Philosophy. Private lives?

[Sociomarketist Yugoslavia]

Is it under any circumstances OK for person(s)A to impose their views on person(s)B if these views regard private life?
And if so how far does this extend?

1 What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex? for instance?

2 What about bestiality? That`s between a person and their property. And if you argue:``the animal cant`consent``then it can`t consent consent to being killed or milked either.

3 Age of consent is just the majority moral consensus on the question `` what age is it alright to have sex?`` So is n`t that sort of fascist too?

[Barraco Barner]

They can say it if they want. As long as no harm is done.

[Sociomarketist Yugoslavia]

They can say it if they want. As long as no harm is done.

No IMPOSE via law or otherwise

[Barraco Barner]

They can say it if they want. As long as no harm is done.

No IMPOSE via law or otherwise

Oh, impose? No.

[Sociomarketist Yugoslavia]

No IMPOSE via law or otherwise

Oh, impose? No.

What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex?

[The Borderline Borderlands]

They can say it if they want. As long as no harm is done.

No IMPOSE via law or otherwise

Ultimately that's going to depend on your definition of "Harm."

Generally speaking, though, my answer is no.

EDIT: Annnd case in point.

What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex?

You could quite likely argue that one or more of the participants cannot actually consent in this situation.

[Barraco Barner]

Oh, impose? No.

What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex?

Incest is bad, very, even when no child is born.

[Cetacea]

Is it under any circumstances OK for person(s)A to impose their views on person(s)B if these views regard private life?
And if so how far does this extend?

Yes it is okay, because gossip and ostracism are powerful tools for gaining compliance to expected social norms as established by the moral elite

[The New Sea Territory]

No. So long as their private life remains nonviolent, no individual has control over another individual's life. That's a radical idea called freedom.

[Shiie]

There is no such thing as a private life to me.

[Sociomarketist Yugoslavia]

What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex?

Incest is bad, very, even when no child is born.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU You know how many people called me bigoted and evil for saying that?!

[Immoren]

There is no such thing as a private life to me.

How come?

[Communist Volkstrad]

1 What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex? for instance?
I'm fine with it, as long as it isn't reproductive.
2 What about bestiality? That`s between a person and their property.
The animal can't consent with it. Doesn't matter if it's their "property", it cannot consent to it.
3 Age of consent is just the majority moral consensus on the question `` what age it is alright to have sex?`` So is n`t that sort of fascist too?
What the hell does this even mean here?

[Divitaen]

1. Consensual incest, why not? If its non-reproductive, all the better. If it is, I can't ban people with genetic diseases from having children, so why should I stop cousins?

2. Bestiality is disgusting because it is between a person and an animal that cannot give consent. It is a form of animal abuse and rape. The right to privacy is between consenting adults.

3. The age of consent is morally arbitrary, but that doesn't make the concept of having an age of consent wrong. From an intuitive perspective, an adult shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a baby and claim that the baby nodded after being asked if he/she wanted to have sex. Young children clearly don't understand the concept and consequences, so even if we can't agree on the exact age, sane people would generally say very young children clearly need to be protected.

[Immoren]

Reproductive incest is only detrimental (from point of view of biology) if it happens in closed genepool over generations.

[The Borderline Borderlands]

1 What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex? for instance?

Assuming it truly is consensual, I don't see the problem. Incidentally, as far as I'm aware the potential hazards of reproductive sex, at least in the first generation, are trivial.

But you're assuming consent here, and outside of theoreticals on a message board, I would be hesitant to do so. It would probably be a good idea to impose some limits on just how family can screw each other, to assure that there really is consent.

2 What about bestiality? That`s between a person and their property.

How about you show me a genuinely sapient dog before we start embracing the idea that critters who can't even speak, are somehow capable of informed consent to sexual relations with human beings.

3 Age of consent is just the majority moral consensus on the question `` what age is it alright to have sex?`` So is n`t that sort of fascist too?

Humans are not born mature, so for some period of their lives it is not fascist to limit their autonomy. At some point in our lives, we've all needed a more mature human being to stop us eating our own excrement.

Healthy 15 year olds won't be physically harmed by having normal sexual relations. But since 15 year olds are not mature, it may be a good idea to impose some limits on who can have sexual relations with them, to avoid them being taken advantage of.

[Thethirdac]

Is it under any circumstances OK for person(s)A to impose their views on person(s)B if these views regard private life?
And if so how far does this extend?

1 What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex? for instance?

2 What about bestiality? That`s between a person and their property.

3 Age of consent is just the majority moral consensus on the question `` what age is it alright to have sex?`` So is n`t that sort of fascist too?

Its all voluntary right? Nothing can be immoral if all parties are voluntarily doing the action.

1. Voluntary? Yes.

2. The animals aren't voluntarily participating. No.

3. When you're old enough to rationally give consent to the person you're having sex with.

[Sociomarketist Yugoslavia]

1. Consensual incest, why not? If its non-reproductive, all the better. If it is, I can't ban people with genetic diseases from having children, so why should I stop cousins?

2. Bestiality is disgusting because it is between a person and an animal that cannot give consent. It is a form of animal abuse and rape. The right to privacy is between consenting adults.

3. The age of consent is morally arbitrary, but that doesn't make the concept of having an age of consent wrong. From an intuitive perspective, an adult shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a baby and claim that the baby nodded after being asked if he/she wanted to have sex. Young children clearly don't understand the concept and consequences, so even if we can't agree on the exact age, sane people would generally say very young children clearly need to be protected.

But kids are sentient and according to Freud have their first sexual experiences around the age of 5 or six. Mechanically, so to speak, sex is relatively simple. So if a child understands it what`s wrong(I mean I KNOW it`s wrong but we have to be consistent)

[Divitaen]

1. Consensual incest, why not? If its non-reproductive, all the better. If it is, I can't ban people with genetic diseases from having children, so why should I stop cousins?

2. Bestiality is disgusting because it is between a person and an animal that cannot give consent. It is a form of animal abuse and rape. The right to privacy is between consenting adults.

3. The age of consent is morally arbitrary, but that doesn't make the concept of having an age of consent wrong. From an intuitive perspective, an adult shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a baby and claim that the baby nodded after being asked if he/she wanted to have sex. Young children clearly don't understand the concept and consequences, so even if we can't agree on the exact age, sane people would generally say very young children clearly need to be protected.

But kids are sentient and according to Freud have their first sexual experiences around the age of 5 or six. Mechanically, so to speak, sex is relatively simple. So if a child understands it what`s wrong(I mean I KNOW it`s wrong but we have to be consistent)

No it is still being consistent. Just because a child may have sexual experiences doesn't mean the child is able to understand how to give consent and how to take it back. It doesn't mean a child would not be intimidated by a grown adult into not being able to withdraw consent in a sexual scenario. There is so much complexity to understand sexual interaction and a child having sexual thoughts does not begin to justify that he or she is capable of giving consent.

[Communist Volkstrad]

1. Consensual incest, why not? If its non-reproductive, all the better. If it is, I can't ban people with genetic diseases from having children, so why should I stop cousins?

2. Bestiality is disgusting because it is between a person and an animal that cannot give consent. It is a form of animal abuse and rape. The right to privacy is between consenting adults.

3. The age of consent is morally arbitrary, but that doesn't make the concept of having an age of consent wrong. From an intuitive perspective, an adult shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a baby and claim that the baby nodded after being asked if he/she wanted to have sex. Young children clearly don't understand the concept and consequences, so even if we can't agree on the exact age, sane people would generally say very young children clearly need to be protected.

But kids are sentient and according to Freud have their first sexual experiences around the age of 5 or six. Mechanically, so to speak, sex is relatively simple. So if a child understands it what`s wrong(I mean I KNOW it`s wrong but we have to be consistent)

Because they don't fully understand the consequences of their actions until a later age.

[Manisdog]

The state can if it wants to

[Free Detroit]

Is it under any circumstances OK for person(s)A to impose their views on person(s)B if these views regard private life?
And if so how far does this extend?

1 What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex? for instance?

2 What about bestiality? That`s between a person and their property. And if you argue:``the animal cant`consent``then it can`t consent consent to being killed or milked either.

3 Age of consent is just the majority moral consensus on the question `` what age is it alright to have sex?`` So is n`t that sort of fascist too?

Why are all your "extreme" extensions related to taboo sex? There are other ways the public sphere can intrude into private life, y'know...

If that's what we're talking about then I tend to agree that other people's sex lives are not public business. Genetic and prenatal screening have made anti-incest laws mostly obsolete. Bestiality is simply too rare and specialized a tic for any government to bother with (the Danish government published a fairly long investigative report some years ago, to help decide if they should make it illegal - the answer was a resounding "meh").

Age of consent, as you claim, is set arbitrarily depending on the society and its customs; however, most societies have some firm guidelines on what is acceptable in that regard. Fascist? No. Arbitrary? Kind of, but that doesn't make age of consent laws wrong.

[Dakini]

Is it under any circumstances OK for person(s)A to impose their views on person(s)B if these views regard private life?
And if so how far does this extend?

1 What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex? for instance?

2 What about bestiality? That`s between a person and their property. And if you argue:``the animal cant`consent``then it can`t consent consent to being killed or milked either.

3 Age of consent is just the majority moral consensus on the question `` what age is it alright to have sex?`` So is n`t that sort of fascist too?

What is with you and incest, bestiality and age of consent? That's all you talked about in the OP of your thread that purported to be about the acceptance of LGBT rights too (a thread which is still on the first page, by the way).

[The Borderline Borderlands]

What is with you and incest, bestiality and age of consent? That's all you talked about in the OP of your thread that purported to be about the acceptance of LGBT rights too (a thread which is still on the first page, by the way).

Working on the perfect argument for some hot puppy love, maybe?

- I'm kidding, I'm kidding

[The State of Deseret]

Is it under any circumstances OK for person(s)A to impose their views on person(s)B if these views regard private life?
And if so how far does this extend?

1 What if it is consensual incestuous non reproductive sex? for instance?

2 What about bestiality? That`s between a person and their property. And if you argue:``the animal cant`consent``then it can`t consent consent to being killed or milked either.

3 Age of consent is just the majority moral consensus on the question `` what age is it alright to have sex?`` So is n`t that sort of fascist too?

No it is not. It is only okay for a person to enact restriction on someone to protect someone else.

1. This js fine.

2. This is so fine.

3. I guess it is but have a minor and major age to protect kids from being forced into sex with adults.