What is actually wrong with incest?

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 04:06PM

Umbrella wrote: »

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"?

The law regarding incest is there to protect ALL families, not just the ones who wish to engage in incest and society has a legitimate reason to want to protect ALL families, rather than just one or two.

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 04:08PM

Umbrella wrote: »

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

which nonsense? That incest poses a more significant threat to the social construct of healthy happy safe families or the one which deems two peoples individual feelings above the concerns of abuse within family dynamics?

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 04:13PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

they were raised in communal farms, familial relations were not relevant as they were raised in peer groups. The study demonstrates that chilren who grow up together don't f*ck together.

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.

the argument only becomes circular when you disregard the facts.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 04:19PM

pharmaton wrote: »

they were raised in communal farms, familial relations were not relevant as they were raised in peer groups. The study demonstrates that chilren who grow up together don't f*ck together.

So you raise children in a way different to what we consider the "norm" and you try to extrapolate the results of that to the "normal" family dynamic that you otherwise pretend is so precious to you.

Again the failures here from you are:

1) There are plenty of reasons why people will stop seeing each other as sexual objects due to the kinds of relationship they build. It has nothing to do with incest per se.

2) Communal farms or not they are still growing up in a society where you are pumped with this notion that you simply do not "play" with your "family".

3) Again all you are doing here is establishing why some people might develop a bias against incest. It is not actually on topic to the question the OP actually asked therefore.

pharmaton wrote: »

the argument only becomes circular when you disregard the facts.

You can keep harping on with your disregard the facts mantra but it does not mean I actually have. I am engaging with your "facts" in detail so pocket the lies thanks.

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 04:26PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you raise children in a way different to what we consider the "norm" and you try to extrapolate the results of that to the "normal" family dynamic that you otherwise pretend is so precious to you.

Again the failures here from you are:

1) There are plenty of reasons why people will stop seeing each other as sexual objects due to the kinds of relationship they build. It has nothing to do with incest per se.

2) Communal farms or not they are still growing up in a society where you are pumped with this notion that you simply do not "play" with your "family".

3) Again all you are doing here is establishing why some people might develop a bias against incest. It is not actually on topic to the question the OP actually asked therefore.

First of all I didn't raise "these" kids. The study makes use of the fact that even in societies where children aren't raised in biologically related groups, the same results apply. Hence why the data is so significant.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 04:29PM

pharmaton wrote: »

First of all I didn't raise "these" kids.

Grammar Nazism is against the rules here. It is perfectly clear I mean "You" as a turn of phrase. I do not specifically mean you personally. Lets not make an english lesson out of this thread, it has had enough of that already.

Raising kids in a commune is not a normal scenario. Therefore drawing conclusions off it and pretending they apply to society as a whole is iffy at best. Especially given you then pretend to think the "normal" family dynamic is so precious. Only when it suits you it seems but a totally abnormal one is fine when it fits your agenda.

You are simply forcing an already iffy scenario into a correlation/causation error. An error that for all your forcing it does not even address the question the OP asked.

meeeeh · 27-06-2013 04:30PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

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.

The quote is the explanation of what "nurture" represents and as such doesn't say much about subject. And it is not saying anything about which society will thrive more. From historical point of view endogamy is mostly gone. Exogamy (marriage outside family) is a lot more common. In it's essence it would mean that society has bigger chance to survive with alliances outside family. To use GoT it would be Tagareyen vs. Lanister way of alliance, keep it in the family vs. marry everybody around you so they don't go against you. There are certain social concepts that we internalize in order for society to work. Do not kill is one of them (for the majority of cultures) in the same way we are socialized into who are our preferred sexual partners and who is off limits.

On the other hand Freud basically argues that incest between parent and child has to be taboo because each child is first sexually attracted to their parent if that would not be considered wrong children would have no interest in procreation with their peers which would mean extinction of human race for obvious reasons. The parent - child incest taboo is also the most widespread. Freud's theory is criticized quite a bit. Personally I'm closer to Levi Strauss than Freud but as I stated in a previous post anthropological research shows that some kind of incest taboo is one of the most universal taboos across all cultures (more than murder, rape or theft). Which possibly means that there are other reasons for it than just some sort of historical closemindedness. If anything incest taboo in our society is getting wider and wider (cousins), I suspect, with the easy access of larger number of potential partners outside ones family.

