Yikes a moral objectivist, you guys are annoying to talk to even though you have no evidence to back up your claims and can never seem to prove how anything is objectively wrong, you sure are perssistant.
But I presume to much, maybe you have evidence that shows morality is based on logic (objective) and not emotion (subjective).
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
As for incest: I don't have anything against an incestuous relationship that does NOT produce offspring
Incest is commited by the mentally ill, and such relationships are... unstable. Their existence legitimizes incest one step at a time, further enveloping the society into illness both psychological and physical. So yeah, they are detrimental to society even if they don't have a kid, the only purpose they may serve is as a marker for real POS people.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
But Moo, wanting to prevent an epidemic and protect the genepool is morality.
Anyway, I can understand about the nerological disease, but as far as I can tell is can only be transmitted by eating people correct, so as long as you inform the people about the risks first I see no problem. Then again I don't think many people would eat other people anywho.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
As for incest: I don't have anything against an incestuous relationship that does NOT produce offspring
Incest is commited by the mentally ill, and such relationships are... unstable. Their existence legitimizes incest one step at a time, further enveloping the scoiety into illness both psychological and physical. So, yeah, they are detrimental to society even if they don't have a kid, they only purpose they serve is as a marker for real POS people.
That's your opinion and I don't agree with it. I don't practice incest by the way, but I don't necessarily think that incest implies mental illness. Brothers and sisters that hadn't known that they were brother and sister engaged in incest unknowingly (they were separated at birth), so how would you judge them?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Yikes a moral objectivist, you guys are annoying to talk to even though you have no evidence to back up your claims and can never seem to prove how anything is objectively wrong, you sure are perssistant.
But I presume to much, maybe you have evidence that shows morality is based on logic (objective) and not emotion (subjective).
Have sex with a corpse and then gather 20 people in a room and tell all 20 people that you just had sex with a corpse.
Then tell me out of those 20 people, how many would say "nice" compared to those who think you are *ucking nuts.
I wont even go into the health implications of having sex with a deceased person. The sheer fact that we are even debating whether it is right or wrong is beyond amazement to me.
I feel like Im trying to hold a philosophical discussion with Dr Hannibal Lecter.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
That's your opinion and I don't agree with it. I don't practice incest by the way, but I don't necessarily think that incest implies mental illness. Brothers and sisters that hadn't known that they were brother and sister engaged in incest unknowingly (they were separated at birth), so how would you judge them?
Yes I know of a couple of those cases.
1) All of the cases I have heard of, they stayed together.
2) They looked just like each other. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have an affair much less sleep with someone who looks like he could be family.
3) In addition to number 2, they act/are just like each other.
4) They had other problems going on.
I guarantee you that in 99% of those cases they damn well knew, but since it wasn't openly said, it was alright. So in answer to your question, badly.
edit: But lets not pretend any longer that is really what we are talking about here. We're actually referring to people that flat-out know they are related.
"I feel like Im trying to hold a philosophical discussion with Dr Hannibal Lecter."
LoL
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
Originally posted by Gazenthia Yes I know of a couple of those cases.
1) All of the cases I have heard of, they stayed together.
2) They looked just like each other. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have an affair much less sleep with someone who looks like he could be family.
3) In addition to number 2, they act/are just like each other.
4) They had other problems going on.
I guarantee you that in 99% of those cases they damn well knew, but since it wasn't openly said, it was alright. So in answer to your question, badly.
edit: But lets not pretend any longer that is really what we are talking about here. We're actually referring to people that flat-out know they are related.
I don't see anything wrong with 3. I'd actually prefer a chick that satisfied 3.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
The problem with cannibalism is that it could actually create an epidemic if widely practiced, since certain proteins in the human body are viral in nature as they actually increase further production/transformation into the structure and are virtually indestructible (temps upwards of 1000C). The disease I am referring to is Jakob Creutzfeldt's, which is a neurological ailment that literally destroys the brain and is caused by a protein that is found in all humans that has changed shape due to different exposures. This protein in it's malignant form transforms other healthy proteins into the same form and so creates a sort of chain reaction.
I was originally ok with cannibalism, now I feel kinda silly, how in the world did I forget about that disease? I'm beginning to be inclined to lean toward an anti-cannibalism stance.
Anyway, I got nothing against incest, it's not as though every incest kid turns out as a helmet-toting drool-monkey. Honestly, we get a load of messed up children through standard relationships as is, not like a couple of incest-kids thrown in is gonna topple the whole thing.
