Insest Mark Dice

Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #30 - May 22, 2017, 03:02 PM

Quote from: babooshka on May 22, 2017, 03:00 PM
I never got to the end of the vid. will watch it again tonight. I didn't realise he was calling them mentally sick.

The vid description somewhere and comments say that
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #31 - May 22, 2017, 03:03 PM

Quote from: babooshka on May 22, 2017, 03:01 PM
nah. I just like Kate Bush.

Had to look her up....she looks hot
- PebbleWalkway
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #32 - May 22, 2017, 04:45 PM

Quote from: babooshka on May 22, 2017, 03:01 PM
nah. I just like Kate Bush.

I kinda thought your name is for a different kind of headscarf as in babushka.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #33 - May 22, 2017, 06:16 PM

Quote from: Philowolf on May 21, 2017, 12:44 PM
As for librals being mentally sick as mark dice suggest...since when did christains have phd in psychology?

It is a common slogan when liberals agree or say something over the top on the basis of one argument. For example some within the transsexual community started to call people that wouldn't date them bigots regardless of those people's sexual orientation thus ignoring basic biology. However this argument undermines homosexual orientation as it would mean being gay is a choice and gays are bigots by choice.

A problem with the incest line of attack is Christianity has a double-standard. Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. Adam and Eve's offspring, in a literal reading, must of reproduced via incest. If one uses evidence from biology to condemn siblings relationship they must do so with the Bible while acknowledge Adam and Eve are a myth.
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #34 - May 22, 2017, 06:23 PM

Quote from: bogart on May 22, 2017, 06:16 PM
It is a common slogan when liberals agree or say something over the top on the basis of one argument. For example some within the transsexual community started to call people that wouldn't date them bigots regardless of those people's sexual orientation thus ignoring basic biology. However this argument undermines homosexual orientation as it would mean being gay is a choice and gays are bigots.

Yes i allways disagreed that a trans person should not revel this info to potential or current partners....this is a abuse. They have a right to know and deside weather they should stay in the relationship or not
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #35 - May 22, 2017, 06:36 PM

Quote from: Philowolf on May 22, 2017, 06:23 PM

Yes i allways disagreed that a trans person should not revel this info to potential or current partners....this is a abuse. They have a right to know and deside weather they should stay in the relationship or not

The scenario include a openly transsexual biology male who identifies with a woman gender grouping with long hair and wearing a dress.. Instead of considering that people do have preferences many of which they can not control this person calls everyone that does not want to date him a bigot. Just because someone identifies as a woman does not mean everyone must accept that identification. They want to impose their subjective standards on to everyone which is exactly what people did to homosexuals for centuries. It is pure irony from a section of the left that is retarded.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #36 - May 22, 2017, 06:43 PM

Here is the guy making the argument. He also says being male or female has nothing to do with biology in another video. Both are pure stupidity and argument from emotions. Him not getting a date, or whoever, is not other people's problem nor bigotry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #37 - May 22, 2017, 07:14 PM

Quote from: bogart on May 22, 2017, 06:43 PM
Here is the guy making the argument. He also says being male or female has nothing to do with biology in another video. Both are pure stupidity and argument from emotions. Him not getting a date, or whoever, is not other people's problem nor bigotry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U

Seen this guy and a assosiated YTer of his as well....these are real sjw
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #38 - May 22, 2017, 07:59 PM

Those are the type of people Dice is talking about along with the basis of well-being and less harm are not useful parameters. The people he sees on the street are repeating what true SJW say but do not realize it their source as it propagated from media to the education institution, not to be confused with actual education.
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #39 - May 22, 2017, 08:03 PM

Quote from: bogart on May 22, 2017, 07:59 PM
Those are the type of people Dice is talking about along with the basis that well-being and less harm are not useful parameters.

I doubt christians like him care about ethical critism.....the only reason he challenges the happyness and suffering model morality is for his bibble.

Many Atheists are critcal of utallitarian ethics but for the sake of improvement, not to spread religion
(In Dices case i think its mainly conservatism and less bibble thumping)
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #40 - May 22, 2017, 08:13 PM

Quote from: Philowolf on May 22, 2017, 08:03 PM
I doubt christians like him care about ethical critism.....the only reason he challenges the happyness and suffering model morality is for his bibble.

He is a "bite the bullet" Christian. If God commanded him to kill his son he would do it. Just like Abe tried to do. He would be one of the people committing genocide in the OT on God's command.

