not see the issue of sex with children being any more OR less relevant to that than any other sexuality context.

    But if we are speaking about consensual adult sexual relations between people who happen to also be related.... then pre teen sex and child abuse are simply not relevant at all, are they?
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    So it WAS an ad-hominem then?

    Nope. I was addressing the tactic you and the cohort employed, not the people who employed them. The latter would be ad hominem. The former is not.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You have not provided sufficient clarification for your unnecessary personal attack.

    There was no personal attack. You are contriving to manufacture one in order to dodge replying to my post content.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Hope that clarifies it for you.

    Not really because "protecting the family" is just one of those sound bite slogans that sounds good but needs to be unpacked. It simply assumes the conclusion, that some "damage" to the family is being caused. An assumption you seem to make too.

    I however have more respect for peoples abilities to make this decision themselves and, if entering into a consensual adult sexual relationship, to determine the implications of that for themselves. Regardless of whether it is an incestuous relationship or not.


  • #369
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Satriale wrote: »
    Ahem.;)
    dev·o·lu·tion
    1. A passing down or descent through successive stages of time or a process.
    2. Transference, as of rights or qualities, to a successor.
    3. Delegation of authority or duties to a subordinate or substitute.
    4. A transfer of powers from a central government to local units.
    5. Biology Degeneration.



    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devolution

    Yep, it doesn't make sense no matter how much you rephrase it I'm afraid.


  • #370
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But this is a thread specifically about incest.....


    Oh good, you're finally beginning to understand the point of the thread. So you understand what incest is then - sexual relations between people who are closely related to each other either by blood or through marriage.

    (I was growing weary of your juvenile attempts to feign ignorance. It doesn't become you as I know you to be an extremely intelligent and articulate individual)

    But if we are speaking about consensual adult sexual relations between people who happen to also be related....


    I too was speaking about consensual adult sexual relations between people who happen to be related when I referred to a girl engaging in consensual sexual relations with her brothers and her father. You found my argument to be crass and unpleasant, and claimed that I was 'just dropping incest in there', when what I was arguing was the very definition of incest! Yet for some reason you found such an argument crass and unpleasant.

    That leads me to believe that either you yourself have an issue with incestuous sex, or you have an issue with what a group of consenting adults (all 18+), get up to in the privacy of their own four walls of their own home...

    Can you now understand my difficulty with your argument, based on the fact that your opinion seems to be based on your own cognitive dissonance, which is based on your personal morality, ie - your opinion regarding incest does not seem to be independent of you at all, but rather is based on scenarios pertaining to activity among consenting adults which must first meet your approval in order to be validated.

    Nope. I was addressing the tactic you and the cohort employed, not the people who employed them. The latter would be ad hominem. The former is not.


    When you address me personally with 'you', that is in immediate reference to me as an individual. Therefore you were attacking me personally, and that is the basis of an ad hominem fallacy.

    There was no personal attack. You are contriving to manufacture one in order to dodge replying to my post content.


    Repeating an assertion does not make it so. You have directly accused me of fabrication which is as much a polite way of calling me a liar, and I take offence to your baseless and repeated assertion on the point of fact that you are ignoring facts. I have pointed out to you where you are wrong, in your own posts, and yet you continue to deny any wrongdoing. Whether you accept it or not, this is an example of poor communication skills, fuelled by misguided arrogance and self-belief.

    It was a personal attack, failing to rebut the argument in my post, and instead lowering the tone of the discussion to an immature and juvenile level. When that didn't work, you resorted to name calling with your "nanny Czarcasm" effort. Was that not an ad hominem either?

    (the irony of referring to me as a nanny however seemed to have been lost on you given the subject of the thread and much of the explanation for Freud's Oedipus Complex. Do you need that explained too?)

    Not really because "protecting the family" is just one of those sound bite slogans that sounds good but needs to be unpacked. It simply assumes the conclusion, that some "damage" to the family is being caused. An assumption you seem to make too.


    Unpack it then! You are arguing that one of the most basic structures that form the foundations of a society are nothing more than a soundbite, yet it is you who are arguing that the concept of siblings entering sexual relationships is not just a soundbite, and is arguably more valid than the maintaining of that social structure that regards them as siblings?

    Your ignorance of circular logic is about as fascinating as your 'two consenting adults' soundbite.

    I however have more respect for peoples abilities to make this decision themselves and, if entering into a consensual adult sexual relationship, to determine the implications of that for themselves. Regardless of whether it is an incestuous relationship or not.


    And yet you have no respect for posters here when you take it upon yourself to charge once more ahead as the moral and intellectual guardian of Boards in order to point out to every other poster here what you perceive to be the invalid arguments of what you yourself referred to as the 'anti-incest side'.

    Does that mean that anyone who views incest as an abhorrence, are they on the 'anti-incest' side too? You're sitting pretty in the middle of course playing devils advocate as you would claim you are not then 'pro-incest' per se, but rather that you personally are still unaware of any valid argument against two consenting adults who as you say, 'just happen' to be related to each other (it didn't just happen btw, their parents had sex, that's how they are related, by blood, or do you need that explained to you too?), and you would like to see the practice referred to as something else besides incest, which tells me you have an issue moreso with the language used to describe the act, than the actual act itself!


    Just how much thought have you really put into your arguments? Seems to me you really haven't given the subject of incest much thought at all. Perhaps you should, and flesh it out, and really think about what you're saying, rather than being so concerned with your thoughts that anyone else is incapable of independent thought without your help.


  • #371
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,693 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Jaysus, will one of ye let the other have the last word so this will fall off the first page of AH.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Oh good, you're finally beginning to understand the point of the thread.

    That is just snide, I have been discussing incest since entering the thread. The failure to understand the topic was only yours, as evidenced by the crass little sexual scenario post I first replied to.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    So you understand what incest is then - sexual relations between people who are closely related to each other either by blood or through marriage.

    I have never once indicated not understanding that. What I ALSO understand however, which you fail to, is that that definition covers a HUGE range of diverse contexts and behaviors. At one extreme is consensual adult sex between people who happen to be related........ at the other extreme however there is the sexual abuse of minors by relatives.

    I have been discussing the former. However you have been discussing the whole continuum under the umbrella term and acting like any fault ANYWHERE on the continuum is a fault against incest as a whole. It is not.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    (I was growing weary of your juvenile attempts to feign ignorance. It doesn't become you as I know you to be an extremely intelligent and articulate individual)

    I have done no such thing and nowhere have I been ignorant (real or feigned) of anything. All I have done is made it very clear that I am talking about one type of incest in particular while you are talking about the whole range as if it is one single thing.

    If you are weary therefore, sleep it off.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I too was speaking about consensual adult sexual relations between people who happen to be related when I referred to a girl engaging in consensual sexual relations with her brothers and her father. You found my argument to be crass and unpleasant, and claimed that I was 'just dropping incest in there', when what I was arguing was the very definition of incest! Yet for some reason you found such an argument crass and unpleasant.

    Then you simply failed to understand my explanation of what I meant by the crass sexual scenario you dropped incest into the middle of. I will explain it again in simpler terms for you.

    What you described was a crass and unpleasant sexual situation even _without the incest part_. What you did was built up an image of an unpleasant scenario.... that of a girl going out trawling for sex, failing to get it, then simply returning home to shag anyone who happened to be there for the sake of it.

    You then simply took that scenario and injected incest into it.

    Your cohort did the same thing in post #49. It was the exact same tactic. Simply build up a scenario that would be unpleasant at the best of times.... then simply drop incest into the middle of it.

    And the "cognitive dissonance" you assign to me neither exists, nor is relevant. Your little propaganda tactic to smear incest by simply dropping it into unpleasant sexual imagery fails either way.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    When you address me personally with 'you', that is in immediate reference to me as an individual. Therefore you were attacking me personally, and that is the basis of an ad hominem fallacy.

    Your attempts to fit the square peg of "ad hominem" into the round hole of what I actually did are getting as shrill as they are desperate now. I very clearly, in the text you quoted, was addressing the failures in the TACTIC you and your cohort employed. It was about the tactic, not about you. You are just contriving to take offence now in an effort to simply not answer my posts and content that you have simply, thus far, skipped over.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Repeating an assertion does not make it so.

    Then stop doing it.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I have pointed out to you where you are wrong

    Except no you have not. For example you made a post with a 4 point attack on incest. I replied to that post detailing which of your points failed, and which of your points required further clarification.

