Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[Malthus]

Don't bother.  He is in full stride.  He has already been told that his theory that we oppose it because it is "icky" is silly.  But that won't slow him down.

You are just saying that because you hate liberty.

[Malthus]

I suspect Beebs won't be getting onto the "Don't send your kid to Sunday School before he is capable of making his own decisions about faith" train though either...

Just this once - little Timmy was going to have a sleepover at his friend's house on Saturday night.  At around 8pm we get a call - Timmy does not want to stay.  So a quick change of plans leads to his little buddy coming over to sleep over with us.

Since Timmy was going to be at his friends, that was going to mean no Sunday school for him.  But once he's home, he immediately asks us about going to Sunday school - and what's more he wants his little buddy to come with him too!

Now I don't know what to do about this, because I know his little buddy's parents are Baha'i, and raising him in that faith.  I very neutrally ask his mom about Sunday morning, and she says "sure".

So the next morning we take Timmy and his buddy to church, and they go to Sunday school.  Afterwards they both had a blast.  His little buddy might be smarter than Timmy though - I asked them what they learned about, and Timmy said "we learned about fishes!", while showing me a colouring project they had done with some fish.  His buddy though goes "No! We learned about God."

I always thought it likely that God was a fish. It would explain a lot. 

I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.

[Barrister]

I suspect Beebs won't be getting onto the "Don't send your kid to Sunday School before he is capable of making his own decisions about faith" train though either...

Just this once - little Timmy was going to have a sleepover at his friend's house on Saturday night.  At around 8pm we get a call - Timmy does not want to stay.  So a quick change of plans leads to his little buddy coming over to sleep over with us.

Since Timmy was going to be at his friends, that was going to mean no Sunday school for him.  But once he's home, he immediately asks us about going to Sunday school - and what's more he wants his little buddy to come with him too!

Now I don't know what to do about this, because I know his little buddy's parents are Baha'i, and raising him in that faith.  I very neutrally ask his mom about Sunday morning, and she says "sure".

So the next morning we take Timmy and his buddy to church, and they go to Sunday school.  Afterwards they both had a blast.  His little buddy might be smarter than Timmy though - I asked them what they learned about, and Timmy said "we learned about fishes!", while showing me a colouring project they had done with some fish.  His buddy though goes "No! We learned about God."

I always thought it likely that God was a fish. It would explain a lot. 

I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.

[Martinus]

It seems there must be some fundamental flaw in education of Canadian lawyers. 

Is there an analogy coming?  Please tell me you are about to make an analogy?

Canadian legal education is like shit?  

Is this an analogy or a simile?

[Ideologue]

Well, one thing I do know is that, if two adults want to have sex with each other, they will have it no matter how banned or taboo it is, and odds are most people won't find out.

This also reminds me of Voltaire's passionate defense of sibling sex, back in the 18th century. And also of his defense of the right of ladies to have sex with their personal maids, which was quite rampant at the time*

(*there was a gradient of punishment by the Law in these last cases. If the Lady was a young virgin, the maid would be sentenced to death. If she was married, the maid would get a long prision sentence. And if she was a widow there would be no penalty, as she'd be helping her mistress to relieve tension.)

So, while I agree that some laws to protect the Family are needed, I realistically cannot see these social bans being effective, unless we put video cameras all over ever household. And even then...

As for sibling incest - apparently, research has shown it is equivalent in harms to parental incest. Though admittedly, they only studied hetero incest.

Not sure. My cousins (brother and sister) had plenty of sex when they were 13-17 [their parents house only had one room for the kids, which they shared], and she grew to be a top manager at ______, while he is a now a ____________.

Granted, her marriage only lasted 4 years and he hasn't married his girlfriend of the last 12 years, but I hardly doubt that is abnormal.

Well, your commitment to the Transparency Society is credited, but you just outed them on a publicly searchable board (how many of the first blanks are there?).  I'd suggest you edit your post, unless it was your intent.

[Eddie Teach]

[Martinus]

Well, one thing I do know is that, if two adults want to have sex with each other, they will have it no matter how banned or taboo it is, and odds are most people won't find out.

This also reminds me of Voltaire's passionate defense of sibling sex, back in the 18th century. And also of his defense of the right of ladies to have sex with their personal maids, which was quite rampant at the time*

(*there was a gradient of punishment by the Law in these last cases. If the Lady was a young virgin, the maid would be sentenced to death. If she was married, the maid would get a long prision sentence. And if she was a widow there would be no penalty, as she'd be helping her mistress to relieve tension.)

