Morality of Non-Reproductive Incest

[quote]matko5 wrote:
Jaime - Cersei style?[/quote]

Badass books! Got to read a few still though…

[quote]Egilll wrote:
Since there was no harm done the answer is obviously yes.
[/quote]

X2

I find it pretty gross and would never consider it, but I’m a firm believer in consenting adults being able to do whatever they’d like as long as nobody is harmed.

[quote]ctschneider wrote:
I think Steve Pinker used this example in one of his books (word for word if I recall correctly) to illustrate that humans have a negative gut reaction towards incest even when there are no negative repercussions.

So, not only is the OP moderately f’ed up for bringing this up, he’s not even creative enough to have though of the example on his own.[/quote]

why is he f-ed up for bringing this up? is this not an off-topic forum where interesting discussions can take place?

and why is it necessary for him to create his own example? is the example any worse because it was not posted by the original author?

think about that,… personally I think your post is full of logical fallacies which probably stems from you being pissed off about this “troll” making your thinking toward him biased,… so even though he might make sense you’ll find something against him… I could be wrong though.

It’s acceptable as long as:

  1. She’s a dime piece
  2. You can live with yourself after
  3. You don’t create a kid or get a disease
  4. YOU CAN LIVE WITH YOURSELF
  5. No one finds out.

I would never ever do it.

oh WTF! Are you fckn serious?

Um. Someone rolls in with the monicker “ted bundy” and it takes 3 posts before you goofs realize its a troll? lol.


.


Yum.

The risk for genetic defect or a normally recessive gene becoming expressed is pretty slim for only one generation of inbreeding. The monarchs in europe were inbreeding for centuries before things went downhill.

That being said… as opposed as I am to putting society imposed values on things or prejudging them, you would have to be pretty “opened minded” to have sex with a sibling. The idea is so widely rejected with disgust that to go against society in such a way would take an intense want to bone your sister.

Now, sister-in-laws are quite a different story. wink

[quote]Egilll wrote:

and why is it necessary for him to create his own example? is the example any worse because it was not posted by the original author?
[/quote]

Well, there’s nothing wrong with him using another person’s idea, so long as he gives credit where credit’s due. But he did no such thing, which counts as plagiarism - an act which rivals incest in my book morally unacceptable deeds. So in this case, yes it is “worse because it was not posted by the original author.”

[quote]
think about that,… personally I think your post is full of logical fallacies which probably stems from you being pissed off about this “troll” making your thinking toward him biased,… so even though he might make sense you’ll find something against him… I could be wrong though.[/quote]

Firstly, I’m not “pissed off about this ‘troll.’” I find him amusing. You, on the other hand, sound quite pissed off at me. Concerning the fact that I called the OP f’ed up, I believe that I am well within my right to do so solely because he plagiarized and plagiarism is wrong and hence f’ed up (as it were).

Moreover, due to his presentation of the scenario and his request that any posters who might argue that it is immoral to commit incest in such a situation do so without “naturalistic fallacy, moralistic fallacy, or ad hominem [argument]” makes it essentially impossible for anyone to counter his implied argument that incest in some cases is a little bit of harmless fun - kind of like smoking pot, except morally reprehensible.

Humans are hardwired to find incest wrong. In fact, more and more evidence is accruing to suggest that we are genetically hardwired to have the morals that we have. There is no effective way for anyone to logically argue that an act contrary to human nature and human morals, but which harms no one is inherently wrong - at least without relying upon the above mentioned fallacies.

The problem is that by positting such an example and essentially baiting everyone by drawing upon their gut reaction and then presumably shooting down their arguments as fallacy ridden, he is by implication taking the stance that incest is A-OK. I find this to be f’ed up. Yes, this is only my opinion, but I’m entitled to it.

Well, most people that think pedophilia is OK think incest is OK, too, so at least the original poster is consistent.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, most people that think pedophilia is OK think incest is OK, too, so at least the original poster is consistent.[/quote]

Ah, and in the end, that’s all that matters in being a good troll, congruency. =)

Ummmm NO, Okay?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, most people that think pedophilia is OK think incest is OK, too, so at least the original poster is consistent.[/quote]

I’m thinking necrophilia is his next hot topic.

I mean, they can’t say “no”, so it can’t be wrong.

Maybe next time he can improve on his subject matter with, “Is anal sex wrong if you don’t wipe the shit off your dick?”

Now, for most things, that would not be an improvement, but compared to these threads it would be.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Maybe next time he can improve on his subject matter with, “Is anal sex wrong if you don’t wipe the shit off your dick?”

Now, for most things, that would not be an improvement, but compared to these threads it would be.[/quote]

Hahaha. No kidding. This guy is such a tool. We should add him to the “tool” thread just for this crap. I’m sure this one will get removed like his last one did.

[quote]imhungry wrote:
Fitting for an incest thread…[/quote]

Thanks, I just saved that image to my computer for later use.

This guy has likely never been laid…so he’d be lucky I guess to even get his own sister.

[quote]ctschneider wrote:
I think Steve Pinker used this example in one of his books (word for word if I recall correctly) [/quote]

The Happniess Hypothesis.