    You simply dodged that reply and have not replied to the content of it since. More of your historical revisionism it seems.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    It was a personal attack

    Repeating an assertion does not make it so.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    failing to rebut the argument in my post

    The only one failing to rebut arguments in posts is you. I replied to your arguments. You have dodged that reply ever since. By simply inventing offence and insult and ad hominem where there is none.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Unpack it then!

    It is not for me to do so. If someone is trying to "protect the family" then it is for them, not me, to lay out what we are protecting it against, what harms we are talking about, what dangers.

    Alas what the quote does is simply throw out the phrase "protect the family" because who could argue with that right? Who would not want to "protect the family"? I want to. You want to. Most people want to. Its a nice little phrase that on the face of it sounds like everyone should agree with it.

    But it is for them, not me, to lay out what we need to protect against, why and how.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You are arguing that one of the most basic structures that form the foundations of a society are nothing more than a soundbite

    Not what I said. I said what the quote was was a soundbite. Not what it was referring to. Stop changing what I say into what I did not say.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Your ignorance of circular logic is about as fascinating as your 'two consenting adults' soundbite.

    I employed no circular logic. It only exists in the result of you changing what I said into what I did not say.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    And yet you have no respect for posters here when you take it upon yourself to charge once more ahead as the moral and intellectual guardian of Boards in order to point out to every other poster here what you perceive to be the invalid arguments of what you yourself referred to as the 'anti-incest side'.

    You present this as if I am doing something wrong. Last time I checked this was a discussion and debate forum. You put foward some discussion and debate about what is wrong with incest. I rebutted it. Simples. If you have an issue with this then why use a forum format at all? Would a blog format not be more to your liking? Perhaps with the comment system turned off?

    If my rebuttal of your posts bothers you, I can recommend the "ignore" function too.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Does that mean that anyone who views incest as an abhorrence, are they on the 'anti-incest' side too?

    As I said, numerous times, with simplicity and clarity, I am merely interested in what arguments, if any, exist as to the immoral or unethical nature of incest. Nothing more. If you have none to provide that stand up to scrutiny then thats fine. Simply move on. There is nothing wrong with that. If you HAVE some though, then all I am doing is simply requesting that you be kind enough to deign to present them.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    you would like to see the practice referred to as something else besides incest

    More of your fabrication. I never once said anything of the sort. Anywhere. Ever. You simply made this up.

    What I DID say was that I would simply like to explode out the word "incest" and realize that we are using one word here that incorporates a multitude of different things.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Just how much thought have you really put into your arguments?

    A hell of a lot more than you and your cohort did with simply injecting incest into random descriptions of unpalatable sexual scenarios.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Seems to me you really haven't given the subject of incest much thought at all.

    Now you are just throwing in snide throw away sentences to beef out your posts.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Perhaps you should

    Perhaps you should before you suggest I should. So far your arguments have been extremely poor, I decimated some of them, and I am still awaiting clarification on some others before I am able to consider them too. Flesh it out, and really think about what you're saying, rather than being so concerned with changing all my posts from what I have said, into what I have not said, or simply dodging them and not replying to them.

    Having said that however, PART of me "giving a subject thought" is discussing it with others. I do not do so in isolation. Which is why I am asking for arguments against incest in the first place. So that I can consider them and see if they stand up to the rigors of intellectual contemplation. Yours have not, not that I do not appreciate you at least making the attempt. Most here have not done so.


  • #373
    MadYaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,277 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Christ almighty thats a post and a half.

    Do you really care so much about incest that you'd type all that?


  • #374
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,752 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Some obviously do have a sexual attraction to a family member to keep this going, while others find it a bit stomach churning the thought of it.

    Discussion can end now...


  • #375
    Minera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭Minera


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So you think there is something wrong with my comments but you have offered a cop out excuse as to why you will not be addressing them. That's a nice tactic right there. That way you simply get to declare someone is wrong, but you do not have to substantiate that claim in any way.

    Your cop out aside, I have made many comments on the thread, and added much substance to why I was saying them. I addressed many of the arguments against incest people have offered, at length, and explained exactly how and why they fail.

    You can either address those comments from me, or run away from them, and that is all the same to me. But do not pretend your running away is a fault of mine and not yours.



    That is simply false. I am always open to differing views. Especially on moral issues. What I am NOT open to is views expressed by assertion or repetition. I am open to views where people say not just "This is what I think" but "This is what I think and HERE is why.....".