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 04:37PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Grammar Nazism is against the rules here. It is perfectly clear I mean "You" as a turn of phrase. I do not specifically mean you personally. Lets not make an english lesson out of this thread, it has had enough of that already.

Raising kids in a commune is not a normal scenario. Therefore drawing conclusions off it and pretending they apply to society as a whole is iffy at best. Especially given you then pretend to think the "normal" family dynamic is so precious. Only when it suits you it seems but a totally abnormal one is fine when it fits your agenda.

You are simply forcing an already iffy scenario into a correlation/causation error. An error that for all your forcing it does not even address the question the OP asked.

The fact that you don't think it "normal" implies you consider the family dynamic to be one closer to the one you experience, the same one which you feel should be open to incest.

The nature of the family in the study is of little relevance, it demonstrates that children raised together develop an innate sense toward it. (incest)

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 04:40PM

meeeeh wrote: »

The quote is the explanation of what "nurture" represents

If you say so but for the reasons I laid out I found it being a bit self defining. We are just defining a scenario where incest is not preferable and then saying "Oh look in this scenario no incest is preferable, yay". More than that I am not getting from your quote. What am I missing exactly?

So it does not say much about the subject, nothing about which society will thrive more, in fact nothing much at all.... so I am now struggling to see the relevance of the argument at all.

Read the topic again "What is actually wrong with incest". How has anything you pasted answered that exactly?

meeeeh wrote: »

In it's essence it would mean that society has bigger chance to survive with alliances outside family.

Why would it? If you say so? But even if you are right here 100% then so what? No one here is suggesting massively changing society. Very few people are engaged in it or want to engage in it. It is a vastly minority practice. Is the only way you can come up with an argument against incest going to be to simply fantasies about a world where a hugely significant number of people are at it?

If so then we are deep into fantasy land. Fun and useful to play around with but not mapping onto our reality, or the topic of the OPs question, one iota.

meeeeh wrote: »

On the other hand Freud basically argues that incest between parent and child has to be taboo because each child is first sexually attracted to their parent

Another assertion. What evidence have we that children are "first sexually attracted to their parent"? Freud seemed to be heavily obsessed with attraction between parents and children but I am not seeing much substantiation for it other than he believed it and mentioned it often.

It also assumes that even if a child is sexually attracted to their parent that when they reach actual procreation age, adolescence and beyond, that they still will be.

So it seems to be assumption built on assertion built on assumption going on there.

Czarcasm · 27-06-2013 04:42PM

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.

You're seriously telling me you've never heard of Harvey Milk? The man is a legend in terms of having made arguments and led demonstrations for LGBT rights-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

He and many, many thousands of other people are credited with Society's better understanding of homosexuality and LGBT issues, that go FAR beyond just what two people get up to in the bedroom.

Can the same admiration be said for anyone who has fought for recognition of incestuous relationships? I don't think so. Very few people in the world are going to support the rights of people who want to have intimate relations with their immediate family members. And that's NOT just because it's ick, it's because of the possible emotional, psychological and biologically proven consequences.

One reason is because "consent" can be manipulated by either party (or parties, because incest isn't just limited to just a two person relationship, there are a whole spectrum of possible permutations and orientations and sexualities involved).

Another is that as I stated already, there are legal issues such as inheritance rights and family law to consider (such as a son wanting to end his relationship with his father, but his father threatens to throw him out of the house if he does. The son entered a consensual relationship, but now it's turned nasty).

The scenarios and their complications are endless, and while incest does not directly lead to inbreeding, you are opening the door for inbreeding to occur, so the blood lineage becomes self propagating of it's own sexual partners - tired of one son? Try the other daughter instead. Just don't talk about it at the breakfast table. What happens in the bedroom is nobody else's business - that's a sword that cuts both ways.

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

A handful of posters on Boards that can't even agree amongst themselves how far they would be willing to support incest? That's your idea of acceptance?

NAMBLA called, they wanted to know could they ride your coat tails.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 04:44PM

pharmaton wrote: »

The fact that you don't think it "normal" implies you consider the family dynamic to be one closer to the one you experience

Not my assumption at all. It is you guys that seem to think there is a Family Dynamic that needs to be maintained. I am simply using your language. I already said had you bothered to read it that I do not think there is a "normal" dynamic any more in a modern world populated by single parents, gay parents, divorced parents and so on and so forth.

