Australian judge says incest and paedophilia may no longer be a taboo
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jackdaubs
What has this got to do with marriage? You seem to be confused. This is about consensual sex and love.
If you oppose consensual cannibal love, you are a hypocrite. And you are a hypocrite if you oppose any sexual practice that has two consenting adults who are prevented from expressing their love by the law
If you oppose consensual cannibal love, you are a hypocrite. And you are a hypocrite if you oppose any sexual practice that has two consenting adults who are prevented from expressing their love by the law
The law? You seem more confused.
And actually nah I support Euthanasia. But death and murder is a different subject to a couple not being allowed to marry and have sex lmao.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChickenMadness
But death and murder is a different subject to a couple not being allowed to marry and have sex lmao.
Why? And I care less about marriage than the argument you have made regarding "consenting adults", and that we must accept whatever consenting adults want to do in all cases
And lets leave aside cannibalism, what about BDSM involving cutting and body modification? Say, the man consents to the woman cutting off his ear?
Original post by ChickenMadness
The law? You seem more confused.
Ahh, no. If you want to get into a debate about the law, you're going to embarass yourself
Original post by jackdaubs
Why? And I care less about marriage than the argument you have made regarding "consenting adults", and that we must accept whatever consenting adults want to do in all cases
And lets leave aside cannibalism, what about BDSM involving cutting and body modification? Say, the man consents to the woman cutting off his ear?
And lets leave aside cannibalism, what about BDSM involving cutting and body modification? Say, the man consents to the woman cutting off his ear?
Well people already do crazy stuff like that.
Cutting holes in boobs and inserting silicone implants.
Cutting holes in ears and inserting stretchers.
Taking chunks out of ears with pliers.
Tattoos
altering skull shape.
People cut themselves with razors to make artwork with the scars
If they want it to be done then thats their decision.
Original post by ChickenMadness
Well people already do crazy stuff like that.
If they want it to be done then thats their decision.
If they want it to be done then thats their decision.
So why shouldn't they be allowed to kill each other during sex? You said you support euthanasia. So you support someone ending their own life, but you don't support someone ending their own life during the sex act? Why?
By the way, the fact you support someone cutting their lover's leg off during a sex act is far outside the mainstream, and it is hugely homophobic to say that because a man having sex with another man is consensual, gay people have to support someone cutting another person's leg off during a sex act because it's consensual
How 'bout you just say, "This is what I believe, and gay people are also permitted to believe what they want"?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jackdaubs
Ahh, no. If you want to get into a debate about the law, you're going to embarass yourself
You've already embarassed yourself more. With silly attempts at linking silly stories to my posts lmao. You're doing it again
Original post by jackdaubs
So why shouldn't they be allowed to kill each other during sex? You said you support euthanasia. So you support someone ending their own life, but you don't support someone ending their own life during the sex act? Why?
I didn't say that did I?
Find a quote where I said that "so you support, *inserts crazy story with no link to the original post. Presumably to draw attention away from previous arguements made by oneself.*" Putting aside the fact that your silly and extremely unlikely situation isn't even illegal in this country (suicide not illegal).
If someone really wants to commit suicide during a sex act that's up to them lmao.
Don't know why I'm even replying to this ridiculous post. Stop changing the subject into a completely new debate about euthanasia when it's about discrimination against certain people wanting to be married/have sex and not being allowed to.
I believe he could be very much correct;
A few years ago homosexuals were viewed as sexual offenders and as equals to those in question
they claim they have the right to love whoever I do because they cannot help being homosexuals and those who commit incest and peadophilia also have a very similar argument and now that society is rapidly changing its views, what makes you think in a few years time they won't change their views about this?
Disclaimer* Please don't call me a homophobe for saying this, I'm merely pointing out an argument and possibility with the information I have.
A few years ago homosexuals were viewed as sexual offenders and as equals to those in question
they claim they have the right to love whoever I do because they cannot help being homosexuals and those who commit incest and peadophilia also have a very similar argument and now that society is rapidly changing its views, what makes you think in a few years time they won't change their views about this?
Disclaimer* Please don't call me a homophobe for saying this, I'm merely pointing out an argument and possibility with the information I have.
Original post by ChickenMadness
With silly attempts at linking silly stories to my posts lmao.
Silly stories? What on earth are you talking about? I think you're confusing this thread with another one.
Putting aside the fact that your silly and extremely unlikely situation isn't even illegal in this country (suicide not illegal).
