PigLick on 15/1/2008 at 14:19
dont be lonely dude
your not the only one
who feels the way you do
Scots Taffer on 15/1/2008 at 14:32
Agreed mopgoblin, more or less, my point was that things are rejected if they are causing harm which was probably the case with incest.
Chimpy Chompy on 15/1/2008 at 15:40
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
There's been the notion that sex defines gender,
So what other factors define gender, beyond the physical body? I mean I know intersex people exist, I'm really just curious as to how that happens.
Also I get a bit twitchy around people putting Enlightenment in inverted commas.
Louis Cypher on 15/1/2008 at 16:36
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
In humans, the need for food doesn't imply a need for meat, thus it is not necessary to slaughter animals in order to satisfy it. Eating meat, like producing offspring, is something you might want to do, not something essential for survival.
Forget the animals, THINK OF THE POOR PLANTS!
Stitch on 15/1/2008 at 16:40
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Robots, animals, bicycles. Is comm chat as a collective a bit frustrated at the moment?
australian girlfriend oh god
Fingernail on 15/1/2008 at 16:42
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Agreed mopgoblin, more or less, my point was that things are rejected if they
are causing harm which was probably the case with incest.
But the point some others have made is that now, thanks to modern new fancy technology, it [non-procreational incest] doesn't have to cause harm!
Finally we are free to do as we have always secretly wished, right guys?
right?
SubJeff on 15/1/2008 at 16:59
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
In the near future we'll have to deal with the ethically dodgy prospect of testing embryos for genetic "disorders" and allowing only those that pass to develop.
Dude, we already do this. Depends on what you mean by "disorder" though. But we do it all the time.
I think Scots has hit it bang on. In China and Taiwan, for a long time, you were not allowed to marry someone with the same surname or a surname too close to yours. This has only changed fairly recently. The rational behind it was to enhance genetic diversity since surnames were derived from the areas/province where your ancestors originated. It doesn't make absolute sense since children take on the father's surname but the idea was there.
Ha ha Fingernail! Yup. The thing is we're still hanging onto the taboo, and as Scots suggested (subtly I think) once sex in families is acceptable all sorts of ill stuff can go on.
SD on 15/1/2008 at 17:31
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Both of these statements are intended as absurdist self-parody... aren't they?
No, they're logically consistent.
Quote:
I mean, you can't not only be this self
unaware but also shockingly retarded...
Hey, thanks :rolleyes:
Okay assmunch, let me introduce you to something called Mill's Harm Principle, which is kinda the foundation of liberal theory:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.Can you tell me who is harmed if a brother and sister decide to start fucking each other?
Sure, it's a bad idea for many reasons, and pretty disgusting to most of us - but if it's not harming anyone outside of the participants, why should there be a law against it?
So far as the bestiality thang is concerned, as DinkyDogg points out, animals don't consent to be consumed, so why should their consent be required for sexual relations? So long as basic animal welfare is maintained, I see absolutely no reason why people should not be permitted to engage in intercourse with their dogs and horses.
Ultimately, the reason incest and bestiality are offences in most jurisdictions iis because humans are incredibly petty creatures who believe their moral standards should be applied to everyone. More enlightened societies than ours will shatter these taboos, just as our more enlightened society has shattered the taboos of homosexuality and inter-racial sex.
Turtle on 15/1/2008 at 18:37
When I'm feeling down
And feeling sad
You come around
And make me glad
I got you
Oh, my little chicken
I love your feet
I love your breasts
I love the way you eat gravel
To help you digest
Oh, my little chicken
People say you're using me
In your heart you're a killer
But I know the worst
I should fear is
A slight case of salmonella
So lie right back
Don't you cry
If an egg can fit in there
Why cant I?
Oh my little
Bawk, bawk, bawk, bawk
Bawk, bawk, bawk, bawk
Bawk, bawk, bawk, bawking bawk,
Bawk, bawk, bawking bawk
You're my love
My little chicken likes
To wear garter belts
The_Raven on 15/1/2008 at 18:48
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
And the whole "evolutionary" reasons thing, whilst true to a certain extent, smacks of eugenics. The likelyhood of transmitting genes that will actually manifest a defect is much higher in many known genetic diseases, and in fact there are even those that are dominant with 100% penetrance. If we were to take it to it's logical conclusion there are people that would just be sterilised before reaching reproductive age as a matter of course, since siblings' chances of producing offspring with an observable abnormal phenotype is, whilst present, much smaller.
I actually didn't know that, then again, I'm not surprised at all that I was mistaken. I'm no biologist, or student of biology.
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
4. A chicken can't give you consent, SD, no matter what way you explain "how it looked at you"
You can say this about human beings too. Do you make your partner sign consent forms before every sexual act? :p
For the record, I'm being obtuse here because I'm perfectly aware that a human beings can easily withdraw insinuated consent if they start to feel uncomfortable with a strong verbal "No".
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
So what other factors define gender, beyond the physical body? I mean I know intersex people exist, I'm really just curious as to how that happens.
Now, as I mentioned previously, I'm no biologist. Chances are that if I screw up here, someone will correct me. There are a lot of checks and balances that ultimately make up what most people perceive to be gender. Any "hiccups" in any of them can result in intersexed individuals. These can include: extra or missing sex chromosome(s), biochemical stimulus in a ratio that normally occurs in the opposite gender during certain periods of development, etc... Then on the socialogical side, you have stuff like gender roles and behaviors. Almost all of that stuff is heavily seeped in the nature vs nuture debate.
