Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antsan]

and parent and child can have some weird power dynamics that are better off avoided, so maybe just horizontal

That you can't see that siblings can as well is pretty horrifying.

And seeing how abusive relationships between completely unrelated people exist I don't see how that would be particularly relevant between siblings. I don't see weird power dynamics between siblings more often than elsewhere.

[Loud Whispers]

Hey, Loud Whispers, that first article is from 2012. The law did not pass.

You think I don't read my own articles? Ouch. The law did pass, the second article is explicitly in regard to a challenge on the ban, which has passed now for Denmark and Germany. Germany's fine is insufficient carrying no jail time, but that can be achieved sooner and easier now.

What was that about believable resources?
Never use the Daily Mail for anything, Loud Whispers.

That's why I used the BBC, International Business Times, PETA and so on. If you have selective vision over sources that's not in my care at all.

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/

There we go. Actual progress.

She said that any person causing injuries to animals by such practices should be fined.

Read carefully.

The decision comes almost three months after Germany's Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner promised that sex with animals should be deemed an offence and a punishable act in the future.

Goodness, the selective reading is palpable. She is clearly not in favour of bestiality.

Yeah, I know, this stuff is complex. Still different from flat-out prohibiting zoophilia in general.

Not at all.

Regarding "consent" given by animals: We do much much worse stuff to them on a regular basis that only a minority of people ever complain about. You are not a part of that minority.

I don't justify immorality with immorality, that way immorality lies. I will not justify allowing people to rape animals because of shechita slaughter, which I also want to stop. If you want me to stand by and allow people to rape animals just because you will be endlessly disappointed because I will not back down on this.

Arguing that consent suddenly becomes important when sex is involved when the same isn't true when its about keeping them in confined spaces for their entire life (which, as opposed to killing them doesn't even have any purpose beyond personal enjoyment) seems inconsistent.
Look, I personally don't care whether people have sex with animals. I care when animals get hurt. That's reflected in the laws about animal welfare and that's fine.

Your apathy is not a shocking reveal and it's not reflected in all of the laws regarding animal welfare, so it is not fine. And I thought we established that consent based morality was a foolish endeavour that resulted in everyone justifying immorality like animal sexual abuse? Which surprise, here we go, it's being used to justify two kinds of animal abuse! Wonderful.

I am of the opinion that animals are capable of giving consent. Comparing them to children is absurd – they do reach an age of sexual maturity where their sexuality is fully developed. If that sexuality includes humans, who cares? Well, maybe some zoophiliac, but not me.

This line of thinking is so painfully stupid I'm pretty certain it took a few days off of my lifespan. I don't care about consent based morality and I certainly don't care for apathy based morality, where you want the only people to care about what's right or wrong to be the people doing wrong.

If that sexuality includes humans, who cares? Well, maybe some zoophiliac, but not me.

We are stewards of these creatures, wholly dependent upon us, and yet so many people just sat by and said "who cares. Maybe zoophiliacs, but not me." You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat those dependent upon them, and it's especially sad to find multiple ruled by such apathy to those who would sexually abuse them in the current year. The more you look into this and realize how many tens of thousands of officials have had to cut this all under the rug in just the last decade alone, it really strikes you how and why they acted so inhumanly, or why it was not enough for them to be apathetic - they had to try and stop others from stopping it too.

Nope, morals are not outdated, moralistic laws are. Morals are a personal matter. I value my own morals, doesn't mean I want them to be law.

And so it becomes that law becomes meaningless, morality even less so; it's not a personal matter as its impacts are immediate to everyone we interact with in accordance to our morals. The reason why we have moral law is because trusting in the personal moral of man is a foolish endeavour; humans want to be moral, but sexual passions override such conscious desire. When morality is abandoned by its society and becomes interchangeable with personal etiquette then it all falls apart with bestiality, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia garnering a simple response: "Who cares?" And when the victims appear, brushed are they under the rug. No one cares.

"Noble cause" is just code for "I don't want to explain why it's very important to me personally".

Gay rights activists, emancipation activists, suffragettes, abolitionists; noble causes all explained well and explained easily, your dismissal is a strawman of the weakest calibre in defence of an ignoble cause.

"Fighting" implies some kind of active struggle. I haven't seen that.

http://www.thelocal.de/20130201/47711
Because you are acting like an ostrich with its head in the sand, simultaneously uncaring and unseeing, using your lack of sight to justify an apathy which you use to justify not looking. It loops round and round

And i thought you Europeans weren't as crazy as us Americans.

Heads or tails up on that one, your crazy is our crazy 10 years from now, our crazy is your crazy 10 years from now.

[scriver]

and parent and child can have some weird power dynamics that are better off avoided, so maybe just horizontal

That you can't see that siblings can as well is pretty horrifying.

And seeing how abusive relationships between completely unrelated people exist I don't see how that would be particularly relevant between siblings. I don't see weird power dynamics between siblings more often than elsewhere.

That's a faulty line on questioning - what you should be looking for is weird power dynamics happening more often than siblings in sexual relationships compared to unrelatives in sexual relationships.

[penguinofhonor]

Would you ban relationships between adults of very different ages (say, 20 and 50) if they tended to have weird power dynamics more often than people of similar ages?

[scriver]

"More often" is a weasel number.

[penguinofhonor]

So... care to rephrase what you said without using it? Or do you actually have numbers on how often this happens, or how often would be enough to make it illegal?

[Rolepgeek]

and parent and child can have some weird power dynamics that are better off avoided, so maybe just horizontal

That you can't see that siblings can as well is pretty horrifying.

They can, but it's a lot less likely, particularly once they're both adults. The elder is likely to be out of the house by the timenthe younger turns 18, and twins are unlikely to have those dynamics, and that's if they grew up together, where sexual attraction is usually prevented via the Westermarck effect.

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.

scrdest said it better than I could. It most definitely is a slippery slope argument, because you are literally saying that legalizing these things will cause things to slide farther. That is a part of your argument. The other part is 'it's just wrong', as far as I can tell.

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.

