Incest.

[Ih8pkmn]

Let's see...
do you want your kids to look like THIS:

Unless you want your kids to look like fish-people and worship eldrich gods in New England, don't inbreed.

Sorry, I've just had that picture lying around a while, and have been looking to use it.

It's worse than necrophilia and bestiality. So in other words, worse than Twilight.

 

[tthor]

isn't this basically like trolling? introducing a highly controversial subject that everyone has an opinion on(and often the same opinion)?

 

[NeutralDrow]

Morality depends on culture, society and their views. It's not a constant.

Let's dispel that myth right here. Hauser et al (2010), written up very nicely here [http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/03/remote-rural-community-that-thinks.html], showed with global testing both online and, where internet doesn't exist (e.g. his rural Mayan sample), offline, showed that human morality is essentially unanimous in many issues with only small aberrations from culture to culture.

I hope you have more examples to cite, because all yours could possibly indicate at the moment is that human morality has a few very vague constants with massive aberrations from culture to culture.

 

[Wedlock49]

Sure, what the problem with a father fucking his daughter? That's completely normal.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is a deranged thread, right from the off. "Just cuz'" not being accepted as an argument because you already know that basically the only argument there is, when you count "Because it's wrong" and "Not morally, socially or ethically acceptable" as "Just cuz'".

This is a damn joke.

No, incest is not okay. Not now. Not ever. Not in any case, ever.

No, a "just 'cuz" arguement would be someone just stating it's wrong without explaining why they think it is wrong, much like you have. I can see both sides of it from my own personal balcony, i've never had any first nor second hand experiance with incest so I made this thread out of curiosity. Honestly i'm quite pleased with how many open minded people there are that don't think it's gross because they were told it was.

If both participants are of an age that they can give consent I see nothing wrong with the union so long as they do not reproduce. I see it as wrong to stop two consenting people from doing what they wish when they have informed opinions, the only point where I would draw the line is where it would start to directly effect someone negativly, like having a child under those conditions.

 

[tthor]

Morality depends on culture, society and their views. It's not a constant.

Let's dispel that myth right here. Hauser et al (2010), written up very nicely here [http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/03/remote-rural-community-that-thinks.html], showed with global testing both online and, where internet doesn't exist (e.g. his rural Mayan sample), offline, showed that human morality is essentially unanimous in many issues with only small aberrations from culture to culture.

The old relativist view of morality, which was essentially tantamount to a get-out-of-jail-free card for moral reasoning, must now sod off since it's been shown that morality clearly depends upon a central core of shared biological or social impulse thus rendering 'moral realism' and 'moral argument' valid. If we all share morality at a core level then human moral truths can exist, whilst they wouldn't be valid to an alien or an animal there's little to say that any of our truths would.

FINALLY someone gets it

 

[ImprovizoR]

Morality is also something expressed by people and different people have different morals

They do, but majority creates the rules. Whatever moral individuals have will be punished with hatred and disgust by the majority if it opposes their moral.

 

[Worgen]

if your attracted to a family member then something is already wrong with you, there are many genetic barriers against that sort of thing so it not only you are attracted but said other family member is then your both messed up on the genetic level, or have no sense of smell

 

[BGH122]

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect>The Westermarck Effect. Technically, our brains appear to be wired both for and against being attracted to siblings. It's just that the "against" part isn't limited to siblings, and is usually stronger.

Imprinting doesn't prove biological cause of imprinting, just that the phenomonon exists. This'd be like you asking "Well what proves God exists?" and me pointing at lightning. Sure that could prove God exists, but it's not a reason to believe that this is the case.

For your analogy to work, you'd have to have scientific evidence of God, comparable to the cited studies.

Considering the imprinting in question doesn't have a cultural explanation (the societies in question don't have taboos against non-related children marrying, and yet they still rarely do), and your distinction between "behavioral" and "biological" strikes me as a false one, a biological explanation makes the most sense.