But taking an observation from one type of scenario... communal living... and applying it to any other.... is not safe. Such things are not automatically 1:1. Especially if you are already engaging in a correleation-causation error before you ever leave the commune.

pharmaton wrote: »

The nature of the family in the study is of little relevance, it demonstrates that children raised together develop an innate sense toward it. (incest)

And there are several reasons why that may be, including but not limited to.... as I said....... growing up in a society that teaches them to think that way.

And I repeat even if you were 100% right here it still does not answer the OPs question. It would just establish of what is actually wrong with incest. You are simply answering why people might have a bias against it. Not what is _actually wrong_ with it. So not only do I think your line of thought here is wrong... it is also entirely irrelevant to the thread.

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 04:47PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not my assumption at all. It is you guys that seem to think there is a Family Dynamic that needs to be maintained. I am simply using your language. I already said had you bothered to read it that I do not think there is a "normal" dynamic any more in a modern world populated by single parents, gay parents, divorced parents and so on and so forth.

But taking an observation from one type of scenario... communal living... and applying it to any other.... is not safe. Such things are not automatically 1:1. Especially if you are already engaging in a correleation-causation error before you ever leave the commune.

And there are several reasons why that may be, including but not limited to.... as I said....... growing up in a society that teaches them to think that way.

And I repeat even if you were 100% right here it still does not answer the OPs question. It would just establish of what is actually wrong with incest. You are simply answering why people might have a bias against it. Not what is _actually wrong_ with it. So not only do I think your line of thought here is wrong... it is also entirely irrelevant to the thread.

There is a family dynamic, if you are unable to accept that then your entire argument is flawed, based on nothing more than intellectual farting about morality and the rest of your points are nonsequitur.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 04:52PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're seriously telling me you've never heard of Harvey Milk?

Not what I am saying. I am aware of what the gay rights movement have been doing including people like him. I should do, I fight as part of it. But what are the "positive arguments" these people had? You were demanding another user give some. What ones were given here?

The arguments they championed were actually negating the arguments people had AGAINST homosexuality. They did not argue for homosexuality so much as they attacked the arguments that were once used against it.

They were not generally saying "Homosexuals should be allowed together because X Y and Z". No, they were generally saying "The arguments X Y and Z against homosexuals being together are wrong because...."

And people slowly came (and continue to come) to the conclusion that "Hang on, there is no good arguments against homosexuals having sex and being together, why should it be illegal? They have as much right to be together as anyone else. They are harming no one and doing nothing wrong, so let them at it".

Yet you demand, for no other reason that to feed your agenda, that another user must give positive arguments for change here. That for people to be together in incest they have to actively and positively justify this. One rule for you and one rule for everyone else mentality will not get you far.

Czarcasm wrote: »

the possible emotional, psychological and biologically proven consequences.

Which conseuqnces? They seem few and far between. As we have seen many times now the "biological consequences" people think incest causes.... it simply does not. And the Evolutionary Arguments and Natural Selection arguments that were mentioned so far were so bad that when the flaws were pointed out in them (by me) the person who espoused them simply did a runner.

Czarcasm wrote: »

One reason is because "consent" can be manipulated by either party

As it can be in ANY sexual relationship. Why pick one type and ban it for something that is true of many many others? Again to feed a bias and agenda.

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's your idea of acceptance?

That part you quoted was about homosexuality. Not sure what you hope to gain by taking a sentence talking about one thing and replying to it as if I was talking about another.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 04:55PM

pharmaton wrote: »

There is a family dynamic, if you are unable to accept that then your entire argument is flawed

Again: We are now in a world society full of things like single parenting, divorce, adoption, gay parenting, communal parenting, polygamy and more. What you think the "Dynamic" is here I do not know. What is clear is that "family dynamic" is a fluid concept that changes and continues to change all the time.

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 04:57PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They were not generally saying "Homosexuals should be allowed together because X Y and Z". No, they were generally saying "The arguments X Y and Z against homosexuals being together are wrong because...."

because homosexuality is not considered a danger to society in the same way incest is. Because opening to doors to accepting homosexuality affects no one other than homsexuals themselves, opening the door to incest raises concern for all families and not just those who want to engage in it.