So, while I agree that some laws to protect the Family are needed, I realistically cannot see these social bans being effective, unless we put video cameras all over ever household. And even then...

As for sibling incest - apparently, research has shown it is equivalent in harms to parental incest. Though admittedly, they only studied hetero incest.

Not sure. My cousins (brother and sister) had plenty of sex when they were 13-17 [their parents house only had one room for the kids, which they shared], and she grew to be a top manager at ______, while he is a now a ____________.

Granted, her marriage only lasted 4 years and he hasn't married his girlfriend of the last 12 years, but I hardly doubt that is abnormal.

Well, your commitment to the Transparency Society is credited, but you just outed them on a publicly searchable board (how many of the first blanks are there?).  I'd suggest you edit your post, unless it was your intent.

People who make posts like the one you just did, Ide, have always baffled me. What's the motivation?

[crazy canuck]

I suspect Beebs won't be getting onto the "Don't send your kid to Sunday School before he is capable of making his own decisions about faith" train though either...

Just this once - little Timmy was going to have a sleepover at his friend's house on Saturday night.  At around 8pm we get a call - Timmy does not want to stay.  So a quick change of plans leads to his little buddy coming over to sleep over with us.

Since Timmy was going to be at his friends, that was going to mean no Sunday school for him.  But once he's home, he immediately asks us about going to Sunday school - and what's more he wants his little buddy to come with him too!

Now I don't know what to do about this, because I know his little buddy's parents are Baha'i, and raising him in that faith.  I very neutrally ask his mom about Sunday morning, and she says "sure".

So the next morning we take Timmy and his buddy to church, and they go to Sunday school.  Afterwards they both had a blast.  His little buddy might be smarter than Timmy though - I asked them what they learned about, and Timmy said "we learned about fishes!", while showing me a colouring project they had done with some fish.  His buddy though goes "No! We learned about God."

I always thought it likely that God was a fish. It would explain a lot. 

I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.

Well played 

[Ideologue]

So, there's some pretty easy things we want to discourage - inbreeding and child sexual abuse. 

The problem is that if you want to avoid inbreeding, you're entering eugenics territory and determining what kind of offspring is desirable, and which one isn't.

Of course.  But eugenics flows logically from utilitarian political philosophy, and no other philosophical system really stands up to theoretical objections or empirical tests.

1. There are numerous theoretical objections to utilitarianism.
2. No philosophical system stands up to empirical tests.
3. You do not seem to fully understand utilitarianism if you consider it consistent with the system to ban willing adults from engaging in sex and having offspring - as such ban would create significant suffering for the persons involved.
4. After the attrocities of the 20th century, several philosophical systems (notably, kantian and neo-kantian ones) hold up much better than utilitarianism, I would say.

Not really; only in the sense that all values are subjective; I also consider it consistent with a system that bans willing adults from driving around corners at 80mph; and Hitler thought roads were cool too, should we get rid of them?

We are rapidly approaching a point where we are morally, scientifically, logistically, and economically capable of instituting some sort of minimally-impacting eugenics program.  It no longer need be as invasive as sterilizing folks.  Embryos can now be screened for health issues.  We could have a discussion about how severe they'd have to be to trigger a mandated abortion, but the libertarian response will always be "never," even if the outcome is forty or fifty years of pain.  That's not morality.

More importantly than anything is that a new eugenics debate be raised: people should consider whether one has the absolute right to inflict a disabled existence upon another.  The answer--to me, the obvious answer--is no.

Fortunately, most people give a shit about their kids, so the State would be best served by assisting people in creating the best humans possible, by establishing health care programs specifically tailored to tending to the genetic health of couples.  Social forces would demand parents take part, lest their children suck.  Compulsion may not even be necessary at all.

[Ideologue]

People who make posts like the one you just did, Ide, have always baffled me. What's the motivation?

Just pointing it out in case it escaped him.  Personally, I don't really give a fuck.

[Berkut]

Don't bother.  He is in full stride.  He has already been told that his theory that we oppose it because it is "icky" is silly.  But that won't slow him down.

You are just saying that because you hate liberty.

There is a difference between hating liberty and not caring much about it.

[Malthus]

I suspect Beebs won't be getting onto the "Don't send your kid to Sunday School before he is capable of making his own decisions about faith" train though either...

