NationStates

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:00 pm**

As much as I'd want to go "meh, do whatever the hell you like but don't come crying to me with your three eyed children and your dick falling off", I'm going to say it should probably not be legalized.

The first and most obvious reason, is that Sweden is a very cold country and therefore attempting to shag a corpse might mean you end up stuck to/in it.
I also like to think that in a civilised circumstance we'd have a bit more respect for the dead.

As for incest, there should be a line drawn somewhere to minimize genetic risk in the population. Legalising it would be a wrong move.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:02 pm**

Shofercia 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?

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.

In what way would incest cause diseases? Does sexual contact cause diseases? Aside from pregnancies and STD's, no. So unless you want to question sex in general, there isn't any real problem.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:06 pm**

Hyggemata wrote:
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
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 need to know about all my previous posts (and consider all of them withdrawn at this point and replaced with this one) is that I attempt to illustrate the legal relationships between the parties involved.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.

The issue at hand isn't current law, but the direction of the law in the future.

Hyggemata wrote:
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.

If you intentionally present someone else's opinion as your own, then that is clearly on you.

Hyggemata wrote:
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.

So you are intent on avoiding the question. I didn't ask you anything about Sweden.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:07 pm**

Allanea wrote:
Arioslavia wrote:Disgusting and disgraceful. But Sweden is heading towards cultural suicide for a long time so no surprise

People have been predicting Swedish Cultural Suicide for literally as long as I can remember doing political debate on the Internet.

It's to the point someone puts cuckold porn on the internet and half the people who see it will assume it's a documentary on Sweden.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:07 pm**

Shamhnan Insir wrote:As much as I'd want to go "meh, do whatever the hell you like but don't come crying to me with your three eyed children and your dick falling off", I'm going to say it should probably not be legalized.

The first and most obvious reason, is that Sweden is a very cold country and therefore attempting to shag a corpse might mean you end up stuck to/in it.
I also like to think that in a civilised circumstance we'd have a bit more respect for the dead.

As for incest, there should be a line drawn somewhere to minimize genetic risk in the population. Legalising it would be a wrong move.

Because necrophilia only takes place in the winter and outdoors... Necrophiles aren't some strange nephews of werewolves you know, they're normal people just like you and me, they just like shagging corpses.

As for the respect part, as stated in the OP, the dead person should give a written consent before his/her death, which in my view would be enough.

The last part is just a matter of education, nothing more and nothing less. We shouldn't ban things because a minority doesn't get it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:08 pm**

Hjallaland wrote:
Shamhnan Insir wrote:As much as I'd want to go "meh, do whatever the hell you like but don't come crying to me with your three eyed children and your dick falling off", I'm going to say it should probably not be legalized.

The first and most obvious reason, is that Sweden is a very cold country and therefore attempting to shag a corpse might mean you end up stuck to/in it.
I also like to think that in a civilised circumstance we'd have a bit more respect for the dead.

As for incest, there should be a line drawn somewhere to minimize genetic risk in the population. Legalising it would be a wrong move.

Because necrophilia only takes place in the winter and outdoors... Necrophiles aren't some strange nephews of werewolves you know, they're normal people just like you and me, they just like shagging corpses.

As for the respect part, as stated in the OP, the dead person should give a written consent before his/her death, which in my view would be enough.

The last part is just a matter of education, nothing more and nothing less. We shouldn't ban things because a minority doesn't get it.

If I shag someone or something, I prefer to know if it's enjoying it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:10 pm**

Shamhnan Insir wrote:As much as I'd want to go "meh, do whatever the hell you like but don't come crying to me with your three eyed children and your dick falling off", I'm going to say it should probably not be legalized.

The first and most obvious reason, is that Sweden is a very cold country and therefore attempting to shag a corpse might mean you end up stuck to/in it.
I also like to think that in a civilised circumstance we'd have a bit more respect for the dead.

As for incest, there should be a line drawn somewhere to minimize genetic risk in the population. Legalising it would be a wrong move.

So age limits on sex? And those carrying genes for significant health problems prohibited from having sex?

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:12 pm**

Latlandia wrote:
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
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.

How is your fondness for straw men a failure on my part?

I read the thread...how does your halfhearted attempt to change course in a post you didn't even post until after I started responding imply that I didn't read before responding?

Forced labor to offset some of the costs of imprisonment still harms the economy in comparison to them just having normal jobs and NOT needing to fund guards, jails, courts, etc.

