Fucking sick! :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html
QuoteIncest a 'fundamental right', German committee says
Anti-incest laws in Germany could be scrapped after a government-backed group said relationships between brothers and sisters should be legal
By Justin Huggler, Berlin
4:09PM BST 24 Sep 2014
Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo," the German Ethics Council said in a statement. "The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family."
Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.
Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.
The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.
Two of the couple's children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.
But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.
The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.
In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to depive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.
Incest remains illegal in the UK and most European countries, although France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I and there has been growing debate over the taboo in Germany.
Around two to four per cent of Germans have had "incestuous experiences", according to an estimate by the Max Planck Institute.
But a spokeswoman for Angela Merkel's ruling Christian Democrats indicated the government was unlikely to adopt the Ethics Council's recommendations.
"The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal," said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, legal policy spokeswoman for the party's group in parliament.
"Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children."
QuoteTwo of the couple's children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.
But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.
This is the main point in a nutshell. In general, the state doesn't rule who can and can't procreate.
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 06:50:35 AM
QuoteTwo of the couple's children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.
But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.
This is the main point in a nutshell. In general, the state doesn't rule who can and can't procreate.
Which is a huge mistake. That's exactly what the state should be doing.
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2014, 07:34:49 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 06:50:35 AM
QuoteTwo of the couple's children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.
But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.
This is the main point in a nutshell. In general, the state doesn't rule who can and can't procreate.
Which is a huge mistake. That's exactly what the state should be doing.
At any rate where the state is under a legal obligation to underwirte the welfare of such children.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
It's like they don't understand what criminal law is.
Fine, but then the state shouldn't sponsor the care of the inbred children.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 08:31:07 AM
Fine, but then the state shouldn't sponsor the care of the inbred children.
What about other children with birth defects? From parents who had a high likelihood of having disabled offspring? Who is going to decide which human is eligible for care and which isn't?
Also, you would punish the children for something that was not in their power to change.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 08:31:07 AM
Fine, but then the state shouldn't sponsor the care of the inbred children.
Biologically speaking, it is way, way too late to talk about "inbred" among humans as though it could be avoided. Humans evolved inbred (and maybe as a result of inbreeding).
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 08:33:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 08:31:07 AM
Fine, but then the state shouldn't sponsor the care of the inbred children.
What about other children with birth defects? From parents who had a high likelihood of having disabled offspring? Who is going to decide which human is eligible for care and which isn't?
Also, you would punish the children for something that was not in their power to change.
Nah, of course it's not a solution. I just wanted to point out to the extreme selfishness of the stance of the incest couple. They create a burden to their offsprings and to society, but who cares, since they enjoy their funtime in bed. Aholes.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
It is if the taboo is really, really gross.
Single generation inbreeding doesn't cause mutant babies. If it did all our domesticated animals would be drooling three legged monstrosities.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2014, 08:35:33 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
It is if the taboo is really, really gross.
Why do you hate The Brain & his lovers?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2014, 06:38:11 AM
Fucking sick! :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:
Is your sister so ugly she merits all 3 :yuk:? :P
Quote from: HVC on September 30, 2014, 08:36:31 AM
Single generation inbreeding doesn't cause mutant babies. If it did all our domesticated animals would be drooling three legged monstrosities.
First cousin incest does cause a much higher rate of birth defects and mental and physical retardation. With our domestic animals it results in all the breed specific illnesses found in domestic dogs and it cases massive amounts of still borns and runts.
Quote from: Viking on September 30, 2014, 09:45:13 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 30, 2014, 08:36:31 AM
Single generation inbreeding doesn't cause mutant babies. If it did all our domesticated animals would be drooling three legged monstrosities.
First cousin incest does cause a much higher rate of birth defects and mental and physical retardation. With our domestic animals it results in all the breed specific illnesses found in domestic dogs and it cases massive amounts of still borns and runts.
with domestic animals it's multi-generational inbreeding that causes issues. That issue is exasperated in dogs because of dog showing where every "pedigree" dog has the same grand parents because grand dad won a blue ribbon.
Inbreeding causes the expression of recessive traits to be expressed at a larger percentage then a non inbreed population (fixing traits in husbandry terms). But it takes generation to be statistically significant.
Exacerbated. ;)
Quote from: HVC on September 30, 2014, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 30, 2014, 09:45:13 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 30, 2014, 08:36:31 AM
Single generation inbreeding doesn't cause mutant babies. If it did all our domesticated animals would be drooling three legged monstrosities.
First cousin incest does cause a much higher rate of birth defects and mental and physical retardation. With our domestic animals it results in all the breed specific illnesses found in domestic dogs and it cases massive amounts of still borns and runts.
with domestic animals it's multi-generational inbreeding that causes issues. That issue is exasperated in dogs because of dog showing where every "pedigree" dog has the same grand parents because grand dad won a blue ribbon.
Inbreeding causes the expression of recessive traits to be expressed at a larger percentage then a non inbreed population (fixing traits in husbandry terms). But it takes generation to be statistically significant.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/04/marriage-first-cousins-birth-defects
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
Of course it is. A great many social taboos are persevered by law. Such as the prohibition against murder.
Yeah, I have always held that position. Outside of the "yuck" factor there are usually two (or three, depending how you parse it) arguments brought against incest, i.e.:
- the eugenics argument ("incest causes inbreeding") - but as others have said, this makes incest criminalisation neither proportionate (as genetic mutations resulting from incest are not that frequent) or non-discriminatory (otherwise we would be sterilising people with inherited genetic defects). Plus that argument really does not work for homosexual incest;
- the child abuse argument ("we can't have parents grooming/fucking children") - but this issue is already dealt with through child abuse laws (plus, again, why ban sibling incest if this is the reason?);
- the co-dependency argument ("relatives can be pressured into sex so such relationships may be very unhealthy") - but again there are already laws dealing with psychological coercion between sexual partners, and besides, it is so vague (there are many other forms of co-dependent/unhealthy relationships yet we do not ban them), it really seems to me like an attempt to rationalise the "yuck" factor.
In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.
They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.
In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2014, 10:15:15 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
Of course it is. A great many social taboos are persevered by law. Such as the prohibition against murder.
This is putting the matter on its head. In a modern society, there needs to be a rational justification for criminalising something. In more primitive societies, many of the crimes were protected by taboos, but that does not mean law exists to preserve taboos.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:16:17 AM
In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.
They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.
In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.
But this is a bullshit argument for criminalising all incestual relationships a priori. There is no criminal law (I am not talking about internal procedural rules for various organisations and institutions) that says a boss cannot sleep with an employee or an (adult) student with a teacher etc. Sure, the nature of the relationship may be such that it falls within the scope of a criminal prohibition but that needs to be proven on a case by case basis.
Especially, as the recommendation by the Germany ethics board was made specifically in the context of incest between siblings who were not raised together.
German ethics board :bleeding:
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 10:19:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:16:17 AM
In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.
They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.
In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.
But this is a bullshit argument for criminalising all incestual relationships a priori. There is no criminal law (I am not talking about internal procedural rules for various organisations and institutions) that says a boss cannot sleep with an employee or an (adult) student with a teacher etc. Sure, the nature of the relationship may be such that it falls within the scope of a criminal prohibition but that needs to be proven on a case by case basis.
Especially, as the recommendation by the Germany ethics board was made specifically in the context of incest between siblings who were not raised together.
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.
The problem with incest, of course, is that there is no such administrative body or code of ethics that would be applicable. Only the criminal law.
Certainly, there will be cases in which it will be clear that there is no actual improper influence. There is in all those other cases, as well. The reason for the prohibition (agree with it or not) is that the risk of abuse in the ordinary case is so great as to outweigh the injustice done in those admittedly rather rare cases in which siblings raised apart wish to have sex with each other.
In short, the case for reversing the current onus (the relatonship is presumptively prohibited) is weak because the exceptions are unusual and the risk of harm in the usual case is great.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:32:47 AM
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company
Not if the boss owns the company.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:32:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 10:19:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:16:17 AM
In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.
They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.
In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.
But this is a bullshit argument for criminalising all incestual relationships a priori. There is no criminal law (I am not talking about internal procedural rules for various organisations and institutions) that says a boss cannot sleep with an employee or an (adult) student with a teacher etc. Sure, the nature of the relationship may be such that it falls within the scope of a criminal prohibition but that needs to be proven on a case by case basis.
Especially, as the recommendation by the Germany ethics board was made specifically in the context of incest between siblings who were not raised together.
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.
The problem with incest, of course, is that there is no such administrative body or code of ethics that would be applicable. Only the criminal law.
Certainly, there will be cases in which it will be clear that there is no actual improper influence. There is in all those other cases, as well. The reason for the prohibition (agree with it or not) is that the risk of abuse in the ordinary case is so great as to outweigh the injustice done in those admittedly rather rare cases in which siblings raised apart wish to have sex with each other.
In short, the case for reversing the current onus (the relatonship is presumptively prohibited) is weak because the exceptions are unusual and the risk of harm in the usual case is great.
Let's just agree to disagree. I don't think your assessment is a correct one (do you have any psychological studies to support that or is this just your hunch?), and I find it reprehensible to criminally penalise consenting adults having sex because of a chance there might be something improper about their relationship's power balance. This is really no different from the justification used in the past (and still sometimes quoted) for banning gay sex because gay couples are inherently unhappy and similar bullshit.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 10:34:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:32:47 AM
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company
Not if the boss owns the company.
:D
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
:cheers:
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2014, 07:34:49 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 06:50:35 AM
QuoteTwo of the couple's children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.
But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.
This is the main point in a nutshell. In general, the state doesn't rule who can and can't procreate.
Which is a huge mistake. That's exactly what the state should be doing.
100%.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
:cheers:
Example #45,675 that most people do not actually give a shit about liberty when it comes down to it - except the Germans, apparently.
That is a little worrisome, actually.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Let's just agree to disagree. I don't think your assessment is a correct one (do you have any psychological studies to support that or is this just your hunch?), and I find it reprehensible to criminally penalise consenting adults having sex because of a chance there might be something improper about their relationship's power balance. This is really no different from the justification used in the past (and still sometimes quoted) for banning gay sex because gay couples are inherently unhappy and similar bullshit.
I'm not saying that justification is necessarily correct (though I do think it is, that;s just my opinion); I'm merely saying this is the justification I have heard.
It does make a certain amount of sense, though. In any family, there is rarely going to be an egalitarian balance of power. The psychological dynamics within a family, it seems to me, are rarely going to allow a truly free choice of sexual behaviour without a concern being raised about improper pressures being brought to bear; clearly this is the case between parents and children (although again, I suppose one could find a case in which the kid was raised by others and didn't even know the person s/he was dating was a parent - just call him Oedipus :D ). It seems to me also a major risk between siblings.
I would be a trifle concerned about making a gay analogy here - that strikes me as similar to those analogies made by homophobes, specifically to attack gay relations via the good old slippery slope ('if you allow gays to marry, what's to prevent men from marring their sisters, or animals'? )
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
:yes:
Well said, Berkie. :hug:
I don't think the gay sex analogy is a bad one.
I think the starting point for anyone who, generally, believes in personal freedom, should be that any sex between consenting mentally sane adults, should be permitted. I also think that in order to override this presumption, one should have really strong, unambiguous, clear evidence.
The argument brought by you against incest is essentially that people who want to have incestuous sex are either completely or specifically insane, as they are incapable of giving an informed consent. This argument has been in the past used against gay sex as well (by claiming that attraction to people of the same sex is a mental disease so, again, a person seeking such sex is not capable of giving an informed consent).
Like Berkut, I find such reasoning to be bullshit.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
It's the nature of who they are, not the act.
The argument is that the choice is not truly free - that the ability to give free consent is not actually present.
Pedophilia laws suffer from the very same issues - the "age of consent" is essentially arbitrary (and in fact varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and there will be people on the wrong side of it who clearly *do* have the ability to give fully informed and "capable" consent/choice. We keep Pedophilia laws on the books because
in general the risk of harm is too great and so the (undoubted) impairment to liberty is "worth it".
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 10:53:54 AM
I don't think the gay sex analogy is a bad one.
I think the starting point for anyone who, generally, believes in personal freedom, should be that any sex between consenting mentally sane adults, should be permitted. I also think that in order to override this presumption, one should have really strong, unambiguous, clear evidence.
The argument brought by you against incest is essentially that people who want to have incestuous sex are either completely or specifically insane, as they are incapable of giving an informed consent. This argument has been in the past used against gay sex as well (by claiming that attraction to people of the same sex is a mental disease so, again, a person seeking such sex is not capable of giving an informed consent).
Like Berkut, I find such reasoning to be bullshit.
I don't think they are "insane" any more than I think a 15 year old is "insane".
Some years ago in Canada, a 15 year old could legally have sex. Then the age of consent was changed from 14 to 16.
In addition to deliberately placing a burden on society in the form of retarded and deformed children virtually no incestuous relationships can in any way be considered healthy, not to mention truly consensual. Family relationships are pre-fucked up by their nature and will by their nature always be coercive abusive in some sense, even if that is just in the mind of one of the parties.
I'd estimate that a much higher proportion of drivers are capable of operating their vehicles safely above the speed limit or consume pot in a non-detrimental manner than incestuous couplings can be normal and healthy.
This is why adoptive incest and homosexual incest are bad in all the same ways with the exception of the reproductive defects.
If you take any two people anywhere, there is likely an imbalance of power between them of some kind or another. One will have more money, more charisma, be better looking, have more confidence, whatever.
So what? Why is there being an imbalance of power necessarily reason to suppose that the person on the short end of that measure suddenly doesn't have a right anymore to make their own choices? That just makes any theoretical imbalance that much worse - now we assume that people have even LESS power, because we take away their ability to exercise their own personal liberty by demanding that they now no longer even have the power to make choices themselves.
It is completely ridiculous. There are some power imbalances we recognize as being problematic and worthy of restriction to varying degrees because the exercise of that power can not only harm those involved, but it actually harms others as well. It isn't just about the power a boss has over a employee, it is also about how that destroys the work environment for others as well - there are other victims involved. But even at that we recognize that there are still situations where in fact it could be ok, and hence we demand that the particulars of each case be evaluated.
Not so in this case - we are going to ban it a priori, and the particulars do not matter. There are so many counter-examples that it is trivial to show that this is not about biology, or power, or anything other than people saying "Incest is yucky! It should be illegal because it is oh so very yucky!"
We tolerate all kinds of relationships between people who have varying levels of power over one another, and we routinely allow people to have children who will have radically increased chances of having a child with birth defects compared to the norm.
This is just standard societal immaturity slowly being weened away as humans slowly become more rational and less religious.
This is a true "conservative" issue.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:54:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
It's the nature of who they are, not the act.
The argument is that the choice is not truly free - that the ability to give free consent is not actually present.
Pedophilia laws suffer from the very same issues - the "age of consent" is essentially arbitrary (and in fact varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and there will be people on the wrong side of it who clearly *do* have the ability to give fully informed and "capable" consent/choice. We keep Pedophilia laws on the books because in general the risk of harm is too great and so the (undoubted) impairment to liberty is "worth it".
But adult people who are not allowed to engage in incest are not deemed incapable of giving consent/choice to having sex with people who are not their relatives. So the comparison to pedophilia is really misguided.
I mean, you could spin anti-sodomy laws or laws against interracial sex as "prohibition based on who you are and not the act as well" (after all, you are not allowed to have sex with a specific person because of who you are - in terms of gender or race - and not the act there). That does not make them comparable to pedophilia either.
Banning siblings from having sex, on that I agree with Berkut. Banning them from having children? That seems much more valid.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:59:21 AM
If you take any two people anywhere, there is likely an imbalance of power between them of some kind or another. One will have more money, more charisma, be better looking, have more confidence, whatever.
So what? Why is there being an imbalance of power necessarily reason to suppose that the person on the short end of that measure suddenly doesn't have a right anymore to make their own choices? That just makes any theoretical imbalance that much worse - now we assume that people have even LESS power, because we take away their ability to exercise their own personal liberty by demanding that they now no longer even have the power to make choices themselves.
It is completely ridiculous. There are some power imbalances we recognize as being problematic and worthy of restriction to varying degrees because the exercise of that power can not only harm those involved, but it actually harms others as well. It isn't just about the power a boss has over a employee, it is also about how that destroys the work environment for others as well - there are other victims involved. But even at that we recognize that there are still situations where in fact it could be ok, and hence we demand that the particulars of each case be evaluated.
Not so in this case - we are going to ban it a priori, and the particulars do not matter. There are so many counter-examples that it is trivial to show that this is not about biology, or power, or anything other than people saying "Incest is yucky! It should be illegal because it is oh so very yucky!"
We tolerate all kinds of relationships between people who have varying levels of power over one another, and we routinely allow people to have children who will have radically increased chances of having a child with birth defects compared to the norm.
This is just standard societal immaturity slowly being weened away as humans slowly become more rational and less religious.
This is a true "conservative" issue.
What part of this rant would not apply to the laws against pedophilia? Yet you claim to support those.
Some of you guys are really, really gross :yuk:
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:54:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
It's the nature of who they are, not the act.
Except that you cannot define them as a group outside the act - it is only the act that makes the definition possible. So no, it is NOT the nature of who they are at all, since you cannot define the "victim" outside the act.
A child is a child whether someone tries to have sex with them or not.
A "victim" of incest has no meaning outside the act of incest. Hell, how do you even define the victim to begin with? Which is the part that should be going to jail? Both of them? How can they both be victims?
Quote
The argument is that the choice is not truly free - that the ability to give free consent is not actually present.
Yes, that is the argument. It is a ridiculous argument, but I understand that it is in fact the argument. The argument that two otherwise perfectly capable, rational, free adult human beings are not capable of better evaluating for themselves than that masses what they want. It is patently ridiculous.
Quote
Pedophilia laws suffer from the very same issues - the "age of consent" is essentially arbitrary (and in fact varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and there will be people on the wrong side of it who clearly *do* have the ability to give fully informed and "capable" consent/choice. We keep Pedophilia laws on the books because in general the risk of harm is too great and so the (undoubted) impairment to liberty is "worth it".
There is a huge difference here though - we have all kinds of laws about the child/adult divide, and what children can and cannot do, even outside their sexual choices. "Child" is a clearly defined (even if the specific definition varies) group outside of any laws we make around them.
Literally every human being on the planet falls into the "potential incest victim/perpetrator". Hence it isn't an actual group, it is just a label we slap on people who do something we don't like.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:01:32 AM
Banning siblings from having sex, on that I agree with Berkut. Banning them from having children? That seems much more valid.
As others have said, the risk of a child born from an incestuous relationship having genetical defects is much smaller than a risk of someone being born to a parent with a Down syndrom or to a parent with hemophilia having a birth defect.
Are you fine with banning the latter from having children? If so, how would you achieve such a ban?
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:59:21 AM
If you take any two people anywhere, there is likely an imbalance of power between them of some kind or another. One will have more money, more charisma, be better looking, have more confidence, whatever.
So what? Why is there being an imbalance of power necessarily reason to suppose that the person on the short end of that measure suddenly doesn't have a right anymore to make their own choices? That just makes any theoretical imbalance that much worse - now we assume that people have even LESS power, because we take away their ability to exercise their own personal liberty by demanding that they now no longer even have the power to make choices themselves.
It is completely ridiculous. There are some power imbalances we recognize as being problematic and worthy of restriction to varying degrees because the exercise of that power can not only harm those involved, but it actually harms others as well. It isn't just about the power a boss has over a employee, it is also about how that destroys the work environment for others as well - there are other victims involved. But even at that we recognize that there are still situations where in fact it could be ok, and hence we demand that the particulars of each case be evaluated.
Not so in this case - we are going to ban it a priori, and the particulars do not matter. There are so many counter-examples that it is trivial to show that this is not about biology, or power, or anything other than people saying "Incest is yucky! It should be illegal because it is oh so very yucky!"
We tolerate all kinds of relationships between people who have varying levels of power over one another, and we routinely allow people to have children who will have radically increased chances of having a child with birth defects compared to the norm.
This is just standard societal immaturity slowly being weened away as humans slowly become more rational and less religious.
This is a true "conservative" issue.
What part of this rant would not apply to the laws against pedophilia? Yet you claim to support those.
I think I've made that very clear.
Pedophilia has a clear and obvious victim, and the definition of a child exists outside the crime in question, and the very nature of what we consider to be a "child" includes their inability to make adult decisions, hence this interference by society is of a completely different kind - indeed, as a actual libertarian I think protecting the freedom of children from being preyed upon by adults is an expression of liberal ideals.
Protecting adults from other adults when we cannot even define who the "victim" of the crime is does not even remotely compare.
Tell me Malthus, when two adult people have sex with one another, and they are cousins or something, who is the victim? Both of them? Who is the criminal? Both of them? Who is the aggrieved party?
The answer, of course, by the current law, is that they are BOTH criminals, and the "victim" is...nobody. It is the sense of moral outrage by society that defines the crime, there isn't any victim at all. They both should go to jail, or pay the fine, or whatever.
