Incest [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

CallMeIshmael

06-27-2006, 02:52 PM

FWIW,

People are actually HIGHLY attracted to their siblings.

If two siblings are seperated at birth, they are reported to have a much higer than average attraction to one another.

What stops this from happening in life is early life anti-incest mechanisms. If you grow up in the presense of an opposite sex individual, you show higher than normal aversion to incest, and also develop a natural sexual aversion to this person.

For example, in some cultures marriages have 2 options:

1) arranged at birth, and the girl moves in with the guy's family near birth

2) arranged at birth, and the girl lives with her family until she is ready to be married

The first group divorces more and reports less sex. The reason being that we have a natural sexual aversion to ANYONE of opposite sex that we are reared with. It just happens that this is most often our siblings/other relatives.

hmkpoker

06-27-2006, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In my utopian dream world, the culture would be such that such acts would often carry a great deal of shame and guilt, so no type of physical punishment would be necessary. The same goes for any type of sex that excludes the possibility of procreation btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dream of a world where, whenever someone gets off, they have to stress about whether it will result in having another mouth to feed for the next 18+ years?

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

hmkpoker

06-27-2006, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If two siblings are seperated at birth, they are reported to have a much higer than average attraction to one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I've never heard of that before.

Can you link to a study?

evolvedForm

06-27-2006, 03:19 PM

Apparently he won't be worrying about it at all, but he sure hopes everyone else will have to.

hmkpoker

06-27-2006, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently he won't be worrying about it at all, but he sure hopes everyone else will have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's a rather rotten thing to wish on people.

Has anyone here ever had sex with someone who's had a hysterectomy, where there is ZERO possibility of pregnancy? (Birth control can fail, as can condoms, diaphragms, etc)

It's nice, isn't it? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

CallMeIshmael

06-27-2006, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If two siblings are seperated at birth, they are reported to have a much higer than average attraction to one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I've never heard of that before.

Can you link to a study?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only offical study I immediately found was here:

http://www.blackboard.cornell.edu/course...2003_Incest.pdf (http://www.blackboard.cornell.edu/courses/1/bionb331-Barclay-Spring2006/content/_634869_1/Lieberman_2003_Incest.pdf)

(please tell me if you cannot see this, I will rehost. It might be only visible to cornell students).

But these wiki links are good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29#Westermarck_effect

The first one gives a link to the abstract of a study that looks fairly "tough" but on topic.

hmkpoker

06-27-2006, 03:41 PM

Yeah, the study requires a Cornell student login /images/graemlins/frown.gif

CallMeIshmael

06-27-2006, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the study requires a Cornell student login /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

not anymore (http://www.geocities.com/call_me_ishmael_2002/Lieberman_2003_Incest.pdf)

Also, "50% of reunions between siblings, or parents and offspring, separated at birth result in obsessive emotions."

WOW... I didnt know it was that high. (though, clearly obsessive differs from sexual).

its from this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,956454,00.html

hmkpoker

06-27-2006, 04:05 PM

Consider me unimpressed /images/graemlins/frown.gif

The study doesn't say anything about physical attraction, just perceptions of morality regarding incest. These are two VERY different things.

The only way to really do this experiment would be to take a bunch of teenage siblings who've been separated at birth, put 'em together, don't tell them who's who, and see what happens. (This has probably been done with laboratory mammals a bunch of times, let me know if you hear about that)

This is what I hate about psychology. All the experiments we really need to do if we want to figure something out can't be done because they breach ethical codes.

CallMeIshmael

06-27-2006, 04:09 PM

Well the first study was posted to back up the claim that anti-incest mechanisms are the result of early childhood proximity.

Did you read this, and still come away unimpressed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction (with links to studies therein)

Or, what about support groups for people who are attracted to their relatives:

http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reunion_gsa/

vhawk01

06-27-2006, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If everyone did it exclusively, we would be in trouble as homosapiens. However, that is not a concern, and I see no reason to object to the choices that two people make so that they can be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

A higher probability of a child having birth defects is not reason enough?
I guess you could say the same thing with homosexuals and aids...

But then people as a society have never valued their health or the health of their children all that highly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty overblown consideration, almost bordering on 'old wives' tale' territory. Yes, the more closely related, genetically, two people are the more likely that recessive disorders are to manifest themselves. But you make it sound like they are going to be having 3-headed babies. We currently are perfectly ok with two people recessive for, say, Marfan's, to have a child if they want to. From a health standpoint, this is just as bad (well, obviously worse because we KNOW they are carriers) as the scenario in the OP. The OP did say using contraceptives, but even that isnt really that huge of a concern.

Copernicus

06-27-2006, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If everyone did it exclusively, we would be in trouble as homosapiens. However, that is not a concern, and I see no reason to object to the choices that two people make so that they can be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

A higher probability of a child having birth defects is not reason enough?
I guess you could say the same thing with homosexuals and aids...

But then people as a society have never valued their health or the health of their children all that highly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty overblown consideration, almost bordering on 'old wives' tale' territory. Yes, the more closely related, genetically, two people are the more likely that recessive disorders are to manifest themselves. But you make it sound like they are going to be having 3-headed babies. We currently are perfectly ok with two people recessive for, say, Marfan's, to have a child if they want to. From a health standpoint, this is just as bad (well, obviously worse because we KNOW they are carriers) as the scenario in the OP. The OP did say using contraceptives, but even that isnt really that huge of a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the scenario was one of "exclusively" breeding within a family, not occasional births. If you think the risks are minimal in that scenario, you havent been around some of the in-breeding communities, such as NJ/NYs Jackson Whites.

vhawk01

06-27-2006, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If everyone did it exclusively, we would be in trouble as homosapiens. However, that is not a concern, and I see no reason to object to the choices that two people make so that they can be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

A higher probability of a child having birth defects is not reason enough?
I guess you could say the same thing with homosexuals and aids...

But then people as a society have never valued their health or the health of their children all that highly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty overblown consideration, almost bordering on 'old wives' tale' territory. Yes, the more closely related, genetically, two people are the more likely that recessive disorders are to manifest themselves. But you make it sound like they are going to be having 3-headed babies. We currently are perfectly ok with two people recessive for, say, Marfan's, to have a child if they want to. From a health standpoint, this is just as bad (well, obviously worse because we KNOW they are carriers) as the scenario in the OP. The OP did say using contraceptives, but even that isnt really that huge of a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the scenario was one of "exclusively" breeding within a family, not occasional births. If you think the risks are minimal in that scenario, you havent been around some of the in-breeding communities, such as NJ/NYs Jackson Whites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, the frequency will increase over successive generations, like hemophilia. As the OP said, if we 'all' participated in this then it might cause some societal problems, like homosexuality. But there really isn't huge medical reason why a brother and sister cannot have sex, even without contraceptives. Thats all I was saying.

hmkpoker

06-27-2006, 06:29 PM

Haven't gotten around to all the links yet. I'm just saying that that particular cornell study didn't answer my question as to whether people are predisposed to be attracted toward their siblings.

I don't deny that incest can/does happen, so there's no need to prove that by showing me support groups /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Peter666

06-27-2006, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a trick question. The answer is yes it is not morally wrong, but the situation can never occur, so really the answer doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... yes it can. And does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always figured you to be the fruit of an incestuous relationship.

But seriously, on the ethical scale, the situation is a little worse than normal fornication and contraception due to the propensity for birth defects, but not as bad as homosexuality. If homosexual relationships are approved by society, there is no reason incestuous relationships should not be.

vhawk01

06-27-2006, 06:42 PM

The question is, do you believe that consentual incest happens? In other words, is there inherently some power dynamic that overrides consent in all cases of incest, similar to a doctor-patient, teacher-student relationship?

vhawk01

06-27-2006, 06:44 PM

How does the 'birth defects argument' impact the ethics of allowing these types of relationships? Is it unethical for any carriers (or worse, those afflicted) with genetic disorders to have kids? I don't know whether I'd say it is or not, honestly asking your view.

Peter666

06-27-2006, 07:00 PM

Simply because it is common knowledge that there is a slightly greater risk of birth defects as a result of these relations. But the impact is so small, and so many other factors can attribute to birth defects as you point out, that there is really not much of an ethical dilemma here.

If you can find a sex partner where chances for health problems in babies are minimized, than that is better than a partner where there is more risk. But it is better for a couple having sex to give birth to a child where there is a slightly greater chance of birth defects than not to give birth at all.

The reason we don't see more incestuous relationships is cultural and psychological as discussed below, but not ethical.

hmkpoker

06-27-2006, 07:09 PM

New poll.

Copernicus

06-27-2006, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
New poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy or girl, and is she hot?

vhawk01

06-27-2006, 09:20 PM

I was kind of hoping this wasnt going to be a "Lets bash homosexuality by comparing it to incest and bestiality" thread. Am I wrong?

tolbiny

06-27-2006, 10:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you at all serious about this, or is it just sarcasm i'm missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm serious, although I admit it's a utopian dream world only and not to be confused with today's realities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would this be Utopian- sex without the promise of procreation has been an important part of our evolution. Women don't exhibit strong signs of menstration the way that females in many other species do. We also, as human, have much larger penises than our primate relatives, both in absolute and relative terms. It surprises many people to find out that the average male human penis is twice (or more) as large as the average 300-400 lb gorilla. Amoung competing theories is one that states the larger penis aids in more pleasure for both parties which helps longer lasting ans stronger bonds between partners which is considered a very important part of our heritage.

gwhiz_612

06-27-2006, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Two siblings, male and female, both over 21, both independent and responsible people, decide that they are attracted to each other and want to have sex. Neither is coercing the other, it is a consentual agreement. Both use contraceptive protection.