If someone really wants to commit suicide during a sex act that's up to them lmao.
If someone really wants to commit suicide during a sex act that's up to them lmao.
Not commit suicide, be killed by their sex partner. The fact you brought up illegality has rather shown up your hypocrisy. Incest is illegal too.
discrimination against certain people wanting to have sex and not being allowed to.
The subject is that you think it's hypocritical for gay people to have a different opinion to you on incest.
The subject is also your utter hypocrisy in saying incest is okay, but other forms of unconventional consensual sex are not.
So when you approve of a form of unconventional sex, it's hypocritical for gay people to disagree with you, in your mind.
And of course you don't think it's even possible for them to simply have a different opinion, in good faith.
Of course, when you disapprove of a particular form of unconventional consensual sex, then it's okay for gay people to disapprove as well.
Anyway, I think we're done here and this conversation is over. The stench of your hypocrisy, your arrogance in saying gay people have to agree with you or they're hypocrites (but straight people are allowed to disagree with you) is so illogical and self-absorbed, I doubt you could detach yourself from your self-obsession for enough time to actually engage in a proper debate.
When someone calls another person a hypocrite merely for having a different opinion, it is indicative of a solipsistic mind and mediocre intellect
Original post by AlexKay99
Disclaimer* Please don't call me a homophobe for saying this, I'm merely pointing out an argument and possibility with the information I have.
Disclaimer* Please don't call me a homophobe for saying this, I'm merely pointing out an argument and possibility with the information I have.
Do you think gay people are allowed to have an opinion that incest and paedophilia are not okay?
Do you accept that there are qualitative differences between homosexuality on the one hand, and incest and paedophilia on the other?
Original post by AlexKay99
I believe he could be very much correct;
A few years ago homosexuals were viewed as sexual offenders and as equals to those in question
they claim they have the right to love whoever I do because they cannot help being homosexuals and those who commit incest and peadophilia also have a very similar argument and now that society is rapidly changing its views, what makes you think in a few years time they won't change their views about this?
Disclaimer* Please don't call me a homophobe for saying this, I'm merely pointing out an argument and possibility with the information I have.
A few years ago homosexuals were viewed as sexual offenders and as equals to those in question
they claim they have the right to love whoever I do because they cannot help being homosexuals and those who commit incest and peadophilia also have a very similar argument and now that society is rapidly changing its views, what makes you think in a few years time they won't change their views about this?
Disclaimer* Please don't call me a homophobe for saying this, I'm merely pointing out an argument and possibility with the information I have.
1) There are no innate consent issues with homosexuality.
2) You can't commit paedophilia. Depending on whom you speak to, it is a sexuality or a perversion.
3) Any paedophile who follows his or her urges will be committing child abuse.
Original post by jackdaubs
I agree with you that over time, I suspect paedophilia as a "sexual orientation" (and I do feel uncomfortable calling it that) is largely immutable and will come to be accepted
There's a fantastic NPR radio story on this 19 year old paedophile. He has never abused a child, but it's quite clear that attraction to children is simply inbuilt into the fabric of his sexuality.
http://www.upworthy.com/this-19-year-old-pedophile-has-never-gone-near-a-child-and-he-needs-you-to-hear-his-story
Personally, I obviously think that sexual activity with children should be harshly punished. But I don't believe simulated child pornography should be illegal, or other simulated expressions of that sexuality. And perhaps in this period of technological revolution, they will be able to find sexual gratification in technology without harming children.
There's a fantastic NPR radio story on this 19 year old paedophile. He has never abused a child, but it's quite clear that attraction to children is simply inbuilt into the fabric of his sexuality.
http://www.upworthy.com/this-19-year-old-pedophile-has-never-gone-near-a-child-and-he-needs-you-to-hear-his-story
Personally, I obviously think that sexual activity with children should be harshly punished. But I don't believe simulated child pornography should be illegal, or other simulated expressions of that sexuality. And perhaps in this period of technological revolution, they will be able to find sexual gratification in technology without harming children.
Ah that's really interesting, thanks for the link!
Original post by Architecture-er
Ah that's really interesting, thanks for the link!
No worries
I found it quite interesting.I'd really encourage you to check out this article too, if you enjoyed the other one. It lays out quite cogently, from my perspective, why homosexuality and incest are distinct and why it is perfectly acceptable to oppose one and not the other
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/12/incest_is_cancer.html
Original post by jackdaubs
Silly stories? What on earth are you talking about? I think you're confusing this thread with another one.
0)Not commit suicide, be killed by their sex partner. The fact you brought up illegality has rather shown up your hypocrisy. Incest is illegal too.
1)The subject is that you think it's hypocritical for gay people to have a different opinion to you on incest.
2)The subject is also your utter hypocrisy in saying incest is okay, but other forms of unconventional consensual sex are not.
3)So when you approve of a form of unconventional sex, it's hypocritical for gay people to disagree with you, in your mind.
4)And of course you don't think it's even possible for them to simply have a different opinion, in good faith.
5)Of course, when you disapprove of a particular form of unconventional consensual sex, then it's okay for gay people to disapprove as well.
6)Anyway, I think we're done here and this conversation is over. The stench of your hypocrisy, your arrogance in saying gay people have to agree with you or they're hypocrites (but straight people are allowed to disagree with you) is so illogical and self-absorbed, I doubt you could detach yourself from your self-obsession for enough time to actually engage in a proper debate.
7)When someone calls another person a hypocrite merely for having a different opinion, it is indicative of a solipsistic mind and mediocre intellect
0)Not commit suicide, be killed by their sex partner. The fact you brought up illegality has rather shown up your hypocrisy. Incest is illegal too.
1)The subject is that you think it's hypocritical for gay people to have a different opinion to you on incest.
2)The subject is also your utter hypocrisy in saying incest is okay, but other forms of unconventional consensual sex are not.
3)So when you approve of a form of unconventional sex, it's hypocritical for gay people to disagree with you, in your mind.
4)And of course you don't think it's even possible for them to simply have a different opinion, in good faith.
5)Of course, when you disapprove of a particular form of unconventional consensual sex, then it's okay for gay people to disapprove as well.
6)Anyway, I think we're done here and this conversation is over. The stench of your hypocrisy, your arrogance in saying gay people have to agree with you or they're hypocrites (but straight people are allowed to disagree with you) is so illogical and self-absorbed, I doubt you could detach yourself from your self-obsession for enough time to actually engage in a proper debate.
7)When someone calls another person a hypocrite merely for having a different opinion, it is indicative of a solipsistic mind and mediocre intellect
0) Although in your post you worded it as suicide "someone ending their own life during the sex act?" And you also mentioned killing each other with permission which is pretty much a situation in line with my views on euthanasia anyway. If someone really really wants to die, well, it's their life. Their life isn't my material possession to have control over.
1) Yes. Picking and choosing which 2 consenting adults can and can't have sex/be married is quite hypocritcal. And I didn't single out gay people. I said people who agree with gay sex while disagreeing with incest.
2) I was merely pointing out that, Penis + vagina / vagina + vagina / penis + penis sex, is a tad different from, Knife in back, blood all over the place. Dead "sex"
3) Eh no. I was pretty specific in my original post tbh.
4) If I stop you and your partner from getting married or having sex. Not really 'in good faith' is it?
5) They can have any opinion they want. Certain combinations of opinions result in hipocrasy though.
6) Ye you putting words in my mouth and attaching random stories to my post irrelevant to the topic was getting very very boring, pedantic and tiresome.
7) Thought provoking point you made there. However if you kept an open mind and weren't hypocritical or called other people hypocritical (me for example) it would hold more weight.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChickenMadness
X
Tbh, I'm not sure why you're still talking at me. I said this conversation is over, it is quite clear you don't understand the obvious distinctions between homosexuality and incest. I'm really not interested in interacting with you any further, I've said everything I want to say and if you still insist gay people are hypocrites merely for coming to a different conclusion about incest, then we really have nothing more to say.
The fact you seem incapable of understanding is just because the arguments against homosexuality and incest were the same, therefore the conclusion must be the same. I think you will struggle at university if you don't understand obvious and intuitive differences of that sort
(edited 9 years ago)
The fatal flaw in the position that because gay sex involves consensual adults, and incest also does, therefore homosexuals must support incest.
Say you have Drug A and Drug B, and the government is looking at liberalising the laws and legalising these substances following a medical review.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug A is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review studies the drug's properties, they find this is absolute nonsense and that it is not physically addictive and does not cause impotence. The government duly enacts legislation legalising Drug A.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug B is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review board looks into Drug B, they find it is physically addictive and causes impotence. But the pro-drug lobby says that because the same argument was made in both cases, Drug B must be legalised and anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.
