53
   

New York New York!

 
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 07:44 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You didn't provide me with a link to your single source

I did. Look again, click on the link to Amazon, and use the preview feature to go to the chapter 5: "Ancient Egyptian sibling marriage and the Westermarck effect". If you're interested in the relevant science and the excerpt you find isn't enough to persuade you, I suggest you buy the book.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Mutual adult consent in an incestuous relationship is highly suspect.

Couples don't have to prove to anyone that their sexual relations are mutually consensual. The burden of proof rests on those who would criminalize them. And the mere fact that a relationship is suspect to you doesn't rise to any standard of evidence.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If incest doesn't present a genetic problem for humans than the necessity of bio-diversity is overplayed by its proponents.

This argument is invalid. Promoting biodiversity is about the stability of ecosystems, and about preserving our biological heritage. Prohibiting incest is about preventing hereditary diseases, and about protecting the weak against pressure to have sex with their elders. The two issues have nothing to do with one another.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 09:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
No matter how precisely Cyclo follows the rules of proper grammar (a fact I feel sure can easily be refuted) his comments are merely cut and pastes from Democratic talking points.


Complete and total lie, but I don't expect you to really be able to tell the difference; all arguments which rely upon logical thought and examination of the historical record seem to be sort of a foggy, difficult maze for you.

It was a real question, though. Do you prefer to write that way for some reason?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 10:14 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You didn't provide me with a link to your single source

I did. Look again, click on the link to Amazon, and use the preview feature to go to the chapter 5: "Ancient Egyptian sibling marriage and the Westermarck effect". If you're interested in the relevant science and the excerpt you find isn't enough to persuade you, I suggest you buy the book.

Well yes you did provide me a link to Amazon.com and an excerpt from the book, but to discern whether your argument has a rational basis I need to buy and read the book. Fair enough, but I doubt too many A2K members are about to go such a length to continue a debate, and even if they all are, I'm not. Do you deny that I could pretty easily find a book on Amazon that supports my argument? This would certainly not prove my argument any more than a single source proves yours, but it would put an identical burden on you.

Your source may be 100% correct, but it advances a highly controversial premise that few people will find consistent with what have learned over the years. Again, this certainly doesn't mean the source is full of ****, but it does make reliance upon it a dodgy prospect for what should be other than a strictly academic premise for A2K debate.

It's certainly OK for you to insist that your position is supported by your source , and requires me to refute it. I'm not going to make the effort though and so our discussion could end here.



Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Mutual adult consent in an incestuous relationship is highly suspect.

Couples don't have to prove to anyone that their sexual relations are mutually consensual. The burden of proof rests on those who would criminalize them. And the mere fact that a relationship is suspect to you doesn't rise to any standard of evidence.

Not really.

Incest is illegal in most countries and the various states are not required to prove anything other than the individuals are blood relatives.

This may not comport with what you would prefer, but it is nevertheless reality.

Since incest is almost universally criminalized, our discussion is academic. You argue that incestuous couples should not have to prove the validity of their consent.

Should adults and children who engage in sexual acts need to prove the validity of their alleged consent, or should that be left to the State?

A fair response might be that children, by law, are incapable of informed consent, but if you choose to adopt it, I would be interested in how you distinguish it from an argument that children (of any age) are not capable of informed consent concerning sex with their parents.

Where is the bright line dividing the two arguments?

Mere chronological age?

I wonder if you are suggesting that no one other than depraved miscreants will ever argue that "children" can form informed consent concerning sex with an adult.

There's probably no grey area concerning children who have not reached puberty, but some children are biologically capable of sexual reproduction as young as 11 years of age.

Are you comfortable with the notion that sex between an adult and a 15 year old is illegal? How about children who are 16, 14, or 13?


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If incest doesn't present a genetic problem for humans than the necessity of bio-diversity is overplayed by its proponents.

This argument is invalid. Promoting biodiversity is about the stability of ecosystems, and about preserving our biological heritage. Prohibiting incest is about preventing hereditary diseases, and about protecting the weak against pressure to have sex with their elders. The two issues have nothing to do with one another.


No, the promotion of bio-diversity is predicated upon the value of genetic diversity. Incest works against genetic diversity.

I suppose some people value bio-diversity because they (like me) have a sentimental attachment to tigers, but they are misappropriating a scientific concept.

Interestingly enough you are absolutely on point with at least two of the reasons why incest is taboo, and yet you would sublimate these societal interests to the simple profession of consent between incestuous partners.











Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 10:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
. Do you deny that I could pretty easily find a book on Amazon that supports my argument?

A book containing peer-reviewed scientific articles, from a publisher of similar reputation as the University of California Press? Yes, I deny that. I'd love to see you try, though.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Since incest is almost universally criminalized, our discussion is academic.

The same could have been said about slavery only 300 years ago. The abolition of an injustice has to start somewhere

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You argue that incestuous couples should not have to prove the validity of their consent.

Should adults and children who engage in sexual acts need to prove the validity of their alleged consent, or should that be left to the State?