Okay, first off, your dank memes are becoming too much for me. Or just the way you're trying to put it in a way that doesn't stress you out too much to talk about it. But I honestly cannot decipher 'There is no happening, it is' with any confidence. There's a great impact on the mind of any pair of people who have sex, and this goes for childhood friends as much as it would cousins. Hell, I see my cousins less than I see most of my friends, so other than familial pressure, which I think is a good thing as it provides a non-criminalizing disincentive to incest(also, cousin incest is already legal; are you saying that should be illegal too? If so, that's fine as an opinion to hold, but most of the world doesn't think it's a crime worthy of going to jail, from what I can tell), I'm not seeing very many cases where it's bad when actually consensual. When it's not, that's bad, certainly. Continue to take a specially close look at any rape or sexual assault cases involving incest, that's for damn sure. But it's not the government's job to help your family regulate itself. What of little brother big sister? What about twins? What about gay incest? That's certainly not at risk of inbreeding, and I'm not exactly convinced that it'll make rape go less reported or something if someone's brother rapes them, given the stigma about men being raped and family pressures that already exist. And furthermore, I have a question for you. The couple/siblings whose criminal trials brought this matter up, having not grown up together; do you believe they deserve to go to jail for not breaking up once they found out? Honestly, do you? Take a moment to think about it, as I think you and I agree on this point though the heat of the moment and argument might persuade you to believe otherwise. I think they're stupid for having kids rather than adopting or something, but we consider having children to be a right for people to have or something like that I dunno. I don't believe they deserve to go to jail for not considering 'accidental blood relations' to be an automatic 'whelp we have to get divorced/break up now that we know'.

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.

No shit abuse relationships and inbreeding cause awful shit.. I'm fine with laws that say "Hey, don't have kids, shitheads". But should we also ban people who have dominant genetic disorders from having kids, or chromosome defects that may result in a greater likelihood of children with birth defects?

Study looks interesting and I'll be reading it to see what it talks about. (I already knew that cousin-incest caused birth defects too ; sweet spot is supposedly at third cousins, apparently)

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.

It's not about tone policing, it's about it being the exact same style of argument. And that since we still find homosexuality acceptable, we need secondary forms of evidence for it to be considered valid. I've read what you're saying, and up until those links you'd been going off of moral degeneracy, slippery slope, and 'how can you not see how bad it is you must be infected by the homosexual agenda tolerans agenda'. And since all of those can work but don't necessarily work, I have to ask you to argue in a different way. Which you did! Links to science articles and everything. Thank you.

Into the blackness

Better than a culture based around not having that consent

I don't understand Harry Potter hats.

Sorry. :/ Basically, my morals come from my guts and instincts about what's right, but I try and find logical systems of reasoning that explain/articulate why that is, particularly for situations outside the typical bounds of what I can be confident about whether I think it's right or wrong. I only get to the 'but...it's wrong' when that fails/people are being obtuse (not you, just hypothetical dickwads I work myself up about when I'm in a bad mood).

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.

I feel like that has more to do with pack thinking and 'protecting your own' even when 'your own' are cancerous lesions you really need to banish forevermore from the clan, but I'm not actually sure and you have a point, so I'll concede the point.

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.

Right, but you're presupposing that this is harmful behavior and that people will get addicted to it. More than people normally get addicted to sex, presumably. Considering physical intimacy is on the bottom-most layer of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Again, should we then ban video game consumption over a certain limit, to try and curtail addiction? Does Dwarf Fortress need to be regulated, considering all the things we do to dwarves, and the way it warps our way of viewing the world, how we see our colleagues and fellows?

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.

You're stating that it changes their mental health without providing physical evidence for it. Someone who wants to do that is already going to have whatever is wrong with their head stay wrong with their head regardless of whether they do it or not. You wanna explain to me why I shouldn't compare the argument against homosexuality with the argument against necrophilia? Other than it being...'problematic'?(something I never thought you would ever try and use, and maybe you still aren't but then seriously LW what are you doing) Like, you're just presenting it as some sort of weird evil influence that's everpresent and magically affects people around them that they interact with. Just making something legal doesn't mean it's going to all of a sudden have people going 'oh so you're into dead people that's perfectly normal and fine'. I don't know how much I'm willing to bet that there's already people with legal teams advocating for it being legalized/normalized, though, just like bestiality. The fact that the issue came up is evidence of that. I still think it should be illegal, mind you. I just think that you're wrong about why.

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.

Ah, of course. Which is why we send our children to have their gay cured at bible camps. Are you really doing this out of a love for humanity or something? "I respect you, guy I don't know, but you and your sister's decision to sleep together is really worrying me, and I think some good hard jailtime would do you some good so you can think about your actions."
Heroin=/=weird creepy sex. Usually. Sometimes they overlap. >.>

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.

Would you rather have Kantian moral imperatives? Does someone being related to you mean they aren't an adult anymore? What the fuck, dude?

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.
It all becomes a game of pushing what consent means and what an adult means.

Yeah. As opposed to pushing what 'morality' and 'being patriotic enough' means. Maybe it's because we live in places that have opposite problems, where our federal government only recently made gay marriage legal, there's rape/sexual assault going on fucking everywhere without even traditionalist immigrants coming in droves, and shit like the PATRIOT act exists, but I find the alternatives to consent-based morality to be the more disturbing. At least the ones I can think of. Maybe what you're hoping for will be more palatable; could you explain/describe it to me(taboos still exist in consent-based culture, they're just personal matters; you don't really get to control other people's lives, but you definitely don't have to go sit in it. At least the one I'd like to have)?

It's already been pushed to 14.

Yeah, that's...I don't fuckin' know. I can't even really say anything because I don't know enough about all the secondary laws. I know that in my state even if it's not considered statutory rape when the participants are within two years of age and one's a minor, one's an adult, that it can still be considered 'contributing to sexual deviancy' or something. If that's fourteen with an adult, rather than between minors (which would still be kinda fucked up but at least it would be somewhat understandable, if they're hopefully not ridiculously far apart in age(I don't even know where I'm going with this anymore)), then that's...pretty fucked.

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.

All progress is considered moral degeneracy by it's current generation. In twenty years, you'll be considered one of the old coots lamenting how things were so much better in the old days, and in forty years, so will I("I will not have my daughter replacing her nose with a penis, damnit").

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

You awful creature
That's a clever way to make the faces without actual smilies, tho.

SO

ON A SOMEWHAT LESS HORRIFIC NOTE ALL AROUND
....Scandinavia and the World has no EU-related news. I got nothin.

ACTUALBUTALSOFAKEEDIT: Noble cause is a matter of subjectivity, LW. The woman who refused to do her job as an employee of the United States government and give marriage licenses to gay couples thinks hers is a noble cause too. So do all her followers. What makes your opinion on this in particular correct?

