Advertisement
by Hladgos » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:21 pm
by Gauthier » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:36 pm
by Hugohk » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:40 pm
Redsection wrote:Dear god , the left wants to do what ? This is just disturbing ...
Crysuko wrote:Confederate Ramenia wrote:How did fascism become to "anarchists" and leftists in general what degeneracy is to "traditionalists" and other conservatives?
Because fascism has a track record of murder and oppression. "degeneracy" is a nebulously defined bogeyman cried by fascists and the like at stuff they disaprove of.
by Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:26 pm
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Ifreann » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:33 pm
Hyggemata wrote:Incest should be legalized.
Necrophilia I thought should not. It violates the principle of present consent. A dead person cannot give consent, nor can a person in a coma or asleep.
by Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:48 pm
When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.
Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:05 pm
Hyggemata wrote:When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.Ifreann wrote:So no more posthumous organ donation?Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?
When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.
So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.
by Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:07 pm
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Hyggemata wrote:When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.
When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.
So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.
Your argument is based on the mistaken assumption that people cannot have sex with objects. That's actually something done very often
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Ifreann » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:38 pm
Hyggemata wrote:When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.Ifreann wrote:So no more posthumous organ donation?Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?
When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.
So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.
by Western Vale Confederacy » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:56 pm
by Chinese Peoples » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:53 pm
Ifreann wrote:Hyggemata wrote:When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.
When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.
So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.
...
Don't be such a sillypants.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:56 pm
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Your argument is based on the mistaken assumption that people cannot have sex with objects. That's actually something done very often
The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:21 pm
San Lumen wrote:What insanity is this? Legalize Necrophilia and incest? Are these people out of their Vulcan minds? It would never get passed by any parliament nor do i see any court ruling in favor of it.
by Susria » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:21 pm
by Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:28 pm
Because it's different. The legal relationship between that and two persons having sex is different. Cf. my original post.Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:If people can consent to having their corpses sliced up for art pieces, why not this?
I'd also support legalizing it from a general opposition to victimless crimes. Why punish someone for something that harmed no one?
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Greater Istanistan » Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:13 pm
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:43 pm
Hyggemata wrote:I'd also support legalizing it from a general opposition to victimless crimes. Why punish someone for something that harmed no one?
I said I support decriminalizing it. Decriminalized = no criminal punishment.
by Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:48 pm
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Hyggemata wrote:Because it's different. The legal relationship between that and two persons having sex is different. Cf. my original post.
"Because it's different" isn't a real answer any more than "because I said so". The legal relationship is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The topic at hand is about changing the law, not 'what is the current law'
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Hyggemata wrote:I said I support decriminalizing it. Decriminalized = no criminal punishment.
You stated that you are opposed to it being legal, which means you support having a law against it. What's the point of a law against something if there is going to be nothing done about it?
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:12 pm
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Incorrect. We weren't discussing the current law, but what the law should be.
The question here pertains to "legalization of necrophilia", not changing the legal definition of what sex is. Unless another law is passed to change the legal definition of sex, it stays where it is.
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
"Because it's different" isn't a real answer any more than "because I said so". The legal relationship is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The topic at hand is about changing the law, not 'what is the current law'
The legal relationship is perfectly relevant to the discussion. How can you say that the legal relationship between the two persons isn't relevant when they are about to enter a consensual relationship? That both parties are consenting adults is the foundation of modern sexual norms. If you believe that a person who cannot legally give consent should be having sex, then go right ahead. People in coma will thank you for it.
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:You stated that you are opposed to it being legal, which means you support having a law against it. What's the point of a law against something if there is going to be nothing done about it?
Something that is not criminal can still be against civil law, in case you didn't know.
Hyggemata wrote:Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.
Hyggemata wrote:I am only stating that even if the specific offence called necrophilia were to become abolished, it might still remain criminal under articles penalizing other sexual offences.
by Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:35 pm
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Hyggemata wrote:The question here pertains to "legalization of necrophilia", not changing the legal definition of what sex is. Unless another law is passed to change the legal definition of sex, it stays where it is.
And despite your claim, it is not the controversy being discussed. The issue at hand is about legalizing acts of incest and necrophilia.
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Hyggemata wrote:The legal relationship is perfectly relevant to the discussion. How can you say that the legal relationship between the two persons isn't relevant when they are about to enter a consensual relationship? That both parties are consenting adults is the foundation of modern sexual norms. If you believe that a person who cannot legally give consent should be having sex, then go right ahead. People in coma will thank you for it.
The legal relationship would be the same: consenting adults making consensual decisions. We already know that people can legally consent for things after their death.
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Hyggemata wrote:Something that is not criminal can still be against civil law, in case you didn't know.
No criminal punishment =/= no punishment. Obviously there wouldn't be any point to having it against civil law: no one would be in a position to seek redress under such a law given the fact that they would be dead.
Hyggemata wrote:Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Hyggemata wrote:I am only stating that even if the specific offence called necrophilia were to become abolished, it might still remain criminal under articles penalizing other sexual offences.
No, you were stating that you don't think it should be legalized. Then you said it wasn't about criminal law, but about civil law. Now you just seem kind of confused about what you mean
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Here, let's try a straightforward question: Why, in your mind, should the government keep a consensual, victimless act illegal?
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Lamaredia » Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:55 pm
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Your argument is based on the mistaken assumption that people cannot have sex with objects. That's actually something done very often
The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:03 pm
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
The legal relationship would be the same: consenting adults making consensual decisions. We already know that people can legally consent for things after their death.
Do you realize what are the differences between a consent to sex and a contractual obligation? Please go find out before coming back to me. A dead person is no longer an "adult capable of giving consent", unless you somehow make it speak. Consent cannot be delivered by testament.
Hyggemata wrote:Hyggemata wrote:Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.
That directly contradicts your own statements about it.
That is not the same as saying that I oppose it. I thought it should not be legalized because at this point all they are proposing is decriminalization, which is not the same as legalization. The decriminalized law still opposes it, not I.
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
No, you were stating that you don't think it should be legalized. Then you said it wasn't about criminal law, but about civil law. Now you just seem kind of confused about what you mean
I'm not confused about what I mean. My point has been one and the same throughout, and it was you who insisted on splitting hairs with my posts.
Hyggemata wrote:Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:Here, let's try a straightforward question: Why, in your mind, should the government keep a consensual, victimless act illegal?
There is no reason, and I don't dispute that. I am saying that necrophilia, even if decriminalized, may remain illegal if regarded as sex, and I justified my argument on legal grounds. It's not an argument about right or wrong, it's about legal and illegal. I hope you will be able to see the difference between these two notions.
by Threlizdun » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:37 pm
by Enfaru » Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:44 am
Pommerstan wrote:
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... enior.html
Since it is from the Daily Mail I shall post from swedish mainstream media because it was the only english source I could find: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22305329.ab
I personally do not agree with this and think it is to bit far. So, what the NSG audience say about this proposal? Should necropfilia and incest be legalised?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, AJTON, Diarcesia, Eahland, Europa Undivided, Ifreann, ImSaLiA, Ineva, Kerwa, Kostane, Majestic-12 [Bot], Maximum Imperium Rex, Shrillland, Soul Reapers, The Jamesian Republic, Washington Resistance Army, Welskerland
Advertisement