Coldfire, you’re my new favourite person. =D
Eh eh…
E.
“Semper Ubi Sub Ubi.” =-)
Well, if I apply your logic, your opinion is that I am wrong, and neither of us is actually right, at least not in an objective sense. But then, I respect your opinion.
However, I would like to echo Nu Vo Da Da’s remark that my initial statement regarding incest and morality/ethics was ineed based on reasoning, not on feelings. Whether you agree with my reasoning or not is a different matter, but it was not a knee-jerk reaction.
Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
Each person is allowed to make his or her own moral distinctions. You are free to consider any activity moral or immoral as you please.
If you’re going to make a ethical/legal distinction, you should make it on objective, repeatable and meaningful criteria. Any activity which then falls under the criteria needs to be viewed in the same light.
I’ve seen nothing that distinguishes adult family members having consensual sex without the purpose of procreation substantially different than any two people having sex:
Any two people of the opposite sex have a non-zero probability of creating a pregnancy (even in the case of surgical sterilization).
Any pregnancy has a non-zero probability of causing a birth defect.
Even so, if an unplanned pregnancy results from any situation where birth defects are a significant probability, the woman is free to have an abortion.
You cannot say a priori that any given incestuous pair will have a significantly higher risk of causing a birth defect.
Even so, if an X% chance of a birth defect might result, is it then unethical for a person who carries a recessive genetic defect with that probability to have heterosexual intercourse?
And, of course, the birth defects probability does not at all address sexual activity without the possibility of conception.
I can see no other basis whatsoever of making a distinction between adult consensual incest and any other adult consensual sexual activity.
You may find incest personally unappealing. However, this does not form a meaningful distinction, except as regards your own conduct.
No matter where you go, there you are.
SingleDad, this is the Pit. This is where we can call people idiots just because they disagree with us. Screw logic and all that. This is where it gets personal. [insert gratuitous personal insult here] If these people wanted to debate this using logic, they would have done it over in GD. As much as I personally like a good debate, sometimes it’s fun to just argue like fifth graders, with the opportunity for a greater range of obscene insults. You must be a commie or something. Yeah, that’s it.
You must be dense or something. There are quite a few recessive genes floating around, things that we don’t know about like breast cancer, maybe. If they are recessive, you don’t see them. You might have one, in fact you might have the one for not reading well. The probability is that any incestuous pair will have a higher probability of genetic disease because of any recessive genes.
2nd part: It is more unethical for a person with a recessive gene to have sex outside the family than inside the family.
Whoah, hang on. Major, please tell me if I’m wrong. First, regarding this:
If that is true, then a brother and sister (both having a certain [but the same] regressive gene) would have a MUCH larger chance of producing a handicapped baby then someone with a recessive gene combined with a random partner (who maybe carries regressive genes too, but not necessarily the same).
In other words: we all carry regressive genes that can potentially lead to birth defects and handicaps when we procreate. However, since sibblings are more likely to have the SAME regressive genes, they have a GREATER probability of producing a baby that has the disability originated by one of said regressive genes. Of course handicapped babies are also a possibility with non-incestuous conceptions, but the argument seems to boil down to either taking an inherent risk (a baby that is born from two non-related parents always has a chance of developing a handicap), or taking an unnecessarily high risk (a baby born from two related parents has a signifaicantly HIGHER chance of developing a handicap).
Now, Major Feelgud, I appeal to your medical knowledge. If I’ve got the medical reasoning straight, I’m pretty damn sure my ethical condemnation of incestuous relationships (involving an implicit risk of pregnancy and hence a baby) is justified.
Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
I seem to have used the word “regressive” a few times. I meant “recessive”, of course. Sorry.
Coldfire–
You’re right, I should have phrased that differently. Let me try and elucidate my position. I see the OP as stating that the comparison between incest, and smoking pot is the same. Both are activities that are illegal (with the exception of your country), but if they are pursued by consenting adults, nobody is harmed.
Your position is that incest can lead to a pregnancy, with a chance of the child being born with a birth defect. Therefore, it is ethically wrong.
While you also argue that Pot smoking has absolutely no detrimental effects, and that the laws against it are left-over remains of a knee-jerk reaction to other “hard” drug effects. And that since they don’t harm anyone, then adults should be able to use them if they like.
I think I’ve boiled it down to the basics there. If I’m incorrect in my statements, please let me know…this thread has jumped back and forth several times.
Now according to this study shows that there is an increase in death due to use of cannabis in men. While that percentage is low, it is not 0%. And this study shows the possibility that cannabis may lead to schizophrenia. So saying that smoking pot does absolutely no harm, is a false statement. The risks are low, but that’s not the same as risk free.
Now I’ll admit, that for every study showing something negative, you can find one with positive results, I found enough hits when I searched for side-effects of pot smoking that I’ll go out on a limb and say that there is a correlation to smoking, and detrimental side-effects.
I searched for data on the occurrence of genetic disorders in incest case’s, but couldn’t find any hard data. I’ll continue to search to see if I can find a percentage.
