Your slippery slope argument is on a slippery slope there, LoudWhispers.
I'm not arguing from a slippery slope, this is very simple cause and effect. Decriminalizing bestiality, necrophilia and incest makes it a more common occurrence, independent of the slippery slope being covered in lube.
Let me make one thing clear though; I'm not arguing for necrophilia here. I'm arguing, if anything, for the 'love is love' bit (though honestly it's as much about the tack you're taking as anything else; I know, I know, I'm bad and someone is wrong on the internet. forgive my obsession with ensuring people argue the way I want them to? 
). Why is consensual sex between adults who happen to be blood-relatives (hell, brother and sister are actually farther apart(~25% genetic makeup shared) than parent and child(~50%), and parent and child can have some weird power dynamics that are better off avoided, so maybe just horizontal) so detrimental to society? Don't give me 'how can it NOT be?' bullshit. Seriously, LW. I respect you, and I understand where you're coming from. I, too, am a Gryffindor. But explicate. Specifically. How does it harm society? In what way will finding out my wife is my sister affect how I see my boss, or my next-door neighbor?
We are already at the point of questioning whether parent and child relationships are harmful. There is no happening, it is. Even if we rule out parent-child incest we are talking siblings or cousins who do not have the same relationships as they would strangers, there is a great impact on the mind of both a bigger brother and a little sister who engage in sex. On the individual level there is no equal power dynamic and on the familial level there can only be deconstruction. I don't really understand how Western family units operate as they don't really have a uniform standard even on a national basis, which I assume must be something to do with Western individualism. But for people who have family units, what goes on in family does not happen independently of family pressure, and that's not just arranged marriages.
The authors conclude that the characteristics of brother–sister incest and its associated psychosocial distress did not differ from the characteristics of father–daughter incest. These findings suggest that theoretical models and clinical practices should be adjusted accordingly and that sibling incest should not necessarily be construed as less severe or harmful than father–daughter incest.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213402003654
I'm not even going to talk about the risks of inbreeding:
The medical risks of first cousin marriages include higher rates of infant mortality, birth defects, learning difficulties, blindness, hearing problems and metabolic disorders.
As adults, the children born from first cousin marriages are at increased risk of miscarriage or infertility. A third of children affected die before their fifth birthday.Love is not love, the love between student and pupil, parent and child, sibling and sibling, lover and lover - you cross the line it ends in damage psychological.
Because you wanna know why I brought up homosexuality? Because you sound almost exactly like the people who were and some of those who are advocating against it.
So you brought it up because of tone policing, which I give zero fucks about. I don't care what I sound like, I don't care what people assume I'm saying, this is not the first time I've had to ask people to actually read what I'm saying for what I'm saying and not what it
feels like I'm saying.
"Cuz', you know, that's what happened with homosexuality! Look at bestiality! That's in Europe, which legalized homosexual marriage long before America. Now it's only a matter of time before we're all screwing our goats too." I compare it to them because people in the past compared it to them. I really don't see what's wrong with a consent based culture. Hell, there's a significant portion of people wishing we'd give more of a damn about consent. If that was the primary morality indicator in our culture, I don't think it'd be so terrible.
Into the blackness
Moral degeneracy arguments hold exceedingly little sway with me, because I'm a Ravenclaw too, and prefer to think as Ravenclaw when I can.
I don't understand Harry Potter hats.
Furthermore, I thought the reason we didn't want sexual predators teaching children was the risk of having them sexually prey upon those young. Not to sustain the moral fabric of society.
The two and one are the same, we had so many thousands of children sexually exploited for decades by predators, but it was the authorities in charge who knew of it and covered it up that most intrigue me. The cultures they were raised in that made them turn a blind eye? Odd is a polite way of saying so.
So...games are addicting. Or do you just mean drugs? Because addiction does tend to affect other people.
Addiction is addiction, it is just the measure of people's capacity to habitually engage in harmful behaviour for positive stimulus in a way that reinforces the behaviour to seek more positive stimulus and so on irregardless of the adverse consequences.
Necrophilia is taboo because of sanctity of human remains, disease possibilities embedded into our subconscious, danger reactions to 'hey the person I was mating with just died', and so on. Homosexuality used to be taboo.
Yep you're totally not comparing homosexuality to necrophilia gj m8 gj. You're proving very adept at talking right past my points but disease, sanctity of remains is just one component here, I worry for the dead but the living walk amongst the living and those living who fuck dead corpses; that changes their mental health and they continue to interact with the living.
Oh...no? People are okay with BDSM and teh gay now? This is such a failing of society, to respect people's individual choices?
And necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia and incest.
If you truly love someone you don't respect their choices when they are self-destructive ones, if you stand by and respect your friend's choice to become a heroin addict you are not their friend.
Loud Whispers, again, I respect you, but the 'pushing the limits of what constitutes an adult' is the worrying part for me. Not the 'do what you want if everyone involved is alright with it'. Sometimes a lot more people are involved than it appears at first glance. But I just don't get the problem with consent-based morality here.
