Incest and stuff...

[Amaranth]

Aug 10, 2011 18:38:40 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

My rational basis was that these laws preserve the commonly held demarcation between familial and romantic relationships and decrease the frequency of genetic abnormalities by keeping the average inbreeding index low in the population. The burden is on you to prove that either 1. incest laws don't accomplish this. or 2. laws burdening incest practicers demand a higher level of scrutiny.

Since neither are required to back my argument, you're wrong. You're trying to make everyone play by the rules necessary for your argument.

Sorry.

You can read the decision in Lawrence v. Texas if you want an argument as to why banning gay sex is unconstitutional.

You're using retroactive justification.

Additionally, you're not demonstrating how it's different.

Finally, for someone who wants us to do their research on genetics, post pertanent information, don't just tell me ad nauseum to read something. I am not in a position to peruse judicial rulings, which tend to be long. I have explained my current situation, so your continued insistence is sheer dickery.

I suspect your dickery is intentional, however, so I am neither angered nor discouraged. At the very least, however, it's sheer hypocrisy on your end.

Any power not granted to Congress is granted to the states.

Sweet. So banning water is Constitutional!

(Although banning the sale of water would kill people, and the government cannot take away your life without due process of law, so this would be forbidden).

But...But it hasn't been declared Unconstitutional, and therefore you cannot say that for certain!

...What, treading on your gig again?

the problem therein, is that you've dismissed arguments because they haven't yet been pressed into question. You cannot go around trying to end-run like that and then try and assert things as silly as "But the Government cannot ban water because it would take away your life."

Why, that sort of absurdity my detract from your Lawful Evil worship of the absolute letter of the law. I'm contacting the DM about this.

I never said that a child of incest will be more inclined to participate in incest.

You really are gonna make someone pore through your endless and poorly formatted posts, aren't you?

I'm not saying the parents will abuse the child or molest him or her: I'm just asking that is it healthy for a child to be reared by parents who could see him or her as a future potential sex partner?

Assuming that said rationale exists during childhood. That's a pretty big assumption, like most of your arguments go.

Then perhaps you can use this argument to defend a state law banning the sale of water. It has no bearing on the constitutionality of a law banning incest or incestuous marriages.

It just demonstrates how silly you're being in your rigid defense of the letter of the law. You just had to admit there's a case for the banning of water.

Engaging in an incestuous relationship is chosen behavior

[Citation needed]

A child of incest may or may not be conditioned to thinking that incest is acceptable behavior, but regardless, if the child also chooses to engage in incest, then the inbreeding index in the next generation will be compounded.

So we've gone beyond thought crime into crimes that might be committed by future offspring. That's pretty silly.

The mere fact that this is seen as undesirable is sufficient to pass the rational basis test.

Say it with me, kids...JUST LIKE THE GAYS!

Funny how that works.

Again, this test does not require rigorous scientific or academic proof.

Since scientific or academic proof is not required, banning homosexual practices should be a given. I mean, if we don't need to look at evidence that gays don't choose to be gay....

once you take away that pesky "intellectual" stuff, banning homosexuality is easy, eh?

[Amaranth]

Aug 10, 2011 19:54:19 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

This is how United States law works.

Then perhaps you should not put so much faith in it.

It's legal, after all, for water to be banned because nothing says otherwise.

[cestlefun17]

Since neither are required to back my argument, you're wrong. You're trying to make everyone play by the rules necessary for your argument.

Then we're operating on two very different terms. I agree very much with the American system of law, so these are the terms in which I phrase and justify my opinions. Perhaps you don't care much for American law or are not knowledgeable of it, so your reasoning comes from different sources. If so, then we're talking two different languages, which perhaps accounts for all the confusion.

Additionally, you're not demonstrating how it's different.

The burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate this. The burden of proof would be on you, as the complainant, to show why incest practicers deserve a higher level of judicial scrutiny as gay people do.

Sweet. So banning water is Constitutional!...It's legal, after all, for water to be banned because nothing says otherwise.

Perhaps it is? (No such law has ever been passed, so there has never been an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of such a law). If the government did a pass a law, it would be by a majority of the people's democratically elected representatives. The courts are highly deferential to the will of the people and their democratically elected officials provided that their laws do not infringe on the rights of certain minorities or of certain rights. Luckily the majority of our society is not suicidal and would never vote in so many anti-water drinking legislators.

You really are gonna make someone pore through your endless and poorly formatted posts, aren't you?

Please do. Because either you are entirely misquoting or misunderstanding me. I think you're mish-mashing a bunch of things I've said, such as:
1. The inbreeding coefficient is compounded when inbreeding is repeated over successive generations, greatly enhancing the chances of genetic deformities.
2. Children should not grow up in an environment where s/he may be taught that incest is acceptable behavior. I realize that being taught that incest is acceptable behavior may not 100% make the child want to engage in incest himself, however I still stand with the notion that incest is so far outside the bounds of common decency in our society that it is not something a child should be exposed to.

[Citation needed]

Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that incest is an immutable characteristic. Regardless, the behavior itself is obviously chosen: no one is forcing a man at gunpoint to enter into a relationship with his daughter. Is incest purely behavior or also a status? The burden is on you to prove that it is status.

So we've gone beyond thought crime into crimes that might be committed by future offspring. That's pretty silly.

If there is no law against incest or incestuous marriage, then there is nothing stopping future offspring from also engaging in incest if they so desire.

Say it with me, kids...JUST LIKE THE GAYS!

And say it with me: "A reasonable argument can be made that gays deserve a higher level of judicial scrutiny!" Where is your argument for incest practicers?

Since scientific or academic proof is not required, banning homosexual practices should be a given. I mean, if we don't need to look at evidence that gays don't choose to be gay....

once you take away that pesky "intellectual" stuff, banning homosexuality is easy, eh?

Under the rational basis test, yes it is. Luckily since the 2000s we are reaching a point where courts are open to arguments demonstrating that gay people merit some form of higher-level judicial scrutiny. Again, where is your argument that incest practicers merit a higher level of judicial scrutiny?

[Admiral Lithp]

If the government does in fact have the power to ban the sale of water, what do you want me to tell you? Don't vote in politicians who will ban water.

I want you to stop being an idiot.

I never said this! I said that perhaps a child of incest will not be conditioned to wanting to engage in incest himself. However, if the child does engage in incest, his child will have a greater inbreeding coefficient. It is not impossible for a child of incest to also engage in incest.

First of all, that's a bald-faced lie. Anyone in this thread BUT you can tell you that you said exactly that. Second of all, successive generations is not a natural consequence of incest, therefore, you're using non sequitur. Once again, it would be like banning water because it's "not impossible" to trigger water intoxication.

Which is, again, stupid.

This is how United States law works. Unless a law affects a special type of minority, then the courts will be highly deferential to the desires of society as expressed through their democratically elected representatives.

Yeah, you can't read.

It DOESN'T MATTER how US law works. You can't try to refute something that has NOTHING TO DO with US law USING US law. This is what you've been attempting the entire thread. Your own personal view on incest? Find some obscure Supreme Court quote about it. How law in general should work? Start throwing out terms from Judicial Review. Ad nauseum. I spelled out for you that your hypothetical had nothing to do with reality. It is not my problem that you decided to shoulder on with it. I don't have to accept your ridiculous argument just because it's the only one you seem able to make in any situation at all.

Just answer this one incredibly simple question: Do laws burdening incest practicers demand a higher level of judicial scrutiny than rational basis?

I'm not playing by your idiotic rules. You've yet to show a rational basis, regardless of your insistence otherwise. Almost every point you've brought up since the beginning of this thread has been flatly debunked. So, even though there are other bases on which to call a law into question, we don't need to use them: You have yet to present an ability to read, let alone an effective case.

[cestlefun17]

I want you to stop being an idiot.

If you are so concerned that the government will pass a law banning water, then perhaps you should fight for a constitutional amendment banning laws that ban water. If, hypothetically, such a law were to pass, then you could probably challenge it using the 9th Amendment: the enumeration of rights in the Constitution cannot be construed to deny rights held by the people, and the people before had always had the right to clean water, etc. etc. and that the right to clean water should be declared a fundamental right yadda yadda. This would require writing a whole legal brief, using precedent probably derived from past court rulings regarding people's access to natural resources.

It DOESN'T MATTER how US law works. You can't try to refute something that has NOTHING TO DO with US law USING US law. This is what you've been attempting the entire thread. Your own personal view on incest? Find some obscure Supreme Court quote about it. How law in general should work? Start throwing out terms from Judicial Review. Ad nauseum. I spelled out for you that your hypothetical had nothing to do with reality. It is not my problem that you decided to shoulder on with it. I don't have to accept your ridiculous argument just because it's the only one you seem able to make in any situation at all.

As I said in my previous post, I agree very much with the American system of law, so I phrase and justify my opinions in these terms. If you don't that's okay: just keep in mind then that we're speaking two different languages.

I'm not playing by your idiotic rules. You've yet to show a rational basis, regardless of your insistence otherwise. Almost every point you've brought up since the beginning of this thread has been flatly debunked. So, even though there are other bases on which to call a law into question, we don't need to use them: You have yet to present an ability to read, let alone an effective case.

Keep in mind that a "rational basis" does not refer to what you personally believe is "rational." All a rational basis is is a reason for the government passing a law. This reason can be pretty much anything at all, provided that it doesn't conflict with another provision of the Constitution (a law whose basis is to "promote Christian values" would violate the 1st Amendment, for example) and the law does what the basis says it will do.

[Admiral Lithp]

As I said in my previous post, I agree very much with the American system of law, so I phrase and justify my opinions in these terms. If you don't that's okay: just keep in mind then that we're speaking two different languages.

No, that's not how it fucking works. I like the rules of this forum, but I don't phrase EVERY ARGUMENT I EVER MAKE in terms of this forum's rules. That's fucking moronic. It's not "okay" to use arguments that aren't apropriate to the situation. And you don't "agree with it" so much as you're twisting it to agree with you.

Keep in mind that a "rational basis" does not refer to what you personally believe is "rational."

Rational is rational, you of all people have no business accusing me of personal bias.

[cestlefun17]

It's not "okay" to use arguments that aren't apropriate to the situation. And you don't "agree with it" so much as you're twisting it to agree with you.

Well people have continued to reply to my posts, which gave me the impression that there was something to reply to. If my posts aren't appropriate to the situation, why bother replying to them?

Rational is rational, you of all people have no business accusing me of personal bias.

I'm not accusing you of personal bias, I'm just saying that legal terms typically have more refined meaning than how those same words are used in common parlance.

[Amaranth]

Aug 10, 2011 20:40:08 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Then we're operating on two very different terms.

Yes. In fact, 99% of the people in this thread are operating on very different terms from you. The big problem is that you are trying to force people onto your terms whether or not they apply.

That's the problem. In fact, I'd go so far to say you're the problem. I may be an impatient fuck, but Vene doesn't run around calling people stupid. And I'm pretty sure nobody short of Miss Cleo could have predicted Lithp and I tag-teaming your ass.

...Am I dating myself with the Miss Cleo reference?

By the way, this was established PAGES ago. You can't honestly say "well, that explains it!" It was already explained. Probably repeatedly. Most likely by several people.

The burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate this.

As you were actively establishing the difference, it is on you to demonstrate it. You made the claim; I am merely trying to get you to be honest about it after 900 pages.

Please do. Because either you are entirely misquoting or misunderstanding me.

Funny how so many of the other posters have also "misquoted" you.

Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that incest is an immutable characteristic. Regardless, the behavior itself is obviously chosen: no one is forcing a man at gunpoint to enter into a relationship with his daughter. Is incest purely behavior or also a status? The burden is on you to prove that it is status.

You made a claim. I actually did not.

The burden falls on you. Seriously. How hard is that for you to understand? As I do not even have a stance on this element of the issue, I do not have to back up a stance. You took a stance, made an affirmative claim, and by the accepted rules of debate, the burden of proof is upon you because of it.