I submit that anytime you have a law that defines all parties to an act as criminal, and no party to the act (even indirectly) as the victim, it is probably not a very good law, and is likely a direct affront to personal liberty.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:01:32 AM
Banning siblings from having sex, on that I agree with Berkut. Banning them from having children? That seems much more valid.
Only if you are also going to ban women over, say, 39 from having children as well.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:01:32 AM
Banning them from having children? That seems much more valid.
Words written on paper don't actually work as a contraceptive.
And physically enforcing such a "ban" by coercive sterilizations or abortions is obviously illegal under our constitution and unethical under the values that are the foundation of our society.
I find the argumentation of the ethics council compelling and think the law making incest illegal should be revoked.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2014, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:01:32 AM
Banning them from having children? That seems much more valid.
Words written on paper don't actually work as a contraceptive.
True. Anyways, this is something that a lot of animals also instinctively despise and avoid. It may very well be needless to ban, as people wouldn't do it even if it was legal, but the same can be said of, say, hard drugs.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:17:22 AM
True. Anyways, this is something that a lot of animals also instinctively despise and avoid. It may very well be needless to ban, as people wouldn't do it even if it was legal, but the same can be said of, say, hard drugs.
That's actually why the economic angle of "the state must support them" doesn't matter for the discussion as incest is extremely rare and even if it was allowed I wouldn't really expect it to become more common as very few humans are so inclined anyway.
Quote from: Viking on September 30, 2014, 10:57:39 AM
In addition to deliberately placing a burden on society in the form of retarded and deformed children virtually no incestuous relationships can in any way be considered healthy, not to mention truly consensual. Family relationships are pre-fucked up by their nature and will by their nature always be coercive abusive in some sense, even if that is just in the mind of one of the parties.
I'd estimate that a much higher proportion of drivers are capable of operating their vehicles safely above the speed limit or consume pot in a non-detrimental manner than incestuous couplings can be normal and healthy.
This is why adoptive incest and homosexual incest are bad in all the same ways with the exception of the reproductive defects.
You've convinced me....
that the other side is right. Your arguments are purely argument by assertion.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2014, 11:23:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:17:22 AM
True. Anyways, this is something that a lot of animals also instinctively despise and avoid. It may very well be needless to ban, as people wouldn't do it even if it was legal, but the same can be said of, say, hard drugs.
That's actually why the economic angle of "the state must support them" doesn't matter for the discussion as incest is extremely rare and even if it was allowed I wouldn't really expect it to become more common as very few humans are so inclined anyway.
Indeed.
While I will argue vehemently that this should NOT be illegal, I will also argue rather vehemently that banging your siblings is fucking revolting, and in the vast majority of cases is probably indicative of something pretty fucked up going on.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2014, 11:23:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:17:22 AM
True. Anyways, this is something that a lot of animals also instinctively despise and avoid. It may very well be needless to ban, as people wouldn't do it even if it was legal, but the same can be said of, say, hard drugs.
That's actually why the economic angle of "the state must support them" doesn't matter for the discussion as incest is extremely rare and even if it was allowed I wouldn't really expect it to become more common as very few humans are so inclined anyway.
Yes, although I think if we decide to go full libertarian, there are several other less radical and controversial steps first (prostitution and drugs are good example), mostly because of what Viking said: it is extremely hard to judge if incest is coerced or not.
This is the law in question.
QuoteSection 173
Incest
(1) Whosoever performs an act of sexual intercourse with a consanguine descendant shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
(2) Whosoever performs an act of sexual intercourse with a consanguine relative in an ascending line shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine; this shall also apply if the relationship as a relative has ceased to exist. Consanguine siblings who perform an act of sexual intercourse with each other shall incur the same penalty.
(3) Descendants and siblings shall not be liable pursuant to this provision if they were not yet eighteen years of age at the time of the act.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:17:22 AM
True. Anyways, this is something that a lot of animals also instinctively despise and avoid.
Animals don't "despise" anything - that is pure anthropomorphism. Some animals do tend to choose to have offspring with the mate genetically furthest from them (and have mechanisms to determine that), but others have no such mechanism or process.
QuoteIt may very well be needless to ban, as people wouldn't do it even if it was legal, but the same can be said of, say, hard drugs.
The issue isn't one of whether it is worth the state's time to ban something. The issue is whether the state's monopoly on banning things should be extended to things that the state wants to ban because some people think it is icky. That nasty little concept called "freedom" says it should not.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 11:27:28 AM
Yes, although I think if we decide to go full libertarian, there are several other less radical and controversial steps first (prostitution and drugs are good example)
Prostitution is already fully legal in Germany. I would agree to legalize some soft drugs, not sure about the hard ones. But I guess that's for another thread.
Quotemostly because of what Viking said: it is extremely hard to judge if incest is coerced or not.
How is it harder than other cases of sexual coercion?
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2014, 11:38:03 AM
Animals don't "despise" anything - that is pure anthropomorphism.
Next you'll probably tell us that nature doesn't abhor a vacuum :rolleyes:
You knoow I started a reply a couple of different times, but I simply don't have the energy today to argue with the internet libertarian brigade, nor do I want it explained to me that because I don't think blood relations should have sex means "I don't truly understand liberty". :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2014, 12:21:24 PM
You knoow I started a reply a couple of different times, but I simply don't have the energy today to argue with the internet libertarian brigade, nor do I want it explained to me that because I don't think blood relations should have sex means "I don't truly understand liberty". :(
It could also mean that you have no sensible arguments other than your "yuk" factor. ;)
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2014, 07:34:49 AM
Which is a huge mistake. That's exactly what the state should be doing.
That's the crux of my primary argument against state-sanctioned marriages, actually. The religious could have their way and force a one-man/one-woman definition, but the only way it would pass constitutional muster is if it's explicitly for purposes of procreation and has some form of mechanism for disincentivizing involuntary and voluntary childless partnerships equally.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2014, 12:21:24 PM
You knoow I started a reply a couple of different times, but I simply don't have the energy today to argue with the internet libertarian brigade, nor do I want it explained to me that because I don't think blood relations should have sex means "I don't truly understand liberty". :(
You, once again, perfectly exemplify why you don't actually understand what the word "liberty" means.
You don't think blood relations should have sex? Great, neither do I. But that has nothing to do with liberty.
You think YOU have the right to tell other people that they cannot have sex if it is in the fashion that you do not approve of, or between groups you think should not have sex.
*I* think what *I* think about who should have sex has very little bearing on whether or not the state should exercise its monopoly on violence to enforce what other people do in private that has no effect on me at all.
And yes - if in fact you feel that YOU have the right to use the power of the state to tell other people how to live their lives that has absolutely nothing to do with you, then in fact, once again, you make it clear you don't understand what liberty is actually about in any real, practical sense. Once again, as always, you come down on the side of "nope, those people should be forced to act in the fashion that *I* think they ought to act".
Your track record on every single question of personal liberty is, if nothing else, completely consistent.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2014, 12:21:24 PM
You knoow I started a reply a couple of different times, but I simply don't have the energy today to argue with the internet libertarian brigade, nor do I want it explained to me that because I don't think blood relations should have sex means "I don't truly understand liberty". :(
I also don't think that blood relations should have sex. There are lots of things that I don't think other people should do. That doesn't mean that I think it should be criminalized though.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2014, 12:27:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2014, 12:21:24 PM
You knoow I started a reply a couple of different times, but I simply don't have the energy today to argue with the internet libertarian brigade, nor do I want it explained to me that because I don't think blood relations should have sex means "I don't truly understand liberty". :(
I also don't think that blood relations should have sex. There are lots of things that I don't think other people should do. That doesn't mean that I think it should be criminalized though.
...and that is the basic difference between people who actually pay more than lip service to the concept of liberty, and people who don't actually understand that freedom means the freedom to do things we may not approve of...
As Rosa Luxemburg said, "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden."
(Freedom always includes the freedom of the ones who think differently.)
With Germany's birthrate incest may be the only choice available in a few generations. Glad they are thinking ahead.
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 12:35:52 PM
As Rosa Luxemburg said, "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden."
(Freedom always includes the freedom of the ones who think differently.)
Of course she ended up being shot and thrown into a canal. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 12:35:52 PM
As Rosa Luxemburg said, "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden."
(Freedom always includes the freedom of the ones who think differently.)
Of course she ended up being shot and thrown into a canal. :P
And she was a dirty commie. :angry:
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 12:35:52 PM
As Rosa Luxemburg said, "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden."
(Freedom always includes the freedom of the ones who think differently.)
Remember how East Germany kept arresting people in Rosa Luxemburg Square for quoting Rosa Luxemburg? Ah those were the days.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:59:21 AM
If you take any two people anywhere, there is likely an imbalance of power between them of some kind or another. One will have more money, more charisma, be better looking, have more confidence, whatever.
So what? Why is there being an imbalance of power necessarily reason to suppose that the person on the short end of that measure suddenly doesn't have a right anymore to make their own choices? That just makes any theoretical imbalance that much worse - now we assume that people have even LESS power, because we take away their ability to exercise their own personal liberty by demanding that they now no longer even have the power to make choices themselves.
It is completely ridiculous. There are some power imbalances we recognize as being problematic and worthy of restriction to varying degrees because the exercise of that power can not only harm those involved, but it actually harms others as well. It isn't just about the power a boss has over a employee, it is also about how that destroys the work environment for others as well - there are other victims involved. But even at that we recognize that there are still situations where in fact it could be ok, and hence we demand that the particulars of each case be evaluated.
Not so in this case - we are going to ban it a priori, and the particulars do not matter. There are so many counter-examples that it is trivial to show that this is not about biology, or power, or anything other than people saying "Incest is yucky! It should be illegal because it is oh so very yucky!"
We tolerate all kinds of relationships between people who have varying levels of power over one another, and we routinely allow people to have children who will have radically increased chances of having a child with birth defects compared to the norm.
This is just standard societal immaturity slowly being weened away as humans slowly become more rational and less religious.
This is a true "conservative" issue.
What part of this rant would not apply to the laws against pedophilia? Yet you claim to support those.
I think I've made that very clear.
Pedophilia has a clear and obvious victim, and the definition of a child exists outside the crime in question, and the very nature of what we consider to be a "child" includes their inability to make adult decisions, hence this interference by society is of a completely different kind - indeed, as a actual libertarian I think protecting the freedom of children from being preyed upon by adults is an expression of liberal ideals.
That's a perfectly circular definition: "Child" = "someone incapable of making adult decisions". It is very easily disprovable in the case of age of consent laws - first, the age of consent is not constant across jurisdictions (indeed, in my own lifetime in Canada it has changed from 14 to 16), yet the nature if childhood is no different; and second, not all people who are legally "children" are the same - some 15 year olds may be fully mature, while sole 16 year olds may be child-like.
Similarly, not all incest may be coercive, not all incestuous relations may invalidate consent; yet enough do to make it worthwhile to have as a general rule- same as with age of consent. As an actual believer in the value of freedom, I think protecting the freedom of family members from being abused and preyed upon by others is an expression of liberal ideals.
QuoteProtecting adults from other adults when we cannot even define who the "victim" of the crime is does not even remotely compare.
Tell me Malthus, when two adult people have sex with one another, and they are cousins or something, who is the victim? Both of them? Who is the criminal? Both of them? Who is the aggrieved party?
Who is talking about "cousins"?
The "victim" is the person being coerced or pressured into having sex.
Interestingly, actual research has demonstrated that brother-sister incest is typically just as harmful as parent-child incest:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213499000587
QuoteThe answer, of course, by the current law, is that they are BOTH criminals, and the "victim" is...nobody. It is the sense of moral outrage by society that defines the crime, there isn't any victim at all. They both should go to jail, or pay the fine, or whatever.
Is the law actually applied that way? I have my doubts.
QuoteI submit that anytime you have a law that defines all parties to an act as criminal, and no party to the act (even indirectly) as the victim, it is probably not a very good law, and is likely a direct affront to personal liberty.
If the law is actually applied that way, I would agree. The party having more coersive control is the "abuser".
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2014, 12:50:00 PM
Remember how East Germany kept arresting people in Rosa Luxemburg Square for quoting Rosa Luxemburg? Ah those were the days.
Broken clock.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2014, 12:46:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 30, 2014, 12:35:52 PM
As Rosa Luxemburg said, "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden."
(Freedom always includes the freedom of the ones who think differently.)
Of course she ended up being shot and thrown into a canal. :P
And she was a dirty commie. :angry:
:punk:
Of course incest should be legal. Takes more than a yuck factor to ban sex. Otherwise old people, fat people and Germans would never get to have sex.
Well yeah if sheisse sex is legal I don't see how you can really justify banning anything.
I know that if I had a hot estranged brother and he appeared in my life right now and wanted to have hot fetish sex, why should I refuse? :ph34r:
Of course, I'm the only child of my parents and all my dad has from his previous marriages are daughters. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
I know that if I had a hot estranged brother and he appeared in my life right now and wanted to have hot fetish sex, why should I refuse? :ph34r:
Because it would be depraved, disgusting, dishonor your family and make you feel ashamed to look your father in the eye again forever? Especially since he would probably look like your father which would raise certain Freudian questions.
But I would fight for your right not to spend three years in German prison for it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2014, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
I know that if I had a hot estranged brother and he appeared in my life right now and wanted to have hot fetish sex, why should I refuse? :ph34r:
Because it would be depraved, disgusting, dishonor your family and make you feel ashamed to look your father in the eye again forever?
Honey, that ship has sailed.
Gayness really is the gateway depravity. :P
QuoteEspecially since he would probably look like your father which would raise certain Freudian questions.
Meh, I'd fuck me*.
*Especially, the younger, fitter, slimmer version.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".
The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).
If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.
Now I really wish I had a hot sister. Or half-sister. :(
There is a legal maxim that says "bad facts make bad law".
The fact this couple were apparently raised separately and only met when they were adults (well, an adult and a 16 year old) does raise some level of sympathy - however of course those facts are rather exceptional when it comes to incest cases (and yes, I've seen a few of them :yucky:).
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
I know that if I had a hot estranged brother and he appeared in my life right now and wanted to have hot fetish sex, why should I refuse? :ph34r:
Of course, I'm the only child of my parents and all my dad has from his previous marriages are daughters. <_<
Christopher Rice (Anne Rice's son) has a book that involves just that.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2014, 01:22:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
I know that if I had a hot estranged brother and he appeared in my life right now and wanted to have hot fetish sex, why should I refuse? :ph34r:
Of course, I'm the only child of my parents and all my dad has from his previous marriages are daughters. <_<
Christopher Rice (Anne Rice's son) has a book that involves just that.
Is he a good writer? I tried reading one of his books but got distracted.
Btw, good for the old vampire queen to finally have come around. :cheers:
I couldn't stand her fundie christian spell.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2014, 01:21:56 PM
There is a legal maxim that says "bad facts make bad law".
The fact this couple were apparently raised separately and only met when they were adults (well, an adult and a 16 year old) does raise some level of sympathy - however of course those facts are rather exceptional when it comes to incest cases (and yes, I've seen a few of them :yucky:).
I bet families, marriages and relationships you see, as a part of your professional life, do tend to be on the nasty and dysfunctional side, in general. I think this lends itself to a rather bleak outlook on life, but seems to me to be a professional bias.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:23:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2014, 01:22:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
I know that if I had a hot estranged brother and he appeared in my life right now and wanted to have hot fetish sex, why should I refuse? :ph34r:
Of course, I'm the only child of my parents and all my dad has from his previous marriages are daughters. <_<
Christopher Rice (Anne Rice's son) has a book that involves just that.
Is he a good writer? I tried reading one of his books but got distracted.
I think his books are alright - generally better than most gay fiction drivel. They are generally pretty dark though - typically involving murder & rape.
About Madame Rice, she only wrote about Jesus for a brief period after her husband died before she got back to her roots (which may or may not have something to do with how she had to sell her newly purchased house in Rancho Mirage). In her new series on werewolves - she has people having sex with werewolves while they are in werewolf form! :o
Quote from: Viking on September 30, 2014, 09:45:13 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 30, 2014, 08:36:31 AM
Single generation inbreeding doesn't cause mutant babies. If it did all our domesticated animals would be drooling three legged monstrosities.
First cousin incest does cause a much higher rate of birth defects and mental and physical retardation. With our domestic animals it results in all the breed specific illnesses found in domestic dogs and it cases massive amounts of still borns and runts.
Years ago there was a Charter challenge to Canada's incest laws. In the course of that trial the expert evidence was that incest didnt lead to higher rates of birth defects or any other abnormality. That fact was the cornerstone of the constitutional challenge. The challenge failed on other grounds. That was a couple decades ago though so the science in that regard may have changed.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:20:45 PM
Honey, that ship has sailed.
Gayness really is the gateway depravity. :P
Hey you asked the question and I gave some. But surely even you have lines you will not cross right? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2014, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:20:45 PM
Honey, that ship has sailed.
Gayness really is the gateway depravity. :P
Hey you asked the question and I gave some. But surely even you have lines you will not cross right? :hmm:
Yes. Like anal. That shit is nasty.
Edit: Also, shit, blood, vomit, mutilation. But if it rocks your boat, knock yourself out.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:33:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2014, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2014, 01:20:45 PM
Honey, that ship has sailed.
Gayness really is the gateway depravity. :P
Hey you asked the question and I gave some. But surely even you have lines you will not cross right? :hmm:
Yes. Like anal. That shit is nasty.
Faux-gay?
I think one benefit to being gay is that you realise that people are very different when it comes to sexual expression. I think if you are straight, it is easier to sort of blend in and be vanilla - and never get to realise your sexual fantasies for fear of being branded a freak if you like whips, or feet, or ass, or to be peed on. Since, as a gay person, you are already a freak by definition, you tend to be free-er and more open-minded as a result.
The other thing you realise is that, if you are not into something, sexually, then it is absolutely disgusting. Like vaginas.
Whoa.
Trust Marty to twist a discussion on incest laws into a case of homosexual superiority
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 02:01:46 PM
Trust Marty to twist a discussion on incest laws into a case of homosexual superiority
:showoff:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
Sure it is. Banning swastikas or hate speech for example.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2014, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
Sure it is. Banning swastikas or hate speech for example.
Incitement to commit a crime. Though I also don't really agree with banning swastikas, anyway.
Incitement should be criminal. I don't think hate speech without incitement is illegal.
Banning swastikas doesn't make sense a liberal society. I can see why it is done from a pragmatic perspective, but I oppose it on principle.
That said, using a certain symbol for your political party is a right of lesser importance than the question with whom you may or may not have sex and children.
Banning the swastika is silly.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 02:59:11 PM
Banning the swastika is silly.
No it's not. We banned them in Germany for very good reasons. It was for our sake not that of the Germans. Admittedly, a resurgent Nazi party isn't likely to be a problem now. I do wish someone had banned Soviet imagery in Russia back in 1991 though. :(
To elaborate, in the perfect system, incest should be rendered lawful, particularly in the circumstance of siblings raised apart, as there is less of a risk of an unhealthy power dynamic. Perhaps other forms of adult incest could be decriminalized as well, since the pervasive surveillance will permit investigation into the propriety of the relationship.
But, of course, such lawful couplings should be subordinated to the overarching eugenics program. So, should the need arise, they may have to submit to abortions or sterilization. Lady's choice!
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
But, of course, such lawful couplings should be subordinated to the overarching eugenics program. So, should the need arise, they may have to submit to abortions or sterilization. Lady's choice!
QuoteBanning the swastika is silly.
I am not so sure.
I'm not a fascist, I just understand liberty.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2014, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2014, 02:59:11 PM
Banning the swastika is silly.
No it's not. We banned them in Germany for very good reasons. It was for our sake not that of the Germans. Admittedly, a resurgent Nazi party isn't likely to be a problem now. I do wish someone had banned Soviet imagery in Russia back in 1991 though. :(
For 50 years it was verboten in Hungary to even be mildly lenient on the Hungarian regime of the ww2 era, let alone sporting a swastika. Yet the nazis started slowly but steadily coming out of the woodwork when free speech was introduced (mind you, swastika has been still banned). It just doesn't work.
I don't think you can compare Germany to Hungary in this situation. West Germany has long had free speech, and East Germany has had it for 20 years. They seem to be doing quite well. Fascist and Nazi groups seem to do better in the wreckage of the Comecon then they do in the Industrialized west.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 30, 2014, 06:36:16 PM
I don't think you can compare Germany to Hungary in this situation. West Germany has long had free speech, and East Germany has had it for 20 years. They seem to be doing quite well. Fascist and Nazi groups seem to do better in the wreckage of the Comecon then they do in the Industrialized west.
Is this arguing for or against the German ban on the swastika?
Against. No rush though. Perhaps we can review the issue in 2033.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 30, 2014, 05:38:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
But, of course, such lawful couplings should be subordinated to the overarching eugenics program. So, should the need arise, they may have to submit to abortions or sterilization. Lady's choice!
