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

Postby Coalition of Minor Planets » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:53 pm

Aelex wrote:
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.


That is obviously incorrect.

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

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

Postby Coalition of Minor Planets » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:02 pm

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I am talking about the laws as it stands now and as it will stand when the article prohibiting necrophilia becomes repealed.


You are as free to do that as I am free to point out its irrelevancy to the earlier discussion.

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


Yours? So now you cannot even decide whether you are presenting someone else's ideas or your own

Hyggemata wrote: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.


That's not all you've been discussing.

I never said you were obligated to answer any questions. You are not obligated to do so. I find it odd that you came to a discussion about opinions on the issue without being willing to share your own, but that is your call.

Why don't you want to share?

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 154132
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:03 pm

South East Europe wrote:Incest tends to cause more likelihood of a virus to spread

Where do people get these ideas about incest?
no war but class war
He/Him

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

Postby Gauthier » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:07 pm

Ifreann wrote:
South East Europe wrote:Incest tends to cause more likelihood of a virus to spread

Where do people get these ideas about incest?


Apparently generational birth defects are a virus.
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
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 154132
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:10 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Where do people get these ideas about incest?


Apparently generational birth defects are a virus.

Geneticists are sure to be surprised.
no war but class war
He/Him

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40797
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:20 pm

I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....
Last edited by Fartsniffage on Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hjallaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Dec 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Hjallaland » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:21 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Hjallaland wrote:
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.


So do i, but some don't for that matter. Each person has his/her own preferences.

Ifreann wrote:
Hjallaland wrote:
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.


Two what? Animals? What about Sheep, cows, goats, donkey's, camels ect. They wouldn't give a shit either and if they wouldn't like it they would most likely kick the shit out of ya.

Shamhnan Insir wrote:
Hjallaland wrote:
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.


Well i don't think it should be done in a house either. Ofcourse some rules should be set up to make sure its safe and such, like only till an X hours after said persons death or something like that.

Still though, no need to ban things because of it, otherwise we could ban tons of things including sex all together.

Shofercia wrote:
Hjallaland wrote:
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?


Well that only applies when they get children, and children with a disabilities aren't exactly diseases on their own. That's a matter of education and such. The sexual contact between said individuals is harmless and shouldn't be banned because others simply don't like the idea of it. Love is love, it happens whether its with a person from your village, a person from a thousand miles away or a person from within your own family, in the end it doesn't change all that much.
I wouldn't do incest either (I admit, i don't have any hot nieces for that matter) but i don't see why it should be a problem, if they are both at the proper age then they should be free to do it. Who are we to deny sexual contact between to consenting adults?

Basseemia wrote: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.


Sure, because if its illegal it doesn't happen...

User avatar
Hjallaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Dec 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Hjallaland » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:25 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....


Indeed. In the end there aren't that many people who practice incest and most of those who do also know the risk of getting children and therefor avoid getting them. Its likely that the social part plays a role in it aswell because on the social standards its still a huge taboo but in the end i don't think it would be much of a difference, those who do it do it and those who don't don't. I know that a niece and nephew of my mother are married with eachother, don't have kids and just live a normal happy life. I personally don't see any problem with it and wouldn't know wny some believe they should be locked up for simply being in love with eachother.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 154132
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:25 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

To be fair, France wasn't exactly civilised to begin with.


Hjallaland wrote:
Ifreann wrote:That's two, then.


Two what?

People who support bestiality.
no war but class war
He/Him

User avatar
Shamhnan Insir
Minister
 
Posts: 2615
Founded: Jul 08, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby Shamhnan Insir » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:26 pm

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
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.

Your argument ignores the near certainty of genetic illness in a child produced through incest. This I consider the higher risk. I already said that a line should be drawn to minimize genetic risk in the population.
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote: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?

How is this relevant to the thread?
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote: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?