Also, do you have any idea how intellectually dishonest it is to put upon me the burden to prove the negative of your claim when I assert no such statement?

If there is no law against incest or incestuous marriage, then there is nothing stopping future offspring from also engaging in incest if they so desire.

Again, you did not address what I said at all.

And say it with me: "A reasonable argument can be made that gays deserve a higher level of judicial scrutiny!" Where is your argument for incest practicers?

What argument, then? Because the ones you have yourself presented fall short.

Don't ask me to provide something you yourself cannot.

Additionally, I have repeatedly asked you (in other words) to cite what, specifically about the court findings you have been citing are so compelling. For someone so quick to cite them, why do you ignore explicit requests for such information? You even omitted the part where I asked you for it.

Luckily since the 2000s we are reaching a point where courts are open to arguments demonstrating that gay people merit some form of higher-level judicial scrutiny.

Lucky indeed, since your argument doesn't even hinge on whether there is rational basis, but whether the courts will hear it. In fact, who gets rights and who deserves "judicial scrutiny" seems to be entirely arbitrary.

Unluckily, you just undercut your own prior argument on homosexuality.

[cestlefun17]

Yes. In fact, 99% of the people in this thread are operating on very different terms from you. The big problem is that you are trying to force people onto your terms whether or not they apply.

I am not forcing you to respond to my posts. If you don't like the terms I use, then why respond to my posts?

As you were actively establishing the difference, it is on you to demonstrate it. You made the claim; I am merely trying to get you to be honest about it after 900 pages.

Everyone chooses with whom to enter into a relationship with. If Joe and Sue are boyfriend/girlfriend, they chose to be boyfriend/girlfriend. If Sam and his mother are boyfriend/girlfriend, they chose to be boyfriend girlfriend. You chose with whom you enter into relationships with (regardless of your sexual orientation, before the gay comparisons start coming: you don't choose to be attracted to men, but you do choose to enter into a relationship with a particular man). The question is, does society have the right to say: If you choose to enter into a relationship with (or try to marry) your mother, you are a moron and should be rebuked?

What argument, then? Because the ones you have yourself presented fall short.

I don't believe that incest practicers merit a higher level of judicial scrutiny, so why would I make this argument?

In fact, who gets rights and who deserves "judicial scrutiny" seems to be entirely arbitrary.

There are standards to determine this which I described for you in the post that you complained was too long to read. If you want, you can Google "standards of judicial review."

[Admiral Lithp]

Ahaha, oh wow. Dude, seriously, learn to tell when you're not being taken seriously. You're seriously pulling out that "I must be important because you're still posting" card? Haha, fucking brilliant.

No one's "conerned" about water being banned, because everyone here but you knows that your nonsensical views do not actually reflect the way the American legal system works, no matter how many legal terms you try to shoehorn in.

[cestlefun17]

Ahaha, oh wow. Dude, seriously, learn to tell when you're not being taken seriously. You're seriously pulling out that "I must be important because you're still posting" card? Haha, fucking brilliant.

I don't care if you consider me "important" or not: people have been trying to refute my arguments, so it is only expected that I will continue to defend them. If you don't like the terms I use to justify my opinions and arguments, then you're not working with the same language as I am so there is no more reason for you to reply than if my posts were in Chinese. Every post I've made here, other than my first post where I expressed my position on the subject, has only been in response to someone else's post responding to one of my prior posts. I haven't tried to jump in and hijack somebody else's line of discussion with another poster.

No one's "concerned" about water being banned, because everyone here but you knows that your nonsensical views do not actually reflect the way the American legal system works, no matter how many legal terms you try to shoehorn in.

I think it's telling that incest laws are still very much on the books, and if the only constitutional arguments against them are some specious connection to gay people and some argument that "there's no reason that I personally find to be good to ban it," then they will be on the books for some time. Unfortunately, we don't of course have the luxury of having an actual judge here to find in favor of one person's arguments or another, and in real life no one has been dumb enough to try to challenge these laws (or if they have, then they've failed).

[Admiral Lithp]

The thing is, you "defending" your arguments is completely fucking pointless if you're not going to do it properly. You're just ranting to hear the sound of your own ranting & ignoring what everyone else says that doesn't conform to your narrow world view. As I say to so many in your situation, "Get a blog."

[cestlefun17]

ignoring what everyone else says that doesn't conform to your narrow world view.

Perhaps you're right and maybe I have been seeing this through too narrow a lens. I can understand why some people adopt a libertarian worldview: that they and only they are and should be accountable for their personal choices and behavior. I get it, I really do. However, I personally just do not believe in this. Perhaps this political philosophy stems from my personality, as someone who craves order and organization in my personal life. I have great respect for government, law, tradition, precedence, and social institutions. A position that seeks to erode any of these would require a more searching reason for me, personally, than one that relies on individual rights.

I can respect the right to privacy, and I fully believe consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want sexually in the privacy of their homes. But on the same token, I do not entirely blame society for exercising its power through the government to rebuke this behavior. We are not talking about a mere tradition, but one of society's greatest taboos, one held for thousands of years. And I could never in good conscience support legalizing marriage between incestuous couples, as it extends private behavior into the realm of public policy.

I don't think someone who believes incest or incestuous marriage should be legalized is "right" or "wrong" either way, therefore my line of reasoning is compartmentalized into the more concrete line of thinking of whether or not such laws are constitutional. I can understand that using a system of law on a non-legal Internet forum can be too rigid. I personally crave this rigidity which is why I flock to it. I still do not believe my arguments that these laws are acceptable to the Constitution are wrong, however I can understand that these arguments are perhaps not as important to other people here as they are to me. I think it's important to note however that I do not jump in on other people's discussions within a thread and try to force them to use my philosophy: I state my opinion on the matter, justify it using my rationale, and from thereon in, only respond to posts directed to me.

[Admiral Lithp]

Your blog. I am not it.

[Amaranth]

Aug 10, 2011 21:14:03 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I am not forcing you to respond to my posts. If you don't like the terms I use, then why respond to my posts?

Woohoo! Hit that strawman! Left! Right! He's on the ropes!

Of course, the same argument would apply to you replying to me. You know my terms are different, but try and apply your own to them.

Everyone chooses with whom to enter into a relationship with. If Joe and Sue are boyfriend/girlfriend, they chose to be boyfriend/girlfriend. If Sam and his mother are boyfriend/girlfriend, they chose to be boyfriend girlfriend. You chose with whom you enter into relationships with (regardless of your sexual orientation, before the gay comparisons start coming: you don't choose to be attracted to men, but you do choose to enter into a relationship with a particular man). The question is, does society have the right to say: If you choose to enter into a relationship with (or try to marry) your mother, you are a moron and should be rebuked?

Honestly, if you think you choose who you fall in love with, you're probably a moron and should probably be rebuked. Again, this argument works PERFECTLY against homosexuality, with the rationale that homosexuals might not control what sex they're attracted to, but can certainly control who they enter relationships with.

I don't believe that incest practicers merit a higher level of judicial scrutiny, so why would I make this argument?

That's not what I asked, and you know it. Stop dodging the question and demonstrate how it's different.

And answer the other question you omitted. I'll repost it thirty times if I have to.

There are standards to determine this which I described for you in the post that you complained was too long to read. If you want, you can Google "standards of judicial review."

Those standards are still rather arbitrary, and whether or not something meets the requisites is based largely on the whim of the courts. You yourself pointed this out with homosexuality. Literally NOTHING changed between 1999 and 2000, but in the 21st Century, judges are willing to afford homosexuals a higher level of scrutiny when they wouldn't in the 20th.

Third question, one I asked pages ago but you've also dodged. Were you anti-homosexual before the courts were willing to hear cases? Did you have the same irrational hatred of gays you seem to have for Cleatus now? Since you seem to have outsourced your morality entirely to the courts, rather than risking having any opinion of your own, I would like to know what your answer is.