NationStates

Syrixia wrote:Bang whoever you wanna bang. Your rights, your dong, and your inbreeding consequences.

Inbreeding, or maggots in horrible places. Depends on whether the object of sexual desire is alive or not.

Latlandia wrote:Where did I mentioned all libetals in general?? I was talking about THOSE Swedish liberals what is this thread about. Of course, someone is always pissed off.
About the govenment fucking off, I suggest anarchy. Anyone can use heavy drugs, steal, kill people and basically do everything that`s illegal. Government is needed to keep things normal.

You attributed this to Swedish Liberal necrophiliacs who practice incest. I'm none of those things. I'd say that the reason I don't tell the government to fuck off in every single regard is precisely because I don't support anarchy. But anarchy isn't the question of this thread. Why don't you tell me exactly why people shouldn't be allowed to have consensual sex with dead bodies and relatives to their depraved hearts content?

Aelex wrote:

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:So, lacking a reason to be illegal, they should go ahead and get rid of laws against it....which would mean it would be legal

If there is no law stopping you from marrying your cat, it's thus not illegal.
But if there is no law letting you do it neither, it's thus not legal.
Incest should stay in this middle-state, in this "limbo", where it's kind of a loophole and neither expressively accepted nor forbidden.

That is incorrect. If something is not prohibited by law, then it is legal.

You're just describing legal, but then portraying it as somehow between legal and illegal

Ifreann wrote:Obviously it's cruel to animals. But why are you asking? Your assertion that people will support bestiality has been shown wrong. Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.

Should it still be legal if it wasn't curel to animals? Just asking as last time i checked cats aren't exactly popular when talking about bestiality. In fact, most popular are dogs and horses and they (mostly dogs) jump upon their partner themselves.
Sure there should be strict rules regarding the rights of an animal in terms of bestiality but in general it certainly doesn't have to be cruel towards the animals.

New DeCapito wrote:

Syrixia wrote:Bang whoever you wanna bang. Your rights, your dong, and your inbreeding consequences.

Inbreeding, or maggots in horrible places. Depends on whether the object of sexual desire is alive or not.

I'm sure you can realize many ways to avoid inbreeding while still having incest.

Des-Bal wrote:

Latlandia wrote:Where did I mentioned all libetals in general?? I was talking about THOSE Swedish liberals what is this thread about. Of course, someone is always pissed off.
About the govenment fucking off, I suggest anarchy. Anyone can use heavy drugs, steal, kill people and basically do everything that`s illegal. Government is needed to keep things normal.

You attributed this to Swedish Liberal necrophiliacs who practice incest. I'm none of those things. I'd say that the reason I don't tell the government to fuck off in every single regard is precisely because I don't support anarchy. But anarchy isn't the question of this thread. Why don't you tell me exactly why people shouldn't be allowed to have consensual sex with dead bodies and relatives to their depraved hearts content?

Freedom... Then I have the freedom to express my political views too- I think necrophilia or incest are just weird and unacceptable. Period.

Latlandia wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
You attributed this to Swedish Liberal necrophiliacs who practice incest. I'm none of those things. I'd say that the reason I don't tell the government to fuck off in every single regard is precisely because I don't support anarchy. But anarchy isn't the question of this thread. Why don't you tell me exactly why people shouldn't be allowed to have consensual sex with dead bodies and relatives to their depraved hearts content?

Freedom... Then I have the freedom to express my political views too- I think necrophilia or incest are just weird and unacceptable. Period.

Let's see.

Suppose some guy has sex with his twin brother.

This guy gets arrested and put in prison.

I as taxpayer need to pay the bill for his prison term, and suffer from the economic damage that results from taking a man out of the workforce.

What is the benefit for me in doing so?

Latlandia wrote:Freedom... Then I have the freedom to express my political views too- I think necrophilia or incest are just weird and unacceptable. Period.

I'm not telling you not to state your opinions I'm asking you if you have any justification for opposing the legalization except of necrophilia and incest except for a desire to restrict people's freedom to do things you find "weird".

Allanea wrote:

Latlandia wrote:Freedom... Then I have the freedom to express my political views too- I think necrophilia or incest are just weird and unacceptable. Period.

Let's see.

Suppose some guy has sex with his twin brother.

This guy gets arrested and put in prison.

I as taxpayer need to pay the bill for his prison term, and suffer from the economic damage that results from taking a man out of the workforce.

What is the benefit for me in doing so?

Yes, let`s free all the prisoners!

Latlandia wrote:Yes, let`s free all the prisoners!

No, let's arrest everybody! clapemoticon clapemoticon clapemoticon.

You're not saying anything. Why should these particular acts not be legalized.

Allanea wrote:

Latlandia wrote:Freedom... Then I have the freedom to express my political views too- I think necrophilia or incest are just weird and unacceptable. Period.

Let's see.

Suppose some guy has sex with his twin brother.

This guy gets arrested and put in prison.

I as taxpayer need to pay the bill for his prison term, and suffer from the economic damage that results from taking a man out of the workforce.

What is the benefit for me in doing so?

That would be some really weird stuff to see... Looking at yourself while you're doing yourself?

Anyhow you're right, in the end keeping it illegal only brings us negativity.

Latlandia wrote:

Allanea wrote:
Let's see.

Suppose some guy has sex with his twin brother.

This guy gets arrested and put in prison.

I as taxpayer need to pay the bill for his prison term, and suffer from the economic damage that results from taking a man out of the workforce.

What is the benefit for me in doing so?

Yes, let`s free all the prisoners!

The logic behind most crimes is that there is posited to be some harm to the public.

Murder is posited to harm the victim.

Rape obviously harms the victim.

Failing to pay taxes is posited to harm society. Using illegal drugs is posited to indirectly harm society in various ways (though I disagree, I'm just talking about the official rationale).

What is the harm to society posed by incest between a man and his twin brother?

Allanea wrote:Suppose some guy has sex with his twin brother.

Rule 34.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Hyggemata wrote: I have been telling you that consent cannot be given when unconscious. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT CONSENT CANNOT BE GIVEN WHILE UNCONSCIOUS. If you have counterproof under Swedish law, let's see it. If you can legally construe a dead person to be conscious, let's also see it.

Which, if you had bothered to pay attention, has nothing to do with my statement. Giving consent while unconscious has exactly nothing to do with any of the arguments. You seem steadfastly intend on diverting towards irrelevancies.

So you don't think the integrity of a dead body, if not important to the dead person (whose legal interest may or may not be protected), is equally unimportant to survivors?

Let's drop the language questions, because that is evolving in a direction that is actually irrelevant to this thread. All that you (pl.) need to know about all my previous posts (and consider all of them withdrawn at this point and replaced with this one) is that I attempt to illustrate the legal relationships between the parties involved. If you don't find a legal argument, then don't argue with me. Let my post dangle in the air, or something. My opinion about necrophilia comes nowhere into this discussion; my opinion about the legal implications of abolishing the specific clause in the Swedish criminal code, however, is exactly what I have been stating.

Unfortunately, you also refuse to answer a question that you have yet to answer. Reading your mind has nothing to do with it. I only read your posts. If you don't post what you mean.....well that is firmly on you.

I post what I mean, but what I mean is not necessarily what I think to be right or correct. I can mean what other people think.

Allow me to ask you an even easier question: do you want such sex acts to be illegal or legal?

I take no position. If the Swedes make it legal, so be it. If they don't, so be it. I'm not Swedish; I don't intend to become Swedish in the near future. In fact, I will rule out immigrating to Sweden in the near future because they already have enough refugees seeking their help. If I don't go to Sweden, perhaps they can take in another refugee. I don't care about this minute detail in their legal system. I care about making intricate arguments about their laws.

Even ignoring the ethical issue - government projects are generally things that are believed to be to the benefit of all society. Nobody would agree to just grab government money and give it to a random person because it benefits them.

What benefit is there to me, the taxpayer, for paying for the imprisonment of Tim and Joe the Gay Twin Lovers?

Incest, yeah, sure, as long as both parties are of age and consent (obviously). It's not like it being illegal stops people from doing it if they are so inclined.

Necrophilia, no, because of the obvious health hazards and the tiny little fact that dead people can't give consent.

Ayreonia wrote:Incest, yeah, sure, as long as both parties are of age and consent (obviously). It's not like it being illegal stops people from doing it if they are so inclined.

Necrophilia, no, because of the obvious health hazards and the tiny little fact that dead people can't give consent.

Vibrators can't give consent.

Ayreonia wrote:Incest, yeah, sure, as long as both parties are of age and consent (obviously). It's not like it being illegal stops people from doing it if they are so inclined.

Necrophilia, no, because of the obvious health hazards and the tiny little fact that dead people can't give consent.