QuoteBanning the swastika is silly.
I am not so sure.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2014, 08:35:33 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 30, 2014, 07:42:11 AM
"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."
It is if the taboo is really, really gross.
And why should the state decide what adults* want to do in their bedroom?
We may find it disgusting, but lots of things are. Or I think they are, according to my own tastes. There's no way I'd have a girl shit on me, and I wouldn't even bang one of my step sisters, but if some people like that, why not?
It's not like everyone having sex with the possibility of procreation is apt to have children. And I don't think the sterilization of particular groups is a valid option. I'm not even sure it should be a valid practice for some individuals, though maybe for some extreme cases, but even then, it still seems arbitrary.
*Adults here, as in people above the age of consent, whatever that is in their locality.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:32:47 AM
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company,
It varies from company to company. I have no such rule here. But I don't dig guys either, so not a problem. ;)
Quote
and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university;
Not in Quebec for sure. Not unless you do it in class, but then it's not the relationship that cause problems ;)
Quotesimilarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.
The lawyer is supposed to be impartial toward his client. I suspect you could not represent your wife, i.e., it's not just a matter of who you sleep with or not. And it applies only to this specific context. You could very well be part of your wife's legal team but you could not represent her in the tribunal.
Quote
Certainly, there will be cases in which it will be clear that there is no actual improper influence. There is in all those other cases, as well. The reason for the prohibition (agree with it or not) is that the risk of abuse in the ordinary case is so great as to outweigh the injustice done in those admittedly rather rare cases in which siblings raised apart wish to have sex with each other.
There can be various form of abuses, and just about any case outside of incest relationships could have these same abuses.
Think of financial domination, psychological abuse, violence, etc,
Not all of these cases are punishable by law.
Quote
In short, the case for reversing the current onus (the relatonship is presumptively prohibited) is weak because the exceptions are unusual and the risk of harm in the usual case is great.
But all of this can exists for any relationship. Many relationships are unhealthy.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:54:08 AM
Pedophilia laws suffer from the very same issues - the "age of consent" is essentially arbitrary (and in fact varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and there will be people on the wrong side of it who clearly *do* have the ability to give fully informed and "capable" consent/choice. We keep Pedophilia laws on the books because in general the risk of harm is too great and so the (undoubted) impairment to liberty is "worth it".
and you could have the exact opposite too: people above the age of consent but who clearly do not have the ability to give fully informed and "capable" consent/choice. And the same goes for any legal contract, btw. We've all seen people who don't really understand what they are consenting to.
Viper, Mal could easily represent his wife. Lawyers arw not "impartial."
A man who represents his wife has a fool for a client.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 01, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
Viper, Mal could easily represent his wife. Lawyers arw not "impartial."
WHile I don't think it's strictly forbidden, it's generally seen as being a very poor idea.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:32:47 AM
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.
You are mistaken. A boss or superior may have a consensual relationship with a subordinate employee. All such relationships are not presumbed to be improper and indeed many such workplace relationships do exist without incident. Similarily I know of no policies which prohibit sex between between adult students at university or appropriately ages high school students. I have no idea where you are getting that from. I am not clear about the rules regarding lawyers and their clients. Never had to turn my mind to it. But I do know that it is not always unethical. I know a few lawyers who are happily married to people who were their clients.
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
And why should the state decide what adults* want to do in their bedroom?
In most cases it shouldn't. But in this one it should.
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2014, 02:54:02 PM
The lawyer is supposed to be impartial toward his client. I suspect you could not represent your wife, i.e., it's not just a matter of who you sleep with or not. And it applies only to this specific context. You could very well be part of your wife's legal team but you could not represent her in the tribunal.
I dont think impartial was the word you were looking for. A lawyer is supposed to be completely partial to their client's interest. The only restriction on representing a family member is that it voids the lawyer's bar insurance - a good policy choice for obvious reasons.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2014, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
And why should the state decide what adults* want to do in their bedroom?
In most cases it shouldn't. But in this one it should.
Why?
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:32:47 AM
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.
The problem with incest, of course, is that there is no such administrative body or code of ethics that would be applicable. Only the criminal law
Pretty sure a high school teacher sleeping with an adult student is illegal in every U.S. state.
I doubt it, if the student is over 18. I am pretty sure it is not in Washington state (I am sure it would administratively forbidden, sure, and the teacher would be canned).
Though Washington has a "sexual misconduct with a minor" law, that would put a teacher in jail for being involved with a student under 18, though still over the age of consent at 16.
Quote from: Berkut on October 01, 2014, 09:16:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2014, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2014, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2014, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
And why should the state decide what adults* want to do in their bedroom?
In most cases it shouldn't. But in this one it should.
Why?
Because I said so.
You and Beebs have the exact same argument.
Pretty sure I didn't actually make any argument...
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 12:09:40 AM
Pretty sure I didn't actually make any argument...
Oh, I'm sorry. This is abuse. You want room 12A, next door.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2014, 03:23:14 PM
I dont think impartial was the word you were looking for. A lawyer is supposed to be completely partial to their client's interest. The only restriction on representing a family member is that it voids the lawyer's bar insurance - a good policy choice for obvious reasons.
ah well, you're right. He obviously must act in the client's own interest, but isn't there something about personal relationship? I mean, broader than just having sex with your client?
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2014, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
And why should the state decide what adults* want to do in their bedroom?
In most cases it shouldn't. But in this one it should.
where do you draw the line? There are various sex practices that aren't exactly safe. Lots of people shouldn't reproduce. Lots of people hate kids yet decide to have one anyway, or are careless and make the child suffer for their mistakes.
Where do we draw the line as a society? Gay sex is against nature, so is incest. Fucking without the specific aim of reproduction is a big no-no in most monotheist religions (and possible some polytheists too). Having sex outside of marriage is forbidden in most religions, do we forbid it as a society? There are reasonable grounds to ban it: it incites jealousy and one of the spouse is likely to snap, kill the kids and the cheating partner. I mean, if we start to find possible bad consequences of the private acts as a reason to ban something, we have a boatload of these...
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2014, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2014, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
And why should the state decide what adults* want to do in their bedroom?
In most cases it shouldn't. But in this one it should.
where do you draw the line? There are various sex practices that aren't exactly safe. Lots of people shouldn't reproduce. Lots of people hate kids yet decide to have one anyway, or are careless and make the child suffer for their mistakes.
Where do we draw the line as a society? Gay sex is against nature, so is incest. Fucking without the specific aim of reproduction is a big no-no in most monotheist religions (and possible some polytheists too). Having sex outside of marriage is forbidden in most religions, do we forbid it as a society? There are reasonable grounds to ban it: it incites jealousy and one of the spouse is likely to snap, kill the kids and the cheating partner. I mean, if we start to find possible bad consequences of the private acts as a reason to ban something, we have a boatload of these...
Where do you draw the line is an excellent question when it comes to criminal law.
Typically when we make something criminal we want to target something that has clear and obvious negative effects. We want to draft a law that makes it clear what is, and is not, allowed. And we want to make the law as minimally restrictive as possible while still tackling the problem.
When it comes to incest there are two negative problems. First is to avoid the very obvious negative effects of inbreeding. Second is to help to prevent child sexual abuse, since such abuse is frequently done by children's caregivers.
So, there's some pretty easy things we want to discourage - inbreeding and child sexual abuse. But can we do so with a law that is both clear, and minimally intrusive?
Why yes - we can. By making a clear law that you can not have sex with someone that is your parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent, or grandchild, is quite clear. There's no ambiguity.
And is it minimally intrusive? Why yes it is. There's a whole big world of six billion people with whom you can have sex with. The criminal alw is just saying that out of those six billion people, here's a list of a dozen or so whom you can't.
And that's the major distinction between gays rights and a "right to incest". The old sodomy laws prohibited people from having sex with half of the world. If someone was only sexually attracted to the same sex, it gave them absolutely zero legal sex partners. But someone who, by law, can't sleep with their brother or sister still has innumerable other potential sexual partners to pursue.
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2014, 02:10:17 PM
where do you draw the line? There are various sex practices that aren't exactly safe. Lots of people shouldn't reproduce. Lots of people hate kids yet decide to have one anyway, or are careless and make the child suffer for their mistakes.
Where do we draw the line as a society? Gay sex is against nature, so is incest. Fucking without the specific aim of reproduction is a big no-no in most monotheist religions (and possible some polytheists too). Having sex outside of marriage is forbidden in most religions, do we forbid it as a society? There are reasonable grounds to ban it: it incites jealousy and one of the spouse is likely to snap, kill the kids and the cheating partner. I mean, if we start to find possible bad consequences of the private acts as a reason to ban something, we have a boatload of these...
Dunno, man. I'll let you know when we get there. I don't really have the interest in discussing incest that some of you guys have.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
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.
As for child sexual abuse (or coercing someone into sex by abusing a position of authority) - there's already laws against that.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
If someone was only sexually attracted to the same sex, it gave them absolutely zero legal sex partners. But someone who, by law, can't sleep with their brother or sister still has innumerable other potential sexual partners to pursue.
http://youtu.be/o6T6veL5zWM?t=2m34s (http://youtu.be/o6T6veL5zWM?t=2m34s)
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2014, 02:35:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
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.
As for child sexual abuse (or coercing someone into sex by abusing a position of authority) - there's already laws against that.
Absolutely - there are all kinds of very tricky and morally very dubious discussions you could get involved in. Which is why it's best to avoid those entirely unless there's a really simple solution.
I don't want a eugenics board trying to look at everyone's genetics before issuing a ciildbirth license. But, prohibiting blood relations from having sex is a whole hell of a lot simpler than that.
And as for laws against sex by people in authority - those are very blurry lines. I can tell you it's tough to obtain convictions - how do you tell if that person is in a position of trust? How can you tell if that person is exploitative? A "bright line" is a lot more desirable.
Plus, a lot of child sexual abuse is committed by siblings, not just parents - and they aren't in a position of trust.
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2014, 02:35:14 PM
As for child sexual abuse (or coercing someone into sex by abusing a position of authority) - there's already laws against that.
I have no difficulty with a law that makes it crystal clear. The problem with your approach is it contemplates that there may be some circumstances in which it would be appropriate for parent to have sex with their child.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
So, there's some pretty easy things we want to discourage - inbreeding
What is the protected legal interest here?
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2014, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2014, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 01, 2014, 02:36:15 PM
And why should the state decide what adults* want to do in their bedroom?
In most cases it shouldn't. But in this one it should.
where do you draw the line? There are various sex practices that aren't exactly safe. Lots of people shouldn't reproduce. Lots of people hate kids yet decide to have one anyway, or are careless and make the child suffer for their mistakes.
Where do we draw the line as a society? Gay sex is against nature, so is incest. Fucking without the specific aim of reproduction is a big no-no in most monotheist religions (and possible some polytheists too). Having sex outside of marriage is forbidden in most religions, do we forbid it as a society? There are reasonable grounds to ban it: it incites jealousy and one of the spouse is likely to snap, kill the kids and the cheating partner. I mean, if we start to find possible bad consequences of the private acts as a reason to ban something, we have a boatload of these...
Where do you draw the line is an excellent question when it comes to criminal law.
Typically when we make something criminal we want to target something that has clear and obvious negative effects. We want to draft a law that makes it clear what is, and is not, allowed. And we want to make the law as minimally restrictive as possible while still tackling the problem.
When it comes to incest there are two negative problems. First is to avoid the very obvious negative effects of inbreeding. Second is to help to prevent child sexual abuse, since such abuse is frequently done by children's caregivers.
So, there's some pretty easy things we want to discourage - inbreeding and child sexual abuse. But can we do so with a law that is both clear, and minimally intrusive?
Why yes - we can. By making a clear law that you can not have sex with someone that is your parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent, or grandchild, is quite clear. There's no ambiguity.
And is it minimally intrusive? Why yes it is. There's a whole big world of six billion people with whom you can have sex with. The criminal alw is just saying that out of those six billion people, here's a list of a dozen or so whom you can't.
And that's the major distinction between gays rights and a "right to incest". The old sodomy laws prohibited people from having sex with half of the world. If someone was only sexually attracted to the same sex, it gave them absolutely zero legal sex partners. But someone who, by law, can't sleep with their brother or sister still has innumerable other potential sexual partners to pursue.
yes I see that, but in the case of minors having sex with an adult, the law already covers that, with, imho, an appropriate age as far as Canada goes. No sex with a minor under that age of consent and no sex with a minor (under 18) when you are in a relation of authority.
I'm perfectly at ease with this part of the law.
I am much less when it comes to adult. 18 year old male with 20 year old sister or 1st degree cousin. 16 year old female with 17 year old half brother. Yes, inbreeding is a possibility, it can create bad offsprings. The whole Lac St-Jean area in Quebec has this problem, they were isolated for a very long time and as a result of this proximity marriages between 1st degree cousins, and even offsprings from brothers&sisters have resulted in an higher prevalence of some rare diseases.
However, not all sex is for procreation nowadays. And you could also have non related parents who are both physically or mentally handicapped having children wich results in them passing on defective genes to the next generation. Yet, this is not forbidden.
It's not simply a matter of "a dozen or so people", imho, it's the general principle that you decide for other adults what is good for them. As I said, lots of sexual practices are unsafe. Heck, I heard there are gays that get willingly infected with AIDS by sleeping with diseased partners. This is not forbidden by law, afaik. Yet, the society will have the burden of these individuals.
Mind you, if I had kids and I found them sleeping together, I don't think I'd react well...
Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.
Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
And all this misses the basic point, of course - it is the point most people who don't care about actual liberty gloss right over.
The idea that an adult cannot be allowed to make bad decisions for themselves in certain specific, narrow contexts, is what is so abhorrent about things like this, or support for mandating that people stay married even if they don't want to, or state demands that people not be allowed to marry outside their race, or that people not be allowed to have sex with their own gender, or whatever. It is all part and parcel of the same basic conceit that *some* people know what is best for *all* people, and have the right to force others to live their lives in the manner that the moral majority insists is best for them. It is the antithesis of freedom and liberty - tyranny with the very best of intentions. It is after all, what is best for them.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.
Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos. Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos. So what's the problem with making incest illegal?
I just read the German Constitutional Court decision on this case. Their argument is a bit more elaborate than Barrister's, but the general idea is similar. The protected legal value they see is the "family" which has a constitutional protection in Germany and they argue that incest destroys families and familial ties. The ban on incest is a small limitation on personal freedom, so they consider it acceptable to protect families.
Here is the official press release, the decision itself is only available in German.
QuoteThe provision in § 173.2 sentence 2 of the German Criminal Code
(Strafgesetzbuch, hereinafter: StGB), which threatens sexual
intercourse between natural siblings with imprisonment of not more than
two years or a fine, is compatible with the Basic Law. This was decided
by the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court. The
legislature did not overstep its discretion in decision-making when it
deemed protection of the family order from the damaging effects of
incest, protection of the "inferior/weaker" partner in an incestuous
relationship, as well as the avoidance of serious genetic diseases in
children of incestuous relationships, sufficient to punish incest,
which is taboo in society, through criminal law.
This made the constitutional complaint unsuccessful, which had been
lodged by a complainant who had been sentenced to several terms of
imprisonment for sexual intercourse with relatives pursuant to § 173.2
sentence 2 StGB.
Judge Hassemer attached a dissenting opinion to the decision. In his
view, the provision is incompatible with the principle of
proportionality.
In essence, the decision is based on the following considerations:
The decision of the legislature to impose criminal penalties on sibling
incest, in accordance with the standard under Article 2.1 in
conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz - GG; right
to sexual self-determination) which are to be addressed in the first
instance, are constitutionally unobjectionable.
1. With the criminal provision of § 173.2 sentence 2 StGB, the
legislature restricts the right to sexual self-determination of
natural siblings by making the completion of sexual intercourse
between them a punishable offence. In this way the conduct of one's
private life is limited, particularly in that certain forms of
expressions of sexuality between persons close to one another is
penalised. However, this is not an encroachment upon the core area of
private life which is impermissible to the legislature from the
outset. Sexual intercourse between siblings does not affect them
exclusively, but rather, can have effects on the family and society
and consequences for children resulting from the relationship.
Because the criminal-law prohibition on incest only affects a
narrowly defined behaviour and only selectively curtails
possibilities for intimate communication, the parties concerned also
are not placed in a hopeless position incompatible with respect for
human dignity.
2. The legislature pursues objectives through the challenged provision
that are not constitutionally objectionable and, in any event, in
their totality legitimise the limitation on the right to sexual
self-determination.
a) The essential ground considered by the legislature as the reason
for punishment in § 173 StGB is the protection of marriage and the
family. Empirical studies show that the legislature is not acting
outside of its latitude for assessment when it assumes that
incestuous relationships between siblings can lead to serious
consequences damaging the family and society. Incestuous
relationships result in overlapping familial relationships and
social roles and, thus, can lead to interference in the system
that provides structure in a family. This does not correspond with
the image of family that is the basis of Article 6.1 GG. It seems
conclusive and is not far-fetched that the children of an
incestuous relationship have significant difficulties in finding
their place in the family structure and in building a trusting
relationship to their closest caregivers. The function of the
family, which is of primary importance for the human community and
which is at the basis of Article 6.1 GG, would be decisively
damaged if the required structures were shaken by incestuous
relationships.
b) To the extent the criminal provision is justified by reference to
the protection of sexual self-determination, this objective is
also relevant between siblings. The objection that the protection
of sexual self-determination is comprehensively and sufficiently
protected by §§ 174 et seq. StGB (crimes against sexual
self-determination) and, therefore, does not justify § 173.2
sentence 2 StGB ignores the fact that § 173 StGB addresses
specific dependencies arising from the closeness in the family or
rooted in family relations as well as difficulties of
classification of, and defence against, encroachments.
c) The legislature additionally based its decision on eugenic grounds
and assumed that the risk of significant damage to children who
are the product of an incestuous relationship cannot be excluded
due to the increased possibility of an accumulation of recessive
hereditary dispositions. In both medical and anthropological
literature, which are supported by empirical studies, reference is
made to the particular risk of the occurrence of genetic defects.
d) The challenged criminal provision is justified by the sum of the
comprehensible penal objectives against the background of a
societal conviction effective to date based upon cultural history
regarding the fact that incest should carry criminal penalties,
which is also evident in international comparison. As an
instrument for protecting sexual self-determination, the public
health, and especially the family, the criminal provision fulfils
an appellative, law-stabilising function and, thus, a general
preventive function, which illustrates the values set by the
legislature and, therefore, contributes to their maintenance.
3. The challenged provision is also sufficient in regard to the
constitutional-law requirements of suitability, necessity, and
proportionality as to a rule that places limitations on freedom.
a) The criminalisation of sibling incest cannot be denied suitability
for promoting the desired success. The objection that the
challenged criminal provision fails its intended objectives
because of fragmentary design and because of the grounds for
exemption from penalty in § 173.3 StGB (no punishment for minors)
fails to appreciate that through the prohibition on acts of sexual
intercourse a central aspect of sexual relations between siblings
is penalised which has great significance regarding the
incompatibility of sibling incest with the traditional picture of
the family, and which finds a further objective justification in
the ability, in principle, to cause further damaging consequences
by producing descendants. That acts similar to sexual intercourse
and sexual intercourse between same-sex siblings are not
threatened with criminal penalties, but on the other hand, sexual
intercourse between natural siblings also fulfils the elements of
the crime even in cases where pregnancy is excluded does not place
doubt on the basic achievability of the objectives of protecting
sexual self- determination and preventing genetic disease. The
same applies to the objection that the criminal provision is
unsuitable for protecting the structure of the family because
based on the grounds for exemption from punishment as to minors
(§ 173.3 StGB) the criminal provision first reaches siblings when
they typically are leaving the family circle.
b) The challenged provision also is not subject to constitutional-law
doubts in regard to necessity. It is true that in cases of sibling
incest guardianship and youth welfare measures come into
consideration. However, in comparison to criminal penalties they
are not less serious measures with the same effectiveness. Rather,
they are aimed at preventing and redressing violations of
provisions and their consequences in specific cases; as a rule
they do not have any general preventive or law-stabilising effect.
c) Lastly, the threatened punishment is not disproportionate. The
range of punishment provided for also allows consideration for
suspension of proceedings in accordance with discretionary
prosecution aspects, for refraining from punishment, or for
special sentencing considerations, in certain case constellations
in which the accuseds' guilt is slight so that punishment seems
unreasonable.
The dissenting opinion of Judge Hassemer is in essence based on the
following considerations:
§ 173.2 sentence 2 StGB is incompatible with the principle of
proportionality.
The provision is not aimed at establishing a rule that would be
internally consistent and compatible with the elements of the crime.
From the outset consideration of eugenic aspects is not an objective of
a criminal-law provision that is supportable under constitutional law.
Likewise, neither the wording of the provision nor the statutory system
indicate that the protective purpose of the provision or even just one
such protective purpose could be protection of the right to sexual
self-determination. Lastly, the prohibition on sibling incest also is
not constitutionally in regard to protection of marriage and the
family. Only sexual intercourse between natural siblings is a
punishable offence, not, however, all other sexual acts. Sexual
relationships between same-sex siblings and between non-blood-related
siblings are not encompassed. If the criminal provision were actually
aimed at protecting the family from sexual acts, it would also extend
to these acts that are likewise damaging to the family. The evidence
seems to indicate that the provision in its existing version is solely
aimed at attitudes to morality and not at a specific legally protected
right. Building up or maintaining societal consensus regarding values,
however, cannot be the direct objective of a criminal provision.
In addition, the provision does not offer a suitable path to the
objectives pursued through § 173.2 sentence 2 StGB. The elements of the
crime, limiting punishability to acts of sexual intercourse between
siblings of different gender, is not in a position to guarantee
protection of the family from damaging effects of sexual acts. It does
not go far enough because it does not encompass similarly damaging
behaviour and, moreover, non-blood-related siblings as possible
perpetrators. It goes too far because it encompasses behaviour that -
based on the children having reached the age of majority and the
attendant process of leaving the family - it cannot (any longer) have
damaging effects on the family unit.
In addition, there are constitutional-law doubts about criminal
liability for sibling incest based on the principle of proportionality
in regard to the availability of other official measures that could
similarly or even better guarantee the protection of the family, such
as youth welfare measures and family court and guardianship measures.
Finally, the criminal provision of § 173.2 sentence 2 StGB conflicts
with the constitutional-law prohibition on excessiveness. There is a
lack of statutory limitation on criminal liability as to a behaviour
that does not endanger any of the possible objects of protection.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.
Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos. Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos. So what's the problem with making incest illegal?
You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.
The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky" doesn't meet the bar, even if there are extensive examples of us previously using exactly that justification for restricting personal liberty. You are in good company, along with everyone else who vehemently opposed rolling back other invasive laws, like bans on inter-racial marriage, segregation, bans on gay sex, gay marriage, cross caste relationships, etc., etc., etc. All those were social taboos as well.
Quote from: Zanza on October 02, 2014, 03:29:03 PM
I just read the German Constitutional Court decision on this case. Their argument is a bit more elaborate than Barrister's, but the general idea is similar. The protected legal value they see is the "family" which has a constitutional protection in Germany and they argue that incest destroys families and familial ties. The ban on incest is a small limitation on personal freedom, so they consider it acceptable to protect families.
Needless to say I find the dissenting opinion much more convincing.
The jist of the decisions is simply "Incest is bad and might destroy families and might result in birth defects - we have zero evidence that it does any of those things, but who cares? It is totally gross. Oh, and by the way, lots and lots and LOTS of other things might destroy families, and in fact are objectively much greater and well understood threats (for example, drinking large amounts of beer) to families, and have a much greater chance of birth defects (like having children after 40 for women), and those things aren't regulated either...so yeah, clearly our reasons are completely bullshit".
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,
Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:35:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.
Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos. Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos. So what's the problem with making incest illegal?
You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.
The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky"
Allowing parents to have sex with their adult children goes beyond "icky"
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:42:03 PM
Needless to say I find the dissenting opinion much more convincing.
The jist of the decisions is simply "Incest is bad and might destroy families and might result in birth defects - we have zero evidence that it does any of those things, but who cares? It is totally gross. Oh, and by the way, lots and lots and LOTS of other things might destroy families, and in fact are objectively much greater and well understood threats (for example, drinking large amounts of beer) to families, and have a much greater chance of birth defects (like having children after 40 for women), and those things aren't regulated either...so yeah, clearly our reasons are completely bullshit".
I agree. I don't find their arguments compelling either. But especially on sexual morals the court has changed its opinion over the last decades. Back in 1957 they still considered the Nazi anti-gay law constitutional after all, whereas these days they regularly decide that some particular law is still a disadvantage to gay partnerships. So it will be interesting how this develops. It's obviously not a big topic as there are so few people for whom it actually matters. Perhaps not enough critical mass to actually change the law.
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,
Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.
In Canada at least, incest is defined as sex between a person and their parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, or sibling.
Cousin sex is legal.
As I said - it's a very narrow law.
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,
Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.
Yes, that is my understanding as well - you would need multiple generations of compounded incest to see any appreciable effect.
Which is why the entire idea that in a modern society this is an issue is totally bogus. Barring some cult or something, people don't inter-marry over generations. This is the kind of law that has as its foundation religious antiquated morality and a social structure where peoples marriage choices are much more limited than they are today. It is simply a non-issue.
There are very good reasons not to get involved sexually with your siblings. The chance of a birth defect is not one of them. The problem is that the real reasons are grounded in complex emotions and relations, and are not really conducive to codification into law, like many various reasons why you should be careful about who you choose to get into relationships with...
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:35:30 PM
You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.
Berkut - do you find this to be an effective rhetorical tool? Do you find it helps to convince people of the rightness of your position?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 03:50:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:35:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.
Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos. Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos. So what's the problem with making incest illegal?
You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.
The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky"
Allowing parents to have sex with their adult children goes beyond "icky"
So?
The issue for me is that no matter how icky, or beyond icky it might be, I don't feel that *I* have the right to control some 25 year old and tell them that if they make a choice I don't like about having sex with their mom or dad, I have the power to send them to jail, that I know better than they what they should want so surely that I am willing to inflict violence on them if they don't act in the manner *I* demand...all over something that clearly does not and cannot effect me at all.
It isn't my place, or your place, or Barristers place, to say that we know better than some other person what is best for them in totally private matters.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:00:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 03:50:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:35:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Another factor in deciding whether to write laws making your personal moral code into criminal offenses is an evaluation of the severity of the problem that needs to be solved.
Barrister says we have to ban incest to handle the problem of inbreeding - so, how many children with birth defects are going to be born if we don't make incest illegal? In return for Barrister getting to decide who you are allowed to have sex with, what is the great benefit we are saving society from? Are we talking about 500 additional birth defects per year? A thousand? Six?
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
I really don't follow you - you acknowledge there are good reasons for the social taboos. Almost the entirety of our criminal law is just a codification of our social taboos. So what's the problem with making incest illegal?
You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.
The problem is that the state has no business interjecting itself into the private lives of private citizens without a clearly compelling need - "society thinks it is icky"
Allowing parents to have sex with their adult children goes beyond "icky"
So?
The issue for me is that no matter how icky, or beyond icky it might be, I don't feel that *I* have the right to control some 25 year old and tell them that if they make a choice I don't like about having sex with their mom or dad, I have the power to send them to jail, that I know better than they what they should want so surely that I am willing to inflict violence on them if they don't act in the manner *I* demand...all over something that clearly does not and cannot effect me at all.
It isn't my place, or your place, or Barristers place, to say that we know better than some other person what is best for them in totally private matters.
I think you missed the point. In your rhetorical flourish you tried to characterize BB's argument as society finding the practice to be "icky". You should address his argument. It is also ironic that you dont feel you have the "right" to control who an adult has sex with. Of course you dont. I dont see how that is relevant. But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex. If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:35:30 PM
You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.
Berkut - do you find this to be an effective rhetorical tool? Do you find it helps to convince people of the rightness of your position?
I like you, and continue to hold out the hope that at some point reason and rational argument might overcome your totalitarian conservative tendencies.
Will it work? Who knows?
Does it influence others?
Who knows? I like to think it might. I do realize that I am fighting an uphill battle - the history of anti-liberty conservative friction to change is well understood, but on the other hand, in the long run I am very encouraged that the trend, no matter how vigorously opposed by your group, is that these anti-liberal "ideals" almost always eventually fall away.
I can certainly understand the frustration of the anti-liberal group though - it seems like no matter how clearly something really is very icky, it eventually becomes allowed. And we end up with the destruction of the family and marriage and downfall of society that has been predicted to be right around the corner if we don't stop "progress" RIGHT NOW for the lat 2000 years.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:05:10 PM
I can certainly understand the frustration of the anti-liberal group though - it seems like no matter how clearly something really is very icky, it eventually becomes allowed. And we end up with the destruction of the family and marriage and downfall of society that has been predicted to be right around the corner if we don't stop "progress" RIGHT NOW for the lat 2000 years.
:lol:
There you go with the "icky" strawman again.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:56:47 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,
Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.
Yes, that is my understanding as well - you would need multiple generations of compounded incest to see any appreciable effect.
Which is why the entire idea that in a modern society this is an issue is totally bogus. Barring some cult or something, people don't inter-marry over generations. This is the kind of law that has as its foundation religious antiquated morality and a social structure where peoples marriage choices are much more limited than they are today. It is simply a non-issue.
There are very good reasons not to get involved sexually with your siblings. The chance of a birth defect is not one of them. The problem is that the real reasons are grounded in complex emotions and relations, and are not really conducive to codification into law, like many various reasons why you should be careful about who you choose to get into relationships with...
No, I think the biology against marrying those closely related to you is fairly clear.
This is a useful link:
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243
It starts out commenting that the biologic risk of marrying your cousin is actually not that high - maybe a 2-3% increased risk of birth defect.
But when it comes to marrying your sibling it gets worse (the article doesn't mention parent/child, but the same biological factors would apply). The question is one of recessive genes - there are any number of recessive genes out there which can cause a large number of genetic defects. Merely having one recessive gene is fine. But if you have matched recessive genes is when the disease expresses itself.
If you have one of these recessive genes, your sibling has a 50% of having it as well, which means any child has a one in four chance of getting both recessive genes, and thus the genetic illness.
So the genetic risk is real. And while I suppose you could get around it by asking sibling-couples to have genetic testing before having children, it seems simpler just to ban incest between closely related people.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:35:30 PM
You just put yet another nail in the coffin of any claimed respect for the concept of liberty.
Berkut - do you find this to be an effective rhetorical tool? Do you find it helps to convince people of the rightness of your position?
I hope he does, and yes, it does.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
I think you missed the point.
No, I think I exactly hit the point.
Quote
In your rhetorical flourish you tried to characterize BB's argument as society finding the practice to be "icky". You should address his argument.
When you dismiss the parts of his argument that are clearly false, all that is left is "Ewww, gross!". The eugenics argument is bunk, and has been shown to be so, the argument that there are families that will be destroyed absent laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence, and the claim that absent incest laws parents will be having sex with their underage children is negated by the fact that that is ALREADY illegal and enforced.
So what is left?
It should be illegal because we all agree it is gross.
Quote
It is also ironic that you dont feel you have the "right" to control who an adult has sex with. Of course you dont.
Indeed I do not, and by extension neither does anyone else, when it comes to consensual sex between humans capable of making their own choices.
I do not, and no number of collective "I"s do not even when they all get together and agree that some other people sex life is super important to them so they should vote and pass laws restricting it.
Quote
I dont see how that is relevant. But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex.
Why is that?
Why can't adult children decide for themselves? Are they not adults? Are they not, by definition, perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves? What makes you think they need your help to make good decisions, or that your help will actually force them into making good decisions anyway?
Why do you think you know better than them what is best for them?
We are talking about a choice that has no impact on anyone else, so you cannot compare it to the myriad of other ways we restrict adults rights by laws.
Quote
If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
I think if you read anything I wrote, you would realize your sentence is either stunningly ignorant, or simply an attempt to represent my position as something it clearly is not, as I've stated the exact opposite of that several times now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex. If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Where are the laws to prevent adult men and women from being preyed on for sex? What's so special about the coercive power in family dynamics that we "care" about that but not in other unequal relationships*?
*which I know is something Berk wrote about earlier.
Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults? I took a look at the 2010 law that wiki notes seems to only define incest in relation to with a minor. Is French society acting incorrectly by not banning incestuous relationships between consenting adults?
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 04:09:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:56:47 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:02:34 PM
Needless to say, I find the "ZOMG THERE WILL BE DEFORMED KIDS!" argument totally unconvincing. Incest has plenty of social taboos (most of which are there for good reason) and the idea that there would be some significant, or even measurable, increase in the rate of birth defects absent the quaint laws banning incest is completely unsupported by any evidence of any kind at all.
As I understand it, it's not a direct result, i.e. incest = birth defect but it's over the span of a few generations:
Generation 1 incest = higher probability of birth defect
Generation 2 incest = higher probability of birth defect ^2
Generation 3 incest = higher probability of birth defect^4
etc,
Some scientist here will correct me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, the probability of birth defect is higher the closer the link (higher for brothers and sisters than cousins).
But I think you also get that if you have several generations marrying second degree cousins.
Yes, that is my understanding as well - you would need multiple generations of compounded incest to see any appreciable effect.
Which is why the entire idea that in a modern society this is an issue is totally bogus. Barring some cult or something, people don't inter-marry over generations. This is the kind of law that has as its foundation religious antiquated morality and a social structure where peoples marriage choices are much more limited than they are today. It is simply a non-issue.
There are very good reasons not to get involved sexually with your siblings. The chance of a birth defect is not one of them. The problem is that the real reasons are grounded in complex emotions and relations, and are not really conducive to codification into law, like many various reasons why you should be careful about who you choose to get into relationships with...
No, I think the biology against marrying those closely related to you is fairly clear.
This is a useful link:
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243
It starts out commenting that the biologic risk of marrying your cousin is actually not that high - maybe a 2-3% increased risk of birth defect.
But when it comes to marrying your sibling it gets worse (the article doesn't mention parent/child, but the same biological factors would apply). The question is one of recessive genes - there are any number of recessive genes out there which can cause a large number of genetic defects. Merely having one recessive gene is fine. But if you have matched recessive genes is when the disease expresses itself.
If you have one of these recessive genes, your sibling has a 50% of having it as well, which means any child has a one in four chance of getting both recessive genes, and thus the genetic illness.
So the genetic risk is real. And while I suppose you could get around it by asking sibling-couples to have genetic testing before having children, it seems simpler just to ban incest between closely related people.
Interesting. The articles conclusion seems pretty simple:
QuoteBecause of the potential risks, couples that are closely related are often advised to see a genetic counselor. The genetic counselor can figure out if they are both carriers of a disease. And then the couple can weigh the risks.
Easy solution. Isn't technology great? I am glad we were able to put this particular objection to bed.
Of course, the idea that the only purpose for sex is procreation is bogus anyway - people have sex without having kids all the time.
Sure, previously without an ability to control procreation, this would be a serious problem. Lucky for us, it isn't relevant now, or not relevant enough to be certainly problematic.
Note: The risks associated with women having children over the age of 40 are on this order of increased risk as well - should be make sure women over 40 aren't allowed to have sex with anyone, since they might get pregnant and have a child with a birth defect?
Or is that exact same risk acceptable, while THIS risk is not? If so - why?
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 04:15:22 PM
Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults? I took a look at the 2010 law that wiki notes seems to only define incest in relation to with a minor. Is French society acting incorrectly by not banning incestuous relationships between consenting adults?
It's the French. They're wrong on a buttload of stuff.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 04:09:20 PM
No, I think the biology against marrying those closely related to you is fairly clear.
This is a useful link:
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243
It starts out commenting that the biologic risk of marrying your cousin is actually not that high - maybe a 2-3% increased risk of birth defect.
But when it comes to marrying your sibling it gets worse (the article doesn't mention parent/child, but the same biological factors would apply). The question is one of recessive genes - there are any number of recessive genes out there which can cause a large number of genetic defects. Merely having one recessive gene is fine. But if you have matched recessive genes is when the disease expresses itself.
If you have one of these recessive genes, your sibling has a 50% of having it as well, which means any child has a one in four chance of getting both recessive genes, and thus the genetic illness.
So the genetic risk is real. And while I suppose you could get around it by asking sibling-couples to have genetic testing before having children, it seems simpler just to ban incest between closely related people.
Sure you want to use a source that claims that the chance of two random people having a child with Cystic Fibrosis is one in 240? According to the http://www.cff.org/aboutcf/ (http://www.cff.org/aboutcf/) about 1,000 babies are born with it each year. There are more than 240,000 births in any given year.
There is no question that there is a greater chance that the offspring of immediate family members increases the rate of expressions of recessive genes, including disease ones. That's still a much smaller chance of birth defects than the article implies/claims. Probably woman bearing children after forty represents an equivalent risk to sibling marriage (Fate may have a better handle on this than I).
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
But society as a whole certainly has the responsiblity to create laws which prevent adult children from being preyed upon by their parents for sex. If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Where are the laws to prevent adult men and women from being preyed on for sex? What's so special about the coercive power in family dynamics that we "care" about that but not in other unequal relationships*?
*which I know is something Berk wrote about earlier.
What I really object to isn't that (although it illuminates the hypocrisy of the position - it is clear these arguments are justifications for an a priori wish to ban incest, not the actual reasons for that ban) even.
It is the simple idea that people think that society has the right to decide for individuals what they are allowed to do in regards to their relationships.
I can think of a huge number of examples of where I am nearly 100% convinced that Party A should NOT get involved sexually or emotionally with Party B. Party B is abusive, Party B is an asshole, Party B is domineering while Party A is co-dependnent, whatever. Inter-personal relationships are incredibly complex and very difficult to get right.
But at the end of the day, it is Party A's choice. They might decide that despite all my reasonable, well-founded objections, they want to do it anyway. Who am I to say they not only should they not, I have the right to make it illegal for them, because I am THAT thoroughly convinced I know better than them?
It is the ultimate height of arrogance and lack of basic respect for other human beings to suggest that anyone have that kind of power over someone else.
As I think I have said in some earlier thread I basically agree with Berkut. I don't think BB values/understands liberty. NB I don't get all ragey about it like Berkut. Relax.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 04:15:22 PM
Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults?
Cheese-eating and surrendering are expressions of recessive genes?
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2014, 04:25:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 04:15:22 PM
Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults?
Cheese-eating and surrendering are expressions of recessive genes?
Oh no, I love cheese. :weep:
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Indeed.
While I will argue vehemently that this should NOT be illegal, I will also argue rather vehemently that banging your siblings is fucking revolting, and in the vast majority of cases is probably indicative of something pretty fucked up going on.
So thinking the state should step in to stop some pretty fucked up things from happening means a lack of understanding liberty?
Berkut, your idea that morality should not enter into law in a society with liberty might lead to an interesting experiment to try out some day but it isn't aligned with the western legal tradition or the historical understanding of "liberty." Walking through the city naked won't harm anyone, but will still land me in jail. Same with having sex in public. And the same with many other things. Including that adult playing football for the university of michigan, a state school, that apparently needs to be pulled from the game if he is exhibiting concussion symptoms, whether he wants to or not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.
So I would say...no?
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.
So I would say...no?
Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.
So I would say...no?
Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?
I don't.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2014, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 04:15:22 PM
Btw what of France and its lack of incest laws for adults? I took a look at the 2010 law that wiki notes seems to only define incest in relation to with a minor. Is French society acting incorrectly by not banning incestuous relationships between consenting adults?
It's the French. They're wrong on a buttload of stuff.
Such as? :angry:
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.
So I would say...no?
Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?
I don't.
Everything you have posted treats sexual relations between parents and their children as being the same as between any other adults.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 10:45:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.
So I would say...no?
Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?
I don't.
Everything you have posted treats sexual relations between parents and their children as being the same as between any other adults.
That is simply not true.
For one, this is not about only parents and their children. That is a fallacy to try to narrow the scope.
Secondly, I have stated time and again that I think incest has perfectly valid social taboos against it, and that I think it is "pretty fucked up". Since I haven't stated that I find all sexual relationships fucked up, it is clear I don't think they are the same.
Just because there are differences doesn't mean that those differences justify legal sanction. You have to show that the difference is such that the restriction on personal liberty is justified. That pointing out that it is different is meaningless And claiming that I have claimed that there isn't any difference is just fallacious. The burden is not on me to show that there is no difference, the burden is on you to show that the difference is material enough to justify legal sanction over personal liberty.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 11:03:07 PM
That is simply not true.
For one, this is not about only parents and their children. That is a fallacy to try to narrow the scope.
Secondly, I have stated time and again that I think incest has perfectly valid social taboos against it, and that I think it is "pretty fucked up". Since I haven't stated that I find all sexual relationships fucked up, it is clear I don't think they are the same.
Just because there are differences doesn't mean that those differences justify legal sanction. You have to show that the difference is such that the restriction on personal liberty is justified. That pointing out that it is different is meaningless And claiming that I have claimed that there isn't any difference is just fallacious. The burden is not on me to show that there is no difference, the burden is on you to show that the difference is material enough to justify legal sanction over personal liberty.
Please elaborate - what is "pretty fucked up" about incest? What is it about incest you find troubling?
I suspect that in the vast majority of cases adults being sexually attracted to their immediate relatives is clearly indicative of some kind of emotional disfunction. I am not a psychologist of course, so I concede that I'd don't really know if that is true.
But I think the odds of a incestuous relationship being a healthy relationship are rather low in most cases, unusual circumstances excepted.
Question to BB, would you support criminalising adultery?
What about criminalising having sex with someone who has a past history of violence against you?
Both, statistically, are more likely to be an unhealthy relationship than an incestuous one.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 11:19:25 PM
I suspect that in the vast majority of cases adults being sexually attracted to their immediate relatives is clearly indicative of some kind of emotional disfunction. I am not a psychologist of course, so I concede that I'd don't really know if that is true.
But I think the odds of a incestuous relationship being a healthy relationship are rather low in most cases, unusual circumstances excepted.
I think attraction between siblings - especially if they did not grow up together - could have a potential to be healthy in many circumstances.
Them not growing up together is one of those rather unusual circumstances.
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 12:43:23 AM
Them not growing up together is one of those rather unusual circumstances.
I am not so sure. I would be interested in seeing the statistics. The biological instinct against mating with family you have grown up together with is still a strong one. I would not be surprised if the majority of cases actually caught by anti-incest laws were the ones with siblings not growing up together.
The thing is - and to me this is a parallel to the treatment of homosexuality in the past - because incest is a taboo, I suspect there aren't that many credible studies or statistics about it.
It could very well be that if you take people who feel sexual attraction to their close family members (a minority even smaller than gays and lesbians, I suspect), and remove people who are involved in sexual abuse of a minor, the majority of those who are left could very well be siblings who did not grow up together. But we don't know that because everyone is afraid of asking that question.
Quote from: Martinus on October 03, 2014, 01:06:32 AM
The thing is - and to me this is a parallel to the treatment of homosexuality in the past - because incest is a taboo, I suspect there aren't that many credible studies or statistics about it.
It could very well be that if you take people who feel sexual attraction to their close family members (a minority even smaller than gays and lesbians, I suspect), and remove people who are involved in sexual abuse of a minor, the majority of those who are left could very well be siblings who did not grow up together. But we don't know that because everyone is afraid of asking that question.
To me that isn't that interesting though - not growing up together would obviously remove much of the issues with why I feel it is a dis-functional relationship.
But that is a case that isn't really interesting to me, because it is less of an issue...it is almost not even "incest" at all.
Metallica on their ass!
(For you the unmetallyinitiated that means Kill'em All, the name of Mets first album, 1983.)
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 01:09:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 03, 2014, 01:06:32 AM
The thing is - and to me this is a parallel to the treatment of homosexuality in the past - because incest is a taboo, I suspect there aren't that many credible studies or statistics about it.
It could very well be that if you take people who feel sexual attraction to their close family members (a minority even smaller than gays and lesbians, I suspect), and remove people who are involved in sexual abuse of a minor, the majority of those who are left could very well be siblings who did not grow up together. But we don't know that because everyone is afraid of asking that question.
To me that isn't that interesting though - not growing up together would obviously remove much of the issues with why I feel it is a dis-functional relationship.
But that is a case that isn't really interesting to me, because it is less of an issue...it is almost not even "incest" at all.
I think this is interesting, in that if my assumptions are right, then criminalisation of incest would actually mainly hurt people who are not even in "dysfunctional" or "icky" relationships, which would be more the reason to abolish it.
Incest destroys our genetic heritage.
Incest is the social relationship of the failed social group.
Incest is failure to succeed.
Quote from: Siege on October 03, 2014, 03:25:51 AM
Incest destroys our genetic heritage.
Incest is the social relationship of the failed social group.
Incest is failure to succeed.
I never know with you whether you are joking or you are so out of it. :huh:
Quote from: Siege on October 03, 2014, 03:25:51 AM
Incest destroys our genetic heritage.
Technically, it preserves it from being diluted. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2014, 05:49:21 AM
Quote from: Siege on October 03, 2014, 03:25:51 AM
Incest destroys our genetic heritage.
Technically, it preserves it from being diluted. :lol:
Indeed. There is considerable evidence that incest is responsible for the path that evolution took with the species
homo sapiens.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 10:45:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.
So I would say...no?
Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?
I don't.
Everything you have posted treats sexual relations between parents and their children as being the same as between any other adults.
Just because there are differences doesn't mean that those differences justify legal sanction. You have to show that the difference is such that the restriction on personal liberty is justified. That pointing out that it is different is meaningless And claiming that I have claimed that there isn't any difference is just fallacious. The burden is not on me to show that there is no difference, the burden is on you to show that the difference is material enough to justify legal sanction over personal liberty.
Your justification is that all adults should be able to freely choose whomever they wish to have sex with. Your general theory of liberty necessarily needs to ignore the fact that there are significant differences between the relationship of close family members (the relationship between a child and parent is one that I thought you would at least concede) and relationships between other adults.
The question of burden is an interesting one. Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
The question of burden is an interesting one. Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.
If the siblings involved are all over 18, why would younger/older matter? Sometimes younger siblings dominate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 10:45:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Berkut, are you seriously contending that a child/parent sexual relationship has the same dynamics as any other sexual relationship between adults?
I think there are lots of "dynamics" involved in relationships between adults, and they are all very different.
So I would say...no?
Ok, so whey do you treat them as being the same?
I don't.
Everything you have posted treats sexual relations between parents and their children as being the same as between any other adults.
Just because there are differences doesn't mean that those differences justify legal sanction. You have to show that the difference is such that the restriction on personal liberty is justified. That pointing out that it is different is meaningless And claiming that I have claimed that there isn't any difference is just fallacious. The burden is not on me to show that there is no difference, the burden is on you to show that the difference is material enough to justify legal sanction over personal liberty.
Your justification is that all adults should be able to freely choose whomever they wish to have sex with.
Does that not seem like a pretty reasonable starting point? I am surprised you find issue with it.
Quote
Your general theory of liberty necessarily needs to ignore the fact that there are significant differences between the relationship of close family members (the relationship between a child and parent is one that I thought you would at least concede) and relationships between other adults.
It certainly does not need to ignore it, it just needs to accept that there isn't anything about it that violates the basic concepts that state that adult individuals have the *right* to make their own choices, and in order for the state to intervene and interfere, the state has to prove that there is some kind of reason why it should do so, it has to have some kind of significant interest in the matter. Normally, and in most cases, this is the desire to protect other individuals rights to make their own choices. That is not the case here, clearly, since we are talking about a case where all parties involved have made the free choice themselves - so here we actually have the state interfereing in two people free choice.
The other justification for interfering in personal liberty is some kind of compelling state or societal interest - some kind of situation where the individual rights in question must take a back seat to a compelling overall societal interest that the exercise of their liberty is somehow causing great damage too...but that clearly is not the case either. People private sexual relationships have no significant bearing on anyone but themselves.
So again, just because it is "different" does not validate your desire to impose you personal views on others. Being "different" is not a crime, or at least it should not be...
Quote
The question of burden is an interesting one. Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.
You are asserting that all such relationships, must by definition be abusive, first of all. You have not shown that to be true.
You are also asserting that THIS particular theoretical "abusive" relationship between consenting adults is different from all other abusive relationships between consenting adults such that THIS one should be banned by law while the others are allowed. The burden here is on YOU to show that that this one is different - not on me to show that it is not. My positions is that this should be treated in the exact same manner we treat any potentially abusive relationship between consenting adults in respects to the law. We do nothing at all under the presumption that adults can make those choices themselves, and the state has no place or even competency to make those judgments better than the participants such that it warrants such a fundamental violation of their privacy and rights to keep the state out of their bedroom.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
The question of burden is an interesting one. Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.
If the siblings involved are all over 18, why would younger/older matter? Sometimes younger siblings dominate.
The key to this justification is that there MUST be a victim, at least in theory. Of course, in the way the laws are written, there actually doesn't have to be - this is one of the nearly unique circumstances where we have a law that allows the state to throw everyone in jail - all perps, no victims! I can see why Beebs likes it so much. :)
I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
The question of burden is an interesting one. Your are the one asserting away the abusive circumstances that can occur if family members are permitted to have sex with their children or younger siblings.
If the siblings involved are all over 18, why would younger/older matter? Sometimes younger siblings dominate.
Because they have had 18 years together before they are adults. Earlier in the thread I referenced a incest case heard years ago. A father had groomed his daughter from a young age to believe that she should be his second wife when she turned 18. After she was 18 he started having sex with her. Throughout he kept her isolated from the world so that she never really understood what was really happening. Then one day, in her late 20s, she made a friend who found out what was happening. By that time the father and his daughter had two sons. The neighbours thought they were a lovely family of a father looking after his single parent daughter and her two sons. But then the friend went to police with the real story.
At trial the father made the same arguments Berkut and other are making here. The Court had no problem concluding that the harm of allowing this sort of predatory relationship to occur outweighed any claim to an infringement of rights.
One can easily see the same sort of grooming taking place with older siblings.
For those making the genetic argument the Court also concluded that the medical evidence was that the infringement of rights could not be justified on that basis.
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2014, 09:40:44 AM
I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.
More like the burden is on those making a silly claim that a relationship that is clearly suspectible to terrible abuse should be treated like any other relationship.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2014, 09:40:44 AM
I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.
More like the burden is on those making a silly claim that a relationship that is clearly suspectible to terrible abuse should be treated like any other relationship.
FWIW I don't think you understand the issue.
Hard cases make bad laws.
CC - I don't suppose you have a citation for that case?
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2014, 09:40:44 AM
I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.
Or maybe the burden is on those not wanting to keep bans in place to explain why the ban should be lifted.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 10:39:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2014, 09:40:44 AM
I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.
Or maybe the burden is on those not wanting to keep bans in place to explain why the ban should be lifted.
I don't know I mean this seems like the sort of thing that courts will eventually decide (as I doubt anyone will use political muster to get this passed in various legislatures).
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 10:39:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2014, 09:40:44 AM
I like how the burden is on those not wanting to ban stuff to explain why stuff shouldn't be banned.
Or maybe the burden is on those not wanting to keep bans in place to explain why the ban should be lifted.
OK BB.
Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo. If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo. If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.
Poland 1944: "The camps are status quo. State your case for change plz!" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo. If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.
Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.
The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.
Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.
Speaking as a lawyer, who has had numerous arguments about whose burden is whose...
arguments about the "burden of proof" are a remarkably ineffective way to make your point. Tell people why what you think is correct.
Judges want to come to the "correct" decision as they see it, and few things are ever decided on the basis of "well whose burden is it".
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 11:34:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo. If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.
Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.
The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.
Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.
I believe in personal liberty, but I'm also conservative in that I need to see a strong argument before something should be changed. Yeah, I'd probably fail a libertarian purity test but then so would you.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2014, 11:43:49 AM
Speaking as a lawyer, who has had numerous arguments about whose burden is whose...
arguments about the "burden of proof" are a remarkably ineffective way to make your point. Tell people why what you think is correct.
Judges want to come to the "correct" decision as they see it, and few things are ever decided on the basis of "well whose burden is it".
Canadian justice system is best justice system.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 11:44:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 11:34:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo. If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.
Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.
The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.
Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.
I believe in personal liberty, but I'm also conservative in that I need to see a strong argument before something should be changed. Yeah, I'd probably fail a libertarian purity test but then so would you.
No, Berkut would not fail such a purity test, because Berkut is the only arbiter of who does or does not believe in liberty. You believe in liberty is Berkut decides you believe in liberty.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2014, 12:03:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 11:44:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 11:34:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
Just sayin' in many (I guess most) places the ban is the status quo. If you want change, state your case convincingly plz.
Spoken like someone who has only a token regard for the concept of liberty as meaning anything more than a handy slogan.
The default position of anyone who takes the concept of personal liberty seriously is that it is the state which must bear the burden of proof when arguing that there is a need to restrict personal freedom through law.
Your argument is valid, as long as you reject that premise. Which most people do, but are unwilling to admit.
I believe in personal liberty, but I'm also conservative in that I need to see a strong argument before something should be changed. Yeah, I'd probably fail a libertarian purity test but then so would you.
No, Berkut would not fail such a purity test, because Berkut is the only arbiter of who does or does not believe in liberty. You believe in liberty is Berkut decides you believe in liberty.
No, I am perfectly capable of judging someone who consistently comes down in any argument on the side of "Fuck personal liberty" as being someone who pays only lip service to liberty.
Being capable of making such a judgement does not make me the arbiter, it just makes me someone with a well supported opinion that drives you nuts because you can't refute it except by resorting to personal attacks like this.
Beeb is oh so clearly driven nuts with your accusations, Berkut.
I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.
However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2014, 10:09:00 AM
CC - I don't suppose you have a citation for that case?
Here is the cite for the BCCA decision denying the Defendent's appeal on his preliminary decision to quash the charge based on the fact that at the time of the sexual relationship she was not a "child". The court ruled that the word child did not related to age but relationship and since the father new the "child" was his daughter he had the necessary mes rea.
R. v. S. (M.)
1993 CarswellBC 1095, [1993] B.C.W.L.D. 2624, [1993] W.D.F.L. 1554, 21 W.C.B. (2d) 132, 35 B.C.A.C. 313, 57 W.A.C. 313
Here is the cite for the BCCA decision which refers extensively to the findings of fact made by the trial judge. On reviewing it my memory failed me on a couple of issues. First the first sexual encounter was when she was 17. The second is that the court did find that risk of genetic defect was a factor to take into consideration.
R. v. S. (M.)
1996 CarswellBC 2501, [1996] B.C.W.L.D. 3027, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2302, [1997] W.D.F.L. 052, 111 C.C.C. (3d) 467, 137 W.A.C. 104, 33 W.C.B. (2d) 8, 40 C.R.R. (2d) 216, 4 C.R. (5th) 113, 84 B.C.A.C. 104
The most relevant passages for the people who think incestual relations are just like any other are:
QuoteThe accused submits that there should be no sanction against a father having sexual intercourse with his adult biological daughter. He says no one is hurt: Incest between consenting adults is a victimless offence. He maintains that such a sanction is an unjustified intrusion into the lives of consenting adults. I will later itemize the freedoms the accused alleges are infringed by the sanction.
But I hold that the reservations set out in s. 1 of the Charter apply. Section 1 reads as follows:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I hold that if any freedoms of a biological father are limited by s. 155 above, the Crown has established that the limits are (a) reasonable, (b) prescribed by law (s. 155) and (c) demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I do not mean to suggest that the freedoms of consenting adults guaranteed by the Charter have been breached by s. 155. What I have decided is that even if they have been, on the various reports and evidence adduced by the Crown, it is established that many people and interests in the community are threatened by the occurrence of incest whether or not both of the participants are adult. Not the least of those who may be adversely affected are the progeny of incest.
The trial judge accepted expert evidence that incest is harmful to all children, regardless of age, because of the power a parent has over a child; that it is damaging to the family as a whole; and that it significantly increases the risk of genetic defects.
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 12:19:04 PM
I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.
However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty.
No, I am bothered by it because I can't get past the hubris of someone believing they can know what is in the heart and mind of another person.
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 12:19:04 PM
I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.
There is certainly one person here who, in the absence of any evidence to support his position, is ideologically driven to a particulary result. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 12:19:04 PM
However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty what I think about you.
FIXED
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2014, 12:22:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 12:19:04 PM
I know. He cannot reconcile his beliefs with what he wants to believe he believes.
However, it is why I still have hope for him - he clearly cares enough to be bothered. You, as a counter-example, do not. You are quite content not giving a shit about liberty.
No, I am bothered by it because I can't get past the hubris of someone believing they can know what is in the heart and mind of another person.
The irony of that statement in sharp contrast to your support of laws restricting the right of individuals to make their own choices about their relationships is really quite stunning.
I don't pretend to know your heart or mind, I just know that in every case EVER on languish, you casually and consistently dismiss any concern about individual liberty. You are ok with the state telling people who they can have sex with, you are ok with the state demanding that people be married to people they don't want to be married to, because YOU know what is best for THEM.
I don't have to know anything about your heart or mind to conclude that you don't care about liberty. You provide all the evidence necessary.
I don't have to be Stalin's therapist to conclude that he doesn't care about liberty either, and it isn't "hubris" to draw reasonable conclusions from the facts given.
I'd be interested in Berkut's response to my earlier question if he is against all cases where morality is imposed by the government even though it doesn't harm others.
A few examples:
-public nudity bans
-seat belt laws
-forcing adult college players for state schools to leave games when suspected of concussions
-public sex act bans
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2014, 12:33:19 PM
I'd be interested in Berkut's response to my earlier question if he is against all cases where morality is imposed by the government even though it doesn't harm others.
A few examples:
-public nudity bans
-seat belt laws
-forcing adult college players for state schools to leave games when suspected of concussions
-public sex act bans
1 & 4 certainly do affect others. Does the government enforce 3 or just the NCAA?
Dunno about Berkut, but I don't care much for seat belt laws.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2014, 12:36:23 PM
1 & 4 certainly do affect others. Does the government enforce 3 or just the NCAA?
1 & 4 gross you out? I don't see how that is different than an incestuous couple which will also gross people out.
For #3, it doesn't really matter, does it? Most schools playing NCAA FBS football are state institutions.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2014, 12:33:19 PM
I'd be interested in Berkut's response to my earlier question if he is against all cases where morality is imposed by the government even though it doesn't harm others.
A few examples:
-public nudity bans
But arguably does harm others. This is, by definition, a question of *public* conduct. Which clearly the state has vastly more say in that private conduct
Quote
-seat belt laws
Support them as a necessary constraint on personal liberty that has a tangible, noticeable, and measurable benefit to society as a whole. Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively, society has a decided interest in making cars safer. Further, the individual imposition is extremely minimal for a very great gain in the overall good.
Quote
-forcing adult college players for state schools to leave games when suspected of concussions
By definition a concussion involves impairment of ability to make rational decisions. Also, there is no personal right to play a game, and hence all players must abide by the rules imposed by the organization they play under. If they find those rules overly onerous, they are certainly welcome not to play. This isn't a issue of personal liberty at all, IMO.
Quote
-public sex act bans
Again, by definition public is in fact public, and the mores and standard of society at large are very reasonably expected to be met in a social structure of varying personal view on these kinds of issues. Of course, there is still a back and forth necessary to find a reasonable area of acceptable public behavior versus freedom of expression.
There is a very bright line difference between the interests of the state in public and in private.
In fact, SF lifts its public nudity and public sex act bans (well maybe not so officially on last one) for several key money making events (aka Bay to Breakers, Folsom Street Fair, etc.).
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2014, 12:39:54 PM
1 & 4 gross you out? I don't see how that is different than an incestuous couple which will also gross people out.
Big difference between saying "I don't want to see X" and "X should not exist".
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 12:39:58 PM
Support them as a necessary constraint on personal liberty that has a tangible, noticeable, and measurable benefit to society as a whole. Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively, society has a decided interest in making cars safer. Further, the individual imposition is extremely minimal for a very great gain in the overall good.
The constraints certainly aren't necessary--society was getting along well without them. I'm not sure what "Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively" means. Your safety is not at all affected by me wearing a seatbelt. You see collective benefits in wearing seatbelts as justifying a restriction in liberty, others see collective benefits in deterring incestuous relationships and channelling those in them into some sort of rehabilitation through the exercise of law. I don't see a significant difference between these private acts.
I also don't agree that a person walking down the street naked causes any significant harm to anyone.
In the case of a college football player, yes a concussion deters an ability to make decisions, but I'm certain at least some players would be willing to do so and sign a statement to that effect prior to a game. Why should the government restrict their ability to do so? No that isn't in the law, but it is in the rules of the game the state is generating. Why should the state make laws to restrict liberty like that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
For my part, it's not that I judge it "alright", but more that I am totally uneasy at the state's regulations of sexual practice.
I find it wrong, really, and I would probably not look at someone I know the same way if I learn he was screwing his sister.
But I don't think it should be criminal, whenever adults or children of the same age are concerned.
Of course, I do realize that if it happens between adult in the present, it's very likely it didn't start just right now and was part of the family's practice in the past, when one ore more participants were minor.
But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2014, 12:53:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 12:39:58 PM
Support them as a necessary constraint on personal liberty that has a tangible, noticeable, and measurable benefit to society as a whole. Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively, society has a decided interest in making cars safer. Further, the individual imposition is extremely minimal for a very great gain in the overall good.
The constraints certainly aren't necessary--society was getting along well without them.
Not really - large numbers of people were dying every year. Society was not at all getting along well in that context.
But we can argue about the details I guess, but at the end of the day it is an argument about the details. The fact is that seatbelts save lives, lots and lots and LOTS of them, and society does in fact have an interest in keeping it's members alive for a variety of reasons, some of which are collective.
Quote
I'm not sure what "Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively" means.
Our society pays a large portion of healthcare costs from collective sources, therefore society has an interest in keeping those costs under control. We have emergency response that is funded by public funds, we have helicopters to transport accident victims to hospitals at incredible expense, etc., etc.
Quote
Your safety is not at all affected by me wearing a seatbelt.
No, but that doesn't mean you not wearing a seat belt does not affect me. If I hit you, and it is my fault, and you don't have a seat belt on, the odds of your being seriously injured are vastly greater. Since we, as a society, decided that I am culpable in that case for your injuries, you not wearing a seat belt increases my liability (and hence my mandatory insurance) considerably.
Finally, driving a car is, by its very nature, a public activity, and hence is regulated, heavily regulated, by public rules. Perhaps one can argue that it should not be, but it is, and I don't see that as being outside the bounds of reasonable imposition on personal liberty in order to allow a smoothly functioning society.
Quote
You see collective benefits in wearing seatbelts as justifying a restriction in liberty, others see collective benefits in deterring incestuous relationships and channelling those in them into some sort of rehabilitation through the exercise of law. I don't see a significant difference between these private acts.
One isn't a private act, and the other is.
Beyond that, in both cases one has to make a case that the imposition is justified. I think that case is clearly made in the case of motor vehicle laws, and that case has not been made in the case of laws governing who people are allowed to sleep with.
Quote
I also don't agree that a person walking down the street naked causes any significant harm to anyone.
You don't have to agree - society itself says it does. Personally, I am ok with laws saying you cannot be naked, I am ok with laws saying you can be stark naked. Makes no personal difference to me, and I don't think that either position is outside the bounds of acceptable impositions. Again, we are talking about public behavior. I don't think seeing someone naked causes harm, but I certainly understand the viewpoint of others that it does, and accept the rule of the majority in that case, since we are talking about public behavior.
Quote
In the case of a college football player, yes a concussion deters an ability to make decisions, but I'm certain at least some players would be willing to do so and sign a statement to that effect prior to a game. Why should the government restrict their ability to do so? No that isn't in the law, but it is in the rules of the game the state is generating. Why should the state make laws to restrict liberty like that?
I've already answered that question. There is no "right" to playing NCAA football, so if you want to play, you have to abide by the NCAAs rules. If you don't like those rules, go play somewhere else.
Not a issue of liberty at all, and certainly not analogous to private matters of sexual conduct behind closed doors.
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 01:34:27 PM
Not really - large numbers of people were dying every year. Society was not at all getting along well in that context.
But we can argue about the details I guess, but at the end of the day it is an argument about the details. The fact is that seatbelts save lives, lots and lots and LOTS of them, and society does in fact have an interest in keeping it's members alive for a variety of reasons, some of which are collective.
Our society pays a large portion of healthcare costs from collective sources, therefore society has an interest in keeping those costs under control. We have emergency response that is funded by public funds, we have helicopters to transport accident victims to hospitals at incredible expense, etc., etc.
...
No, but that doesn't mean you not wearing a seat belt does not affect me. If I hit you, and it is my fault, and you don't have a seat belt on, the odds of your being seriously injured are vastly greater. Since we, as a society, decided that I am culpable in that case for your injuries, you not wearing a seat belt increases my liability (and hence my mandatory insurance) considerably.
...
Finally, driving a car is, by its very nature, a public activity, and hence is regulated, heavily regulated, by public rules. Perhaps one can argue that it should not be, but it is, and I don't see that as being outside the bounds of reasonable imposition on personal liberty in order to allow a smoothly functioning society.
I think there are some thought patterns here that are very dangerous to the concept of liberty. As far as I can tell, we should have liberty in our private lives, and I don't see you giving many examples of private life extending beyond who people have sex with. But public lives are subject to regulation.
The biggest problem I have is that you cite the collective cost regarding care for people injured, as well as keeping people alive. But people can't decline collective care from society. We used to be a society where you could go out into the wild and take whatever risks you want. That seems to be very much what liberty is all about. Now there are increasing restrictions on the ability to do that on public land, and the legal environment makes it problematic to allow others to do that on private land.
Apparently you are cool with that--after all--people could get hurt if they take risks, and society may pay to send a rescue party or recover a dead body. That is just society looking after its own interests--not a restriction of liberty. Real liberty, apparently involving the right to bang your sister, is still secure.
Quote from: Siege on October 03, 2014, 03:25:51 AM
Incest destroys our genetic heritage.
Incest is the social relationship of the failed social group.
Incest is failure to succeed.
Did you know Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women? Wild.
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2014, 01:19:41 PM
But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.
But that isnt the reason. In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time). The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her.
In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult. But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 02:32:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2014, 01:19:41 PM
But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.
But that isnt the reason. In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time). The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her.
In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult. But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".
In Berkut's view, that is not "fine" at all. It is a gross violation of the childs liberty to brainwash them like that. But the crime is not fucking her after she turns 18, the crime is in brainwashing her before that so that she finds it ok.
But I don't see it as being any different from a child being groomed to be someone *else's* wife their entire life, which happens as well in cases of cults/religious organizations. Or even in otherwise "normal" societies where daughters are told from a young age that their choices of husband are made by their parents.
I don't think that is ok either, but apparently you do, since it isn't explicitly illegal, and all that is defined as acceptable must be codified into law - so as long as it isn't actual incest - go right ahead!
The case you cite is reprehensible, but I recognize that it is generally reprehensible for reasons that have almost nothing do with the person having sex with her being her father. You apparently feel that that kind of brainwashing is a-ok as long as there isn't actual incest involved. I find it revolting regardless - I just don't know what a good way of stopping it via the legal system might be...get CPS involved early? Get rid of home schooling? Those solutions have problems as well.
The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 02:42:57 PM
The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?
No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme. How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases. Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.
Sometimes I wonder...
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 02:42:57 PM
The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?
No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme. How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases. Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.
I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 02:42:57 PM
The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?
No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme. How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases. Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.
I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.
Lying? You take the bizarre position that adult children should be free to have sex with their parents completely oblivious to the results of the policy decision, get called on it and all you can respond with is I am lying?
I can only take that as an admission that you regret taking the position in the first place.
I had a friend who was unusually close to his sister, we did wonder. :ph34r:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 02:42:57 PM
The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?
No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme. How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases. Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.
I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.
Lying? You take the bizarre position that adult children should be free to have sex with their parents completely oblivious to the results of the policy decision, get called on it and all you can respond with is I am lying?
I can only take that as an admission that you regret taking the position in the first place.
You may want to quit now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 02:32:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2014, 01:19:41 PM
But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.
But that isnt the reason. In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time). The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her.
In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult. But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".
but we are socialized for a lot of thing. We are byproducts of our society and our immediate environment. You'd be a very different individual today had you been raised on a ranch north of Vancouver.
Society has conditionned us that incest is wrong. Therefore, you can assumue that people doing incest were conditionned to the opposite, but the same goes for any out of the norm sexual practice like BDSM or scatology or bestiality. In Canada at least, there's a social taboo on these things. Maybe in some other countries there is not.
Does not make any more justifiable for a country to forbid this, imho.
The point I was trying to make is that we can assume a lot of things are derived from the education of an individual, it's exposure to social taboos, the restrictions or the absence of restriction on one's behavior as a child. And to penalize something between
all adults today because of something we assume has happenned in their childhood is not the right way to do things, imho.
A muslim women could be socialized to weir a veil whenever she's out of the house. Should society forbid all religious symbols because the tchador is a sign of women's oppression and subservience to the men of her family? Don't answer - I don't even want to go back there :P
If education is a problem, we should fight it with more education. Sex education class, morality class, ethics class, stuff like that, that teach the children certain values that will help them make informed consent in their later life.
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2014, 04:13:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 03:57:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 02:42:57 PM
The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?
No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme. How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases. Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.
I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.
Lying? You take the bizarre position that adult children should be free to have sex with their parents completely oblivious to the results of the policy decision, get called on it and all you can respond with is I am lying?
I can only take that as an admission that you regret taking the position in the first place.
You may want to quit now.
I wonder if that's what qualifies as a good argument in Canada. :wacko:
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2014, 04:18:23 PM
Society has conditionned us that incest is wrong. Therefore, you can assumue that people doing incest were conditionned to the opposite, but the same goes for any out of the norm sexual practice like BDSM or scatology or bestiality.
I don't think that's the case. I think many of those (when talking about what turns a person on) is probably a brain thing. I doubt most people into beastiality or scat had people teaching them to be interested in it.
For BDSM, people often talk about it with regards to how their brain is wired.
Oh and morality class? :bleeding:
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2014, 04:18:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 02:32:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2014, 01:19:41 PM
But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.
But that isnt the reason. In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time). The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her.
In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult. But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".
but we are socialized for a lot of thing. We are byproducts of our society and our immediate environment. You'd be a very different individual today had you been raised on a ranch north of Vancouver.
Society has conditionned us that incest is wrong. Therefore, you can assumue that people doing incest were conditionned to the opposite, but the same goes for any out of the norm sexual practice like BDSM or scatology or bestiality. In Canada at least, there's a social taboo on these things. Maybe in some other countries there is not.
Does not make any more justifiable for a country to forbid this, imho.
The point I was trying to make is that we can assume a lot of things are derived from the education of an individual, it's exposure to social taboos, the restrictions or the absence of restriction on one's behavior as a child. And to penalize something between all adults today because of something we assume has happenned in their childhood is not the right way to do things, imho.
A muslim women could be socialized to weir a veil whenever she's out of the house. Should society forbid all religious symbols because the tchador is a sign of women's oppression and subservience to the men of her family? Don't answer - I don't even want to go back there :P
If education is a problem, we should fight it with more education. Sex education class, morality class, ethics class, stuff like that, that teach the children certain values that will help them make informed consent in their later life.
I think you are heading in the direction of moral relativism?
There is good evidence that parental sexual relations with their adult children is harmful. This isnt a question of social or moral relatism.
But I do have to laugh as how extreme the Libertards around here (not you but Berky and the crew) can really get.
This was quite a good debate between CC and Berkut, until both started asserting what the other person's position was. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 04:32:32 PM
I don't think that's the case. I think many of those (when talking about what turns a person on) is probably a brain thing. I doubt most people into beastiality or scat had people teaching them to be interested in it.
I don't mean to "teach", but maybe just not impress the social taboos on it, or go too hard in the opposite direction, like people raised in the deeply religious family that end up totally freaking out and going 180.
Quote
For BDSM, people often talk about it with regards to how their brain is wired.
Well, like homosexuality, then.
Maybe it's the same for incest. And scat. And bestiality. Modern research on pedophilia seems to point in that direction too, there's a genetic factor involved.
Now, to refrain from acting on your impulse is another matter. No matter how yucky it seems to us, how far should the state go in regulating private behavior between adults?
I'm pretty sure incest doesn't happen out of the blue, but once they're adults and choose to live together should we really intervene because it's likely in the past there was some form of coercicion or social conditionning inside the family? It's tricky to justify, imho. I can see reasonable grounds to forbid it as well as reasonable grounds to allow it. Should we treat it as a condition the way we treat pedophilia? (though proper treatment is imho still lacking)
In countries with no laws on incest, are there evidence of more severe prejudices to the children? Are the cases of child abuses more numerous?
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2014, 10:34:10 AM
I don't mean to "teach", but maybe just not impress the social taboos on it, or go too hard in the opposite direction, like people raised in the deeply religious family that end up totally freaking out and going 180.
Yeah still not really buying it though. I mean if those sorts of desires come up, I'd think they are likely universally condemned.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2014, 10:34:10 AM
Well, like homosexuality, then.
Maybe it's the same for incest. And scat. And bestiality. Modern research on pedophilia seems to point in that direction too, there's a genetic factor involved.
Yeah it is possible. I mean, thinking about society, why would you pick to be into something that other people find disgusting and for most of those, also have made illegal? Not that the last two shouldn't be illegal but just that it seems to me unlikely that someone would actively choose those interests.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 04:47:31 PM
I think you are heading in the direction of moral relativism?
maybe. Social conditionning is an important part of who we become as adults, how we view the world. Not 100%, but a good part of it is influenced by our childhood, negatively or positively.
Quote
There is good evidence that parental sexual relations with their adult children is harmful.
Using drugs is harmful. Many drug users smoke pot (or worst) with their adult children.
Lots and lots of things are harmful and are either legal or tolerated. As anti drug as I am, I'd feel bad if our resources were use to bust adults smoking pot in their homes.
I just think it's a bad idea to regulate sexual relations between adults. No matter how harmful it may appear to be, so long as it's not a case of abuse, I do feel it's a bad idea for the State to intervene in these cases. But I don't really lose sleep at night knowing it's forbidden. There is no doubt though, that any case involving a minor should be prosecuted.
As such, I find the wording "fundamental right" to be a bit too strong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2014, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2014, 10:32:47 AM
Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.
You are mistaken. A boss or superior may have a consensual relationship with a subordinate employee. All such relationships are not presumbed to be improper and indeed many such workplace relationships do exist without incident. Similarily I know of no policies which prohibit sex between between adult students at university or appropriately ages high school students. I have no idea where you are getting that from. I am not clear about the rules regarding lawyers and their clients. Never had to turn my mind to it. But I do know that it is not always unethical. I know a few lawyers who are happily married to people who were their clients.
I've been sick for a few days and missed much of this debate. But to return to a point here ...
... I did not say that a boss sleeping with a subordinate *always* was against company policy, only that it was *a matter for* company policy - that is, it was something that,
if it was prohibited at all, would be prohibited by company policy -
as opposed to the criminal law.
Similarly with lawyers and clients.
For example, my law societies' rules of professional conduct has no "blanket" prohibition on lawyers having sex with clients - but rather cites such sex as an example of conduct that
may be a "conflict of interest", as follows:
Quote(d) A lawyer has a sexual or close personal relationship with a client.
(i) Such a relationship may conflict with the lawyer's duty to provide objective, disinterested professional advice to the client. The relationship may obscure whether certain information was acquired in the course of the lawyer and client relationship and may jeopardize the client's right to have all information concerning their affairs held in strict confidence. The relationship may in some circumstances permit exploitation of the client by their lawyer. If the lawyer is a member of a firm and concludes that a conflict exists, the conflict is not imputed to the lawyer's firm, but would be cured if another lawyer in the firm who is not involved in such a relationship with the client handled the client's work.
The BC Code is the same on this point:
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2638&t=Chapter-3-–-Relationship-to-Clients#3.4
In summary, you have misinterpreted what I was saying.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2014, 10:39:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2014, 04:47:31 PM
There is good evidence that parental sexual relations with their adult children is harmful.
Using drugs is harmful. Many drug users smoke pot (or worst) with their adult children.
Lots and lots of things are harmful and are either legal or tolerated. As anti drug as I am, I'd feel bad if our resources were use to bust adults smoking pot in their homes.
I just think it's a bad idea to regulate sexual relations between adults. No matter how harmful it may appear to be, so long as it's not a case of abuse, I do feel it's a bad idea for the State to intervene in these cases. But I don't really lose sleep at night knowing it's forbidden. There is no doubt though, that any case involving a minor should be prosecuted.
As such, I find the wording "fundamental right" to be a bit too strong.
I dont think there is an easy comparison between the harm done by smoking pot to the abusive situation of a parent having sex with their child. I can't imagine any circumstances in which such a sexual relationship should ever be allowed. Berkut goes on about liberty and such but I dont think liberty means allowing parents to prey on their children. What happened to the "liberty" of the child? The argument that a child can give "consent" to having sex with their parent when they become an adult is nonsensical as the case I referred to about clearly shows.
Berkut's response? Bad facts make made laws. Nice maxim. Doesnt fit here. He would have to demonstrate that its ok for parents to have sex with their children for those facts to be isolated and not worth addressing.
I am in general agreement that the State has no business regulating sexual relations between adults. But this isnt really just a a matter of a relationship between adults - this is a relationship which starts in childhood (although may not become sexual until later). As such I think there is an important distinction between this sort of relationship and others.
Quote from: Berkut on October 03, 2014, 02:42:57 PM
The case you cite is reprehensible, but I recognize that it is generally reprehensible for reasons that have almost nothing do with the person having sex with her being her father. You apparently feel that that kind of brainwashing is a-ok as long as there isn't actual incest involved. I find it revolting regardless - I just don't know what a good way of stopping it via the legal system might be...get CPS involved early? Get rid of home schooling? Those solutions have problems as well.
The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?
The argument is that such inability - to make informed, adult decisions as to whether of not to screw one's father - is the norm, not the exception: it is (usually) inherent in the nature of a parent-child relationship that the parent has a disproportionate influence over the child, which vitiates the normal process of providing informed consent to sex.
There are indeed other situations in which the notion that all adults are presumptively capable of making free and informed consent to whatever is overturned - and they are not uncommon in family law matters.
For example, the ability to contract one's own seperation agreement, without oversight and review by the courts, is limited in some jurisdictions by law - because, in practice, it was found that (typically, men) from more 'traditional' societies were using such processes to in effect gain all from seperation, leaving their ex-wives with nothing.
Incest is of course a more extreme case. The bond between a parent and child is even more unbalanced and unequal than the bond between spouses on the verge of divorce.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2014, 11:07:03 AM
I dont think there is an easy comparison between the harm done by smoking pot to the abusive situation of a parent having sex with their child.
We were specifically discussing adult sex.
QuoteI can't imagine any circumstances in which such a sexual relationship should ever be allowed. Berkut goes on about liberty and such but I dont think liberty means allowing parents to prey on their children. What happened to the "liberty" of the child? The argument that a child can give "consent" to having sex with their parent when they become an adult is nonsensical as the case I referred to about clearly shows.
But again, we were discussing about adults, not minors. There are already laws for adults having sex with a minor, related or not. There is the age of consent (15), and above that, there are penalties for adults having sex with a 17 year old to wich they have an authority link. And I think this is fine as it is. We put all kind of restrictions on what parent can and cannot do to their kids for the sake of the children, this is no different.
However, even if we may assume that in some point in their life, an adult participant in incest was coherced... it is, again, in my humble opinion, quite a stretch to convict consenting adults for what may have happenned in the past.
Quote
Berkut's response? Bad facts make made laws. Nice maxim. Doesnt fit here. He would have to demonstrate that its ok for parents to have sex with their children for those facts to be isolated and not worth addressing.
I'll let you discuss with Berkut.
Quote
I am in general agreement that the State has no business regulating sexual relations between adults. But this isnt really just a a matter of a relationship between adults - this is a relationship which starts in childhood (although may not become sexual until later). As such I think there is an important distinction between this sort of relationship and others.
But to legislate this, we have to assume it is nearly always the case that it started under pressure when they were minors. And incest doesn't only involve parents, but also siblings of the same age.
While I can see and agree to your argument about parental incest, I don't see how does that apply to brothers and sisters of about the same age. And even if I were reasonably certain it started when both were minors, if none are talking today, if none are showing any kind of remorse or shame, should we really intervene?
I can see the case for strange religious communities, like Lev Tahor, who basically smuggle children from across the world to marry them to older member of the community, in this case, there are strong social pressure from the surrounding community and this is very strong.
But in a normal case? I just don't know... And I tend to err on the side of caution in this case, meaning no specific legislation for adult incest.
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2014, 12:59:09 PM
But to legislate this, we have to assume it is nearly always the case that it started under pressure when they were minors. And incest doesn't only involve parents, but also siblings of the same age.
While I can see and agree to your argument about parental incest, I don't see how does that apply to brothers and sisters of about the same age. And even if I were reasonably certain it started when both were minors, if none are talking today, if none are showing any kind of remorse or shame, should we really intervene?
I have little problem making the assumption that parents (1) have a disproportionate influence on their children; and (2) that this influence lasts into adulthood.
As for sibling incest - apparently, research has shown it is equivalent in harms to parental incest. Though admittedly, they only studied hetero incest.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213499000587
QuoteConclusions: The authors conclude that the characteristics and consequences of brother-sister incest are of equal seriousness to those of father-daughter incest. This would suggest that brother-sister incest is one of the current blind spots in incest research, and one that we cannot afford to ignore. In-depth knowledge of the dynamics and effects of brother-sister incest suggest specific treatment strategies are indeed necessary and these are discussed in this paper.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:05:45 PM
As for sibling incest - apparently, research has shown it is equivalent in harms to parental incest. Though admittedly, they only studied hetero incest.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213499000587
QuoteConclusions: The authors conclude that the characteristics and consequences of brother-sister incest are of equal seriousness to those of father-daughter incest. This would suggest that brother-sister incest is one of the current blind spots in incest research, and one that we cannot afford to ignore. In-depth knowledge of the dynamics and effects of brother-sister incest suggest specific treatment strategies are indeed necessary and these are discussed in this paper.
:huh:
Well yes, I would expect that people who say they were abused are then going to show up as rather traumatized.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2014, 01:11:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:05:45 PM
As for sibling incest - apparently, research has shown it is equivalent in harms to parental incest. Though admittedly, they only studied hetero incest.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213499000587
QuoteConclusions: The authors conclude that the characteristics and consequences of brother-sister incest are of equal seriousness to those of father-daughter incest. This would suggest that brother-sister incest is one of the current blind spots in incest research, and one that we cannot afford to ignore. In-depth knowledge of the dynamics and effects of brother-sister incest suggest specific treatment strategies are indeed necessary and these are discussed in this paper.
:huh:
Well yes, I would expect that people who say they were abused are then going to show up as rather traumatized.
The issue is that they were traumatized
equally. Researchers expected - but did not find - that the one group (parental incest) was more traumatized than the other (sibling incest).
As for "abused", that's a function of recruiting for such research - naturally, there are difficulties in studing those who do not self-identify as "victims", as they are unlikely to make themselves available for study. In this case, they did research on an incest victim's group.
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:20:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2014, 01:11:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:05:45 PM
As for sibling incest - apparently, research has shown it is equivalent in harms to parental incest. Though admittedly, they only studied hetero incest.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213499000587
QuoteConclusions: The authors conclude that the characteristics and consequences of brother-sister incest are of equal seriousness to those of father-daughter incest. This would suggest that brother-sister incest is one of the current blind spots in incest research, and one that we cannot afford to ignore. In-depth knowledge of the dynamics and effects of brother-sister incest suggest specific treatment strategies are indeed necessary and these are discussed in this paper.
:huh:
Well yes, I would expect that people who say they were abused are then going to show up as rather traumatized.
The issue is that they were traumatized equally. Researchers expected - but did not find - that the one group (parental incest) was more traumatized than the other (sibling incest).
As for "abused", that's a function of recruiting for such research - naturally, there are difficulties in studing those who do not self-identify as "victims", as they are unlikely to make themselves available for study. In this case, they did research on an incest victim's group.
I guess if we assume that everyone woman who is involved in incest is a "victim" then sure.
If it isn't voluntary then we have rape laws. And if it is voluntary then I don't see the problem. I don't see what's so important about making the (possibly rare) cases where there is no weird shit going on illegal.
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2014, 04:13:12 PM
You may want to quit now.
I don't think he can. And I'm running out of popcorn... :(
Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2014, 12:59:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2014, 11:07:03 AM
I dont think there is an easy comparison between the harm done by smoking pot to the abusive situation of a parent having sex with their child.
We were specifically discussing adult sex.
Yes and the part I am specifically addressing is the rather odd notion (assumed by many here to be true) that an adult parent can have consensual sex with their adult child. I get why Brain literally has a dog in this fight. But I dont know why others seem to hold this view.
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2014, 02:35:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2014, 03:06:37 PM
And all this misses the basic point, of course - it is the point most people who don't care about actual liberty gloss right over.
The idea that an adult cannot be allowed to make bad decisions for themselves in certain specific, narrow contexts, is what is so abhorrent about things like this, or support for mandating that people stay married even if they don't want to, or state demands that people not be allowed to marry outside their race, or that people not be allowed to have sex with their own gender, or whatever. It is all part and parcel of the same basic conceit that *some* people know what is best for *all* people, and have the right to force others to live their lives in the manner that the moral majority insists is best for them. It is the antithesis of freedom and liberty - tyranny with the very best of intentions. It is after all, what is best for them.
Tyranny is bad if the tyranny is bad, then?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2014, 05:12:10 PM
Tyranny is bad if the tyranny is bad, then?
Really? This is a question for you?
"Tyranny" is bad when it is unnecessary. And, when it is necessary, it isn't "tyranny."
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2014, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2014, 02:35:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
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.
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...
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:05:45 PM
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 banking manager, while he is a now a sucessful oil prospector.
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.
eeeewwwww
Wow.
I know. ________. :yuk:
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
Not sure. - .
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.
Lots of victims of parental incest and child abuse grow up to lead successful lives. This is not proof the practices are harmless.
I love how Martim rolls into the thread and keeps it real.
The ambassador lost his virginity to Auntie Maria.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
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 ________, 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.
Lots of victims of parental incest and child abuse grow up to lead successful lives. This is not proof the practices are harmless.
Malthus - building on your point, not disagreeing with you:
It's quite possible Ms. ________ and Mr. ________ think back on their "youthful indiscretions" with nothing but fondness. I haven't said that incest is inherently, 100% of the time harmful.
The problem is that issues of consent, of power imbalances, of abuse, are almost impossible to analyze when two children live in the same room. It's also quite plausible that Ms. ________ cried herself to sleep many night after her brother forced herself on her, then forced her to repeat the act night after night saying "no one will ever believe you if you tell" "it's our little secret" or "think what father will do to you if he finds out what you've been doing".
Besides - sometimes it's better to have a little grey area in the criminal law. As Martim himself points out - if nobody complains, then the law doesn't get involved. But what I don't want to see is if a girl (or boy) comes forward to allege that their sibling has been sexually abusing them for years, for the subsequent trial to then revolve around how the sexual abuse victim "wanted it", how he/she was just a little "promiscuous slut".
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
But what I don't want to see is if a girl (or boy) comes forward to allege that their sibling has been sexually abusing them for years, for the subsequent trial to then revolve around how the sexual abuse victim "wanted it", how he/she was just a little "promiscuous slut".
That would be rather convenient for the prosecutor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:19:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
But what I don't want to see is if a girl (or boy) comes forward to allege that their sibling has been sexually abusing them for years, for the subsequent trial to then revolve around how the sexual abuse victim "wanted it", how he/she was just a little "promiscuous slut".
That would be rather convenient for the prosecutor.
And for sexual predators.
To be honest, I have no problem with banning parenting incest. I just think sibling incest should be legal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:19:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
But what I don't want to see is if a girl (or boy) comes forward to allege that their sibling has been sexually abusing them for years, for the subsequent trial to then revolve around how the sexual abuse victim "wanted it", how he/she was just a little "promiscuous slut".
That would be rather convenient for the prosecutor justice.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:29:04 PM
To be honest, I have no problem with banning parenting incest. I just think sibling incest should be legal.
If a parent has sex with a child, which one do you send to gaol? Non-rhetorical.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:29:04 PM
To be honest, I have no problem with banning parenting incest. I just think sibling incest should be legal.
If a parent has sex with a child, which one do you send to gaol? Non-rhetorical.
The parent, most likely.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
If a parent has sex with a child, which one do you send to gaol? Non-rhetorical.
That one's a no-brainer, since there's an authority imbalance that may or may not be present in sibling sex. The consensus is that we send the parent to jail/gaol, and the child to therapy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2014, 04:41:57 PM
Yes and the part I am specifically addressing is the rather odd notion (assumed by many here to be true) that an adult parent can have consensual sex with their adult child. I get why Brain literally has a dog in this fight. But I dont know why others seem to hold this view.
Because parental sex is not the only case where there is a disproportionate influence on the other partner. And because sex is not the only thing where an adult can be seen as being unable to give consent. Also because I doubt a lot of adults have the mental capacities to decide for a lot of things that affect themselves or their family, yet, we must always assume there is free and willing consent for adults, unless proven otherwise.
And lastly, because I'm trying hard to not let my personal preferences influence my opinion on the subject. I'm not sure how I would react if I learn someone I know was sleeping with his sister. Probably disgusted. But is it really the State's job to intervene in such affair, now? If I knew a case where a minor is involved with an adult, I'd sure file a complaint. But two adults? Or two teens?
It's a little more fuzzy for me there. But I'll heartily admit I haven't read much on the subject. I don't even know if these behavior can be treated. So really, what do we do with them? Keep them locked up forever, put them a list of dangerous sexual offenders for life? If it can't be cured, only controlled, do we have effective treatment? If not, what's preventing them for doing it again? If it's treatable with a reasonable chance of success, aren't we negating their chances at a normal life by punishing this behavior like any kind of pedophilia or rape crime?
I'll also admit that this is all highly theoritical, as I can't remember the last time I read a newspiece about two adults convicted of incest (with each other) in Canada.
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 07, 2014, 01:33:06 PM
That one's a no-brainer, since there's an authority imbalance that may or may not be present in sibling sex. The consensus is that we send the parent to jail/gaol, and the child to therapy.
What if the parent is 85 and the kid is 60?
Man that's gross.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
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.
Lots of victims of parental incest and child abuse grow up to lead successful lives. This is not proof the practices are harmless.
Malthus - building on your point, not disagreeing with you:
It's quite possible Ms. ________ and Mr. ________ think back on their "youthful indiscretions" with nothing but fondness. I haven't said that incest is inherently, 100% of the time harmful.
The problem is that issues of consent, of power imbalances, of abuse, are almost impossible to analyze when two children live in the same room.
Ignoring for the moment that we haven't been talking about children, this, once again exemplifies the divide between those who care about liberty and those who do not.
"Well, this is really complicated and difficult to really understand or know what might be the true story, or how people really felt". No argument so far.
Person who cares about liberty: "...so the state should probably just stay out of something as fundamentally private as people sex lives, and allow *adults* to make their own choices".
Person who pays lip service to liberty: "...plus I think it is gross, so we should assume that adults cannot make the 'right' choice for themselves and the state can make it for them".
Quote from: Comrade Beebs
"It's also quite plausible that Ms. ________ cried herself to sleep many night after her brother forced herself on her, then forced her to repeat the act night after night saying "no one will ever believe you if you tell" "it's our little secret" or "think what father will do to you if he finds out what you've been doing"."
If that is the case, then the brother (and of course it is the brother) has committed rape, and that is illegal whether it is his sister or not.
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2014, 01:36:41 PM
What if the parent is 85 and the kid is 60?
Man that's gross.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:29:04 PM
To be honest, I have no problem with banning parenting incest. I just think sibling incest should be legal.
If a parent has sex with a child, which one do you send to gaol? Non-rhetorical.
The parent, most likely.
So not automatically the parent. Good.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
And, indeed, most rape trials that go to any kind of trial tend to feature "she wanted it" and implications of sluttiness. So if you don't want children who've been raped by their relatives to be subjected to inquisitions re: their sexual morality, we can simply proceed from the assumption that they can't meaningfully give consent.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 01:36:55 PM
Ignoring for the moment that we haven't been talking about children, this, once again exemplifies the divide between those who care about liberty and those who do not.
"Well, this is really complicated and difficult to really understand or know what might be the true story, or how people really felt". No argument so far.
Person who cares about liberty: "...so the state should probably just stay out of something as fundamentally private as people sex lives, and allow *adults* to make their own choices".
Person who pays lip service to liberty: "...plus I think it is gross, so we should assume that adults cannot make the 'right' choice for themselves and the state can make it for them".
Quote from: Comrade Beebs
"It's also quite plausible that Ms. ________ cried herself to sleep many night after her brother forced herself on her, then forced her to repeat the act night after night saying "no one will ever believe you if you tell" "it's our little secret" or "think what father will do to you if he finds out what you've been doing"."
If that is the case, then the brother (and of course it is the brother) has committed rape, and that is illegal whether it is his sister or not.
Berkut I like you. In order that I might continue to keep liking you I am declining to engage in this discussion with you. :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
But what I don't want to see is if a girl (or boy) comes forward to allege that their sibling has been sexually abusing them for years, for the subsequent trial to then revolve around how the sexual abuse victim "wanted it", how he/she was just a little "promiscuous slut".
It's a valid concern, the same one that appeared when we changed the age of consent in the country.
However, isn't there any other way this can be avoided?
Rape cases are often argued like that: she (well, most of the time, it's 'she') was consenting, she never said no/stop, she changed her mind the morning after. Thankfully, no one would try his day in court by saying "she was dressed like a slut" nowadays. But how are such cases handled by courts?
Without obvious traces of violence and the defendant claiming it was consensual sex with someone maybe a bit drunk but not totally passed out? The most recent cases I remember were a military officer (military justice, until the appeal) presumably raped by her immediate superior, and a girl who drugged herself willingly with GHB and later "woke up" in a men's bed while they were having sex.
It's true I don't have all the facts in front of me, relying only on the newspaper, but these seem tricky cases to win for the prosecution (the military won resulted in not guilty verdict, the GHB one in guilty verdict).
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
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.
Lots of victims of parental incest and child abuse grow up to lead successful lives. This is not proof the practices are harmless.
Malthus - building on your point, not disagreeing with you:
It's quite possible Ms. ________ and Mr. ________ think back on their "youthful indiscretions" with nothing but fondness. I haven't said that incest is inherently, 100% of the time harmful.
The problem is that issues of consent, of power imbalances, of abuse, are almost impossible to analyze when two children live in the same room.
Ignoring for the moment that we haven't been talking about children, this, once again exemplifies the divide between those who care about liberty and those who do not.
"Well, this is really complicated and difficult to really understand or know what might be the true story, or how people really felt". No argument so far.
Person who cares about liberty: "...so the state should probably just stay out of something as fundamentally private as people sex lives, and allow *adults* to make their own choices".
Person who pays lip service to liberty: "...plus I think it is gross, so we should assume that adults cannot make the 'right' choice for themselves and the state can make it for them".
Quote from: Comrade Beebs
"It's also quite plausible that Ms. ________ cried herself to sleep many night after her brother forced herself on her, then forced her to repeat the act night after night saying "no one will ever believe you if you tell" "it's our little secret" or "think what father will do to you if he finds out what you've been doing"."
If that is the case, then the brother (and of course it is the brother) has committed rape, and that is illegal whether it is his sister or not.
The liberty drum can be beaten too much, you know. ;)
I think everyone here believes that liberty as a concept is good, but that there must be reasonable limits to it. The argument is over what those reasonable limits are.
We also all agree that those limits are drawn by informed consent - that it isn't a true manifestation of liberty to allow someone to have sex with a person who does not have the capacity to consent. So, for example, we all agree that sex with minors is a legitimate state interest - a limit on absolute liberty.
The issue, put narrowly, is whether an incestuous relationship is an example of one in which the capacity of the partners to provide consent is in question.
Various people draw the line various ways. Some would allow adult sibling incest, but not adult parent-child incest. Others would disallow both. I do not for a second believe this is a clear-cut issue, with those favouring "Liberty!!!" lined up on one side, and the freedom-hating troglodytes on the other.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
You're both saying the same thing.
TYpically, there are two defences to a sexual assault charge:
1. We didn't have sex; and
2. It was consentual.
So if there's independent evidence that sex took place, the Accused's only possible defence is consent. And that's because if there is consent, it doesn't meet the definition of sexual assault (aka rape).
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
What if the victim was 7 years old?
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
And, indeed, most rape trials that go to any kind of trial tend to feature "she wanted it" and implications of sluttiness. So if you don't want children who've been raped by their relatives to be subjected to inquisitions re: their sexual morality, we can simply proceed from the assumption that they can't meaningfully give consent.
And when they're both kids, then what? Blame the eldest? Blame the male?
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
What if the victim was 7 years old?
Uhm, we have always framed this as a discussion about sex between adults. Why are you moving the goal posts mid-discussion?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:56:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
And, indeed, most rape trials that go to any kind of trial tend to feature "she wanted it" and implications of sluttiness. So if you don't want children who've been raped by their relatives to be subjected to inquisitions re: their sexual morality, we can simply proceed from the assumption that they can't meaningfully give consent.
And when they're both kids, then what? Blame the eldest? Blame the male?
This already happens and both kids go into therapy. The parents/guardians might also be in trouble depending on the circumstances.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
What if the victim was 7 years old?
Uhm, we have always framed this as a discussion about sex between adults. Why are you moving the goal posts mid-discussion?
Because to my mind, the issue is the ability to give consent. Underage is one case where that ability is presumptively in question. Incest is another.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 01:54:21 PMThe liberty drum can be beaten too much, you know. ;)
I think everyone here believes that liberty as a concept is good, but that there must be reasonable limits to it. The argument is over what those reasonable limits are.
We also all agree that those limits are drawn by informed consent - that it isn't a true manifestation of liberty to allow someone to have sex with a person who does not have the capacity to consent. So, for example, we all agree that sex with minors is a legitimate state interest - a limit on absolute liberty.
The issue, put narrowly, is whether an incestuous relationship is an example of one in which the capacity of the partners to provide consent is in question.
I feel like we are moving in circles, so I will just restate this for the last time: there is no other case in a modern Western society, other than criminalisation of incest, where it is argued that both (i) sexual partners are incapable of giving informed consent only within the context of this specific relationship (but not any other), and (ii) the relationship is symmetrical (i.e. there is no victim and violator but both parties are considered at the same time victims and violators).
The only two cases, from history, that I can think of where both of these characteristics were present, were criminalisation of homosexual sex and criminalisation of interracial sex.
This in itself is pretty fucked up, if we subscribe to a view that adult people are generally capable of making decisions about their own lives.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
What if the victim was 7 years old?
Uhm, we have always framed this as a discussion about sex between adults. Why are you moving the goal posts mid-discussion?
Because to my mind, the issue is the ability to give consent. Underage is one case where that ability is presumptively in question. Incest is another.
Underage people are deemed incapable of giving consent to ANY sex. Why are you insisting on comparing this to a situation where a person is "deemed incapable of giving consent" to sex with one person but not incapable to do so with another person?
As I said, there are no other cases in modern Western society where this is argued. The only other exception is coercion - where obviously there is no consent.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:04:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 01:54:21 PMThe liberty drum can be beaten too much, you know. ;)
I think everyone here believes that liberty as a concept is good, but that there must be reasonable limits to it. The argument is over what those reasonable limits are.
We also all agree that those limits are drawn by informed consent - that it isn't a true manifestation of liberty to allow someone to have sex with a person who does not have the capacity to consent. So, for example, we all agree that sex with minors is a legitimate state interest - a limit on absolute liberty.
The issue, put narrowly, is whether an incestuous relationship is an example of one in which the capacity of the partners to provide consent is in question.
I feel like we are moving in circles, so I will just restate this for the last time: there is no other case in a modern Western society, other than criminalisation of incest, where it is argued that both (i) sexual partners are incapable of giving informed consent only within the context of this specific relationship (but not any other), and (ii) the relationship is symmetrical (i.e. there is no victim and violator but both parties are considered at the same time victims and violators).
The only two cases, from history, that I can think of where both of these characteristics were present, were criminalisation of homosexual sex and criminalisation of interracial sex.
This in itself is pretty fucked up, if we subscribe to a view that adult people are generally capable of making decisions about their own lives.
If you take out the word "sexual", I can think of another example (at least in Canada) - two parties can not consent to the infliction of bodily harm on each other. See R v Jobidon [1991] 2 SCR 714.
Obviously, if we value liberty, we wouldn't want to see very many examples like this, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be in certain situations.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:07:40 PM
Underage people are deemed incapable of giving consent to ANY sex. Why are you insisting on comparing this to a situation where a person is "deemed incapable of giving consent" to sex with one person but not incapable to do so with another person?
That's not quite true. Underage people are able to give consent in certain circumstances. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they are typically allowed to have sex with people of a similar age. It's only adults that young people are prohibited from having sex with.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:09:12 PM
If you take out the word "sexual", I can think of another example (at least in Canada) - two parties can not consent to the infliction of bodily harm on each other. See R v Jobidon [1991] 2 SCR 714.
Obviously, if we value liberty, we wouldn't want to see very many examples like this, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be in certain situations.
Well, that's a better point - let's argue on merits, and not on comparing incest to pedophilia, where such comparison is insulting to everybody's intelligence here.
I would say, the situations are different.
Prohibition against bodily harm recognises an actual, measurable harm that cannot be inflicted by one person on another (even with the "victim's" consent) - this is quite different from incest, where the harm on the "victim" is often illusionary (and, again, you could use the same argument in favour of criminalising homosexual sex - most homophobes these days argue that they are just protecting the poor gay people from the evils visited upon them from homosexual practices).
Furthermore, even with the bodily harm prohibition you have many exemptions (medical procedures are one; sport is another). Surely, the ability to have sex with a person of your choice is more important than boxing, when it comes to weighting conflicting interests, right?
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:10:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:07:40 PM
Underage people are deemed incapable of giving consent to ANY sex. Why are you insisting on comparing this to a situation where a person is "deemed incapable of giving consent" to sex with one person but not incapable to do so with another person?
That's not quite true. Underage people are able to give consent in certain circumstances. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they are typically allowed to have sex with people of a similar age. It's only adults that young people are prohibited from having sex with.
That's not true everywhere, at least not in Poland, for example. Here, underage people having sex with each other are not prosecuted because you cannot prosecute minors - not because they are deemed capable of giving consent. But they can be subject to corrective measures.
Given that you hear stories about kids in the US being prosecuted for child pornography because they send nude pics to each other, I assume this is not true at least in some of the US states.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:07:40 PM
Underage people are deemed incapable of giving consent to ANY sex. Why are you insisting on comparing this to a situation where a person is "deemed incapable of giving consent" to sex with one person but not incapable to do so with another person?
As I said, there are no other cases in modern Western society where this is argued. The only other exception is coercion - where obviously there is no consent.
Uh, because both are situations in which people are legally deemed to be incapable of giving consent to sex (as opposed to actually incapable of giving consent)? Not sure what your difficulty with the analysis is here.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:07:40 PM
Underage people are deemed incapable of giving consent to ANY sex. Why are you insisting on comparing this to a situation where a person is "deemed incapable of giving consent" to sex with one person but not incapable to do so with another person?
As I said, there are no other cases in modern Western society where this is argued. The only other exception is coercion - where obviously there is no consent.
Uh, because both are situations in which people are legally deemed to be incapable of giving consent to sex (as opposed to actually incapable of giving consent)? Not sure what your difficulty with the analysis is here.
One more time - there is no other situation (other than your vaunted theory of incest) where someone is deemed incapable to give consent to sex with person A but is capable of giving consent to sex with person B. Does this not strike you as illogical?
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:24:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:07:40 PM
Underage people are deemed incapable of giving consent to ANY sex. Why are you insisting on comparing this to a situation where a person is "deemed incapable of giving consent" to sex with one person but not incapable to do so with another person?
As I said, there are no other cases in modern Western society where this is argued. The only other exception is coercion - where obviously there is no consent.
Uh, because both are situations in which people are legally deemed to be incapable of giving consent to sex (as opposed to actually incapable of giving consent)? Not sure what your difficulty with the analysis is here.
One more time - there is no other situation (other than your vaunted theory of incest) where someone is deemed incapable to give consent to sex with person A but is capable of giving consent to sex with person B. Does this not strike you as illogical?
For one, it isn't the only such case. Teachers in some jursisdictions face charges for having sex with students, even if over the otherwise-applicable age of consent.
http://www.wtae.com/news/new-brighton-area-teacher-accused-of-sex-with-students-moon-township/26859140
See also:
QuoteIn most jurisdictions where the age of consent is below 18 (such as England and Wales[30]), in cases where a person aged 18 or older is in a position of trust over a person under 18 the age of consent usually rises to 18, or higher. Examples of such positions of trust include relationships between teachers and students. For example, in England and Wales the age of consent is 16, but if the person is a student of the older person it becomes 18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
So incest is not as "singular" as you thought. In England, you could legally have sex with Person A who is 17, but not with Person B who is 17 and your student.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
What if the victim was 7 years old?
Uhm, we have always framed this as a discussion about sex between adults. Why are you moving the goal posts mid-discussion?
Because to my mind, the issue is the ability to give consent. Underage is one case where that ability is presumptively in question. Incest is another.
:yes:
And that is the importance of incest laws. It removes the absurd potential of a parent claiming their child consented.
No such case in Poland. I bet you could find weird laws somewhere in the world to support any thesis, though.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:04:48 PM
This in itself is pretty fucked up, if we subscribe to a view that adult people are generally capable of making decisions about their own lives.
Yes, we are indeed going in circles because that position depends on ignoring the history of the whole relationship which started with an adult raising a child. If you ingore that step then you allow a parent to groom a child to have sex once they reach the age of "consent".
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2014, 02:33:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
I meant the converse, convenient if BB got his wish. There are two possible defenses to the charge, that it didn't happen or that it was consensual. Assuming there's evidence that sexual relations did take place, the defense doesn't have much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it."
And it's similar for rapists as well. Assuming there is evidence that the sexual relation took place, the defense doesn't much hope if they don't claim the (alleged) victim "wanted it".
Quite the contrary. If the victim wanted to have sex, there is no rape.
What if the victim was 7 years old?
Uhm, we have always framed this as a discussion about sex between adults. Why are you moving the goal posts mid-discussion?
Because to my mind, the issue is the ability to give consent. Underage is one case where that ability is presumptively in question. Incest is another.
:yes:
And that is the importance of incest laws. It removes the absurd potential of a parent claiming their child consented.
Are you fine with allowing sibling incest though?
The idea that I couldn't give or withhold consent if I was propositioned by my mom or dad is both bizarre and vaguely insulting.
He's not. As he explained it, there was a case where a father groomed his daughter to become his wife and yadda yadda yadda, slidin' down the slope, it could happen to siblings too.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:36:38 PM
The idea that I couldn't give or withhold consent if I was propositioned by my mom or dad is both bizarre and vaguely insulting.
Sure but I am not sure how holding yourself up as an example helps.
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:36:38 PM
The idea that I couldn't give or withhold consent if I was propositioned by my mom or dad is both bizarre and vaguely insulting.
Of course it is.
But that is precisely the argument being made - that adults do not in fact have the ability to make their own decisions, and that there are in fact cases where Been and Malthus have a much better idea about what is the set of acceptable decisions you are allowed to make, and they will put you in jail if you make the wrong one in respect to who you decide to have sex with...
This is because they are concerned that you cannot make a good decision because of a possible power imbalance between you and your partner. Of course, it isn't *actually* about that at all, since there are literally an infinite number of other examples where someone with more power of some kind or another might coerce you into sex that they are perfectly ok with, but it makes for a good justification for the real reason - incest is gross.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 02:39:08 PM
He's not. As he explained it, there was a case where a father groomed his daughter to become his wife and yadda yadda yadda, slidin' down the slope, it could happen to siblings too.
A colleague was telling me about a file where dad "moved in" to his daughters room at one point. Mother was still in the house - apparently wilfully blind about the whole thing. I believe it started when the daughter was under 18, but continued once she was older. Daughter seemingly "consented" at the time, but has now come to view what happened to her as abuse.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:33:44 PM
No such case in Poland. I bet you could find weird laws somewhere in the world to support any thesis, though.
Different jurisdictions look at these issues differently - same as with age of consent, which varies a lot.
I have no trouble, conceptually, with family relationships being treated differently from other kinds of relationships when it comes to consent. Such "presumptions" are drawn for social reasons - to reduce perceived harms.
Same with fiddling with the age of consent for teacher-student relationships. This example is a good one because it clearly does not have a history of religious taboo, or even a high "ick" factor - it is purely based on perceived harms and concerns over abuse of authority.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 02:39:08 PM
He's not. As he explained it, there was a case where a father groomed his daughter to become his wife and yadda yadda yadda, slidin' down the slope, it could happen to siblings too.
I've already successfully dismisses that case as relevant to the general issue - the case cited is an extrem outlier, and the problem it actually illuminates is not really about sex, that is just a consequence of the problem. And the problem exists in many other aspects, and should be addressed (to the extent it can be addressed) in those contexts. And as someone who has more than a token concern for liberty, as opposed to a extreme concern that people don't have sex I don't approve of, I would very much be in favor of handling those cases in the general, rather than in the particular. But that goes well beyond just parents having sex as a result of brainwashing their kids, and gets into all the other things parents do to indoctrinate their children.
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...
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 02:39:08 PM
He's not. As he explained it, there was a case where a father groomed his daughter to become his wife and yadda yadda yadda, slidin' down the slope, it could happen to siblings too.
A colleague was telling me about a file where dad "moved in" to his daughters room at one point. Mother was still in the house - apparently wilfully blind about the whole thing. I believe it started when the daughter was under 18, but continued once she was older. Daughter seemingly "consented" at the time, but has now come to view what happened to her as abuse.
That can be handled without any need for incest laws.
If she was under 18, that is statutory rape. If over 18, and she did not give consent, it is just regular rape.
Hell, I would not even mind creating a very difficult to meet bar for consent in a case like that, where consent is presumed to be withheld absent some extremely explicit communication to the contrary.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 02:39:08 PM
He's not. As he explained it, there was a case where a father groomed his daughter to become his wife and yadda yadda yadda, slidin' down the slope, it could happen to siblings too.
Ok I am giving up then. No point arguing with people who have a completely incompatible outlook on life. I may just as well go and try to convince someone from ISIL that religious tolerance is a good thing.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:36:38 PM
The idea that I couldn't give or withhold consent if I was propositioned by my mom or dad is both bizarre and vaguely insulting.
Of course it is.
But that is precisely the argument being made - that adults do not in fact have the ability to make their own decisions, and that there are in fact cases where Been and Malthus have a much better idea about what is the set of acceptable decisions you are allowed to make, and they will put you in jail if you make the wrong one in respect to who you decide to have sex with...
This is because they are concerned that you cannot make a good decision because of a possible power imbalance between you and your partner. Of course, it isn't *actually* about that at all, since there are literally an infinite number of other examples where someone with more power of some kind or another might coerce you into sex that they are perfectly ok with, but it makes for a good justification for the real reason - incest is gross.
This is, of course, untrue. The exactly comparable example of teacher-student sex has been raised. Does anyone here think that is per se "gross"? :hmm:
Whether incest is "gross" or not has nothing to do with my analysis - though, for the record, I do find it "gross". It is not, however, what motivates the analysis. I gave that upthread.
Have you met my teachers?
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:47:44 PM
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."
:)
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:47:44 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 02:39:08 PM
He's not. As he explained it, there was a case where a father groomed his daughter to become his wife and yadda yadda yadda, slidin' down the slope, it could happen to siblings too.
I've already successfully dismisses that case as relevant to the general issue
:lol:Oh well then. I bow to your amazingness.
It seems there must be some fundamental flaw in education of Canadian lawyers. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 02:53:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 07, 2014, 02:36:38 PM
The idea that I couldn't give or withhold consent if I was propositioned by my mom or dad is both bizarre and vaguely insulting.
Of course it is.
But that is precisely the argument being made - that adults do not in fact have the ability to make their own decisions, and that there are in fact cases where Been and Malthus have a much better idea about what is the set of acceptable decisions you are allowed to make, and they will put you in jail if you make the wrong one in respect to who you decide to have sex with...
This is because they are concerned that you cannot make a good decision because of a possible power imbalance between you and your partner. Of course, it isn't *actually* about that at all, since there are literally an infinite number of other examples where someone with more power of some kind or another might coerce you into sex that they are perfectly ok with, but it makes for a good justification for the real reason - incest is gross.
This is, of course, untrue. The exactly comparable example of teacher-student sex has been raised. Does anyone here think that is per se "gross"? :hmm:
Whether incest is "gross" or not has nothing to do with my analysis - though, for the record, I do find it "gross". It is not, however, what motivates the analysis. I gave that upthread.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:59:09 PM
It seems there must be some fundamental flaw in education of Canadian lawyers. :hmm:
They settle for a Bachelor's Degree instead of a Doctorate. :(
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:59:09 PM
It seems there must be some fundamental flaw in education of Canadian lawyers. :hmm:
Is there an analogy coming? Please tell me you are about to make an analogy?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2014, 02:59:59 PM
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.
;)
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:47:44 PM
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. :hmm:
I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:47:44 PM
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. :hmm:
I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.
:ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a-simple-christian.com%2Fimages%2Fchristian-fish.jpg&hash=7f766d1baca22461c9f8062e1eeaf3f4791ad1a9)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2014, 03:02:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 02:59:09 PM
It seems there must be some fundamental flaw in education of Canadian lawyers. :hmm:
Is there an analogy coming? Please tell me you are about to make an analogy?
Canadian legal education is like shit? :unsure:
Is this an analogy or a simile? :hmm:
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
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...
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:05:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 03:25:00 PM
:ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a-simple-christian.com%2Fimages%2Fchristian-fish.jpg&hash=7f766d1baca22461c9f8062e1eeaf3f4791ad1a9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreudsbutcher.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2FGefilte-Fish-Car-Emblem-2220.jpg&hash=9d1f857ac1685f89baa22e9ba7018cefd9fe8c86)
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:27:42 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
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...
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:05:45 PM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 03:25:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:47:44 PM
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. :hmm:
I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.
:ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a-simple-christian.com%2Fimages%2Fchristian-fish.jpg&hash=7f766d1baca22461c9f8062e1eeaf3f4791ad1a9)
Well played :D
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 07:01:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2014, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2014, 02:35:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 03:31:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 03:14:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2014, 02:59:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 03:25:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2014, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 02:47:44 PM
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. :hmm:
I may have to subscribe to the Church of Timmy.
:ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.a-simple-christian.com%2Fimages%2Fchristian-fish.jpg&hash=7f766d1baca22461c9f8062e1eeaf3f4791ad1a9)
:lol:
Good one.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 03:31:00 PM
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? :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 03:31:00 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:27:42 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
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...
Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2014, 01:05:45 PM
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?
:huh: Cheap laugh.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 07:01:47 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2014, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2014, 02:35:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
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 ... :P
I wanted to post something similar as Malthus but I thought I'd be more agreeable/less of a dickhead. :blush:
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 04:22:30 PM
I wanted to post something similar as Malthus but I thought I'd be more agreeable/less of a dickhead. :blush:
As for me, I'll concede the crown of agreeableness to others, and concentrate on amusing myself ... ;)
Fwiw, society was in no way ready for statism in the 1920s.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 03:31:00 PM
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.
:huh: I thought your point well-made and quite clear. I guess mileage may vary.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 03:31:00 PM
People who make posts like the one you just did, Ide, have always baffled me. What's the motivation?
I assumed his motivation was to give some helpful advice.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 05:41:13 PM
:huh: I thought your point well-made and quite clear. I guess mileage may vary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2014, 05:44:57 PM
I assumed his motivation was to give some helpful advice.
I think you may have found why it was so baffling to Marty :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2014, 04:24:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2014, 04:22:30 PM
I wanted to post something similar as Malthus but I thought I'd be more agreeable/less of a dickhead. :blush:
As for me, I'll concede the crown of agreeableness to others, and concentrate on amusing myself ... ;)
That's pretty much my stance as well. People say stupid things, and it amuses me to point out how stupid their statements are. If people don't like it, I can live with that. This is the place for being like that. I can't mock my students like I can mock the adults who post here.
Ironically, I really don't post much at all on my other favorite site, Warships1. You think people here are nasty and petty? Those guys have an absolutely enormous amount of collective factual knowledge abut everything to do with warships (guns, armor, propulsion, design trade offs, tactic, strategy, and all from primary sources) and have been a community longer than Languish has, and yet the noise-to-signal ratio is 10:1 at least, because they bicker like old married couples. I learn a lot just reading, but I don't dare enter the fray, because the fray is almost never about facts. There are no idiots there, but that doesn't stop them from being The Internet Personified.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 05:53:51 PMThere are no idiots there, but that doesn't stop them from being The Internet Personified.
Are there idiots here? :cry:
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 05:53:51 PMThere are no idiots there, but that doesn't stop them from being The Internet Personified.
Are there idiots here? :cry:
I don't think there are - they wouldn't last long.
There are people who do not use their brain very often though, and there are plenty who only use it to effectively argue their position without ever engaging it to consider whether their position is actually warranted however. But you can be extremely intelligent and do that...
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 05:53:51 PMThere are no idiots there, but that doesn't stop them from being The Internet Personified.
Are there idiots here? :cry:
DG tells me I am and it hurts mah feelers :(
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 06:24:40 PM
There are people who do not use their brain very often though,
That's cause I wore it out when I was young.
Quote from: derspiess on October 07, 2014, 06:28:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 05:53:51 PMThere are no idiots there, but that doesn't stop them from being The Internet Personified.
Are there idiots here? :cry:
DG tells me I am and it hurts mah feelers :(
Agreed. :yes:
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 06:16:27 PM
Are there idiots here? :cry:
I don't think there are - they wouldn't last long.
There are people who do not use their brain very often though, and there are plenty who only use it to effectively argue their position without ever engaging it to consider whether their position is actually warranted however. But you can be extremely intelligent and do that...
That's the point. The guys on warship1 are really smart - they can argue details about armor and shells and how many hits the
USS Massachusetts scored in the Battle of Casablanca citing the ship's deck logs and still end up with the last three pages of any thread just being messages calling each other idiots. It really makes me appreciate this forum more. We may have our idiots but they are
our idiots. I even may be one of them. But the idiot-bashing here isn't anywhere near the norm it is elsewhere on this internet-thingy.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 08:49:40 PM
That's the point. The guys on warship1 are really smart - they can argue details about armor and shells and how many hits the USS Massachusetts scored in the Battle of Casablanca citing the ship's deck logs and still end up with the last three pages of any thread just being messages calling each other idiots. It really makes me appreciate this forum more. We may have our idiots but they are our idiots. I even may be one of them. But the idiot-bashing here isn't anywhere near the norm it is elsewhere on this internet-thingy.
You say you appreciate this forum for it's well below average idiot bashing, yet say this:
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2014, 05:53:51 PM
That's pretty much my stance as well. People say stupid things, and it amuses me to point out how stupid their statements are. If people don't like it, I can live with that. This is the place for being like that. I can't mock my students like I can mock the adults who post here.
Ironically, I really don't post much at all on my other favorite site, Warships1. You think people here are nasty and petty? Those guys have an absolutely enormous amount of collective factual knowledge abut everything to do with warships (guns, armor, propulsion, design trade offs, tactic, strategy, and all from primary sources) and have been a community longer than Languish has, and yet the noise-to-signal ratio is 10:1 at least, because they bicker like old married couples. I learn a lot just reading, but I don't dare enter the fray, because the fray is almost never about facts. There are no idiots there, but that doesn't stop them from being The Internet Personified.
So you're actively trying to bring it up towards the norm by some of your posting behaviour here. :hmm:
Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Our idiots indeed.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2014, 06:55:07 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2014, 09:35:15 PM
Our idiots indeed.
But are we useful ones?
I sure as hell ain't. I don't even know what you guys are going on about. All I know is people are pissed at Berkut.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:27:42 PM
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.
Indeed, during the night it dawned on me that I had in fact and for all practical purposes, given away my cousin's ID, which is one reason why I stayed away from the thread, hoping you all started to argue with Berkut.
Thank you for your attention, Ide. I have since changed my post. Can all those that quoted me delete the jobs bit, please? :cry:
For all purposes, I'd like to point out that, in that particular case, there was no forced sex (she was the older one, and is very much a go-getter).
I won't go into more details, as this was already a big mistake on my part. Sorry :Embarrass:
Okay, my post has details edited out. I think only BB needs to do his.
See? I am nice, and can function within society's all-too undefined bounds.
You're a peach. :hug:
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 08, 2014, 08:00:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:27:42 PM
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.
Indeed, during the night it dawned on me that I had in fact and for all practical purposes, given away my cousin's ID, which is one reason why I stayed away from the thread, hoping you all started to argue with Berkut.
Thank you for your attention, Ide. I have since changed my post. Can all those that quoted me delete the jobs bit, please? :cry:
For all purposes, I'd like to point out that, in that particular case, there was no forced sex (she was the older one, and is very much a go-getter).
I won't go into more details, as this was already a big mistake on my part. Sorry :Embarrass:
I see Jacob already edited my post. Thanks J.
And I just wanted to suggest that unless you were also in that one bedroom you really can't say what happened.
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2014, 08:23:47 AM
Okay, my post has details edited out. I think only BB needs to do his.
There were a few people who quoted your and BB's posts as well. I've done a pass on those as well. If I missed any, let me know.
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
I see Jacob already edited my post. Thanks J.
No problem.
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 08, 2014, 08:00:14 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2014, 03:27:42 PM
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.
Indeed, during the night it dawned on me that I had in fact and for all practical purposes, given away my cousin's ID, which is one reason why I stayed away from the thread, hoping you all started to argue with Berkut.
Thank you for your attention, Ide. I have since changed my post. Can all those that quoted me delete the jobs bit, please? :cry:
For all purposes, I'd like to point out that, in that particular case, there was no forced sex (she was the older one, and is very much a go-getter).
I won't go into more details, as this was already a big mistake on my part. Sorry :Embarrass:
I see Jacob already edited my post. Thanks J.
And I just wanted to suggest that unless you were also in that one bedroom you really can't say what happened.
And if you were, for god sakes don't tell us. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2014, 01:06:24 PM
And if you were, for god sakes don't tell us. ;)
Would you believe him if he said he was? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
I see Jacob already edited my post. Thanks J.
And I just wanted to suggest that unless you were also in that one bedroom you really can't say what happened.
Thank you, Malthus, BB :)
RE-EDIT: Better forget I posted more. Forget about it and carry on. This was decades ago and is better left in the past.
(DG, sorry for asking, but can you just edit this all out?)
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 08, 2014, 01:49:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
I see Jacob already edited my post. Thanks J.
And I just wanted to suggest that unless you were also in that one bedroom you really can't say what happened.
Thank you, Malthus, BB :)
I found out about it when, at that time we all (__, my two younger cousins in question and our respective parents) went into a travel around the country side (the things we did back then for relaxation...).
We were in a van, with our parents in the two front rows of seats, and us in the last row. She was between __ and her brother.
I found out this would not be a normal trip when, after caressing __ leg for a bit, she put her hands inside both __ trousers and her brother's, and proceeded to give us both handjobs. I'd never know how our parents never realized. Can't believe they did not look in the rear mirror. I know _ did my best to hold my voice to a normal tone.
Later she was very adamant we made a stop 'to sleep' in the afternoon (remnants of the siesta times), and in that interval they... invited __ for a bit of fun, so to say. It was also at the time that they told __ what they had been doing for some years.
It was just that one time for __, and in retrospect _ should had been more careful.
:hmm:
EDIT: Redacted per Martim's request.
I just love soap operas.
Clearly they should all be sent to jail.
Quote from: Jacob on October 08, 2014, 11:55:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 08, 2014, 08:23:47 AM
Okay, my post has details edited out. I think only BB needs to do his.
There were a few people who quoted your and BB's posts as well. I've done a pass on those as well. If I missed any, let me know.
Oh, and now I read this. Thanks a lot, Jacob :hug: , and sorry for not having thanked you before :)
Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2014, 02:18:51 PM
Clearly they should all be sent to jail.
OMG U STATIST
:hmm: