Ask a Jew or a Christian. I don’t give a toss about myths.
The reason I mention the bible is as a sociological document.
When Lot impregnated his daughters the bible does not take it as a horror story. But his daughters did it to preserve the seed of their father on the instructions of an angel!!!
Implying that exceptions to the taboo were acceptable.
And what is your reason to order the behaviour of others?
Interesting. I’m especially puzzled by the charge of “misogyny”: in my view the article does not mention any at all. As for the statement, “Incest is completely reprehensible, unacceptable, disgusting and criminal”: replace “incest” by “homosexuality” and I’m strongly reminded of American Christian conservatives. Lastly, however, I think what occurred in the 1980s may have technically been a case of statutory rape, as the sister may have been so traumatised by what happened in the '70s that she was not responsible for her actions even though she had reached the age of consent–an “insanity offense” so to say, like with the mentally challenged. Then again, she had not been declared insane in the '80s, so the brother could not even be charged with statutory rape.
That just seems like your axiom then must ber contradictory to me or else of no use. You imply some future time when the highest good need not be to establish the highest good anymore, which implies there must be some principle or virtue that moves us in that direction, and I would think those principles or virtues would in fact be the subject of moral philosophy...so that's what we should be talking about. It's like saying "Good farming practices are whatever is good for the farmer". Well, yes in a sense, but at some point we need to talk about fertilizer and sun and rain and so on. Good, non-tautological farming practices will involve statements about those things.
Sure, but that only brings in ‘everything’ in the most abstract possible sense. I don’t think ‘we need leisure for society’ implies anything one way or the other about billiards. I think most interesting, controversial moral questions are at the billiards level, not the leisure level, if that makes sense.
Of course I can. When we discussed homosexuality the gay advocates said it could never lead to incest. Now we’re discussing incest and it’s being justified on the same grounds as homosexuality, exactly as I predicted. Reality is happening, I’m pointing at it. If your epistemology allows you to call that a fallacy, you simply need to revisit your epistemology, that’s all.
Certainly. However, I was still arguing on the level where it’s not self-evident that “farming” (moral philosophising) is the sensible thing to do. We do not need to farm where the fruits of the earth abound all year round; we do not need to practise moral philosophy where the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is readily available to us. Likewise, it makes no sense to farm where farming yields no fruit; it makes no sense to practise moral philosophy where the tree of knowledge of good and evil clearly does not exist or clearly can never be reached by us. This is what I meant when I spoke of the three alternatives of (supposed) wisdom (faith), philosophy, and nihilism.
I don’t have a problem with billiards, but I’m not drawn to it, either.
I certainly never said that, so I don’t know why you made reference to our past discussions. That’s not why I accused you of using the slippery slope fallacy. My contention in those discussions was regarding pedophilia, which is a behavior I see as clearly harmful. My point has been that acceptance of harmless behaviors does not lead to acceptance of harmful behaviors. I’ve always been clear that I don’t see incest as necessarily wrong, and that I use the same criteria to determine that. These issues have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum for a very long time, so I don’t see how you can say one discussion led to another. I feel like you’re being purposely disingenuous here.
Well, I feel the same thing about you guys. Go back a few years and every single leftist you find would be shocked, SHOCKED at the implication that homosexuality and incest could be of the same moral caliber. Anybody saying so would be the worst kind of bigot. Now here we are, and 'slippery slope' is being tossed around still without a hint of fucking irony? Forget pedophila. Forget predictions about what some thing might already lead to. You're legitimizing incest- we've already arrived at the destination those 'bigoted' conservatives predicted; the contemplation of disgusting, previously unimaginable things as a chain reaction of the justifications used for previous things.
It's beyond disingenuous to claim not to see the harm in incest. People[i] raise their fucking children[/i], still, for the moment. Do you understand that children going to public schools and being taught that fucking your parents is alright and you shouldn't judge people that do it [i]might cause a little bit of havoc[/i] when the kids bring that message home to their parents that are the few holdouts left trying not to raise perverts? Do you understand how a "Seduction is fair play now" message might just make the parent-child relationship complex in ways we can't predict the outcome of? "Oh, Dad, you don't want me to go to Aspen with my friends? Well how about if I suck your cock for a week, then is it ok?"
And don’t give me that “18” shit- the age at which the schools teach the kids how and when to have sex will be the age they bring it back to their families. And once that happens, once “Clearly we need sex ed in elementary school” and “Clearly we need to make sure kids don’t discriminate against the incestuous” meet, all your arguments against pedophilia burn away in a hot flash and you’ll finally have to accept the fact that they were just excuses made to justify the same flavor of disgust-reaction you denied the efficacy of in others.
The romantic notion of the unrequited love was a logical bar to the slippery slope. Apart from this, i do not see how any one would be unwilling to give up their soul, for the requisition, thereof.(if you get the drift’) Therefore it is only a logical expediency
where-of, such insights may be garnered, and it is on such subtle distinctions that angels can thread on the nob of needles. It is not even worth to consider,
except in reference to such psychlogisms, as
homosexuality as the last defense against a total unraveling of program
.
Most males conscious nowedays would give up
everything for it, if it were consciously admitted.
Why? The principle of identity (remember
Narcissus?) has been replaced bynthe principle of
negation, or obscurantism of rationalization: yeh,
but i am only bi.
Or pretend to be shocked.
“Disgusting” is a subjective term: “strongly counter to my/our taste”.
I suppose then we should not teach children fucking anyone is alright. After all, saying “it’s only alright if you are married” is of a kind with saying “it’s only alright if you are eighteen or older”. The slippery slope does not start with homosexuality, but already with heterosexuality. A boy should not be taught it’s ever okay to fuck a woman, nor a girl to fuck a man, for some of their family members may be of the opposite sex. So: no more sex ed for kids; sexuality itself shall again be a taboo.
Slippery slope is being tossed around here because people are literally claiming that homosexuality and incest will bring on the destruction of society. Disgusting things have always been contemplated, and far worse things have been done. We both know that incest wasn’t previously unimaginable. You think this shit is new?
Also, why are you always addressing me as a member of a group? I don’t even know what group you’re referring to.
You’re talking about children. That’s pedophilia; not just incest. Isn’t it interesting that you have to frame the notion of incest in that way to get the sort of emotional appeal you’re looking for? I don’t think children should be taught who to fuck in school at all. I’m not saying everyone has to like incest, or that it should be publicly advocated. I’m just saying I don’t see why it’s categorically wrong. Cut the bullshit and show me why it is, or move on.
Why?
Are you against sex ed? Since when has sex ed ever been about who you should or shouldn’t discriminate against? I think 18 is a fine age of consent and majority. If you have a better age and a reason why it’s better, I’d like to hear it.
Sex Ed is often a separate course(from biology) laden with Judeo-Christian morality, whereby sexuality itself becomes a “comfortable” idea. Children are taught the “dangers” of unsafe sex while being coaxed into the idea of the inevitability of “equal partnerships” between man and woman, or man and man, or whatever is trendy ( they are coaxed into the idea not just by the content of the classroom, but by the “teachers” that are just “going along with it”( the feeling that we have to be here, let’s just get it over with)…the mood of the forced nature of public education in a dreary setting(public education felt as inevitable/part of life you have to get through) becomes synonymous with or layered with the subconscious message of “inevitability”(in equal relationships)… all to the “funny” and “silly” tune of our newly discovered sexual anatomy( “now, now children, don’t laugh” says the woman who “can’t help but laugh” at the awkward nature of her instructor position)… If this “education” is starting earlier in a child’s public education “career” then it because we are “obligated” to “prepare” “our children” for the inevitability of a world where sexuality has reached a point(of no return) where everything is completely unfiltered. But is this world of sexual overload a world where sexuality has been fully “unleashed” or is over-saturation a way to keep a certain beast in its cage?
How long can the average man go until he needs to see a woman naked? What are the repercussions of this? What’s the effect on male intelligence when we live in a world where woman’s bare body is wildly on display and perpetually re-presented in new soft light? Does it produce a culture where a certain type of pregnancy is always on display and always justified through the most endlessly forgiving ways?
What would it be like if it was not ‘laden with Judeo-Christian morality’?
Let’s say that it was ‘laden with secular humanist morality’, for example.
What would be the difference? Would sex education be too “dry” if it was taught with a purely scientific approach or is the approach of science too dry?
Since you answer my question with two questions… I guess your answer is that it should be taught as a purely functional description - what fits where and why stuff happens. No moral aspects at all.
What happens when someone asks a question of a moral nature?
Unless they go to parochial school, the quetion will be ignored or bypassed. The effect of the separation of church and state policy. If teachers dare not preach morality, they may be sued on basis of intolarance toward non believers.
You mean that it’s not possible to discuss morality in school?
That means children learn morality from parents and peers. If parents don’t teach it, then the kids grow up without guidance.