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

What is actually wrong with incest?

1…910111315

Comments

  • #362
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You don't make your point very well then when you try to introduce scenarios involving claims that have already been proven to be false.

    Then it is lucky I did no such thing. The point is clear. No one is expected to give arguments justifying allowing people to be together. Where are the arguments justifying you being with your partner? Or a black person being with a white person? Why are you not demanding they justify it?

    The reason is clear. There is no reason to think they are doing anything wrong so you leave them to it. Similarly you seem to have no arguments as to why people in invest are doing anything wrong. You seem to WANT it to be wrong but wanting it will not make it so.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    RIGHT NOW, is that incest is illegal.

    Obviously. And the OP has asked why. He wants to know - since it is so taboo and illegal - why that actually is. What are the reasons for this. What is _actualy_ wrong with incest?

    As such your answer is a non-answer. You are basically answering the question with the question. "Why is it wrong" "because we consider it wrong" "Why do we consider it wrong" "Becaue society right now considers it wrong and it is illegal" "but why is it illegal" "because right now it is against the law".

    You are not actually answering the OP at all - simply answering "Why x" with "x".
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Now, lets hear a good argument from you as to why we should change the law

    I did. You just keep ignoring it as if ignoring it means I never gave it. Again: I think it should be changed because there is no reason at all to consider it wrong or immoral. If there is nothing wrong with it then I see no reason to maintain a law banning it.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The evidence has been presented to you numerous times

    Nope. All that has been presented on this thread so far is basically "Ick I do not like it therefore its wrong" along with a few misconceptions about how people think it causes genetic deformity when it does not.

    Nothing else has been presented. I can not ignore what is not even there.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You are NOT discussing the first question either

    I am the only one of the two of us who actually is. The question is "What is actually wrong with incest" and I am answering it that there is nothing wrong with it at all. You are just pointing out that it is illegal and people think it is wrong.

    We already know that. The topic of the thread is _why_ that is. _That_ it is so is not in question.


  • #363
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    sounds like you are not going to address them, not because they are not "from my mouth" but because you can't.

    If telling yourself that keeps you going then have at it. I am glad to have brought some happiness into your life. But it does not change what I am telling you. What I am telling you is that I am happy to discuss it with you, but not if you are going to engage in tactics like passing other peoples text off as your own.

    I addressed the parts of the post that were actually yours. What is telling now is that you are not addressing what I said about them in return.


  • #364
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If telling yourself that keeps you going then have at it. I am glad to have brought some happiness into your life. But it does not change what I am telling you. What I am telling you is that I am happy to discuss it with you, but not if you are going to engage in tactics like passing other peoples text off as your own.

    I addressed the parts of the post that were actually yours. What is telling now is that you are not addressing what I said about them in return.
    The only thing you've addressed is the source of the information because it serves you to disregard the information itself.


  • #365
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Focussing simply on the morality of it doesn't answer the question either, yet some posters are still stuck on the morality issue despite the shedload of scientific and legal evidence presented as to why incest is wrong.

    As has been pointed out to you already we already know it is illegal. We already know people think it is wrong. The question being explored here is asking why. Your arguments reduce to circular "It is wrong because it is wrong" statements essentially.

    The "scientific" arguments so far in the thread have been erroneous. Far too many people think that incest causes mutation for a start when it does no such thing. And I addressed many of the other assertions made about Natural Selection but the person who made those assertions simply ran when I did so. So what scientific arguments you think are still standing in the thread at this point is unclear to me.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I don't see how anyone can be genetically predisposed to incestuous behaviour?

    That is great. But since I never said any such thing I am not sure why you are telling me this.


  • #366
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    The only thing you've addressed is the source of the information because it serves you to disregard the information itself.

    False. Dont lie now. The truth is there in black and white. I addressed the fact that your comment was an assertion. I addressed the fact that you have neither explained what you mean be the assertion (what do you mean it is inherent exactly) and you have not substantiated the assertion.

    All of that I addressed. So to roll back in and claim I did not is simply bare faced lying in front of everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    False. Dont lie now. The truth is there in black and white. I addressed the fact that your comment was an assertion. I addressed the fact that you have neither explained what you mean be the assertion (what do you mean it is inherent exactly) and you have not substantiated the assertion.

