Is it sick and twisted? Yes. Is it your business? NO!
Probably the biggest flaw of the perspective "none of anyone's business" is the assumption that we are disconnected from each other more than we are.
There are reasons that incest is illegal. To drive it into the dark corners where it belongs. It isn't possible to be neutral on the topic. It's either part of public policy or it's not.
Step back for a second and tell me, why, if two men can have sex, why can't they be brothers?
Two men have can sex if they love each other or fancy each other. Two men, and two women, have been doing it to each other for tens of thousands of years. Many famous playwrights, artists, poets, painters, politicians and sportsmen have been doing it for countless generations. It's OK. No-one gets hurt. They want to do it. They do not fancy men, if they are women, or women, if they are men. That's just the way it is.
Good for them. Shag away. Have a shag for me. I'd rather not watch, but carry right on, don't let me stop you.
Now, ena, what the blue buggering hell do incest, adultery and homosexuality have in common, apart from the fact they all offend you equally? Explain to me please, because I don't see the connection and I don't see the faintest logical connection in your argument. I'm curious.
'If the Supreme Court says you can cook Key Lime Pie in your home, you can murder your neighbors.'
Sniff, sniff...I smell straw!
Someone want to explain to me how if I had said the above to others here, I would be hit with the dreaded "s" man accusation? Or, at the very least, "making up something so far out that it doesn't even relate to anything"?
Probably the biggest flaw of the perspective "none of anyone's business" is the assumption that we are disconnected from each other more than we are.
There are reasons that incest is illegal. To drive it into the dark corners where it belongs. It isn't possible to be neutral on the topic. It's either part of public policy or it's not.
Again, nosy fvck, it's none of your damn business. Advocate against it all you want (I will too because I agree it is utterly repugnant) but what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home IS NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS. End of story, fascist.
And the reason is one person takes advantage of another persons weak position (NPI). ONLY THEN IS IT OUR BUISNESS. The society have to take care of the weak when the stronger use their weakness in an too unfavorable way. Insider trading is another not realted example.
And the reason is one person takes advantage of another persons weak position (NPI). The society have to take care of the weak when the stronger use their weakness in an too unfavorable way. Insider trading is another not realted example.
Consenting adults.
People get taken advantage of every day. The society that tries to level the playing field creates a position called "The Handicapper General."
Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. if you don't get the reference.
Someone want to explain to me how if I had said the above to others here, I would be hit with the dreaded "s" man accusation? Or, at the very least, "making up something so far out that it doesn't even relate to anything"?
Bunge is using a perfectly valid rhetorical trope called reductio ad absurdium (or something) to point out that ena's argument is... not an argument. There is no connection between adultery and incest and homosexual sex.
The Supreme Court says you can have gay sex.
Why not adultery? Why not incest? Why not in green pyjamas? Why not speaking Portuguese and listening to Indian classical music?
Do you see?
ena is using a depressing rhetorical trope called 'a syllogism', which works like this:
Statement one: "I have green pyjamas."
Statement two: "I am a bigot."
Unconnected sleight-of-hand / stupid statement three: "All people with green pyjamas are bigots."
Now, ena, what the blue buggering hell do incest, adultery and homosexuality have in common, apart from the fact they all offend you equally? Explain to me please, because I don't see the connection and I don't see the faintest logical connection in your argument. I'm curious.
Oh bother, this thread is hopelessly derailed---if I wanted to debate the virtues of sodomy, I would have started a thread.
Two things:
.....the long-standing animas against homosexuality and incest is due to the fact that they are both a rebellion against a social order which identifies itself with the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage and the institutional monogamy that it represents.
....For Muslims, Christians, and Jews there has been a long-standing prohibition against gender incest from the beginning.
Once you abandon either of those criterion, you are left using ambiguous statements like "no-body likes incest". Really? No body? People do it, obviously someone likes it---and some of it IS consensual---why can't they have their recognition/validation as well?
The problem is that your argument has no bottom, and if you are as clever as you pretend you can see that.
*lowers thread lifeboat and rows away from sinking thread*
Oh bother, this thread is hopelessly derailed---if I wanted to debate the virtues of sodomy, I would have started a thread.
Two things:
.....the long-standing animas against homosexuality and incest is due to the fact that they are both a rebellion against a social order which identifies itself with the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage and the institutional monogamy that it represents.
....For Muslims, Christians, and Jews there has been a long-standing prohibition against gender incest from the beginning.
Once you abandon either of those criterion, you are left using ambiguous statements like "no-body likes incest". Really? No body? People do it, obviously someone likes it---and some of it IS consensual---why can't they have their recognition/validation as well?
The problem is that your argument has no bottom, and if you are as clever as you pretend you can see that.
*lowers thread lifeboat and rows away from sinking thread*
Comments
Originally posted by ena
you forgot incest
Are you going to answer my god damn question or keep derailing the thread?
Originally posted by BR
Are you going to answer my god damn question or keep derailing the thread?
incest, BR
Originally posted by ena
incest, BR
CONSENTING ADULTS, ENA. NOT YOUR BUSINESS, ENA.
Is it sick and twisted? Yes. Is it your business? NO!
Originally posted by BR
CONSENTING ADULTS, ENA. NOT YOUR BUSINESS, ENA.
Is it sick and twisted? Yes. Is it your business? NO!
Probably the biggest flaw of the perspective "none of anyone's business" is the assumption that we are disconnected from each other more than we are.
There are reasons that incest is illegal. To drive it into the dark corners where it belongs. It isn't possible to be neutral on the topic. It's either part of public policy or it's not.
Originally posted by ena
To answer a valid question:
Step back for a second and tell me, why, if two men can have sex, why can't they be brothers?
Two men have can sex if they love each other or fancy each other. Two men, and two women, have been doing it to each other for tens of thousands of years. Many famous playwrights, artists, poets, painters, politicians and sportsmen have been doing it for countless generations. It's OK. No-one gets hurt. They want to do it. They do not fancy men, if they are women, or women, if they are men. That's just the way it is.
Good for them. Shag away. Have a shag for me. I'd rather not watch, but carry right on, don't let me stop you.
Now, ena, what the blue buggering hell do incest, adultery and homosexuality have in common, apart from the fact they all offend you equally? Explain to me please, because I don't see the connection and I don't see the faintest logical connection in your argument. I'm curious.
Originally posted by bunge
'If the Supreme Court says you can cook Key Lime Pie in your home, you can murder your neighbors.'
Sniff, sniff...I smell straw!
Someone want to explain to me how if I had said the above to others here, I would be hit with the dreaded "s" man accusation? Or, at the very least, "making up something so far out that it doesn't even relate to anything"?
Why doesn´t he continue the list in the other end? Besides it involves no argument whatsoever.
"If you can make a car go 10 miles on a gallon why cant you make it go 20, 30, one billion?"
He makes an argumental mistake by not using arguments.
Originally posted by pscates
Sniff, sniff...I smell straw!
I´m sure it comes from your house
Originally posted by ena
Probably the biggest flaw of the perspective "none of anyone's business" is the assumption that we are disconnected from each other more than we are.
There are reasons that incest is illegal. To drive it into the dark corners where it belongs. It isn't possible to be neutral on the topic. It's either part of public policy or it's not.
Again, nosy fvck, it's none of your damn business. Advocate against it all you want (I will too because I agree it is utterly repugnant) but what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home IS NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS. End of story, fascist.
Don't see the connection.
Men and women have been having sex for thousands for years. No-one likes incest.
Men and men, and women and women, have been having sex for thousands of years. No-one likes incest.
Where is the argument?
Originally posted by ena
There are reasons that incest is illegal.
