Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Twins Marry Each Other

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 6:49:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 6:42:47 PM, Nags wrote:
No, they're not from the South, they're from England. Oh yeah, they were parted at birth. Creepy, I know.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

Are they star wars fans?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2010 12:31:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, I know from a documentary that family members who are parted from birth never build up the sort of sibling/parental relationships that prevent this sort of thing from happening.

The example the doc gave was of a mother and son; the mother never had to deal with her child and all the stuff that goes with dealing with children, so she never had that motherly aw-he's-my-baby-boy relationship. And because of that, when they did meet later in life, completely by accident too, they grew really close to each other, because of the sense of familiarity and closeness that I guess is a genetic connection and etc. But, since they never dealt with each other as mother and son, they took it more as romantic feelings than what it actually was.

The same probably happened with these twins.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2010 1:53:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's still against the law, the rationale behind the law is due to the health problems consanguineous unions may bring. But then they are often exaggerated.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2010 1:59:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/16/2010 1:53:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's still against the law, the rationale behind the law is due to the health problems consanguineous unions may bring. But then they are often exaggerated.

Not against the law! Anything but that.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2010 2:05:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/16/2010 1:53:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's still against the law, the rationale behind the law is due to the health problems consanguineous unions may bring. But then they are often exaggerated.

This is the result of interbreeding over generations: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The thing is it doesn't, and won't if legalised, happen over generations.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 7:53:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There was a movie about this with Heather Graham I think (maybe called Say It Ain't So?). Anyway, I agree with Panda that if it's consensual between sane adults then it's really not a big deal. A little creepy, but still none of my business. Just lol @ 2 sane, healthy, mature, rational, responsible, madly in love non-related women not being able to be married though.
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:00:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 7:59:15 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/16/2010 1:42:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I fail to see the problem with the legalisation of incest

Two consensual adults want to have sex. Why should the government stop them? I'm aware of the medical consequences, don't get me wrong.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
youhavejustlostthegame
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:10:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:00:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Two consensual adults want to have sex. Why should the government stop them? I'm aware of the medical consequences, don't get me wrong.

lol well the medical effects should be enough exempting that its morally wrong, perverse.

It's like asking what's wrong with a man having sex with a dog. If the dog gets pleasure and is consenting then whats wrong with that?

It's a societal taboo for a reason.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:15:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:10:21 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:00:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Two consensual adults want to have sex. Why should the government stop them? I'm aware of the medical consequences, don't get me wrong.

lol well the medical effects should be enough exempting that its morally wrong, perverse.

It's like asking what's wrong with a man having sex with a dog. If the dog gets pleasure and is consenting then whats wrong with that?

It's a societal taboo for a reason.

Societal taboo =/= illegal
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:19:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:15:23 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Societal taboo =/= illegal

It very often does.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:22:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:10:21 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:00:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Two consensual adults want to have sex. Why should the government stop them? I'm aware of the medical consequences, don't get me wrong.

lol well the medical effects should be enough exempting that its morally wrong, perverse.

Fine. You get STD and AIDS from anal sex. Anal sex Outlawed. You get a plethora of diseases from kissing. Kssing Outlawed. You can lose brain functionality from a car crash. Driving Outlawed.

See a pattern? Why the government should intervene with two consensual adults, or any number of consensual adults for that matter, having sex, for any reason is beyond me. Medical defects? A child from interbreeding became the King of Spain. Go figure.


It's like asking what's wrong with a man having sex with a dog. If the dog gets pleasure and is consenting then whats wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with it. The dog is consenting. X. I think it's wrong in some sense, but I'm not going to impose my moral views in regards to consensual agreements on anyone.


It's a societal taboo for a reason.

Societal taboos are relative.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:31:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/16/2010 1:59:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/16/2010 1:53:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's still against the law, the rationale behind the law is due to the health problems consanguineous unions may bring. But then they are often exaggerated.

Not against the law! Anything but that.

I don't think I would enjoy prison, so yes your sarcasm aside I still view that as a problem.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
youhavejustlostthegame
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:32:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:22:17 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Fine. You get STD and AIDS from anal sex. Anal sex Outlawed. You get a plethora of diseases from kissing. Kssing Outlawed. You can lose brain functionality from a car crash. Driving Outlawed.

See a pattern? Why the government should intervene with two consensual adults, or any number of consensual adults for that matter, having sex, for any reason is beyond me. Medical defects?

haha STDs =/= destroying societies gene pool

Now if STD's start causing the children of that relationship to be retarded then we should talk.