Seedy Arling · 27-06-2013 04:59PM

Tom Cruise: 'I cant come in to work today, I'm too sick'
TC's Employer: 'How sick are you?'
TC: 'I'm in bed with my sister.'

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 04:59PM

pharmaton wrote: »

because homosexuality is not considered a danger to society in the same way incest is.

It seems you feel if you say "danger" enough people will just get scared and agree with you. What "danger" are you imaginging because as I mentioned already many of the ones that have thus far been mentioned on the thread are either a) wrong or b) based on a fantastical imagined world that does not in any way match our reality.

pharmaton wrote: »

Because opening to doors to accepting homosexuality affects no one other than homsexuals themselves

Not so. Marital law, tax law, adoption law, and much more is affected by it. For the better I feel. But certainly saying no one else has been affected at all is patently false.

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 05:00PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again: We are now in a world society full of things like single parenting, divorce, adoption, gay parenting, communal parenting, polygamy and more. What you think the "Dynamic" is here I do not know. What is clear is that "family dynamic" is a fluid concept that changes and continues to change all the time.

You suppose dynamics are relative to numbers, gender and construct. Dynamics involve more than physical observations, it concerns influence, familial relationships, authority, protection and security (interactive energies) and these apply to all families despite their heritage or structure.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-06-2013 05:02PM

pharmaton wrote: »

You suppose dynamics are relative to numbers, gender and construct. Dynamics involve more than physical observations, it concerns influence, familial relationships, authority, protection and security and these apply to all families despite their heritage or structure.

I suppose that it relates to numbers, gender, construct, the other things you listed, and even more you did not list. It is a whole host of things. Many of which are changing all the time. It is a fluid and wide reaching concept and I see no reason to think we need to maintain it in one form all the time, or that there are dangers in letting it change sometimes.

As I said the word "danger" is being thrown out like a shock tactic. Get people scared enough of some shadow implications that you never give form to and you hope they will simply fall into line. Not me. I want to know what these actual dangers are because I repeat the ones listed so far are either a) wrong or b) based on a fantastical imagined world that does not in any way match our reality.

Since I have to leave this PC I guess the thread has 16 hours to develop in my abscence. Somehow I do not expect that my return will be to a list of what these dangers actually are and they will remain shadows in the dark designed to cajole and bamboozle and worry, deliberately kept without form because giving them form will allow people to see them for what they are. Nonsense error, or fantastical scenarios.

pharmaton · 27-06-2013 05:05PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I suppose that it relates to numbers, gender, construct, the other things you listed, and even more you did not list. It is a whole host of things. Many of which are changing all the time. It is a fluid and wide reaching concept and I see no reason to think we need to maintain it in one form all the time, or that there are dangers in letting it change sometimes.

As I said the word "danger" is being thrown out like a shock tactic. Get people scared enough of some shadow implications that you never give form to and you hope they will simply fall into line. Not me. I want to know what these actual dangers are because I repeat the ones listed so far are either a) wrong or b) based on a fantastical imagined world that does not in any way match our reality.

dynamics, interactive energies.

The word threat has been used in context with the effect incest would have on the interactive energies within families rather than being used as a shock tactic, at least on my part anyway. Incest has for the most part been a threat within familes for generations, for that I wouldn't apologise.

meeeeh · 27-06-2013 05:20PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so but for the reasons I laid out I found it being a bit self defining. We are just defining a scenario where incest is not preferable and then saying "Oh look in this scenario no incest is preferable, yay". More than that I am not getting from your quote. What am I missing exactly?

So it does not say much about the subject, nothing about which society will thrive more, in fact nothing much at all.... so I am now struggling to see the relevance of the argument at all.

Read the topic again "What is actually wrong with incest". How has anything you pasted answered that exactly?

Why would it? If you say so? But even if you are right here 100% then so what? No one here is suggesting massively changing society. Very few people are engaged in it or want to engage in it. It is a vastly minority practice. Is the only way you can come up with an argument against incest going to be to simply fantasies about a world where a hugely significant number of people are at it?

If so then we are deep into fantasy land. Fun and useful to play around with but not mapping onto our reality, or the topic of the OPs question, one iota.

Another assertion. What evidence have we that children are "first sexually attracted to their parent"? Freud seemed to be heavily obsessed with attraction between parents and children but I am not seeing much substantiation for it other than he believed it and mentioned it often.