And the reason is one person takes advantage of another persons weak position (NPI). ONLY THEN IS IT OUR BUISNESS. The society have to take care of the weak when the stronger use their weakness in an too unfavorable way. Insider trading is another not realted example.
Originally posted by Anders the White
And the reason is one person takes advantage of another persons weak position (NPI). The society have to take care of the weak when the stronger use their weakness in an too unfavorable way. Insider trading is another not realted example.
Consenting adults.
People get taken advantage of every day. The society that tries to level the playing field creates a position called "The Handicapper General."
Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. if you don't get the reference.
Originally posted by pscates
Sniff, sniff...I smell straw!
Someone want to explain to me how if I had said the above to others here, I would be hit with the dreaded "s" man accusation? Or, at the very least, "making up something so far out that it doesn't even relate to anything"?
Bunge is using a perfectly valid rhetorical trope called reductio ad absurdium (or something) to point out that ena's argument is... not an argument. There is no connection between adultery and incest and homosexual sex.
The Supreme Court says you can have gay sex.
Why not adultery? Why not incest? Why not in green pyjamas? Why not speaking Portuguese and listening to Indian classical music?
Do you see?
ena is using a depressing rhetorical trope called 'a syllogism', which works like this:
Statement one: "I have green pyjamas."
Statement two: "I am a bigot."
Unconnected sleight-of-hand / stupid statement three: "All people with green pyjamas are bigots."
Figures...why did I even bother asking?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Now, ena, what the blue buggering hell do incest, adultery and homosexuality have in common, apart from the fact they all offend you equally? Explain to me please, because I don't see the connection and I don't see the faintest logical connection in your argument. I'm curious.
Oh bother, this thread is hopelessly derailed---if I wanted to debate the virtues of sodomy, I would have started a thread.
Two things:
.....the long-standing animas against homosexuality and incest is due to the fact that they are both a rebellion against a social order which identifies itself with the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage and the institutional monogamy that it represents.
....For Muslims, Christians, and Jews there has been a long-standing prohibition against gender incest from the beginning.
Once you abandon either of those criterion, you are left using ambiguous statements like "no-body likes incest". Really? No body? People do it, obviously someone likes it---and some of it IS consensual---why can't they have their recognition/validation as well?
The problem is that your argument has no bottom, and if you are as clever as you pretend you can see that.
*lowers thread lifeboat and rows away from sinking thread*
Originally posted by ena
Oh bother, this thread is hopelessly derailed---if I wanted to debate the virtues of sodomy, I would have started a thread.
Two things:
.....the long-standing animas against homosexuality and incest is due to the fact that they are both a rebellion against a social order which identifies itself with the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage and the institutional monogamy that it represents.
....For Muslims, Christians, and Jews there has been a long-standing prohibition against gender incest from the beginning.
Once you abandon either of those criterion, you are left using ambiguous statements like "no-body likes incest". Really? No body? People do it, obviously someone likes it---and some of it IS consensual---why can't they have their recognition/validation as well?
The problem is that your argument has no bottom, and if you are as clever as you pretend you can see that.
*lowers thread lifeboat and rows away from sinking thread*
TRANSLATION:
I DISAGREE WITH IT SO IT MUST BE STOPPED!
BR asks "what's wrong with sodomy?" and I got to thinking.
I wanted to ask ena: is anal sex between two men worse than anal sex between a man and a woman? If it is, why? What's the difference?
I'm geniunely curious to know exactly what's so bad about sodomy.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I should be working, but what the blazes.
BR asks "what's wrong with sodomy?" and I got to thinking.
I wanted to ask ena: is anal sex between two men worse than anal sex between a man and a woman? If it is, why? What's the difference?
I'm geniunely curious to know exactly what's so bad about sodomy.
I already provided the answer. He disagrees with it so it must be stopped.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'm geniunely curious to know exactly what's so bad about sodomy.
Well, for one...
oh wait, i've nothing.