    Opinions are like ass holes as they say, everyone has them. So the opinions do not interest me so much as their basis. The basis interests me greatly.



    I do not think I missed it. Not agreeing with your point != missing the point. You started your post off with the claim "the majority of such interactions are founded by abusive qualities" and "majority" is a numerical claim. So I merely asked what data you have on which you are basing this claim. Where there am I missing the point?

    Similarly you went on to speak of pre teen sexual relationships. My response to this is also not missing the point. It is CLARIFYING the point. I think we all agree here that pedophile or under age sex are bad things. We agree on this regardless of incest or not. We simply do not think pre teens should be engaged in sex.

    But this is a thread specifically about incest..... and I do not see the issue of sex with children being any more OR less relevant to that than any other sexuality context.

    But if we are speaking about consensual adult sexual relations between people who happen to also be related.... then pre teen sex and child abuse are simply not relevant at all, are they?



    Nope. I was addressing the tactic you and the cohort employed, not the people who employed them. The latter would be ad hominem. The former is not.



    There was no personal attack. You are contriving to manufacture one in order to dodge replying to my post content.



    Not really because "protecting the family" is just one of those sound bite slogans that sounds good but needs to be unpacked. It simply assumes the conclusion, that some "damage" to the family is being caused. An assumption you seem to make too.

    I however have more respect for peoples abilities to make this decision themselves and, if entering into a consensual adult sexual relationship, to determine the implications of that for themselves. Regardless of whether it is an incestuous relationship or not.

    Yeah you still dont understand.......opting out now this kind of arguing is pointless, there was me thinking this woud be a decent debate! Oh well


  • #376
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ You do not get a "decent debate" by simply saying "You do not understand" and then running away.

    What you do do.... which is what I did.... is show where other people are wrong..... and/or ask them questions on bits you need them to elaborate on.


  • #377
    SoupMonster
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭SoupMonster


    MadYaker wrote: »
    Christ almighty thats a post and a half.

    Do you really care so much about incest that you'd type all that?
    He does seem to be very committed to the idea of "informed consent of related adults involved in sexual relations".

    Its almost as if he is in training for a job as a lawyer and trying to refine his skill at defending the indefensible. If he was a lawyer or, god forbid, a judge, he would suffer the same fate as this Australian judge... calls for his resignation and review of all previous sentences handed down in sex-related cases. Turns out, he gave rapists smaller sentences if they ejaculated outside. That judge used the irrelevant "homosexuality is now acceptable" argument too.

    As for consensual adult incest being a "fundamental right", no sex of any kind is a "right". Sex is policed by the state because sometimes it is not actually sex, it is abuse, it is a source of harm. Since he wants the law repealed, he needs to demonstrate that the overall harm would be reduced by doing so. The state denying a man the freedom to shag his sister is NOT harmful to the man or his sister, nobody has ever been harmed by NOT having sex.

    Another take on the Australian judge from some evangelical Americans. This rhetoric directly supports and influences the rolling back LGBT rights in places like sub-saharan Africa and Russia. Equating homosexuality with incest does not help anyone.


  • #378
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    MadYaker wrote: »
    Christ almighty thats a post and a half. Do you really care so much about incest that you'd type all that?

    I care about human discourse and debate. I quite enjoy it. And in many ways benefit from it.

    I also type stupidly fast. Always have done. The post you refer to probably took 7 to 8 minutes. I will time THIS post and put the result at the end -->
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Some obviously do have a sexual attraction to a family member to keep this going

    No one I know personally, including myself, has. But I do not think you need to have it to discuss it. I am also not female but I write often related to womens rights. I am not gay but I write much on that subject too. I am not poor or homeless but I work a lot in relation to people who are.

    One does not have to have "standing" (to use a legal term) in order to have an interest in discussing a topic. In fact it is not even incest per se that interest me on this thread, but the _kinds_ or arguments that used on the topic and how they are used.
    SoupMonster wrote: »
    He does seem to be very committed to the idea of "informed consent of related adults involved in sexual relations".

    As well we should be in my opinion. My feeling on the matter is that when we have a term like "incest" which can relate to many different contexts, it is important to be sure what you are talking about.