This is the substance of what users like chickenmadness are saying
Say you have Drug A and Drug B, and the government is looking at liberalising the laws and legalising these substances following a medical review.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug A is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review studies the drug's properties, they find this is absolute nonsense and that it is not physically addictive and does not cause impotence. The government duly enacts legislation legalising Drug A.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug B is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review board looks into Drug B, they find it is physically addictive and causes impotence. But the pro-drug lobby says that because the same argument was made in both cases, Drug B must be legalised and anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.
This is the substance of what users like chickenmadness are saying
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jackdaubs
That's nonsense.
Both paedophilia and homosexuality are "unconventional" by historical standards. Given homosexuality involves consenting adults behind closed doors, there is no reason it should be illegal.
Given paedophilia involves the rape of underage children, it should be illegal. Or are you saying paedophilia should be legalised?
Both paedophilia and homosexuality are "unconventional" by historical standards. Given homosexuality involves consenting adults behind closed doors, there is no reason it should be illegal.
Given paedophilia involves the rape of underage children, it should be illegal. Or are you saying paedophilia should be legalised?
im 99.9% sure he was talking about incestbetween consenting adults
hes correct, incest is disgusting but theres no reason for it to be a taboo any more.
people in tsr are already saying theres nothing wrong with mass public nudity, so it should be okay for a man to stare at a little naked girl soon enough, then kids touching eachother naked etc i mean why the hell not if they're not hurting any one right?
reminds me a lot of huxley's bnw to be honest, certainly leaning towards there.
people in tsr are already saying theres nothing wrong with mass public nudity, so it should be okay for a man to stare at a little naked girl soon enough, then kids touching eachother naked etc i mean why the hell not if they're not hurting any one right?
reminds me a lot of huxley's bnw to be honest, certainly leaning towards there.
Original post by jackdaubs
Tbh, I'm not sure why you're still talking at me. I said this conversation is over, it is quite clear you don't understand the obvious distinctions between homosexuality and incest. I'm really not interested in interacting with you any further, I've said everything I want to say and if you still insist gay people are hypocrites merely for coming to a different conclusion about incest, then we really have nothing more to say.
The fact you seem incapable of understanding is just because the arguments against homosexuality and incest were the same, therefore the conclusion must be the same. I think you will struggle at university if you don't understand obvious and intuitive differences of that sort
The fact you seem incapable of understanding is just because the arguments against homosexuality and incest were the same, therefore the conclusion must be the same. I think you will struggle at university if you don't understand obvious and intuitive differences of that sort
Tbh not too sure why you're still replying (I have a good idea though). I thought this conversation was terminated about 1 post ago. Stop quoting me. Thank you.
You're just hypocritical and controlling of others. Just let people who love each other love each other. I think you will struggle in life if you keep forcing your views on other people and telling them what they can and can't do when they aren't hurting anyone.
Original post by silverbolt
im 99.9% sure he was talking about incestbetween consenting adults
Even where it involves incest with consenting adults, there are strong arguments against it. And if that was my comment in reply to chickenmadness, the substance of my opposition is his claim that a gay person is not permitted to be against incest because it also involves consenting adults. See below
Say you have Drug A and Drug B, and the government is looking at liberalising the laws and legalising these substances following a medical review.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug A is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review studies the drug's properties, they find this is absolute nonsense and that it is not physically addictive and does not cause impotence. The government duly enacts legislation legalising Drug A.
The anti-drug lobby says that Drug B is physically addictive and causes impotence. When the medical review board looks into Drug B, they find it is physically addictive and causes impotence. But the pro-drug lobby says that because the same argument was made in both cases, Drug B must be legalised and anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.
This is the substance of what users like chickenmadness are saying
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChickenMadness
I think you will struggle in life if you keep forcing your views on other people
Oh the irony, given you believe that gay people aren't allowed to disagree with you on incest
Tbh not too sure why you're still replying
And yet you keep at replying me. But if you desperately need to have the last word, that's fine by me. I am happy to indulge children in these kinds of ways
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Plymouth Marjon University - Your Questions AnsweredLast reply 2 minutes ago
Bank of America Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
What happens if i dont manage to find housing for second yr?- Uni of BathLast reply 4 minutes ago
Economics and Economic History 2024 ThreadLast reply 5 minutes ago
lse economics and economic historyLast reply 5 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
I Really Regret my degree choice which was BA Film ProductionLast reply 9 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
GSK or AstraZeneca degree apprenticeship applicants?Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 9 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 9 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
