should incest be legal?

[Ame®icano]

I love how the republicans are answering no.

Stay out of my life, but please tell someone else who they can have sex with.

I love how the dems have always said there's no "slippery slope". I think blu's stance..and apparently yours...proves there is.

Incest would clip around okay for a generation or so. Then you'd start having serious recessive genetic traits popping up. Which is why there are laws against it.

For THAT they will get free health care unless they stay with their parents until age 26.

 

[Ame®icano]

I love how the republicans are answering no.

Stay out of my life, but please tell someone else who they can have sex with.

I love how the dems have always said there's no "slippery slope". I think blu's stance..and apparently yours...proves there is.

Incest would clip around okay for a generation or so. Then you'd start having serious recessive genetic traits popping up. Which is why there are laws against it.

So people found to possess such genetic traits shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, or just not with other persons known to posses such traits?

I never knew you were into eugenics.

Those are YOUR words, he didn't say anything like that.

There are, you know, people who care to have healthy and normal kids. There are also those who care for welfare checks instead.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Those are YOUR words, he didn't say anything like that.

?

He argued:

Then you'd start having serious recessive genetic traits popping up

Which is why there are laws against it.

Ergo, anything that results in having serious recessive genetic traits popping up --> law against it

He also has been defending these laws

He is arguing for controlling peoples' reproduction based on his perception of their genetic desirability and whether their reproducing is good for the species.

That's eugenics.

 

[Ame®icano]

Those are YOUR words, he didn't say anything like that.

?

He argued:

Then you'd start having serious recessive genetic traits popping up

Which is why there are laws against it.

Ergo, anything that results in having serious recessive genetic traits popping up --> law against it

He also has been defending these laws

He is arguing for controlling peoples' reproduction based on his perception of their genetic desirability and whether their reproducing is good for the species.

That's eugenics.

Your words are that "people found to possess such genetic traits shouldn't be allowed to reproduce". Not his.

 

[AllieBaba]

I love how the republicans are answering no.

Stay out of my life, but please tell someone else who they can have sex with.

I love how the dems have always said there's no "slippery slope". I think blu's stance..and apparently yours...proves there is.

Incest would clip around okay for a generation or so. Then you'd start having serious recessive genetic traits popping up. Which is why there are laws against it.

So people found to possess such genetic traits shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, or just not with other persons known to posses such traits?

I never knew you were into eugenics.

I'm not. If I were, I'd believe in line breeding humans for characteristics, just like you do animals.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

He defends the law on the grounds that it prevents the genes from spreading.

He defends controlling human reproduction in the hopes of eliminating or controlling bad traits.

He defends negative eugenics.

by definition.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm not. If I were, I'd believe in line breeding humans for characteristics, just like you do animals.

That's not what eugenics means.

When people resort to such straw men, it's because they're liars. In this case, you appear to be lying to yourself, not wanting to admit what it is you people are really arguing,

 

[Ame®icano]

He defends the law on the grounds that it prevents the genes from spreading.

He defends controlling human reproduction in the hopes of eliminating or controlling bad traits.

He defends negative eugenics.

by definition.

You're overreacting.

He's defending prevention of having deformed and retarded and most likely rejected children.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

He's defending prevention of having deformed and retarded and most likely rejected children.

By what means?

By controlling human breeding and preventing those who are perceived as genetically inferior, damaged, or flawed from spreading their undesirable traits to the next generation of humanity.

It's called wiping out the Lower Tenth through the elimination of the same and disallowing people to reproduce if it's believed that their actions would be detrimental to the overall health and fitness of Man and/or condemn their offspring to inferior genetics.

What you just said is the very argument of eugenicists who defend negative eugenics as ultimately a moral thing.

When we listened to such people in the 20's, we saw children forcefully sterilized in America.

Google: united states eugenics movement

 

[AllieBaba]

He's defending prevention of having deformed and retarded and most likely rejected children.

By what means?

By controlling human breeding and preventing those who are perceived as genetically inferior, damaged, or flawed from spreading their undesirable traits to the next generation of humanity.

It's called wiping out the Lower Tenth through the elimination of the same and disallowing people to reproduce if it's believed that their actions would be detrimental to the overall health and fitness of Man and/or condemn their offspring to inferior genetics.

What you just said is the very argument of eugenicists who defend negative eugenics as ultimately a moral thing.

When we listened to such people in the 20's, we saw children forcefully sterilized in America.

Google: united states eugenics movement

So, let me get this straight..you're saying that if a person thinks incest should be illegal...for example, a father marrying his daughter, after he raises her to be his wife....that person must be pro-eugenics?

You can't be saying that.

Btw, that's another prime reason to make incest illegal. The potential for coercion.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, let me get this straight..you're saying that if a person thinks incest should be illegal...for example, a father marrying his daughter, after he raises her to be his wife....that person must be pro-eugenics?

That's not what I said.

Go back and try reading for comprehension.

You can't be saying that.

I didn't. There are other arguments to be made, but so far everyone has been arguing the eugenicists' argument.

 

[AllieBaba]

No. Again, you're playing fucking games. You asked me if I was pro-eugenics, as I didn't believe in incest.

So it follows that you are saying that if someone objects to incest, that person must approve of eugenic practices.

 

[AllieBaba]

Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not particularly interested in going through your deliberately misleading posts frontwards and backwards, trying to decipher them. You want to confuse people, great. They're not going to know what the hell you're saying and will make assumptions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No. Again, you're playing fucking games. You asked me if I was pro-eugenics, as I didn't believe in incest.

Incorrect. It's that you believe in controlling human breeding to reduce or eliminate the prevalence/spread of traits you deem undesirable.

Negative eugenics by the very definition of negative eugenics.

So it follows that you are saying that if someone objects to incest, that person must approve of eugenic practices.

No, I've said that someone arguing for negative eugenics by defending its very premise certainly appears to support negative eugenics.

 

[AllieBaba]

Everyone practices eugenics on some level. You practice it when you decide who you want to have babies with. So this is a ridiculous discussion. Incest is wrong on many levels, primarily that children are viewed as sexual objects by close members of their family from too early an age. The safety of the family is removed if incest is no longer a taboo, and pretty much all societies have recognized that for a very long time.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Incest is wrong on many levels, primarily that children are viewed as sexual objects by close members of their family from too early an age.

incest and paedophilia are two different matters


did you not read to OP?

 

[AllieBaba]

You're not listening. Read again for comprehension, genius.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You equated incest and paedophilia

. Incest is wrong on many levels, primarily that children are viewed as sexual objects by close members of their family from too early an age

Backtracking already?

 

[blu]

You equated incest and paedophilia

. Incest is wrong on many levels, primarily that children are viewed as sexual objects by close members of their family from too early an age

Backtracking already?

the op specifically said between two adults

 

[Ame®icano]

He's defending prevention of having deformed and retarded and most likely rejected children.

By what means?

By controlling human breeding and preventing those who are perceived as genetically inferior, damaged, or flawed from spreading their undesirable traits to the next generation of humanity.

It's called wiping out the Lower Tenth through the elimination of the same and disallowing people to reproduce if it's believed that their actions would be detrimental to the overall health and fitness of Man and/or condemn their offspring to inferior genetics.

What you just said is the very argument of eugenicists who defend negative eugenics as ultimately a moral thing.

When we listened to such people in the 20's, we saw children forcefully sterilized in America.

Google: united states eugenics movement

@ bold

He's not talking about preventing genetically inferior or damaged to produce bla, bla...

He's talking about preventing normal people to produce genetically inferior, damaged generation.