    To repeat an analogy I used earlier: If I was extremely anti violence I might try to have MMA and Boxing banned. It would clearly be stupid of me to attempt to get "sport" banned however. I would be very specific about which sports I had issue with. "Sport" simply encompasses too much. The only thing lawn bowling and boxing have in common really is breathing, yet they are both "sport".

    Similarly a father abusing his under age daughter is clearly something I am against. This is however also "incest". However consensual adult sexual relations between people who happen to be related is also "incest". I am against one, but not the other, but they have the same term.

    So being specific about what one is actually talking about can help avoid failures in communication or obfuscation or muddying of the waters.
    SoupMonster wrote: »
    That judge used the irrelevant "homosexuality is now acceptable" argument too.

    Thankfully I have never used that argument. What I would do however, and have done twice in the thread I think, is show when arguments ABOUT homosexuality have failed but the same arguments are being used here. That is much different.

    But I strongly feel we should be careful where discourse overlaps on sexual matters. Allowing gay marriage is not a slippery slope to allowing people to marry their horse..... which is the kind of "argument" we hear often..... and similarly "Homosexuality is allowed so why not incest" is also an argument I would never make. Both homosexuality, and incest, need to be weighed on their own merits and demerits. Not "Well if one is allowed, why not the other".

    Heartily agree with you therefore when you say "Equating homosexuality with incest does not help anyone."
    SoupMonster wrote: »
    Since he wants the law repealed, he needs to demonstrate that the overall harm would be reduced by doing so.

    Since you are talking about me in the third person, and the judge in your link, it is not clear who you are referring to HERE. So just on the _off chance_ you are referring to me... I should point out I never once on the thread claimed anything about repealing a law. If you meant the judge however in your l ink, ignore this paragraph.

    MadYaker: 5.5 minutes for this post :)


  • #379
    conspiracycat
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭conspiracycat


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    Can people stop using the majority wouldnt approve as their argument. The majority of people would also not engage in homosexuality as they are not homosexual yet its legal

    My point is that people wouldnt do it because you have a bond with a brother/sister, wheather you get on or not, that I think would make it weird to have sex with them.
    No denying that!


  • #380
    SoupMonster
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭SoupMonster


    >> nozzferrahhtoo

    To be clear,
    • you have no standing or personal interest in whether incest is legal/illegal.
    • you do not advocate for Ireland's incest laws to be changed.
    • you are are arguing for the lulz, and trying to see how far the "consenting adults" argument gets you.


  • #381
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    SoupMonster wrote: »
    To be clear

    Always a good idea. But I am not clear if your list is asking a question about what I believe, or presuming to tell me. I will treat it as questions however.
    SoupMonster wrote: »
    you have no standing or personal interest in whether incest is legal/illegal.

    If you mean "standing" the same way I meant it then no, I do not. What I meant by it is whether I personally engage, or wish to engage, in sexual relations with one of my own family members. At this time I do not, no. I had something of a strong crush on my first cousin when I was about 16, but it passed quickly :)

    So no, I have no direct or personal standing in the law. However I have an opinion and an ideal on the law which I already explained in the thread. Which is that if there is no good reason for something remaining illegal then I would simply think _in general_ that such laws are useless and would be better off gone. But that is a feeling I have in general, not related to incest in particular.
    SoupMonster wrote: »
    you do not advocate for Ireland's incest laws to be changed.

    Not at this time no. I have limited time and resources and there are many other laws related to blasphemy, abortion, homosexuality and much more that I feel more compelled to invest my real world, not on line, time into.

    As I said I do wish to live in a society where laws that are no longer applicable, or have no arguments supporting their utility, simply be dropped. Which would include incest laws by definition. But a direct wish to advocate for repeal of this particular law I do not at this time have.
    SoupMonster wrote: »
    you are are arguing for the lulz, and trying to see how far the "consenting adults" argument gets you.

    "lulz" have nothing to do with it. I enjoy human discourse and learn from it. I often tell people, if asked, that my reason for entering into debate is not to prove another person wrong.... but to have myself shown to be wrong. Because when this happens you learn something. I seek not to be right, but to be wrong, and to have others show me where I am wrong. It simply has not happened on _this_ thread, but it happens _all the time_ and I grow and benefit from it.