So any chance you'll answer the valid question?

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:13 pm**

Hjallaland wrote:
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.

That's two, then.

Shofercia 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?

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.

Incest doesn't cause diseases.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:15 pm**

Hjallaland wrote:
Shamhnan Insir wrote:As much as I'd want to go "meh, do whatever the hell you like but don't come crying to me with your three eyed children and your dick falling off", I'm going to say it should probably not be legalized.

The first and most obvious reason, is that Sweden is a very cold country and therefore attempting to shag a corpse might mean you end up stuck to/in it.
I also like to think that in a civilised circumstance we'd have a bit more respect for the dead.

As for incest, there should be a line drawn somewhere to minimize genetic risk in the population. Legalising it would be a wrong move.

Because necrophilia only takes place in the winter and outdoors... Necrophiles aren't some strange nephews of werewolves you know, they're normal people just like you and me, they just like shagging corpses.

As for the respect part, as stated in the OP, the dead person should give a written consent before his/her death, which in my view would be enough.

The last part is just a matter of education, nothing more and nothing less. We shouldn't ban things because a minority doesn't get it.

It's a corpse, if you keep that in the house, its going to; stink, leave stains and possibly get chewed by pets. Therefore outdoors is probably a better bet.

We educate kids to death about sex and protection, and still we have high rates of youth and teenage pregnancy. Besides accidents happen at the best of times anyway so education is moot.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:21 pm**

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Shamhnan Insir wrote:As much as I'd want to go "meh, do whatever the hell you like but don't come crying to me with your three eyed children and your dick falling off", I'm going to say it should probably not be legalized.

The first and most obvious reason, is that Sweden is a very cold country and therefore attempting to shag a corpse might mean you end up stuck to/in it.
I also like to think that in a civilised circumstance we'd have a bit more respect for the dead.

As for incest, there should be a line drawn somewhere to minimize genetic risk in the population. Legalising it would be a wrong move.

So age limits on sex? And those carrying genes for significant health problems prohibited from having sex?

Where do I mention anything about age limits?
Many carry genetic health concerns and never know about it. There is always a chance of transferal to any offspring. However, incest is more than likely to lead to health problems, that's why it's such a danger. You'd like for there to be more genetic illness in the world?

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:23 pm**

Incest tends to cause more likelihood of a virus to spread and increase the risk of children being born with serious medical conditions, so it most certainly does harm people. This is not liberalism, this is insanity. Necrophilia not only increases the risk of disease and infection of those involved in it but it can also cause an increase in epidemics, depending on what the person died of. In my honest opinion, anyone who is this crazy needs to be institutionalized.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:25 pm**

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Latlandia wrote:fail for you, dude...Seems like you haven`t read the thread, cause my solutions for this are at this page, look up.

How is your fondness for straw men a failure on my part?

I mean, you didn't see I gave my actual answer later. But whatever- I'm tired of this thread, and I've shared my thoughts on this. I've said and explained what I wanted to, so I don't see the reason to stay on this thread.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:29 pm**

Shamhnan Insir wrote:As much as I'd want to go "meh, do whatever the hell you like but don't come crying to me with your three eyed children and your dick falling off", I'm going to say it should probably not be legalized.

The first and most obvious reason, is that Sweden is a very cold country and therefore attempting to shag a corpse might mean you end up stuck to/in it.
I also like to think that in a civilised circumstance we'd have a bit more respect for the dead.

As for incest, there should be a line drawn somewhere to minimize genetic risk in the population. Legalising it would be a wrong move.

One last thing I'd like to point out- Sweden is not very cold. Most people live in tge south part, where the capital is located also. It's not continental climate there, so not much colder than the average Europe, except if you live far up north.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:34 pm**

Hjallaland wrote:
Shofercia wrote:
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.

In what way would incest cause diseases? Does sexual contact cause diseases? Aside from pregnancies and STD's, no. So unless you want to question sex in general, there isn't any real problem.

While sexual act itself doesn't cause diseases, inbreeding does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreedin ... _disorders

But hey, if people want to fuck their siblings and it's all consensual, they should go for it. In my book it's kind of utterly pathetic that you cannot find someone other than your siblings to fuck you, but to each their own. After all, there's only 7 billion people in the World, finding someone is indeed a very tough task. Maybe those who are failures at finding someone, can also fuck dead people. I guess that's the new "thinking forward".

So sure, X can do both of those activities, but if X does, then perhaps, just perhaps, X shouldn't act all stunned when most of the people look at X as an utter failure. Or is looking at someone in a mean way now a crime?

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:37 pm**

Shamhnan Insir wrote:
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
So age limits on sex? And those carrying genes for significant health problems prohibited from having sex?

Where do I mention anything about age limits?
Many carry genetic health concerns and never know about it. There is always a chance of transferal to any offspring. However, incest is more than likely to lead to health problems, that's why it's such a danger. You'd like for there to be more genetic illness in the world?

For your argument to be consistent, if you want to ban the activity at lower risk of passing on genetic problems based on that risk, then you'd have to ban the higher risk activity. Many people are much more likely to pass on genetic problems with anyone than most people could ever manage with a sibling.

How could two males, two females, or infertile people ever conceive anyway? Would you leave it legal for any instances with no possibility of pregnancy?

So, yes or no: would you ban people with genetic problems (which they have a significant chance of passing to any offspring) from having sex?

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:40 pm**

Latlandia wrote:
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
How is your fondness for straw men a failure on my part?

I mean, you didn't see I gave my actual answer later. But whatever- I'm tired of this thread, and I've shared my thoughts on this. I've said and explained what I wanted to, so I don't see the reason to stay on this thread.

You didn't answer the question, just as you haven't answered mine....or apparently ever bothered to read my whole post, since you only quoted (and pretended to address) part of it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:43 pm**

South East Europe wrote:Incest tends to cause more likelihood of a virus to spread and increase the risk of children being born with serious medical conditions, so it most certainly does harm people. This is not liberalism, this is insanity. Necrophilia not only increases the risk of disease and infection of those involved in it but it can also cause an increase in epidemics, depending on what the person died of. In my honest opinion, anyone who is this crazy needs to be institutionalized.

Actually, the risk of disease and infection is greatly lessened in many cases. Many of those things you worry about people catching cannot sustain themselves for long in a dead host.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:44 pm**

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote: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

No. It's a state called "vide juridique" (the only translation of which I find is "loophole" but this term isn't really accurate) where the said action is never accepted nor forbidden by the law. It isn't legal. It isn't illegal neither. It is a grey area.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:47 pm**

Shamhnan Insir wrote:
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
So age limits on sex? And those carrying genes for significant health problems prohibited from having sex?

Where do I mention anything about age limits?
Many carry genetic health concerns and never know about it. There is always a chance of transferal to any offspring. However, incest is more than likely to lead to health problems, that's why it's such a danger. You'd like for there to be more genetic illness in the world?

The prevalence of hereditary diseases in incestual children is about the same level as if a couple that are over 40 years old getting a child.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:47 pm**

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote: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.

The issue at hand isn't current law, but the direction of the law in the future.

Well, I am talking about the laws as it stands now and as it will stand when the article prohibiting necrophilia becomes repealed.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote:
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.

If you intentionally present someone else's opinion as your own, then that is clearly on you.

And what are you going to do to me for that? I didn't force you to address my arguments.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote: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.

So you are intent on avoiding the question. I didn't ask you anything about Sweden.

Yes, I intend to avoid that question. Nowhere in the OP am I restricted to taking either a supportive or opposite position to legalization. I'm only arguing about the state of the law now and as it shall be when it is amended, that's all.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:49 pm**

Visegradian Poland wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
Yeah it's gross. Still, why not?

Because it's gross.

So are green beans

Hell let's ban those

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:50 pm**

Republic of Canador wrote:
Visegradian Poland wrote:
Because it's gross.

So are green beans

Hell let's ban those

And somewhere on the Internet... there's video of someone shagging green beans.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:51 pm**

Im perfectly fine with necrophilia (not for myself of course). If you find it gross then don't do it. But theyre not hurting anyone since you can't have kids with someone who's dead and direct, recorded consent would be given in order to do it legally.

With incest, no. We don't need that infesting our gene pool. If you were to make it legal its obvious they would have kids and theres no way to regulate them not popping out inbreds. Get all the girls' tubes tied? Yeah that will work.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:52 pm**

Republic of Canador wrote:
Visegradian Poland wrote:
Because it's gross.

So are green beans

Hell let's ban those

stfu green beans are delicious

NationStates

Swedish Liberals want to legalise necrophilia and incest