The problem is it is a system of morality that is the most plastic and the limits of what constitutes an adult will continually be pushed without firm opposition.
The people pushing for bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia, most I would assume are none who actually participate in any of the three; just judging by the Swedes none of them appeared to be having sex with relatives dead or alive. Yet they must push the limits, because that is the toleran way.
The current scandal dates back to last year’s federal election, when a German researcher revealed that one of the party’s leaders, Juergen Trittin, had signed off on a 1981 local party platform arguing that sex between adults and children, in some cases, be legal. Trittin quickly acknowledged that he had made a mistake, blaming it on an oversight—but conservative political opponents were quick to describe the Greens’ actions as “repulsive.” This came on the heels of other revelations—which had prompted the report in the first place—that another senior Green Party figure had once written about his “flirtations” with children while working in a kindergarten. Largely as a result, the party only received a disappointing 8.4 percent of the popular vote.
One popular reference point, both in West Germany and elsewhere, was the writings of Wilhelm Reich, a leftist Austrian psychiatrist who died in 1957. An influential pupil of Freud, Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism argued that the rise of authoritarianism could be tied to the “suppression of the natural sexuality of the child.” And West Germany had another prominent symbol for the movement: an anarchist journalist named Peter Schult, who remained a figure of reverence on the left despite the fact that he openly described himself as a “pederast.” In 1976, he was convicted of bringing a young girl home with him with the intention of sexually abusing her.
The period’s experimental sexual climate led to shocking projects, some of which were only publicized decades later. In the late 1960s, for example, a prominent sexual researcher named Helmut Kentler created a pilot program in which he arranged for illiterate young teenagers to move in with three known West Berlin pedophiles in the hopes that they could then learn to live “proper, unremarkable lives.” In a later report he explained that he believed the “three men would do so much to help ‘their’ boys because they had a sexual relationship with them.”
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, groups like the Indianerkommune (which fought in favor of “autonomy” for children) and the German Study and Work Group on Pedophilia made surprising inroads into German political parties. A youth group affiliated with the FDP, the country’s liberal party, adopted pro-pedophilia resolutions in 1980. During last year’s election, an FDP politician—who is now a mother of three—had to withdraw her candidacy after one of the Greens’ researchers discovered an early essay of hers describing how her “wishes and needs can only be satisfied by a child, especially a girl.” The pro-pedophilia movement had even more success within the German Green Party, which was formed in 1980 as a vehicle for various left-wing causes, and actually managed, as the Trittin scandal showed, to have its goals taken up by segments of the party itself.
Jürgen Trittin was listed as “legally responsible” for a 1981 election pamphlet, which called for the decriminalisation of sex acts between adults and children “that occur without the use or threat of force.”
Mr Trittin, the co-leader of the party and a former German environment minister, told a press conference in Berlin on Monday: “It was also my fault and my responsibility that these mistaken demands endured for so long.” He added: “This position is false, was false and lasted too long.”
Asked how he viewed it then, Mr Trittin replied: “I saw it as problematic”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10312930/Germanys-Green-Party-leader-regrets-campaign-to-legalise-paedophilia.html
It all becomes a game of pushing what consent means and what an adult means.
(1) Whosoever engages in sexual activity with a person under fourteen years of age (child) or allows the child to engage in sexual activity with himself shall be liable to imprisonment from six months to ten years.
(2) Whosoever induces a child to engage in sexual activity with a third person or to allow third persons to engage in sexual activity with the child shall incur the same penalty.
(3) In especially serious cases the penalty shall be imprisonment of not less than one year.
(4) Whosoever
1. engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child;
2. induces the child to engage in sexual activity, unless the act is punishable under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above;
3. presents a child with written materials (section 11(3)) to induce him to engage in sexual activity with or in the presence of the offender or a third person or allow the offender or a third person to engage in sexual activity with him; or
4. presents a child with pornographic illustrations or images, audio recording media with pornographic content or pornographic speech,
shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
(5) Whosoever supplies or promises to supply a child for an offence under subsections (1) to (4) above or who agrees with another to commit such an offence shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
(6) The attempt shall be punishable; this shall not apply to offences under subsection (4) Nos 3 and 4 and subsection (5) above.
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGB_000P182 - 176, Child Abuse
It's already been pushed to 14.
Which dysfunction begot bestiality? And which one made that? Where did it start?
Where it started is honestly anyone's guess, who exported bestiality brothels to who first? So many European cities are on the suspect list, if I had to hazard a guess I'd say it'd be one of the Danish, Swedish or German ones but it could've been anywhere, as this shit is everywhere.
There are issues with people pushing too far forward at a breakneck pace without having their roll slowed by conservative elements(which is the entire point of their existence, as far as I'm concerned; progressive elements push society forward, conservative ones keep them from tripping over themselves in their haste to improve. Idealists and pragmatists, basically, is what I want.), but the appropriate reaction is not to decide that the whole thing might as well be destroyed. You're starting to sound almost more reactionary than conservative or moderate, with the 'tear it down and start anew' stuff.
