My Thought On Personal Liberty

[Dr.D]

Please can i get an invitation to Woodstock Jag's next party. i'm sure to have a wonderful time listening to his interseting utterings but probably would be ejected for ejecting him.

[Jaggernaut]

Are you looking at this rationally or just confirming society's bias, though?

 

I personally would not shag my sister (or indeed my mother, aunts or grandmothers for that matter ). That doesn't mean that it is somehow morally wrong or morally repulsive for others to do so if they are two consenting adults who understand the potential consequences of their behaviour and take necessary steps not to cause unnecessary harm either to each other or to other people.

 

Sexual activity is just that: sexual activity. It takes place between persons. The only moral issue I can see is of consent. Why should something as incidental as biological commonality make sexual relations outside the realm of normality or acceptability. "It's just wrong" isn't a proper reason; it's not a reason at all. It's just stating it to be wrong without any actual evidence or reason to support it.

There's no doubt that inbreeding depression results from reproduction between closely related individuals, i.e. a greater incidence and range of congenital abnormalities compared to what would be expected from reproducing with much more distantly related individuals. There's also no doubt that most species including humans have evolved to minimize the risk of this happening, by ensuring that we are usually not motivated to have sex with our closest relatives. But this incest aversion seems to depend mostly on familiarity, which in turn depends on growing up together. So, the vast majority of normal people don't want to have sex with their brother or sister not actually because it's their brother or sister, but because they have grown up with them and the revulsion at the idea has resulted from over-familiarity. It's actually not unusual for brothers and sisters who were separated at an early age to later find each other sexually attractive, or indeed for people to find some of their cousins attractive to the point of having sexual relations. In fact, marriage between cousins isn't universally condemned. That doesn't mean that it's for everybody, of course, but if two adult cousins want to "take things further", then who are we to make a song and dance?

[Woodstock Jag]

There's no doubt that inbreeding depression results from reproduction between closely related individuals, i.e. a greater incidence and range of congenital abnormalities compared to what would be expected from reproducing with much more distantly related individuals. There's also no doubt that most species including humans have evolved to minimize the risk of this happening, by ensuring that we are usually not motivated to have sex with our closest relatives. But this incest aversion seems to depend mostly on familiarity, which in turn depends on growing up together. So, the vast majority of normal people don't want to have sex with their brother or sister not actually because it's their brother or sister, but because they have grown up with them and the revulsion at the idea has resulted from over-familiarity. It's actually not unusual for brothers and sisters who were separated at an early age to later find each other sexually attractive, or indeed for people to find some of their cousins attractive to the point of having sexual relations. In fact, marriage between cousins isn't universally condemned. That doesn't mean that it's for everybody, of course, but if two adult cousins want to "take things further", then who are we to make a song and dance?

 

People need to be weary of conflating "reproduction" with "sexual activity". I've already acknowledged earlier on that in-breeding can lead to negative biological side-effects. What I'm challenging is this fundamental idea that just because a particular branch of sexual inclination leads to the most biologically favourable outcome, does not mean that other lines are any less "normal" or that they are "wrong". What about homosexuality? Is that wrong because it leads to zero reproduction? What about people with severe disabilities: should they not be allowed to engage in sexual activity in case they pass on their conditions to their children?

 

I see, in terms of morality, in terms of any other measure, no ostensible difference between sexual intercourse between consenting siblings and any other consensual sexual activity.

[Jaggernaut]

People need to be weary of conflating "reproduction" with "sexual activity". I've already acknowledged earlier on that in-breeding can lead to negative biological side-effects. What I'm challenging is this fundamental idea that just because a particular branch of sexual inclination leads to the most biologically favourable outcome, does not mean that other lines are any less "normal" or that they are "wrong". What about homosexuality? Is that wrong because it leads to zero reproduction? What about people with severe disabilities: should they not be allowed to engage in sexual activity in case they pass on their conditions to their children?

 

I see, in terms of morality, in terms of any other measure, no ostensible difference between sexual intercourse between consenting siblings and any other consensual sexual activity.

I'd pretty much agree with all of that.