So, what I conclude by looking at both these examples, is that neither one are risk-free. But that in the case of smoking pot, you are more likely to kill yourself, while in incest, there is a possibility of harming another (the unborn child). However, the risk is higher for pot smoking than incest. With modern birth control methods, figure the chance of getting pregnant are 3%-5% (I’m being generous). Now not everyone is a carrier of recessive genes that have a disorder, so of those that do get pregnant, only a certain percentage will have the potential for developing a birth defect.
Again, I apologize for my earlier mis-statements. I do however still believe that you are arguing the semantics of the fact because you find one pass-time acceptable, and the other reprehensible. Both are harmful, both can lead to death, both are illegal in most places.
I apologize for taking this slightly out of context, but this is exactly why incest is ethically wrong - a party that is unable to defend itself is being harmed. Not all the time, not always, but the possibility is there. Consequently, this:
… is not longer relevant. Ethics is not about the size of a probability, but about the existence of a probability.
I know this doesn’t fully follow up on your last post, but like you said, the thread has been jumping back and forth a bit 
I do, however, applaud your research. I think we largely agree on the matter, except for the fact that you think my condemnation is personal, whereas I think it is (should be?) societal.
Thanks for teaching me the negative effects of pot use - I truely was unaware of those. However, I think you’ll agree with me (going back to the legalization bit - are our heads spinning yet :)) that these negative effects are minute if not negligable when compared to the downsides of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.
Also, I think I know why you were able to find tons of research on pot and vitually none on incest. Pot use is a hot topic that is almost constantly in the public and political eye. Also, pot users are quite vocal, millitant even, in getting hteir point across. The constant debating over wheather or not to legalize it juts BEGS for supporting research for either side of the discussion. That’s why it’s there, free for anyone to see.
Incest is of course still a taboo. I think getting “guinea pigs” for a statistically valid incest research project is going to pose somewhat of a problem. Who’s gonna admit that he’s screwing his sister? Then again, people who actually DO might have little trouble with admitting it…
Damn, this stuff is confusing, eh?
Anyway, carry on.
Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
Without reading the whole thread, I have to respond.
The difference between incest and drug usage is that with drugs the party involved is only partaking themselves and others that have the mindset to partake with them. I don’t think drugs should be illegal. I also don’t think that minors should be doing drugs. The same logic applies to incest, I don’t think minors should be involved. I don’t think they are able to give an informed decision. If two adults want an incestuous relationship, I simply don’t care. I think it is as gross as straight sex, but it isn’t any of my business. If a child is involved in an incestuous relationship with an adult or another child, that is a completely different story. They can’t knowingly give consent. Also, any sexual advance towards a child that is carried through especially if it is long term tends to completely fuck the children up for the rest of their lives. You may say the same for drugs that they completely fuck up other people’s lives. That may be true to an extent depending on how young they start. The difference is that if an adult decides to start doing drugs he/she can make an informed decision about it or not. They are an adult and as long as they are not trying to force their view then who cares. Having an analogy to incest to drugs in this equation is irrelevant. And Rosseau (since this is in the pit), if you don’t understand the difference between consenting adults and minors cognition, I really fear for any children you have or have ever had around you.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Yes but who is to say that 17 and below is a “minor” and 18 and older is an adult capable of making “informed decisions”?
What if I was a 16 yr old who said “I am emotionally mature and I can choose to smoke pot, I know the risks and I am only hurting myself anyway if I am wrong.” Where do you get off saying “No your too young.”? How do you know? What authority says 18 is the magic age?
Society? YOU BETTER NOT SAY SOCIETY!!! Because you have spent this whole discussion saying that society doesnt have the right to tell you what you can do if it isn’t hurting anyone. So how come all of a sudden “Society” is so smart, they know 18 is the right age, but the dont know shit about pot being wrong for people to use?
And if you say it is OK for that 16 yr old, then lets ask the same question with a 14 yr old?
YOU SEE??? When you start saying that everything is releative you have no authority to back you anywhere!
And when your finished answering that 16 ye old’s pot question you better tell him why he cant sleep with his sister, using birth control. Or what if he had a vasictomy (sp) would it be OK then?
Dont you see? You try to be all “Oh we are so independent, no one can tell us anything.” But it doesnt work in the real world when you apply it to other cases.
AvenueB-Dude:
- To whom did you direct that rather incoherent collection of words?
- Is your mouth foaming?
Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk
WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."
“What if I was a 16 yr old who said “I am emotionally mature and I can choose to smoke pot, I know the risks and I am only hurting myself anyway if I am wrong.” Where do you get off saying “No your too young.”? How do you know? What authority says 18 is the magic age?”
If that is the case, then he/she can become an emancipated minor. Personally, I would never have sex with someone that young. Even 18 is pushing it for me but then I really like my men older.
“And if you say it is OK for that 16 yr old, then lets ask the same question with a 14 yr old?”
The same response fits here too. If they are emotionally mature and capable then they can become an emancipated minor. I don’t believe a 14 year old can really do this overall. Nor do I believe that a 14 year old can hold a job in most states other than one he/she creates himself or a paper route.
“YOU SEE??? When you start saying that everything is releative you have no authority to back you anywhere!”
(Note, this statement is strange if you read “relative” as being someone who is related to you.) Anyway, all laws are relative. Would you punish your child the same if he/she got into an argument or got into a fist fight with you? I doubt it. They are obviously related but one is more severe.
“And when your finished answering that 16 ye old’s pot question you better tell him why he cant sleep with his sister, using birth control. Or what if he had a vasictomy (sp) would it be OK then?”
This would be a little different depending on the age of the sister and if the son was an emancipated minor. Still let’s pretend that the sister is younger than he is and he is not an emancipated minor. Then the case would be that not only could he not smoke pot, he could not sleep with his sister. The child aspect of the relationship is irrelevant because in this case neither of the children have been emancipated and thus are not legally capable of making an informed decision. According to the laws that govern contracts, a minor can not legally be bound to a contract unless he/she has been emancipated. It works that way with a credit card, a new/used car, even employment. Minors have different rights than adults do in this case but they also have a harder time because even if they fully intend to follow through with the contract it will be tougher for them to receive one. That is why it is so difficult for a minor to buy a car or a house in his/her name even if they are making enough money to actually buy one. This relates back to the original argument by following what a minor is allowed to do as compared to an adult or emancipated minor. As I said earlier, if a child wants the responsibilities of being an adult then he/she should become emancipated and take on any of those issues that will arise.
Now if the sister was an adult and he was an emancipated minor, then I would discourage both of them from pursuing a relationship with eachother. It could go as far as me not supporting any of their endeavors depending on how spiteful I was, but since they were my children I would still love them even if I didn’t disagree with them. I don’t see a problem between consenting adults (emancipated minors fall into this category unfortunately) having sex. I may think it is gross and amoral but I am not one to judge what they do in their private lives. Now if they were going to try to have babies out of this union, I would still love my grandchild as I would still love them. I would be against them from procreating but it is really only my relativist moral code that makes it so. Personally, I would hope that any children I owuld raise would have a higher moral standard than to want to reproduce with themselves. If I thought they had the inkling to do it with eachother than I would probably think I failed as a parent to install my values in them.
Personally, I would think that children or even adults wanting to pursue an incestuous relationship would have some pretty messed up ideas about sex, boundaries, and loving. This is more emphasised in children becuase they can’t knowingly give consent. But with adults, even though I don’t agree with it, there is nothing for me to say about it since I am not them and don’t have their life experiences.
“Dont you see? You try to be all “Oh we are so independent, no one can tell us anything.” But it doesnt work in the real world when you apply it to other cases.”
Hmmmm. I agree with you that incest is wrong, but fail to see a decent analogy between incest and drug usage.
HUGS!
Sqrl
PS. Larry Borgia meet Da Sqrl, I also live in DC.
Coldfire, I don’t know who he was responding to but decided to respond anyway. (BTW, I actually read the whole thread now.) I do see the foam.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Damn straight I am! Go Reds! Smash State!
I can’t believe you airheaded morons are arguing this topic. If we seriously enforced the incest laws, we would have to fence off West Virginia, thus depriving Jeff Foxworthy of a livelihood.
Do y’all have nothing better to do than enage in the prurient and salacious condemnation of other people’s sex lives?
It’s a well known fact that people who vociferiously condemn another person’s behavior are secretly resisting that impulse in themselves? Every homophobic bigot is obviously a latent homosexual.
Major Feelgud: What, are you an illiterate mouth-breather? I said “any given incestuous pair”; just because a group has some probabilistic characteristic doesn’t mean that one particular instance has that characteristic.
Well there’s an argument. I have a gene you don’t like and now I can’t get my jollies? I don’t think so, Mr. Stalin!
An incestuous pair has a ZERO probability of giving birth to a baby if the woman gets an abortion if she get’s pregnant. Remember zero? Arabs and all that? Or did you leave school before they got to algebra?
The law you freakin’ moron.
Make up your mind!
Damn that felt good! 
Back to my usual logical self.
No matter where you go, there you are.
SingleDad:
This is the fallacy of argumentum from uranus. If this were true, you would secretly be a gun-toting Republican intending to vote for G.W.
False. You are living proof.
::
Glad ta meetcha Sqrl! Let’s get the kinfolk together for a bigass orgy! Yeehaaa!
Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat
Another county heard from.
CalifBoomer said:
Yeah. I guess it doesn’t really matter what he said.
Man, it’s only a matter of time before this guy’s cells get tired of clinging to such an unpleasant sack of humanity and take off to find an incontinent syphilitic leper to hang out on instead.
nurlman:
You fit that description.
Are you volunteering?
:
See, Boomer, you can do it… I wanted to give you a forum the plays to your strengths: It only takes a fourth grade education to post on the pit, so you only need another year.
No matter where you go, there you are.