Mother-Son Incest Case

[CountDeMoney]

Well, I always said that I don't see any reason to intrinsically ban incest, so there you have it.

I like to live by the rule that as long as all parties to a sex act are fully aware (and capable of being fully aware) of all implications and responsibilities thereof, and agree thereto, no community, prince, god or any other authority has any right to prevent them from going at it.

Yay, kiddiefucking for all! 

[Razgovory]

Don't fear it, but fear those who proclaim themselves rational very loudly and people who put reason on a pedestal. It doesn't need to be devalued just put back where it belongs as one of a large number of factors in making decisions.

I love people who try to use rationality to discredit rationality! 

the fact of the matter is that rationality is the only means by which humans can accurately relate to one another; emotions don't translate accurately.  If a person cannot explain the reasons why he or she thinks another person should agree about a policy or behavior, then the only hope that person has to get agreement is coercion.  Coercion-based societies are unstable and therefor undesirable.

I love people who declare themselves rational.  No, wait, it's the other thing.  I find them tiresome blowhards.  Also, all societies are coercion-based.  If you violate the law state kidnaps you and puts in you in a tiny room and doesn't let you leave.

[The Brain]

Law should be based on the "everybody knows" principle.

[Scipio]

Law should be based on the "everybody knows" principle.

I approve of this proposed Leonard Cohen derived ethos.

[grumbler]

Law should be based on the "everybody knows" principle.

  Everybody knows that!

[Sheilbh]

note: I love the way you demand that those who disagree with you do so quietly, because you know, stating what you believe "loudly" is of course evidence for...something.


You, of course, are free to proclaim your disgust with reason as loudly as you like, I am sure.

They can do what they want.

Nine times out of ten appeals to reason in politics are appeals to common sense with a college education. The other time is when they're really dangerous because what's happening is their political agenda is being cast as 'reasonable' or 'rational'. It is based on 'reason' which is something as cold, indisputable and central to our culture. So opposition to that is unreasoned, it is irrational. It's the language of a secular orthodoxy and heresy. At the best the people who disagree should just have to shut up - at the worst they are crooked timber that is planed straight.

And of course almost no-one is actually as rational as people say they are. We reason our views after we've formed them instinctively based on a whole other set of priorities.

I love people who try to use rationality to discredit rationality! 

the fact of the matter is that rationality is the only means by which humans can accurately relate to one another; emotions don't translate accurately.  If a person cannot explain the reasons why he or she thinks another person should agree about a policy or behavior, then the only hope that person has to get agreement is coercion.  Coercion-based societies are unstable and therefor undesirable.

I think language is the way we do that. It isn't just reason v emotion there's all sorts of other unreasoned bits of human behaviour that we have to explain and mediate with each other: values, belief systems, experiences. It's that process - in which reason should be involved - that makes our society.

[grumbler]

Nine times out of ten appeals to reason in politics are appeals to common sense with a college education. The other time is when they're really dangerous because what's happening is their political agenda is being cast as 'reasonable' or 'rational'. It is based on 'reason' which is something as cold, indisputable and central to our culture. So opposition to that is unreasoned, it is irrational. It's the language of a secular orthodoxy and heresy. At the best the people who disagree should just have to shut up - at the worst they are crooked timber that is planed straight.

  This is the best case of strawman argumentation I have seen on here in a long time.  Unfortunately for you, all you end up doing is arguing that rationality is bad when it is irrational.  Duh!

And of course almost no-one is actually as rational as people say they are. We reason our views after we've formed them instinctively based on a whole other set of priorities.

More strawman argumentation.  You have no idea how "actually" rational anyone is, nor how they formed their views.  I accept your assertion that you form your view "instinctively" and then come up with reasons for them; this is called "rationalization."  I don't accept your assertion that almost everyone rationalizes like you do.

I think language is the way we do that. It isn't just reason v emotion there's all sorts of other unreasoned bits of human behaviour that we have to explain and mediate with each other: values, belief systems, experiences. It's that process - in which reason should be involved - that makes our society.

There certainly are unreasoned bits of human behavior.  It is those bits which cannot be communicated because they are unreasoned; we cannot even explain them to ourselves.   I believe, though, that public policy should always be based on things we can explain - and if we can explain them, they are rational.  Irrational decision-making, though attractive to romantics, makes for horrendous public policy.  Just ask the people living in territories controlled by ISIS.

[Razgovory]

Ask those who lived in the Soviet Union how a "rational society" functions.

[Camerus]

Or in Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."

[The Brain]

Or on Languish.

[garbon]

Or on Languish.

I try to be as unreasonable as possible.

[PDH]

That's reasonable.

[grumbler]

Or in Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."

Or in Dilbert's office.

[garbon]

Or in Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."

Or in Dilbert's office.

Or in a Cathy comic strip.

[grumbler]

A Bugs Bunny cartoon?