As for 'incest is committed by the mentally ill...' That's really your opinion isn't it? If we had a culture in which incest was a norm, by your logic, you would be the mentally ill one. Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion, and opinion is prone to change. Anyway, just because you dislike incest, that doesn't mean that anyone who practices it is a depraved lunatic.
The problem with cannibalism is that it could actually create an epidemic if widely practiced, since certain proteins in the human body are viral in nature as they actually increase further production/transformation into the structure and are virtually indestructible (temps upwards of 1000C). The disease I am referring to is Jakob Creutzfeldt's, which is a neurological ailment that literally destroys the brain and is caused by a protein that is found in all humans that has changed shape due to different exposures. This protein in it's malignant form transforms other healthy proteins into the same form and so creates a sort of chain reaction.
I was originally ok with cannibalism, now I feel kinda silly, how in the world did I forget about that disease? I'm beginning to be inclined to lean toward an anti-cannibalism stance.
Anyway, I got nothing against incest, it's not as though every incest kid turns out as a helmet-toting drool-monkey. Honestly, we get a load of messed up children through standard relationships as is, not like a couple of incest-kids thrown in is gonna topple the whole thing.
As for 'incest is committed by the mentally ill...' That's really your opinion isn't it? If we had a culture in which incest was a norm, by your logic, you would be the mentally ill one. Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion, and opinion is prone to change. Anyway, just because you dislike incest, that doesn't mean that anyone who practices it is a depraved lunatic.
There have been many cultures that practiced incest regularly.
They're dead cultures now. A closed gene pool leads to extinction.
Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
I agree. Morality wether we like it or not is based on reason and self discipline. The only "subjective" part of morality is that as new facts come into light it may change and/or adapt. Incest in our day and age we know it can cause serious genetic troubles, plus the individuals that practice it, at best have some kind of complexes such as advanced cases of Oidepus complex. And also there are so many willing men and women that want to have sex, why the hell anyone would do it with their relatives?>.>
When a person has morals and trains himself or herself to uphold them, they are more resistant to things that corrupt and make that person a slave.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
I agree. Morality wether we like it or not is based on reason and self discipline. The only "subjective" part of morality is that as new facts come into light it may change and/or adapt. Incest in our day and age we know it can cause serious genetic troubles, plus the individuals that practice it, at best have some kind of complexes such as advanced cases of Oidepus complex. And also there are so many willing men and women that want to have sex, why the hell anyone would do it with their relatives?>.>
When a person has morals and trains himself or herself to uphold them, they are more resistant to things that corrupt and make that person a slave.
Look just because incest could lead to genetic disorders that lessen the offsprings survival does not make it objectively bad, and using reason we can never arrive at good or bad, it is not calculable or observable, good and bad are emotional qualifiers that we use to judge actions by. Without an emotion or instinct to be concerned of the health of the community and future generations there is no way to say incest is bad.
What you guys are doing is taking the way you feel about something and proclaim it to be factual and logical because most other people feel the same way. You are taking widespread opinion of what good and bad are and using this as the standard by which everything should be measured, which is fine but it does not make you correct or your position logical, that is just your opinion and you are no more correct than I.
I am aware that incest could cause genetic disorders, and the more inbred people are the more disorders they could develope, however I value people's choice over genetic health of the community and I do not think incest will become a problem since most people have no desire to do it anyway, but why penalize the few that do.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
I agree. Morality wether we like it or not is based on reason and self discipline. The only "subjective" part of morality is that as new facts come into light it may change and/or adapt. Incest in our day and age we know it can cause serious genetic troubles, plus the individuals that practice it, at best have some kind of complexes such as advanced cases of Oidepus complex. And also there are so many willing men and women that want to have sex, why the hell anyone would do it with their relatives?>.>
When a person has morals and trains himself or herself to uphold them, they are more resistant to things that corrupt and make that person a slave.
Look just because incest could lead to genetic disorders that lessen the offsprings survival does not make it objectively bad, and using reason we can never arrive at good or bad, it is not calculable or observable, good and bad are emotional qualifiers that we use to judge actions by. Without an emotion or instinct to be concerned of the health of the community and future generations there is no way to say incest is bad.
What you guys are doing is taking the way you feel about something and proclaim it to be factual and logical because most other people feel the same way. You are taking widespread opinion of what good and bad are and using this as the standard by which everything should be measured, which is fine but it does not make you correct or your position logical, that is just your opinion and you are no more correct than I.
I am aware that incest could cause genetic disorders, and the more inbred people are the more disorders they could develope, however I value people's choice over genetic health of the community and I do not think incest will become a problem since most people have no desire to do it anyway, but why penalize the few that do.
First of all many things are not "because most people feel this way". Secondly individual choice means little if it is not supported by a properly developed psyche. Apart from genetics, incest is deeply routed in many complexes that make an individual think less than clear. So although emotions is not better or worse than logic, there is something to be said about choices made during the stress that such complexes induce.
It's not about "I am correct because it's the popular opinion", but there are facts and logic and research that supports it. If someone can present facts that prove otherwise then that's the truth. It's no more complicated than that.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
First of all many things are not "because most people feel this way". Secondly individual choice means little if it is not supported by a properly developed psyche. How do you define properly? because properly would require some form of ideal or acceptable pyche. I still support choice even for people with deviant mental and emotional conditions, providing they are not hurting others or others property in the process. Apart from genetics, incest is deeply routed in many complexes that make an individual think less than clear. So although emotions is not better or worse than logic, there is something to be said about choices made during the stress that such complexes induce. Yeah I agree It's not about "I am correct because it's the popular opinion", but there are facts and logic and research that supports it. If someone can present facts that prove otherwise then that's the truth. It's no more complicated than that. Supports incest being wrong or being unhealthy, because I agree it is unhealthy but that does not make it wrong, wrong is an opinion. And that is really what I am being hounded for, not thinking that people who practice incest etc. are wrong and wanting to legally extend some rights to them.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
First of all many things are not "because most people feel this way". Secondly individual choice means little if it is not supported by a properly developed psyche. How do you define properly? because properly would require some form of ideal or acceptable pyche. I still support choice even for people with deviant mental and emotional conditions, providing they are not hurting others or others property in the process. Since we live in a civilized society, properly is defined as well adjusted person, able to function adequately in society without hurting himself or others in the process. People with unstable mental or emotional health affect both themselves and their enviroment they live in. There is no way around it, we live in a world that our actions always affect someone. So properly developed psyche means a psyche that can deal with situations as they arise and get over them in time and be responsible and in control of their actions. Apart from genetics, incest is deeply routed in many complexes that make an individual think less than clear. So although emotions is not better or worse than logic, there is something to be said about choices made during the stress that such complexes induce. Yeah I agree It's not about "I am correct because it's the popular opinion", but there are facts and logic and research that supports it. If someone can present facts that prove otherwise then that's the truth. It's no more complicated than that. Supports incest being wrong or being unhealthy, because I agree it is unhealthy but that does not make it wrong, wrong is an opinion. And that is really what I am being hounded for, not thinking that people who practice incest etc. are wrong and wanting to legally extend some rights to them. Since that practice leads these persons to be unable to function properly or at all in normal relationships, and pretty much being in a self destructive state, yes it can be defined that it's wrong. For themselves and society at large. Wrong and right is not an opinion. It's about facts. That's why you can be wrong and right at the same time as more facts spring up. You may want to give some lenience as far as the law is concerned so to give them a chance to rethink their actions and/or get some treatment if that's required. But allowing it only leads to slippery slope, because they will lack eventually the discipline to resist it.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
So in your view child molestation should not be illegal then, right? Just because I think someone who has sex with children is a fucking worthless scumbag, doesn't mean I have the right to tell him he can't do those things, right? Oh, yes. "Concensual" was the word you used, right? "Honey, if you let Daddy play with you in a special way, I'll buy you a pretty pony doll." "Okay, Daddy." LOOK!! It was "concensual"!! Just stop while you're ahead, you're making me fucking sick.
Do I really need to go over and point out the differences by the things I mentioned and child molestation? Is it really that difficult to figure out for yourself that a child is unable to make sexual decisions like that and thus is a valid argument to make child molestation illegal?
Do you seriously believe I would support child molestation? Dumbass.
Well, Gameloading.
You support people sleeping with corpses, people eating other people, and father mothers sleeping with their sons and daughters (or vice versa)
Now, tell us why in the world should we look at you in light of morality and common sense.
I mean this in the most humane way as possible when I say this. But I don't think anyone can carry out a morale argument with you. You are like in so left field no one can understand you (except for maybe some deep South American Tribes or Dr Hannibal Lecter. Your positions are so "politcally correct" they surpass the realm of reason and sanity.
"its ok if I sleep with my dead wife because she said it was ok and no one should be able to trample on my rights to sleep with the dead" "its ok if I can eat my best friend as long as he says its ok"
But then you essentially say this
"no one has the right to take another person's life even if that person raped and murdered an innocent person"
Do you see why people are just kinda freaked out about you and your statements? (thats a rhetorical question because in your eyes you really see no harm in what you believe in)
I certainly understand why people are freaked out about my statements because many people are afraid of things that are different than them and thus wish for it to be banned. I, on the other hand, feel no need to restrict other people because of what makes me feel uncomfortable.
As you probably noticed by now, none of the people that are against it have any decent argument. We see some poor attempts like "Morality is based on what brings the human race forward thus we should all follow that" which is kind of ironic because I'm pretty sure that the person who made that comment has done minimal effort to actually bring the human race forward. In fact, If we focus all our attention on pushing the human race forward, our lives today would be completely different and some of us would not even be here as we would have to remove bad genes from reproducing.
This whole situation is not so different from the homosexual marriage issue. Ofcourse things like incest are very different from gay marriage, but the issue remains the same: Nobody who is against gay marriage is able to come up with a valid argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed. The reason for that is because they are against it due to religious belief or morals, and morals aren't build upon reason.
Since that practice leads these persons to be unable to function properly or at all in normal relationships, and pretty much being in a self destructive state, yes it can be defined that it's wrong. For themselves and society at large. Wrong and right is not an opinion.
I can see where you are coming from but I have to dissagree about it being destuctive to society, and also the part about right and wrong being facts.
People will commit incest no matter if it where legal or not, they do now, the only way I could see this affecting society is if it were happening often in an isolated community and as for it being selfdestructive, who cares.
Also, and this is getting off topic actually, but what makes right and wrong not an opinion, in other words what makes the action itself right and wrong and not just the way people percieve it? I did make a seperate topic for Objective Morality by the way.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I can't understand how much more expensive it is to kill someone compared to giving them a warm bed, healthy, meal, access to the internet/books, and hot shower the rest of their life???
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Comments
Yikes a moral objectivist, you guys are annoying to talk to even though you have no evidence to back up your claims and can never seem to prove how anything is objectively wrong, you sure are perssistant.
But I presume to much, maybe you have evidence that shows morality is based on logic (objective) and not emotion (subjective).
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Incest is commited by the mentally ill, and such relationships are... unstable. Their existence legitimizes incest one step at a time, further enveloping the society into illness both psychological and physical. So yeah, they are detrimental to society even if they don't have a kid, the only purpose they may serve is as a marker for real POS people.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
But Moo, wanting to prevent an epidemic and protect the genepool is morality.
Anyway, I can understand about the nerological disease, but as far as I can tell is can only be transmitted by eating people correct, so as long as you inform the people about the risks first I see no problem. Then again I don't think many people would eat other people anywho.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Incest is commited by the mentally ill, and such relationships are... unstable. Their existence legitimizes incest one step at a time, further enveloping the scoiety into illness both psychological and physical. So, yeah, they are detrimental to society even if they don't have a kid, they only purpose they serve is as a marker for real POS people.
That's your opinion and I don't agree with it. I don't practice incest by the way, but I don't necessarily think that incest implies mental illness. Brothers and sisters that hadn't known that they were brother and sister engaged in incest unknowingly (they were separated at birth), so how would you judge them?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Not when the morality pertains to preservation of one's self, which is not morality, but instinct.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Yikes a moral objectivist, you guys are annoying to talk to even though you have no evidence to back up your claims and can never seem to prove how anything is objectively wrong, you sure are perssistant.
But I presume to much, maybe you have evidence that shows morality is based on logic (objective) and not emotion (subjective).
Have sex with a corpse and then gather 20 people in a room and tell all 20 people that you just had sex with a corpse.
Then tell me out of those 20 people, how many would say "nice" compared to those who think you are *ucking nuts.
I wont even go into the health implications of having sex with a deceased person. The sheer fact that we are even debating whether it is right or wrong is beyond amazement to me.
I feel like Im trying to hold a philosophical discussion with Dr Hannibal Lecter.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Yes I know of a couple of those cases.
1) All of the cases I have heard of, they stayed together.
2) They looked just like each other. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have an affair much less sleep with someone who looks like he could be family.
3) In addition to number 2, they act/are just like each other.
4) They had other problems going on.
I guarantee you that in 99% of those cases they damn well knew, but since it wasn't openly said, it was alright. So in answer to your question, badly.
edit: But lets not pretend any longer that is really what we are talking about here. We're actually referring to people that flat-out know they are related.
"I feel like Im trying to hold a philosophical discussion with Dr Hannibal Lecter."
LoL
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
I don't see anything wrong with 3. I'd actually prefer a chick that satisfied 3.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I was originally ok with cannibalism, now I feel kinda silly, how in the world did I forget about that disease? I'm beginning to be inclined to lean toward an anti-cannibalism stance.
Anyway, I got nothing against incest, it's not as though every incest kid turns out as a helmet-toting drool-monkey. Honestly, we get a load of messed up children through standard relationships as is, not like a couple of incest-kids thrown in is gonna topple the whole thing.
As for 'incest is committed by the mentally ill...' That's really your opinion isn't it? If we had a culture in which incest was a norm, by your logic, you would be the mentally ill one. Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion, and opinion is prone to change. Anyway, just because you dislike incest, that doesn't mean that anyone who practices it is a depraved lunatic.
I was originally ok with cannibalism, now I feel kinda silly, how in the world did I forget about that disease? I'm beginning to be inclined to lean toward an anti-cannibalism stance.
Anyway, I got nothing against incest, it's not as though every incest kid turns out as a helmet-toting drool-monkey. Honestly, we get a load of messed up children through standard relationships as is, not like a couple of incest-kids thrown in is gonna topple the whole thing.
As for 'incest is committed by the mentally ill...' That's really your opinion isn't it? If we had a culture in which incest was a norm, by your logic, you would be the mentally ill one. Incest is considered immoral because morality is dictated by the collective opinion, and opinion is prone to change. Anyway, just because you dislike incest, that doesn't mean that anyone who practices it is a depraved lunatic.
There have been many cultures that practiced incest regularly.
They're dead cultures now. A closed gene pool leads to extinction.
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
I agree. Morality wether we like it or not is based on reason and self discipline. The only "subjective" part of morality is that as new facts come into light it may change and/or adapt. Incest in our day and age we know it can cause serious genetic troubles, plus the individuals that practice it, at best have some kind of complexes such as advanced cases of Oidepus complex. And also there are so many willing men and women that want to have sex, why the hell anyone would do it with their relatives?>.>
When a person has morals and trains himself or herself to uphold them, they are more resistant to things that corrupt and make that person a slave.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
I agree. Morality wether we like it or not is based on reason and self discipline. The only "subjective" part of morality is that as new facts come into light it may change and/or adapt. Incest in our day and age we know it can cause serious genetic troubles, plus the individuals that practice it, at best have some kind of complexes such as advanced cases of Oidepus complex. And also there are so many willing men and women that want to have sex, why the hell anyone would do it with their relatives?>.>
When a person has morals and trains himself or herself to uphold them, they are more resistant to things that corrupt and make that person a slave.
Look just because incest could lead to genetic disorders that lessen the offsprings survival does not make it objectively bad, and using reason we can never arrive at good or bad, it is not calculable or observable, good and bad are emotional qualifiers that we use to judge actions by. Without an emotion or instinct to be concerned of the health of the community and future generations there is no way to say incest is bad.
What you guys are doing is taking the way you feel about something and proclaim it to be factual and logical because most other people feel the same way. You are taking widespread opinion of what good and bad are and using this as the standard by which everything should be measured, which is fine but it does not make you correct or your position logical, that is just your opinion and you are no more correct than I.
I am aware that incest could cause genetic disorders, and the more inbred people are the more disorders they could develope, however I value people's choice over genetic health of the community and I do not think incest will become a problem since most people have no desire to do it anyway, but why penalize the few that do.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Again, I am stunned by the... well what you guys are trying to say. Incest is wrong, and there are various real and primal reasons as to why it is wrong, which is what has led it to being considered immoral.
Morality is generally based on what is good and necessary to move the human race forwards, maintain integrity, and improve its society*. It is in that way that people whom want to mate with, or have sexual attractions to, family members are sick. That kind of thing isn't supposed to be there, it's a f-up, it is a detriment to all of the things that the race is supposed to be moving to.
*- This can be seen in the overall success of western societies, and note that Americas decline directly parallels its moral decline into hedonism exactly like Rome.
Originally posted by WisebutCruel
They're dead cultures now..