Again you're deviating, and you didn't answer my question.
Call me Sham

-"Governments may think and say as they like, but force cannot be eliminated, and it is the only real and unanswerable power. We are told that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I know which of these weapons I would choose." Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart VC, KBE, CB, CMG, DSO.

Nationalism is an infantile disease, it is the measles of humanity.
Darwinish Brentsylvania wrote:Shamhnan Insir started this wonderful tranquility, ALL PRAISE THE SHEPHERD KING

User avatar
Aelex
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11398
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aelex » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:28 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

Let me precise something, in France, incest isn't illegal, indeed; however marriage between person directly related by blood (sister, daughter, brother, son) is forbidden and so is the P.A.C.S (a form of civil union). It's in a grey area where it should stay.
Citoyen Français. Bonapartiste Républicain (aka De Gaule's Gaullisme) with Keynesian leanings on economics. Latin Christian.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40797
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:38 pm

Aelex wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

Let me precise something, in France, incest isn't illegal, indeed; however marriage between person directly related by blood (sister, daughter, brother, son) is forbidden and so is the P.A.C.S (a form of civil union). It's in a grey area where it should stay.


Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

User avatar
Aelex
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11398
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aelex » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:41 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

Except in that case there is. Sex between blood related people isn't forbidden. Any kind of legal recognition of their relationship, however, is.
No marriage, no civil unions. It's honestly best this way.
Citoyen Français. Bonapartiste Républicain (aka De Gaule's Gaullisme) with Keynesian leanings on economics. Latin Christian.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40797
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:44 pm

Aelex wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

Except in that case there is. Sex between blood related people isn't forbidden. Any kind of legal recognition of their relationship, however, is.
No marriage, no civil unions. It's honestly best this way.


Right, so incest is legal.

User avatar
Aelex
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11398
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aelex » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:45 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:Right, so incest is legal.

But not recognized nor accepted by the law.
Last edited by Aelex on Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Citoyen Français. Bonapartiste Républicain (aka De Gaule's Gaullisme) with Keynesian leanings on economics. Latin Christian.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40797
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:49 pm

Aelex wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:Right, so incest is legal.

But not recognized nor accepted by the law.


None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

User avatar
The Princes of the Universe
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14506
Founded: Jan 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Princes of the Universe » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:51 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Aelex wrote:But not recognized nor accepted by the law.

None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

Not sure if more funny than potentially disturbing or more potentially disturbing than funny... :unsure:
Pro dolorosa Eius passione, miserere nobis et totius mundi.

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.


User avatar
Hjallaland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Dec 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Hjallaland » Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:57 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Hjallaland wrote:
Two what?

People who support bestiality.


Amazing isn't it? Only two people who aren't taking part in the redicilous and pathetic social stigma's against those who enjoy shagging animals.

User avatar
Aelex
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11398
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aelex » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:00 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

No. But if you ever chose to be in a relationship with someone and to marry him/her or contract a civil union with him/her, it is however recognized by the state.
Incestuous couple aren't allowed to do so and are thus placed, legitimately, in a grey area where they're allowed to be in a relationship but the said relationship isn't legally accepted.
Citoyen Français. Bonapartiste Républicain (aka De Gaule's Gaullisme) with Keynesian leanings on economics. Latin Christian.

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

Postby Coalition of Minor Planets » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:00 pm

Shamhnan Insir wrote:Your argument ignores the near certainty of genetic illness in a child produced through incest. This I consider the higher risk. I already said that a line should be drawn to minimize genetic risk in the population.

That is not correct. Children of first-degree relatives (siblings, parent/child) only have a risk of significant defect 31% higher than the general population. By the time you get down to third-degree relatives (1st cousins, half-aunt/half-nephew, etc) it drops to 2% higher than the general population. This is far less risk than that presented by many people with genetic disorders.

If you really draw your line of minimizing risk beyond incestuous sex, then that means the line is way past many people being able to have sex with anyone. So your position would logically require a legal prohibition on sex for anyone with these genetic problems.

Shamhnan Insir wrote:How is this relevant to the thread?


