Should incest be illegal?

[CLAX1911]

Did I say this specific statement isn't true? I have shown your reasoning to be flawed from a different direction.

I know you heaven my reasoning is impeccable.

And here it is again and you can show me how it's wrong.

Incest leads to inbreeding and inbreeding create new genetic deficiencies. Therefore incest is illegal.

to show that my reasoning that's fault you must show either A: inbreeding is not caused by incest, or B: inbred children do not have a higher propensity for having new genetic deficiencies.

All you have to do is prove one of those two things wrong to show my logic as flawed. And I absolutely wish you the best of luck.

You repeatedly stated you object to incest in cases where the offspring can be having genetic disorders.

that is absolutely false I never once objected to incest for that reason.

So this is a straw man.

When asked about couples that cannot bring children you said you don't care about that.

again false, I object to incest when it is an adult and a child ended mini cases such a coupling cannot bring a child into the world. I still find it wrong for reasons I can absolutely define for you.

So you don't mind incest being legal, you oppose a specific case where the related couple can bring children together. Where is the strawman here?

the strowman you created is right before where you ask me where the straw man is here.

When you sum up my beliefs in your own words you have created a strawman. You don't need to do that. The only reason you would is so you can attack your strawman. If you want to know what I think just ask. Are you have the ability to communicate if you don't have the ability to understand I have the ability to re communicate in a way that you can.

I see a difference, yet I mention again that your reasoning in supporting outlawing incest in cases where a couple can bring children together (again, you haven't made an argument on other cases) is that inbred children may have a genetic disorder.

yes I have. If a man rapes his child that's incest. that is one because raping a child causes psychological damage. Even if it can't produce an inbred child

So we are clear, that reasoning also applies to other cases. Providing that reasoning for one while not for another is not logically sound.

sure if you can create an inbred child without committing incest I am absolutely against that too.

Lol.

I'm not making a single strawman argument, it's pointless to address something that isn't your words after all.

every time you rephrase something in your own words and then throw it back at me and say this is your argument that's a straw man. My argument is my words alone not any of your misinterpretations. if you don't understand my argument asked me for it don't try to sum it up with bull**** I don't respect that.

What I do however is make sure that you understand the meaning of what you're saying.

by misrepresenting it? How does that work?

Are you understand what I'm saying better than you do.

There's no need to get too emotional over this subject one way or another. If you feel like you cannot deal with my direct addressing of your statements we can end the discussion.

I have dealt with everything. I just think you're lying when you say your strawman is at the strawman. And I'm not going to go with it.

There is no need for you to become emotional about your logical fallacies. And if you can't deal with that feel free to end of the discussion if you wish.

I

 

[CLAX1911]

So do the children of those with Down Syndrome and dwarfism.

Are they inbred?

 

[ecofarm]

Power dynamics within a family makes incest rape.

 

[Wan]

sure if you can create an inbred child without committing incest I am absolutely against that too.

What about people from a relatively small gene pool? They are not family members per se but they can theoretically produce inbred children. Although I guess depending on one's definition, these people can be argued as closely related by blood.

 

[CLAX1911]

How do you reconcile preventing the genetic deficiencies that result from incestuous reproduction and not the genetic deficiencies that result from the reproduction of others who already have genetic deficiencies?

if you show me how somebody with a genetic deficiency creates new possibilities for genetic deficiencies in the following generations I'll happily explain.

 

[perthbum]

I married my first cousin.

 

[CLAX1911]

What about people from a relatively small gene pool? They are not family members per se but they can theoretically produce inbred children. Although I guess depending on one's definition, these people can be argued as closely related by blood.

What about them?

 

[Wan]

What about them?

They are not family members per se but they can theoretically produce inbred children.

 

[lwf]

if you show me how somebody with a genetic deficiency creates new possibilities for genetic deficiencies in the following generations I'll happily explain.

What is the difference? A genetic deficiency is a genetic deficiency. Whether you are perpetuating ones that already exist or creating new ones is irrelevant. In fact, reinforcing harmful genetic deficiencies that currently exist is more harmful than creating new ones. The biggest danger to inbreeding is when it is successive throughout several generations, and there is little danger of that in modern times. Unless you think that legalized incest would make everyone suddenly want to go out and have children with family members?

 

[Apocalypse]

I married my first cousin.

That is wonderful, you probably have a lot in common.

 

[Apocalypse]

I know you heaven my reasoning is impeccable.

And here it is again and you can show me how it's wrong.

Incest leads to inbreeding and inbreeding create new genetic deficiencies. Therefore incest is illegal.

to show that my reasoning that's fault you must show either A: inbreeding is not caused by incest, or B: inbred children do not have a higher propensity for having new genetic deficiencies.

All you have to do is prove one of those two things wrong to show my logic as flawed. And I absolutely wish you the best of luck.



that is absolutely false I never once objected to incest for that reason.