It also assumes that even if a child is sexually attracted to their parent that when they reach actual procreation age, adolescence and beyond, that they still will be.

So it seems to be assumption built on assertion built on assumption going on there.

Your problem is that you still understand invest as moral concept and not as one of the most universal cultural postulates.

But then you just dismissed basically all anthropological research on the subject and described incest as some sort of sexual deviancy when it is so much wider. I'm out because it's very hard to discuss with someone who knows nothing about the subject.

Czarcasm · 27-06-2013 06:09PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet you demand, for no other reason that to feed your agenda, that another user must give positive arguments for change here. That for people to be together in incest they have to actively and positively justify this. One rule for you and one rule for everyone else mentality will not get you far.

This is where your argument falls flat on it's árse tbh. You are trying to argue a lifestyle choice off the back of an issue that is not a lifestyle choice. There is no one rule for one and another for others there. The rule is the same for us all -

It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is - Sexual relations with your immediate family members is a lifestyle choice. Not too many are going to entertain your perceived right to have sexual relations with your immediate family.

Which conseuqnces? They seem few and far between. As we have seen many times now the "biological consequences" people think incest causes.... it simply does not. And the Evolutionary Arguments and Natural Selection arguments that were mentioned so far were so bad that when the flaws were pointed out in them (by me) the person who espoused them simply did a runner.

They are only few and far between because society does not encourage incest. If we were to allow and legislate for incest, the consequences would become far more prevalent.

As it can be in ANY sexual relationship. Why pick one type and ban it for something that is true of many many others? Again to feed a bias and agenda.

Because that type is one which destroys the hierarchial structure of society. A parent is supposed to guide their children, not guide them into the bedroom. The same is true of siblings - an incestuous relationship changes the nature of the sibling relationship.

That part you quoted was about homosexuality. Not sure what you hope to gain by taking a sentence talking about one thing and replying to it as if I was talking about another.

Nothing sinister about it, just the way I was trying to cut, copy and paste each of your points on mobile so I could address each one in turn, but something got screwed up in the translation and I already had a pain in my face at that stage.

There's another thing, what's with this whole "agenda" nonsense? Can somebody not object to something now without some idiot ranting about "an agenda". Why would I have any agenda? The way incest is regarded in both society and the scientific community suits me just fine. I don't have any objection to society's view of it as abhorrent, and I certainly don't have a problem with the scientific and medical community discouraging it.

A few posters on Boards get shirty about it, well, give me a good enough reason to support incest, and I'll rally right in behind you.

Until such good reason is forthcoming, I'm done with this thread.

"Two people in love is none of your business" isn't going to cut it, because if you want my support, then it becomes my business.

Umbrella · 27-06-2013 06:25PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

This is where your argument falls flat on it's árse tbh. You are trying to argue a lifestyle choice off the back of an issue that is not a lifestyle choice. There is no one rule for one and another for others there. The rule is the same for us all -

It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is - Sexual relations with your immediate family members is a lifestyle choice. Not too many are going to entertain your perceived right to have sexual relations with your immediate family.

They are only few and far between because society does not encourage incest. If we were to allow and legislate for incest, the consequences would become far more prevalent.

Because that type is one which destroys the hierarchial structure of society. A parent is supposed to guide their children, not guide them into the bedroom. The same is true of siblings - an incestuous relationship changes the nature of the sibling relationship.

Nothing sinister about it, just the way I was trying to cut, copy and paste each of your points on mobile so I could address each one in turn, but something got screwed up in the translation and I already had a pain in my face at that stage.

There's another thing, what's with this whole "agenda" nonsense? Can somebody not object to something now without some idiot ranting about "an agenda". Why would I have any agenda? The way incest is regarded in both society and the scientific community suits me just fine. I don't have any objection to society's view of it as abhorrent, and I certainly don't have a problem with the scientific and medical community discouraging it.

A few posters on Boards get shirty about it, well, give me a good enough reason to support incest, and I'll rally right in behind you.

Until such good reason is forthcoming, I'm done with this thread.

"Two people in love is none of your business" isn't going to cut it, because if you want my support, then it becomes my business.

No one wants your support.

You have simply failed to provide a reason why incest is immoral.

