NATION

PASSWORD

Swedish Liberals want to legalise necrophilia and incest

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Nasjonal Regjering Norge
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 118
Founded: Feb 21, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Nasjonal Regjering Norge » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:11 pm

Disgusting degenerates.
a a a a a

User avatar
Hladgos
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24628
Founded: Feb 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Hladgos » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Sure, live your life, but educate on the dangers of zombie outbreak during intercourse. Keep your sisters and brothers close if that happens.
Divair wrote:Hladcore.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:You're a nut. I like that.
Pro: being outside, conserving our Earth, the pursuit of happiness, universal acceptance
Anti: ignorance and intolerance
Life is suffering. Suffering is caused by craving and aversion. Suffering can be overcome and happiness can be attained. Live a moral life.

"Life would be tragic if it weren't funny." -Stephen Hawking

"The purpose of our life is to be happy." -Dali Lama

"If I had no sense of humor, I would have long ago committed suicide." -Gandhi

"Don't worry, be happy!" -Bobby McFerrin

Silly Pride

"No." -Dya

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:36 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Silence means consent when it's coming from a corpse.

Dead gentlemen don't kiss and tell.


As long as someone in the lab doesn't slip and drop that vial.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Hugohk
Attaché
 
Posts: 85
Founded: Sep 12, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Hugohk » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:40 pm

Redsection wrote:Dear god , the left wants to do what ? This is just disturbing ...

I am really tired of this ignorance of political terms. Liberal really only means leftist in the United states.
The word isn't synonymous with leftist in most of europe. They want a limited government and such.
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.


Contrary to popular belief, 98% of people would not cry if facebook shut down.
98% of people mindlessly repost any fucking quote that has a statistic in it though.

User avatar
Hyggemata
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Oct 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:26 pm

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.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 154099
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby 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.

So no more posthumous organ donation? Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?
no war but class war
He/Him

User avatar
Hyggemata
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Oct 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:48 pm

Ifreann wrote:
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.

So no more posthumous organ donation?
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?

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.
Last edited by Hyggemata on Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good

User avatar
Coalition of Minor Planets
Diplomat
 
Posts: 604
Founded: Jan 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Coalition of Minor Planets » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:05 pm

Hyggemata wrote:
Ifreann wrote:So no more posthumous organ donation?
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?

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

User avatar
Hyggemata
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Oct 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby 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

The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?
Last edited by Hyggemata on Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 154099
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:38 pm

Hyggemata wrote:
Ifreann wrote:So no more posthumous organ donation?
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?

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.
no war but class war
He/Him

User avatar
Western Vale Confederacy
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9211
Founded: Nov 09, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Western Vale Confederacy » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:56 pm

Are people genuinely trying to tell us sex with a dead body is "okay"?

User avatar
Chinese Peoples
Minister
 
Posts: 2666
Founded: Dec 28, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

There is a legal distinction to be made.
IC Title: the Republic of China | MT | Factbooks | the only democratic China on NS
The duty of the state is to prevent danger, not to punish it after it has happened. Rescind the 2nd Amendment, today.

User avatar
Coalition of Minor Planets
Diplomat
 
Posts: 604
Founded: Jan 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby 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?


If not, then your idea of needing consent for SEX becomes pretty moot.

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?

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38554
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby 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.


It should be legalised. Because Freedom.

User avatar
Susria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 582
Founded: Sep 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Susria » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:21 pm

And every liberal reassured us that the stair-step analogy was a fallacious argument... Nice try.
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
Voltaire

"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool."
Plato

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."
Locke

"To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity."
Nietzsche

"If the triangles made a god, they would give him three sides."
Montesquieu
Moralist. Galtonist. Third Position-ist. Statist.
Bit of a Strasserist, to be honest.
Male. INTJ. East Slavic.
It's cute that you think I will ever care what you think of me.

User avatar
Hyggemata
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Oct 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:28 pm

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote:The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?


If not, then your idea of needing consent for SEX becomes pretty moot.

My idea of what sex is isn't relevant. It's the definition under Swedish law that is under controversy here.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:If people can consent to having their corpses sliced up for art pieces, why not this?
Because it's different. The legal relationship between that and two persons having sex is different. Cf. my original post.

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.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good

User avatar
Greater Istanistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4978
Founded: May 15, 2013
New York Times Democracy

Postby Greater Istanistan » Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:13 pm

Honestly, this harms nobody and should basically be up to the individuals involved. I see no reason other than the gut squick factor why either necrophilia or sibling incest above the age of consent should be forbidden, so long as the government puts on free Game of Thrones to remind us why incest babies are bad. Neither one would be something I'd do, but at the same time I see no reason why others shouldn't be allowed to make adult decisions about their private lives.
ASK ME ABOUT HARUHIISM

DYNASTIES ARE THEFT/IMPEACH REINHARD/YANG WENLI 2020

"I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won." - Norman Thomas

User avatar
Coalition of Minor Planets
Diplomat
 
Posts: 604
Founded: Jan 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Coalition of Minor Planets » Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:43 pm

Hyggemata wrote:
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
If not, then your idea of needing consent for SEX becomes pretty moot.

My idea of what sex is isn't relevant. It's the definition under Swedish law that is under controversy here.


Incorrect. We weren't discussing the current law, but what the law should be.

Hyggemata wrote:
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:If people can consent to having their corpses sliced up for art pieces, why not this?
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'

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.

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?

User avatar
Hyggemata
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Oct 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Hyggemata » Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:48 pm

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote:My idea of what sex is isn't relevant. It's the definition under Swedish law that is under controversy here.


