WTF? Sex between father and daughter LEGAL?!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Wallydraigle

Banned
Nov 27, 2000
10,754
1
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Are you that dumb? You really think 'incest' is a universal 'sin'? You are aware that even the european nobles practiced incest.

That's right. Because some people do it, it must be alright. Some people kill, so that must be ok too. I guess nothing's wrong according to your logic.

And according to your logic, cultures should not be permitted to have practices and traditions that disagree with yours?

Not at all. Man has free will, and thus can do as he pleases. Having the ability to do something does not justify so doing. Might does *not* make right. There is a distinction between having the ability to do something, and the concepts of right and wrong.

It's not about "might makes right", nor about absolutes in right and wrong. It's about cultural frames of reference, where incest is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. You and I disagree in that you believe in absolute right and wrong as defined by the Bible, and I do not. My belief system is summed up quite well in the quote in my sig.



If I had webbed feet, or ears all over my body, or some other freakish deformity, because my father was also my uncle, I would probably feel that his actions had harmed me, and bludgeon him with a fish. I suppose you could make the case that recreational incest without the intent to reproduce doesn't hurt anybody, until reproduction occurs and children are born with funky recessive genes. You could also make the case that leaving razor blades all around outside a playpen doens't hurt anybody either. I would consider irresponsible behavior that has a good chance of harming a child wrong, without waiting for someone actually being harmed to say so.
 

whaleskinrug

Golden Member
Sep 25, 2003
1,114
0
0
Originally posted by: lirion
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Are you that dumb? You really think 'incest' is a universal 'sin'? You are aware that even the european nobles practiced incest.

That's right. Because some people do it, it must be alright. Some people kill, so that must be ok too. I guess nothing's wrong according to your logic.

And according to your logic, cultures should not be permitted to have practices and traditions that disagree with yours?

Not at all. Man has free will, and thus can do as he pleases. Having the ability to do something does not justify so doing. Might does *not* make right. There is a distinction between having the ability to do something, and the concepts of right and wrong.

It's not about "might makes right", nor about absolutes in right and wrong. It's about cultural frames of reference, where incest is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. You and I disagree in that you believe in absolute right and wrong as defined by the Bible, and I do not. My belief system is summed up quite well in the quote in my sig.



If I had webbed feet, or ears all over my body, or some other freakish deformity, because my father was also my uncle, I would probably feel that his actions had harmed me, and bludgeon him with a fish. I suppose you could make the case that recreational incest without the intent to reproduce doesn't hurt anybody, until reproduction occurs and children are born with funky recessive genes. You could also make the case that leaving razor blades all around outside a playpen doens't hurt anybody either. I would consider irresponsible behavior that has a good chance of harming a child wrong, without waiting for someone actually being harmed to say so.

We could also ban people with chronic diseases from intercourse or go full blast and require genetic testing to ensure that only 'perfect' (according to whoever is deciding) babies are created. I personally would find that reprehensible.
 

Wallydraigle

Banned
Nov 27, 2000
10,754
1
0
Originally posted by: whaleskinrug
Originally posted by: lirion
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Are you that dumb? You really think 'incest' is a universal 'sin'? You are aware that even the european nobles practiced incest.

That's right. Because some people do it, it must be alright. Some people kill, so that must be ok too. I guess nothing's wrong according to your logic.

And according to your logic, cultures should not be permitted to have practices and traditions that disagree with yours?

Not at all. Man has free will, and thus can do as he pleases. Having the ability to do something does not justify so doing. Might does *not* make right. There is a distinction between having the ability to do something, and the concepts of right and wrong.

It's not about "might makes right", nor about absolutes in right and wrong. It's about cultural frames of reference, where incest is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. You and I disagree in that you believe in absolute right and wrong as defined by the Bible, and I do not. My belief system is summed up quite well in the quote in my sig.



If I had webbed feet, or ears all over my body, or some other freakish deformity, because my father was also my uncle, I would probably feel that his actions had harmed me, and bludgeon him with a fish. I suppose you could make the case that recreational incest without the intent to reproduce doesn't hurt anybody, until reproduction occurs and children are born with funky recessive genes. You could also make the case that leaving razor blades all around outside a playpen doens't hurt anybody either. I would consider irresponsible behavior that has a good chance of harming a child wrong, without waiting for someone actually being harmed to say so.

