If you're for gay rights surely you should be for incest? Watch

young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#101
Report 4 years ago
#101
(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.
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
0
reply
matthewduncan
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#102
Report 4 years ago
#102
(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
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#103
Report 4 years ago
#103
(Original post by matthewduncan)
lets flip this around.
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?
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#104
Report 4 years ago
#104
(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
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).
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#105
Report 4 years ago
#105
(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?)
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#106
Report 4 years ago
#106
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I've already provided you with a watertight argument as to why they must be
:lol: You have an exceptionally distorted view of your own rhetorical abilities. It wasn't watertight. It wasn't even mildly persuasive
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#107
Report 4 years ago
#107
In 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.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#108
Report 4 years ago
#108
(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).
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
0
reply
Doctor_Einstein
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#109
Report 4 years ago
#109
(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?
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#110
Report 4 years ago
#110
(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?)[/QUOTE]

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.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#111
Report 4 years ago
#111
(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?)
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.

:lol: You have an exceptionally distorted view of your own rhetorical abilities. It wasn't watertight. It wasn't even mildly persuasive
Of 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.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#112
Report 4 years ago
#112
(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.
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
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#113
Report 4 years ago
#113
(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
Why would we talk about these specific cases? They are completely irrelevant.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#114
Report 4 years ago
#114
(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 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
:lol: 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 it

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
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#115
Report 4 years ago
#115
(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?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#116
Report 4 years ago
#116
(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.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#117
Report 4 years ago
#117
(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?
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.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#118
Report 4 years ago
#118
(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 :lol: You do realize that if laws are made on pragmatism then that is the 'higher principle' for that case yes? :facepalm:
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#119
Report 4 years ago
#119
(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?
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#120
Report 4 years ago
#120
(Original post by young_guns)
A flying spaghetti monster principle eh? Hehe.

Are you religious?
:rolleyes: Very good reasoning here.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (234)
39.39%
No - but I will (40)
6.73%
No - I don't want to (43)
7.24%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (277)
46.63%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed