Aspies/auties and f***ed up beliefs

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry I didnt read this entire thread but a few people on here were also in high support of prostitution which was I thought was a bit f-ed up.

You say incest is not right, but you also say that what adult brother and sister do in privacy of their own house in the bedroom is their own business we have no right to judge them. I'm still confused about your stance on the whole incest, you seem to contradict yourself. The reason why incest is wrong because if brother and sister were to procreate, their child is a lot more likely to to have genetic problems, such as mental retardation, very poor health, extra fingers/toes, physical deformity, genetic autosomal recessive disorders (such as hemophilia), higher child mortality, among several things. I really don't see the benefit of incest.

Arguing that there is a risk to the unborn child won't do. There are always risks, even with genetically diverse couples, and no one is interfering with them or forcing them to have abortions. You can't say it's unnatural because sibling animals mate all the time. And when children with problems are born, we take care of them.

This thread has turned into a debate about issues.

Since illegalizing sex work is not going to prevent it, why not decriminalize it so that those who do the work can have an expectation of being treated fairly, and not as criminals and sometimes pariahs?

Here we're talking about public safety. The only thing immoral about breaking a speed limit (where it's possible you only pose a negligible risk to yourself) is disrespect of governing authority. But then again, what moral obligation do we have to obey governing authority? Speed limits are imposed to protect other motorists.


Not if incest occurs between two consenting adults, fully aware of what they're doing and the consequences of their actions.


In most places in the west, incest has been such taboo that we need not worry about genetic diversity. At worst there is "slightly elevated" risk of genetic predispositions towards congenital diseases/defects. Incest has to be repeated over several generations for the recessive defects to show themselves. You're presupposing that incest WILL be repeated or already has been a pattern within a family. The way things are in most places is that one or two instances of incest will not have very much of a genetic effect or even matter to the rest of the population. Now, incest IS known to occur in rural and inner-city areas in which case it is the result of exploitation and abuse between older/younger siblings and uncles/nieces. But these are extreme examples in relatively isolated areas in which such things are an everyday occurrence. It's the kind of thing sociologists know all about but you'll never hear about in the evening news. And it's not likely to end any time soon.

The problem as I see it is that laws concerning incest were enacted based on limited information, what little was known at the time the laws were enacted. Because of the nature of the separation of church and state, laws cannot be justified based on religious beliefs. There has to be another reason. Medical/health concerns fuel confirmation bias about genetic outcomes provide an almost perfect way out as a means of justifying why we have to preserve a taboo. It doesn't take into account reality--that isolated incidences not spanning more than 1 or 2 generations generally are not at risk. I say GENERALLY, because two people from one family with a history of dangerous genetic predispositions are more at risk--as in, certain diseases WILL occur if you put them together. However, that doesn't mean we should ban incest. It means we should enact laws that screen for diseases and make it illegal for certain pairs to marry and have children, or rather allow marriage by REQUIRING that both partners undergo sterilization. Even unmarried partners circumventing the law by not getting married but who are discovered living together will be required to undergo sterilization or face imprisonment.

There is really little reason to fear incest based on science. But in spite of the facts, it is STILL illegal. Science only provides a mask for the real reason that incest is illegal: Enough people feel so strongly about incest being flat-out WRONG that they'll vote their congressmen out of office if they repeal those laws. Why? Probably religion. I have no problem with that, and if I had my Bible with me I could cite quite a few verses of scripture where God says, "DON'T DO IT. It is disgusting." But if not religion, then they have to say it should be illegal because it's immoral. But who says it's immoral? Who/what MAKES it immoral?

Yes. Why should sex workers have to work under the table?

When someone proclaiming something wrong because it is disgusting and immoral it is your clue to look away and be thankful that we do not use the old testament as a law book.

Yeah, but even a lot of non-religious people also agree that it is wrong/disgusting/immoral, though they'll refuse to cite the Bible or any other religious text to validate those feelings. They might resort to science, but that clearly doesn't work. There is an innate wrongness about incest that is difficult to deny and which is not scientifically grounded. You can cry "subjective" all you want, but that's complicated by the numbers of so many people in agreement on this.

..if it was innate, then everyone would believe it was wrong and there would be no incest

I find the amount of people no ore important then the amount of Saudi's or Americans who believe homosexuality is a choice or demonic, or however many poor chinese believe ugliness in someone means they were a bad person in a past life.

but your argument is "So many people believe", but if we accepted what the majority of people believe then we'd get no where, every idea we have now, every morality, all these basic things like "women and blacks and irish can work alongside white protestant men if they want" or "workers deserve sick days" or pensions - they were all maddenly radical ideas, the grand majority of British in the 30's were racist to hell, now they arn't. Now if we were in the 30's you could have told me that we know blacks are lesser then whites because that's what the majority of people believe, therefor it's innate, thankfully we do notl ive in the 30's and I don't need to think about that.