    All of that I addressed. So to roll back in and claim I did not is simply bare faced lying in front of everyone.
    you questioned the use of the word inherent even though it has been addressed countless times through this discussion, it seems you just don't want to accept it, not because there is no evidence to support it (there is, it has been discussed at length, the biological repulsion to incest has an empirical basis.)
    You are deliberately directing the rhythm of this debate by returning ad nauseum to the old chestnut of attempting to define the morality of incest where others have attempted to outline the reasons why incest is not socially acceptable.

    The quoted text above outlines why there is a blanket ban on incest but now you are not willing to accept it because it hasn't "come from my own mouth".


  • #368
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The question is "What is actually wrong with incest" and I am answering it that there is nothing wrong with it at all.


    Grand, you think there is nothing wrong with incest, we'll leave it there so.


  • #369
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    you questioned the use of the word inherent even though it has been addressed countless times through this discussion

    Perhaps it has. But not to me. You said it to me this time and so I am questioning it.

    Again you are dodging answering any of my points. I asked you what you mean by inherent here and you have not answered. I asked what you think substantiated the claims it is inherent. You have dodged that too.
    pharmaton wrote: »
    The quoted text above outlines why there is a blanket ban on incest but now you are not willing to accept it because it hasn't "come from my own mouth".

    If you copy and paste text and try to pass it off as your own then yes I will call foul on that. And I do.


  • #370
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Grand, you think there is nothing wrong with incest, we'll leave it there so.

    I do not see anything wrong with it. Nor does the OP. The question on the thread is what do other people think is wrong with it. You keep pointing out that it is illegal. Great - we know that - but the question is why - there must be something wrong with having sex with your sibling if it is illegal - so what is it.

    As for leaving it there - you can replace "we" with "I". You can leave any time you want. I do not have to follow. You said yesterday you were sick and tired of me (p.p.) but you keep replying to me. Massochist much?


  • #371
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Perhaps it has. But not to me. You said it to me this time and so I am questioning it.

    Again you are dodging answering any of my points. I asked you what you mean by inherent here and you have not answered. I asked what you think substantiated the claims it is inherent. You have dodged that too.
    I have answered them repeatedly throughout this thread. Go to a dictionary and look up the word inherent. Then go and look up the westermark effect and check out the empirical evidence.

    If you copy and paste text and try to pass it off as your own then yes I will call foul on that. And I do.
    oh I see, its not that the information has value but you need to use it as a means of scoring on intellectual grounds. The text was highlighted, it was differentiated from my own take that whatever way you will. Now lets sidestep the actual information and attack the posters credibility, way to wiggle your way out of a debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    I have answered them repeatedly throughout this thread.

    I do not see it. You certainly have not said it to me. You entered into a discussion with me. I have asked you a question in that discussion. You are either going to answer or you are not. Which is it?

    It is a very simple question. What exactly do you mean by inherent in this context? It should not be hard to answer. Perhaps you do not know and just used the word because you liked the sound of it?
    pharmaton wrote: »
    you need to use it as a means of scoring on intellectual grounds

    Nope. You can continue to make up motivations and reasons for me if you want. But I have already told you the truth. I simply abhor dishonesty and your plagarism was dishonest.

    You can keep pretending I am avoiding your arguments but until you actually make any for me to avoid, you are just making things up.


  • #373
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The "scientific" arguments so far in the thread have been erroneous. Far too many people think that incest causes mutation for a start when it does no such thing. And I addressed many of the other assertions made about Natural Selection but the person who made those assertions simply ran when I did so. So what scientific arguments you think are still standing in the thread at this point is unclear to me.

    This is just plain insulting. I posted I don't know how many times the "nurture" arguments for incest taboo which were quite a bit researched. There might be different theories but haven't seen anybody dispute Freud's Totem and Taboo, Levi Strauss's alliance theory, functionalist theory or similar.