Just this once - little Timmy was going to have a sleepover at his friend's house on Saturday night.  At around 8pm we get a call - Timmy does not want to stay.  So a quick change of plans leads to his little buddy coming over to sleep over with us.

Since Timmy was going to be at his friends, that was going to mean no Sunday school for him.  But once he's home, he immediately asks us about going to Sunday school - and what's more he wants his little buddy to come with him too!

Now I don't know what to do about this, because I know his little buddy's parents are Baha'i, and raising him in that faith.  I very neutrally ask his mom about Sunday morning, and she says "sure".

So the next morning we take Timmy and his buddy to church, and they go to Sunday school.  Afterwards they both had a blast.  His little buddy might be smarter than Timmy though - I asked them what they learned about, and Timmy said "we learned about fishes!", while showing me a colouring project they had done with some fish.  His buddy though goes "No! We learned about God."

I always thought it likely that God was a fish. It would explain a lot. 

I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.

Good one.

[Martinus]

People who make posts like the one you just did, Ide, have always baffled me. What's the motivation?

Just pointing it out in case it escaped him.  Personally, I don't really give a fuck.

Isn't it more entertaining that way, though?

[The Brain]

Well, one thing I do know is that, if two adults want to have sex with each other, they will have it no matter how banned or taboo it is, and odds are most people won't find out.

This also reminds me of Voltaire's passionate defense of sibling sex, back in the 18th century. And also of his defense of the right of ladies to have sex with their personal maids, which was quite rampant at the time*

(*there was a gradient of punishment by the Law in these last cases. If the Lady was a young virgin, the maid would be sentenced to death. If she was married, the maid would get a long prision sentence. And if she was a widow there would be no penalty, as she'd be helping her mistress to relieve tension.)

So, while I agree that some laws to protect the Family are needed, I realistically cannot see these social bans being effective, unless we put video cameras all over ever household. And even then...

As for sibling incest - apparently, research has shown it is equivalent in harms to parental incest. Though admittedly, they only studied hetero incest.

Not sure. My cousins (brother and sister) had plenty of sex when they were 13-17 [their parents house only had one room for the kids, which they shared], and she grew to be a top manager at ______, while he is a now a ____________.

Granted, her marriage only lasted 4 years and he hasn't married his girlfriend of the last 12 years, but I hardly doubt that is abnormal.

Well, your commitment to the Transparency Society is credited, but you just outed them on a publicly searchable board (how many of the first blanks are there?).  I'd suggest you edit your post, unless it was your intent.

People who make posts like the one you just did, Ide, have always baffled me. What's the motivation?

Cheap laugh.

[Malthus]

So, there's some pretty easy things we want to discourage - inbreeding and child sexual abuse. 

The problem is that if you want to avoid inbreeding, you're entering eugenics territory and determining what kind of offspring is desirable, and which one isn't.

Of course.  But eugenics flows logically from utilitarian political philosophy, and no other philosophical system really stands up to theoretical objections or empirical tests.

1. There are numerous theoretical objections to utilitarianism.
2. No philosophical system stands up to empirical tests.
3. You do not seem to fully understand utilitarianism if you consider it consistent with the system to ban willing adults from engaging in sex and having offspring - as such ban would create significant suffering for the persons involved.
4. After the attrocities of the 20th century, several philosophical systems (notably, kantian and neo-kantian ones) hold up much better than utilitarianism, I would say.

Not really; only in the sense that all values are subjective; I also consider it consistent with a system that bans willing adults from driving around corners at 80mph; and Hitler thought roads were cool too, should we get rid of them?

We are rapidly approaching a point where we are morally, scientifically, logistically, and economically capable of instituting some sort of minimally-impacting eugenics program.  It no longer need be as invasive as sterilizing folks.  Embryos can now be screened for health issues.  We could have a discussion about how severe they'd have to be to trigger a mandated abortion, but the libertarian response will always be "never," even if the outcome is forty or fifty years of pain.  That's not morality.

More importantly than anything is that a new eugenics debate be raised: people should consider whether one has the absolute right to inflict a disabled existence upon another.  The answer--to me, the obvious answer--is no.

Fortunately, most people give a shit about their kids, so the State would be best served by assisting people in creating the best humans possible, by establishing health care programs specifically tailored to tending to the genetic health of couples.  Social forces would demand parents take part, lest their children suck.  Compulsion may not even be necessary at all.

Watch out - Ide has discovered the intellectual trends of the 1920s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eugenics_congress_logo.png

We will be in big trouble when he discovers the intellectual trends of the 1930s ...