|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 18:05:42 GMT -5
Just, for example: 1. The risks are still substantial even in just one generation. Considering this has already been posted, you're lying. Or possibly just stupid. Now, what is Vene disputing? According to you, he's arguing "no heightened risk." But according to him, I'm beautiful, incredible, he can't get me out of his head His words only refute the substantial element of it. Now, you can argue over the meaning of substantial if you really feel like it, but what you're doing instead is making up an argument. The whole thing is devolving into something wholly stupid. And your argument still reeks of "ew gays." I know you keep asserting it's different, while asserting claims that have no proof and by your own words are mere supposition, but barring you showing something beyond prejudice and squick, you're still going back tothe "ew gays" well every time you fill your cup. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 18:18:34 GMT -5
In short: Stop making shit up. But he's so good at it. Can you really be said to be good at making something up if you can't also make it believable? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 9, 2011 19:51:39 GMT -5
All the article says is that marriage between first cousins carries the same risk of birth defects as a woman having a child over 40. This has two components: 1. There is still some risk. 2. This only refers to first cousin incest (which actually isn't even considered incest in most jurisdictions).
So my statement that incest can carry heightened risk is not refuted solely by that article. It would require an article that addresses all the other forms of incest, namely sibling/sibling and parent/offspring. This isn't mentioned in the article. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand: The study referred to in the article narrowly refers to only one type of incest, but it seems (to me anyway) that Vene wanted to use it to justify all forms of incest in general. Show me an article that says that parent/offspring or sibling/sibling incest has no significant risk. This is really the kind of incest we're referring to anyway (especially since the original article referred to a father and daughter).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 20:04:54 GMT -5
Vene can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that sibling-sibling or parent-child doesn't carry any more risks, considering that incest doesn't cause the genetic abnormalities in the first place.
Besides, your "heightened risk" thing is pointless. You say, "We can ban some risky practices, but not others," but you offer no rational basis about WHICH ONES SHOULD BE WHICH, other than "It's icky."
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 9, 2011 20:14:53 GMT -5
Yeah, you can't read. Substantial and and heightened are not the same thing. Similar and there is overlap, but not necessarily interchangeable.
And, Lithp, the risk does increase as people are more and more related, but you are correct that it doesn't actually cause the abnormalities. The issue is that it becomes more likely that the parents both carry recessive detrimental conditions and can pass it on to offspring. It's not like there's any more mutations than there would be otherwise or that the DNA gets damaged. Hell, two people from the same race have a heightened chance of having a child with genetic defects than if they fucked somebody from a different race. But it is not substantial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 20:26:01 GMT -5
All the article says is that marriage between first cousins carries the same risk of birth defects as a woman having a child over 40. Like. I. Said. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 9, 2011 20:27:59 GMT -5
All the article says is that marriage between first cousins carries the same risk of birth defects as a woman having a child over 40. Like. I. Said. It's getting a little bit surreal at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 20:50:49 GMT -5
Tell me about it.
Tradition and societal preference is grounds to have a law except with gay people because it's different and even if it wasn't we don't have to apply the same standards to everything because the law is what the people want it to be and shouldn't be based on whether or not it's harmful oh wait yes it should except that's only for things which some vague tradition doesn't say is okay.
That's seriously what I'm getting out of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 9, 2011 21:03:56 GMT -5
Whew finally we understand it! While this may seem entirely nonsensical to you, this is exactly how United States jurisprudence works.
Tradition and societal preference is grounds to have a law under the rational basis test, provided that this tradition/preference is not entirely arbitrary and capricious (by the legal standard, not your own standard). This is why bans on same-sex marriage are frequently upheld under the rational basis test: the government can point to a desire to direct society into forming certain kinds of households. The rational basis test does not require rigorous academic or scientific justification, only the needs and desires of society. However, the nature of homosexuality as a minority can reasonably be argued to warrant a heightened level of judicial scrutiny. I have yet to hear such an argument for people who willingly practice incest.
I feel like I'm in that episode of "The Twilight Zone" where the beautiful girl is zapped into a world where everyone is a pig and she's no longer the pretty one because everyone is a pig and thinks pigs are pretty. I live in RealWorldLand where to think incest is something that should be condoned and sanctioned is a radical fringe opinion, zapped into AntiFundieLand where incest is a wonderful virtue that should never be restricted, so now I'm the crazy outrageous one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 21:07:11 GMT -5
It's getting a little bit surreal at this point. Either way, it's gone beyond pointless. I think it's been well demonstrated the hypocrisy of the stance. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 9, 2011 21:08:09 GMT -5
Whew finally we understand it! Ah, so you're trolling. Good on ya. EDIT: And if you're not.... You're either lying or illiterate. Either way, I'm pretty sure you've been rather thoroughly exposed. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 9, 2011 21:27:18 GMT -5
I live in RealWorldLand where to think incest is something that should be condoned and sanctioned is a radical fringe opinion, zapped into AntiFundieLand where incest is a wonderful virtue that should never be restricted, so now I'm the crazy outrageous one. Funny, I've just been zapped into StrawManLand. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 21:58:38 GMT -5
It doesn't SEEM nonsensical, it IS nonsensical, it's a statement consisting of nothing but contradictions & backpedaling.
I can't believe you were actually stupid enough to admit to saying that. Seriously, I'm stunned.
No.
Wait, now it's MY standard that "arbitrary" means "preferential, not based on objective standards"?
FFFFFF--You just spent the entire thread bitching about how people compared your arguments to anti-gay arguments, now you ADMIT IT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING!
No, you're on a forum where your frequent lack of logic is being attacked and you keep ducking it in favor of this emotional appeal of "I can't believe you guys don't agree with my every stance, you must be crazy extremists, because incest is so icky." Now you find that some people actually put more thought into it than that, and you can't handle it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 9, 2011 22:41:36 GMT -5
Yes.
"Arbitrary and capricious" has a separate legal meaning that is more refined than how "arbitrary" is used in common parlance.
You're not understanding the distinction I'm making. I don't believe that laws that burden gay people should be judged under rational basis test because I believe that a reasonable argument can be made to show that heightened scrutiny is warranted given the nature of that minority. When courts do use the rational basis to judge bans on same-sex marriage, they are nearly always —and I'm 99% sure you can delete "nearly"— upheld (e.g. Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (8th Cir. 2006), Hernandez v. Robles (N.Y. Ct. Appeals 2006)). I have yet to hear an argument that shows that laws burdening incest practicers demand a higher level of scrutiny. A higher level of scrutiny would require a more rigorous argument by the government, which is perhaps what you're searching for. But you're putting the cart before the horse: first you must show that laws burdening incest practicers demand this heightened scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 23:05:32 GMT -5
Nope.
Wow, look at all that pointless statement!
1. It still doesn't mean I'm using my own incorrect definition of arbitrary, which is what you claimed.
2. I mentioned this possibility ages ago & you said nothing about it.
3. You don't bother to explain the distinction anyway. For my own information, this is what Wiki says:
"It's tradition" is not reasonable. I fail to see your hang-up here.
I expected back-pedaling, but the fact remains that you admit it's the same principle that keeps gays from marrying, which means it's the same logic.
And this is the problem with the "it's tradition" defense.
Probably because people can't figure out why it's so hard for you to understand why illegalizing incest isn't a rational response to begin with.
Are you self-parodying, here?
|
|