Quote
Many Atheists are critcal of utallitarian ethics but for the sake of improvement, not to spread religion
(In Dices case i think its mainly conservatism and less bibble thumping)

No Dice is a fundamentalist Christian.
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #41 - May 22, 2017, 08:15 PM

Quote from: bogart on May 22, 2017, 08:13 PM
He is a "bite the bullet" Christian. If God commanded him to kill his son he would do it. Just like Abe tried to do. He would be one of the people committing genocide in the OT on God's command.

No Dice is a fundamentalist Christian.

Well fuck him then
- Philowolf
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #42 - May 22, 2017, 08:15 PM

Ill just roll him away
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #43 - May 22, 2017, 11:54 PM

Quote from: Cornflower on May 21, 2017, 09:10 PM
This is a contraversial topic. And I'm not sure if and how one would go about it (regarding asbies question). But for starters marriage between first cousins etc could be made illegal. It's not just medical problems that arise. The over all quality of the gene pool decreases, and there are other cognitive problems as a result of incest. But again, cousin marriage has been part of human culture for so long that it would hard to eradicate it. Doesn't mean it's impossible and that we should accept it. Human culture changes.

Well the argument for quality of genepool is a very hard one to make due to the implication of eugenics, although in this very limited and specific case I would tend to agree with you.

More importantly, why does marriage have anything to do with having children in this case? There's no reason I can see for why an incestuous marriage without children should be made illegal, as per your own reasons for why incest is unethical.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #44 - May 23, 2017, 06:04 AM

Quote from: asbie on May 22, 2017, 11:54 PM

More importantly, why does marriage have anything to do with having children in this case? There's no reason I can see for why an incestuous marriage without children should be made illegal, as per your own reasons for why incest is unethical.

Chance of abuse or prior abuse and disorder or possible collapse of a family unit due to tension. The data is more supportive of such relationship forming as a result of abuse and power battles due to taught social points of view such as religious taboos. (western culture) If there were a set of laws allowing one sub-set of this group to marry on the grounds that it was not abuse nor a power dynamic based relationship than we would be enabling the government to review all cases of incest based marriages. After all the burden would be on the couple to challenge social and data based view points not the state. This would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and a burden to the justice system in order to provide special privilege for a minority of a minority. Also it would enable abusive based relationships to argue a case that such a relationship is not abusive. For victims such legal battles would place an unnecessary emotional trauma. In one part it would be enable people to delude themselves that their specific relationship is not abusive and have hope of acceptance via a legal battle. Due to probability based on the data of sexual abuse between family members such a marriage would be more likely be abusive there is the emotional trauma from a rejection ruling. As part of this delusion actual victims may not come forward due to coercion from the abuser based on a lack of the existing social taboo and the challenge to the legal standing. This leaves the protection basis of the ban questionable as the law is doing little to protect people. After all you are allowing people to consider such a relation as normalized rather than illegal and abnormal.

More so if one type of marriage becomes subject to a review there would be challenges to why other types of marriage are not subject to reviews as well. So for a minority of a minority gaining a special privilege could come at a cost to everyone else.

Two consenting adults is not a good argument. It was never an argument for same-sex used in as a legal standpoint but is merely pop-culture echoes. I have used it myself but typical I included legal rationale not merely a meme slogan. Borrowing from homosexual arguments for marriage does not work in the case of incest. Banning incest marriage (specific mate) does not restrict all the choices people have in marriage unlike banning homosexual marriage (category of mates).
- Rob
- Member
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #45 - May 24, 2017, 08:14 AM

Quote from: babooshka on May 22, 2017, 02:24 PM
oooops! looks like I'm responding to yeezevess vids..........my response was my initial reaction to the ops vid.

can't watch any of yeeze's vids. says channel 4 has blocked content in my country. weird cos i'm in London innit.

If you do want to see the video, try looking for it on the 4 on demand site. They block You Tube videos in the UK to make people use their own site.

I live in the Western Isles, UK, which has been an isolated and smallish population historically. Everyone here seems to be related and there do seem to be quite a number of people with disabilities.
- Rob
- Member
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #46 - May 24, 2017, 08:19 AM

Quote from: bogart on May 23, 2017, 06:04 AM
Chance of abuse or prior abuse and disorder or possible collapse of a family unit due to tension. The data is more supportive of such relationship forming as a result of abuse and power battles due to taught social points of view such as religious taboos. (western culture) If there were a set of laws allowing one sub-set of this group to marry on the grounds that it was not abuse nor a power dynamic based relationship than we would be enabling the government to review all cases of incest based marriages. After all the burden would be on the couple to challenge social and data based view points not the state. This would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and a burden to the justice system in order to provide special privilege for a minority of a minority. Also it would enable abusive based relationships to argue a case that such a relationship is not abusive. For victims such legal battles would place an unnecessary emotional trauma. In one part it would be enable people to delude themselves that their specific relationship is not abusive and have hope of acceptance via a legal battle. Due to probability based on the data of sexual abuse between family members such a marriage would be more likely be abusive there is the emotional trauma from a rejection ruling. As part of this delusion actual victims may not come forward due to coercion from the abuser based on a lack of the existing social taboo and the challenge to the legal standing. This leaves the protection basis of the ban questionable as the law is doing little to protect people. After all you are allowing people to consider such a relation as normalized rather than illegal and abnormal.

More so if one type of marriage becomes subject to a review there would be challenges to why other types of marriage are not subject to reviews as well. So for a minority of a minority gaining a special privilege could come at a cost to everyone else.

Two consenting adults is not a good argument. It was never an argument for same-sex used in as a legal standpoint but is merely pop-culture echoes. I have used it myself but typical I included legal rationale not merely a meme slogan. Borrowing from homosexual arguments for marriage does not work in the case of incest. Banning incest marriage (specific mate) does not restrict all the choices people have in marriage unlike banning homosexual marriage (category of mates).

I was wondering whether I could make an argument along these lines but I see you already made it far more elegantly than I could have. Well put. And, for what it's worth, endorsed by me.
- Cornflower
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #47 - May 24, 2017, 09:48 AM

Quote from: asbie on May 22, 2017, 11:54 PM
Well the argument for quality of genepool is a very hard one to make due to the implication of eugenics, although in this very limited and specific case I would tend to agree with you.

More importantly, why does marriage have anything to do with having children in this case? There's no reason I can see for why an incestuous marriage without children should be made illegal, as per your own reasons for why incest is unethical.

Didn't say that marriage was a necessity for children. It was a possible suggestion. And if we allowed incest without children, how would we make sure they don't have children? Sterilization?

It's a touhg question and there are more than one problem that arises, as you mentioned with eugenics. But I think that most people with the most basic understabding of genetics and medicine, would agree that the genetic results (children) from incestious relationships is something humans in general should seek to minimize. How that should be dealt with is another question. The moral implications are huge...

"The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #48 - May 24, 2017, 09:51 PM

what are we doing here?
what subject is this?
why are we discussing this subject?
what incest are we talking about ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest
  is it inbreeding for generations and generations?
  or is it about sexually obsessed older rascals happened to have blood relation with victim and scoundrels exploiting young adults/children??

  How about we doing this instead discussing something that is irrelevant to the cause of this site...
Quote
...Through more than 1,500 websites, 37-year-old Mustafa Hasan Arif generated more than $12.8 million ~~in fraudulent sales to~~ more than 100,000 ~~victims~~ around the world.

read how to make atleast a million dollarrs from thislink https://www.dawn.com/news/1335139/uk-pakistan-national-sentenced-to-6-years-in-prison-for-peddling-fake-cures

And how is Mustafa Hasan Arif cheating people without they clicking his websites?? so many questions to answer ..

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #49 - May 24, 2017, 10:40 PM

Quote from: Cornflower on May 24, 2017, 09:48 AM
But I think that most people with the most basic understabding of genetics and medicine, would agree that the genetic results (children) from incestious relationships is something humans in general should seek to minimize.

I think you'd also agree that the degree to which a relationship is consanguineous makes a huge difference too. For you you drew the line at first cousins, however they are very, very often capable of having unaffected children, but the risk skyrockets when we talk about siblings. Others may say that even second or third cousins marrying could also weaken the gene pool and should be banned. I just don't think you'll get a universally enforceable guideline here, as people are willing to tolerate different levels of risk and have different priorities. Basically the cultural factor is huge here.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #50 - May 25, 2017, 02:03 AM

Quote from: Rob on May 24, 2017, 08:19 AM
I was wondering whether I could make an argument along these lines but I see you already made it far more elegantly than I could have. Well put. And, for what it's worth, endorsed by me.

