|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 7, 2011 22:34:45 GMT -5
Fine, so it's better to nip it in the bud. And if consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want, why does the first generation get a free pass but not the second? Or do the first two generations get free passes? Etc. etc. You miss the point, it's blatantly false and to try to use the genetic argument is a flat out lie. Make what conclusions from the facts that you will, but get the actual facts. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 22:38:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 7, 2011 22:56:12 GMT -5
One generation does fuck all. You are clearly not listening. And here's a citation for the claim that a generation of incest is not genetically damaging. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 23:06:43 GMT -5
More realistically, your citation claims that a generation of incest between first cousins is no more risky than a woman over 40 having a child.
The genetic risks associated with incest are sufficient to provide a rational basis for not wanting to condone this sort of relationship in marriage. The fact that there are countless other activities that can also create risks does not necessitate that the government forbid that as well. If they choose not to forbid any of those other activities, that is their prerogative (or our prerogative since we elect them).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 7, 2011 23:06:54 GMT -5
Wow! Way to destroy your own fucking argument! It's almost as though what the people decide isn't necessarily a sound basis on which to build a law. Which MIGHT explain why we don't actually VOTE for the laws ourselves. And maybe, JUST maybe, there's a better system on which to build a law, like logic, or protecting the populace.
But THAT would be CRAZY.
No, it's not a valid argument. Incestuous sex=/=reproduction via successive generations of incest. What you are concerned about is so far removed from what the actual situation was that you may as well be arguing that all gay sex is rape.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 23:14:38 GMT -5
How does this destroy my own argument? We the People decided that the average person is not knowledgeable enough of the law to be able to adjudicate and interpret laws, so we chose to vest that power in a judiciary. Our society has approved this in every election since this country was founded, as we have never elected enough legislators willing to amend the Supreme Court out of the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 7, 2011 23:26:56 GMT -5
You just keep getting better.
This is why what the people want is not a sound basis on which to make a law.
Which is why the legal system is supposed to be based on things like logic & evidence, but what you're saying is that it should be based on the whims of people who have no business deciding things like that.
And now you're trying to reframe history within this context that "we the people" are the basis of all laws, which is obviously not true. And even if you was, that you aren't concerned by the future possibilities of such a system is disturbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 23:31:09 GMT -5
You just keep getting better. This is why what the people want is not a sound basis on which to make a law.Which is why the legal system is supposed to be based on things like logic & evidence, but what you're saying is that it should be based on the whims of people who have no business deciding things like that. And now you're trying to reframe history within this context that "we the people" are the basis of all laws, which is obviously not true. And even if you was, that you aren't concerned by the future possibilities of such a system is disturbing. The people create their society and the social structures that support it. Government is the most important example of this. We create a government that is representative of us. We created the Supreme Court and we allow it to exist. We willfully created a system where majority doesn't always rule. So I don't understand what is contradictory. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 7, 2011 23:38:55 GMT -5
It's just semantics.
The US Government was not made "by the people," the Constitution was drafted in a sequence of secret conventions. After being elected, the delegates threw the old government out & started anew, without any further input from the people who would be governed.
Guess what: If we ever decided to have another Constitutional Convention, that could easily happen again, I could hypothetically declare myself Supreme Dictator, & I would be the new government, "made by the people" only in the sense that they aren't able to stop me.
I know you'll be quick to latch on to the fact that the delegates were elected, but guess what, just because you elect someone, it doesn't mean you made their decisions.
You are trying to take one tiny aspect of government & say it's how the entire system works. It's like claiming that all government officials are the President.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 23:47:47 GMT -5
The people would have to approve this in substantial numbers by electing supportive members of either 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions.
We are a democratic republic and there has been no major push by the people to change this since this country was founded. I'm still not entirely understanding what you're trying to say. Every civilized society creates a system of government; and every society must reconcile the relationship of the individual to society as a whole. As government governs how society is run, it is only natural that the laws they pass will establish the relationship of the individuals members to their society within some degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 8, 2011 0:15:56 GMT -5
No, they don't. They only elected the delegates, they had NO FUCKING IDEA that would happen. Most likely, they didn't even know it was possible. The advertised purpose of the convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation, not throw it out.
This should not be a hard thing to understand, considering the present day is full of politicians who don't keep promises. Well, this was that Taken Up To 11. Not only did the politicians lie about what they were going to do, they quite literally remade the state in their image.
Don't get me wrong, it worked out for the best, but you're harboring delusions if you think that was even remotely "approved by the people."
Yeah, and you know what the key point of a democratic republic is? Only PART of the government works from the will of the people. You are trying to say that ALL of it is.
No, if you elect someone, you are not responsible for the decisions they made, especially if you elected them under the premise that they would do something completely different.
Ironically, you are being completely unfair to the people, because you are attempting to saddle them with responsibilities they have no control over.
I am confident you do not understand analogies, but just for the Hell of it, it would be like if you took a trip to the sperm bank, & 40 years later, I executed you because, according to my logic, since you gave birth to a murderer, you were responsible for the murder itself.
Let me spell it out for you: T-H-A-T. I-S. S-E-M-A-N-T-I-C-S.
I can just as easily say that a monarchy or a dictatorship's laws are de facto approved "by the people," because the people either put up with it or, hundreds of years earlier, were indirectly responsible for giving that royal line its power.
That is bullshit. The person making the laws is no one but the King. And your claim is bullshit. It's just twisting words & historic events around to try & fit your flawed notion of how society should work.
I don't know why you want to believe that every decision of the US government came down to the people. Maybe it's some over-patriotic BS. Maybe you just don't want to admit that your view of how incest should be treated has no sound basis. Maybe you actually believe it. But no matter which one it is, that doesn't make it so.
It has been shown time & time again that legal systems based on logic & evidence work better. Most "traditional" laws only get in the way & have to be retconned later, and since someone will resist it, that becomes a huge waste of time & money.
By "traditional" laws, I mean laws that had absolutely no business being laws, and were only laws because of the sensibilities of the people at the time. Such as atheists being unable to hold public office, sodomy being punishable by prison and hard labor, etc.
When you look back, it's obvious that these were absolutely pointless, & had no logical basis, save for "people thought it was icky." Well, guess what, to have a truly fair law, you have to take that step outside of yourself. And when you take that step, you realize that there's nothing inherently detrimental to the country from 2 related adults having sex.
It's like that old "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Only with incest.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 8, 2011 8:24:44 GMT -5
I'm not saying that the will of the people has all the power, I'm saying that we have willingly delegated much of our power to elected representatives and their appointees. And I'm not saying the Constitution had to be approved by popular vote back in 1790, the point is is that we allow it to exist in its present form as the only people who can change it are entirely beholden to us. If they do something we don't like, then we vote them out of office. And if not enough people wish to do that, then that is the extent to which the "will of the people" works. In other words, I do not see the government as something imposed upon us but something we all have a part in.
I also don't understand why discussing the relationship of the individual to society is just "semantics." It is a profound philosophical debate that civilizations have been engaging in for centuries.
It depends on what how you construe "logic" and "traditional."
In the United States we revere the right to free speech. So if you say something I disagree with, I can still recognize and admire the overlying principle that allows you to say it. What admirable overlying principle is related to incest?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 8, 2011 15:23:33 GMT -5
Sexual freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 8, 2011 15:40:26 GMT -5
America was founded by prudes. Hence, no sexual freedom. Then again, it took us generations to count blacks a people, which is why I'm reticent to flout our sacred morality. Ahhh...The nobility of slavery.... |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 8, 2011 15:41:39 GMT -5
More realistically, your citation claims that a generation of incest between first cousins is no more risky than a woman over 40 having a child. Sweet. are we making it illegal for over 40s to have kids now, too? |
|