Well the whole issue here is that the progressives degenerate, not progress, the conservatives sellout, not conserve, and the reactionaries are only reacting and will clearly always be fighting only after they've long since already lost. No reaction is appropriate, as reaction is pushing back instead of pulling in a new direction, something actually required. Hence why the reset by cultural enrichment needs to happen as smoothly and quickly as possible, to pull Europe in a new direction.
Their line typically goes along the line of 'society is going to crumble because of progressivism and the Cathedral' and moral degeneracy stuff. Maybe I just had you pegged in the wrong hole this entire time? Reactionaries can make good points at times, after all.
Eh, at this point I could probably describe myself as having been in all the political camps at some point. Also there's a joke to be made about pegging the wrong hole that I think is 2crude2lewdious to make :
P
Regarding bestiality: It is legal in Germany, France, parts of the USA, Spain, Belgium, Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan and Mexico. Many of those forbid distribution and production of bestiality porn and almost all have laws regarding animal protection that forbid forcing an animal to bestiality or hurting animals for sexual pleasure.
Even though animals are incapable of consent the law finds away to morally justify it when the law is decided by moral invalids; and so it becomes "forcing an animal to bestiality," which is about as moral as pedophilia between "willing children and adults."
So, what you're saying is that most people are hidden zoo- and necrophiliacs or would become such if given the chance? Most people would turn to incest if it was legal? Because legality is the bigger problem for most people?
Incest is a taboo for at least all mammals. We don't need laws to keep it from becoming widespread.
I think the point here is that people are very plastic in their beliefs and habits, so their sexual habits can - and will - be changed by social influences. So if you have a lot of friends or role models who are into bestiality/incest, you very likely would be socially forced to do it as well, even if in different circumstances you wouldn't have even considered it.
Quite so, though not even bestiality or necrophilia in particular, it's the holistic affect of addiction and social engineering that will only grow more potent as sexually maturing and malleable generations grow up in these environments. There is a biological component to mental maladies that makes people more prone to certain conditions, yet most would live their entire lives quite healthy and unaware because they suffered no experience in their lives that served to trigger any mental illness. That's for those growing up in this society, for those already participating they already have the pleasure response needed to ensure their continual habit until desensitization occurs, at which point they will need escalation.
First off: It's not "fighting".
Second: Not every law is about a "noble cause". Only because this kind of argument is used in many cases were there is a case against outdated moralistic laws that doesn't mean it's a correct argument to use. Moralistic laws aren't only wrong when they're outdated.
I'm surprised you took to the word fighting considering the topic, but alas I forgot morals and noble causes are outdated in the current year.
Any sources on those bestiality bordellos? Wikipedia says the existence of those (in Germany) was pure conjecture at the time when they were a topic, first spread by a freesheet in Denmark. If all sources are not fit for posting here, I'd think that would be quite suspicious. Legal brothels certainly need to be registered, right?
Never use Wikipedia for anything Antsan.
A 2011 Ministry of Justice report surveyed veterinarians and found 17 per cent of them suspected that an animal they treated had had intercourse with a human.
After we contacted the Danish government about this disturbing issue earlier this year, we received this reply from the Ministry of Foods, Agriculture and Fisheries:
The Danish government has decided that a ban on sexual relations between humans and animals shall be implemented in the Danish legislation.
Animals must be treated with respect and care and have the right to a high level of protection. When it comes to sexual relations between humans and animals there is a special concern to be taken into account, as the animals cannot consent to enter into a sexual relation with a human being. Another concern is that it can be difficult to identify and document possible physical or mental damage to the animal as a result of the sexual relation with a human being.
Yesterday, the law was finally amended as promised, bringing Denmark into line with other European countries and putting a stop to the deeply disturbing animal-sex industry.
http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/denmark-bans-bestiality/
And goodness, ZETA mocking PETA, god damn that's a new low. PETA could very well be full of shit but I'm not gonna be finding you the contact details of animal brothels.
For one thing, the Pakistani community in this country already has a serious problem with birth defects and similar, because of a culture of relationships with your relations being more commonplace/acceptable. Though typically it's more often cousins than siblings. But yeah, their rates of congenital birth defects are through the roof. I can't imagine legalising incest would help in any way toward fixing that problem.
Specifically those who came from rural communities where arranged marriages to keep pure blood is desired. I'm not sure why Westerners consider siblings to be on equal footing, but I suppose it's because their family units are looser/have no emphasis on bigger and smaller siblings?
Anyways, that whole thing with a 1/3rd dying before their 5th birthday is pretty fucked up. Not to mention how the grooming gangs specifically used English girls as their sex slaves for the very reason that they wanted to keep Pakistani girls "pure" for marriage, this is unhealthy on so many levels.
*EDIT
The default assumption is probably that the animal did not consent, but there have been cases where it was obvious that the animal in question did not suffer trauma and was perfectly fine with their human partner.
It's already ogre
f
u
g
Sources btw
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1104972 times)