implicationofissue274

[The New Sea Territory]

Some of us need to get over this "freedom freedom freedom" bullshit.

NSG 2016: "some of us need to get over this 'freedom' bullshit"

That's not what they were saying. To be fair, they were arguing more about the fetishization of freedom many people are guilty of.

I don't agree with them, but this is taking it out of context.

[Quokkastan]

Think about this a lot, do you?

Ignoring that the government sticking it's head into your bedroom is already all kinds of fucked up, what specific problem to you foresee that isn't covered logically by "adult" and "consensual?"

No, it's literally the first thought because I know of women who have lived with pedophilia fathers. It would be "consent to sex or gtfo". I can see it being used in coercive ways where they have no choice or be homeless.

As it happens, so have I.

And, as it turned out, that happened anyway. With incest being perfectly illegal.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Depends on what you mean with "objectively wrong".

If you mean sex isn't bad then sure, sex isn't bad and if it is consensual then it's even better.

But things are not as simple.

Things are not simple, which is why saying "incest is wrong" is a non-argument; it's a moral absolute, and no moral absolutes have been actually proven to exist.

I do say incest is wrong, but not because it is a moral absolute.

It's because it fucks up with the family's relationships. When it comes to things like siblings fucking each other or parents and spawn fucking each other, their actions, unless they live by themselves, do not exist in a vacuum.

The entire "it's not bad, they just love each other!" only applies if you think all actions exist in a vacuum.

[Bakery Hill]

You know I often get the feeling that Stirner's only really good for niche anarcho memes.

The taboos against incest exists not only to safeguard against genetic defects, in the long run, but to ensure social boundaries and keep our communities together and functional day to day. It's been that way for thousands of years, across almost every society I can think of, no matter the conditions.

It's not a matter of sex being bad though. You can have sex with whomever you want.

It's a matter of the relationships around you.

It doesn't justify it being illegal, but there's the fact that it is simply a bad idea. It doesn't work as well as it sounds when you put it into terms of "it's two people who they love each other, nothing wrong with that!".

100% this.

Enough hyper individualist bullshit. We live in a society with other people. We can't have total free will and have it function.

[The New Sea Territory]

Things are not simple, which is why saying "incest is wrong" is a non-argument; it's a moral absolute, and no moral absolutes have been actually proven to exist.

Killing somebody is pretty rude.

It is, but you're begging the question.

Why is rudeness "immoral"?

[Godular]

Coerced consent is not consent.

Then no familial relationship is safe.

There's always a disparity of power. Siblings or parents always have power struggles while growing up and even as adults.

Mayhap. There's power dynamics in a goodly number of conventional relationships as well.

[Bakery Hill]

NSG 2016: "some of us need to get over this 'freedom' bullshit"

That's not what they were saying. To be fair, they were arguing more about the fetishization of freedom many people are guilty of.

I don't agree with them, but this is taking it out of context.

^ Exactly

Thanks for that haha

[Godular]

Killing somebody is pretty rude.

It is, but you're begging the question.

Why is rudeness "immoral"?

Sigh... it is my own fault. I thought it would be noted as a joke right away.

[The New Sea Territory]

Enough hyper individualist bullshit. We live in a society with other people. We can't have total free will and have it function.

This is, again, not an argument.

We individualist anarchists and egoists (at least, the ones I hang out with on r/anarchism) recognize the individual's need for society without submitting our will to it. Go to my sig and click the "egoist communism" link"; it's a pretty thorough explanation of it.

[Quokkastan]

Things are not simple, which is why saying "incest is wrong" is a non-argument; it's a moral absolute, and no moral absolutes have been actually proven to exist.

I do say incest is wrong, but not because it is a moral absolute.

It's because it fucks up with the family's relationships. When it comes to things like siblings fucking each other or parents and spawn fucking each other, their actions, unless they live by themselves, do not exist in a vacuum.

The entire "it's not bad, they just love each other!" only applies if you think all actions exist in a vacuum.

No relationship exists in a vacuum. I can think of a thousand ways a relationship can be fucked up. Shall we ban relationships?

[Darjihad]

Argumentum ad populum fallacies are a motherfucker.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I do say incest is wrong, but not because it is a moral absolute.

It's because it fucks up with the family's relationships. When it comes to things like siblings fucking each other or parents and spawn fucking each other, their actions, unless they live by themselves, do not exist in a vacuum.

The entire "it's not bad, they just love each other!" only applies if you think all actions exist in a vacuum.

No relationship exists in a vacuum. I can think of a thousand ways a relationship can be fucked up. Shall we ban relationships?

No, but the issue then becomes, how far is too far?

For instance, is fucking your father's wife okay? Your uncle's? How about your sister who is married to a guy who she met but you end up seducing her and she cheats on her husband with you? Sure it's incest, but is it okay?

Incest doesn't just involve genetic siblings, although everyone is focusing about fucking genetic siblings.

Mind, I am not saying it should be illegal. I am saying it's fucking stupid to do to begin with, even if it wasn't.

[Bakery Hill]

Enough hyper individualist bullshit. We live in a society with other people. We can't have total free will and have it function.

This is, again, not an argument.

We individualist anarchists and egoists (at least, the ones I hang out with on r/anarchism) recognize the individual's need for society without submitting our will to it. Go to my sig and click the "egoist communism" link"; it's a pretty thorough explanation of it.

Cheers will give it a look. Always thought it was nice way to conduct yourself as an individual, but never understood how it works with society at large.

[The New Sea Territory]

I do say incest is wrong, but not because it is a moral absolute.

It's because it fucks up with the family's relationships. When it comes to things like siblings fucking each other or parents and spawn fucking each other, their actions, unless they live by themselves, do not exist in a vacuum.

The entire "it's not bad, they just love each other!" only applies if you think all actions exist in a vacuum.

Why are family relationships "good"?

You continue begging the question, abandoning one moral absolute for another.

[Twilight Imperium]

NSG 2016: "some of us need to get over this 'freedom' bullshit"

That's not what they were saying. To be fair, they were arguing more about the fetishization of freedom many people are guilty of.

I don't agree with them, but this is taking it out of context.

True, but it was funny. And they're still siding with those who would restrict the free will of consenting adults for the sake of feels, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I do say incest is wrong, but not because it is a moral absolute.

It's because it fucks up with the family's relationships. When it comes to things like siblings fucking each other or parents and spawn fucking each other, their actions, unless they live by themselves, do not exist in a vacuum.

The entire "it's not bad, they just love each other!" only applies if you think all actions exist in a vacuum.

Why are family relationships "good"?

You continue begging the question, abandoning one moral absolute for another.

Well, let me ask you this: is it wrong to fuck with your father's wife, or not? And why?

[Quokkastan]

No relationship exists in a vacuum. I can think of a thousand ways a relationship can be fucked up. Shall we ban relationships?

No, but the issue then becomes, how far is too far?

For instance, is fucking your father's wife okay? Your uncle's?

Incest doesn't just involve genetic siblings, although everyone is focusing about fucking genetic siblings.

If your father is still married to her, I'm going to say probably not. You may want to create a separate thread about adultery.

Assuming she's available, then this should be legal, yes.

[Big Jim P]

Enough hyper individualist bullshit. We live in a society with other people. We can't have total free will and have it function.

This is, again, not an argument.

We individualist anarchists and egoists (at least, the ones I hang out with on r/anarchism) recognize the individual's need for society without submitting our will to it. Go to my sig and click the "egoist communism" link"; it's a pretty thorough explanation of it.

I do fall under egoist and individualist. Societys function is to serve the individual, not the other way around.

As for freedom, it falls to those who would restrict it to justify the restriction, not the free individual to justify the freedom. "I think it's icky" (which is what most of the anti arguments here boil down to) is insufficient justification.

[Godular]

No relationship exists in a vacuum. I can think of a thousand ways a relationship can be fucked up. Shall we ban relationships?

No, but the issue then becomes, how far is too far?

For instance, is fucking your father's wife okay? Your uncle's? How about your sister who is married to a guy who she met but you end up seducing her and she cheats on her husband with you? Sure it's incest, but is it okay?

Incest doesn't just involve genetic siblings, although everyone is focusing about fucking genetic siblings.

Mind, I am not saying it should be illegal. I am saying it's fucking stupid to do to begin with, even if it wasn't.

Similar issues can arise in conventional relationships. If some guy sporks his brother's wife, there's bound to be fireworks.

[The New Sea Territory]

Why are family relationships "good"?

You continue begging the question, abandoning one moral absolute for another.

Well, let me ask you this: is it wrong to fuck with your father's wife, or not? And why?

It's not, because morality is irrelevant.

However, if you value your relationship with your father, you probably wouldn't want to do that. But that's not a moral argument; that isn't me saying "it is unethical to do this", rather that "it is undesirable for other selfish reasons".

[Big Jim P]

Argumentum ad populum fallacies are a motherfucker.

But are they fucking their own mothers?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, but the issue then becomes, how far is too far?

For instance, is fucking your father's wife okay? Your uncle's?

Incest doesn't just involve genetic siblings, although everyone is focusing about fucking genetic siblings.

If your father is still married to her, I'm going to say probably not. You may want to create a separate thread about adultery.

Assuming she's available, then this should be legal, yes.

I don't have a problem with it being legal or illegal. Like I said at the beginning of this conversation, I am somewhat ambivalent about it's legality or lack thereof.

And well, sure, divorce? Okay, I'd find it infuriating, but in the end it's their business. But, the question was, while married. Hence why the specific word "wife".

[Godular]

Argumentum ad populum fallacies are a motherfucker.

But are they fucking their own mothers?

Given enough populum, there's probably at least one instance.

[The New Sea Territory]

This is, again, not an argument.

We individualist anarchists and egoists (at least, the ones I hang out with on r/anarchism) recognize the individual's need for society without submitting our will to it. Go to my sig and click the "egoist communism" link"; it's a pretty thorough explanation of it.

I do fall under egoist and individualist. Societys function is to serve the individual, not the other way around.

We could easily derail the thread with this, but again, see the link. It explains the absurdity of the individual vs. society mentality pervasive in "egoist" circles.

As for freedom, it falls to those who would restrict it to justify the restriction, not the free individual to justify the freedom. "I think it's icky" (which is what most of the anti arguments here boil down to) is insufficient justification.

Agreed, but I would go farther to reject any justification outside of my volition...which seems to be more egoistic.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, let me ask you this: is it wrong to fuck with your father's wife, or not? And why?

It's not, because morality is irrelevant.

However, if you value your relationship with your father, you probably wouldn't want to do that. But that's not a moral argument; that isn't me saying "it is unethical to do this", rather that "it is undesirable for other selfish reasons".

And these reasons are ethics.

They might not be your ethics, but they're still ethics.