    It's like people are able to comprehend only biological research and everything that is not as tangible is either misunderstood or dismissed as some mumbo jumbo. There might not be clear agreement which theory about incest taboo is correct but it never is in social sciences. But that is not good enough reason to just dismiss it a whole pile of research done on the subject by people who clearly know quite a bit more about it than you.


  • #374
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    pharmaton wrote: »
    the basis of the argument is that if homosexuality is against nature and we accept it then why not incest.
    There's a dozen more where that came from.
    Homosexuality is not only not wrong, it isn't even against nature.
    You're making the mistake of thinking that sex is for procreation. In higher mammals such as ourselves, it is nothing of the sort.
    99% of the sex a human has will have nothing to do with making babies. Quite the opposite in fact, which is why we have contraception.
    The main purpose of sex is to promote intimacy and love between couples. It's like glue that binds them together. And a society full of loving stable relationships is a better one.


  • #375
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    meeeeh wrote: »
    This is just plain insulting.

    Your choice to take offence is not my issue.
    meeeeh wrote: »
    "nurture" arguments for incest taboo which were quite a bit researched.

    Which is what exactly? That we nurture the taboo into our children and they carry it on? Or that incest causes issue with how we nurture children? I have seen both arguments made.
    meeeeh wrote: »
    It's like people are able to comprehend only biological research

    If only they could. I commented as I said above on some of the misconceptions and assertions one user made about biology and he simply ran away.


  • #376
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Homosexuality is not only not wrong, it isn't even against nature.
    You're making the mistake of thinking that sex is for procreation. In higher mammals such as ourselves, it is nothing of the sort.
    99% of the sex a human has will have nothing to do with making babies. Quite the opposite in fact, which is why we have contraception.
    The main purpose of sex is to promote intimacy and love between couples. It's like glue that binds them together. And a society full of loving stable relationships is a better one.
    eh yeah, I wasn't making the agument homosexuality was wrong, I was referring to the posters who were using that as an argument. It's what I'm arguing against.


  • #377
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    eh yeah, I wasn't making the agument homosexuality was wrong, I was referring to the posters who were using that as an argument.

    But there is comparisons to be drawn there. Especially to the "But it is illegal so there" arguments we are seeing from Czarky.

    Homosexuality was once considered wrong and illegal too in many places. That is changing.

    Why is it changing? Have these positive arguments justifying allowing gays be together been coming in force? I have not heard many of them.

    No, what I see happening is people realizing that the arguments leveled against homosexuality simply do not hold up. They are doing nothing wrong, biologically OR morally. There are no arguments against the practice. People are simply asking themselves "If two people love each other and want to be with each other with consent then why should we take issue with this?" and coming up with no good answers.

    So peoples acceptance of it is changing, for the better.

    So now here we are considering the subject of incest and I ask the same question. "If two people love each other and want to be with each other with consent then why should we take issue with this?"

    And really the only answer I am seeing is that we should take issue with it because we take issue with it.

    Now you or certain others might not _like_ that parallel being drawn. But aside from that dislike I am seeing no fault with drawing it.


  • #378
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Which is what exactly? That we nurture the taboo into our children and they carry it on? Or that incest causes issue with how we nurture children? I have seen both arguments made.

    Nurture as here:
    Another school argues that the incest prohibition is a cultural construct which arises as a side effect of a general human preference for group exogamy, which arises because intermarriage between groups construct valuable alliances that improve the ability for both groups to thrive. According to this view the incest taboo is not necessarily a universal, but is likely to arise and become more strict under cultural circumstances that favour exogamy over endogamy, and likely to become more lax under circumstances that favor endogamy. This hypothesis has also achieved some empirical support

    I already quoted this and also posted the link to wikipedia page.


  • #379
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I do not see it. You certainly have not said it to me. You entered into a discussion with me. I have asked you a question in that discussion. You are either going to answer or you are not. Which is it?

    It is a very simple question. What exactly do you mean by inherent in this context? It should not be hard to answer. Perhaps you do not know and just used the word because you liked the sound of it?
    you know what, no. I won't explain it again. Go and do your own homework.

    Nope. You can continue to make up motivations and reasons for me if you want. But I have already told you the truth. I simply abhor dishonesty and your plagarism was dishonest.