We don't make laws enforce morals(or shouldn't) because that way lies authoritarianism and fascism and theocracy, and people abusing it so they can feel superior and put people down in order to feel more moral. I mean, you know, if we're going with slippery slope arguments. And possibly presumptions of evil. Not sure on that one. It's implied, certainly.

See, I know you have no trust in humanity, but nothing will function correctly if you assume people will always abuse it (which isn't false, it's just a matter of trying to reduce the abuse to a minimum while still allowing enough leeway for use in context and hoping people can get it right, usually by trying to improve the culture so that people are smarter and better in general). So we could have a consent based culture where you actually help the victims. That's a big part of it being actually consent based. And it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better.

[Antsan]

Hey, Loud Whispers, that first article is from 2012. The law did not pass.

You think I don't read my own articles? Ouch. The law did pass, the second article is explicitly in regard to a challenge on the ban, which has passed now for Denmark and Germany. Germany's fine is insufficient carrying no jail time, but that can be achieved sooner and easier now.

She said that any person causing injuries to animals by such practices should be fined.

Read carefully.

The decision comes almost three months after Germany's Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner promised that sex with animals should be deemed an offence and a punishable act in the future.

Goodness, the selective reading is palpable. She is clearly not in favour of bestiality.

Yeah, selective reading and stuff. Where did I say anything about who was in favor of what?
Note the "should". That is not an "is".

Regarding "consent" given by animals: We do much much worse stuff to them on a regular basis that only a minority of people ever complain about. You are not a part of that minority.

I don't justify immorality with immorality, that way immorality lies. I will not justify allowing people to rape animals because of shechita slaughter, which I also want to stop. If you want me to stand by and allow people to rape animals just because you will be endlessly disappointed because I will not back down on this.

I'm not talking about slaughter, I am talking about pets like cats and dogs in cities.

Arguing that consent suddenly becomes important when sex is involved when the same isn't true when its about keeping them in confined spaces for their entire life (which, as opposed to killing them doesn't even have any purpose beyond personal enjoyment) seems inconsistent.
Look, I personally don't care whether people have sex with animals. I care when animals get hurt. That's reflected in the laws about animal welfare and that's fine.

Your apathy is not a shocking reveal and it's not reflected in all of the laws regarding animal welfare, so it is not fine. And I thought we established that consent based morality was a foolish endeavour that resulted in everyone justifying immorality like animal sexual abuse? Which surprise, here we go, it's being used to justify two kinds of animal abuse! Wonderful.

For someone accusing me of selective reading you ignore a lot of what I wrote while also just asserting that we "established" something when I never agreed with you.
What the heck? Did you seem me saying anywhere that sex with animals should be defended by law? No, I just say that special laws to prohibit bestiality are superfluous if laws against harming animals via sex already exist.

I am of the opinion that animals are capable of giving consent. Comparing them to children is absurd – they do reach an age of sexual maturity where their sexuality is fully developed. If that sexuality includes humans, who cares? Well, maybe some zoophiliac, but not me.

This line of thinking is so painfully stupid I'm pretty certain it took a few days off of my lifespan. I don't care about consent based morality and I certainly don't care for apathy based morality, where you want the only people to care about what's right or wrong to be the people doing wrong.

If that sexuality includes humans, who cares? Well, maybe some zoophiliac, but not me.

We are stewards of these creatures, wholly dependent upon us, and yet so many people just sat by and said "who cares. Maybe zoophiliacs, but not me." You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat those dependent upon them, and it's especially sad to find multiple ruled by such apathy to those who would sexually abuse them in the current year. The more you look into this and realize how many tens of thousands of officials have had to cut this all under the rug in just the last decade alone, it really strikes you how and why they acted so inhumanly, or why it was not enough for them to be apathetic - they had to try and stop others from stopping it too.

That actually makes sense for once, but still misses the point.

This line of thinking is so painfully stupid I'm pretty certain it took a few days off of my lifespan. I don't care about consent based morality and I certainly don't care for apathy based morality, where you want the only people to care about what's right or wrong to be the people doing wrong.

Dude, I want consequentialist morality. If having sex with animals leads to animals getting hurt, it's wrong. It is not wrong in itself. End of anything I ever wanted to say about the matter.
Whether sex with animals automatically leads to animals being hurt is another matter entirely and as I stated multiple times the deciding factor in German laws is the animal being hurt, not someone having sex with an animal. What's so hard to understand here? Where is the apathy? Do I need to care about other living beings sexuality now?

And so it becomes that law becomes meaningless, morality even less so; it's not a personal matter as its impacts are immediate to everyone we interact with in accordance to our morals. The reason why we have moral law is because trusting in the personal moral of man is a foolish endeavour; humans want to be moral, but sexual passions override such conscious desire. When morality is abandoned by its society and becomes interchangeable with personal etiquette then it all falls apart with bestiality, necrophilia, incest, pedophilia garnering a simple response: "Who cares?" And when the victims appear, brushed are they under the rug. No one cares.

Believe in whatever you want, I believe and feel differently. Morality is subjective and thus inherently personal (which doesn't make it unimportant). Law is what people negotiate to reduce the amount of damage the differences between personal morals do.

Gay rights activists, emancipation activists, suffragettes, abolitionists; noble causes all explained well and explained easily, your dismissal is a strawman of the weakest calibre in defence of an ignoble cause.

Look, my quip about "noble cause" was just a jab at you using the term in the first place – it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion and I specifically dislike those. I do not think the matters of bestiality or incest are as important as gay rights, emancipation… whatever.

Because you are acting like an ostrich with its head in the sand, simultaneously uncaring and unseeing, using your lack of sight to justify an apathy which you use to justify not looking. It loops round and round

I am not fighting for recognition of bestiality as a valid practice. Is that enough of a clarification? I haven't seen the struggle before and certainly it hasn't entered the mainstream. That there are a few people fighting for this is a given – I assumed you meant that it somehow entered the mainstream of at least a larger subculture in Europe. It hasn't.
If you took the time to calm down and just accept that I am not advocating for making animal abuse easier you might find that you could save the time you would otherwise spend to berate me.

and parent and child can have some weird power dynamics that are better off avoided, so maybe just horizontal

That you can't see that siblings can as well is pretty horrifying.

And seeing how abusive relationships between completely unrelated people exist I don't see how that would be particularly relevant between siblings. I don't see weird power dynamics between siblings more often than elsewhere.

That's a faulty line on questioning - what you should be looking for is weird power dynamics happening more often than siblings in sexual relationships compared to unrelatives in sexual relationships.