Should this be considered morally wrong?

Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ] I agree that this is a trick question. Whenever you ask if something is right or wrong you open a can of worms. Whats right and wrong for me may not be for someone else. It's all related to reference. For instance I would answer this question with "I think its wrong." Why? Because of where I draw my reference for right and wrong. For me its the Bible believe it or not. Same would go for a muslim, buddhist, Hindu, etc... Now if you say that we cannot incorporate religion in our answer to your question then you cause even a greater conflict. Those who are religious or have a belief system will choose accordingly. Those that are atheist, agnostic or whatever will still choose what they "reason" is best to them. Even though it seems to them they are making there own decision they are still reasoning in a manner that reflects their childhood, environement, personal experiences etc... I like how you dressed up the question though making sure you explained that they were
1.Adults
2.Consenting(no rape which would be wrong,right?)
3.They are using contraception(no third party to be involuntarily invloved)
4.Attracted to each other (To say there is a strong desire to do it)
How about this one. Is it ok for a dad to molest his daughter if she is mentally retarded or deformed and the sex makes her chronic pain dissipate. The father is only doing it to make the childs pain ease and not to procreate or satisfy his own sexual desire. Its only his way of helping, Is that ok? What if the daughter were only going to live a couple months more due to cancer of something and as far as she knew that made her feel good? Please excuse the extreme example but my point is that when you open up a discussion like this you open the floodgates for a whole lot of stuff.

vhawk01

06-27-2006, 10:36 PM

Don't put reason in quotes.

obsidian

06-28-2006, 04:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How about this one. Is it ok for a dad to molest his daughter if she is mentally retarded or deformed and the sex makes her chronic pain dissipate. The father is only doing it to make the childs pain ease and not to procreate or satisfy his own sexual desire. Its only his way of helping, Is that ok? What if the daughter were only going to live a couple months more due to cancer of something and as far as she knew that made her feel good? Please excuse the extreme example but my point is that when you open up a discussion like this you open the floodgates for a whole lot of stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not even anywhere close to analogous to the original post.

Darryl_P

06-28-2006, 06:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would this be Utopian- sex without the promise of procreation has been an important part of our evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say the promise of procreation had to be there, just the possibility. I also never said it shouldn't be motivated at least in part by the pleasure it gives.

The gist of what I am saying is that the current culture of trying to achieve that pleasure for free (ie. with no risk of consequences such as pregnancy, disease, etc. and a lack of respect for the source of those consequences, thinking we are capable of overpowering it) will lead to the downfall of mankind, or at least the downfall of that segment of mankind which aspires to move in this direction.

MidGe

06-28-2006, 07:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the promise of procreation had to be there, just the possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you belief in the virginity of Mary, you should not so easily dismiss the possibility of procreation between homosexuals.

madnak

06-28-2006, 12:07 PM

Andrew Karpinski

06-28-2006, 12:15 PM

Anyone who thinks incest is somehow 'wrong' is just another product of social conditioning. The dog question is actually much tougher. Your dog cannot truly 'consent', but assuming you are not forcing the dog to have sex with you I see no problem with it. And yes, I'm serious. And no, I don't want to have sex with a dog (or have a dog, for that matter).

madnak

06-28-2006, 01:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks incest is somehow 'wrong' is just another product of social conditioning. The dog question is actually much tougher. Your dog cannot truly 'consent'

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't your focus on consent also a product of social conditioning?

TomBrooks

06-28-2006, 01:54 PM

I don't think it's inherently wrong. If it's a good thing or not probably depends on the attitudes and motivations of the siblings.

hmkpoker

06-28-2006, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The gist of what I am saying is that the current culture of trying to achieve that pleasure for free (ie. with no risk of consequences such as pregnancy, disease, etc. and a lack of respect for the source of those consequences, thinking we are capable of overpowering it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a good thing? Our bodies developed in such a way that we derive pleasure from certain things. How is it not better if potential risks are reduced or eliminated? Isn't it better if the injuries associated with physical exercise are reduced or eliminated? Isn't it better if science eliminates STD's? Isn't it better for parents and children if we can choose when we want to reproduce?

Should we stop living in man-made shelters that protect us from the god-given elements?

morphball

06-28-2006, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well the first study was posted to back up the claim that anti-incest mechanisms are the result of early childhood proximity.

Did you read this, and still come away unimpressed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction (with links to studies therein)

Or, what about support groups for people who are attracted to their relatives:

http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reunion_gsa/

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a movie that deals with GSA, situated in Texas of all places...lol. It's called Lonestar or something, and the dude falls in love with a Mexican chick who turns out to have the same father.

Godfather III also has a bit of GSA in it too.

Darryl_P

06-28-2006, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that a good thing? Our bodies developed in such a way that we derive pleasure from certain things. How is it not better if potential risks are reduced or eliminated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes those adverse effects are there for a reason and that reason comes from a much higher place than where we are capable of operating. To not realize this and to try to fight it is a waste of valuable time on this earth IMO. Having said that, I'm not in favor of forcing others to not waste their time. Let them find out the hard way if they really insist.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it better if the injuries associated with physical exercise are reduced or eliminated?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly yes because physical exercise is positively correlated with survivial and, therefore, is not a pure surrogate activity. It's true that sex without any chance of procreation is a form of physical exercise so to that extent it's a good thing. My position is that the bad outweighs the good, but again, this is in my utopia and not in a world with 6.5 billion inhabitants in 2006. The population numbers would have to come way down before my utopia could even be considered.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it better if science eliminates STD's?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as I don't have to pay for the research I'm ok with it. In my utopia, though, STDs would not be a problem for other reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it better for parents and children if we can choose when we want to reproduce?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should be able to NOT reproduce by choice, absolutely. Simply don't have sex. But I'm not in favor of being able to create a human life with 100% certainty. We can TRY, but whether or not it actually happens should be left to a higher authority IMO. Again, if others decide to do stuff like that, ie. create test tube babies etc. I'm not in favor of dealing out my version of justice to them, but I will place a bet on there being adverse consequences at some point down the road that they didn't consider.

[ QUOTE ]
Should we stop living in man-made shelters that protect us from the god-given elements?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Again, protection from elements is directly related to survival, so it's another non-surrogate activity, unlike sex for pure pleasure.

And again, given today's world, I'm happy to go with the AC approach and let people discover the adverse consequences for themselves. Condoms break, desire for pleasure is insatiable and so only leads to suffering, relationships with no solid foundation break apart, kids from such relationships behave in ways that make their parents feel unpleasant, gives them health problems, etc. There are mechanisms that send the same signals that I'm trying to send, and they do a better job than I do anyway, so I would be a fool not to let it continue, at least until I see an opportunity to make real inroads towards my utopian vision, but luckily for you guys that probably won't be within my lifetime. Watch out for my kids and grandkids, though! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

hmkpoker

06-28-2006, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes those adverse effects are there for a reason and that reason comes from a much higher place than where we are capable of operating.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Civilization comes about as a result of people triumphing over all those effects.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as I don't have to pay for the research I'm ok with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair dues.

[ QUOTE ]
We can TRY, but whether or not it actually happens should be left to a higher authority IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's kind of funny how that higher authority picks irresponsible teenagers who aren't practicing safe sex to be the parents of children when they're vastly incapable of doing so...more often than he picks responsible married couples that use birth control.

Who's really in charge here?

[ QUOTE ]
but I will place a bet on there being adverse consequences at some point down the road that they didn't consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can say that about anything.

[ QUOTE ]
desire for pleasure is insatiable and so only leads to suffering

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It is this way for some people, but most people who actually have access to a steady diet of kink will eventually get bored of it. If you ever have the pleasure of having a gf who is really, really erotically inclined, and you take it for all its worth, eventually most people will get bored of it and be more interested in intimacy and such. I used to date an older woman who had a hysterectomy and a libido from hell. We'd both been tested for STD's, and we had a lot of free time. No chance of pregnancy (no condoms either /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), and lots of wild, wild, wild sex. The novelty of having sex with lots of different partners (when you get past the pooint of caring how many people you've had sex with) eventually gets boring too. The belief that we need deterrents like pregnancy and STD's to stop us from degenerating into a orgy of unproductive hedonism is ridiculous. Too much of any good thing eventually becomes boring.
(Again, for most, but not all)

[ QUOTE ]
There are mechanisms that send the same signals that I'm trying to send, and they do a better job than I do anyway, so I would be a fool not to let it continue, at least until I see an opportunity to make real inroads towards my utopian vision, but luckily for you guys that probably won't be within my lifetime. Watch out for my kids and grandkids, though!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ok, your kids and grandkids will have a magical revelation in the shower when they're 13, and they'll discover something that's better than your boring-ass utopian vision.

Darryl_P

06-28-2006, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Today's civilization came about as a result of people thinking they are triumphing over all those effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[ QUOTE ]
It's kind of funny how that higher authority picks irresponsible teenagers who aren't practicing safe sex to be the parents of children when they're vastly incapable of doing so...more often than he picks responsible married couples that use birth control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the higher authority is trying to get teenagers to deal with something important rather than having them go through the big societal dead-end-street brainwashing machine to eventually become production-consumption drones.

[ QUOTE ]
The belief that we need deterrents like pregnancy and STD's to stop us from degenerating into a orgy of unproductive hedonism is ridiculous. Too much of any good thing eventually becomes boring.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically what I'm saying. Boredom is a major part of that mechanism which automatically works in my direction. You're basically being told from above "nope, that's not it...find something else".

STDs and unwanted pregnancies are similar, even if they occur less frequently.

[ QUOTE ]
That's ok, your kids and grandkids will have a magical revelation in the shower when they're 13, and they'll discover something that's better than your boring-ass utopian vision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's so boring. I will definitely be giving tips to my sons on how to pick up women. I may even help set something up for them. The prospective woman just has to be a low risk for STDs and she would need to have the means to raise a child in case she got pregnant. If she insists on using contraception like the pill, say, I wouldn't forbid my son from doing it, but I'd make sure to let him know that sex is MUCH better when the proper juices are flowing and that what he experiences won't be the real thing.

I'm not advocating living according to my utopia in today's world. The environment has to be right. The idea is to pounce when the time is right to change the environment (I'm talking major war here), but in the meantime do what's feasible based on today's realities.

Darryl_P

06-28-2006, 09:27 PM

Just to be crystal clear about where I'm coming from (literally), I was born as a result of sex that many would say should have involved contraception (mother = teacher, father = student), so I'm not exactly going to represent a philosophy that says I shouldn't have been born /images/graemlins/smile.gif

vhawk01

06-28-2006, 09:58 PM

Will you be around when we need clarification on which things its ok for us to try and overcome and which things aren't 'meant' to be overcome? Its ok that we use electricity, right?

hmkpoker

06-28-2006, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Today's civilization came about as a result of people thinking they are triumphing over all those effects.

[/ QUOTE ]FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Civilization is the collective act of man figuring out better ways to do things. In so doing, he fixes problems and annoyances that he was given, and eliminates or alleviates them.

We DO triumph over adversity. Are you doubting that mankind leads a better quality of life today than we did fifty generations ago?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the higher authority is trying to get teenagers to deal with something important rather than having them go through the big societal dead-end-street brainwashing machine to eventually become production-consumption drones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe...human life is the result of a sperm-fertilised egg, and things that increase the probability of fertilisation increase the probability of pregnancy, and things that decrease the probability decrease the probability of pregnancy.

Seems like common sense to me. It seems also like common sense that there's no planned logic behind it. I love how you made up some convenient post-hoc rationale claiming that the pregnant teenager is somehow better off with the baby. You don't believe in, uh, accidents?

[ QUOTE ]
That's basically what I'm saying. Boredom is a major part of that mechanism which automatically works in my direction. You're basically being told from above "nope, that's not it...find something else".

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's being told anything? If I have tons of kinky sex and eventually get tired of it, why is it that I don't here some voice or something? Can't it just be me deciding for myself that I don't want to do this as much now?

[ QUOTE ]
If she insists on using contraception like the pill, say, I wouldn't forbid my son from doing it, but I'd make sure to let him know that sex is MUCH better when the proper juices are flowing and that what he experiences won't be the real thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women still lubricate when they're on the pill, dude. Women continue to lubricate even in the absence of a uterus. He may also learn for himself that sex is much better when you can have an orgasm, and not lie there worrying about whether you're going to have to pay for it for the next twenty years.

[ QUOTE ]
I will definitely be giving tips to my sons on how to pick up women. I may even help set something up for them. The prospective woman just has to be a low risk for STDs and she would need to have the means to raise a child in case she got pregnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Send me your son's address and I'll forward him some of my porn usernames and passwords. He's going to need them.

Darryl_P

06-28-2006, 11:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Will you be around when we need clarification on which things its ok for us to try and overcome and which things aren't 'meant' to be overcome?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, y'all don't need me for that. The mechanisms are there already. Just try whichever one feels good and see what happens.

[ QUOTE ]
Its ok that we use electricity, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, especially if it's used for non-surrogate activities which is usually the case.

tolbiny

06-28-2006, 11:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't say the promise of procreation had to be there, just the possibility. I also never said it shouldn't be motivated at least in part by the pleasure it gives.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what counts as a possibility? 1/100, 1/1000? Does this mean that any woman past menopause shouldn't have sex? Or is it acceptable since they will have something like a 1/1,000,000 chance of getting pregnant (if that).
and why is this a Utopia? More people = fewer resources per person = more conflict.

guesswest

06-28-2006, 11:26 PM

On a matter of actual fact - is this illegal? Is there any law against it?

Hopey

06-28-2006, 11:55 PM

It's creepy, but I wouldn't call it morally wrong. Nobody is being harmed by their actions.

Hopey

06-29-2006, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about this one. Is it ok for a dad to molest his daughter if she is mentally retarded or deformed and the sex makes her chronic pain dissipate. The father is only doing it to make the childs pain ease and not to procreate or satisfy his own sexual desire. Its only his way of helping, Is that ok? What if the daughter were only going to live a couple months more due to cancer of something and as far as she knew that made her feel good? Please excuse the extreme example but my point is that when you open up a discussion like this you open the floodgates for a whole lot of stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not even anywhere close to analogous to the original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but he obviously enjoys fantasizing about such things, so leave him be. To each their own fetish.

Peter666

06-29-2006, 12:07 AM

Can we see a picture of your wife first?

vhawk01

06-29-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
On a matter of actual fact - is this illegal? Is there any law against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm almost positive that I remember this being illegal under my state code when I read it for a Criminal Justice class. However, this was maybe 4 years ago and I don't remember specifically, but I'm fairly sure that it is. I think that anything first cousin and in is against the law. How much those laws get enforced, I don't know.

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 05:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So what counts as a possibility? 1/100, 1/1000? Does this mean that any woman past menopause shouldn't have sex? Or is it acceptable since they will have something like a 1/1,000,000 chance of getting pregnant (if that).
and why is this a Utopia? More people = fewer resources per person = more conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn´t use one number as a cutoff point. Rather, I´d have it depend on how much the natural probability is artificially manipulated. In the case of birth control, human intervention reduces the probability dramatically, so in that case the cutoff might be around 5% or so. In the case of menopausal women, there is no intervention manipulating the probability so the minute theoretical natural percentage that already exists would be enough.

The principle is: tinker too much with Mother Nature (or God´s will or whatever) and there will be a hefty price to pay. The exact cutoff point for "too much" is debatable, but using the pill or other reliable contraception method on an otherwise fertile woman would certainly qualify.

Again, this is my utopian scenario which is very different from today´s overpopulated industrial society. One requirement for this utopia to materialize is for the human population to decline by at least 90%, with certain qualitative elements I´d rather not get into. Naturally it assumes I or some of my family will be among the surviving 10%. With such a streamlined population, there would be lots of room to procreate without creating more conflict. A major conflict would have already happened and this utopia would be the aftermath.

In the meantime I will do my best to procreate and hope my children do the same in the hope that our chances are maximized when the big conflicts come. Until then, though, I do not want to lay any shame on people who have sex for pure pleasure, and that includes homosexuality, incest, beastiality, S+M and anything else not involving children, because in this overpopulated situation it´s perfectly understandable IMO.

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 06:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you doubting that mankind leads a better quality of life today than we did fifty generations ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Unabomber´s manifesto (http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm) sum up my sentiments pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
I love how you made up some convenient post-hoc rationale claiming that the pregnant teenager is somehow better off with the baby. You don't believe in, uh, accidents?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing made up about that. It´s part of a well-thought-out philosophy which includes stuff like western society and its drone-like non-thinking parents totally f-ing up kids´ upbringing having them focus on stupidity like memorizing thousands of pages of useless brainwashing material instead of the major issues like what is the purpose of life, how and when should kids be raised, etc.

A so-called "accident" could be a blessing in disguise for a blissfully ignorant individual because it forces him/her off the path that society so selfishly and unscrupulously laid out -- is my point.

[ QUOTE ]
Who's being told anything? If I have tons of kinky sex and eventually get tired of it, why is it that I don't here some voice or something? Can't it just be me deciding for myself that I don't want to do this as much now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are deciding alright, but it´s based on feelings (like boredom) you never decided to have. It´s like being -- heaven forbid -- coerced!

[ QUOTE ]
Women still lubricate when they're on the pill, dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that, but there´s nothing like the natural lubrication of an ovulating woman. It´s like there´s something just reaching all the way down your scrotum, creating a wide lane through the prostate and logging the two of you into heavenly broadband (ADSL I guess since much more juice flows in one direction than the other).

[ QUOTE ]
... and not lie there worrying about whether you're going to have to pay for it for the next twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you have to pay or not depends on your attitude. It doesn´t have to feel like that. You could actually be in love with the woman or vice versa in which case the thought of having a baby together might actually be pleasant.

Of course with today´s overpopulation issues, I sincerely and truly do not look down upon people who have sex for pure pleasure. I just see it as a shame when intelligent specimens are having their genes bow out of the picture while a lot of primitive dumdums are crankin´ em out like rabbits.

MidGe

06-29-2006, 06:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn´t use one number as a cutoff point. Rather, I´d have it depend on how much the natural probability is artificially manipulated. In the case of birth control, human intervention reduces the probability dramatically, so in that case the cutoff might be around 5% or so. In the case of menopausal women, there is no intervention manipulating the probability so the minute theoretical natural percentage that already exists would be enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I presume you will object as vehemently to any fertility treatment, or are you happy with fixing the designer mistakes? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 06:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, I presume you will object as vehemently to any fertility treatment, or are you happy with fixing the designer mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

You presume correctly for I am not one to second-guess the designer and point out any mistakes.