    You can keep pretending I am avoiding your arguments but until you actually make any for me to avoid, you are just making things up.

    fair enough, but I'd rather discuss the issue with someone who has the ability to acknowledge the issues being raised rather than disregarding them because they don't agree with their agenda.


  • #380
    Umbrella
    Site Banned Posts: 6 ✭Umbrella


    pharmaton wrote: »
    eh yeah, I wasn't making the agument homosexuality was wrong, I was referring to the posters who were using that as an argument. It's what I'm arguing against.

    Can you quote who said homosexuality is wrong?


  • #381
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Nurture as here:

    But I see nothing in that text establishing "what is actually wrong with incest". Do you?

    It is an interesting if shaky theory as to what we might have evolved a natural issue with it. But we are not a slave to our evolution. We do not have to act on every impulse evolution has endowed us with.
    meeeeh wrote: »
    Nurture as here:

    And that is even if I did accept the quote. Which I do not because the quote is too vague. For example in the middle of it it asserts "valuable alliances that improve the ability for both groups to thrive.".

    Does it? How? Because the quote says so? What is improved exactly? How does it affect our ability to survive and thrive exactly?

    The argument is almost trying to pull itself up by the boot straps on the face of it. It is essentially trying to say "If you build a society that favors an incest taboo then that society will thrive better if you maintain an incest taboo".

    To say you would be against incest if you favor exogamy is to state the obvious. By the very definition of exogamy this becomes true.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    you know what, no. I won't explain it again. Go and do your own homework.

    So you can not substantiate your own claims so you just send people off to do it for you in the hope they will look forever for what is not there?

    No way. No how. No thanks. Not happening. You made the claim, you can substantiate it, retract it, or simply retreat. I do not particularly care which though the first one would certainly be more interesting and preferable.
    pharmaton wrote: »
    fair enough, but I'd rather discuss the issue with someone who has the ability to acknowledge the issues being raised rather than disregarding them because they don't agree with their agenda.

    Than avoid people who do that. Since I have not however you are just blowing cover smoke. I am happy to deal with your issues and substantiation if you try providing them.


  • #383
    Umbrella
    Site Banned Posts: 6 ✭Umbrella


    pharmaton wrote: »
    you know what, no. I won't explain it again. Go and do your own homework.




    fair enough, but I'd rather discuss the issue with someone who has the ability to acknowledge the issues being raised rather than disregarding them because they don't agree with their agenda.

    I think you are the only one with the agenda.

    Explain why two adults who are harming no one should not be allowed to have a relationship?


  • #384
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But there is comparisons to be drawn there. Especially to the "But it is illegal so there" arguments we are seeing from Czarky.

    Homosexuality was once considered wrong and illegal too in many places. That is changing.

    Why is it changing? Have these positive arguments justifying allowing gays be together been coming in force? I have not heard many of them.

    No, what I see happening is people realizing that the arguments leveled against homosexuality simply do not hold up. They are doing nothing wrong, biologically OR morally. There are no arguments against the practice. People are simply asking themselves "If two people love each other and want to be with each other with consent then why should we take issue with this?" and coming up with no good answers.

    So peoples acceptance of it is changing, for the better.

    So now here we are considering the subject of incest and I ask the same question. "If two people love each other and want to be with each other with consent then why should we take issue with this?"

    And really the only answer I am seeing is that we should take issue with it because we take issue with it.

    Now you or certain others might not _like_ that parallel being drawn. But aside from that dislike I am seeing no fault with drawing it.

    The difference between being considered wrong and being outlawed on the grounds that it would have a significant negative effect on society as a whole, are two different things.

    The general ban on incest is not to prohibit "loving relationships" but to protect the family dynamic.


  • #385
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    Umbrella wrote: »
    I think you are the only one with the agenda.

    Explain why two adults who are harming no one should not be allowed to have a relationship?

    Is this your fourth re reg?

    Incest is not about individual cases, the act prohibiting incest is in place to prevent the threat of significant harm to family dynamics.


  • #386
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So you can not substantiate your own claims so you just send people off to do it for you in the hope they will look forever for what is not there?