You have mentioned how its illegal, how people don't accept it an mentioned some "scientific" arguments, none of which relate to answering the question, why is incest actually wrong?

Czarcasm · 27-06-2013 06:36PM

Umbrella wrote: »

No one wants your support.

You have simply failed to provide a reason why incest is immoral.

You have mentioned how its illegal, how people don't accept it an mentioned some "scientific" arguments, none of which relate to answering the question, why is incest actually wrong?

Why should I argue something I feel has no relevance for me personally? For me it's not about morality, it's about facts. I don't know why you put science in inverted commas when your reasoning for it is that "two people in love should be allowed do what they want".

That is an immature and obvious display of tunnel vision.

meeeeh · 27-06-2013 06:53PM

Just to point out that something being wrong is not necessarily immoral.

Grolschevik · 27-06-2013 07:45PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Why should I argue something I feel has no relevance for me personally?

So why are you?

meeeeh wrote: »

Just to point out that something being wrong is not necessarily immoral.

In ordinary language usage, "wrong" = either immoral or morally wrong AND/OR illegal AND/OR both.

Also, there are two broad approaches to assessing the rightness or wrongness of actions and states of affairs: rule-based approaches, or results-based approaches (deontology and consequentialism, respectively).

Again, the last dozen pages of this thread have been people talking past each other on both of these dimensions.

Czarcasm · 27-06-2013 08:09PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

So why are you?

In ordinary language usage, "wrong" = either immoral or morally wrong OR illegal OR both.

Again, the last dozen pages of this have been people talking past each other.

And if you had actually read the last twelve pages instead of jumping in waving your e-penis about, you would've realised I was referring to the fact that for me the morality or immorality of incest is irrelevant, so why would I argue about whether it's moral or immoral?

In ordinary language illegal = wrong. Less of the cart before the horseology. Morality is a far more complex concept than just "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", it can mean different things to different individuals, hence why it is a useless perspective in a discussion concerning a social or humanitarian issue.

Grolschevik · 27-06-2013 08:27PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

And if you had actually read the last twelve pages instead of jumping in waving your e-penis about,

Christ. I have been following this thread since its inception. I'd say I have a better grasp and recall of the arguments than most of the kneejerk posters here.

You say:

Czarcasm wrote: »

you would've realised I was referring to the fact that for me the morality or immorality of incest is irrelevant, so why would I argue about whether it's moral or immoral?

But that is the nub of the issue you are debating. Some people you are engaging with see the moral question as the central question. Do you not realise that? People are arguing about different things.

Czarcasm wrote: »

In ordinary language illegal = wrong.

This is not necessarily true. Ordinary usage varies depending on context. 'Illegal' is one interpretation of 'wrong'. And many things have been illegal in the past that were not wrong from a moral point of view. 'Legal' does not equal 'right', and vice versa.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Morality is a far more complex concept than just "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", it can mean different things to different individuals,

There is no such thing as an objectively provable correct morality. If that is what you are saying, then I agree with you. However, at its essence, it does come down to the right/wrong dichotomy. Where it gets complex is when we look at the "why".

I only "wave my e-penis about" in order to point out logical and other flaws in comprehension, reasoning, and argument. Of which there are a great many in this thread.

[Reminds me of why I don't do AH]

Czarcasm · 27-06-2013 09:33PM

Grolschevik wrote: »

Christ. I have been following this thread since its inception. I'd say I have a better grasp and recall of the arguments than most of the kneejerk posters here.

But you jumped in there to pull me up on my post which you read, misinterpreted, and misunderstood.

I'd call that a knee-jerk reaction caused by a lack of comprehension?

But that is the nub of the issue you are debating. Some people you are engaging with see the moral question as the central question. Do you not realise that? People are arguing about different things.

I think you should address that point to the people who misinterpreted the OP and took it to mean they were talking about what is morally wrong with incest. I see the word illegal, I see the word wrong in the OP, I don't see any mention of moral, immoral, not even morality.

Those who misread the OP then started giving it welly about morality and trying to say that the only reason people object to incest was "because it was ick", because they saw it as "immoral", etc, and when they were presented with factual, incontrovertible, irrefutable evidence, they simply ignored it and carried on banging on about people's only objections being based on morality.

How does one even discuss an issue when one side is sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "la la la moraliteee"?