Yes, that's right, but as I lack these data and see no particular reason to assume that there is much difference I'm stuck with what I said as the best approximation.

[Loud Whispers]

Either you're not aware of the implication of your argument, or you're deliberately trying to spin it as something better than it is, then.

Or I just have a different argument to the one everyone keeps feeling I'm making.

You have quite overtly stated that decriminalization will lead to more people pushing the boundaries, 'having to go further' and so on, so forth. You have not provided any evidence for this particular claim.

I have not made the claim that decriminalization will lead to more people pushing the boundaries, the principle is biological and psychological and fundamental to addiction. The brain rewards a behaviour with pleasure, the person enjoys it, seeks that pleasure by continuing this behaviour to reinforce the habit. Desensitization occurs as the pleasure given is reduced over time which requires escalation to maintain that pleasure. Sexual pleasure is perhaps the most powerful psychological reward for destructive behaviours and most will not stop any such behaviour willingly.

Decriminalizing anything will make it more common - to one degree or another - because there's a certain percentage of people who want to do it but are deterred by the threat of punishment, no matter if that something is murder, wearing mixed fabrics, homosexuality, eating apple pie or necrophilia. Decriminalization will result in a bump among this particular group.

Glad we see eye to eye.

Incidentally, there's a rarer opposite effect, where a certain people who did X won't do it anything, because their major motivation was breaking the taboo/laws.

Most interesting. A problem to be concerned for when it is wholly illegal across Europe, not for nations where it is legal.

What you've been openly arguing literally is the exact same argument that's being used against gay marriage and, earlier, decriminalization of homosexuality, as well as pretty much any decriminalization of anything ever that ran against MUH CHILLUNZ crowd.

No, it is not the exact same argument, and it is not the exact same matter. I am not talking about polygamy or homosexuality, I am talking about incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality.

It's not a matter of what you're arguing against, it could, again, be apple pie, or X, or heterosexual marriage. The logic underlying the argument is faulty.

Demonstrate it.

Only a relatively small handful of people can have inclinations towards any particular deviant (as in non-vanilla, not a moral description) behaviors. I wouldn't want to screw some guy, and animal, or a corpse even if it was legal; a gay man, for that matter, wouldn't want to nail a woman of either species and metabolic viability just because it's legal and most of the people around him are doing it - the only significant change is for bisexuals, where banning either available option is disincentivizing - but all the same if a bisexual falls for a man or a woman and lusts after them won't be changed if the option is illegal.

Only if we wholly exclude learned sexual behaviours entirely from the picture. We can determine for example through neural connections in the amygdala the likelihood of someone being heterosexual or homosexual, but we cannot determine learned sexual behaviours. Is someone born sexually attracted to corpses, slurry, animals or children? For some of those I am guessing there must be biological components at work, but I do not deny the ability for learned behaviours to also apply to sex, most famously through sexual conditioning (like that one experiment where scientists managed to get a group of men to respond with sexual arousal at the sight of shoes by alternating between nude women and shoes, until the association between nude women and shoes was made). It is interesting to note sexual conditioning is more prevalent in men than women owing to differences in how the genitals elicit pleasure, and the majority of observed necrophiliacs, pedophiles and zoophiliacs are men. If we create the conditions to allow sexual conditioning for self-destructive fetishes or even worse, ones that harm others, they will develop as they did in Denmark or the UK.

And yet it's legal for women after 40 to have unprotected sex, even though the risks are, likewise, increased. And if you agree with that, then by the same line of thought any non-interracial sex should be banned to preserve hybrid vigor.

It is legal for women after 40 to have unprotected sex, but the chances of a child being born are very low at 40 and after 45 it will become very hard to become pregnant naturally, having to defer to egg donors (who will not carry the high risk of birth defects or miscarriage of a 40 year old or the simple failure rate of a 45 year old). I would always caution women who want children to have them early, or seek adoption or IVF or surrogates, but the simple reason why we don't criminalize unprotected sex for over 40 year olds is because this law would be somewhat pointless as most over 40s have useless eggs and this law would be quite hard to enforce, as there are many over 40 year old couples.

About one in 200 babies born to women aged 40 or over have Down's syndrome. This compares with one in 700 babies born with mums aged 35 to 39, and one in 1,500 babies born to mums aged 20 to 24.

This compares to our south-asian communities where amongst married 1st cousins 1/3 children born from their wedding don't even live to see their 5th birthday. 1 in 200 having Down's syndrome out of a large group of people you'd have to seriously inconvenience versus probable death or life with debilitating disease out of a practice very easily ended? That is an aversion reinforced by psychology? Much more achievable, much more meaningful protection.
And on the topic of hybrid vigour, we do not yet fully understand how it works and why it sometimes fails, producing genetic illnesses between a mixed race couple where neither had a history of it, or why the Icelandics have very healthy genes despite being an isolated homogenous island. There is some sweet spot between being too closely related (the risk of inheriting recessive genetic diseases increases) and being too different in relation (where hybrid vigour can come with new genetic diseases). Finding and allocating everyone their perfect genetic match would be a logistical nightmare, outlawing anything but racial mixing would be chaos as we can't even properly define racial categories that everyone would neatly fit in, especially in today's globalized worlds where everyone is a bit of this and that but not anything in particular, it would constitute either a horrendous failure or a horrendous dystopia for very little gain (selection pressure matters more in this regard, or genetic screening which is currently illegal in most countries, perhaps all).
Incest though pretty reliably produces children who will die before or after birth quite shortly or else live with much sickness mental or physical, traits which they can pass to their children and so on. It is very easily stopped as family is not an abstract, gargantuan broad group like race or over 40s, and it's usually a self-regulating social process anyways so you need only spot outliers rather than spot every blade of grass in a field.

[Rolepgeek]

You have quite overtly stated that decriminalization will lead to more people pushing the boundaries, 'having to go further' and so on, so forth. You have not provided any evidence for this particular claim.

I have not made the claim that decriminalization will lead to more people pushing the boundaries, the principle is biological and psychological and fundamental to addiction. The brain rewards a behaviour with pleasure, the person enjoys it, seeks that pleasure by continuing this behaviour to reinforce the habit. Desensitization occurs as the pleasure given is reduced over time which requires escalation to maintain that pleasure. Sexual pleasure is perhaps the most powerful psychological reward for destructive behaviours and most will not stop any such behaviour willingly.

What makes you believe that enough people will participate in this behavior for such desensitization to become an issue on large scales? Should BDSM be illegal too, lest people go too far and end up injured? I mean, hell, that's a thing where consent is a fucking huge issue, because of how easy it is to abuse someone during it.

What you've been openly arguing literally is the exact same argument that's being used against gay marriage and, earlier, decriminalization of homosexuality, as well as pretty much any decriminalization of anything ever that ran against MUH CHILLUNZ crowd.

No, it is not the exact same argument, and it is not the exact same matter. I am not talking about polygamy or homosexuality, I am talking about incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality.

You are making meaningless distinctions here. As you say below, if you aren't making the exact same argument? Then demonstrate it. None of us are advocating for necrophilia. None of us are talking about pedophilia. You are the one who keeps bringing them up as if they're relevant in these discussions of other matters.

It's not a matter of what you're arguing against, it could, again, be apple pie, or X, or heterosexual marriage. The logic underlying the argument is faulty.

Demonstrate it.

That is the sleaziest thing I have ever seen you do, LW, and I am disappointed. What do you think this entire debate has been? "Demonstrate it". Seriously, man? Demonstrate the logical flaws, when we keep showing that it was used to argue against homosexuality, and if you think that homosexuality is alright, then there's obviously something wrong with the argument? Come on, LW. You're better than that.

At least your follow-up arguments aren't bad. I mean, there's a bunch of presumptions about self-destruction and shit but they seem reasonable assumptions to make.

Though I will still ask if telling incestuous couples they can't have kids (don't put 'em in jail for it, but don't let 'em keep the kid either, if that's what they were wanting to do; has to be put up for adoption), and/or making it so that people who didn't grow up together/knowing one another who are related by blood, aren't put in jail for having sex, would solve your issues with it. How finely tuned does it need to be?

I suppose there's another question here, which is the ever-present "Do people have a right to be stupid, under law, if it hurts no one else?"

[scriver]

So... care to rephrase what you said without using it? Or do you actually have numbers on how often this happens, or how often would be enough to make it illegal?

The words "more often" is not used in the same way in our posts. My use was about what should be looked at too see if there is cause to be worried or horrified in the first place and what it should be compared too - ie not comparing it to siblings who aren't in a sexual relationship but comparing it to people who are in a sexual relationship.

and parent and child can have some weird power dynamics that are better off avoided, so maybe just horizontal

That you can't see that siblings can as well is pretty horrifying.

They can, but it's a lot less likely, particularly once they're both adults. The elder is likely to be out of the house by the timenthe younger turns 18, and twins are unlikely to have those dynamics, and that's if they grew up together, where sexual attraction is usually prevented via the Westermarck effect.

In my mind this just makes it more likely to exist an elevated level on "power dynamic" relationships whenever they become sexual. The chances of two siblings. It is likelier that only one of them is astray from both the average and the Westermarck effect than two of them.

And while I have no proof of this, it is my assumption that it would be common for people to develop attraction for their siblings once they are both adults if they have known each other all their lives, and that any relationship between two of them would probably have started during their adolescence.

Lastly, family dynamics do not just magically dematerialise when people become 18. If one member has been able to abuse another through power structures it is not presumptions that they will be able to continue to do so afterwards as well.

[scrdest]

What you've been openly arguing literally is the exact same argument that's being used against gay marriage and, earlier, decriminalization of homosexuality, as well as pretty much any decriminalization of anything ever that ran against MUH CHILLUNZ crowd.

This is a fallacy. That the argument itself is the same is not automatically bad when the matter is a different one. You'll have to prove that the argument is bad again, regarding this matter, if you want to disprove it, just like LW has to prove that it is good.

That sentence was aimed not strictly at the argument, but at LW's remark on 'tone policing' - his argument isn't compared to the objections against homosexuality to denigrate him, it's literally the same argument with 'necrophilia/bestiality' substituted for 'homosexuality'.

It's not automatically wrong, yes. But the cases are analogous; both are minority sexual behaviors that the average member of the public isn't just indifferent to, but actively squicked out by. There is no particular reason to believe either of the above as fundamentally different and special in comparison to homosexuality as far as general public's inclinations to indulge in those are concerned. And that being the case, we already have a good amount of analogous cases showing the exact opposite of what LW is arguing.

In particular, Sergarr's claim that people can be pressured into these is kinda funny - flip the perspective, and it would imply that homosexuality should be a non-issue, what with centuries of overwhelming pressure on the homosexuals to conform.

Either you're not aware of the implication of your argument, or you're deliberately trying to spin it as something better than it is, then.

Or I just have a different argument to the one everyone keeps feeling I'm making.

Then maybe you should make sure you communicate your argument correctly.

You have quite overtly stated that decriminalization will lead to more people pushing the boundaries, 'having to go further' and so on, so forth. You have not provided any evidence for this particular claim.

I have not made the claim that decriminalization will lead to more people pushing the boundaries, the principle is biological and psychological and fundamental to addiction. The brain rewards a behaviour with pleasure, the person enjoys it, seeks that pleasure by continuing this behaviour to reinforce the habit. Desensitization occurs as the pleasure given is reduced over time which requires escalation to maintain that pleasure. Sexual pleasure is perhaps the most powerful psychological reward for destructive behaviours and most will not stop any such behaviour willingly.

You're assuming the behaviour is pleasurable in the first place. It isn't, for the majority of the population, quite the opposite, by basic evolutionary pressures - behaviors inconducive to reproduction can only spread if the carrier reproduces normally as well, so exclusive paraphilias are strongly selected against; in the case of non-exclusive paraphilias, avoidance improves odds of reproducing successfully for many reasons, in necrophilia/bestiality's case especially due to health risks.

Most people are way not into either; they don't receive positive feedback, but negative. If they could get sexual pleasure from the act in the first place, it's counterbalanced by the huge eww factor.

What you've been openly arguing literally is the exact same argument that's being used against gay marriage and, earlier, decriminalization of homosexuality, as well as pretty much any decriminalization of anything ever that ran against MUH CHILLUNZ crowd.

No, it is not the exact same argument, and it is not the exact same matter. I am not talking about polygamy or homosexuality, I am talking about incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality.

Do I have to break it down to formal logic?

Only a relatively small handful of people can have inclinations towards any particular deviant (as in non-vanilla, not a moral description) behaviors. I wouldn't want to screw some guy, and animal, or a corpse even if it was legal; a gay man, for that matter, wouldn't want to nail a woman of either species and metabolic viability just because it's legal and most of the people around him are doing it - the only significant change is for bisexuals, where banning either available option is disincentivizing - but all the same if a bisexual falls for a man or a woman and lusts after them won't be changed if the option is illegal.

Only if we wholly exclude learned sexual behaviours entirely from the picture. We can determine for example through neural connections in the amygdala the likelihood of someone being heterosexual or homosexual, but we cannot determine learned sexual behaviours. Is someone born sexually attracted to corpses, slurry, animals or children? For some of those I am guessing there must be biological components at work, but I do not deny the ability for learned behaviours to also apply to sex, most famously through sexual conditioning (like that one experiment where scientists managed to get a group of men to respond with sexual arousal at the sight of shoes by alternating between nude women and shoes, until the association between nude women and shoes was made). It is interesting to note sexual conditioning is more prevalent in men than women owing to differences in how the genitals elicit pleasure, and the majority of observed necrophiliacs, pedophiles and zoophiliacs are men. If we create the conditions to allow sexual conditioning for self-destructive fetishes or even worse, ones that harm others, they will develop as they did in Denmark or the UK.

And yet it's legal for women after 40 to have unprotected sex, even though the risks are, likewise, increased. And if you agree with that, then by the same line of thought any non-interracial sex should be banned to preserve hybrid vigor.

It is legal for women after 40 to have unprotected sex, but the chances of a child being born are very low at 40 and after 45 it will become very hard to become pregnant naturally, having to defer to egg donors (who will not carry the high risk of birth defects or miscarriage of a 40 year old or the simple failure rate of a 45 year old). I would always caution women who want children to have them early, or seek adoption or IVF or surrogates, but the simple reason why we don't criminalize unprotected sex for over 40 year olds is because this law would be somewhat pointless as most over 40s have useless eggs and this law would be quite hard to enforce, as there are many over 40 year old couples.

About one in 200 babies born to women aged 40 or over have Down's syndrome. This compares with one in 700 babies born with mums aged 35 to 39, and one in 1,500 babies born to mums aged 20 to 24.

This compares to our south-asian communities where amongst married 1st cousins 1/3 children born from their wedding don't even live to see their 5th birthday. 1 in 200 having Down's syndrome out of a large group of people you'd have to seriously inconvenience versus probable death or life with debilitating disease out of a practice very easily ended? That is an aversion reinforced by psychology? Much more achievable, much more meaningful protection.

And on the topic of hybrid vigour, we do not yet fully understand how it works and why it sometimes fails, producing genetic illnesses between a mixed race couple where neither had a history of it, or why the Icelandics have very healthy genes despite being an isolated homogenous island. There is some sweet spot between being too closely related (the risk of inheriting recessive genetic diseases increases) and being too different in relation (where hybrid vigour can come with new genetic diseases). Finding and allocating everyone their perfect genetic match would be a logistical nightmare, outlawing anything but racial mixing would be chaos as we can't even properly define racial categories that everyone would neatly fit in, especially in today's globalized worlds where everyone is a bit of this and that but not anything in particular, it would constitute either a horrendous failure or a horrendous dystopia for very little gain (selection pressure matters more in this regard, or genetic screening which is currently illegal in most countries, perhaps all).
Incest though pretty reliably produces children who will die before or after birth quite shortly or else live with much sickness mental or physical, traits which they can pass to their children and so on. It is very easily stopped as family is not an abstract, gargantuan broad group like race or over 40s, and it's usually a self-regulating social process anyways so you need only spot outliers rather than spot every blade of grass in a field.

Heh. Are you aware of why the chances of the child being born are low? It's because in most of the cases, mutations are lethal in utero. Fun to use, when arguing with some pro-lifers.

[Loud Whispers]

They can, but it's a lot less likely, particularly once they're both adults. The elder is likely to be out of the house by the timenthe younger turns 18, and twins are unlikely to have those dynamics, and that's if they grew up together, where sexual attraction is usually prevented via the Westermarck effect.

Yes, perhaps for Western families where everyone leaves to do their own thing by 18. And even for Western families, less likely, but all too likely.

scrdest said it better than I could. It most definitely is a slippery slope argument, because you are literally saying that legalizing these things will cause things to slide farther. That is a part of your argument. The other part is 'it's just wrong', as far as I can tell.

Decriminalizing things cause more of that thing to happen is a slippery slope argument now? Even when it's demonstrably true that decriminalizing bestiality in Denmark and Germany led to an increase in bestiality? Goodness. I should fight for deregulation of the banks, turns out the notion of them reverting to old habits is just a slippery slope fallacy and actions don't have consequences.

Okay, first off, your dank memes are becoming too much for me. Or just the way you're trying to put it in a way that doesn't stress you out too much to talk about it. But I honestly cannot decipher 'There is no happening, it is' with any confidence.

I'm not dank meming, so perhaps it is just my language here. Sorry! Very sorry, this is an exhaustive topic.

There's a great impact on the mind of any pair of people who have sex, and this goes for childhood friends as much as it would cousins. Hell, I see my cousins less than I see most of my friends, so other than familial pressure, which I think is a good thing as it provides a non-criminalizing disincentive to incest(also, cousin incest is already legal; are you saying that should be illegal too?

I thought I was very clear, yes. I don't justify immorality with immorality, that way we slip and slide into the blackness. Also I don't know where you are, but first cousins is illegal here, we have a problem not with a law court but with authorities unwilling to go so far as to even get up to prosecution or confrontation.

If so, that's fine as an opinion to hold, but most of the world doesn't think it's a crime worthy of going to jail, from what I can tell), I'm not seeing very many cases where it's bad when actually consensual. When it's not, that's bad, certainly. Continue to take a specially close look at any rape or sexual assault cases involving incest, that's for damn sure. But it's not the government's job to help your family regulate itself. What of little brother big sister? What about twins? What about gay incest? That's certainly not at risk of inbreeding, and I'm not exactly convinced that it'll make rape go less reported or something if someone's brother rapes them, given the stigma about men being raped and family pressures that already exist.

I believe I brought up the power dynamic before, my morality is not a eugenic one, not a consent one and so on, it is as holistic as I can make it. If your family engages in abusive behaviour amongst itself and you are not in a position of power, there is no one else who can intervene beyond civil services. When abuse takes place, there is no one else who can intervene without the law, lest you find the entire family levy itself upon you. Such as with arranged marriages, where everything is consensual, but the consent is dubious and coercion is not second law.

And furthermore, I have a question for you. The couple/siblings whose criminal trials brought this matter up, having not grown up together; do you believe they deserve to go to jail for not breaking up once they found out? Honestly, do you?

I would have sentenced them the same, their example will set society's standard

Take a moment to think about it, as I think you and I agree on this point though the heat of the moment and argument might persuade you to believe otherwise. I think they're stupid for having kids rather than adopting or something, but we consider having children to be a right for people to have or something like that I dunno. I don't believe they deserve to go to jail for not considering 'accidental blood relations' to be an automatic 'whelp we have to get divorced/break up now that we know'.

What is deserving is a matter of judgement altogether apart from what is a just judgement, most do not get the punishments they deserve because it would be impossible to deliver any such punishment, a just one is what is delivered. They were stupid for having Kids rather than adopting, they knew what they were doing and they did it on purpose.

No shit abuse relationships and inbreeding cause awful shit.

Yet today myself and others have had to point this out. It is a sad state of affairs really

I'm fine with laws that say "Hey, don't have kids, shitheads". But should we also ban people who have dominant genetic disorders from having kids, or chromosome defects that may result in a greater likelihood of children with birth defects?

I'd say it depends, most dominant genetic disorders that would be serious enough to warrant removal from the gene pool are either self-eliminating or else could be treated with cell therapy, if we ever get on to doing that. I'm just saying I'd prosecute a carer for having sex with their patient for rape.

Study looks interesting and I'll be reading it to see what it talks about. (I already knew that cousin-incest caused birth defects too ; sweet spot is supposedly at third cousins, apparently)

Icelandians are weird

It's not about tone policing, it's about it being the exact same style of argument.

It's not about tone policing, it's about tone policing

And that since we still find homosexuality acceptable, we need secondary forms of evidence for it to be considered valid. I've read what you're saying, and up until those links you'd been going off of moral degeneracy, slippery slope, and 'how can you not see how bad it is you must be infected by the homosexual agenda tolerans agenda'.

I'm not joking when they're called the Zoophiles Committed to Enlightenment and Tolerance organization lel
And I'm not walking into that because arguments surrounding homosexuality are clearly a different matter altogether to incest, bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia, I'm not going to waste my time arguing against justifications for homosexuality that are non-applicable to incest, bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia, it's why I mock the organizations who have far more resources than they should doing so publicly.

And since all of those can work but don't necessarily work, I have to ask you to argue in a different way. Which you did! Links to science articles and everything. Thank you.

No probs! I must be on so many google watchlists by now. Fucks sakes :D

Better than a culture based around not having that consent

Yeah which is like choosing whether to live under Hitler or Stalin when you can choose to live anywhere in the world, why would you deliberately choose to trap yourself between hell and hell?

Sorry. :/ Basically, my morals come from my guts and instincts about what's right, but I try and find logical systems of reasoning that explain/articulate why that is, particularly for situations outside the typical bounds of what I can be confident about whether I think it's right or wrong. I only get to the 'but...it's wrong' when that fails/people are being obtuse (not you, just hypothetical dickwads I work myself up about when I'm in a bad mood).

Ah, I don't trust gut instincts too much since they lead to good people fervently defending bad things, I've much too much seen too much of that. Plus if I ran on gut instinct I'd still be pretty anti-cultural enrichment, though now my gut instinct also agrees with me - it's cognitive dissonance at its finest, so it's better to start with logical systems and facts first and then run your way through it, the gut will follow.

I feel like that has more to do with pack thinking and 'protecting your own' even when 'your own' are cancerous lesions you really need to banish forevermore from the clan, but I'm not actually sure and you have a point, so I'll concede the point.

Some of these people were clearly of outgroups. For example the whole molestation stuff going on in the UK for so long, Catholic Priests, famous DJs, Politicians, Grooming Gangs, the amount of outsiders required to have kept everything quiet for so long (indeed, to keep other outsiders quiet) suggests this was something else. Like that one Politician who was abusing kids being protected by the same Police protecting the Pakistani rape gangs doing the same; different people, the Police having no personal connections to either, but protection all the same.

Right, but you're presupposing that this is harmful behavior and that people will get addicted to it.

Can you demonstrate incest, bestiality, necrophilia or pedophilia as healthy behaviour? I have only seen otherwise (not rhetorical). Also I presuppose it will be addictive because that is how we are designed, it is one of the most powerful human instincts right up there to hunger.

More than people normally get addicted to sex, presumably. Considering physical intimacy is on the bottom-most layer of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Right down there with hunger, sleep and breathing :/
Maslow puts morality at the top and look how the need for it is apathetic, nonexistent, whilst people travel half way around the world risking life and income to have sex with beautiful women in Europe, it is a powerful instinct with an acute ability to engender sexual conditioning.

Again, should we then ban video game consumption over a certain limit, to try and curtail addiction? Does Dwarf Fortress need to be regulated, considering all the things we do to dwarves, and the way it warps our way of viewing the world, how we see our colleagues and fellows?

If Dwarf Fortress was less Cacame and more Obok that argument could be made

You're stating that it changes their mental health without providing physical evidence for it. Someone who wants to do that is already going to have whatever is wrong with their head stay wrong with their head regardless of whether they do it or not. You wanna explain to me why I shouldn't compare the argument against homosexuality with the argument against necrophilia? Other than it being...'problematic'?(something I never thought you would ever try and use, and maybe you still aren't but then seriously LW what are you doing)

don't trigger me timbers m8

Like, you're just presenting it as some sort of weird evil influence that's everpresent and magically affects people around them that they interact with.

No, that magical interaction is called people existing in society, working within it, talking to the people within it and so on.

Just making something legal doesn't mean it's going to all of a sudden have people going 'oh so you're into dead people that's perfectly normal and fine'. I don't know how much I'm willing to bet that there's already people with legal teams advocating for it being legalized/normalized, though, just like bestiality. The fact that the issue came up is evidence of that.

Bet your life on it they have them, legalization is the point where it already is either accepted or ambivalent by its public. Morality is a personal matter m8 don't trigger me

I still think it should be illegal, mind you. I just think that you're wrong about why.

I don't know why you think so or what's different about what you think
Please explain

Ah, of course. Which is why we send our children to have their gay cured at bible camps.

Yup definitely not comparing fucking corpses with homosexuality

Are you really doing this out of a love for humanity or something? "I respect you, guy I don't know, but you and your sister's decision to sleep together is really worrying me, and I think some good hard jailtime would do you some good so you can think about your actions."