    No way. No how. No thanks. Not happening. You made the claim, you can substantiate it, retract it, or simply retreat. I do not particularly care which though the first one would certainly be more interesting and preferable.



    Than avoid people who do that. Since I have not however you are just blowing cover smoke. I am happy to deal with your issues and substantiation if you try providing them.
    westermark, demonstrates that children who are raised together do not find their siblings attractive. It is an inherent quality. I cant spell it out more clearly for you.


  • #387
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    The difference between being considered wrong and being outlawed on the grounds that it would have a significant negative effect on society as a whole, are two different things.

    Would it? This sounds like more assertion to me.

    Consider for a start the actual quantities of people who want to engage in it. Have you any reason they are anything bigger than significant numbers? I do not. In fact my gut feeling is that if you did look for figures to back up your assertion you will find that suicide is a bigger problem for society in that it has many more people engaging in it that incest.

    And exactly what are we talking about here in terms of harm? Incest sex or incest marriage? I can at least see _some_ difficultly (but not all that much) in restructuring law to account for allowing siblings to marry for example. But if we are simply saying two people want to have sex then what "harm" are you envisioning here exactly??
    pharmaton wrote: »
    The general ban on incest is not to prohibit "loving relationships" but to protect the family dynamic.

    What part of the dynamic requires protecting exactly? Especially in todays modern world with gay parenting, gay marriage, adoption, single parenting and much more. I fear you may be in danger of clutching to a "family dynamic" that has been dead long enough to be way past protecting at this point.

    If I were to marry my sister tomorrow rather than the woman I am actually with.... what harm have I caused exactly to this "dynamic"?


  • #388
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    Umbrella wrote: »
    Can you quote who said homosexuality is wrong?

    possibly you under one of your previous re regs


  • #389
    Umbrella
    Site Banned Posts: 6 ✭Umbrella


    pharmaton wrote: »
    Is this your fourth re reg?

    Incest is not about individual cases, the act prohibiting incest is in place to prevent the threat of significant harm to family dynamics.

    Then why prevent two middle aged brothers having a relationship? Is this too destructive of "the family dynamic"?

    Why would the "family dynamic" be more important than their own freedom to be with eachother.

    Should we make separation and divorce illegal to protect the "family dynamic"?


  • #390
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pharmaton wrote: »
    westermark, demonstrates that children who are raised together do not find their siblings attractive. It is an inherent quality. I cant spell it out more clearly for you.

    Thats in danger of being a correlation causation error. That does not automatically mean it is inherent. They were, for example, raised in a society where we pump this notion there is something wrong with incest. They would not have been immune to that growing up.

    The argument then becomes circular. You pump kids with the notion that it is wrong, they grow up therefore feeling it is wrong, then you use their feeling as evidence that it must be wrong because they feel it is wrong.

    Also perhaps it has nothing to do with any inherent anti incest qualities. Perhaps there are simply different kinds of social bonds we can make with people and some of them are simply not sexual. For example some of my closest friends I long ago stopped seeing in a sexual manner. Nothing to do with incest, I am not related to them in any way, and I am assured they are attractive by other people, and I once found them attractive myself. However I have simply developed a platonic relationship with them and no longer see them sexually.

    Human sexuality and human relationships are massively complex and the "argument" you are pedaling here simply sounds like a mixture of self fulling conclusions and over simplification.

    And even then, for all those faults in the "argument", I repeat the other issue that I highlighted already. Even if I flicked a switch and suddenly accepted your point 100%... you still haven't made an argument against incest. You have simply explained why we may have certain natural impulses around it. The danger here is in looking like you are saying "If Evolution/Nature makes us feel something then we simply have to pander to that feeling no matter what". So no, none of this answers the thread of "What is actually wrong with incest?". Had the thread title been "Are there any natural reasons why we might form a bias against incest?" your conversation would at least be in the right place.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Umbrella
    Site Banned Posts: 6 ✭Umbrella


    pharmaton wrote: »
    possibly you under one of your previous re regs

    Any excuse to be evasive and to avoid your nonsense being exposed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement