Discussion Forums > The Lounge

Incest

<< < (3/35) > >>

Tiffanys:

--- Quote from: ludwigrm on October 08, 2010, 12:13:25 PM ---I think that incest in real world is something we shoudn't morally accept, first and foremost to protect the people who make incest. it's not only a social matter, it has do with istinct.
everyone feels instinctively repulsion toward parents/sibling under that point of view and when that does not happen and there is a sexual intercourse between very close relatives, then istinct makes other people say: "no. stay in line".
--- End quote ---

Except, it has nothing to do with "instincts" at all. It's prejudice and closed mindedness passed onto us at a very young age from society.

Most people fear or even despise the thought of either being naked publicly or seeing certain other people in the nude publicly. Is this an instinct? No. No, it isn't. It's programmed into us by society. The same way most of society somehow believes boobies are bad.

In our natural state, we'd be perfectly fine going around stark naked (and obviously just seeing another naked creature doesn't "harm" us in any way). But, I think I've made my point. It's not instincts at all, it's influence from the society around us and what they tell us is "right" or "morally just." It has very little to do with ones own thoughts, it's just accepted because "that's how things are."


--- Quote from: ludwigrm on October 08, 2010, 12:13:25 PM ---I also think that when someone feels attracted to, for istance, his sister, it does not mean that he his different from "normal" people, it only means that he is child-like, immature: those kind of people are probably afraid of the world and subconsciously think to the their sister as the woman they can have without going outside of the house. I think they like their sister because she is the only woman they think they can have. it happens to most children with siblings but it is something subconscious and usually disappears when they grow up. I heard of teenegers feeling attracted to sisters/brothers, they are probably just a bit immature.

Maybe there are exeptions, siblings who really really love each other without being mentally disturbed or just immature, but I don't know.
--- End quote ---

I don't really agree with you here and I don't really feel it's right to judge people like that. I mean from your logic, you could say the exact same thing about same sex couples. "Oh, well they're just immature, mentally disturbed and sick." Yes, well... it's taken a long time, but as a society we're slowly overcoming that line of thinking. Unfortunately, most people are still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to incest, just like they were about homosexuality just a couple decades ago.


--- Quote from: ludwigrm on October 08, 2010, 12:13:25 PM ---that being said, I'm for absolute freedom.... if two adults feel that need, although they're close relatives, then... well, do as you want, but it is morally wrong, it goes against nature.

--- End quote ---

How does it go against nature? If you look in the animal Kingdom, most fathers will mate with their daughters (Lions, Wolves, just about every pack animal) and the strongest genetic material possible is passed on to the next generation. Of course, lions fight to the death and we don't quite exactly do that in our society. But as far as nature is concerned, it's a perfectly acceptable practice and quite common among the animal kingdom.

flyawave:

--- Quote from: Tiffanys on October 08, 2010, 02:05:14 PM ---How does it go against nature? If you look in the animal Kingdom, most fathers will mate with their daughters (Lions, Wolves, just about every pack animal) and the strongest genetic material possible is passed on to the next generation. Of course, lions fight to the death and we don't quite exactly do that in our society. But as far as nature is concerned, it's a perfectly acceptable practice and quite common among the animal kingdom.

--- End quote ---
Are you an animal... no

from y point of view the natural human reaction to incest is a negative one... therefore it is bad
I mean, If siblings get together (I'm not even going to talk about parents, that's just sick on a whole new level) a certain special sibling bond would be shattered by the incest, not strengthened as some may claim

Tiffanys:

--- Quote from: flyawave on October 08, 2010, 02:10:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: Tiffanys on October 08, 2010, 02:05:14 PM ---How does it go against nature? If you look in the animal Kingdom, most fathers will mate with their daughters (Lions, Wolves, just about every pack animal) and the strongest genetic material possible is passed on to the next generation. Of course, lions fight to the death and we don't quite exactly do that in our society. But as far as nature is concerned, it's a perfectly acceptable practice and quite common among the animal kingdom.

--- End quote ---
Are you an animal... no

from y point of view the natural human reaction to incest is a negative one... therefore it is bad
I mean, If siblings get together (I'm not even going to talk about parents, that's just sick on a whole new level) a certain special sibling bond would be shattered by the incest, not strengthened as some may claim

--- End quote ---

To that, I just repeat my previous post.

We had a generally negative response to homosexuals (it's even death in some countries), we had a very negative response to people of different colors (subhuman slaves, and worse), of different creeds and cultures (holy wars, genocides, and worse).

It's human nature that we're like this... humans fear the unknown. But that doesn't in any way make it right to do so.

edit: And yes, to your initial question... we are animals. Albeit the most intelligent and adaptive ones on the planet, we are still animals (genetically speaking). It is we, as humans, who apply that label of superiority over every other living thing. We even, quite obviously, do it to members of our own species. Sad when you think about it...

flyawave:

it's not fear of the unknown, in this case it's dislike of the well known.
I still reserve my opinion on homosexuals... we don't know nearly enough about them.
Slavery is not a bad thing, some people LITERALLY have no other option(by slavery I mean something quite different to what is the common man's interpretation of slavery...Slaves have a lot of right, including all human rights... except the right to be free)

undetz:

--- Quote from: ludwigrm on October 08, 2010, 12:13:25 PM ---I think that incest in real world is something we shoudn't morally accept, first and foremost to protect the people who make incest. it's not only a social matter, it has do with istinct.
everyone feels instinctively repulsion toward parents/sibling under that point of view and when that does not happen and there is a sexual intercourse between very close relatives, then istinct makes other people say: "no. stay in line".

I also think that when someone feels attracted to, for istance, his sister, it does not mean that he his different from "normal" people, it only means that he is child-like, immature: those kind of people are probably afraid of the world and subconsciously think to the their sister as the woman they can have without going outside of the house. I think they like their sister because she is the only woman they think they can have. it happens to most children with siblings but it is something subconscious and usually disappears when they grow up. I heard of teenegers feeling attracted to sisters/brothers, they are probably just a bit immature.

Maybe there are exeptions, siblings who really really love each other without being mentally disturbed or just immature, but I don't know.
--- End quote ---
YES! Let's make shit up! Let's invent facts and reasons that may have nothing to do with reality.


--- Quote ---that being said, I'm for absolute freedom.... if two adults feel that need, although they're close relatives, then... well, do as you want, but it is morally wrong, it goes against nature.
--- End quote ---
But at least you don't want to take your inventions and fabulations and use them to make laws, that's the sole redeeming factor for your previous tripe.




There're a couple of big problems with your line of reasoning, though. Firstly, you conflate "natural" and "moral" and that's a very dangerous thing to do. The line of reasoning goes that it's "natural" for one man and one woman to have sex, therefor it's "immoral" for two men or two women to have sex. It's natural for the man to put food on the table and for the woman to take care of the children, therefor it's immoral for women to work and for men to stay at home. It's natural that the strong thrive and the weak perish, therefor it's immoral to support those who can't support themselves.
You see where this is going, right? Moral and natural have nothing to do with each other. Morality is concerned with how people should treat each other and, to a lesser degree, with how people should treat non-human beings and the world in which they live. The question of what's "natural" is, imo, a dead end. Anything that can be observed in nature is "natural" by definition, this means that "natural" takes on such a broad meaning that it's practically useless. It also means that "natural" is only concerned with how things are, not with how they can be or how they should be. A question of morality may start by looking at how things are, but the end result is always about how things should be. Those are two quite big gaps you'll have to bridge before getting from the natural to the moral, and you didn't even attempt to do so in your post.

The second problem is your use of "instinct" to derive the immorality of incest. Allow me to disagree and call you out on your bullshit. You claim that people instinctively feel repulsion towards incestual relationships, and then you stop. You don't in any way support your argument, you merely state it and expect us to accept it. What you should be doing is explain why people feeling repulsion towards something is caused by their instincts and not by their upbringing. I can't tell the difference between the two kinds of repulsion, certainly not in other people, I'm amazed that it's so simple for you. Or, more likely, you're talking out of your arse about something you only understand tentatively, if at all. By all means, go ahead and enlighten the rest of us about the different causes for the feeling of repulsion, but until you have presented a compelling argument I will continue to consider the option of any feelings of repulsion resulting from upbringing to be at least as likely as that of them resulting from instincts.

Thirdly and finally, by attempting to make the people you are talking about seem defective in some way, "child-like", "immature", "afraid of the world" and "mentally disturbed" were the terms you used, you only succeed in making yourself look like an arsehole. You don't even consider the possibility that there may be nothing wrong or even different about them, but launch directly into full "make the other group look inferior"-mode. Are you serious? All you do here is speculate about people you've never met, never even talked to. And yet you think you can dismiss them as mentally disturbed, and by implication as not to be taken seriously. But I understand you, it's the easy way to take after all. If the other person can be declared not mentally sound you save yourself a lot of time and effort by dismissing them, especially if you know the majority shares your opinion. But that's not how you get a debate, imagine I had dismissed you as intellectually inferior and left things at my first two lines. I would have saved myself the time and effort it took to type this out, but it wouldn't have been debating. Instead I decided to take you seriously and point out where the flaws are in your argument. Try doing the same sometime, I think it's a good habit top be in.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page