Should incest be banned?

[nnmartin]

false dichotomies abound in this thread.

 

[rageoftyrael]

a lot of people won't let it go, because you won't admit that your arguments have been countered. they have been, pretty much everyone, you just won't admit it.

 

[McBell]

false dichotomies abound in this thread.

Now if we could just get you to stop...

 

[nnmartin]

we would have to get you to stop first though.

if you stop first then maybe I will

 

[nnmartin]

a lot of people won't let it go, because you won't admit that your arguments have been countered. they have been, pretty much everyone, you just won't admit it.

I would say that I have countered all the arguments in favour of incest.

the only thing is that you don't agree - so that in no way makes you correct.

How can I admit that incest should be legal - it shouldn't.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

And where do we draw the line between freedom and protecting the public?

At the point where their mistakes directly cause physical harm or loss to others. In this case that is obviously at the point where children come of it, which is why the point where the law should intervene is at the point of possible conception.

If we allow incest then we must also allow many other unspeakable things.

Bollocks. That's a slippery slope fallacy because you haven't shown why we must allow anything else because we allow incest.

 

[McBell]

we would have to get you to stop first though.

if you stop first then maybe I will

:biglaugh:

Please be so kind as to point out where, in this thread I have presented a false dichotomy.

 

[McBell]

I would say that I have countered all the arguments in favour of incest.[/quoter]
I would say that you live in your own little world.
Yes, you have replied to them, but you di dnot counter them.
Far from it.

the only thing is that you don't agree - so that in no way makes you correct.

Nor does it make you correct.

How can I admit that incest should be legal - it shouldn't.

Yet you have not presented an argument that it should be illegal that is not based solely on your 'yuck' factor...

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well actually I would suggest that his birth defects argument is a possible one to make; yet his unwillingness to examine the parallel to non-incestuous unions with as high or higher chances of defect significantly detracts from the feasibility of the position as it has all the hallmarks of special pleading.

 

[nnmartin]

Originally Posted by nnmartin
And where do we draw the line between freedom and protecting the public?

At the point where their mistakes directly cause physical harm or loss to others. In this case that is obviously at the point where children come of it, which is why the point where the law should intervene is at the point of possible conception.

are you referring to incest exclusively here?

if not, then that point of yours really does allow for all sorts of things that are currently banned for good reason.

 

[nnmartin]

:biglaugh:

Please be so kind as to point out where, in this thread I have presented a false dichotomy.

some of your pals have, many times.

but I'm not going to trawl through 700 posts to dig up an old quote.

 

[nnmartin]

Well actually I would suggest that his birth defects argument is a possible one to make; yet his unwillingness to examine the parallel to non-incestuous unions with as high or higher chances of defect significantly detracts from the feasibility of the position as it has all the hallmarks of special pleading.

OK, regarding the birth defects as you have pointed out in non incestuous unions - yes, they should be banned as well.

So we ban incest on abnormal offspring grounds.

And we also ban abnormal offspring production through other unions too.

So , now we have cleared that up - what do you have to counter the claim of incestuous births being wrong?

 

[McBell]

some of your pals have, many times.

but I'm not going to trawl through 700 posts to dig up an old quote.

Yet you did not say that my pals have presented false dichotomies.
You said I have presented them.

If you were to trawl through them you would find that it is you who has used the most logical fallacies in this thread.

Well, seeing as you have shown that you do not know what is and what is not a fallacy, YOU probably won't...

 

[nnmartin]

Yet you did not say that my pals have presented false dichotomies.
You said I have presented them.

back to the old sematics routine again I see.....

If you were to trawl through them you would find that it is you who has used the most logical fallacies in this thread.

so, by using the word 'most' are you admitting that some of your pals have used some logical fallacies? - sounds like it to me!

Well, seeing as you have shown that you do not know what is and what is not a fallacy, YOU probably won't...

I do have better things to do with my time than spend hours going over this thread.

let's keep it moving forward I reckon.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Nnmartin, your last little statement is exactly why you've lost, and can't admit it. To quote you "so, by using the word 'most' are you admitting that some of your pals have used some logical fallacies? - sounds like it to me!" You completely failed to consider that you aren't the only person to try and claim that incest is wrong, and that "your" pals may have been the ones doing it. Thus, mestemia wasn't admitting that any of her "pals" had been making any logical fallacies.

I point this out, because if you are so thoughtless as to not see this blatantly obvious possibility, and are only trying to score really, really minor points over on other posters, than clearly you are the wrong person to be trying to defend this belief. Honestly, i've already said as much, having asked for someone who would be willing to put up some honest facts to back up their positions, but honestly, the only people willing to battle on your side of the fence on this argument, are all worse than you. Maybe you should take that into consideration as well. When only the foolish are one your side, mayhap your side is not the side to be on, hmmm?

 

[nnmartin]

keep on talking to yourself , way to go - at least someone is listening this time!

Thus, mestemia wasn't admitting that any of her "pals" had been making any logical fallacies.

I always thought Mestemia was a man - oh well, live and learn I guess - he he!

 

[nnmartin]

To quote you "so, by using the word 'most' are you admitting that some of your pals have used some logical fallacies? - sounds like it to me!"

How about dealing with some of the key issues here rather than just pointless nitpicking.


Now, what do you think of the idea that we not only ban incestuous conception but also ban it in other cases in which birth defects would be likely?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

are you referring to incest exclusively here?

No I'm not referring exclusively to incest, although other issues might have additional reasons I find that's a decent guideline.

if not, then that point of yours really does allow for all sorts of things that are currently banned for good reason.

Like what?

 

[McBell]

back to the old sematics routine again I see.....

It is not my fault that you are so slopppy with your wording.
Of course, in this particular case you are merely trying to back pedal.

so, by using the word 'most' are you admitting that some of your pals have used some logical fallacies? - sounds like it to me!

Of course it sounds like it to you.
But then, you have shown that you are most skilled at seeing what you want regardless of the truth of presented facts.

I do have better things to do with my time than spend hours going over this thread.

Of course you do.
Nothing like a good back pedaling when you put your foot in your mouth.

let's keep it moving forward I reckon.

Yes, divert the topic away from your blunder...

 

[McBell]

How about dealing with some of the key issues here rather than just pointless nitpicking.

You really should take your own advice.

Now, what do you think of the idea that we not only ban incestuous conception but also ban it in other cases in which birth defects would be likely?

So you propose to ban all sex or just all conception?