We could also ban people with chronic diseases from intercourse or go full blast and require genetic testing to ensure that only 'perfect' (according to whoever is deciding) babies are created. I personally would find that reprehensible.


We could take it to that extreme, if we wanted to further harm society, or we could just not encourage irresponisble reproductive behavior, such as incest
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
15
81
Originally posted by: lirion
Originally posted by: whaleskinrug
Originally posted by: lirion
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Are you that dumb? You really think 'incest' is a universal 'sin'? You are aware that even the european nobles practiced incest.

That's right. Because some people do it, it must be alright. Some people kill, so that must be ok too. I guess nothing's wrong according to your logic.

And according to your logic, cultures should not be permitted to have practices and traditions that disagree with yours?

Not at all. Man has free will, and thus can do as he pleases. Having the ability to do something does not justify so doing. Might does *not* make right. There is a distinction between having the ability to do something, and the concepts of right and wrong.

It's not about "might makes right", nor about absolutes in right and wrong. It's about cultural frames of reference, where incest is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. You and I disagree in that you believe in absolute right and wrong as defined by the Bible, and I do not. My belief system is summed up quite well in the quote in my sig.



If I had webbed feet, or ears all over my body, or some other freakish deformity, because my father was also my uncle, I would probably feel that his actions had harmed me, and bludgeon him with a fish. I suppose you could make the case that recreational incest without the intent to reproduce doesn't hurt anybody, until reproduction occurs and children are born with funky recessive genes. You could also make the case that leaving razor blades all around outside a playpen doens't hurt anybody either. I would consider irresponsible behavior that has a good chance of harming a child wrong, without waiting for someone actually being harmed to say so.

We could also ban people with chronic diseases from intercourse or go full blast and require genetic testing to ensure that only 'perfect' (according to whoever is deciding) babies are created. I personally would find that reprehensible.


We could take it to that extreme, if we wanted to further harm society, or we could just not encourage irresponisble reproductive behavior, such as incest

I'm not referring to reproductive behavior, but sexual behavior combined with cultural morality. Given a hypothetical assumption that reproduction is not possible (one or both parties is sterile), why is it wrong in your eyes? The answer is because you were culturally conditioned to believe so. Change the culture, and your opinion may well change.

I understand the genetic risks, and personally believe that irresponsible reproductive behavior is indeed wrong..

Sexual behavior != reproductive behavior. People are not motivated to have sex only to reproduce.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
If you subscribe to the Adam and Eve theory there has been a whole lot of incest from the very beginning.

If you follow evolutionary theory, though, you are still stuck with the fact that mankind has always been tribal. In the past the tribes were small and the oportunity to mate outside it small. Lots of incestual lovin' to grow the tribe went on, I bet.

LOL, have you ever actually read the book of Genesis? If not, please read the creation story and then come back and tell me where it says Adam and Eve's children were incestual. If you can even quote a passage where it implies incest, I'd like to see it. This is a common misconception held by those who have never actually read the Bible, or when they did, did so with little interest and thus did not receive the wisdom contained therein.
Once having read the creation story from the book of Genesis, you'll notice that after Eve bears Cain and Abel, Cain is banished to the land of Nod to live *where he then got married*. So after Adam and Eve conceived two children, there were already people living in other parts of the world. I see no mention of Adam and Eve having thousands of children who left home and settled in different lands.

Yea, I believe incest between famous biblical figures came much later in the book....
 

TommyVercetti

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2003
7,623
1
0
Whoa, had me worried for a while.

Also, I heard that some countries don't stone you to death for having pre-martial sex? That must be crazy, with girls becoming pregnant all the time, and people spreading diseases.
 

TommyVercetti

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2003
7,623
1
0
Originally posted by: Pepsei
Originally posted by: Zebo
Woody Allens into that too.

Always makes me wonder at what point did he start banging her.

Or how he even approached that subject. I mean it's not like they were doing laundry and next thing you know they were doing "laundry"
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
Originally posted by: Pepsei
Originally posted by: Zebo
Woody Allens into that too.