 

Homosexuality is a reproductive dead-end, there is no doubt about that. It is also "abnormal" in that it is not the norm for the majority of people, but I don't think that it can be considered "wrong" in any moral sense. Maybe it's a bit like supporting, say East Stirlingshire: it's a dead-end in terms of ever seeing your team win the Champions League, and you're not even in the majority in Stirlingshire (I believe), but hey, if that's what floats your boat.

 

PS: I'm guessing you mean "wary" and not "weary".

Edited May 2, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[Woodstock Jag]

I'd pretty much agree with all of that.

 

Homosexuality is a reproductive dead-end, there is no doubt about that. It is also "abnormal" in that it is not the norm for the majority of people, but I don't think that it can be considered "wrong" in any moral sense. Maybe it's a bit like supporting, say East Stirlingshire: it's a dead-end in terms of ever seeing your team win the Champions League, and you're not even in the majority in Stirlingshire (I believe), but hey, if that's what floats your boat.

 

PS: I'm guessing you mean "wary" and not "weary".

 

[twinny]

There are however biological mechanisms that attempt to prevent incest/inbreeding, so it is not only societal norms that discourage it. An example is that pheromones produced by family members can modulate behaviour to prevent inbreeding. A very crude link with a decent source of it's own is here.

[Woodstock Jag]

There are however biological mechanisms that attempt to prevent incest/inbreeding, so it is not only societal norms that discourage it. An example is that pheromones produced by family members can modulate behaviour to prevent inbreeding. A very crude link with a decent source of it's own is here.

 

That's actually a pretty weak link. Even then the only biological reason for inhibiting incest is clearly to inhibit the negative effects of inbreeding. I refer you back to the homosexuality example: the way our chromosomes distribute and our sexual organs develop are arguably a far stronger evolutionary feature to affect the genetic development of multiple reproductive cycles than simply a hormone delaying puberty. Does that mean that homosexual activity is "not normal" or "not acceptable"?

[Blackpool Jags]

Nah, you've missed his point. The point is there should be no publicly funded assistance for the medical consequences of any action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've already acknowledged earlier on that in-breeding can lead to negative biological side-effects.

 

 

Might I be right in reading your (IMO) deeply questionable views on in-house poking to mean that any biologically deficient 'product' of such unspeakable unions wouldn't be entitled - in your world - to publicly funded healthcare to help treat their disabilities, or is that different because the product had no say in this hideous matter?

 

Just as a by the way, I find the whole idea that 'incest is fine as long as daddy and daughter are cool about it' really repulsive. It's only my opinion, but there's often a reason why entire societies outlaw particular practices; you either get that or you dont.

[Woodstock Jag]

Might I be right in reading your (IMO) deeply questionable views on in-house poking to mean that any biologically deficient 'product' of such unspeakable unions wouldn't be entitled - in your world - to publicly funded healthcare to help treat their disabilities, or is that different because the product had no say in this hideous matter?

 

The issues are separate. No one under any circumstances should have any absolute expectation to medical assistance of any kind.

 

Individuals or society may choose to create a set of rules or reciprocal agreements which entitle either individuals as individuals or as part of a collective to healthcare, but that does not necessitate that such healthcare need be public: that is state funded and provided.

 

Clear?

 

Just as a by the way, I find the whole idea that 'incest is fine as long as daddy and daughter are cool about it' really repulsive. It's only my opinion, but there's often a reason why entire societies outlaw particular practices; you either get that or you dont.

 

Based on what though? All I keep hearing are words like "repulsive" "wrong" "sickening" and "disgusting" without any actual evidence that incest itself is either harmful, or by a rational measure of morality, wrong or unacceptable.

[i@n]

 

I personally would not shag my sister (or indeed my mother, aunts or grandmothers for that matter ).

 

Why not?

[Woodstock Jag]

Why not?

 

Because I don't find them sexually attractive. Exactly the same reason I wouldn't shag a man.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[Blackpool Jags]

The issues are separate. No one under any circumstances should have any absolute expectation to medical assistance of any kind.

 

Individuals or society may choose to create a set of rules or reciprocal agreements which entitle either individuals as individuals or as part of a collective to healthcare, but that does not necessitate that such healthcare need be public: that is state funded and provided.

 

Clear?