That is exactly what I am talking about.
I agree. Morality wether we like it or not is based on reason and self discipline. The only "subjective" part of morality is that as new facts come into light it may change and/or adapt. Incest in our day and age we know it can cause serious genetic troubles, plus the individuals that practice it, at best have some kind of complexes such as advanced cases of Oidepus complex. And also there are so many willing men and women that want to have sex, why the hell anyone would do it with their relatives?>.>
When a person has morals and trains himself or herself to uphold them, they are more resistant to things that corrupt and make that person a slave.
Look just because incest could lead to genetic disorders that lessen the offsprings survival does not make it objectively bad, and using reason we can never arrive at good or bad, it is not calculable or observable, good and bad are emotional qualifiers that we use to judge actions by. Without an emotion or instinct to be concerned of the health of the community and future generations there is no way to say incest is bad.
What you guys are doing is taking the way you feel about something and proclaim it to be factual and logical because most other people feel the same way. You are taking widespread opinion of what good and bad are and using this as the standard by which everything should be measured, which is fine but it does not make you correct or your position logical, that is just your opinion and you are no more correct than I.
I am aware that incest could cause genetic disorders, and the more inbred people are the more disorders they could develope, however I value people's choice over genetic health of the community and I do not think incest will become a problem since most people have no desire to do it anyway, but why penalize the few that do.
First of all many things are not "because most people feel this way". Secondly individual choice means little if it is not supported by a properly developed psyche. Apart from genetics, incest is deeply routed in many complexes that make an individual think less than clear. So although emotions is not better or worse than logic, there is something to be said about choices made during the stress that such complexes induce.
It's not about "I am correct because it's the popular opinion", but there are facts and logic and research that supports it. If someone can present facts that prove otherwise then that's the truth. It's no more complicated than that.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Do I really need to go over and point out the differences by the things I mentioned and child molestation? Is it really that difficult to figure out for yourself that a child is unable to make sexual decisions like that and thus is a valid argument to make child molestation illegal?
Do you seriously believe I would support child molestation? Dumbass.
Well, Gameloading.
You support people sleeping with corpses, people eating other people, and father mothers sleeping with their sons and daughters (or vice versa)
Now, tell us why in the world should we look at you in light of morality and common sense.
I mean this in the most humane way as possible when I say this. But I don't think anyone can carry out a morale argument with you. You are like in so left field no one can understand you (except for maybe some deep South American Tribes or Dr Hannibal Lecter. Your positions are so "politcally correct" they surpass the realm of reason and sanity.
"its ok if I sleep with my dead wife because she said it was ok and no one should be able to trample on my rights to sleep with the dead" "its ok if I can eat my best friend as long as he says its ok"
But then you essentially say this
"no one has the right to take another person's life even if that person raped and murdered an innocent person"
Do you see why people are just kinda freaked out about you and your statements? (thats a rhetorical question because in your eyes you really see no harm in what you believe in)
I certainly understand why people are freaked out about my statements because many people are afraid of things that are different than them and thus wish for it to be banned. I, on the other hand, feel no need to restrict other people because of what makes me feel uncomfortable.
As you probably noticed by now, none of the people that are against it have any decent argument. We see some poor attempts like "Morality is based on what brings the human race forward thus we should all follow that" which is kind of ironic because I'm pretty sure that the person who made that comment has done minimal effort to actually bring the human race forward. In fact, If we focus all our attention on pushing the human race forward, our lives today would be completely different and some of us would not even be here as we would have to remove bad genes from reproducing.
This whole situation is not so different from the homosexual marriage issue. Ofcourse things like incest are very different from gay marriage, but the issue remains the same: Nobody who is against gay marriage is able to come up with a valid argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed. The reason for that is because they are against it due to religious belief or morals, and morals aren't build upon reason.
I can see where you are coming from but I have to dissagree about it being destuctive to society, and also the part about right and wrong being facts.
People will commit incest no matter if it where legal or not, they do now, the only way I could see this affecting society is if it were happening often in an isolated community and as for it being selfdestructive, who cares.
Also, and this is getting off topic actually, but what makes right and wrong not an opinion, in other words what makes the action itself right and wrong and not just the way people percieve it? I did make a seperate topic for Objective Morality by the way.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
I can't understand how much more expensive it is to kill someone compared to giving them a warm bed, healthy, meal, access to the internet/books, and hot shower the rest of their life???
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!