A child from interbreeding became the King of Spain. Go figure.
Yes he became the king of spain because he was the prince of spain because he was born into it. I hope you're not going to laud the merits of monarchy and how its some sort of an accomplishment to be king?

Henry the 8th was a king.

There is nothing wrong with it. The dog is consenting. X. I think it's wrong in some sense, but I'm not going to impose my moral views in regards to consensual agreements on anyone.

So having sex with animals is fine? Well then how about having sex with 5 year olds? I mean if they aren't crying during the procedure why not? If they're consentutal and enjoying it?



It's a societal taboo for a reason.

Societal taboos are relative.

Yes relative to society's viewpoints.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:35:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/16/2010 2:05:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/16/2010 1:53:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's still against the law, the rationale behind the law is due to the health problems consanguineous unions may bring. But then they are often exaggerated.

This is the result of interbreeding over generations: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The thing is it doesn't, and won't if legalised, happen over generations.

Not true actually on both counts.

Interbreeding can cause problems in the first generation, and as their already exists communities in developed nations that suffer from health issues due to long term interbreeding, it does not logically follow that if incest were legalised the situation would be improved.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:37:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:32:56 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:

haha STDs =/= destroying societies gene pool

Who are you Hitler? Genetic Engineerer!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:37:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:10:21 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:00:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Two consensual adults want to have sex. Why should the government stop them? I'm aware of the medical consequences, don't get me wrong.

lol well the medical effects should be enough exempting that its morally wrong, perverse.

It's like asking what's wrong with a man having sex with a dog. If the dog gets pleasure and is consenting then whats wrong with that?


Sorry I don't understand, what is morally wrong with these consensual sexual acts?

It's a societal taboo for a reason.

What reason?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:38:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:32:56 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:22:17 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Fine. You get STD and AIDS from anal sex. Anal sex Outlawed. You get a plethora of diseases from kissing. Kssing Outlawed. You can lose brain functionality from a car crash. Driving Outlawed.

See a pattern? Why the government should intervene with two consensual adults, or any number of consensual adults for that matter, having sex, for any reason is beyond me. Medical defects?

haha STDs =/= destroying societies gene pool

Yes. Lets also incinerate all lesser genes in concentration camps in the newly conquered Mexic-.....

Oh wait. Godwins law.


Now if STD's start causing the children of that relationship to be retarded then we should talk.

A lack of education also brings retardartion. Is Askbob mandating free education for all, as well as forcing children to go?


A child from interbreeding became the King of Spain. Go figure.
Yes he became the king of spain because he was the prince of spain because he was born into it. I hope you're not going to laud the merits of monarchy and how its some sort of an accomplishment to be king?

It's called an accident whereby they have an "accident"and can't succeed the throne. It's called politics.


Henry the 8th was a king.

There is nothing wrong with it. The dog is consenting. X. I think it's wrong in some sense, but I'm not going to impose my moral views in regards to consensual agreements on anyone.

So having sex with animals is fine? Well then how about having sex with 5 year olds? I mean if they aren't crying during the procedure why not? If they're consentutal and enjoying it?

Dogs will show visible discomfort at the act and will attempt to retaliate. As will a 5 year old.

Also, strawman.




It's a societal taboo for a reason.

Societal taboos are relative.

Yes relative to society's viewpoints.

Yes, but not all are correct.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
youhavejustlostthegame
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:45:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:38:14 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes. Lets also incinerate all lesser genes in concentration camps in the newly conquered Mexic-.....

Oh wait. Godwins law.

Oh wait strawman that equates illegalizing sexual reproduction with genocide.

A lack of education also brings retardartion. Is Askbob mandating free education for all, as well as forcing children to go?

A lack of education doesn't modify genetics? Where did you learn that? But yes I would mandate free education as far as highschool and forcing them all to go.

It's called an accident whereby they have an "accident"and can't succeed the throne. It's called politics.

Politics today =/= politics back when monarchs were in power.

So having sex with animals is fine? Well then how about having sex with 5 year olds? I mean if they aren't crying during the procedure why not? If they're consentutal and enjoying it?

Dogs will show visible discomfort at the act and will attempt to retaliate. As will a 5 year old.

Also, strawman.

No its not even close to a strawman. We're talking about societal taboos. I'm bringing up instances of societal taboos and revealing your viewpoints. From what I gather you clearly have no understanding of "consent".
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:48:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:45:44 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:

No its not even close to a strawman. We're talking about societal taboos. I'm bringing up instances of societal taboos and revealing your viewpoints. From what I gather you clearly have no understanding of "consent".

Actually the attempt to draw an anaology between consensual bestiality and paedophilic rape was a complete strawmen.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:50:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:45:44 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:38:14 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes. Lets also incinerate all lesser genes in concentration camps in the newly conquered Mexic-.....