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.
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'

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.

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?

Something that is not criminal can still be against civil law, in case you didn't know. Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal. 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.
Last edited by Hyggemata on Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good

User avatar
Coalition of Minor Planets
Diplomat
 
Posts: 604
Founded: Jan 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


And despite your claim, it is not the controversy being discussed. The issue at hand is about legalizing acts of incest and necrophilia.


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.


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.

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.


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.


That directly contradicts your own statements about it.

Hyggemata wrote:Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not.





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




Here, let's try a straightforward question: Why, in your mind, should the government keep a consensual, victimless act illegal?

User avatar
Hyggemata
Diplomat
 
Posts: 873
Founded: Oct 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

I have controverted it. It is a material subject at hand given the topic of this thread.


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.

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.

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.

I don't argue whether there is a point to this, and that is another reason why necrophilia should not be considered sex if one is disposed to doing it. As long as the specific act is decriminalized and the law does not otherwise regard it as sex, it would be legal. <— This has been my point the entire time.


Hyggemata wrote:Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.


That directly contradicts your own statements about it.

Hyggemata wrote:Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not.


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.


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

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.



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.
Last edited by Hyggemata on Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good

User avatar
Lamaredia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1546
Founded: May 25, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby 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?

If we were to consider the human body an object as such, then it would be no different than using a fleshlight.
Currently representing the SLP/R, Leading to a brighter future, in the NS Parliament RP as Representative Jonas Trägårdh Apelstierna.

Currently a co-admin of the NS Parliament RP

Political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

Result


Political test = Social Democrat
Cosmopolitan – 15%
Communistic - 44%
Anarchistic - 28%
Visionary - 50%
Secular - 53%
Pacifist - 12%
Anthropocentric– 16%

Result


Socio-Economic Ideology = Social Democracy
Social Democracy = 100%
Democratic Socialism = 83%
Anarchism 58%


Result
Last edited by Lamaredia on Fri June 07, 2019 1:05 AM, edited 52 times in total.

User avatar
Coalition of Minor Planets
Diplomat
 
Posts: 604
Founded: Jan 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


Consent can be made before death. That's already a legal reality. Otherwise you would have no legal say in how your remains are handled/disposed.

Hyggemata wrote:
Hyggemata wrote:Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.


That directly contradicts your own statements about it.

Hyggemata wrote:Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not.


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.


That is, in fact, a statement of opposition to it. You quite clearly stated that you think it should NOT be legalized.


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.


You're the one contradicting yourself. That's not my fault

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.


So what you're saying is that you fully intend to avoid the question rather than answer it. The fact is that you stated support for keeping it illegal. I'm just asking you why

User avatar
Threlizdun
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15623
Founded: Jun 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Threlizdun » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:37 pm

Sure consensual sexual activity should always be legal, and if someone gives written consent to let others fuck their corpses after death I really don't give a shit. It creeps me the hell out, but that's not a legitimate objection. If there's no harm in it, it shouldn't be illegal.
Communalist, Social Ecologist, Bioregionalist,
Sex-Positive Feminist, Queer, Trans-woman, Polyamorous

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

If we've been friendly in the past and you want to keep in touch, shoot me a telegram

User avatar
Enfaru
Minister
 
Posts: 2921
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby 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?


Disgusting probably but apart from the eek factor. What's the problem?

Turns out children produced by incest have a similar rate of problems to those born to parents over the age of 40. In other words if your argument is down to, "Oh but they won't produce viable offspring." Then that's something not borne out by facts. They will and in some cases, they could be more viable than couples who delay having children for up to three decades. Assuming both are over the age of 18 and are mentally capable of making informed decisions and both can be independent should they wish to be, then I don't see a problem. Sure, it's yucky to me, but it's not my bedroom so I'm staying out of it. If it becomes a problem later then the government can review the situation.

Necrophilia is...just downright weird. However. Dead thing is dead and now an inanimate object. You could try taxidermy and suddenly you have a relatively life like partner that doesn't get drunk, isn't abusive, doesn't cheat... and doesn't require feeding and checking that they have everything they need for their job. Suddenly, it doesn't seem like such a bad hobby. If and I mean IF we take "religiousness" out of the equation for the moment and assume the human body isn't somehow divine. I mean, properly sterilized and cared for then... there isn't *really* a problem here. Include religiousness and well, now we have Armageddon.

Both issues are as I said early...yucky, but I can't see of any "health grounds" that say it's a bad idea. I mean, they haven't changed for centuries, the difference now is that we have condoms, family planning clinics, treatments for various diseases etcetera. We can cure quite a lot of the defects in children pre-natal through being born to either older parents or incest. We can even pick and choose which embryos are carried to term.

I'm not sure about you, but when I pick a partner, I don't ask for the health details of their parents, grand parents and great grand parents, aunts, uncles and cousins to check for problems. Of course if I choose to have a child with any of these people I run a distinct risk of the family being a "carrier" of certain problems and having a defective child. In some cases, with incest, where you know what you're getting...

Nope. Can't see a problem.
Sovereign Charter Quick Links
Factbook · Role-plays · RMB · Map (Origin | Quantum) · Chat · Members: 73
Myraxia: One does not learn to GM; One throws oneself in and prays they don't fuck up too badly.
Game Master
Founder of the Sovereign Charter,
4th President and,
Tutor of the College of Theatrics

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grinning Dragon, Ifreann, Jewish Underground State, Life empire, Luna Amore, Makko Oko, Ranoria, The Jamesian Republic, The Reformed American Republic, Vistulange

Advertisement

Remove ads