QuoteA Mother-Son Couple Is Fighting the Law to Teach the World About Genetic Sexual Attraction
Monica Mares gave up her son Caleb Peterson when she was 16 years old. The two reconnected on Facebook when he was 19, and met in person around last Christmas. Soon he was living with her. Not long after that, they say, they became lovers.
Genetic Sexual Attraction is a term that has become more commonly used than incest in those cases where two people who are related, but don't grow up together, meet and fall in love (or lust). In an interview with The Daily Mail, Mares says that if she'd raised her son, they "probably" would never have had a sexual relationship, but she now considers him the love of her life.
Mares has two other children, nine and 12, who apparently don't have a problem with her relationship with Peterson. The law in their home state of New Mexico does, however. The family got into a fight with their neighbors in February, and when police were called, they somehow discovered that mother and son were dating. Both were charged with the fourth degree felony of incest, and arraigned jointly in April. They were held in custody for breaching their no-contact order, but are currently out on $5,000 bail.
Mares is not allowed to see Peterson or any of her other children. She doesn't seem to care.
'It is every bit worth it,' she said. 'If they lock me up for love then they lock me up. There is no way anybody could pull us apart, and I really do love him.
'It hurts he is far away. It hurts really bad. I wish I could see him, talk to him, but I can't risk it.'
Peterson says he didn't see Mares as his mother when he met her, but some of the details from his adoptive life make it sound like he didn't experience much care or tenderness. His adoptive father is no longer speaking to him.
'I never had anyone cook me meals or give me anything,' he said. 'I never got anything my entire life and she went out of her way to make me happy and after about a week or so I started having feelings for her and I guess I fell in love.
'It went beyond a mother-son relationship I never really viewed her as my mom. In certain aspects I do but mostly I don't.
'I never thought I was crazy for having these feelings because I didn't see her as my mom, it was more like going to a club and meeting a random person. It didn't feel wrong, it felt normal.'
The two are being very open with their relationship, claiming that they want more people to know about GSA. But it also sounds like they let the cat out of the bag before realizing they might face any repercussions for having sex with each other. Peterson says, "Honestly I never thought we would get into trouble for our relationship. We were both consenting adults - when it comes down to it... She's adult I'm adult I can make my own decisions. I never thought it would blow up into something like this."
Mares says she's received death threats from people around her town, and warnings that if she goes to prison there are people waiting to take her out there. Regardless of how he perceives the situation, many see Peterson as a victim, since his youth and position as her son creates an obvious imbalance of power. Yet, they seem determined to wait it out, and get back together if one or both faces jail time.
This is a difficult proposition. With the exception of some states allowing marriage between cousins, incest if definitely very illegal. The couple hopes to attract a high-profile attorney who will take their case to the supreme court. Peterson says, "You can't tell me who to love, who not to love."
http://jezebel.com/a-mother-son-couple-is-fighting-the-law-to-teach-the-wo-1785028054
Try as I might, unless you think eugenics is a great idea, I can't think of a single good reason why law should intervene in this case.
This is a very rare case where I don't think it is in the public interest. But generally people don't meet their parents for the first time when they are adults and end up having sex with them. I think the prosecutor should have used some better judgement here.
Well, I always said that I don't see any reason to intrinsically ban incest, so there you have it.
I like to live by the rule that as long as all parties to a sex act are fully aware (and capable of being fully aware) of all implications and responsibilities thereof, and agree thereto, no community, prince, god or any other authority has any right to prevent them from going at it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
I like to live by the rule that as long as all parties to a sex act are fully aware (and capable of being fully aware) of all implications and responsibilities thereof, and agree thereto, no community, prince, god or any other authority has any right to prevent them from going at it.
A very complicated rule with many gray areas :hmm:
Which is rather the rub isn't it?
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 01:13:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
I like to live by the rule that as long as all parties to a sex act are fully aware (and capable of being fully aware) of all implications and responsibilities thereof, and agree thereto, no community, prince, god or any other authority has any right to prevent them from going at it.
A very complicated rule with many gray areas :hmm:
Which is rather the rub isn't it?
It's not really that complicated - at least not compared to yours. I mean please state your rule of when sex should be permitted.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:15:17 PM
It's not really that complicated - at least not compared to yours. I mean please state your rule of when sex should be permitted.
I did. I don't think parents should be grooming their children to have sex with them when they are adults.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:15:17 PM
It's not really that complicated - at least not compared to yours. I mean please state your rule of when sex should be permitted.
I did. I don't think parents should be grooming their children to have sex with them when they are adults.
Ok but that's only a part of it, surely. So my question is what is your full principle of allowing sex between two or more people. My rule encompasses all cases in the world - you called it complicated. So I would like to see a similar universal rule from you. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:18:01 PM
Ok but that's only a part of it, surely. So my question is what is your full principle of allowing sex between two or more people. My rule encompasses all cases in the world - you called it complicated. So I would like to see a similar universal rule from you. ;)
My entire point is how complicated these things are and how hard it is to make universal rules for this sort of thing. So I don't think I would be much more successful :lol:
Generally two consenting adults should be able to get it on in most circumstances.
The law should ban everything that is icky.
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
The law should ban everything that is icky.
That's a good one - and a contender for a less complicated rule than mine. ;)
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
The law should ban everything that is icky.
Ok wow that was good.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:20:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
The law should ban everything that is icky.
That's a good one - and a contender for a less complicated rule than mine. ;)
I didn't mean it as an insult Marty :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:20:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
The law should ban everything that is icky.
That's a good one - and a contender for a less complicated rule than mine. ;)
Then what would the two of you do for fun? :huh:
From the Bible to the popular song
There's one theme that we find right along
Of all ideals they hail as good
The most sublime is motherhood
There was a man though, who it seems
Once carried this ideal to extremes
He loved his mother and she loved him
And yet his story is rather grim
There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex
You may have heard about his odd complex
His name appears in Freud's Index 'cause he
Loved his mother!
His rivals used to say quite a bit that
As a monarch he was most unfit,
But still and all they had to admit that he
Loved his Mother!
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
This is a very rare case where I don't think it is in the public interest. But generally people don't meet their parents for the first time when they are adults and end up having sex with them. I think the prosecutor should have used some better judgement here.
I don't see how this isn't in the public interest- the "public interest" issue is as much the increased risk of congenital defects weighing on the public health system as it is the authority imbalance issue. Though I'd agree this sounds like a minimal issue in this specific case due to the mother being near/past the age where she's no longer likely to bear children- all things considered, given that the prosecutor felt it necessary to pursue the charges, I wonder what's not being reported- little charges like this seem to often dovetail with characters who, for whatever reason, refuse to play nice with the system.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 12, 2016, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
This is a very rare case where I don't think it is in the public interest. But generally people don't meet their parents for the first time when they are adults and end up having sex with them. I think the prosecutor should have used some better judgement here.
I don't see how this isn't in the public interest- the "public interest" issue is as much the increased risk of congenital defects weighing on the public health system as it is the authority imbalance issue. Though I'd agree this sounds like a minimal issue in this specific case due to the mother being near/past the age where she's no longer likely to bear children- all things considered, given that the prosecutor felt it necessary to pursue the charges, I wonder what's not being reported- little charges like this seem to often dovetail with characters who, for whatever reason, refuse to play nice with the system.
Ok, Dr Mengele.
Health risk to children of incest? Anywhere near the health risks to children of making them morbidly obese?
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
Health risk to children of incest? Anywhere near the health risks to children of making them morbidly obese?
I think forcing a child to become morbidly obese is considered abusive :hmm:
Probably harder to prove though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
Health risk to children of incest? Anywhere near the health risks to children of making them morbidly obese?
I think forcing a child to become morbidly obese is considered abusive :hmm:
Probably harder to prove though.
Forcing a child? Does any country place that kind of burden on small children?
Let's sterilize people with genetic diseases!
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 03:25:06 PM
Forcing a child? Does any country place that kind of burden on small children?
I don't follow.
QuoteLet's sterilize people with genetic diseases!
Let's not!
Isn't there a Queen song about this situation? :bowler:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 12, 2016, 03:25:06 PM
Forcing a child? Does any country place that kind of burden on small children?
I don't follow.
Small children are not commonly expected to make decisions on their diet or level of physical activity. A parent often doesn't have to force a kid to eat sugar and fat, just make sugar and fat available in unhealthy amounts. Small children are also not commonly expected to actively avoid a sedentary lifestyle, a parent encouraging or expecting a sedentary lifestyle can often be enough to heavily influence the child's behavior without force being necessary.
Eh, I'm okay with the state prohibiting things that are so against the broad social morality.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 12, 2016, 04:37:39 PM
Eh, I'm okay with the state prohibiting things that are so against the broad social morality.
like homosexuality? :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 12, 2016, 04:37:39 PM
Eh, I'm okay with the state prohibiting things that are so against the broad social morality.
like homosexuality? :)
Not anymore.
Mother-Daughter Incest is hotter.
Quote from: sbr on August 12, 2016, 06:16:42 PM
Mother-Daughter Incest is hotter.
Well neither person is attractive in this case but don't know that principles should be decided on hotness.
Incest, outside of notions of royal blood (leading to the problems of the Ptolemaic system or the Hawaiian pure blood issues), seems to be an almost universal taboo. The notion of taboo means that a society deems the act as forbidden, often associating it with all sorts of religious, karmic, or physical problems. Still we know from animal husbandry (sorry, Brain, the OTHER kind) that selective breeding of even close stock will enhance certain desirable genetic attributes. Also, in small scale communities the rate of inbreeding has often been quite close to incest or at least over the "frequent" line of determining incest.
Still, why is it such a universal taboo? Total speculation here, but it would seem the small scale social aspects of child rearing needs to be independent from direct sexual activities - the two have totally different spheres of emotional and physical interaction. Successful child rearing has been, for as long as humans have lived in groups, to be among the most basic concerns. At times the raising of children can take precedent over the caloric needs of adults in a "feed the next generation" sort of scenario (while the reverse can also happen...) It would seem to be that the taboo therefore helps to ensure the success of the society, rather than the needs/wants of the individual.
To casually throw out such a universal taboo would be to forgo any sort of rational look at the entire range of human society, and the importance of placing such in a historical context as well. Culture does indeed change over time, but some elements seem to be at the present very much key to the replication of that society.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2016, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 12, 2016, 04:37:39 PM
Eh, I'm okay with the state prohibiting things that are so against the broad social morality.
like homosexuality? :)
Not anymore.
depends where. Do you think it is socially acceptable in the Deep US South? In Saudi Arabia? In Nigeria? In Russia?
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 09:28:51 PM
Do you think it is socially acceptable in the Deep US South?
Hell it was practically mandatory in the Deep US South back in the old days :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2016, 09:57:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 09:28:51 PM
Do you think it is socially acceptable in the Deep US South?
Hell it was practically mandatory in the Deep US South back in the old days :P
right. What happens behind the closed doors of an airport bathroom is not what I was referring to! :P
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2016, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 12, 2016, 04:37:39 PM
Eh, I'm okay with the state prohibiting things that are so against the broad social morality.
like homosexuality? :)
Not anymore.
depends where. Do you think it is socially acceptable in the Deep US South? In Saudi Arabia? In Nigeria? In Russia?
So by broad social morality (which presumably we were talking about the west), you think of one are of the US and some backward countries?
Viper is right though. Otto's and to a lesser extent PDH's position is intellectually lazy and irrational.
If you believe in individual rights, then liberty, especially in the area as important to self-actualisation and emotional well-being, as sexual expression, should be the default position, and you need a damn good reason to restrict it, especially when employing the state's violence apparatus to enforce such restriction.
The position that "it's icky" or "it has been always considered icky" is an obscurantist one. And as viper rightly points out, the case of homosexuality in the West should disable this line of reasoning entirely.
The masses are lazy and irrational.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2016, 04:44:58 AM
Viper is right though. Otto's and to a lesser extent PDH's position is intellectually lazy and irrational.
If you believe in individual rights, then liberty, especially in the area as important to self-actualisation and emotional well-being, as sexual expression, should be the default position, and you need a damn good reason to restrict it, especially when employing the state's violence apparatus to enforce such restriction.
Lazy and irrational isn't always bad, often active and rational political positions have tended to be worse. We crooked timber and our societies are crooked too generally that's better than people trying to straighten them out.
As ever reason is hugely over-rated in human affairs and needs to be pulled from its pedestal. We're not rational creatures which is part of the reason we need society limiting individual rights and systems with checks and balances etc is to protect ourselves from our own irrationality - or worse the delusional few who think they're rational.
I'm always a little uncomfortable with the language of individual rights. I think it dangerously depoliticises the struggles to win those rights.
We need systems to protect ourselves from our irrationality, which is why we should fear and devalue reason.
Got it.
Don't fear it, but fear those who proclaim themselves rational very loudly and people who put reason on a pedestal. It doesn't need to be devalued just put back where it belongs as one of a large number of factors in making decisions.
How do individual rights fit within a group social system? As far as I can figure it, we as humans, despite our focus on individualism that has arisen, still live within a mass organic system made up of billions of people.
There must be rules, and the basic ones start off as rules for smaller scale societies, back by taboo, social pressure, and the threat of punishment. If there is a valid social reason to have the taboo, not just irrational fighting against individualism, then that has to be looked at. The fact that the incest taboo does indeed exist almost universally seems to indicate there is a cross-cultural social reason for it. I suggested on idea, which may well be hogwash, but it is not the "why" in this case that makes incest important, it is the fact that it is such a near universal that does. As soon as we are discussing cross-cultural rationality, all sorts of weird issues can jump up - the fact that this does seem to be there makes incest taboos nearly fundamental to the human existence.
The fact that people so flippantly think that culture is something that is just changes on a dime are the ones who do not seem to grasp that all the other millions within the culture are also people who are giving input into that culture.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2016, 08:54:52 AM
Don't fear it, but fear those who proclaim themselves rational very loudly and people who put reason on a pedestal. It doesn't need to be devalued just put back where it belongs as one of a large number of factors in making decisions.
Of course, it doesn't need to be "devalued" just seen as only equal in value to other equally valuable irrational factors like bigotry, intolerance, racism, group thinking, tribalism, superstition, fear, and hatred.
"Reason" should in fact be on a pedestal compared to all the idiotic irrational bullshit that humans have typically used in its place to make decisions. I know this because I consulted the oracle at Delphi and they told me so.
note: I love the way you demand that those who disagree with you do so quietly, because you know, stating what you believe "loudly" is of course evidence for...something.
You, of course, are free to proclaim your disgust with reason as loudly as you like, I am sure.
Quote from: PDH on August 13, 2016, 09:38:44 AM
How do individual rights fit within a group social system? As far as I can figure it, we as humans, despite our focus on individualism that has arisen, still live within a mass organic system made up of billions of people.
There must be rules, and the basic ones start off as rules for smaller scale societies, back by taboo, social pressure, and the threat of punishment. If there is a valid social reason to have the taboo, not just irrational fighting against individualism, then that has to be looked at. The fact that the incest taboo does indeed exist almost universally seems to indicate there is a cross-cultural social reason for it. I suggested on idea, which may well be hogwash, but it is not the "why" in this case that makes incest important, it is the fact that it is such a near universal that does. As soon as we are discussing cross-cultural rationality, all sorts of weird issues can jump up - the fact that this does seem to be there makes incest taboos nearly fundamental to the human existence.
The fact that people so flippantly think that culture is something that is just changes on a dime are the ones who do not seem to grasp that all the other millions within the culture are also people who are giving input into that culture.
I don't disagree in broad strokes, but will note that there are lots of consistent taboos or rules that exist across cultures that we rightly and reasonably (albeit quietly so as not to offend those who want to ignore reason) have decided are irrational and unreasonable, and have let fall away. Slavery, personal violence, religious extremism, indeed the basic idea of personal liberty itself is relatively new, and most cultures have a history of denial of individual liberty.
So the idea that the myriad of taboos around sexual conduct slowly falling away is itself a cultural phenomenon itself. Whether this particular one will (or ought to) fall away as well is a different question I suppose.
I used to be a bit more "libertarian" on this view, but I actually think Malthus did a pretty good job of convincing me that there are some good reasons to maintain this restriction despite individual cases where it seems pretty meaningless.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2016, 10:22:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2016, 08:54:52 AM
Don't fear it, but fear those who proclaim themselves rational very loudly and people who put reason on a pedestal. It doesn't need to be devalued just put back where it belongs as one of a large number of factors in making decisions.
Of course, it doesn't need to be "devalued" just seen as only equal in value to other equally valuable irrational factors like bigotry, intolerance, racism, group thinking, tribalism, superstition, fear, and hatred.
"Reason" should in fact be on a pedestal compared to all the idiotic irrational bullshit that humans have typically used in its place to make decisions. I know this because I consulted the oracle at Delphi and they told me so.
note: I love the way you demand that those who disagree with you do so quietly, because you know, stating what you believe "loudly" is of course evidence for...something.
You, of course, are free to proclaim your disgust with reason as loudly as you like, I am sure.
Or other irrational ideas such as mercy, compassion, justice and equality.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2016, 08:54:52 AM
Don't fear it, but fear those who proclaim themselves rational very loudly and people who put reason on a pedestal. It doesn't need to be devalued just put back where it belongs as one of a large number of factors in making decisions.
I love people who try to use rationality to discredit rationality! :lol:
the fact of the matter is that rationality is the only means by which humans can accurately relate to one another; emotions don't translate accurately. If a person cannot explain the reasons why he or she thinks another person should agree about a policy or behavior, then the only hope that person has to get agreement is coercion. Coercion-based societies are unstable and therefor undesirable.
Quote from: grumbler on August 13, 2016, 10:50:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2016, 08:54:52 AM
Don't fear it, but fear those who proclaim themselves rational very loudly and people who put reason on a pedestal. It doesn't need to be devalued just put back where it belongs as one of a large number of factors in making decisions.
I love people who try to use rationality to discredit rationality! :lol:
the fact of the matter is that rationality is the only means by which humans can accurately relate to one another; emotions don't translate accurately. If a person cannot explain the reasons why he or she thinks another person should agree about a policy or behavior, then the only hope that person has to get agreement is coercion. Coercion-based societies are unstable and therefor undesirable.
And iff you play anty of Europa Universalist game series, you come to value stability quite highly.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
Well, I always said that I don't see any reason to intrinsically ban incest, so there you have it.
I like to live by the rule that as long as all parties to a sex act are fully aware (and capable of being fully aware) of all implications and responsibilities thereof, and agree thereto, no community, prince, god or any other authority has any right to prevent them from going at it.
Yay, kiddiefucking for all!
Quote from: grumbler on August 13, 2016, 10:50:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 13, 2016, 08:54:52 AM
Don't fear it, but fear those who proclaim themselves rational very loudly and people who put reason on a pedestal. It doesn't need to be devalued just put back where it belongs as one of a large number of factors in making decisions.
I love people who try to use rationality to discredit rationality! :lol:
the fact of the matter is that rationality is the only means by which humans can accurately relate to one another; emotions don't translate accurately. If a person cannot explain the reasons why he or she thinks another person should agree about a policy or behavior, then the only hope that person has to get agreement is coercion. Coercion-based societies are unstable and therefor undesirable.
I love people who declare themselves rational. No, wait, it's the other thing. I find them tiresome blowhards. Also, all societies are coercion-based. If you violate the law state kidnaps you and puts in you in a tiny room and doesn't let you leave.
Law should be based on the "everybody knows" principle.
Quote from: The Brain on August 13, 2016, 03:15:56 PM
Law should be based on the "everybody knows" principle.
I approve of this proposed Leonard Cohen derived ethos.
Quote from: The Brain on August 13, 2016, 03:15:56 PM
Law should be based on the "everybody knows" principle.
:rolleyes: Everybody knows
that!
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2016, 10:22:37 AMnote: I love the way you demand that those who disagree with you do so quietly, because you know, stating what you believe "loudly" is of course evidence for...something.
You, of course, are free to proclaim your disgust with reason as loudly as you like, I am sure.
They can do what they want.
Nine times out of ten appeals to reason in politics are appeals to common sense with a college education. The other time is when they're really dangerous because what's happening is their political agenda is being cast as 'reasonable' or 'rational'. It is based on 'reason' which is something as cold, indisputable and central to our culture. So opposition to that is unreasoned, it is irrational. It's the language of a secular orthodoxy and heresy. At the best the people who disagree should just have to shut up - at the worst they are crooked timber that is planed straight.
And of course almost no-one is actually as rational as people say they are. We reason our views after we've formed them instinctively based on a whole other set of priorities.
QuoteI love people who try to use rationality to discredit rationality! :lol:
the fact of the matter is that rationality is the only means by which humans can accurately relate to one another; emotions don't translate accurately. If a person cannot explain the reasons why he or she thinks another person should agree about a policy or behavior, then the only hope that person has to get agreement is coercion. Coercion-based societies are unstable and therefor undesirable.
I think language is the way we do that. It isn't just reason v emotion there's all sorts of other unreasoned bits of human behaviour that we have to explain and mediate with each other: values, belief systems, experiences. It's that process - in which reason should be involved - that makes our society.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 14, 2016, 09:08:12 AM
Nine times out of ten appeals to reason in politics are appeals to common sense with a college education. The other time is when they're really dangerous because what's happening is their political agenda is being cast as 'reasonable' or 'rational'. It is based on 'reason' which is something as cold, indisputable and central to our culture. So opposition to that is unreasoned, it is irrational. It's the language of a secular orthodoxy and heresy. At the best the people who disagree should just have to shut up - at the worst they are crooked timber that is planed straight.
:huh: This is the best case of strawman argumentation I have seen on here in a long time. Unfortunately for you, all you end up doing is arguing that rationality is bad when it is irrational. Duh!
QuoteAnd of course almost no-one is actually as rational as people say they are. We reason our views after we've formed them instinctively based on a whole other set of priorities.
More strawman argumentation. You have no idea how "actually" rational anyone is, nor how they formed their views. I accept your assertion that you form your view "instinctively" and then come up with reasons for them; this is called "rationalization." I don't accept your assertion that almost everyone rationalizes like you do.
QuoteI think language is the way we do that. It isn't just reason v emotion there's all sorts of other unreasoned bits of human behaviour that we have to explain and mediate with each other: values, belief systems, experiences. It's that process - in which reason should be involved - that makes our society.
There certainly are unreasoned bits of human behavior. It is those bits which cannot be communicated because they
are unreasoned; we cannot even explain them to ourselves. I believe, though, that public policy should always be based on things we can explain - and if we can explain them, they are rational. Irrational decision-making, though attractive to romantics, makes for horrendous public policy. Just ask the people living in territories controlled by ISIS.
Ask those who lived in the Soviet Union how a "rational society" functions.
Or in Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."
Or on Languish.
Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2016, 03:04:16 PM
Or on Languish.
I try to be as unreasonable as possible.
That's reasonable.
Quote from: Camerus on August 14, 2016, 03:03:31 PM
Or in Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."
Or in Dilbert's office.
Quote from: grumbler on August 14, 2016, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 14, 2016, 03:03:31 PM
Or in Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."
Or in Dilbert's office.
Or in a Cathy comic strip.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/60/43/0d/60430dd021c1e2eaaab6ac330a5014fc.jpg)
A Bugs Bunny cartoon?
(https://i2.wp.com/sp5.fotolog.com/photo/37/62/82/chupineamee/1190154340_f.jpg)
The height of rationality
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.boston.com%2Fbonzai-fba%2FGlobe_Photo%2F2011%2F03%2F18%2Fzippy__1300452897_8983.jpg&hash=b5a8e2c1515f5bf9d9ade7fa5a3238e7c2bd5f3d)
Quote from: grumbler on August 14, 2016, 03:58:06 PM
A Bugs Bunny cartoon?
If the goal is rationality from Looney Tunes...Foghorn Leghorn is the obviously the only option. :sleep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCsiWL6gn0
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2016, 04:17:35 PM
The height of rationality
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.boston.com%2Fbonzai-fba%2FGlobe_Photo%2F2011%2F03%2F18%2Fzippy__1300452897_8983.jpg&hash=b5a8e2c1515f5bf9d9ade7fa5a3238e7c2bd5f3d)
I had forgotten about Zippy!
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 14, 2016, 04:40:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 14, 2016, 03:58:06 PM
A Bugs Bunny cartoon?
If the goal is rationality from Looney Tunes...Foghorn Leghorn is the obviously the only option. :sleep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCsiWL6gn0
We are listing irrational things.
Quote from: grumbler on August 14, 2016, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 14, 2016, 04:40:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 14, 2016, 03:58:06 PM
A Bugs Bunny cartoon?
If the goal is rationality from Looney Tunes...Foghorn Leghorn is the obviously the only option. :sleep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LCsiWL6gn0
We are listing irrational things.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cHzlvKjRKbs%2FUG_r7rVnvhI%2FAAAAAAAABRQ%2F-hOFBYzyE6o%2Fs1600%2FPouting%2BGirl.jpg&hash=735edfa65f0f0be4c611700234de82b25c9c3a92)
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2016, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 14, 2016, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 14, 2016, 03:03:31 PM
Or in Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."
Or in Dilbert's office.
Or in a Cathy comic strip.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/60/43/0d/60430dd021c1e2eaaab6ac330a5014fc.jpg)
Yuck. Cathy is the worst. :yuk:
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2016, 05:31:25 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cHzlvKjRKbs%2FUG_r7rVnvhI%2FAAAAAAAABRQ%2F-hOFBYzyE6o%2Fs1600%2FPouting%2BGirl.jpg&hash=735edfa65f0f0be4c611700234de82b25c9c3a92)
Your hat is certainly irrational there, garbo! :lol:
I mean, I just look at it more as, government is a society's rule keeper. Those rules more or less need to reflect society's broad moral opinions for them to be respected. If they aren't, they become irrelevant and meaningless.
For example Turkey for years had laws against women wearing headscarves in public, which was widely out of step with the opinions and morality of its people, and it contributed to societal problems. If we had decriminalized homosexuality in the year 1840 I don't think much would've changed for gays. If anything, gays who potentially felt safe in public would probably start getting lynched in record numbers and then they'd go underground again.
I'm glad homosexuality is decriminalized and more broadly accepted now. There is a minority that rejects it--but they're a minority, and a shrinking one. Expecting society's laws to adhere to universal maxims (on which there is no broad agreement) just isn't realistic.
We have a lot of animal cruelty laws that would be laughable in less industrialized countries, and frankly, alien.
This is also why I opposed large scale Muslim immigration in the West. Muslims largely cannot accept women as equals to men, or gays, or any number of other things. If a society becomes Muslim, then it will ultimately become regressive in those matters--because society's laws cannot survive if they are broadly opposed by the society.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 15, 2016, 02:17:19 PM
This is also why I opposed large scale Muslim immigration in the West. Muslims largely cannot accept women as equals to men, or gays, or any number of other things. If a society becomes Muslim, then it will ultimately become regressive in those matters--because society's laws cannot survive if they are broadly opposed by the society.
Racist.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 15, 2016, 02:17:19 PM
This is also why I opposed large scale Muslim immigration in the West. Muslims largely cannot accept women as equals to men, or gays, or any number of other things. If a society becomes Muslim, then it will ultimately become regressive in those matters--because society's laws cannot survive if they are broadly opposed by the society.
I largely agree with you that broadly shared values, not rationality, is the basis for a stable society. However, I disagree with you about Muslim immigrants, at least as far as the US is concerned. We're the Borg, not them--they will be assimilated.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2016, 04:05:57 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 15, 2016, 02:17:19 PM
This is also why I opposed large scale Muslim immigration in the West. Muslims largely cannot accept women as equals to men, or gays, or any number of other things. If a society becomes Muslim, then it will ultimately become regressive in those matters--because society's laws cannot survive if they are broadly opposed by the society.
I largely agree with you that broadly shared values, not rationality, is the basis for a stable society. However, I disagree with you about Muslim immigrants, at least as far as the US is concerned. We're the Borg, not them--they will be assimilated.
The same, broadly, is happening in the UK. The evidence - like intermarriage, educational attainment etc - are all pointing in the right direction and suggest that the Muslim community is integrating in the same sort of way as the Indian community and before them thee Ashkenazi Jews it's just taken/is taking longer.
I'll remember that when ISIS in Britain broadcasts a video of your beheading in Trafalgar Square.
Didn't say there wouldn't be home-grown terrorism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 15, 2016, 04:13:51 PM
The same, broadly, is happening in the UK. The evidence - like intermarriage, educational attainment etc - are all pointing in the right direction and suggest that the Muslim community is integrating in the same sort of way as the Indian community and before them thee Ashkenazi Jews it's just taken/is taking longer.
I think it's taking longer because communication with "the old country" is so much easier these days, especially for the partially disaffected second generation who aren't clear on what their identity really is.
That's definitely a factor and especially for that bridging generation. I mean Bangladeshi politics is an important factor in East London politics in the Bengali areas.
I think there's cultural and economic factors too. As I say it looks like the Muslim community is following the Indian/Jewish model of integration which was integration into the middle class. So Irish immigrants and Caribbean Black Brits moved and integrated and started inter-marrying into their local, working class, community. The Jewish and Indian communities didn't, generally the kids that went to university integrated and inter-married straight into the middle class.
Signs are that the Muslim community is following a similar trajectory so they're now mainly doing well educationally - there are exceptions in the North - and inter-marriage has doubled in the past ten years (there are now 'halal' interfaith ceremonies from some imams). It's not yet near the level of the US (it's about a quarter the rate in the US) but is a pretty good signifier of integration.
I think because of cultural conservatism and the key link to the home country - arranged marriage especially in the Pakistani community - has slowed the pace.
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2016, 02:28:51 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2016, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2016, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 12, 2016, 04:37:39 PM
Eh, I'm okay with the state prohibiting things that are so against the broad social morality.
like homosexuality? :)
Not anymore.
depends where. Do you think it is socially acceptable in the Deep US South? In Saudi Arabia? In Nigeria? In Russia?
So by broad social morality (which presumably we were talking about the west), you think of one are of the US and some backward countries?
Just about anywhere in the world, really. If we outlaw things simply based on broad social morality, as it was done in the past, lots of things would still be criminalized. I just don't think it's a good standard to decide something.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 12:50:53 PM
Try as I might, unless you think eugenics is a great idea, I can't think of a single good reason why law should intervene in this case.
Been over this ground every time you shill for incest. Parents have control over their children. The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2016, 07:58:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 12:50:53 PM
Try as I might, unless you think eugenics is a great idea, I can't think of a single good reason why law should intervene in this case.
Been over this ground every time you shill for incest. Parents have control over their children. The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.
Only that none of these reasons apply in this case.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2016, 06:26:57 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2016, 07:58:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2016, 12:50:53 PM
Try as I might, unless you think eugenics is a great idea, I can't think of a single good reason why law should intervene in this case.
Been over this ground every time you shill for incest. Parents have control over their children. The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.
Only that none of these reasons apply in this case.
I'm not sure our government should waste time in amending laws to apply perfectly for such unicorn cases.
But that said, I also think there should be discretion used on whether or not we prosecute certain crimes. Here it seems like the only reason to prosecute is because it is nominally a crime and it is icky. I don't think any claim of greater good can apply to this case.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2016, 07:58:59 PM
Been over this ground every time you shill for incest. Parents have control over their children. The law ought to err on the side of caution to ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children.
Interestingly, the New Mexico incest law doesn't refer to control at all, only degree of blood relationship. One can have sex with adult stepchildren that one has had control over when they were minors, so the law does not "ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children," it simply prevents icky genetic pairings. i suspect that yours is a
post hoc rationalization of the law.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2016, 06:33:46 AM
I'm not sure our government should waste time in amending laws to apply perfectly for such unicorn cases.
But that said, I also think there should be discretion used on whether or not we prosecute certain crimes. Here it seems like the only reason to prosecute is because it is nominally a crime and it is icky. I don't think any claim of greater good can apply to this case.
Yeah that is my thought as well. The prosecutor should have let this go. The law was not intended for cases like this and the whole reason we have human prosecutors is for judgement calls like this.
The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2016, 10:16:02 AM
The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.
Laws are applied unevenly all the time. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2016, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2016, 10:16:02 AM
The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.
Laws are applied unevenly all the time. :huh:
And a state that applies a law which leaves no room for uneven application unevenly is acting in an unsound manner.
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2016, 07:29:24 AM
Interestingly, the New Mexico incest law doesn't refer to control at all, only degree of blood relationship. One can have sex with adult stepchildren that one has had control over when they were minors, so the law does not "ensure parents to not sexually prey on their children," it simply prevents icky genetic pairings. i suspect that yours is a post hoc rationalization of the law.
That's New Mexico but many other states explicitly cover adoptive relationships as well.
It's not unusual for state criminal codes to have their origins in codifications of common law defined crimes or ad hoc legislative enactments over centuries, and then just to stay put by legislative inertia. That's what happened in New Mexico - there was a compilation in the 1950s, a big codification project in the 1960s and many of the criminal statutes have been untouched since then, including that one.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2016, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2016, 10:16:02 AM
The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.
Laws are applied unevenly all the time. :huh:
Separating the sheep from the goats, as it were.
[And the Brain from either. :P]
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 01:02:01 PM
That's New Mexico but many other states explicitly cover adoptive relationships as well.
I saw that. I just noted that the New mexico law cannot currently be justified as being one that prevents an abuse of the parent-child relationship, because it refers only to biological relationship, and exclude adoptive ones. I fully support laws that prevent the sexual abuse of parent-child relationship (or any relationship of authority). I don't think Mew Mexico's law, as written, does that.
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2016, 10:16:02 AM
The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.
Prosecutorial discretion has always been a thing. There are cases that might clearly be a crime according to the definition of the law, but it would not be worth the time, the expenditure, or the controversy to bring an indictment. It sounds like the prosecutor should have recognized this as one of those cases.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 16, 2016, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 16, 2016, 10:16:02 AM
The law is the law. Either it makes allowance for unusual cases or it doesn't. The state applying a law that doesn't differently for different people seems fundamentally unsound. A law doesn't have to make sense or lead to a greater good.
Prosecutorial discretion has always been a thing. There are cases that might clearly be a crime according to the definition of the law, but it would not be worth the time, the expenditure, or the controversy to bring an indictment. It sounds like the prosecutor should have recognized this as one of those cases.
If the lawmaker wishes exceptions to be made then the law will be designed to allow them. I think the rule of law is superior to Putin style selective application.
I think there is a fine line, but I agree with The Brain that too much prosecutorial discretion is not a good thing, if for no other reason then because you cannot ensure uniform application. It is much more preferable to have the law drafted in a way that lets people know in advance whether they will be prosecuted for some action or not.
I'm not sure if that should be in the law itself. I think it's better to have the law just dealing with the offence and then a publicly available list of factors that the prosecutor must take into consideration in deciding whether to prosecute or not, and a method of querying a prosecutor's decision, for example by reference to their superior.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2016, 10:30:35 AM
I'm not sure if that should be in the law itself. I think it's better to have the law just dealing with the offence and then a publicly available list of factors that the prosecutor must take into consideration in deciding whether to prosecute or not, and a method of querying a prosecutor's decision, for example by reference to their superior.
:thumbsdown:
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2016, 03:29:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 01:02:01 PM
That's New Mexico but many other states explicitly cover adoptive relationships as well.
I saw that. I just noted that the New mexico law cannot currently be justified as being one that prevents an abuse of the parent-child relationship, because it refers only to biological relationship, and exclude adoptive ones. I fully support laws that prevent the sexual abuse of parent-child relationship (or any relationship of authority). I don't think Mew Mexico's law, as written, does that.
Interesting. You saw that it was a bad example of outlier legislation but you choose to use it as your example that my general premise was flawed? The really funny thing is I picture you madly googling away trying to find anything that might contradict my statement. Congratulations, you found the exception that proves the rule. /golf clap/
I assume grumbler mentioned NM because the OP case was from that state.
My broader point though is that it can be dangerous to read too deeply into these statutes in terms of policy intentionality. New Mexico was a conquered territory - rather than carry over Mexican law, it appears that the first military governor simply put in place a modified version of a mid 19th century compilation of Missouri statutes. It's possible the incest statute dates back to that and no one bothered to review it since then.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 17, 2016, 10:46:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2016, 03:29:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2016, 01:02:01 PM
That's New Mexico but many other states explicitly cover adoptive relationships as well.
I saw that. I just noted that the New mexico law cannot currently be justified as being one that prevents an abuse of the parent-child relationship, because it refers only to biological relationship, and exclude adoptive ones. I fully support laws that prevent the sexual abuse of parent-child relationship (or any relationship of authority). I don't think Mew Mexico's law, as written, does that.
Interesting. You saw that it was a bad example of outlier legislation but you choose to use it as your example that my general premise was flawed? The really funny thing is I picture you madly googling away trying to find anything that might contradict my statement. Congratulations, you found the exception that proves the rule. /golf clap/
I'm sure he had that case memorized. I mean, he's a lawyer, right?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2016, 09:39:07 AM
I assume grumbler mentioned NM because the OP case was from that state.
My broader point though is that it can be dangerous to read too deeply into these statutes in terms of policy intentionality. New Mexico was a conquered territory - rather than carry over Mexican law, it appears that the first military governor simply put in place a modified version of a mid 19th century compilation of Missouri statutes. It's possible the incest statute dates back to that and no one bothered to review it since then.
I don't disagree with that interpretation at all. I simply noted that the law in this particular case was clearly not crafted with the intent of outlawing an abuse of power for sexual purposes, but rather to preventing sexual activity between people with a defined level of consanguinity - i.e. the old "ickyness factor." It doesn't really matter whether the law was crafted in New Mexico or Missouri, or even just inherited from the common law.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2016, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2016, 10:30:35 AM
I'm not sure if that should be in the law itself. I think it's better to have the law just dealing with the offence and then a publicly available list of factors that the prosecutor must take into consideration in deciding whether to prosecute or not, and a method of querying a prosecutor's decision, for example by reference to their superior.
:thumbsdown:
My understanding of prosecutorial discretion was that it primarily related to the prosecutors deciding not to waste time on cases that they felt had poor chances of success, not that it was supposed to allow them to unilaterally "forgive" illegal behaviors that they thought were unjustly banned. Am I mistaken?
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2016, 10:29:03 AM
Malthus did a pretty good job of convincing me that there are some good reasons to maintain this restriction despite individual cases where it seems pretty meaningless.
All he did was a post a poem about Oedipus? :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2016, 09:39:07 AM
I assume grumbler mentioned NM because the OP case was from that state.
My broader point though is that it can be dangerous to read too deeply into these statutes in terms of policy intentionality. New Mexico was a conquered territory - rather than carry over Mexican law, it appears that the first military governor simply put in place a modified version of a mid 19th century compilation of Missouri statutes. It's possible the incest statute dates back to that and no one bothered to review it since then.
Yes, I assume so as well. I just find it particularly interesting that even though he now says he knows it is a legislative outlier he still used it as an example to suggest that the rationale which underpins more modern legislation was my invention.
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2016, 04:50:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2016, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2016, 10:30:35 AM
I'm not sure if that should be in the law itself. I think it's better to have the law just dealing with the offence and then a publicly available list of factors that the prosecutor must take into consideration in deciding whether to prosecute or not, and a method of querying a prosecutor's decision, for example by reference to their superior.
:thumbsdown:
My understanding of prosecutorial discretion was that it primarily related to the prosecutors deciding not to waste time on cases that they felt had poor chances of success, not that it was supposed to allow them to unilaterally "forgive" illegal behaviors that they thought were unjustly banned. Am I mistaken?
Not sure what state that might be. I assume you will be able to find at least one of the 50 where the prospect for winning the case is all that matters. But normally the interests of justice is also a factor in exercising discretion.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 18, 2016, 06:54:05 PM
All he did was a post a poem about Oedipus? :unsure:
Those were lyrics to a song by Tom Lehrer: Oedipus Rex (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScdJURKGWM).
You may not recognize the name (although An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Evening_Wasted_with_Tom_Lehrer) is quite entertaining), but you heard his work on The Electric Company. (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5BDC5FC492435804)