This is not necessarily true. Ordinary usage varies depending on context. 'Illegal' is one interpretation of 'wrong'. And many things have been illegal in the past that were not wrong from a moral point of view. 'Legal' does not equal 'right', and vice versa.

The context here has only one meaning. Incest is illegal, therefore it is wrong. Any argument after the fact must display why incest should not be illegal first before they can then display why it should be a right. Homosexual couples in northern Ireland were given the right today to adopt, because they were first able to display that discrimination which made it illegal in the first place was flawed.

There is no such thing as an objectively provable correct morality. If that is what you are saying, then I agree with you. However, at its essence, it does come down to the right/wrong dichotomy. Where it gets complex is when we look at the "why".

Which is why I didn't argue the "why?", because the "why?" is different things to different people. Depending on who you talk to, some people have no problem with incest as an abstract concept, but would deny incestuous couples their reproductive rights. There isn't a fence big enough to accommodate that point of view, but it sounds very discriminatory to me, coming from people who say they would not discriminate against incestuous unions.

I only "wave my e-penis about" in order to point out logical and other flaws in comprehension, reasoning, and argument. Of which there are a great many in this thread.

But the only people introducing them are yourself and a few other posters who are trying to twist words beyond all recognition, reading what isn't there, flip flopping between analogies and comparisons until they find one that suits their point of view, and EVEN THEN - It's a completely irrelevant analogy, comparison, conflation, whatever it suits an advocate of incest to call it, whenever it suits an advocate of incest to call it that.

We can't even use "you" in the plural sense because advocates of incest seem to be a very petty and immature bunch who themselves seem to like to miss the point and twist the word "you" so they can take it as a personal insult in the hope that a poster will be infracted for personal abuse. Those sort of immature, false knee-jerk reactions are done in the hope of getting a poster banned from the discussion and thereby effectively silenced.

[Reminds me of why I don't do AH]

It's wrong, but it feels so right, right?

Grolschevik · 27-06-2013 10:04PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

But you jumped in there to pull me up on my post which you read, misinterpreted, and misunderstood.

No. You said "Why should I argue something I feel has no relevance for me personally". My point was that (I think most) other people are talking about morality. So if that aspect doesn't interest you, why do you engage?

On everything else in my post, I wasn't addressing your other posts specifically.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think you should address that point to the people who misinterpreted the OP and took it to mean they were talking about what is morally wrong with incest. I see the word illegal, I see the word wrong in the OP, I don't see any mention of moral, immoral, not even morality.

I believe that you and others have misinterpreted the OP. I think the question was always "what's morally wrong with it", because otherwise the quick answer would be "because the law says so". Thread over. Unless you ask the "why is it illegal?" Then a moral argument in unavoidable.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The context here has only one meaning. Incest is illegal, therefore it is wrong. Any argument after the fact must display why incest should not be illegal first before they can then display why it should be a right.

Ditto. And I'm pretty sure no-one said that it should be a right, or advocated, just that it shouldn't be criminalised without good reason.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Which is why I didn't argue the "why?", because the "why?" is different things to different people. Depending on who you talk to, some people have no problem with incest as an abstract concept, but would deny incestuous couples their reproductive rights. There isn't a fence big enough to accommodate that point of view, but it sounds very discriminatory to me, coming from people who say they would not discriminate against incestuous unions.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Czarcasm wrote: »

But the only people introducing them are yourself and a few other posters who are trying to twist words beyond all recognition, reading what isn't there, flip flopping between analogies and comparisons until they find one that suits their point of view, and EVEN THEN - It's a completely irrelevant analogy, comparison, conflation, whatever it suits an advocate of incest to call it, whenever it suits an advocate of incest to call it that.

We can't even use "you" in the plural sense because advocates of incest seem to be a very petty and immature bunch who themselves seem to like to miss the point and twist the word "you" so they can take it as a personal insult in the hope that a poster will be infracted for personal abuse. Those sort of immature, false knee-jerk reactions are done in the hope of getting a poster banned from the discussion and thereby effectively silenced.

No. I'm not advocating anything other than logical deduction based on coherent argument. Your last two paragraphs there are the epitome of the opposite to that.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's wrong, but it feels so right, right?

No. It really pisses me off. But I'm an educator at heart...

What is actually wrong with incest?

Comments