We all have them. Stuff we cannot otherwise justify but we engage in anyway, because you can't give it up.
I can find ethical justification or excuse for a lot of stuff - incest, open relationships (aka cheating), homosexuality, etc. But there is one thing for which I cannot: eating meat. Including foie gras. Yet I do it because I'm weak.
What's your vice? :P
Why is it immoral to help farmers? :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2011, 04:28:07 PM
Why is it immoral to help farmers? :mad:
And stuff geese with food until their livers explode? :P
"guilty pleasure" is not the same thing as an immoral decision.
A guilty pleasure is something that you do despite it being bad for you (or having no particular merit or benefit). Things like eating fatty foods, or watching trashy television are guilty pleasures. They aren't actually immoral.
I invest in the stock market knowing full well that capitalism is oppression.
:sleep:
My guilty pleasures include
- some trashy 80s electro pop
- wine gums
- weekday boozing
torturing geese to death with corn feed is just horrible.. I acutally ate and found fois gras disgusting well before I found out what it was.
Bombay mix :sadblush:
Quote from: Viking on November 16, 2011, 04:46:42 PM
My guilty pleasures include
- some trashy 80s electro pop
- wine gums
- weekday boozing
I love wine gums. They've become my vice since I quit the nicotine.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2011, 04:25:44 PM
But there is one thing for which I cannot: eating meat.
You can't find a single justification for eating meat despite the fact that our bodies are made to digest it and our teeth are made to chew it?
The human demand for animal products like meat and milk sustains life for millions of living creatures who, in the absence of such demand, would most likely be rendered extinct or near extinct.
Amen, brother.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2011, 04:42:10 PM
I invest in the stock market knowing full well that capitalism is oppression.
:sleep:
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2011, 04:25:44 PM
I can find ethical justification or excuse for a lot of stuff - incest, open relationships (aka cheating), homosexuality, etc. But there is one thing for which I cannot: eating meat. Including foie gras. Yet I do it because I'm weak.
What's your vice? :P
Meh, something must die so we all can live.
Your sensible foie gras indulgence is the last remnant of your peasant soul of what it takes to survive on your own on the land.
Immoral: littering. Though hardly as much as in Philly where it was the norm.
Guilty: drink, tobacco, etc.
Quote from: Viking on November 16, 2011, 04:46:42 PM
torturing geese to death with corn feed is just horrible.. I acutally ate and found fois gras disgusting well before I found out what it was.
Well at least it wasn't done for religious reasons.
foie gras is delicious. I do find how they produce it to be a bit objectionable, though. :blush:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 16, 2011, 08:36:27 PM
Immoral: littering.
Sweet Jesus. Whenever the police go crazy and remove all the bins during a big event I'm always left wondering the streets with pockets full of rubbish waiting to get home :blush:
I always feel guilt about printing. I'm aware that I consume an absolutely disgusting amount of paper but I can't work purely off a computer screen .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2011, 05:56:10 PM
The human demand for animal products like meat and milk sustains life for millions of living creatures who, in the absence of such demand, would most likely be rendered extinct or near extinct.
I asked a vegan about this once (who I was dating at the time). "Where would all the cows go if people stopped eating them? You can't just have millions of cows wandering the country side".
"You would just run the last cows through the system and not breed anymore".
"so there wouldn't be any cows left outside of zoos and such"
"Yeah I guess".
This idea of destroying a species to alleviate suffering struck me as very strange. If you equate human being with animals (as many radical animal rights groups do), then this suggests that it is moral to destroy populations of human beings to alleviate the suffering they have. I think she finished college, and I did not so she probably has an answer to this. But to me at least, that sounds like a justification for genocide.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2011, 08:55:45 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 16, 2011, 08:36:27 PM
Immoral: littering.
Sweet Jesus. Whenever the police go crazy and remove all the bins during a big event I'm always left wondering the streets with pockets full of rubbish waiting to get home :blush:
I remember exactly when I got the urge... drinking some diet soda in very self-consciously pristine woods and just thinking "I would love to throw this can in this stream." :Embarrass:
In Philadelphia (at least where I lived and worked) it was totally normal. Waiting for a bus in the center of the city, I watched a grown man throw a whole styrofoam container and soft drink right in front of the bus before boarding it. I'll also never forget walking behind two women eating chicken and throwing the bones right on the pavement. And then the container.
Up here, I feel self-conscious about even throwing a cigarette butt in the street and usually make a big deal of putting it out on a trash can and throwing it out. I was a litter fascist as a youth. Two of my earliest childhood memories are 1) berating some family friend for chucking gum and cigs on the street and 2) being reprimanded by a stranger for picking up cig butts outside the Natural History Museum when my goal was to deposit them correctly. I guess she thought I was going to smoke them or eat them or something (as a 3 year old?)...
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2011, 05:56:10 PM
The human demand for animal products like meat and milk sustains life for millions of living creatures who, in the absence of such demand, would most likely be rendered extinct or near extinct.
I asked a vegan about this once (who I was dating at the time). "Where would all the cows go if people stopped eating them? You can't just have millions of cows wandering the country side".
"You would just run the last cows through the system and not breed anymore".
"so there wouldn't be any cows left outside of zoos and such"
"Yeah I guess".
This idea of destroying a species to alleviate suffering struck me as very strange. If you equate human being with animals (as many radical animal rights groups do), then this suggests that it is moral to destroy populations of human beings to alleviate the suffering they have. I think she finished college, and I did not so she probably has an answer to this. But to me at least, that sounds like a justification for genocide.
And she would be correct.
Anyway, I don't do many things I consider immoral, at least when I'm sober; my immorality is limited principally to copyright violation and wishing a real rain would come.
What would she be correct about exactly?
Well, she's basically correct, that it's okay for species to die or to be drastically reduced in number.
Indeed. But it isn't alright for a human not to eat meat.
Ide can't have any pudding.
But what shall I use to fill the empty spaces? :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2011, 05:56:10 PM
The human demand for animal products like meat and milk sustains life for millions of living creatures who, in the absence of such demand, would most likely be rendered extinct or near extinct.
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. There are situations where humans are justified to eat meat. I just don't see the situation in which I (or you) live to be one of them. And that does not even come close to eating foie gras.
Foie gras was good, and I'm glad I ate it, but I don't see myself ever desiring to try it again. I didn't think of the treatment of the animal in the least when enjoying my meal. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 16, 2011, 10:12:21 PM
Well, she's basically correct, that it's okay for species to die or to be drastically reduced in number.
Sometimes I think you are loonier then a Canadian dollar.
The alternative to extinction or a protected, small population kept for biodiversity, educational, and fallback purposes*, is a slavery program leading to grisly death. Yeah, sounds like a fucking bargain. Are you really arguing that carnivorism is sufficiently justified on the basis that a species would cease to exist if we stopped eating it? Species don't feel pain or fear; only individuals do that. So who gives a shit about the fate of a "species" in and of itself?
*i.e., a total collapse of civilization or depletion of energy sources requires domestic animal labor to maintain even archaic living standards.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 07:16:48 AM
The alternative to extinction or a protected, small population kept for biodiversity, educational, and fallback purposes*, is a slavery program leading to grisly death. Yeah, sounds like a fucking bargain. Are you really arguing that carnivorism is sufficiently justified on the basis that a species would cease to exist if we stopped eating it? Species don't feel pain or fear; only individuals do that. So who gives a shit about the fate of a "species" in and of itself?
*i.e., a total collapse of civilization or depletion of energy sources requires domestic animal labor to maintain even archaic living standards.
Raz was making an analogy. Just like Marti, you know that, when Raz makes an analogy, he is trolling.
(The part about him dating a women should also have tipped you off that the conversation never occurred. :P )
Eating non free range meat.
I know factory farming is wrong and nasty but...I'm poor.
Hell, these days I'm not.
Nonetheless....I'm northern.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2011, 02:21:09 AM
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. There are situations where humans are justified to eat meat. I just don't see the situation in which I (or you) live to be one of them. And that does not even come close to eating foie gras.
That does not really address his question :hmm:
In the future the vast majority of meat will be artificially made in labs anyway.
Can't get here fast enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2011, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2011, 05:56:10 PM
The human demand for animal products like meat and milk sustains life for millions of living creatures who, in the absence of such demand, would most likely be rendered extinct or near extinct.
I asked a vegan about this once (who I was dating at the time). "Where would all the cows go if people stopped eating them? You can't just have millions of cows wandering the country side".
"You would just run the last cows through the system and not breed anymore".
"so there wouldn't be any cows left outside of zoos and such"
"Yeah I guess".
This idea of destroying a species to alleviate suffering struck me as very strange. If you equate human being with animals (as many radical animal rights groups do), then this suggests that it is moral to destroy populations of human beings to alleviate the suffering they have. I think she finished college, and I did not so she probably has an answer to this. But to me at least, that sounds like a justification for genocide.
You've never heard of wild cows? There's millions of them in India. Cows don't need humans to want to eat them to survive as a species anymore than horses need humans to ride them.
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 10:03:52 AM
You've never heard of wild cows? There's millions of them in India. Cows don't need humans to want to eat them to survive as a species anymore than horses need humans to ride them.
I don't live in India. In Missouri at least, people tend to enclose their property with barbed wire. So there's not a great deal of space where wild cattle could roam. Also I don't think farmers would like it if wild cattle would periodically trample their crops.
You have to live somewhere to know anything about it?
A species doesn't become extinct because it's not allowed to roam free over Missouri.
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 10:03:52 AM
You've never heard of wild cows? There's millions of them in India.
But how many outside of India?
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 11:15:13 AM
You have to live somewhere to know anything about it?
A species doesn't become extinct because it's not allowed to roam free over Missouri.
Honestly, I wasn't thinking of India. I was also 18. It would still require a large scale reduction of the numbers of cattle in the US. There were wild cattle in vast numbers 200 years ago, there's no way that's coming back. People are having a hard enough time feeding cattle here as it is. The summer did a number of the hay crop, and bale of hay is going as high as 100 bucks.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2011, 11:22:09 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 10:03:52 AM
You've never heard of wild cows? There's millions of them in India.
But how many outside of India?
define "cow", and if you use the word domestic then I suggest you go back to the start of the argument and rebuild it from the start.
Let's do a little thought experiment in which we assume for the sake of argument that there exists something like the Islamo-Judeo-Christain God, who has a dialogue with a philosopher:
P: So God, every day you murder millions of innocent human beings. How can you justify this?
G: Human mortality is part of my plan. And it wouldn't be practical not to kill them off - the populations couldn't sustain themselves.
P: So your "plan" involves allowing humans to live for a short time, only to kill them off when convenient for you.
G: Yes, that's right
P: Isn't that cruelty?
G: From the point of view of the humans, it isn't. They don't know of any life other than one that cuts off by mortality. They accept it as part of the world they inhabit
P: But only because there is no other choice. They can understand death and fear it; they can feel the pain of disease and the breakdown of the body. That is cruelty.
G: But what is the alternative? Without mortality I would have no other use for humans in my plan.
P: Forget about your plan for a second. Having taken responsibility for humans, don't you have a moral obligation to do whatever you can to minimize their suffering and allow them to live a full and unlimited life?
G: What you suggest is not feasible. If I took your suggestion seriously, I would have to apply the same logic to all my creatures, and every living thing on earth would have to be immortal. Don't take the omnipotence bit too seriously - I may seem all powerful and mysterious to you, a lowly human, but I can't spend all my time and energy sustaining the immortality of trillions of earth creatures.
P: So under your plan the only way human beings can exist is if they also have mortality?
G: I guess in theory I could keep a million or so alive in India, but the rest would have to go.
P: But wouldn't that be the moral thing to do? Isn't it less cruel not to exist in the first place, then to live a life plagued by the fear and suffering that comes with mortality?
G: That is a matter of opinion.
There are other concerns regarding humans that make it undesirable to limit our population to negligible numbers, specifically scientific-technological productivity. However, this might not matter much in Edenlike conditions. That said, immortality wouldn't be much of a boon to a creature with a brain only capable of finite memory.
We could split the difference and have a few billion at a thousand years apiece. I'll take my chances.
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.
In fact there are some 300 million cows and buffalo in India, some wild and some domesticated for milk etc. That's way more than in any other country, three times as many as in the US.
Personally I love a steak. I just try not to kid myself I was doing the cow a favour by eating it.
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 12:26:08 PM
Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.
In fact there are some 300 million cows and buffalo in India, some wild and some domesticated for milk etc. That's way more than in any other country, three times as many as in the US.
Personally I love a steak. I just try not to kid myself I was doing the cow a favour by eating it.
How many cows do you think would be alive in North America within a year if the population became vegan?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2011, 11:50:48 AM
G: That is a matter of opinion.
My opinion is that there is nothing inherently moral about existing, as a person or an animal.
And if letting the cow population dwindle to a million is a bad thing, then wouldn't the good thing be to try to increase the cow population, and give more cows the precious gift of existence? We could rededicate the Bureau of Land Management solely to sustaining massive cow life on public lands.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2011, 04:25:44 PM
incest, open relationships (aka cheating), homosexuality, etc.
I have to ask: in what weird universe are open relationships also known as cheating? If your partner knows and accepts you are going to be having sex with other people there is no cheating. You actually have to promise to be faithful and then not be to cheat. 'Cheating' by definition is breaking a rule.
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 12:26:08 PM
Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.
No I don't think that at all.
I do think that as a matter of actual fact, absent animal agriculture, cows would not exist in siginficant numbers outside of Hindu-majority countries.
So for most cows on the planet, the "choice" is between never existing or existing as part of human agriculture.
Also are incest, cheating and homosexuality all ethically equivalent to Marti?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:36:44 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 12:26:08 PM
Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.
In fact there are some 300 million cows and buffalo in India, some wild and some domesticated for milk etc. That's way more than in any other country, three times as many as in the US.
Personally I love a steak. I just try not to kid myself I was doing the cow a favour by eating it.
How many cows do you think would be alive in North America within a year if the population became vegan?
I'm guesstimating about 50%. We use milk right? Oh you said Vegan.
Damn, Cow genocides!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 17, 2011, 12:37:18 PM
My opinion is that there is nothing inherently moral about existing, as a person or an animal.
That doesn't resolve the question. One doesn't need to prove that bovine agricultural is inherently moral, only that it is not immoral.
QuoteAnd if letting the cow population dwindle to a million is a bad thing, they wouldn't the good thing be to try to increase the cow population, and give more cows the precious gift of existence?
I addressed this in the parable. The premise of the argument is that there is some underlying moral obligation to sustain the existence of other creatures. I deny this obligation exists, and even if it did exist, it would not be practicable to fulfill.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2011, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 12:26:08 PM
Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.
No I don't think that at all.
I do think that as a matter of actual fact, absent animal agriculture, cows would not exist in siginficant numbers outside of Hindu-majority countries.
So for most cows on the planet, the "choice" is between never existing or existing as part of human agriculture.
Indeed. "Never existing" is a meaningless factor in moral reasoning.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 17, 2011, 12:37:18 PM
My opinion is that there is nothing inherently moral about existing, as a person or an animal.
That doesn't resolve the question. One doesn't need to prove that bovine agricultural is inherently moral, only that it is not immoral.
One doesn't need to prove that to... justify slaughtering cows? I don't think "bovine agriculture" (great euphemism) is inherently immoral, but if it's not inherently moral, why is it better than letting all the cows die or get on tire rafts to India?
Otherwise the proposition is really just "Breed them to kill them or let them die off, who gives a shit?" Which isn't much to discuss.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2011, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 12:26:08 PM
Your premise is wrong Joan. You think that cows can't exist in significant number unless bred for meat by humans.
No I don't think that at all.
I do think that as a matter of actual fact, absent animal agriculture, cows would not exist in siginficant numbers outside of Hindu-majority countries.
So for most cows on the planet, the "choice" is between never existing or existing as part of human agriculture.
Why would we end animal agriculture? I thought this was about eating cows, not about keeping them for milk.
And if we aren't killing cows on the basis that it is morally wrong to do so, what difference does it make whether we are Hindu or not?
You go dwon this path you end up with every sperm being sacred. A potential life is as worthy as an actual one. Any life, no matter how miserable or short, is better than no life at all. And numerous other untenable positions.
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 12:53:29 PM
You go dwon this path you end up with every sperm being sacred.
It's true. That's why I keep all mine alive. I'm running out of freezer space. :(
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2011, 12:53:29 PM
Why would we end animal agriculture? I thought this was about eating cows, not about keeping them for milk.
And if we aren't killing cows on the basis that it is morally wrong to do so, what difference does it make whether we are Hindu or not?
You go dwon this path you end up with every sperm being sacred. A potential life is as worthy as an actual one. Any life, no matter how miserable or short, is better than no life at all. And numerous other untenable positions.
Its pretty clear you have misunderstood the argument, so I will take responsibility for not having expressed it well.
The first premise is precisely that every sperm is not sacred - ie there is no general moral obligation to sustain and protect animal life.
That still leaves open the question of whether it can be morally permissible to raise animals for slaughter - ie the lack of a moral obligation to act benevolently doesn't imply the lack of a moral obligation to refrain from acting malevolently.
But on what basis can it be morally wrong to slaughter animals? Only if constitutes cruelty to the animal as compared to not having that practice. But the animal in question would not exist if the first place, if humans had not raised it for that purpose - that is premise 2, which is a factual premise. So the argument for the immorality of slaugher hinges on being able to claim that the aninal would be better off never existing in the first place - for how can animal slaughter be immoral vis the animal if the animal is better off for the practice existing?
Of course that argument goes only so far. A life consisting entirely of being tortured in prison is probably not worth living. So there are good arguments to be made that basic standards of decent treatment of farm animals are morally required.
Primarily, take issue with my factual premise #2. Your first objection cites India - but "free cows" exist in India only because of Hinduism, a belief system that is far from ubiquitous. In the real world, most places are more like Missouri than India. If humans did not use cows for their own purposes, then outside India, most of those cows would never exist. So the unique example of India is not a valid counter-argument; my argument is not based on the *impossibility* of maintaining cow existence outside human use, but only the unlikelihood of that occurring as a general matter.
You also point out correctly that cows would still be used for milk. But that would still involve a very large reduction of the number of cows used in human agriculture. There still would be many cows that would never come into being and with respect to those particular cows, you would still to argue that they are better off for that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:02:34 PM
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?
I can't imagine that being pumped with hormones and the milked by a machine is that pleasant (which is typical of dairy farms), even that is a form of exploitation. As I said my friend was a vegan so even milk was verbotten. Cows are fairly expensive to keep. Most people wouldn't keep cattle if it wasn't profitable. It would be similar to keeping large zoo animals. There are not large numbers of giraffes or rhinos in the US.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:02:34 PM
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?
Incest can also be between a parent and their child.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 01:28:50 PM
Most people wouldn't keep cattle if it wasn't profitable.
Someone should tell that to my brother-in-law. -_-
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:02:34 PM
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?
Incest can also be between a parent and their child.
So if something can be done in a questionable manner it is in itself bad?
I assume you mean that the child is a minor.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:02:34 PM
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?
Incest can also be between a parent and their child.
So if something can be done in a questionable manner it is in itself bad?
I assume you mean that the child is a minor.
oh boy
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2011, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2011, 01:28:50 PM
Most people wouldn't keep cattle if it wasn't profitable.
Someone should tell that to my brother-in-law. -_-
What does your brother-in-law do with the cows?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:38:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:02:34 PM
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?
Incest can also be between a parent and their child.
So if something can be done in a questionable manner it is in itself bad?
I assume you mean that the child is a minor.
oh boy
Elaborate.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:38:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:02:34 PM
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?
Incest can also be between a parent and their child.
So if something can be done in a questionable manner it is in itself bad?
I assume you mean that the child is a minor.
oh boy
Elaborate.
You mean to suggest that sex between a parent and their child at any age is acceptable?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:40:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:38:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:34:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:30:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:02:34 PM
Tim, you remain silent about Marti saying incest is ethical. Strange given your recent treatment of Yi.
The Yi thing was about an adult having sex with a child. Incest between consenting adults is bad how?
Incest can also be between a parent and their child.
So if something can be done in a questionable manner it is in itself bad?
I assume you mean that the child is a minor.
oh boy
Elaborate.
You mean to suggest that sex between a parent and their child at any age is exceptable?
Edit: no, "consenting adults", remember?
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:42:20 PM
Edit: no, "consenting adults", remember?
Yes, so you do seem to be suggesting that it is ok for parents to have sex with their children after the children reach the age of consent. In jursidictions where age of consent is as low as 14 or 16 do you really so no problem with a father having sex with his 14 or 16 year old daugher?
Laws criminalizing sexual relationships based on one party having a position of authority over the other (such as a WA statute that criminalizes sexual relations between students under 18 and their teachers, superceding the age of consent in such cases) could take care of that, CC. It's not an all-or-nothing affair.
Stop pretending to be lawyer. It's annoying.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 01:53:51 PM
Laws criminalizing sexual relationships based on one party having a position of authority over the other (such as a WA statute that criminalizes sexual relations between students under 18 and their teachers, superceding the age of consent in such cases) could take care of that, CC. It's not an all-or-nothing affair.
That doesnt make incest ethically defensible. It makes other similar power relationships wrong as well. What do you mean by not an all or nothing affair? Of course all exploitive sexual relationships should be criminalized.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:42:20 PM
Edit: no, "consenting adults", remember?
Yes, so you do seem to be suggesting that it is ok for parents to have sex with their children after the children reach the age of consent. In jursidictions where age of consent is as low as 14 or 16 do you really so no problem with a father having sex with his 14 or 16 year old daugher?
In Sweden the age of consent is 15. A 15 y/o isn't an adult though. I said consenting adults.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 01:53:51 PM
Laws criminalizing sexual relationships based on one party having a position of authority over the other (such as a WA statute that criminalizes sexual relations between students under 18 and their teachers, superceding the age of consent in such cases) could take care of that, CC. It's not an all-or-nothing affair.
That doesnt make incest ethically defensible. It makes other similar power relationships wrong as well. What do you mean by not an all or nothing affair? Of course all exploitive sexual relationships should be criminalized.
I mean that there are varying degrees of control available between fully criminalizing incestuous relationships and fully permitting them. It's something to consider, is all. The normal AoC need not apply.
Fwiw, the potential for exploitation is the strongest argument against incest, so in cases where that element is removed (adults meeting for the first time, cousin relationships), it seriously weakens the case for criminal prosecution or failure to provide a marriage license. The eugenics aspect is still possibly valid enough to refrain from officially sanctioning such a relationship.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:56:36 PM
Of course all exploitive sexual relationships should be criminalized.
:lol: I foresee the criminal population expanding significantly...
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:00:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:42:20 PM
Edit: no, "consenting adults", remember?
Yes, so you do seem to be suggesting that it is ok for parents to have sex with their children after the children reach the age of consent. In jursidictions where age of consent is as low as 14 or 16 do you really so no problem with a father having sex with his 14 or 16 year old daugher?
In Sweden the age of consent is 15. A 15 y/o isn't an adult though. I said consenting adults.
Ok what is an adult in Sweden 18 - 21. Is it ok for a father to have sex with their 18-21 year old daughter or son?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 17, 2011, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:56:36 PM
Of course all exploitive sexual relationships should be criminalized.
:lol: I foresee the criminal population expanding significantly...
I guess you are one of the feminist theory - all sex is rape types.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 17, 2011, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:56:36 PM
Of course all exploitive sexual relationships should be criminalized.
:lol: I foresee the criminal population expanding significantly...
Are exploitive sexual relationships that common?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:22:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:00:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 01:42:20 PM
Edit: no, "consenting adults", remember?
Yes, so you do seem to be suggesting that it is ok for parents to have sex with their children after the children reach the age of consent. In jursidictions where age of consent is as low as 14 or 16 do you really so no problem with a father having sex with his 14 or 16 year old daugher?
In Sweden the age of consent is 15. A 15 y/o isn't an adult though. I said consenting adults.
Ok what is an adult in Sweden 18 - 21. Is it ok for a father to have sex with their 18-21 year old daughter or son?
I don't care what two consenting adults do sexwise. It seems weird that you focus on the exact boundaries when the principle of the matter is more interesting. Unless you think that all incest is bad there is very little difference between our opinions. And if you do think that all incest is bad then what do the boundaries matter?
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:34:36 PM
I don't care what two consenting adults do sexwise. It seems weird that you focus on the exact boundaries when the principle of the matter is more interesting. Unless you think that all incest is bad there is very little difference between our opinions. And if you do think that all incest is bad then what do the boundaries matter?
The boundaries are interesting because it shows the absurdity of your position. An 18 year old girl is no more able to consent to having sex with her father than a 14 year old. The power position is the same.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:36:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:34:36 PM
I don't care what two consenting adults do sexwise. It seems weird that you focus on the exact boundaries when the principle of the matter is more interesting. Unless you think that all incest is bad there is very little difference between our opinions. And if you do think that all incest is bad then what do the boundaries matter?
The boundaries are interesting because it shows the absurdity of your position. An 18 year old girl is no more able to consent to having sex with her father than a 14 year old. The power position is the same.
Then why are you arguing with me? If she can't give consent then she obviously isn't a consenting adult.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:36:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:34:36 PM
I don't care what two consenting adults do sexwise. It seems weird that you focus on the exact boundaries when the principle of the matter is more interesting. Unless you think that all incest is bad there is very little difference between our opinions. And if you do think that all incest is bad then what do the boundaries matter?
The boundaries are interesting because it shows the absurdity of your position. An 18 year old girl is no more able to consent to having sex with her father than a 14 year old. The power position is the same.
Then why are you arguing with me? If she can't give consent then she obviously isn't a consenting adult.
Because you have taken the position that a person can consent to have sex with their parent if they are an "adult".
If your position is that incest will always be wrong because a parent child sexual relationship can never be consensual then the question is why are you arguing with me? :contract:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:36:34 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:34:36 PM
I don't care what two consenting adults do sexwise. It seems weird that you focus on the exact boundaries when the principle of the matter is more interesting. Unless you think that all incest is bad there is very little difference between our opinions. And if you do think that all incest is bad then what do the boundaries matter?
The boundaries are interesting because it shows the absurdity of your position. An 18 year old girl is no more able to consent to having sex with her father than a 14 year old. The power position is the same.
Then why are you arguing with me? If she can't give consent then she obviously isn't a consenting adult.
Because you have taken the position that a person can consent to have sex with their parent if they are an "adult".
If your position is that incest will always be wrong because a parent child sexual relationship can never be consensual then the question is why are you arguing with me? :contract:
If you think that a parent-child sexual relationship can never be consensual then what does the age matter? Why argue about details when they change nothing?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:42:04 PM
Also are incest, cheating and homosexuality all ethically equivalent to Marti?
I'd say that Marti is worse than all of those.
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2011, 02:46:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 12:42:04 PM
Also are incest, cheating and homosexuality all ethically equivalent to Marti?
I'd say that Marti is worse than all of those.
He is the result of two of those.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:43:20 PM
If you think that a parent-child sexual relationship can never be consensual then what does the age matter? Why argue about details when they change nothing?
I agree the age does not matter. You seemed to be saying it did. But if you are in agreement with me that sexual relationships between a parent and their child are wrong regardless of age then one wonders why you bothered disagreeing with me in the first place by suggesting there may be such a relationship if the parent and child are "consenting adults".
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:43:20 PM
If you think that a parent-child sexual relationship can never be consensual then what does the age matter? Why argue about details when they change nothing?
I agree the age does not matter. You seemed to be saying it did. But if you are in agreement with me that sexual relationships between a parent and their child are wrong regardless of age then one wonders why you bothered disagreeing with me in the first place by suggesting there may be such a relationship if the parent and child are "consenting adults".
Disagreeing != arguing. If we disagree already in principle (we do) then there's no reason to argue about the details.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:57:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:43:20 PM
If you think that a parent-child sexual relationship can never be consensual then what does the age matter? Why argue about details when they change nothing?
I agree the age does not matter. You seemed to be saying it did. But if you are in agreement with me that sexual relationships between a parent and their child are wrong regardless of age then one wonders why you bothered disagreeing with me in the first place by suggesting there may be such a relationship if the parent and child are "consenting adults".
Disagreeing != arguing. If we disagree already in principle (we do) then there's no reason to argue about the details.
So is your position now that I am wrong but you wont tell me why?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:58:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:57:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 02:43:20 PM
If you think that a parent-child sexual relationship can never be consensual then what does the age matter? Why argue about details when they change nothing?
I agree the age does not matter. You seemed to be saying it did. But if you are in agreement with me that sexual relationships between a parent and their child are wrong regardless of age then one wonders why you bothered disagreeing with me in the first place by suggesting there may be such a relationship if the parent and child are "consenting adults".
Disagreeing != arguing. If we disagree already in principle (we do) then there's no reason to argue about the details.
So is your position now that I am wrong but you wont tell me why?
My position is (as you probably know) that I don't see anything wrong with two consenting adults having sex and that consent is possible between parent and child or brother and sister etc.
Your idea that it is impossible for an adult child to give consent to sex with a parent seems slightly weird to me, but since I don't know what you base it on I am not sure why you're wrong. I know that I would be perfectly able to say no if one of my parents suggested sex, and I also observe that different levels of power are very common in human relationships, incestuous or otherwise.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 03:06:20 PM
Your idea that it is impossible for an adult child to give consent to sex with a parent seems slightly weird to me, but since I don't know what you base it on I am not sure why you're wrong. I know that I would be perfectly able to say no if one of my parents suggested sex, and I also observe that different levels of power are very common in human relationships, incestuous or otherwise.
Ideologue already addressed it but you missed it.
It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship. If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 03:06:20 PM
Your idea that it is impossible for an adult child to give consent to sex with a parent seems slightly weird to me, but since I don't know what you base it on I am not sure why you're wrong. I know that I would be perfectly able to say no if one of my parents suggested sex, and I also observe that different levels of power are very common in human relationships, incestuous or otherwise.
Ideologue already addressed it but you missed it.
It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship. If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.
Sigh. You are famously dense, CC, so I have tried to be patient. You want my honest impression? My impression is that you are too thick to understand this discussion at any interesting level.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
Sigh. You are famously dense, CC, so I have tried to be patient. You want my honest impression? My impression is that you are too thick to understand this discussion at any interesting level.
Says the guy who thinks its ok for a father to screw his daughter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
Sigh. You are famously dense, CC, so I have tried to be patient. You want my honest impression? My impression is that you are too thick to understand this discussion at any interesting level.
Says the guy who thinks its ok for a father to screw his daughter.
One of my few guilty pleasures.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
Sigh. You are famously dense, CC, so I have tried to be patient. You want my honest impression? My impression is that you are too thick to understand this discussion at any interesting level.
Says the guy who thinks its ok for a father to screw his daughter.
One of my few guilty pleasures.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship. If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.
While I hear that - is it really proper to suggest that in all cases there will be a power imbalance in the relationship?
I guess what CC is saying is the same sort of rule applies with adult-adult incest as with, say a priest or a doctor and his patient.
Confidentiality?
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2011, 03:59:35 PM
Confidentiality?
1/2. Check you Federal Rules of Evidence.
No thanks.
Good call.
Anyway, does any state criminalize physician-patient sexual relations? It's probably against the ethical rules and thus may lead to professional sanctions (I know it will under the MRPC for attorneys, excepting preexisting relationships and iirc until one year after the atty-client relationship has ended), but I dunno about criminal laws.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2011, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship. If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.
While I hear that - is it really proper to suggest that in all cases there will be a power imbalance in the relationship?
The assumption is yes. Is it true in 100% of cases? Probably not. But we have laws to protect people in the vast majority of cases rather then risk protectijg them because of outliers.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:23:53 PM
Good call.
Anyway, does any state criminalize physician-patient sexual relations? It's probably against the ethical rules and thus may lead to professional sanctions (I know it will under the MRPC for attorneys, excepting preexisting relationships and iirc until one year after the atty-client relationship has ended), but I dunno about criminal laws.
Depends. Minnesota for example criminalizes "psychotherapists" having sex with clients (and priests with penitents).
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.344&year=2006
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2011, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
It has to do with the power imbalance in the relationship. If you do not understand the power imbalance between child and parent then there is little I can do to explain it to you.
While I hear that - is it really proper to suggest that in all cases there will be a power imbalance in the relationship?
The assumption is yes. Is it true in 100% of cases? Probably not. But we have laws to protect people in the vast majority of cases rather then risk protectijg them because of outliers.
But why? Once a "child" is financially and socially independent - where's the power? Are we thinking the parent would be emotionally abusing/blackmailing them?
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2011, 04:39:20 PM
But why? Once a "child" is financially and socially independent - where's the power? Are we thinking the parent would be emotionally abusing/blackmailing them?
Yes. The main issue is whether a child can be psychololgically indendent of their parent.
It is easy for Brain to say "I could easily tell my parents no". But of course Brain didnt grow up in a family where parents wanted to have sex with their children. Animals yes but not their kids... (or maybe that was the confusion). :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2011, 04:39:20 PM
But why? Once a "child" is financially and socially independent - where's the power? Are we thinking the parent would be emotionally abusing/blackmailing them?
The notion is that, at least according to the assumption, most folks hold their parents is special esteem even when they are not financially dependant on them, thus making it impossible for them *not* to be subject to emotional pressure or dependency (whether this amounts to "abuse and blackmail" or not).
As a matter of practicality, where parent-child incest develops, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of cases involve the parent having sex with the child before they moved out.
It is the same sort of arguments as are made about age of consent laws - yes, there may be the occasional 13 year old who demonstrates super maturity and thus in a perfect world ought to be able to legally consent if this could be perfectly known; but the laws cannot be drafted with this outlier in mind.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2011, 04:47:42 PMIt is the same sort of arguments as are made about age of consent laws - yes, there may be the occasional 13 year old who demonstrates super maturity and thus in a perfect world ought to be able to legally consent if this could be perfectly known; but the laws cannot be drafted with this outlier in mind.
I alluded to this earlier, but I wonder if stat rape cases are so common that they could not support an individualized inquiry, as opposed to the mechanical application of a bright-line rule.
You could probably keep a bright-line rule for really young kids (maybe 14 and below?) because it would be an outlying case as you say, and for such cases we may not want to replace the element of age--trivial to prove--with an element of lack of capacity--potentially difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But in general it would be far fairer and be more in accordance with notions of due process and the fairness of law.
(Tangentially: at the very Goddamned least, not make it a strict liability crime. Crime should have some sort of mental element, even if it's only negligence.)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:57:57 PM
I alluded to this earlier, but I wonder if stat rape cases are so common that they could not support an individualized inquiry, as opposed to the mechanical application of a bright-line rule.
That would violate the need for certainty in the law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2011, 05:01:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2011, 04:57:57 PM
I alluded to this earlier, but I wonder if stat rape cases are so common that they could not support an individualized inquiry, as opposed to the mechanical application of a bright-line rule.
That would violate the need for certainty in the law.
I don't see that at all. Real rape cases often turn on the question of consent and most criminal cases require the establishment of an individual's mental state. I see no fundamental difference in quality here.