You think the relevant issue is risk of genetic problems for offspring. Obviously that wouldn't be relevant in any way to such relationships

Shamhnan Insir wrote:Again you're deviating, and you didn't answer my question.


There's no honestly claiming that I'm deviating from the discussion in any way. You dodged my question, so now I'm asking you more...which you continue to dodge.

Come on, try answering the questions

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

Postby Coalition of Minor Planets » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:04 pm

Aelex wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:Nah. If there's no law applying to something then that something is legal.

Except in that case there is. Sex between blood related people isn't forbidden. Any kind of legal recognition of their relationship, however, is.
No marriage, no civil unions. It's honestly best this way.


You claim there is, but you couldn't actually provide any examples. Marriage and civil unions are not relevant. It is perfectly possible to have sex without marriage or to get a civil union without having sex.

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

Postby Coalition of Minor Planets » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:05 pm

Aelex wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:I just thought to look up the laws around incest around the world. I was surprised to find that it's already legal in the Netherlands, Portugal, China, Spain, Turkey, parts of the US, Australia, France and a bunch of other places.

It doesn't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in those countries....

Let me precise something, in France, incest isn't illegal, indeed; however marriage between person directly related by blood (sister, daughter, brother, son) is forbidden and so is the P.A.C.S (a form of civil union). It's in a grey area where it should stay.


Not being illegal isn't a "gray area". It's called being legal

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40797
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:08 pm

Aelex wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:None of the sex I've ever had has ever been recognised by the law, does that put it in a legal grey area?

No. But if you ever chose to be in a relationship with someone and to marry him/her or contract a civil union with him/her, it is however recognized by the state.
Incestuous couple aren't allowed to do so and are thus placed, legitimately, in a grey area where they're allowed to be in a relationship but the said relationship isn't legally accepted.


Ah, so you would have argued that homosexuality was a legal grey area before 2013 and that this was legitimate?

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

Postby Hyggemata » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:30 pm

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote:
Well, I am talking about the laws as it stands now and as it will stand when the article prohibiting necrophilia becomes repealed.


You are as free to do that as I am free to point out its irrelevancy to the earlier discussion.

I don't agree with your statement. Perhaps it stems from a different interpretation to what exactly constitutes "relevance" to the present thread, but since we cannot agree with what exactly we argue, let us therefore not argue.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote:And what are you going to do to me for that? I didn't force you to address my arguments.


Yours? So now you cannot even decide whether you are presenting someone else's ideas or your own

They're my interpretation of the legal situation under Swedish law. That is the best summation I can provide.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Hyggemata wrote: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.


That's not all you've been discussing.


But that has been where you direct the conversation between us.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:I never said you were obligated to answer any questions. You are not obligated to do so. I find it odd that you came to a discussion about opinions on the issue without being willing to share your own, but that is your call.

Why don't you want to share?


There is a difference between opinion and analysis. I am willing to share my analysis of the legal situation in Sweden but not my opinion.
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
Aelex
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11398
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Aelex » Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:42 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:Ah, so you would have argued that homosexuality was a legal grey area before 2013 and that this was legitimate?

So you're trying to go with the strawmen, now?
Sweet, sweet. :)
Anyway, homosexuality wasn't a grey area given that they had already access to civil unions (what we call the "P.A.C.S") since their creation.
I would personally say that giving them full marriage right isn't really a problem given that their situation wouldn't affect any potential child they would have neither psychologically nor physically. Inbreeding has consequences. Adoption or C.I.V don't.
Citoyen Français. Bonapartiste Républicain (aka De Gaule's Gaullisme) with Keynesian leanings on economics. Latin Christian.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Bovad, Communist reborn, Dystopian Texas, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Jewish Underground State, Majestic-12 [Bot], Mountains and Volcanoes, Myrensis, Neim, Nysa, Prima Scriptura, Shrillland, Sordhau, The Jamesian Republic, Zeswela

Advertisement

Remove ads