MidGe

06-29-2006, 07:36 AM

At least you are consistent, Darryl_P. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Does it extend to most other medical interventions on the same logical argument?

tolbiny

06-29-2006, 07:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I presume you will object as vehemently to any fertility treatment, or are you happy with fixing the designer mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

You presume correctly for I am not one to second-guess the designer and point out any mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very pios priest lived in a small town near a large river, one dya it began to rain, it continued to rain untill the river spill over its banks and began to flood the town. The priest's neighbor came to his door and offered to help him pack and move his collection of scriptures so they would not be ruined, to this the priest replyed
"i am a humble man, i serve my god, if it is his will that they be saved, then they shall"
The water continued to rise and the priest took shelter on the second story of the church when another neighbor came by in a boat
"Father" he yelled "climb into my boat so i that i can take you to safety"
to this the priest replyed
"i am a humble man, i serve my god, if it is his will that i be saved, then i shall"
The waters rose and the priest was forced onto his roof, when a helocopter came by.
"father climb this ladder so that we may save you"
to this the priest replyed
"i am a humble man, i serve my god, if it is his will that i be saved, then i shall"
The flood waters rose further and the priest drowned. Upon entering heaven he stood before god and asked him "why did yo udecide it was my time, oh lord?"
god reached back and bitch slapped him.
"WTF is wrong with you? In trying to save you I sent your neighbor, a boat and a mother luvin helocopter!"

People like you are scary, talking about "the creator's plan" as if you could possibly understand it. No, i don't use rubbers because its agianst what i randomly guessed was the creator's plan. On the other hand i do drive a car, because clearly it was in his plan for me to do so. I won't take vitamins because its contrary to his will, but i use double ply toilet paper to wipe, as that is definately part of the creator's plan.
Of course your intimate knowlege of the "plan" allows you to casually discuss the deaths of 5.4 billion (thats 5,400,000,000) people to create what you think would be a good place to live (at least for a while, of course in a few generations the population would be right back where it is now and then we need someone else to reattempt the solution).

madnak

06-29-2006, 12:14 PM

So you're a bona fide Luddite, then?

kurto

06-29-2006, 12:52 PM

I posted this in the evolution thread but since the ideas crossed for me, I cross post:

I haven't looked at a Bible in quite awhile. Someone who knows it fill me in:

God makes Adam and Eve and no one else, right? Then, they're kicked out of the Garden of Eden and give birth to the entire human race. So, the entire human race is naturally born out of countless incestual unions.

So... if this is true, why exactly would incest be considered immoral by Christians? Seems Christians would have a lot of goodwill towards the concept.

Peter666

06-29-2006, 01:08 PM

vhawk01

06-29-2006, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you're a bona fide Luddite, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

And apparently a fundamentalist, hypocritical one at that. Thats why I asked him if he would always be around when we decide which elements of god's will its ok to try and overcome.

kurto

06-29-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The genetically pure stock of the original parents would not produce the physical or psychological issues found in later generations of inbreeding. Yes, we are all cousins.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, at what point did it become a problem? And I don't have the scientific background to know if your response makes any sense. Genetically pure (whatever that means) can have incest with no ill effects? The problem with incest now is people aren't genetically pure enough?

How did they become impure if they are all bred from perfectly pure genes?

Hopey

06-29-2006, 03:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know that, but there´s nothing like the natural lubrication of an ovulating woman. It´s like there´s something just reaching all the way down your scrotum, creating a wide lane through the prostate and logging the two of you into heavenly broadband

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This is the creepiest thing I've ever read on the internet. Good work, freak.

Peter666

06-29-2006, 03:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The genetically pure stock of the original parents would not produce the physical or psychological issues found in later generations of inbreeding. Yes, we are all cousins.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, at what point did it become a problem? And I don't have the scientific background to know if your response makes any sense. Genetically pure (whatever that means) can have incest with no ill effects? The problem with incest now is people aren't genetically pure enough?

How did they become impure if they are all bred from perfectly pure genes?

[/ QUOTE ]

If man was created, he was created perfectly. Outside conditions that stress the body would bring about all our physical failures over time.

kurto

06-29-2006, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If man was created, he was created perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ] Strictly speaking, if this were the case, I don't think there would be problems with incest or gradual deterioration of the genes since they would be perfect genes mating with perfect genes. There's no 'imperfection' being bred.

I don't really need to go that deep here. I just find it interesting that the Church simultaneously says that we are all the children of incest (clearly with God condoning it) and says incest is wrong and immoral.

Certainly not the only contradiction in the teachings but I think an interesting one.

vhawk01

06-29-2006, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The genetically pure stock of the original parents would not produce the physical or psychological issues found in later generations of inbreeding. Yes, we are all cousins.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, at what point did it become a problem? And I don't have the scientific background to know if your response makes any sense. Genetically pure (whatever that means) can have incest with no ill effects? The problem with incest now is people aren't genetically pure enough?

How did they become impure if they are all bred from perfectly pure genes?

[/ QUOTE ]

If man was created, he was created perfectly. Outside conditions that stress the body would bring about all our physical failures over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like cosmic rays.

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
People like you are scary, talking about "the creator's plan" as if you could possibly understand it. No, i don't use rubbers because its agianst what i randomly guessed was the creator's plan. On the other hand i do drive a car, because clearly it was in his plan for me to do so. I won't take vitamins because its contrary to his will, but i use double ply toilet paper to wipe, as that is definately part of the creator's plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's consider two key points you make here:

1) I'm scary.
2) I'm randomly guessing about the creator's plan

I can accept 1) btw but I can't accept 2) so I will ask...

What exactly makes me (or my type) scary? Is it that I might just erupt into some type of schizophrenia in which I start randomly killing people to try to achieve my utopia? Or is it that a movement might form among similar-minded people in which such nasty stuff could happen on a large scale? If it's the latter, then wouldn't you expect it to be very, very unlikely that so many independent people with random thoughts find the necessary common ground? Where is the risk here?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course your intimate knowlege of the "plan" allows you to casually discuss the deaths of 5.4 billion (thats 5,400,000,000) people

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that many people have to be killed, if that's what you're implying. My timeline is long (goes well beyond my own lifetime) and so a drastic reduction in the birth rate after a war which takes a much smaller number of lives, say, would get the job done also.

[ QUOTE ]
of course in a few generations the population would be right back where it is now and then we need someone else to reattempt the solution

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't follow either because the population could be stable or even continue to decline even if all sex was for procreation. There may come a time when sex toy shops go out of business and females will be extremely selective in who they mate with, leaving many with no mate at all. I think you assume too much from what humans are like today. I'm going under the assumption that radically different scenarios are possible, at least in terms of mating practices.

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you're a bona fide Luddite, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard of this term before but after a quick look at wiki I have to say no.

Their purpose looked to be nothing more than industrial protectionism. My philosophy extends beyond industrial and economic considerations and is nowhere near as shortsighted and artificial.

I know it's hard to look beyond economic considerations, seeing as most of you guys have been conditioned by western society to place prime importance on those. It is possible if you try, though, even if it may take some time.

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
At least you are consistent, Darryl_P.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks MidGe. I'm glad at least one atheist recognizes this. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Does it extend to most other medical interventions on the same logical argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed it does. I don't see what the big obsession is with wanting to live to 90, 100 and beyond. Naturally if the other guys are getting the treatments, I don't want to be left at a disadvantage, but I'd be perfectly happy if medical science were a lot less advanced than it is today.

vhawk01

06-29-2006, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're a bona fide Luddite, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard of this term before but after a quick look at wiki I have to say no.

Their purpose looked to be nothing more than industrial protectionism. My philosophy extends beyond industrial and economic considerations and is nowhere near as shortsighted and artificial.

I know it's hard to look beyond economic considerations, seeing as most of you guys have been conditioned by western society to place prime importance on those. It is possible if you try, though, even if it may take some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you easily dismiss technological progress as simple a means of achieving economic wealth. You seem to be neglecting its role as the sole means of alleviating suffering in the world. There is almost nothing besides technological advancement that has the ability to better the lives of everyone in the world. That you think the Bible is a good way to pick and choose which technologies we should pursue (and not just the Bible, but apparently your interpretation of the intent of the Bible) is disheartening. I mean, Ludditism would probably be fine for everyone in the US. Even a complete moratorium on progress would be ok, in the US, because we have enough to satisfy most here (although improperly allocated). I mean, that is unless you happen to get cancer, heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, lupus, and a whole host of other afflictions and catastrophich life events.

vhawk01

06-29-2006, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least you are consistent, Darryl_P.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks MidGe. I'm glad at least one atheist recognizes this. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Does it extend to most other medical interventions on the same logical argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed it does. I don't see what the big obsession is with wanting to live to 90, 100 and beyond. Naturally if the other guys are getting the treatments, I don't want to be left at a disadvantage, but I'd be perfectly happy if medical science were a lot less advanced than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are several things wrong with this. First...of course YOU would be ok with this. You live in a technologically advanced country. But just because we have enough medical knowledge to keep you alive for whatever you arbitrarily decide is acceptable, that doesnt mean we have the wealth or ability to do this for everyone in the world. Further advances will make treatments faster and more cost-effective, so that we can spread this life-saving ability to the whole world.

The second main point is this: it's a good thing your great-great-grandfather didn't feel this way. Otherwise you wouldnt be talking about 90 or 100, but would be saying 'Who needs to live to 40 anyhow? Thats absurd.'

tolbiny

06-29-2006, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly makes me (or my type) scary? Is it that I might just erupt into some type of schizophrenia in which I start randomly killing people to try to achieve my utopia? Or is it that a movement might form among similar-minded people in which such nasty stuff could happen on a large scale? If it's the latter, then wouldn't you expect it to be very, very unlikely that so many independent people with random thoughts find the necessary common ground? Where is the risk here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually its the third option- that one person (or a small group) who is very persuasive gains a signifigant and dedicated following. This has happened quite a few times in history. Whats scary is that your position is not open for discussion, it takes its power from "the word of god" which leaves no room for straying from the path. There is no way to talk fundementalists out of their position since the basis of their position (usually) is an assumption which brooks no room for argument.

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't follow either because the population could be stable or even continue to decline even if all sex was for procreation. There may come a time when sex toy shops go out of business and females will be extremely selective in who they mate with, leaving many with no mate at all. I think you assume too much from what humans are like today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume based upon not only what humans are like today, but to the best of our knowlege what they have always been like in the past, and what indeed all animals have been like for as long as we know. Populations expand untill they reach a limit imposed by outside forces.

[ QUOTE ]
females will be extremely selective in who they mate with, leaving many with no mate at all

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a lot of pressure to put on females- if you can't find an ideal mate, don't mate at all. Its also a lot of pressure to put on eligible males- a large percentage of the population is looking for you, but you are only allowed a single mate. Polygomy has been a part of many different cultures throughout human history, either through necessity or through ancient customs, but there aren't any examples that i know of where large segments of a population voluntarily withdrew from partnerships that could result in children.

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you easily dismiss technological progress as simple a means of achieving economic wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I was referring to the economic focus of Luddism by certain groups with not much more of a philosophical angle beyond that. I did only skim it, though, so I might be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
That you think the Bible is a good way to pick and choose which technologies we should pursue (and not just the Bible, but apparently your interpretation of the intent of the Bible) is disheartening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confusing me with your typical fundie. I consider those guys allies of mine to be sure, but I disagree with pointing to a passage in the Bible and saying "there, that's the absolute truth, take it or leave it" etc. Instead, I see the Bible as giving good insights into God's modus operandi, but I see plenty of room for debate as to what that actually is. Basically everyones' personal experiences can provide insights IMO.

If someone overtly rejects God, though, doesn't believe there is any supreme order in the universe, and believes in the ultimacy of randomness, etc., then there's not a lot of philosophical material to debate with such a person because of the chasm between our starting points.

morphball

06-29-2006, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or, what about support groups for people who are attracted to their relatives:

http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reunion_gsa/

[/ QUOTE ]

I recommend perusing these forums, very entertaining. Yes I am a sicko.

Darryl_P

06-29-2006, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Usually its the third option- that one person (or a small group) who is very persuasive gains a signifigant and dedicated following. This has happened quite a few times in history. Whats scary is that your position is not open for discussion, it takes its power from "the word of god" which leaves no room for straying from the path. There is no way to talk fundementalists out of their position since the basis of their position (usually) is an assumption which brooks no room for argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but if the thoughts about what God wants are truly random, then how is it that so many people can be aligned on that? Is it just clever manipulation of the masses?

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to talk fundementalists out of their position since the basis of their position (usually) is an assumption which brooks no room for argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think an atheist will have trouble getting a fundie to budge, but another theist might have a chance on certain issues, don't you think?

[ QUOTE ]
Populations expand untill they reach a limit imposed by outside forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. In my scenario, the smaller human population will require more roaming space because they think on a larger scale in both space and time. So at 600 million they could easily feel the same outside forces that the current 6 billion does, ensuring that their growth is curbed. Also, other animals will feel less constricted and so their increase in numbers may serve to stunt human population growth further.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats a lot of pressure to put on females- if you can't find an ideal mate, don't mate at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory is that that pressure would come from within, not from outside. Females are naturally quality-oriented and so the question is how high they set the bar for themselves. In my utopian world they would set it very high because they would instinctively feel constricted by the number of people in the world and so they'd only increase that if there was a big potential quality increase also.

Males would practice polygamy with the best specimens having multiple mates leaving the majority with none. It does put a lot of pressure on mediocre males, but it's consistent with being radically different from today's world which rewards and incentivizes mediocrity.

[ QUOTE ]
but there aren't any examples that i know of where large segments of a population voluntarily withdrew from partnerships that could result in children.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there are no large scale examples of this type of quality selection by females? Maybe not, but there are certainly smaller scale ones which could be the next to go on the Darwinian experiment block. (Darwin is not exactly fundie-speak, right? /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

tolbiny

06-29-2006, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but if the thoughts about what God wants are truly random, then how is it that so many people can be aligned on that? Is it just clever manipulation of the masses?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many differnt religious beliefs, the followers of christ can be lumped into Catholics, Protestants, Lutherins, Orthodox Christians, Baptists and mnay others. The Followers of these religions also come in many varieties, very few strictly adhere to all the tenents of their religion, choosing what fits their life best and discarding, ignoring or adapting whatever is left. Of course there are several hundred million Buddists in the world who don't believe in a god that directly intervenes in daily life, or hundreds of millions of Hindus, or anyone who followed a "pagan" religion. Muslims have very different interpretations of texts within their religion- there really isn't a lot of consenses between religions.
Besides this i am not arguing that there is or there isn't a god in some form or another, only that people who claim to know what god wants have done some really nasty things, and none of their utopias have worked out. There is so much uncertainty in our world, really intelligant people who spend their lives studying small sections of science disagree on major points. I often claim to be an atheist, but am moving away from that stance, in reality i shouldn't claim that there isn't a god as there is so much to the universe that isn't even remotely understood. its sheer arrogance to presume you can understand god's will- were just men.

[ QUOTE ]
I think an atheist will have trouble getting a fundie to budge, but another theist might have a chance on certain issues, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, Fundies aren't fundies by accident, their whole lives are built around a structure that they believe deep in their core. Sure you might gain concession on minor points from time to time, but you won't find an orthodox Jew becoming an orthodox Catholic very often. People who make up their minds don't change them easily.

[ QUOTE ]
In my scenario, the smaller human population will require more roaming space because they think on a larger scale in both space and time. So at 600 million they could easily feel the same outside forces that the current 6 billion does,

[/ QUOTE ]

Then your scenario has the smae problems as what yo usee the current situation as having. The poeple in your scenario will experience feelings of having inadequete resources or overpopulation pressures, the actual number doesn't mean anyting. And what animal could prevent humans from expanding? 20,000 years ago armed only with stone tools humans were able to incroch on virtually every habit of every land animal in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
The theory is that that pressure would come from within

[/ QUOTE ]
sounds more like a vague hope. Women have a preference for higher quality, but that is relative to whats available.

[ QUOTE ]
In my utopian world they would set it very high because they would instinctively feel constricted by the number of people in the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not from within, thats an outside pressure altering behavior. Your not talking about people making conscious decisions to do "wahts right" your counting on a new set of instincts (or socially conditioned norms) to controll their behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, but there are certainly smaller scale ones which could be the next to go on the Darwinian experiment block

[/ QUOTE ]

Darwinism is about variation and greater success in reproduction. Greater success leads to more offspring, which means one of two things. Larger population size or outcompeting others within the population. I dont believe there are any other options under darwinian thinking.

Peter666

06-29-2006, 08:04 PM

Which Church specifically says that incest is inherently immoral?

hmkpoker

06-29-2006, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which Church specifically says that incest is inherently immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about the morality, but Leviticus proposes some pretty harsh punishments for incest.

Peter666

06-29-2006, 08:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which Church specifically says that incest is inherently immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about the morality, but Leviticus proposes some pretty harsh punishments for incest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those passages do not by necessity invoke moral law, they are orders from on high for better living at the time.

Dispensations can be granted for marrying cousins in Catholicism for example. There could never be a dispensation granted for something morally wrong like murder.

MidGe

06-29-2006, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
here could never be a dispensation granted for something morally wrong like murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Another bit of selective thinking... You are too much, Peter. Shal we start listing the murders executed or condoned by the church.... LOL

Peter666

06-29-2006, 08:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here could never be a dispensation granted for something morally wrong like murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Another bit of selective thinking... You are too much, Peter. Shal we start listing the murders executed or condoned by the church.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, do so.

gwhiz_612

06-29-2006, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this in the evolution thread but since the ideas crossed for me, I cross post:

I haven't looked at a Bible in quite awhile. Someone who knows it fill me in:

God makes Adam and Eve and no one else, right? Then, they're kicked out of the Garden of Eden and give birth to the entire human race. So, the entire human race is naturally born out of countless incestual unions.

So... if this is true, why exactly would incest be considered immoral by Christians? Seems Christians would have a lot of goodwill towards the concept.

[/ QUOTE ] Dispensations. There was a time when God told man to be fruitful and multiply. Adam and Eve bearing children were being obedient to that command. At that time Brother and sister could procreate with Gods blessing to populate the earth and become a people. Just like when there was a time where man lived over 6 centuries. However the timeline of man was reduced to just about 7 decades when God decreed it. The same is true that God allowed a time frame (dispensation)for man to reproduce with a sibling this was for the greater good to fill the earth. Then after a certain time as population grew this was no longer needed due to the mass of civilization that was forming. When the Lord gave moses the Law He said plainly that a man shall not lay with his sister etc.. If you want scriptue reference I will get it for you.

MidGe

06-29-2006, 10:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here could never be a dispensation granted for something morally wrong like murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Another bit of selective thinking... You are too much, Peter. Shal we start listing the murders executed or condoned by the church.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The list is much too long. To jog your memory, burning at the stakes of heretics, drowning of suspected witches (If they did not drown they were witches, if they did, they were not...). I am certain you will have a "moral" justification for those murders. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Peter666

06-29-2006, 11:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here could never be a dispensation granted for something morally wrong like murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Another bit of selective thinking... You are too much, Peter. Shal we start listing the murders executed or condoned by the church.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The list is much too long. To jog your memory, burning at the stakes of heretics, drowning of suspected witches (If they did not drown they were witches, if they did, they were not...). I am certain you will have a "moral" justification for those murders. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you can be specific. Also, prove the innocence of the crime for which they are being executed.

MidGe

06-30-2006, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you can be specific. Also, prove the innocence of the crime for which they are being executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are in denial dude!

tolbiny

06-30-2006, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here could never be a dispensation granted for something morally wrong like murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Another bit of selective thinking... You are too much, Peter. Shal we start listing the murders executed or condoned by the church.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The list is much too long. To jog your memory, burning at the stakes of heretics, drowning of suspected witches (If they did not drown they were witches, if they did, they were not...). I am certain you will have a "moral" justification for those murders. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you can be specific. Also, prove the innocence of the crime for which they are being executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joan of arc. Conviction overturned, made a saint.

Darryl_P

06-30-2006, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then your scenario has the smae problems as what yo usee the current situation as having. The poeple in your scenario will experience feelings of having inadequete resources or overpopulation pressures, the actual number doesn't mean anyting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. The key difference is that in my scenario, there would be general alignment on those constrictive feelings, causing a fairly homogenous response in terms of mating, thereby alleviating the need for conflict on that front. In today's scenario, only the more sophisticated, richer, higher IQ types in western countries feel the pinch while those on the opposite end show no such signs of ever getting to this stage on their own (ie. without some externality like violent conflict, disease, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
And what animal could prevent humans from expanding? 20,000 years ago armed only with stone tools humans were able to incroch on virtually every habit of every land animal in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key difference here would be a respect for animals' habitats and a realization that there is a maximum level of encroachment that is beneficial to mankind -- a level we have long surpassed. The new human population would be smarter than ever before and so these behaviors based only on satisfying shortsighted immediate needs could well not be repeated.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats not from within, thats an outside pressure altering behavior. Your not talking about people making conscious decisions to do "wahts right" your counting on a new set of instincts (or socially conditioned norms) to controll their behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this boils down to the philosophical issue of: can anything really come from within? After all, what is external affects what is internal and vice versa -- yin and yang.

[ QUOTE ]
Darwinism is about variation and greater success in reproduction. Greater success leads to more offspring, which means one of two things. Larger population size or outcompeting others within the population. I dont believe there are any other options under darwinian thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and there would be plenty of internal competition in terms of who ends up mating and to what extent. The question is what qualities determine the winner. That part is unpredictable and constantly changing.

Right now it looks like being a potential beneficiary of socialist benevolence is one of the strongest forces influencing mating. Trouble is the pool of resources to be reallocated could easily decline while the demand for those are sharply increasing as dependency relationships form, poorer populations increase etc. Where this all leads is not entirely clear but from here it doesn't look pretty.

Are you saying there is something wrong or incomplete about Darwinian thinking? Reading between the lines I get the impression you're not a Darwin fan.

godBoy

06-30-2006, 06:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The correlation between homosexuality and AIDS has dwindled to naught.

[/ QUOTE ]

This simply can't be right, all the documentaries I have seen on the topic of AIDS show the main groups prone to be, prostitutes, homosexuals and drug users.

MidGe

06-30-2006, 07:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This simply can't be right, all the documentaries I have seen on the topic of AIDS show the main groups prone to be, prostitutes, homosexuals and drug users.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just goes to show how biased your viewing habits are!

godBoy

06-30-2006, 07:08 AM

Spud.

MidGe

06-30-2006, 08:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Spud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another one of your interesting(?) meaningful(?) reply that really challenges your audience's (if you have any) intellect, without a shadow of a doubt.

To think that one day you may lead a congregation (that's your aim, isn't it?) makes me wonder where there would be a sufficiently large concentration of morons to justify paying you for it!.

guesswest

06-30-2006, 09:44 AM

Homosexuals blatantly have a greater average risk of contracting HIV simply because the chances of transferring the virus are drastically increased with anal vs vaginal sex.

Hopey

06-30-2006, 09:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To think that one day you may lead a congregation (that's your aim, isn't it?) makes me wonder where there would be a sufficiently large concentration of morons to justify paying you for it!.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any of the areas marked in red will do:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/United_States_Elections_2004_Electoral_College_map .png/300px-United_States_Elections_2004_Electoral_College_map .png

madnak

06-30-2006, 02:23 PM

Uh, no. The rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has been dropping steadily. They're still at higher risk than heterosexuals, but the gap is closing. Prostitutes are less likely than the average population to contract HIV and other STDs. In fact, prostitutes represent one of the "cleanest" segments of the world population.

Of course, I'm referring to legal prostitutes as found in Nevada and most European countries. It's virtually impossible to evaluate risk reliably for illegal prostitutes, partly because they're hard to identify and partly because a large proportion of them do drugs intravenously so the risk of their prostitution-related activities can't be independently considered. The biggest cause of HIV infection is intravenous drug use by far.

Carl_William

06-30-2006, 02:54 PM

In a sense this is a stupid post. Either we do or don't. Incest means depositing the male seed in a female -- that's it. I feel that hmkpoker is just: (1) trying to do a private research project on having sex with a close relative; or (2) asking a stupid question to arouse people's feelings. I feel Hmkpoker is just asking what we think about masturbating in other people’s cavities. Hmkpoker might also ask if it’s OK to shoot people with guns firing blanks because they might get a rush by doing this.

Most knowledgeable and maybe intelligent humans are aware the birth defects can be caused by incest (breeding with close relatives). This fact has been known for thousands of years. I feel that it is morally wrong to have sex when it might cause birth defects by knowingly breeding with a close relative.

Some religions teach not to eat pork because before Louis Pasteur (and scientists like him); it was not known about the reasons for danger when eating undercooked pork.

I guess; Hmkpoker thinks:

Vice is nice;
But Incest is Best.

Peter666

06-30-2006, 03:19 PM

"Joan of arc"

Interesting choice, but the tribunal investigating her was illegal and a kangaroo court acting on the whim of the English. It was not representative of the Catholic Church which made the final judgement.

Peter666

06-30-2006, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you can be specific. Also, prove the innocence of the crime for which they are being executed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are in denial dude!

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one deny facts that are not even presented?

Hopey

06-30-2006, 03:45 PM

Spanish Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)

vhawk01

06-30-2006, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In a sense this is a stupid post. Either we do or don't. Incest means depositing the male seed in a female -- that's it. I feel that hmkpoker is just: (1) trying to do a private research project on having sex with a close relative; or (2) asking a stupid question to arouse people's feelings. I feel Hmkpoker is just asking what we think about masturbating in other people’s cavities. Hmkpoker might also ask if it’s OK to shoot people with guns firing blanks because they might get a rush by doing this.

Most knowledgeable and maybe intelligent humans are aware the birth defects can be caused by incest (breeding with close relatives). This fact has been known for thousands of years. I feel that it is morally wrong to have sex when it might cause birth defects by knowingly breeding with a close relative.

Some religions teach not to eat pork because before Louis Pasteur (and scientists like him); it was not known about the reasons for danger when eating undercooked pork.

I guess; Hmkpoker thinks:

Vice is nice;
But Incest is Best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, feel free to educate us on these 'obvious' and 'well-known' risks of birth defects from close relatives. For example, please explain what my general risk would be of having a child with X (where X is whatever genetic disease you happen to choose) with a) a random woman from the population; b) a relative at least second-cousin distance familially; c) a first cousin; and d) someone within my own family, i.e. sister. Whats my increased risk in each of these situations? How much increased risk is acceptable? What happens if I find out that my wife and I are both heterozygous for X....is our sex immoral?

Peter666

06-30-2006, 09:19 PM

Torquemada rules!

Probably the most hyped and propagandized piece of Protestant anti-Catholicism. All executions are in the hands of the secular authority and not the Church to begin with, and only 3-4% of those found guilty were executed. But that being said, it is a good thing to weed out opposition when one claims the exclusive truth on faith and morals. If one were the King of a Catholic state and discovered a new heresy that would lead to the damnation of souls of your citizens plus revolutionary political action, what should one do?

Or let me put it like this: if a group of Muslim extremists are hell bent on destroying America and its people, and secret cells are hidden all over the country, what should one do as President? Note that Spain didn't launch any preemptive strikes.

yukoncpa

07-01-2006, 05:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
LOL... Another bit of selective thinking... You are too much, Peter. Shal we start listing the murders executed or condoned by the church.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you can be specific. Also, prove the innocence of the crime for which they are being executed.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are in denial dude!

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can one deny facts that are not even presented?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some facts Peter:
Victims of the Christian Faith (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/vic_chris.htm)

Carl_William

07-01-2006, 06:36 AM

Kurto

Do you know what a midrash is? What Midrashin are? These are Jewish explanations; " haggadic or halakic expositions of the underlying significance of a bible text." Also the Midrashic literature written during the first Christian millennium. Using Midrashin, things are explained in the bible for a more realistic understanding of the meaning or intent of…. (By the way, although I knew what Misrash meant; I am not that smart or a scholar – I copied the definition of Midrash listed above from a dictionary)

For instance was Jonah really swallowed by a whale; did certain biblical people really turn into a pillar of salt; did the Red Sea really part to permit the Jews to escape the Egyptian Pharaoh Tyrant? Regarding incest….

I have not studied the Bible with regard to incest. But we know….