Yep, really think about what you're doing.

Heroin=/=weird creepy sex. Usually. Sometimes they overlap. >.>

Yeah if you let your friend become a chemsex addict you are not their friend, just as a drug dealer is never their customer's friend

Would you rather have Kantian moral imperatives? Does someone being related to you mean they aren't an adult anymore? What the fuck, dude?

It's almost like that's not my point

But that would be impossible

Yeah. As opposed to pushing what 'morality' and 'being patriotic enough' means. Maybe it's because we live in places that have opposite problems, where our federal government only recently made gay marriage legal, there's rape/sexual assault going on fucking everywhere without even traditionalist immigrants coming in droves

That's racist
Lol jk I see ya, Nork American? Don't worry, you'll have our problems soon enough. Or maybe you exported them to us? Who started it all anyways ;D

and shit like the PATRIOT act exists, but I find the alternatives to consent-based morality to be the more disturbing. At least the ones I can think of. Maybe what you're hoping for will be more palatable; could you explain/describe it to me(taboos still exist in consent-based culture, they're just personal matters; you don't really get to control other people's lives, but you definitely don't have to go sit in it. At least the one I'd like to have)?

Top kek you never have the option to not sit in the society you live in, even if you deliberately try to remove yourself from them. If you really could, there'd be no problems with anyone anywhere at all

Yeah, that's...I don't fuckin' know. I can't even really say anything because I don't know enough about all the secondary laws. I know that in my state even if it's not considered statutory rape when the participants are within two years of age and one's a minor, one's an adult, that it can still be considered 'contributing to sexual deviancy' or something. If that's fourteen with an adult, rather than between minors (which would still be kinda fucked up but at least it would be somewhat understandable, if they're hopefully not ridiculously far apart in age(I don't even know where I'm going with this anymore)), then that's...pretty fucked.

Yeah it's 14 with adults as long as it's not physically forced, between parents or older relatives, and clear authority situations like prison guards, police, judges, teachers, carers e.t.c.
Keep pushing, keep revvin up

All progress is considered moral degeneracy by it's current generation.

No it's not

In twenty years, you'll be considered one of the old coots lamenting how things were so much better in the old days

No I won't
I'll be telling them how shit everything was and how every second of it I was alive
THIS IS LONDON

IT WILL ALWAYS GET WORSE 

and in forty years, so will I("I will not have my daughter replacing her nose with a penis, damnit").

fug
the nose nose

ON A SOMEWHAT LESS HORRIFIC NOTE ALL AROUND
....Scandinavia and the World has no EU-related news. I got nothin.

I'm pretty certain they had a webcomic where Norway fucks a fish

Slightly on topic lol

ACTUALBUTALSOFAKEEDIT: Noble cause is a matter of subjectivity, LW. The woman who refused to do her job as an employee of the United States government and give marriage licenses to gay couples thinks hers is a noble cause too. So do all her followers. What makes your opinion on this in particular correct?

Nothing, I make no claim to nobility, only plebness and fighting

We don't make laws enforce morals(or shouldn't) because that way lies authoritarianism and fascism and theocracy, and people abusing it so they can feel superior and put people down in order to feel more moral. I mean, you know, if we're going with slippery slope arguments. And possibly presumptions of evil. Not sure on that one. It's implied, certainly.

That's actually a relevant point but we've all since established Europe should not fear shariah and islamicization is a myth spread by Papal shills to warn of slippery slopageddon

See, I know you have no trust in humanity, but nothing will function correctly if you assume people will always abuse it (which isn't false, it's just a matter of trying to reduce the abuse to a minimum while still allowing enough leeway for use in context and hoping people can get it right, usually by trying to improve the culture so that people are smarter and better in general). So we could have a consent based culture where you actually help the victims. That's a big part of it being actually consent based. And it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better.

Create a system that will be abused

It will be abused

Respect the Robot

[Loud Whispers]

You're assuming the behaviour is pleasurable in the first place. It isn't, for the majority of the population

Not for necrophiliacs, zoophiles and pedophiles.

Heh. Are you aware of why the chances of the child being born are low? It's because in most of the cases, mutations are lethal in utero. Fun to use, when arguing with some pro-lifers.

Oh that's devilish
Your pro-lifers I feel have done great damage to their own cause
They're basically shitposters irl

What makes you believe that enough people will participate in this behavior for such desensitization to become an issue on large scales?

Estimations for zoophiles in Germany ran at 17,000 (vets) -100,000 (zoophiles for enlightenment and tolerans).

Should BDSM be illegal too, lest people go too far and end up injured? I mean, hell, that's a thing where consent is a fucking huge issue, because of how easy it is to abuse someone during it.

We have laws regulating it to ensure it is safe and people don't get abused, most amusingly being that recent example where that dominatrix was fined because her dungeon didn't have good fire safety

You are making meaningless distinctions here. As you say below, if you aren't making the exact same argument? Then demonstrate it.

No you demonstrate it because you are comparing me to arguments I've never before seen in my life. If you are going to accuse me of being something then ffs demonstrate it, I can't defend myself from accusations floating in the air that have no parameters or likeness, this is why I don't do arguments on feels, I do arguments on what is. Have the cheek to call me sleazy when you're doing that? Nah get dunked

None of us are advocating for necrophilia. None of us are talking about pedophilia. You are the one who keeps bringing them up as if they're relevant in these discussions of other matters.

From my end you keep talking about homosexuality when we're talking about necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia and incest in the topic where Swedes and Germans are battling to ban it or decriminalize it. Don't hijack my dialogue oppressive shitlord

That is the sleaziest thing I have ever seen you do, LW, and I am disappointed. What do you think this entire debate has been? "Demonstrate it". Seriously, man? Demonstrate the logical flaws, when we keep showing that it was used to argue against homosexuality, and if you think that homosexuality is alright, then there's obviously something wrong with the argument? Come on, LW. You're better than that.

Demonstrate it man, I have no idea what you're talking about, you keep bringing up homosexuality when it's obvious we're not talking about it and getting angry when I point this out

[Sergarr]

In particular, Sergarr's claim that people can be pressured into these is kinda funny - flip the perspective, and it would imply that homosexuality should be a non-issue, what with centuries of overwhelming pressure on the homosexuals to conform.

I've never said that social pressure was the only factor that determined your sexuality, so I've never implied that.