If you're for gay rights surely you should be for incest?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ftr
If you are against incest that does not cause harm to anyone else then you can't use the popular argument (for being gay) that two consensual adults should be able to do what they want , without sounding hypocritical.
But don't worry there are a lot of hypocrites around, you'll fit in just fine.
But don't worry there are a lot of hypocrites around, you'll fit in just fine.
Did I brush past the chip on your shoulder? Sounds like it something that's deeply personal to you
To address your argument, it's lucky for me that I don't use the popular argument that two consensual adults should be able to do what they want. I use the argument that two gay people being together doesn't hurt anyone, whereas an incestuous coupling does.
Your argument is looking a bit worthless now
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Chlorophile
You've forgotten the fact that incest can cause harm. Incest increases the chance of children inheriting dangerous genetic diseases that are normally recessive but have a greater chance of being expressed in children within families because related people are more likely to have similar genes.
lets flip this around.
homosexuals are far more likely to spread hiv or aids then any other group.
Hence the reason they are banned from donating blood
Original post by matthewduncan
lets flip this around.
homosexuals are far more likely to spread hiv or aids then any other group.
homosexuals are far more likely to spread hiv or aids then any other group.
Actually some recent evidence suggests that African immigrants are the most likely group to spread HIV due to the very high rates in their home countries
And having flipped it around, what exactly is your point?
Original post by young_guns
Actually it is. That's why we have thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of cases of precedent in the common law and thousands of statutes.
That is, rather three cases and two statutes
That is, rather three cases and two statutes
So? That's no indication that laws are not based on higher principles.
I've already provided you with a watertight argument as to why they must be (unless they are made arbitrarily).
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
So? That's no indication that laws are not based on higher principles.
Where is the proof each law is based on a particular higher principle? And whose higher principle applies? What if some MPs vote for it on one basis, and others MPs vote for it on another?
What if a small group of MPs are very vocal in saying why they are voting for it (some grand principle) but the larger group of MPs who voted for it and said nothing had some other principle?
This claim of grand principles is meaningless because it can't be established in any serious way (unless you'd like to provide some insight about where we can find the "grand principle" for each law?)
Original post by tazarooni89
I've already provided you with a watertight argument as to why they must be
You have an exceptionally distorted view of your own rhetorical abilities. It wasn't watertight. It wasn't even mildly persuasiveIn a sense, yes. I would support the legalisation of incestuous sex, though with additional provisos. At the very least, all family members should be considered to be in 'positions of trust', the way doctors and teachers are at present, which would effectively make the age of consent for incest 18.
Original post by tazarooni89
So? That's no indication that laws are not based on higher principles.
I've already provided you with a watertight argument as to why they must be (unless they are made arbitrarily).
I've already provided you with a watertight argument as to why they must be (unless they are made arbitrarily).
Perhaps you can buttress your argument by revealing to us the grand principles behind
(1) The rule in contract law that promissory estoppel can only be invoked as a defence and not a cause of action
(2) The HGV Road User Levy (Exemption of Specified Roads) Order 2014
Original post by Chlorophile
You've forgotten the fact that incest can cause harm. Incest increases the chance of children inheriting dangerous genetic diseases that are normally recessive but have a greater chance of being expressed in children within families because related people are more likely to have similar genes.
So I take it that you think anyone with an inheritable genetic defect should not be able to have sex?
Original post by young_guns
Where is the proof each law is based on a particular higher principle? And whose higher principle applies? What if some MPs vote for it on one basis, and others MPs vote for it on another?
What if a small group of MPs are very vocal in saying why they are voting for it (some grand principle) but the larger group of MPs who voted for it and said nothing had some other principle?
This claim of grand principles is meaningless because it can't be established in any serious way (unless you'd like to provide some insight about where we can find the "grand principle" for each law?)
Is not whatever each MP's vote based on some principle which they consider to be higher than the issue at hand?
Furthermore laws are generally assumed to have principles behind them. They used to be found in the preambles of acts etc. and it is clear in caselaw that judges follow general 'higher principles' to come to their decisions.
Original post by young_guns
Where is the proof each law is based on a particular higher principle? And whose higher principle applies? What if some MPs vote for it on one basis, and others MPs vote for it on another?
What if a small group of MPs are very vocal in saying why they are voting for it (some grand principle) but the larger group of MPs who voted for it and said nothing had some other principle?
This claim of grand principles is meaningless because it can't be established in any serious way (unless you'd like to provide some insight about where we can find the "grand principle" for each law?)
What if a small group of MPs are very vocal in saying why they are voting for it (some grand principle) but the larger group of MPs who voted for it and said nothing had some other principle?
This claim of grand principles is meaningless because it can't be established in any serious way (unless you'd like to provide some insight about where we can find the "grand principle" for each law?)
I've already explained this to you. As soon as you come up with a complete reason as to why a law is the way it is, you're invoking a greater principle. Logically, "A, because B (in a particular instance)" is a special case of the greater principle "If B, then A".
If some MPs are voting for a law based on one principle, and others are voting on another principle, clearly greater principles are still in operation.
You have an exceptionally distorted view of your own rhetorical abilities. It wasn't watertight. It wasn't even mildly persuasiveOf course it's watertight. I even provided it using formal logic.
You haven't pointed out any flaws in it; just saying "it's not persuasive" is hardly worth anything.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Is not whatever each MP's vote based on some principle which they consider to be higher than the issue at hand?
Furthermore laws are generally assumed to have principles behind them. They used to be found in the preambles of acts etc. and it is clear in caselaw that judges follow general 'higher principles' to come to their decisions.
Is not whatever each MP's vote based on some principle which they consider to be higher than the issue at hand?
Furthermore laws are generally assumed to have principles behind them. They used to be found in the preambles of acts etc. and it is clear in caselaw that judges follow general 'higher principles' to come to their decisions.
What higher principles lie behind;
(1) The rule in contract law that promissory estoppel can only be invoked as a defence and not a cause of action
(2) The HGV Road User Levy (Exemption of Specified Roads) Order 2014
Original post by young_guns
What higher principles lie behind;
(1) The rule in contract law that promissory estoppel can only be invoked as a defence and not a cause of action
(2) The HGV Road User Levy (Exemption of Specified Roads) Order 2014
(1) The rule in contract law that promissory estoppel can only be invoked as a defence and not a cause of action
(2) The HGV Road User Levy (Exemption of Specified Roads) Order 2014
Why would we talk about these specific cases? They are completely irrelevant.
Original post by tazarooni89
If some MPs are voting for a law based on one principle, and others are voting on another principle, clearly greater principles are still in operation.
If some MPs are voting for a law based on one principle, and others are voting on another principle, clearly greater principles are still in operation.
If the principles are opposite principles, then they are clearly not in operation.
Of course it's watertight. I even provided it using formal logic.
Laws aren't written using formal logic. They're even, shock horror, sometimes illogical.
You haven't pointed out any flaws in it
You've simply thrown up a principle of logic with no actual connection to the subject at hand. You're trying to force a square peg into a round whole and expect applause for itWhat higher principles lie behind;
(1) The rule in contract law that promissory estoppel can only be invoked as a defence and not a cause of action
(2) The HGV Road User Levy (Exemption of Specified Roads) Order 2014
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Why would we talk about these specific cases? They are completely irrelevant.
If you're saying all laws are undergirded by higher principles, and particularly that judges always rule based on these principles, then I expect you to be able to demonstrate that.
What higher principle was the judge ruling on when they created the rule that promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence?
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Why would we talk about these specific cases? They are completely irrelevant.
If you want to skip the part where I demonstrate your ignorance of the law, we can get to the end where I show you that often laws are made on the basis of expedience and pragmatism, sometimes just plugging a gap or addressing a small problem or irritant that has arisen.
Original post by young_guns
If you're saying all laws are undergirded by higher principles, and particularly that judges always rule based on these principles, then I expect you to be able to demonstrate that.
What higher principle was the judge ruling on when they created the rule that promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence?
What higher principle was the judge ruling on when they created the rule that promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence?
There being higher principles doesn't mean that I must necessarily be able to identify. Particularly on command based on your whim. The idea that judges need to be able to justify their reasoning (as per the Rule of Law as a foundation of the UK's system) means that whatever the justification had or given is a 'higher principle' than that at hand.
I also don't think its very contentious to say that MP's vote senselessly on acts. So they are adhering to some 'higher principle', at least as they see it. Even if others are voting for different reasons they are all still in play. They cannot cancel each other out.
Original post by young_guns
If you want to skip the part where I demonstrate your ignorance of the law, we can get to the end where I show you that often laws are made on the basis of expedience and pragmatism, sometimes just plugging a gap or addressing a small problem or irritant that has arisen.
Oh the irony
You do realize that if laws are made on pragmatism then that is the 'higher principle' for that case yes? 
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
There being higher principles doesn't mean that I must necessarily be able to identify.
A flying spaghetti monster principle eh? Hehe.
Are you religious?
Original post by young_guns
A flying spaghetti monster principle eh? Hehe.
Are you religious?
Are you religious?
Very good reasoning here.Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