    I entered the thread with one main point which is that I am personally unaware of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support the contention that incest (specifically consensual adult incest, not child abuse or rape) should be considered immoral or unethical. Thus far I remain in that state as no one has presented such arguments so far.

    If there are any than I remain keen and open to be educated on this matter.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    Minera wrote: »
    Yeah you still dont understand.......opting out now this kind of arguing is pointless, there was me thinking this woud be a decent debate! Oh well

    Are you serious, that was an excellent post with very clear reasoning and logic.


  • #383
    Tigersliding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Tigersliding


    I'm not going to read the entire thread but has anyone made clear well reasoned argument as to why twe consenting adults should be legally prohibited from having a sexual relationship because they are related?

    From what I have read it seems people are firstly having a repulsed feeling in their bodies then looking for any reason to justify their emotional response. They are letting their emotions dictate their morals which is a very dangerous moral compass to have for society. The reason there was such hatred of black people and home sexual for example is mainly down to people' emotional response. They feel threatened of the unfamiliar and use that as a base for their moral compass


  • #384
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Tigersliding wrote: »
    I'm not going to read the entire thread but has anyone made clear well reasoned argument as to why twe consenting adults should be legally prohibited from having a sexual relationship because they are related?

    I have not really partaken in the legal arguments, just moral and ethical ones. So I am probably not the best one to answer. But so far I think the only argument has been of the form "It should be illegal.... because it is illegal.... and if it should not be illegal then anyone claiming this must not just argue it should not be..... but show that repealing the law will actually bring a marked benefit".

    So in summary the only argument I can find on the entire thread for it to be illegal... is that it already is. Entirely possible I missed something though.


  • #385
    chinacup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 539 ✭✭✭chinacup


    Tigersliding wrote: »
    I'm not going to read the entire thread but has anyone made clear well reasoned argument as to why twe consenting adults should be legally prohibited from having a sexual relationship because they are related?

    From what I have read it seems people are firstly having a repulsed feeling in their bodies then looking for any reason to justify their emotional response. They are letting their emotions dictate their morals which is a very dangerous moral compass to have for society. The reason there was such hatred of black people and home sexual for example is mainly down to people' emotional response. They feel threatened of the unfamiliar and use that as a base for their moral compass

    Just checking into this thread again after a few days so not up to date on the comments yet, forgive me if I missed anything.

    To answer your question:

    Plain and simple for me, the risk of disabled children and damaging the already frail modern family structure. I don't know what a world where incest is socially acceptable would look like but I don't imagine it would be a good evolutionary move. Been there, done that, didn't work out the first time! The role of the parent is to protect their child, a sexual relationship between a father and a grown daughter for example would change that dynamic in a significant way. It also opens the doors to manipulation and grooming of family members and think about teenage pregnancies currently: Imagine what that would be like if incest was legal and socially acceptable, I don't think it would be too much of a leap to say there would be a greater increase in disabled children, which would in turn cause major headache. I do take the some of the opposing views presented on this thread, actually its been interesting to have my own views challenged. I think I started reading the topic with a very narrow POV but now it's a little more open to the other side of the argument.. However my opinion that incest being legal/more socially acceptable would cause more harm than good is still unwavered.


  • #386
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    chinacup wrote: »
    Plain and simple for me, the risk of disabled children

    This is not actually as high as people think. And in fact contrary to mainstream lay belief, incest does not _cause_ such defects.
    chinacup wrote: »
    damaging the already frail modern family structure.

    The "Family structure" is an ever changing and evolving entity. There is no fixed structure there to "damage". Single parenting, and gay couples, and so forth are very common.
    chinacup wrote: »
    I don't know what a world where incest is socially acceptable would look like but I don't imagine it would be a good evolutionary move.

    Given how few people actually engage in it, or wish to, I imagine a world where it is acceptable would look entirely like the one we live in right now actually.

    As for an evolutionary move, again given how few people engage in it, it would likely have zero evolutionary significance _at all_.
    chinacup wrote: »
    think about teenage pregnancies currently: Imagine what that would be like if incest was legal and socially acceptable[/QUTOE]

    How would it be different given the impregnation of underage teenagers is not acceptable, nor is anyone on this thread suggesting allowing incest would make under age sex acceptable.
    chinacup wrote: »
    I don't think it would be too much of a leap to say there would be a greater increase in disabled children

    Except it is a leap given that incest does not cause disabilities, and there are not that many people wishing to engage in incest anyway.