Children are legally incapable of giving consent, so all sex with children is non-consensual by definition. This is incomparable with competent grownups, who can give consent to sex and marriage to anyone they want. I think if they consent to sex and marriage with close relatives, the state should let them.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I would be interested in how you distinguish it from an argument that children (of any age) are not capable of informed consent concerning sex with their parents.

Where is the bright line dividing the two arguments?

Mere chronological age?

Yes, mere chronological age. No adult can sleep with anyone below the age of consent, including close relatives. Every adult can sleep with anyone above the age of consent. I think that should include close relatives. This is a really easy rule.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 07:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You don't seem to understand Fido.

While incestual relationships are very likely to lead to bad results for the participants, who are we to make force this wisdom upon individuals who want to boink their brothers or daughters?

That the practice leads to genetic destruction for the whole is meaningless to the liberal who believes that it all about the individual's desires...when the topic is pleasure.

When an individual wants to teach their children that God hates homosexuals, that intrudes upon the collective and must be prohibited.
Some of the effects of incest are mental, and wealth and insanity go together enough without adding to the insanity... The Duponts were highly intelligent, inbred, and many were insane, and to the point of homocide...People like to marry their cousins to preserve their family wealth... Why piss away what some one in the family has built up on strangers??? But the way of Jews, and feudal and ruling classes is not healthy and should not be our own... How did Mark Twain say it about the natives on the Mississipee: Every once in a while a lord would be forced to marry a stinkard... That behavior has a certain advantage as far as the flow of wealth and privilages, and it helps to keep the society democratic.

Marx was correct, that children should be protected from tehir parents... They should also be protected from the insane ideas which are poison to society that many parents contact as children and are never disabused of... It is good to hang out with negroes to realize negroes is humans... It is good to hang out with the poor to realize the poor are not all criminals... It is good to hang out with the Jews to realize they is not all baked potatoes with a voice... It is good to hang out with towel heads and camel jockeys and wogs to realize they may have a point and are human... But best of all it is good to hang out with the rich to learn their **** stinks just like ours... Everyone should go to public schools in order to raise the general quality of education, because to be social is the main education of the schools, and it is one lesson we are mostly missing...
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  12  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 05:02 pm
Kim Kardashian filed for divorce after being married for only 70 days. Congratulations you dumb bitch. I'd like to personally thank her for giving America, yet another example of why it's completely and utterly ridiculous that same sex couples who have been together for years still cannot legally marry. I want my rights....ALL OF THEM!
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 05:24 pm
@jcboy,
NPR (of all places) had a story about Kim and her sham marriage. I have no idea who she is. Her people sold stories to various magazines for a reported total of millions and millions of dollars. And it was all a scam.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 05:25 pm
@jcboy,
You go boy! or is it girl Embarrassed

In any case, you make an excellent point. Marriage doesn't need to be saved from committed same sex couples.

In any case, once same sex marriages are common place (as they eventually will be) then there will be lots of examples of gay and lesbian Kardashian farces.
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 05:26 pm
@realjohnboy,
I only want one Marriage, it’s not like I’m Newt Gingrich.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 05:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In any case, once same sex marriages are common place (as they eventually will be) then there will be lots of examples of gay and lesbian Kardashian farces.

Certainly--so what?

A
R
T
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 06:00 pm
@failures art,
So nothing

What's your problem?
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 06:19 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'm a guy, you hitting on me Finn? Wink j/k.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 06:33 pm
@jcboy,
Depends on what you look like
0 Replies
 
MMarciano
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 07:22 pm
Two gay people who love one another threatens the institution of marriage OR John Edwards, John Ensign , (hmmm Johns?) Newt Gingrich, Gary Hart??? Soaps? Kim Kardashain I am pushing for Legislation called KIM's LAW This evokes the right of really stupid, vapid, soulless people the right to be married. And anyone who is on a Reality TV show...or is that redundant?
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:22 pm
Michelle Bachmann says gays CAN be married right now, gay men to women and gay women to men, we have to abide by the law of the land and marry the opposite sex, she goes onto say that she would abolish the dept of education and that when it comes to bullying no govt or president should have any say in it, or in education, she says thats not govt's role, however she used govt roles just like it to push her agenda of christian prayer in schools and uses her bigotry against LGBT people to create laws against us, republican christian brainwashing at its finest, your good at that Michelle! Im so happy I can be married now, let me go find a wife so I can **** around with men on the side my whole life, kinda like your husband Maaaaaarcus! LOL

MMarciano
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:31 pm
@jcboy,
Cool your jets there turbalina LOL Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:43 pm
Have you seen this? This intelligent young man was raised by two women
and speaks on behalf of all gay families. Great speech!

jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:48 pm
@CalamityJane,
Yes it was and I sure did see it! I love that one Jane!
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  7  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2011 06:52 pm
Congrats Orlando! Pretty big for Florida considering this state is about twenty years behind the times.

http://eqfl.org/node/1441
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2011 08:25 am
@CalamityJane,
Thanks for including that video. It is a very impressive and powerful example which I included on my FB.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » New York New York!
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/14/2021 at 06:01:36