Repeated inbreeding with close relatives magnifies certain traits which can be bad after a period of time. For instance, farm bred catfish have developed freakish appendages because of inbreeding which are ugly – ugly to look at. Human inbreeding might cause handicaps, lower IQs, etc. (I said might – because these things are not that simple.)

With respect to Adam and Eve, we might surmise that Adam and Eve had essentially perfect bodies, and inbreeding by their initial children, grandchildren, and so-on would cause no handicaps. It was only after many generations (evolution) that certain deficient or proficient traits were developed in humans, and at this time close relative inbreeding or incest came into play and caused human handicaps or freaks. On the other hand, incest could also develop sports – that is bring out positive and desirable traits in humans – an example might be: after many generations of incest of high IQ or specific talents; a group of these people could possess genius abilities. But they also might look like freaks. So Kurto – your paragraph….

“God makes Adam and Eve and no one else, right? Then, they're kicked out of the Garden of Eden and give birth to the entire human race. So, the entire human race is naturally born out of countless incestual unions.”

Is misleading. Marrying a brother or sister is incest. Marrying a first cousin or aunt/uncle is also considered incest. But it is OK to marry a second cousin. So in Adam’s timeframe; and after a few generations, incest could be avoided. And this fact coupled with the lack of bad human traits (evolution did not come into play yet); so the occurrence of incest was probably not a problem – that is it could be easily avoided.

Carl_William

07-01-2006, 06:44 AM

Please practice the KISS theory – that is "Keep It Simple Sam."

Carl_William

07-01-2006, 06:51 AM

Keep it simple SAM -- please. You are going off on a long tangent....
You sound like the guy who would give the best track shoes to a three month old baby.

chezlaw

07-01-2006, 07:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If one were the King of a Catholic state and discovered a new heresy that would lead to the damnation of souls of your citizens plus revolutionary political action, what should one do?

[/ QUOTE ]
If one were a christian then one would love them as one loves ones self.

What would you do?

chez

Peter666

07-01-2006, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one were the King of a Catholic state and discovered a new heresy that would lead to the damnation of souls of your citizens plus revolutionary political action, what should one do?

[/ QUOTE ]
If one were a christian then one would love them as one loves ones self.

What would you do?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Punish them for their evil actions, as I should be punished for my evil actions.

madnak

07-01-2006, 12:27 PM

I thought it was God's job to punish, not yours? Did you miss all of Matthew 7 (http://bible.cc/matthew/7-1.htm)?

Peter666

07-01-2006, 12:36 PM

There are so many fallacies in that link that I will only touch on a couple of examples.

First, one has to show that the crimes are perpetrated in a true interpretation of Christian doctrine. As so many of these supposed "crimes" are just heretics battling heretics or true believers, one cannot use Christian doctrine as the scape goat.

Second, one must demonstrate that the motives are primarily religious and not based on greed, hatred etc.

As for the examples:

-The same Popes who launched the Crusades also excommunicated Crusaders for their crimes when perpetrated

-The English killed the Irish out of greed for their land and hatred for the Catholic faith, why is this being listed as an example to begin with, when it should be a crime against Christians!

-The Croation Ustasha were a pro-Nazi fascist party motivated by ethinic hatred, whose crimes were condemned by Bishop Stepinac of Croatia

-Anneliese Michel was a modern case of demonic possession. The writer is an idiot for passing judgment on things which he knows nothing about. The recent movie "The Excorcism of Emily Rose" is based somewhat on this event. In the end it becomes a case of the State infringing on religious freedoms.

By the way, there is that ignorant statement claiming that "Christianity has killed more people than all other things combined". Is this the list? If we were to give benefit of the doubt to the writer and add up all the numbers on this list, how many would it total? The number would be incredibly small compared to certain ideologies which made their mark in the 20th century alone.

Peter666

07-01-2006, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was God's job to punish, not yours? Did you miss all of Matthew 7 (http://bible.cc/matthew/7-1.htm)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you selectively quoting scripture because you turned Christian? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Of course man is obligated to punish out of respect to natural law and societal norms. When a mother spanks her child, is it a crime against God? Do you literally have a beam in your eye? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

madnak

07-01-2006, 12:49 PM

Matthew 7 is very interesting because it contains some of the very worst and the very best in the New Testament. How's this choice section:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

You seem rather a thorny fellow there, Peter.

Peter666

07-01-2006, 12:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Matthew 7 is very interesting because it contains some of the very worst and the very best in the New Testament. How's this choice section:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

You seem rather a thorny fellow there, Peter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you judging me when God said not to judge others? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

madnak

07-01-2006, 12:52 PM

I'm not the Christian, bub.

Peter666

07-01-2006, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the Christian, bub.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither am I, in your sense of the word.

vhawk01

07-01-2006, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are so many fallacies in that link that I will only touch on a couple of examples.

First, one has to show that the crimes are perpetrated in a true interpretation of Christian doctrine. As so many of these supposed "crimes" are just heretics battling heretics or true believers, one cannot use Christian doctrine as the scape goat.

Second, one must demonstrate that the motives are primarily religious and not based on greed, hatred etc.

As for the examples:

-The same Popes who launched the Crusades also excommunicated Crusaders for their crimes when perpetrated

-The English killed the Irish out of greed for their land and hatred for the Catholic faith, why is this being listed as an example to begin with, when it should be a crime against Christians!

-The Croation Ustasha were a pro-Nazi fascist party motivated by ethinic hatred, whose crimes were condemned by Bishop Stepinac of Croatia

-Anneliese Michel was a modern case of demonic possession. The writer is an idiot for passing judgment on things which he knows nothing about. The recent movie "The Excorcism of Emily Rose" is based somewhat on this event. In the end it becomes a case of the State infringing on religious freedoms.

By the way, there is that ignorant statement claiming that "Christianity has killed more people than all other things combined". Is this the list? If we were to give benefit of the doubt to the writer and add up all the numbers on this list, how many would it total? The number would be incredibly small compared to certain ideologies which made their mark in the 20th century alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of fallacies, you might want to try the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Peter666

07-01-2006, 04:19 PM

No True Scotsman would agree with that remark. It is a scapegoat.

A person either follows a set of principles or does not. One may call oneself whatever they wish, but that does not make a white man black or a black man white.

The principles are always objective. One is what they are by either conforming or not conforming to those principles.

vhawk01

07-01-2006, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No True Scotsman would agree with that remark. It is a scapegoat.

A person either follows a set of principles or does not. One may call oneself whatever they wish, but that does not make a white man black or a black man white.

The principles are always objective. One is what they are by either conforming or not conforming to those principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but then no Christian could ever do anything wrong, because if they do, well, they aren't a Christian right? And no Catholic, also. Thats not satisfactory though.

godBoy

07-01-2006, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To think that one day you may lead a congregation (that's your aim, isn't it?) makes me wonder where there would be a sufficiently large concentration of morons to justify paying you for it!.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not my aim.. If I ever did I wouldn't want any money for it. Your slander of the church really isn't justified.. You're just a simple little angry person who hates stuff

MidGe

07-02-2006, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You're just a simple little angry person who hates stuff

[/ QUOTE ]

You are just a "simple" little frightened person who cannot distinguish between good and bad, and in your fear tend to choose glorification of evil.

tolbiny

07-02-2006, 12:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The principles are always objective

[/ QUOTE ]

How are principles always objective? We all lead different lives and have different experiences whih influence them, principles as far as human morality goes are entirely subjective.

Peter666

07-02-2006, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No True Scotsman would agree with that remark. It is a scapegoat.

A person either follows a set of principles or does not. One may call oneself whatever they wish, but that does not make a white man black or a black man white.

The principles are always objective. One is what they are by either conforming or not conforming to those principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but then no Christian could ever do anything wrong, because if they do, well, they aren't a Christian right? And no Catholic, also. Thats not satisfactory though.

[/ QUOTE ]

They could do wrong, but they could not use their faith as the excuse.

Peter666

07-02-2006, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The principles are always objective

[/ QUOTE ]

How are principles always objective? We all lead different lives and have different experiences whih influence them, principles as far as human morality goes are entirely subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is correct to say that moral actions are subjectively applied, but the principles are objective and universal. That's why others are capable of judging the actions of another, like a judge in a courtroom. However, the judge is not capable of judging the intent of the defendant absolutely. Only the defendant's conscience and God could do that.

tolbiny

07-03-2006, 01:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's why others are capable of judging the actions of another, like a judge in a courtroom. However, the judge is not capable of judging the intent of the defendant absolutely. Only the defendant's conscience and God could do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

When one person judeges another he applies what he has experienced throughout life to make that judgement. The statutes for murder are not murder or not murder, but ranked in 1st, 2nd, manslaughter, negligence- and these statutes- while defined are not defined so rigidly that all cases clearly fall into one situation or another. It is more extreme when a person is morally judging the actions outside of a well defined and ridgid framework such as the law, who will most likely base his decision on an emotional reaction. A person who has suffered from a rape is going to react differently than someone who hasn't in many situations. The actual "facts" of the case haven't changed and may have been presented in presicly the same manny and it will still elicit different reactions in different people. But you have already conceded (perhaps i should say agreed to) these points it seems.
As for absolute principles and morality, we have already established that between individuals we do not have rigid moral actions or justifications, so where do "universal" morals come from? Usually the appeal is to god and the natural laws that he set down. For this to be true you have to make two assumptions
1. That god exists
2. That god has outlined a rigid moral set of codes.
Unless you can prove #1 and then claim to understand the workings of god's mind these assumptions fall short of what is nessecary to make absolute moral claims.

Peter666

07-03-2006, 10:12 AM

"As for absolute principles and morality, we have already established that between individuals we do not have rigid moral actions or justifications, so where do "universal" morals come from? Usually the appeal is to god and the natural laws that he set down. For this to be true you have to make two assumptions
1. That god exists
2. That god has outlined a rigid moral set of codes.
Unless you can prove #1 and then claim to understand the workings of god's mind these assumptions fall short of what is nessecary to make absolute moral claims."

So now what we are discussing is the foundation of ethics and morality as distinguished from psychology, sociology or anthropology.

"1. That god exists
2. That god has outlined a rigid moral set of codes."

You are correct in asserting that there are presuppositions established before we can speak of morality or ethics (or any science for that matter). I will modify your points to bring them into line the classical ethical presuppositions:

1. Man must have free will - if he does not, he cannot choose between right or wrong and be judged as to what he should do.

2. Immortality of the Soul - there must be something more beyond this natural life for our moral decisions to have sufficient motive behind them.

3. There is a God or highest Good - if not, then there is no question of what one "ought" to do.

These pressuppositions are argued and proven in metaphysics and philosophical psychology.

To bring it down to the practical everyday level, the existence of conscience tells us that there is a "should" and a "should not," and even if a person claims to be a hard core skeptical, determinist atheist, his everyday moral decisions and actions suggest the opposite. In fact, he is living a lie. So whether one wants to admit it or not, we subject ourselves and others to a universal ethical/moral code.

tolbiny

07-03-2006, 10:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To bring it down to the practical everyday level, the existence of conscience tells us that there is a "should" and a "should not," and even if a person claims to be a hard core skeptical, determinist atheist, his everyday moral decisions and actions suggest the opposite. In fact, he is living a lie. So whether one wants to admit it or not, we subject ourselves and others to a universal ethical/moral code.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the sake of this argument i will grant the first three assertions you make. Even then i don't believe that it follows that morality is absolute from man's perspective. If your conscience is a morally guide to all aboslutes then all people should have the same reaction from their conscience, otherwise the moral compass cannot be said to work from absolutes. Two people can argue from the earnest conviction from totally opposite viewpoints. Arguments over the death penalty are a prime example- for your supposition to be correct one side or the other (and this is only including those who have a chosen belief, and not those unsure and still searching for an answer) must be wrong and they must not have a conviction driven by their conscience.

Rduke55

07-03-2006, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Please, feel free to educate us on these 'obvious' and 'well-known' risks of birth defects from close relatives. For example, please explain what my general risk would be of having a child with X (where X is whatever genetic disease you happen to choose) with a) a random woman from the population; b) a relative at least second-cousin distance familially; c) a first cousin; and d) someone within my own family, i.e. sister. Whats my increased risk in each of these situations? How much increased risk is acceptable? What happens if I find out that my wife and I are both heterozygous for X....is our sex immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that there isn't a relationship between kin relationship and your offspring having a genetic disease?

(I'm not fully awake yet, so if I missed something - sorry)

Peter666

07-03-2006, 12:24 PM

"If your conscience is a morally guide to all aboslutes then all people should have the same reaction from their conscience, otherwise the moral compass cannot be said to work from absolutes."

This is where reason comes in. Although people all have the capacity to see universal morals, they also have the ability to skew their conscience by error. So while two people may have contradictory moral view points, only one of them can be correct (assuming they are not both wrong!) Somewhere along the line, one of the persons got an erroneous idea and conditioned their conscience to it.

Even if we all disagree on specific morals, we are still trying to tell each other what OUGHT to be done. This universal capacity for ethical judgement suggests that there must be universal answers lest we all fight in vain. (Even a person who says that there are no universal answers is making a universal statement!)

So in the end of your post where you say that one side must be wrong and not have a conviction driven by their conscience, I argue that one side must be wrong, and has their conviction driven by an ERRONEOUS conscience. The conscience is still universal.

vhawk01

07-03-2006, 09:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please, feel free to educate us on these 'obvious' and 'well-known' risks of birth defects from close relatives. For example, please explain what my general risk would be of having a child with X (where X is whatever genetic disease you happen to choose) with a) a random woman from the population; b) a relative at least second-cousin distance familially; c) a first cousin; and d) someone within my own family, i.e. sister. Whats my increased risk in each of these situations? How much increased risk is acceptable? What happens if I find out that my wife and I are both heterozygous for X....is our sex immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that there isn't a relationship between kin relationship and your offspring having a genetic disease?

(I'm not fully awake yet, so if I missed something - sorry)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to say it isn't as dramatic as some people seem to believe, and that it is not even as potentially dangerous as two people who are, say, known heterozygous for some specific disease having children. And yet these heterozygotes do have children all the time and no one seems to mind. As was said in earlier posts, if we as a country accepted incest as the sole practice for all people, we would certainly run into some problems, probably in very few generations. But practically speaking, 'nailing your sister' isn't really that much riskier than nailing someone random. Also, the OP specifically stipulated this was protected sex not for the sake of procreation, but this point was brought up so I felt like addressing it.

tolbiny

07-04-2006, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please, feel free to educate us on these 'obvious' and 'well-known' risks of birth defects from close relatives. For example, please explain what my general risk would be of having a child with X (where X is whatever genetic disease you happen to choose) with a) a random woman from the population; b) a relative at least second-cousin distance familially; c) a first cousin; and d) someone within my own family, i.e. sister. Whats my increased risk in each of these situations? How much increased risk is acceptable? What happens if I find out that my wife and I are both heterozygous for X....is our sex immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that there isn't a relationship between kin relationship and your offspring having a genetic disease?

(I'm not fully awake yet, so if I missed something - sorry)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to say it isn't as dramatic as some people seem to believe, and that it is not even as potentially dangerous as two people who are, say, known heterozygous for some specific disease having children. And yet these heterozygotes do have children all the time and no one seems to mind. As was said in earlier posts, if we as a country accepted incest as the sole practice for all people, we would certainly run into some problems, probably in very few generations. But practically speaking, 'nailing your sister' isn't really that much riskier than nailing someone random. Also, the OP specifically stipulated this was protected sex not for the sake of procreation, but this point was brought up so I felt like addressing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real dangers of incest lie a couple of generations down the road though. First cousins will have relatively healthy kids, but if thier kids marry thier first cousins you start to see a marked increase in problems.

vhawk01

07-04-2006, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please, feel free to educate us on these 'obvious' and 'well-known' risks of birth defects from close relatives. For example, please explain what my general risk would be of having a child with X (where X is whatever genetic disease you happen to choose) with a) a random woman from the population; b) a relative at least second-cousin distance familially; c) a first cousin; and d) someone within my own family, i.e. sister. Whats my increased risk in each of these situations? How much increased risk is acceptable? What happens if I find out that my wife and I are both heterozygous for X....is our sex immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that there isn't a relationship between kin relationship and your offspring having a genetic disease?

(I'm not fully awake yet, so if I missed something - sorry)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to say it isn't as dramatic as some people seem to believe, and that it is not even as potentially dangerous as two people who are, say, known heterozygous for some specific disease having children. And yet these heterozygotes do have children all the time and no one seems to mind. As was said in earlier posts, if we as a country accepted incest as the sole practice for all people, we would certainly run into some problems, probably in very few generations. But practically speaking, 'nailing your sister' isn't really that much riskier than nailing someone random. Also, the OP specifically stipulated this was protected sex not for the sake of procreation, but this point was brought up so I felt like addressing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real dangers of incest lie a couple of generations down the road though. First cousins will have relatively healthy kids, but if thier kids marry thier first cousins you start to see a marked increase in problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, yes, that is what I am saying. The reason I think any of this pertains to this thread is because of the obtuse nature of this risk. I don't believe that this risk can be used as an argument for or against the morality of incest. I was simply trying to refute those who were using that argument as what I believe to be a strawman.

CORed

07-06-2006, 07:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On a matter of actual fact - is this illegal? Is there any law against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure most US states have laws against brother-sister incest, even if both are consenting adults.

Shooby

07-09-2006, 10:27 PM

Choice 3. I don't think it's wrong(right and wrong,ha!). I just don't like the idea, it makes me uncomfortable.
Steve

tolbiny

07-12-2006, 04:24 PM

Was on vacation and didn't reply so here we go again.

[ QUOTE ]
This is where reason comes in. Although people all have the capacity to see universal morals, they also have the ability to skew their conscience by error. So while two people may have contradictory moral view points, only one of them can be correct (assuming they are not both wrong!) Somewhere along the line, one of the persons got an erroneous idea and conditioned their conscience to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If a person's conscience can be conditioned then it can't be said to be an absolute moral guide for them. We all have different upbringings and experiences from childhood that we had no control over which effect our later decisions in life. For the claim that there are moral absolutes to have any meaning (ie real application) you have to claim to be able to distinguish those people who have "erroneous" consciences fromt hose that sre still in a pure enough state to comprehend accurately what could really be only termed as "god's will".

"This is where reason comes in"
Reason is based upon observations, and interpretations of observations. REason is only as objective as the information that you have recieved.

"Even if we all disagree on specific morals, we are still trying to tell each other what OUGHT to be done"

Yes, but there is a difference between stating "this appears to be the best decision for this situation" and "this is the only way to act".

"This universal capacity for ethical judgement suggests that there must be universal answers lest we all fight in vain"

Why does it suggest that? All it suggests is that what one person thinks is best is different from what another thinks is best.

"Even a person who says that there are no universal answers is making a universal statement!"

Universal statements are not universal morals.