The health hazards don't seem to be that big and chairs can't consent either. No one will stop you from fucking a chair except the manager of the IKEA.

Pommerstan wrote:

The youth wing of the Swedish Liberal party has filed a motion to legalize necrophilia and incest

They want to legalize sex between two consenting siblings over the age of 15, and sex with a corpse if there is a written permission made before the person died.

'We don't like morality laws in general, and this legislation is not protecting anyone right now,' Cecilia Johnsson, Liberal Youth chairperson in Stockholm told Aftonbladet.

'We are a youth wing and one of our tasks is to think one step further.

It also said that if a person has stated in a written will that they consent to someone having sex with their corpse, this should also be legal.

'It should be your own decision what happens with your body after you die, and if that happens to be that you want to bequeath your remains to a museum or to science, or if you want to bequeath your remains to someone to sleep with them, then that should be ok,' Ms Johnsson adds.

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?

I'd take it a step farther and say that nothing done to a corpse should be criminalized, regardless of whether there is consent. They're no longer persons after all, and hence cannot be victims. In all honesty however, the whole affair seems sort of irrelevant. I mean, how many necrophiles or incestuous people are there?

Ayreonia wrote:Incest, yeah, sure, as long as both parties are of age and consent (obviously). It's not like it being illegal stops people from doing it if they are so inclined.

Necrophilia, no, because of the obvious health hazards and the tiny little fact that dead people can't give consent.

So you're against organ donation aswell? Last time i checked dead people couldn't give consent to that either. Its stated in the OP that those who seeking to legalise it do request that a written consent should be present in terms of the nexrophilia. So by the usuall "when i die" standards they actually can give consent to it.

Rostogovia wrote:

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?

I'd take it a step farther and say that nothing done to a corpse should be criminalized, regardless of whether there is consent. They're no longer persons after all, and hence cannot be victims. In all honesty however, the whole affair seems sort of irrelevant. I mean, how many necrophiles or incestuous people are there?

Considering there aren't actuall numbers i'd say more than one would expect.
On the other part i disagree though, except when the dead person in general gave consent to said actions to be done after his/her death. Even though they're dead i do think we should still show some respect to them.

Allanea wrote:Even ignoring the ethical issue - government projects are generally things that are believed to be to the benefit of all society. Nobody would agree to just grab government money and give it to a random person because it benefits them.

What benefit is there to me, the taxpayer, for paying for the imprisonment of Tim and Joe the Gay Twin Lovers?

People`s money shouldn`t be spent on prisoners. There is a solution- the prisoners should work in special camps to earn the money for themselves for food.
There is another solution for the prisoners- paying money instead of being imprisoned, since it doesn`t harm the society, as you said before.

Pommerstan wrote:

The youth wing of the Swedish Liberal party has filed a motion to legalize necrophilia and incest

They want to legalize sex between two consenting siblings over the age of 15, and sex with a corpse if there is a written permission made before the person died.

'We don't like morality laws in general, and this legislation is not protecting anyone right now,' Cecilia Johnsson, Liberal Youth chairperson in Stockholm told Aftonbladet.

'We are a youth wing and one of our tasks is to think one step further.

It also said that if a person has stated in a written will that they consent to someone having sex with their corpse, this should also be legal.

'It should be your own decision what happens with your body after you die, and if that happens to be that you want to bequeath your remains to a museum or to science, or if you want to bequeath your remains to someone to sleep with them, then that should be ok,' Ms Johnsson adds.

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?

Doesn't incest cause numerous diseases? But hey, if they want to use Dark Age "science" and call it a "new way of thinking", let them. We should probably tell them that dragons exist, and the only way to prevent a dragon from eating you is to throw a bacteria ridden pig carcass into a well and then drink from the well. We should call it "a very new way of thinking". Or just move them to Flint, Michigan.

Latlandia wrote:

Allanea wrote:
Let's see.

Suppose some guy has sex with his twin brother.

This guy gets arrested and put in prison.

I as taxpayer need to pay the bill for his prison term, and suffer from the economic damage that results from taking a man out of the workforce.

What is the benefit for me in doing so?

Yes, let`s free all the prisoners!

Yay straw man to avoid answering a valid question!

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Latlandia wrote:Yes, let`s free all the prisoners!

Yay straw man to avoid answering a valid question!

fail for you, dude...Seems like you haven`t read the thread, cause my solutions for this are at this page, look up.