Oh wait. Godwins law.

Oh wait strawman that equates illegalizing sexual reproduction with genocide.

Oh wait no proper response to claim your attempts to control and stream genes is like Hitlers attempts.


A lack of education also brings retardation. Is Askbob mandating free education for all, as well as forcing children to go?

A lack of education doesn't modify genetics? Where did you learn that? But yes I would mandate free education as far as highschool and forcing them all to go.

Askbob - The statist.


It's called an accident whereby they have an "accident"and can't succeed the throne. It's called politics.

Politics today =/= politics back when monarchs were in power.

Yes, politics were more viscous back then.


So having sex with animals is fine? Well then how about having sex with 5 year olds? I mean if they aren't crying during the procedure why not? If they're consentutal and enjoying it?

Dogs will show visible discomfort at the act and will attempt to retaliate. As will a 5 year old.

Also, strawman.

No its not even close to a strawman. We're talking about societal taboos. I'm bringing up instances of societal taboos and revealing your viewpoints. From what I gather you clearly have no understanding of "consent".

Consent isn't a contract, at least not signed one. To put it simply, if someone doesn't retaliate tor show visible discomfort, they are effectively consenting.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
youhavejustlostthegame
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 8:54:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:48:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:45:44 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:

No its not even close to a strawman. We're talking about societal taboos. I'm bringing up instances of societal taboos and revealing your viewpoints. From what I gather you clearly have no understanding of "consent".

Actually the attempt to draw an anaology between consensual bestiality and paedophilic rape was a complete strawmen.

How is it a complete strawman? Also how is rape if the child is consentual?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:03:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:54:03 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:48:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:45:44 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:

No its not even close to a strawman. We're talking about societal taboos. I'm bringing up instances of societal taboos and revealing your viewpoints. From what I gather you clearly have no understanding of "consent".

Actually the attempt to draw an anaology between consensual bestiality and paedophilic rape was a complete strawmen.

How is it a complete strawman? Also how is rape if the child is consentual?

There's a legal age of consent because below a certain age you can't give correct consent
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
youhavejustlostthegame
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:13:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 9:03:04 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
There's a legal age of consent because below a certain age you can't give correct consent

OH NO YOU CANT USE LEGALITY AS A PRECEDENT FOR YOUR MORAL REASONING.

Why do you think that law of consent is there? Because children don't have the brain capacity to give consent. As dogs don't have the brain capacity to give consent.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:15:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 9:13:07 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 9:03:04 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
There's a legal age of consent because below a certain age you can't give correct consent

OH NO YOU CANT USE LEGALITY AS A PRECEDENT FOR YOUR MORAL REASONING.

Why do you think that law of consent is there? Because children don't have the brain capacity to give consent. As dogs don't have the brain capacity to give consent.

A dog will bite you if you try top bang it without it's consent. A child can't physically oppose you.

Furthermore, animals are property. Are you going to outlaw me having sex with a bagel?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 9:18:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:10:21 AM, youhavejustlostthegame wrote:
At 2/17/2010 8:00:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Two consensual adults want to have sex. Why should the government stop them? I'm aware of the medical consequences, don't get me wrong.

lol well the medical effects should be enough exempting that its morally wrong, perverse.

Why? You're saying if something is medically unsound it's morally wrong and perverse? Lol that is a terrible, terrible argument. How about all of the people with physical and mental deficiencies? And can you support on a philosophical / ethics level that physical perversion = moral perversion? Doubt it...

It's like asking what's wrong with a man having sex with a dog. If the dog gets pleasure and is consenting then whats wrong with that?

The dog is not a rational being; its consent means nothing in a court of law.

It's a societal taboo for a reason.

Yeah, because people "say so."
President of DDO
youhavejustlostthegame
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 10:07:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 8:50:11 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
A lack of education doesn't modify genetics? Where did you learn that? But yes I would mandate free education as far as highschool and forcing them all to go.

Askbob - The statist.

So wait let me get this straight. You disagree with mandating people to go to school but then you're all for paying for them when they fail?

Enjoy having 80% of your population on welfare and tax rates at 99%.

No its not even close to a strawman. We're talking about societal taboos. I'm bringing up instances of societal taboos and revealing your viewpoints. From what I gather you clearly have no understanding of "consent".

Consent isn't a contract, at least not signed one. To put it simply, if someone doesn't retaliate tor show visible discomfort, they are effectively consenting.

LOL So if you have sex with a 6 year old and they don't show visible discomfort or retaliation that's consent????

SRSLY