  • #387
    chinacup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 539 ✭✭✭chinacup


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    This is not actually as high as people think. And in fact contrary to mainstream lay belief, incest does not _cause_ such defects.



    The "Family structure" is an ever changing and evolving entity. There is no fixed structure there to "damage". Single parenting, and gay couples, and so forth are very common.



    Given how few people actually engage in it, or wish to, I imagine a world where it is acceptable would look entirely like the one we live in right now actually.

    As for an evolutionary move, again given how few people engage in it, it would likely have zero evolutionary significance _at all_.
    chinacup wrote: »
    think about teenage pregnancies currently: Imagine what that would be like if incest was legal and socially acceptable[/QUTOE]

    How would it be different given the impregnation of underage teenagers is not acceptable, nor is anyone on this thread suggesting allowing incest would make under age sex acceptable.



    Except it is a leap given that incest does not cause disabilities, and there are not that many people wishing to engage in incest anyway.

    That's a nice twist of words that keeps being used "incest does not cause disabilities" but the fact of the matter is that up to 50% of resulting children from incestuous relationships have a serious mental or physical disability. Source:
    http://listverse.com/2014/05/22/10-incendiary-facts-about-incest/

    I agree that the family structure is ever changing, sometimes for worse sometimes for better but it is an enduring structure and the roles of elder siblings and parents make the power balance uneven and skew the lines of consent for incest. Yes there are variations in structure, I come from a very unusual family structure actually which was quite damaging, it didn't work all that great as a unit. There are some aspects of a family structure that just work better.

    How do you know how many people wish to engage in it or have done or would do if it were legal and slowly became more acceptable? Some research says that there are a lot more cases of incest than we realise. Source:
    http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Incest.html

    You are underlining my point- underage pregnancy is not considered acceptable yet with enough leeway it still is prevalent and exists as a subculture.


  • #388
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    chinacup wrote: »
    That's a nice twist of words that keeps being used "incest does not cause disabilities" but the fact of the matter is that up to 50% of resulting children from incestuous relationships have a serious mental or physical disability. Source:

    This is not a scientific source. It is a blog opinion piece that you cherry picked to support your views. Further you are misquoting that link. It does not say 50% of resulting children have disabilities. It says the chance of passing on a recessive gene is 50%. It also says the increase in risks is 50%.

    Again: Incest does not CAUSE defects. It just causes an increase in the likelihood that an already existing defect will be expressed. In the case of a recessive gene for a defect, if both parents have it, there is then a chance that a child will receive one from each person and have this defect.

    If those people procreate with someone else, there is still a chance that that defect will be expressed anyway. It is just smaller, that is all.

    Further, we do not tend to mediate the morality of procreation on this basis anyway. Deaf people procreate all the time for example. And whereas the probability of an incestuous relationship in general resulting in a child with a defect is not all that big..... the probability that these deaf parents will have a deaf child is (depending on their exact condition) actually 100%!

    And yet I have never in my life read a forum thread saying deaf people are immoral for procreating and should never be allowed to do so. Why is that? Clearly it is because people _already_ are against incest so they cherry pick their arguments, whereas straight sex between deaf people, dwarfs, or any of the other 100% certain procreative "defects" simply does not bother them.
    chinacup wrote: »
    the roles of elder siblings and parents make the power balance uneven and skew the lines of consent for incest.

    I see no skewing of any lines. As with any sex I am all for adults having sex with who they want while practicing informed consent. I am not for sex where there is no informed consent. Incestuous or otherwise. The lines of consent for me are identical, incestuous or not.
    chinacup wrote: »
    There are some aspects of a family structure that just work better.

    Not so sure that is true at all, and I would be wary of you extrapolating a generalization based on one anecdote of a failed family unit.
    chinacup wrote: »
    How do you know how many people wish to engage in it or have done or would do if it were legal and slowly became more acceptable? Some research says that there are a lot more cases of incest than we realise.

    I have no doubt there is more of it than we think. I also have little doubt that the instances of heavy petting or other minor sexual exploration between young siblings is also more common than we think. But I have seen no data or studies suggesting that the numbers practicing incest is anywhere _close_ to the threshold number that would be required for it to have any effect whatsoever on society, the structure of the family, or evolution.


Advertisement