 

 

Based on what though? All I keep hearing are words like "repulsive" "wrong" "sickening" and "disgusting" without any actual evidence that incest itself is either harmful, or by a rational measure of morality, wrong or unacceptable.

 

Point one: Many years ago the public, inspired by Nye Bevan, embraced the concept of a National Health Service, free at the point of need...etc. It became fairly popular and will remain so long after the fiendish legislation dreamt up by the Tories, and for which NOBODY voted, has been forced in thanks to whores like Clegg. Clear?

 

 

Point two: Like I said, you either get it or you don't.

[Woodstock Jag]

Point one: Many years ago the public, inspired by Nye Bevan, embraced the concept of a National Health Service, free at the point of need...etc. It became fairly popular and will remain so long after the fiendish legislation dreamt up by the Tories, and for which NOBODY voted, has been forced in thanks to whores like Clegg. Clear?

 

 

Point two: Like I said, you either get it or you don't.

 

Point One: No, a government purporting to represent "the public" forcibly appropriated through the taxation system, money to fund a project that they called the National Health Service. It was then institutionalised by vague measures of majorative public "consent". That system's existence does not override the fundamental; merely provides a framework which element of that society have created to achieve a particular political objective. It should thus be something people can opt out of (you should never be bound by the compact of your predecessors) and that includes both the front end at which your assets are appropriated and the tail end where the service is provided. As things stand, people are not allowed to do this, so it is illegitimate.

 

Point Two: This is inane posturing without evidence. If the reasons behind your revulsion are so sound; if the policy consideration is so overwhelming; if the innate properties of incest are so logically abhorrent: provide evidence. Otherwise it's tantamount to pseudo-Religious, Ten Commandments/Sharia Law-esque nonsense.

[1 John Lambie]

I can't quite believe that there needs to be evidence as to why incest is wrong. If family members are going to shag each other they'll do it, but they're in the minority & can hardly use the excuse, 'well we wurny gonna have babies.' The fact that reproductive problems may occur is almost irrelevant.

 

I have no doubt it's probably quite a popular activity in parts of the world, probably parts of Glasgow, but I didn't think it was something that any right minded person would challenge as a rule/law/whatever you want to call it.

[Woodstock Jag]

I can't quite believe that there needs to be evidence as to why incest is wrong. If family members are going to shag each other they'll do it, but they're in the minority & can hardly use the excuse, 'well we wurny gonna have babies.' The fact that reproductive problems may occur is almost irrelevant.

 

I have no doubt it's probably quite a popular activity in parts of the world, probably parts of Glasgow, but I didn't think it was something that any right minded person would challenge as a rule/law/whatever you want to call it.

 

If we are to be rational creatures, every moral statement and/or statement of norms must be justified stringently through the use of evidence and facts.

 

Not one person on this thread has provided evidence or reasoning which credibly reaches the concluding statement "thus incest is morally wrong" or "thus incest should be made illegal".

 

If I may, I'd draw everyone back to the homosexuality analogy. Just because it's not something you personally would do; just because it's not something you personally would feel comfortable with doing; just because it's not the most prevalent norm; does not mean that it is morally repulsive, morally unjustifiable, or morally vacuous.

[Phoenix]

Why not?

Might be the only way he gets his nat king.

If he did then maybe he wouldn't be on here showing us all the error of our ways. (or being a smug little chld who thinks he knows everything about everything and if you don't agree with him then you are just too stupid to understand anyway)

 

He's made a huge mistake arguing with Blackpool Jag about the NHS. BJ worked in the NHS before WJ was a twinkle in his father's eye.

[KAWB]

Might be the only way he gets his nat king.

If he did then maybe he wouldn't be on here showing us all the error of our ways. (or being a smug little chld who thinks he knows everything about everything and if you don't agree with him then you are just too stupid to understand anyway)

 

He's made a huge mistake arguing with Blackpool Jag about the NHS. BJ worked in the NHS before WJ was a twinkle in his father's eye.

 

 

Mods c'mon, this is trolling at its best.

[Woodstock Jag]

Might be the only way he gets his nat king.

If he did then maybe he wouldn't be on here showing us all the error of our ways. (or being a smug little chld who thinks he knows everything about everything and if you don't agree with him then you are just too stupid to understand anyway)

 

He's made a huge mistake arguing with Blackpool Jag about the NHS. BJ worked in the NHS before WJ was a twinkle in his father's eye.

 

Nothing like a few ad hominems to lower the tone of debate, eh?

[1 John Lambie]

There is a clear difference between having sex with a man, to having sex with your family. Should a man have sex with brother, yes, that is wrong. But it has nothing to do with it being homosexual.

 

I don't quite see why myself or BJ has to provide facts, it would appear your views are clearly in the minority, not on the forum, but worldwide. Anyway, you don't need facts on occasions, moral duty is enough. You may not have that moral thinking, but most do.

 

Should Jennifer Aniston be my sister, I may well have a different moral standing.

Edited May 2, 2011 by 1 John Lambie

[Phoenix]

Nothing like a few ad hominems to lower the tone of debate, eh?

What debate? Your whole argument consists of repeating the same alleged facts over and over again. Add to that your idea that any one who has an opposite viewpoint is too stupid to understand the idea being discussed.

 

I realise that you are probably a student (hence the smug latin phrases) and are at the age where everything seems black and white and you just cant understand why everybody cant see it your way but believe me that will pass. Your recent posts have been extremely patronising and therefore I won't bother wasting any more time on you.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Phoenix

[crazy davie]

To whom it may concern...

 

I'd up for sh4gging your sister.

[jaggybunnet]

To whom it may concern...

 

I'd up for sh4gging your sister.

 

[i@n]

Because I don't find them sexually attractive. Exactly the same reason I wouldn't shag a man.

Bit of an after-thought about men eh? Anyway, what if you got a bit piss*d one night and were dying for it. C'mon, attractive or not, there'd be no harm in it.

[Woodstock Jag]

There is a clear difference between having sex with a man, to having sex with your family. Should a man have sex with brother, yes, that is wrong. But it has nothing to do with it being homosexual.

 

What's the difference?

 

I don't quite see why myself or BJ has to provide facts, it would appear your views are clearly in the minority, not on the forum, but worldwide. Anyway, you don't need facts on occasions, moral duty is enough. You may not have that moral thinking, but most do.

 

Why should the majority dictate the outcome of all moral issues? 40-50 years ago, "the majority" of people in this country thought homosexuality was wrong. Indeed only 44 years ago was it (quite rightly) decriminalised!

 

I am not asking for "facts". Indeed I don't think the acceptability is necessarily a question of "fact". What I am asking for is moral "reasoning": logic. The way we approach life; the way we learn more about ourselves, and about the world around us, is by observation and using reason or logic to make sense of that. Morality is an attempt to approximate right from wrong by appeal to some form of authority. That authority may be rooted in the belief in some sort of deity (hence my references to religion, the 10 Commandments and Sharia Law) or it may be grounded in something else like reason, evidence and observation. I happen to think that the latter approach is the more sensible and successful in the history of human development. What I'm trying to understand is how anyone who does not base this "moral duty" as you put it in a supernatural authority, otherwise comes to the conclusion that incest is wrong.

 

What debate? Your whole argument consists of repeating the same alleged facts over and over again. Add to that your idea that any one who has an opposite viewpoint is too stupid to understand the idea being discussed.

 

I realise that you are probably a student and are at the age where everything seems black and white and you just cant understand why everybody cant see it your way but believe me that will pass. Your recent posts have been extremely patronising and therefore I won't bother wasting any more time on you.

 

The debate dealing with the moral issues surrounding incest. I am perfectly open to alternative points of view if people actually explain the fundamental basis for holding that view. Otherwise it might as well come from a religious dogma and no grounding in facts, evidence and reality.

 

Which of the statements I've made about the concept of incest do you wish to challenge? Which "facts" are only "alleged"? I'm happy to engage in reasoned discussion. If you want to swan off and reason that I'm wrong "because I'm a student who thinks everything is in black and white", fine, but don't expect me to take your opinion seriously.

 

It's actually a trifle ironic. Statements like "it's just wrong" with respect to incest are, themselves, indicators of looking at the issue in a dual-tone world.

[Woodstock Jag]

Bit of an after-thought about men eh? Anyway, what if you got a bit piss*d one night and were dying for it. C'mon, attractive or not, there'd be no harm in it.

 

No. Same reason.