Nope, biological and behavioural are a valid distinction. Whilst all behaviour ultimately routes back to biology this is a ludicrously reductionist approach. This approach can't explain why, for instance, when I am filled with rage I can prevent myself from murdering the instigator of said rage due to learnt moral and legal laws. It doesn't explain how Pavlovian conditioning works, nor Skinner's operant conditioning chambers. It doesn't explain how societal and temporal variation occurs, for instance, the perception of 'fat' as attractive in the renaissance whereas it's now unattractive. You'll need to show why biological/behaviour division is false, simply stating your opinion on the matter without further a priori or a posteriori proof won't do.

The analogy also works. It highlighted an instance in which a claim is made that could have other explanations other than those factored by the claimant. It doesn't attempt to perfectly analogise your claim with another scientific claim because it seeks to highlight an underlying fallacy which is true in both scientific (as with imprinting) and unscientific (as with a posteriori theology) cases.

Morality depends on culture, society and their views. It's not a constant.

Let's dispel that myth right here. Hauser et al (2010), written up very nicely here [http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/03/remote-rural-community-that-thinks.html], showed with global testing both online and, where internet doesn't exist (e.g. his rural Mayan sample), offline, showed that human morality is essentially unanimous in many issues with only small aberrations from culture to culture.

I hope you have more examples to cite, because all yours could possibly indicate at the moment is that human morality has a few very vague constants with massive aberrations from culture to culture.

Really? Where are these 'massive aberrations' because they certainly weren't present in the Hauser study which concluded:

'Ultimately,' Abarbanell and Hauser concluded, 'this research may suggest that some psychological distinctions are moral absolutes, true in all cultures, whereas others may be more plastic, relative to a culture's social dynamics, mating behaviour and belief systems.'

 

[wickermole]

s

 

[Wedlock49]

They do, but majority creates the rules. Whatever moral individuals have will be punished with hatred and disgust by the majority if it opposes their moral.

I think you have a scewed look on how morality works.

EDIT:

I must say I love the fact someone with a pedobear display picture is making educated arguements in this thread!

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

It may interest people to know that the incest taboo is an entirely artificial construct. Still it does exist for good reason, to decrease the chance of producing genetically unhealthy children.

With effective birth control it's less relevant, but this taboo is perhaps the most deeply held belief of human civilization. So much so that most people think it's "natural". I don't really see it going away anytime soon if ever.

And yes, I do believe the incest taboo myself. Logic can't override such deeply ingrained responses.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

My views are "Squick" but other than a shudder I don't think it's horrible.


But still, gah! I need pictures of Pandas, STAT!

 

[Kagim]

If the two people want to do it and they are legal ages and of sound mind knock yourself out. It's non of my business. Not my cup of tea thank you very much but The actions of others are not for me to judge. Most incestuous desires develop due to misplaced affections anyways, in most cases incestuous coupling either grow out of it or one or the other has some from of mental damage.

I am not being insulting by the way. In most cases a B+S B+B and S+S situation develops due to a younger sibling hitting puberty and taking notice of there older sibling. The sexual fascination is usually born out of natural curiosity of the opposite sex and hormones. This is generally grown out of.

If you catch your kids sexually experimenting while putting a stop to it right away is the best response punishment and not explaining anything to the child is the worst idea. Talk to your kids. Explain why they shouldn't be doing it. In most cases the children will grow out of it.

When it comes to parents... Well honestly i DO find this wrong myself. Mostly because the parents should know better. I'm not going out of my way to stop such things if all participants are over the age of consent when any affection starts...

However in most cases that is not the case. Generally if a parent and child enter an incestuous relationship the parent has done something unseemly to the child while growing up.

When it comes to having kids, well, when your breeding with your own genetic makeup your kids have a tendency to have double the chance to gain any genetic faults in your DNA. So things like Down-syndrome, cancer, and other hereditary diseases are twice as likely to develop. That's why in nature animals generally kill any babies that are born from incest.

 

[BGH122]

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

Actually there is proof, it's not necessarily biological family members, so much as the people you are raised with. Studies turn up people who where adopted who where not attracted to their siblings in their family who met their real siblings and admitted to some form of attraction to them.

It's not learned behavior either, most people are not attracted to people they where raised with.

You just provided proof that it's behaviourally learnt, if in fact those studies exist.

If we were biologically averse to sleeping with relatives then the adoptees would have found the concept of sleeping with their biological siblings repugnant, not their non-biological siblings.

 

[s0denone]

isn't this basically like trolling? introducing a highly controversial subject that everyone has an opinion on(and often the same opinion)?

Given that the morally twisted Escapist is apparently for and not against, I think your argument would fall flat. I expected everyone to go "Of course incest isn't okay" when I came in here. It's nearly the opposite.
Maybe your argument still works then, in a backwards sort of sense.

Sure, what the problem with a father fucking his daughter? That's completely normal.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is a deranged thread, right from the off. "Just cuz'" not being accepted as an argument because you already know that basically the only argument there is, when you count "Because it's wrong" and "Not morally, socially or ethically acceptable" as "Just cuz'".

This is a damn joke.

No, incest is not okay. Not now. Not ever. Not in any case, ever.

No, a "just 'cuz" arguement would be someone just stating it's wrong without explaining why they think it is wrong, much like you have.

I'm against it because of
A) It's against the law.
and
B) It's not morally, socially or ethically acceptable.

I can see both sides of it from my own personal balcony, i've never had any first nor second hand experiance with incest so I made this thread out of curiosity. Honestly i'm quite pleased with how many open minded people there are that don't think it's gross because they were told it was.

That's incredible reasoning. Obviously people who weren't fondled when they were children, by paedophiles, are free to be "open-minded" about the subject, since they don't know anything about it, themselves.
Let me reiterate: That is fucking terrible reasoning.
What is the point of the paragraph? I'm being serious. Please explain that to me.

If both participants are of an age that they can give consent I see nothing wrong with the union so long as they do not reproduce. I see it as wrong to stop two consenting people from doing what they wish when they have informed opinions, the only point where I would draw the line is where it would start to directly effect someone negativly, like having a child under those conditions.

Why not let them have children? They are two consenting adults who may want to reproduce. Will you not allow midgets to have children, because there is a chance that their children will be midgets also?
Not let people with hereditary disorders or diseases have offspring because of their disorder/disease?

Your post is very contradictory. Your basic argument is flawed, and so is everyone else here. Everyone is saying "Oh lol sure if there are no children lol". Fucking idiots*, pardon my French.

*Insult not directed at anyone in particular... Except those saying "Oh lol sure if there are no children lol".

 

[Seth Smith]

You know marrying first cousins is legal in Colorado?

 

[ShadowKatt]

I don't see a problem with incest. Behind closed doors, I don't care what you do or who you do it with.

I DO have a problem with in-BREEDING, and so does nature, and for proof I point to all the inbred children with genetic defects.

 

[Saint_Zvlkx]

It's only thought to be wrong because of our society. So, as long as they're above the legal age limit, consent, and don't have a kid (because of bad DNA, people!), I'm fine with it.

 

[crystalsnow]

I don't see a big issue with it personally. Depending on who's involved it can start to get a bit iffy, such as when it involves parents and their children, but I don't think it should be anyone's decision besides the people involved. If they are ok with it, then I don't see a major problem. If they're against it, then you don't even have to worry about stuff like this.

Snip

EDIT: s0denone, your an idiot. The reason its against the law is because most people (the general idiotic public such as yourself) are appalled by it. But then again it's not your f*cking business whether or not it happens which is why this is a controversial issue. If you're so offended by it, then DON'T DO IT. But other people can have complicated lives and if incest is an issue, then its their problem, not yours.