Always makes me wonder at what point did he start banging her.

Or how he even approached that subject. I mean it's not like they were doing laundry and next thing you know they were doing "laundry"

I think he took some naughty pictures of her first right?
 

Wallydraigle

Banned
Nov 27, 2000
10,754
1
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: lirion
Originally posted by: whaleskinrug
Originally posted by: lirion
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Are you that dumb? You really think 'incest' is a universal 'sin'? You are aware that even the european nobles practiced incest.

That's right. Because some people do it, it must be alright. Some people kill, so that must be ok too. I guess nothing's wrong according to your logic.

And according to your logic, cultures should not be permitted to have practices and traditions that disagree with yours?

Not at all. Man has free will, and thus can do as he pleases. Having the ability to do something does not justify so doing. Might does *not* make right. There is a distinction between having the ability to do something, and the concepts of right and wrong.

It's not about "might makes right", nor about absolutes in right and wrong. It's about cultural frames of reference, where incest is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. You and I disagree in that you believe in absolute right and wrong as defined by the Bible, and I do not. My belief system is summed up quite well in the quote in my sig.



If I had webbed feet, or ears all over my body, or some other freakish deformity, because my father was also my uncle, I would probably feel that his actions had harmed me, and bludgeon him with a fish. I suppose you could make the case that recreational incest without the intent to reproduce doesn't hurt anybody, until reproduction occurs and children are born with funky recessive genes. You could also make the case that leaving razor blades all around outside a playpen doens't hurt anybody either. I would consider irresponsible behavior that has a good chance of harming a child wrong, without waiting for someone actually being harmed to say so.

We could also ban people with chronic diseases from intercourse or go full blast and require genetic testing to ensure that only 'perfect' (according to whoever is deciding) babies are created. I personally would find that reprehensible.


We could take it to that extreme, if we wanted to further harm society, or we could just not encourage irresponisble reproductive behavior, such as incest

I'm not referring to reproductive behavior, but sexual behavior combined with cultural morality. Given a hypothetical assumption that reproduction is not possible (one or both parties is sterile), why is it wrong in your eyes? The answer is because you were culturally conditioned to believe so. Change the culture, and your opinion may well change.

I understand the genetic risks, and personally believe that irresponsible reproductive behavior is indeed wrong..

Sexual behavior != reproductive behavior. People are not motivated to have sex only to reproduce.

But, like you said, unless one or both parties is sterile there is still the chance of reproduction. We can't let sterile people do it without letting everybody do it, because (descrimination issues aside) we would have to test everybody who wanted to boink with family, issue incest permits, etc, and from a practical standpoint it would be far too cumbersome. There would be hard feelings from others who are not sterile but still wish to play hide the snake with daddy. Some would get the idea that if it's okay for someone else then it's okay for them as well. Society would be harmed.

I don't disagree that holding incest to be "right" or "wrong" is a cultural phenomenon, and I'm not debating that. I still think that even if something is accepted it can still be negative in an absolute sense, and that incest is one of these things.
 

Lyfer

Diamond Member
May 28, 2003
5,842
2
81
Originally posted by: JEDI
text

Some groups also allow sex between fathers and daughters. The Thonga, a tribe in East Africa, permit a hunter to have sexual intercourse with his daughter before he goes on a lion hunt. And a tribe in Central Africa, the Azande, permit high nobles to marry their own daughters

You are the Loser of the day for bringing such a dumbass topic up.


I'm sure everybody faces this issue
.
 

Wallydraigle

Banned
Nov 27, 2000
10,754
1
0
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
If you subscribe to the Adam and Eve theory there has been a whole lot of incest from the very beginning.

If you follow evolutionary theory, though, you are still stuck with the fact that mankind has always been tribal. In the past the tribes were small and the oportunity to mate outside it small. Lots of incestual lovin' to grow the tribe went on, I bet.

LOL, have you ever actually read the book of Genesis? If not, please read the creation story and then come back and tell me where it says Adam and Eve's children were incestual. If you can even quote a passage where it implies incest, I'd like to see it. This is a common misconception held by those who have never actually read the Bible, or when they did, did so with little interest and thus did not receive the wisdom contained therein.
Once having read the creation story from the book of Genesis, you'll notice that after Eve bears Cain and Abel, Cain is banished to the land of Nod to live *where he then got married*. So after Adam and Eve conceived two children, there were already people living in other parts of the world. I see no mention of Adam and Eve having thousands of children who left home and settled in different lands.



I'm not into the bible thing, so maybe I'm missing something here, but there are several passages stating that all of mankind descended through Adam. The doctrine of the orginial sin, and therefore the ransom also, hinge upon this. If you're going to accept Christianity, then I guess you get the Cain's wife = incest thing for free, at least as far as I can tell.

If you still don't buy it, then after the flood when all that was left was Noah and his family, you have to accept that Noah's grandchildren had relations with either their siblings, or their cousins, or that Noah's family were swingers, taking turns with each other so as to produce offspring that were not related. It doesn't look good any way you slice it.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I don't see what the big deal is. This just increases the odds for most ATOT'ers.

Er, what are you talking about, in order for most ATOT's to get that advantage, they have to have a daughter first... catch 22
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: lukatmyshu
Out of curiousity JEDI, what were you searching for when you came across that link?

out of curiosity, what made you read this thread ?

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Ooooohhhh, so that tribal elder was telling me that I had to have sex with my own mother? I thought he was telling me that I was supposed to have sex with Flyermax2k3's mom. My Burundian is pretty rusty.
 

Flyermax2k3

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2003
3,204
0
0
Originally posted by: lirion
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
If you subscribe to the Adam and Eve theory there has been a whole lot of incest from the very beginning.

If you follow evolutionary theory, though, you are still stuck with the fact that mankind has always been tribal. In the past the tribes were small and the oportunity to mate outside it small. Lots of incestual lovin' to grow the tribe went on, I bet.

LOL, have you ever actually read the book of Genesis? If not, please read the creation story and then come back and tell me where it says Adam and Eve's children were incestual. If you can even quote a passage where it implies incest, I'd like to see it. This is a common misconception held by those who have never actually read the Bible, or when they did, did so with little interest and thus did not receive the wisdom contained therein.
Once having read the creation story from the book of Genesis, you'll notice that after Eve bears Cain and Abel, Cain is banished to the land of Nod to live *where he then got married*. So after Adam and Eve conceived two children, there were already people living in other parts of the world. I see no mention of Adam and Eve having thousands of children who left home and settled in different lands.



I'm not into the bible thing, so maybe I'm missing something here, but there are several passages stating that all of mankind descended through Adam. The doctrine of the orginial sin, and therefore the ransom also, hinge upon this. If you're going to accept Christianity, then I guess you get the Cain's wife = incest thing for free, at least as far as I can tell.

If you still don't buy it, then after the flood when all that was left was Noah and his family, you have to accept that Noah's grandchildren had relations with either their siblings, or their cousins, or that Noah's family were swingers, taking turns with each other so as to produce offspring that were not related. It doesn't look good any way you slice it.

Interesting questions. I am not G-d nor do I have a time machine so I really can't give you the answers you're looking for. The Bible is the only record we have of these events and either you accept them, or you don't - it's your call.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Pepsei
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I don't see what the big deal is. This just increases the odds for most ATOT'ers.

Er, what are you talking about, in order for most ATOT's to get that advantage, they have to have a daughter first... catch 22

If they just extend the idea from father/daughter to brother/sister and son/mom, they're set!
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
are you guys still talking about whether its ethical or not? I don't even want to start reading those long quotes...
 

TommyVercetti

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2003
7,623
1
0
Originally posted by: AgaBooga
are you guys still talking about whether its ethical or not? I don't even want to start reading those long quotes...

That's every post on ATOT. In about 5 minutes some guy is gonna start calling everyone a terrorist or a heathen.
 

Wallydraigle

Banned
Nov 27, 2000
10,754
1
0
Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
Originally posted by: AgaBooga
are you guys still talking about whether its ethical or not? I don't even want to start reading those long quotes...

That's every post on ATOT. In about 5 minutes some guy is gonna start calling everyone a terrorist or a heathen.


What's the matter with you, you heathenistic terrorist??!!!!!oneone!:|













 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |