Originally posted by NemesioYou posted about laws that 'restrict' in another thread recently. If
And that is fine. They can choose to have (optimize their chances
for having) a child with hearing.
You posted about laws that 'restrict' in another thread recently. If
being born-deaf is an 'ambiguous' trait (i.e., som ...[text shortened]... nships. A social one
is far more compelling, I think.
Nemesio
being born-deaf is an 'ambiguous' trait (i.e., some born-deaf people
believe it is a positive part of their identity while others think of it
as a 'handicap'😉, then I think one should err on the side of permissibility.
That seems reasonable.
Your social argument against incest is offensive to me; not that you're suggesting it, but the idea that the state might feel justified in telling people who they can marry based on whether society thinks the two people will have a good marriage. Should the country apply this sort of control over who can marry who based on other variables like race, religion or financial class?
I agree with your comparison between incest and other sex which has equal risks of producing children with diseases. If one is illegal, the other should be illegal. I think laws and taboos against incest probably came from primitive observations of the genetic consequences, but I don't know this to be true. Even other animals have instincts and behaviors which limit incest. What evidence is there to assume that two people who grew up closely, loving one another and taking care of one another, with common experiences and from the same culture would be incompatible mates on a non genetic level?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your social argument against incest is offensive to me; not that you're suggesting it, but the idea that the state might feel justified in telling people who they can marry based on whether society thinks the two people will have a good marriage. Should the country apply this sort of control over who can marry who based on other variables like race, religion or financial class?
I should have been more clear.
I do not find that it is logically compelling to argue that marriages should be illegal for
genetic reasons, irrespective of the % chance of illness. As such, this cannot logically be used
as a 'justification' for incest. It would be hypocritical.
The social justifications make more sense relative to them, but are, indeed, problematic, for
the reasons you mentioned. I am leary of using 'slippery slope' arguments as a justification
for supporting or opposing things, as a rule, though.
I see a distinction between the categories you mention (race, religion, and financial class) and
familial relationship. That is, I see the psychological bond between brother and sister or father and
daughter to be something that is far less easily discarded than your categories. I am not sure that
I can articulate it, though. I'll have to think about it.
Maybe you can express your reasons for supporting or opposing incestuous relationships to guide me
along.
I am assuming that the brother and sister were raised together; I would not have the same
objections if two siblings were raised unaware of each others' existence.
Originally posted by NemesioThis thread seems to keep mixing two questions together: first, do you think a thing is ethical/moral/right or unethical/immoral/wrong; second, do you think the thing should be illegal? These questions seem distinct to me, while I can't think of anything that I believe is ethical/moral/right that I believe should be illegal; I can think of many things that I think are unethical/moral/wrong that I don't think should be illegal (like baseball in domes). Are we discussing whether incest between consenting adults is right or wrong or whether it should be illegal? And if the latter, should it be a crime?
[b/]Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your social argument against incest is offensive to me; not that you're suggesting it, but the idea that the state might feel justified in telling people who they can marry based on whether s ...[text shortened]... ns if two siblings were raised unaware of each others' existence.
Originally posted by NemesioI am indifferent about laws against incest if it's for genetic reasons. It depends on the rationale. Genetic arguments seem good enough that I won't argue against them, but I won't argue for them either.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your social argument against incest is offensive to me; not that you're suggesting it, but the idea that the state might feel justified in telling people who they can marry based on whether socie ...[text shortened]... ns if two siblings were raised unaware of each others' existence.
I think our laws should be consistent however.
Originally posted by Nemesio
You are not nearly the master of dodging and spinning you think you
are, pcaspian. And, for someone who was complaining about my
being 'a tit,' you are quite the hypocrite!
Dude, you wouldn't know a hypocrite if you looked in the mirror.
So, I would ask you this: do you find it unethical to choose for
athleticism or intelligence?
Your method of debate makes me cringe on your behalf. Enter a debate, refuse to answer a direct question on the very topic of the debate, yet then demand answers to your own agenda!
By you logic, should parents wish to remove an arm from their child because they themselves didn't have arms, that is morally permissable. But hear ye ladies and gentleman instead of addressing the question, he will attempt to claim that I am a bigot because I claim people with 2 arms are better people that 1 armed people. Answer the question, if you can't then go home.
I claim that only a person without children could possibly follow your viewpoint. Am I incorrect, or will you refuse to answer the question ? If you state that you do indeed have children, would you see anything immoral with your wife/partner having geneticallly engineered them to be born without hearing ?
Will the ever elusive Nemesio actually commit to an viewpoint, or are you playing devils advocate again ?
😉
Originally posted by pcaspianpcasp,
Will the ever elusive Nemesio actually commit to an viewpoint, or are you playing devils advocate again ?
😉
[/i]
don't hold your breath.
I have been waiting and baiting this dude for two months to take a position. It/he/she will not.
It loves to just be on the winning side. It does try on occasion to ingraciate with the strongest chimp. But me... being that strongest chimp just sends the poor thing back into the woods for a suck on the marauders tit. The marauder doesn't have the courage of the memotode. It sends it's weaker thing into the woods to die a terrible death of logic. Then it tries to figure out its next move.
Any ideas are better than none. Mr. Two bit zero ability ambulance chaser. Give it a goe. dare all. hell. Just challeng old svw. You are a mighty lawyer. Not? <svw laughs! Then farts! Then wonders about the lack of a challenger. Damned "lawyers". No courage. Oh well. I'm getting really tired of your proxy nemotoad. Do you think it will figure out how you are making it look like a fool?
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
It loves to just be on the winning side. It does try on occasion to ingraciate with the strongest chimp. But me... being that strongest chimp just sends the poor thing back into the woods for a suck on the marauders tit. The marauder doesn't have the courage of the memotode. It sends it's weaker thing into the woods to die a terrible death of logic. Then it tries to figure out its next move.
I dunno man, I think you're onto something there. No1 and Nemesio always seem to post at the same time. I think we're actually dealing with one person here, and a case of split personality. Something I am sure is amis. Freak, bring back the emu anyday.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[/i]I do take it that you agree and do issue the same challenge? Instead of just mimicking me?
You really do challenge the dude/dudette?
Star, I've tried for years to make sense of either of those. It's like sitting down to play chess against someone, making 4 or 5 moves and then just when you're starting to settle down in your game, he moves his knight forwards one space and looks up defiantly...
I think next time I have 3 or 4 beers in my system, I'll rush home, spin in a circle 20 times, log onto RHP and read their replies, for that is the ony way I can fathom I will understand chimps.
Originally posted by pcaspianSorry.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b][/i]I do take it that you agree and do issue the same challenge? Instead of just mimicking me?
You really do challenge the dude/dudette?
Star, I've tried for years to make sense of either of those. It's like sitting down to play chess against someone, making 4 or 5 moves and then just when you're ...[text shortened]... onto RHP and read their replies, for that is the ony way I can fathom I will understand chimps.[/b]
I don't mean to bring the only thing we all have in common to this thread.
Mystic miracle.
Is that not the only thing we share?
Ok. The old svw is tired of waiting for all the god damned' owners of truth to 'splain' what is truth.
Listen up Ass Holl chimps...
There is no truth.
That funny danmed 'God' wants you to think.
It/he/she is totally phlumuxed... amused.... in dire need of laughter...
that you all want normalcy.
You all want that which is the norm.
Please God. No mystery. I only want to survive on my chimp point of view.
Surprise!!!!
You win. The simple "about to die" chimp point of view wins. Silly us. The regulators. Who love simple chimps. WE ALLOW THE STUPID DAMNDED CHIMP TO WIN."
Or you can go to hell and prove old svw wrong."
Hint
it all has to do with the mind and what is proven as "real".
Go prove it. If you can. Waning. Old SVW will judge. Second time tonight. That is fair? Isn't it?