So this is a straw man.

again false, I object to incest when it is an adult and a child ended mini cases such a coupling cannot bring a child into the world. I still find it wrong for reasons I can absolutely define for you.

the strowman you created is right before where you ask me where the straw man is here.

When you sum up my beliefs in your own words you have created a strawman. You don't need to do that. The only reason you would is so you can attack your strawman. If you want to know what I think just ask. Are you have the ability to communicate if you don't have the ability to understand I have the ability to re communicate in a way that you can.



yes I have. If a man rapes his child that's incest. that is one because raping a child causes psychological damage. Even if it can't produce an inbred child
sure if you can create an inbred child without committing incest I am absolutely against that too.

Lol.



every time you rephrase something in your own words and then throw it back at me and say this is your argument that's a straw man. My argument is my words alone not any of your misinterpretations. if you don't understand my argument asked me for it don't try to sum it up with bull**** I don't respect that.
by misrepresenting it? How does that work?

Are you understand what I'm saying better than you do.
I have dealt with everything. I just think you're lying when you say your strawman is at the strawman. And I'm not going to go with it.

There is no need for you to become emotional about your logical fallacies. And if you can't deal with that feel free to end of the discussion if you wish.

I

Sure.
Your argument is shown to be invalid when addressing the fact that what you call "new genetic deficiencies" aren't different from existing ones, and thus the same reasoning can be applied to someone suffering from a Down Syndrome not being allowed to have children - actually, to not have a sexual relationship at all, which we all agree is wrong - and it means your argument is just as wrong.

The other point I've been making is that your argument only refers to couples who can bring children together. So if we put that aside along with your claim that you oppose child abuse which I think we all agree on - other cases of incest you found no reasoning to state against. In fact your response to some was "I don't care".

 

[Deuce]

Power dynamics within a family makes incest rape.

Is this true of adults who no longer live together?

 

[ecofarm]

Is this true of adults who no longer live together?

I expect that even in such circumstances family power dynamics insulate one or both participants from outside power dynamics.

 

[Lursa]

Sooo...you're pro-incest?

So not criminalizing (or decriminalizing) incest is being 'pro-incest?'

Er, no.

 

[Lursa]

If pregnancy is absolutely impossible?

She's had a complete hysterectomy.
He's had a vasectomy.
Both are lesbians.
Both are males.

Both are fully consenting, legal adults of sound mind.

Should anything they do with each other be "punishable by law"?
And what should that punishment be? Jail time?

Who are they hurting assuming there's no chance at all for pregnancy on any level?

And there's genetic testing too. And there are many couples...not related...that have genetic issues that they KNOW they have and they arent prevented from having sex.

 

[Lursa]

You failed to answer my question about corpses. How about dogs?

It's animal abuse and dogs cannot consent.

I dont care about corpses. Good reason to get cremated.

 

[CLAX1911]

What is the difference?

For the third ****ing time inbreeding creates new deficiencies, regular procreation doesn't.

 

[Lursa]

Incest should be banned everywhere. The problem is how to catch them in the act,obviously you can't. liberal/Demos will look the other way as long as the "result" will vote Demo.
Laws ?
There should be more of them.

Yeah! Let's see more of those 'smaller government' and 'keep the govt out of our lives' conservative talking points!

 

[Lursa]

Someone wants it, their sister doesn't, and we are here to help try to convince them one way or the other. I could be wrong, but that is my interpretation of this thread.

I think you may have that right. But she's entitled to her journey of discovery.

 

[Lursa]

So then what is the difference? So long as the participating parties are able to consent, where do we get the authority to forcibly prevent them from sexual contact through the threat of criminal charges?

Agreed. Incest between consenting adults...non-issue.

And if it's not between consenting adults...it's rape and thus covered by other laws.

 

[Lursa]

What is the difference between birth defects produced by incest versus those produced by non incest?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Not to mention that all couples can get genetic testing to find likely problems. And the unborn can be tested in utero as well.

 

[Lursa]

Ok then explain this difference. You keep claiming it but you are not bring up anything to support the difference

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

What I cant comprehend is why he doesnt realize that legalizing it or not doesnt stop it. :roll: Nor prevent the use of birth control. :doh

 

[Wan]

For the third ****ing time inbreeding creates new deficiencies, regular procreation doesn't.

Genetic engineering of human genomes can also create new deficiencies, should it also be illegal?

 

[CLAX1911]

Sure.
Your argument is shown to be invalid when addressing the fact that what you call "new genetic deficiencies" aren't different from existing ones,

you don't know the difference between new and existing?

 

[Lursa]

I think Clax is saying that inbreeding can create NEW genetic defects, and defective genes that already exist and are passed on "normally", are ok.

I'd have to see him post sources that 'new' genetic defects are created. If genetic defects are passed on...they're not 'new.'