Advertisement
by Shamhnan Insir » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:00 pm
Darwinish Brentsylvania wrote:Shamhnan Insir started this wonderful tranquility, ALL PRAISE THE SHEPHERD KING
by Hjallaland » 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.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » 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 need to know about all my previous posts (and consider all of them withdrawn at this point and replaced with this one) is that I attempt to illustrate the legal relationships between the parties involved.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.
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.
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.
by Gauthier » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:07 pm
by Hjallaland » 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.
by Gauthier » 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.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » 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.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:12 pm
by Ifreann » 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.
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.
by Shamhnan Insir » 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.
Darwinish Brentsylvania wrote:Shamhnan Insir started this wonderful tranquility, ALL PRAISE THE SHEPHERD KING
by Shamhnan Insir » 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?
Darwinish Brentsylvania wrote:Shamhnan Insir started this wonderful tranquility, ALL PRAISE THE SHEPHERD KING
by South East Europe » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:23 pm
by Latlandia » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:25 pm
by Latlandia » 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.
by Shofercia » 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.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » 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?
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:40 pm
Latlandia wrote:
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.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » 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.
by Aelex » 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
by Lamaredia » 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?
by Hyggemata » 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.
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.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Republic of Canador » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:49 pm
Lichian wrote:Don't go. Stay at home. If forced to go, pray that you don't mess up. Pray that the government doesn't see you. And pray that you don't just end up getting shot for fun.
by Gauthier » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:50 pm
by Basseemia » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:51 pm
by Basseemia » Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:52 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ferelith, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ifreann, Inferior, Oceasia, Pale Dawn, Philjia, Port Carverton
Advertisement