The case is far easier to argue from a western context due to the evolution of religious and social norms. There are very few icons or paragons to topple thus little push back from the masses.
- Cornflower
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #51 - May 25, 2017, 05:35 AM

Quote from: asbie on May 24, 2017, 10:40 PM
I think you'd also agree that the degree to which a relationship is consanguineous makes a huge difference too. For you you drew the line at first cousins, however they are very, very often capable of having unaffected children, but the risk skyrockets when we talk about siblings. Others may say that even second or third cousins marrying could also weaken the gene pool and should be banned. I just don't think you'll get a universally enforceable guideline here, as people are willing to tolerate different levels of risk and have different priorities. Basically the cultural factor is huge here.

Actually that's both true and untrue. Yes. For one person to have offspring with their first cousin, the genetical implications aren't "bad". However, we can't deny the fact that majority of people, if not almost all, who have children with their cousins, have done so more or less for generations and will continue to do so. It's not even a religious matter, but cultural. Then it's NOT minor/to no genetical implications anymore. Which actual studies and statistics have shown with no exception. So wouldn't it be nice if one could argue that hey, it's a cousin and not that bad. But then your parent were cousins, and grandparents. And your cousin's parents were cousins...

But whatever. I've met well educated people who know more about medicine than I do. But for some reason have this emotional attachment to the practice. And understandably, they were most often a result of this practice themselves, have children and loved one who were.

"The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #52 - May 25, 2017, 03:27 PM

Quote from: Cornflower on May 25, 2017, 05:35 AM
Actually that's both true and untrue. Yes. For one person to have offspring with their first cousin, the genetical implications aren't "bad". However, we can't deny the fact that majority of people, if not almost all, who have children with their cousins, have done so more or less for generations and will continue to do so. It's not even a religious matter, but cultural. Then it's NOT minor/to no genetical implications anymore. Which actual studies and statistics have shown with no exception. So wouldn't it be nice if one could argue that hey, it's a cousin and not that bad. But then your parent were cousins, and grandparents. And your cousin's parents were cousins...

But whatever. I've met well educated people who know more about medicine than I do. But for some reason have this emotional attachment to the practice. And understandably, they were most often a result of this practice themselves, have children and loved one who were.

Well, it seems like we agree 100%. It's a good practice to try and discourage. I would cringe at punishing either the ones who are in a consanguineous relationship, or the children thereof. Maybe punish the parents of those who join in such a relationship, lol.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- Cornflower
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #53 - May 25, 2017, 04:36 PM

Yeah, more or less. We agree that it is an issue that's morally ambiguous, a very tricky grey zone, when it comes to how to handle the issue. It is nonetheless a practice we ought to get rid of.

So if I was a dictator who didn't give a shit about anything but the "greater good", I'd ban it and punish anyone who went against it. But I'd probably pay a high price for it somehow. But since it's just hypothetical, it doesn't matter.

But yeah, we should educate people and try to eradicate the practice. You don't do that with simpel laws. You have to change people's mindset.

"The healthiest people I know are those who are the first to label themselves fucked up." - three
- babooshka
- Member
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #54 - May 26, 2017, 10:15 PM

Quote from: Philowolf on May 22, 2017, 03:03 PM
Had to look her up....she looks hot

yeah and very talented.
- babooshka
- Member
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #55 - May 26, 2017, 10:17 PM

Quote from: PebbleWalkway on May 22, 2017, 04:45 PM
I kinda thought your name is for a different kind of headscarf as in babushka.

wow, i didn't know that it was the name of a scarf.
- babooshka
- Member
- offline
Insest Mark Dice
Reply #56 - May 26, 2017, 10:54 PM

Quote from: Rob on May 24, 2017, 08:14 AM
If you do want to see the video, try looking for it on the 4 on demand site. They block You Tube videos in the UK to make people use their own site.

thanks, I didn't realise that. cheeky channel 4.

Quote from: Rob on May 24, 2017, 08:14 AM
I live in the Western Isles, UK, which has been an isolated and smallish population historically. Everyone here seems to be related and there do seem to be quite a number of people with disabilities.

I suppose with a small population you can't really avoid it.

This reminds me of a practise in some remote villiages in india where people from the same village aren't allowed to marry. There is a name for it. I can't remember what its called.
Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »