Mother and son in New Mexico face jail time for incestuous relationship

[Thumpalumpacus]

Perhaps enforcement isn't the best word for it. They represent a certain morality, though, by enforcing social behaviour.

But that isn't enforcing outlook, and morality is about outlook. There are folks who need laws to not steal from you, no doubt -- but there are also folks who have internal laws which prevent them stealing fro you even if they can get away with it legally.

This idea of yours that legislation is morality -- or that morality is legislated, I'm not sure how you want to spin it -- the two aren't equivalent. It was very legal in Germany in 1937 to discriminate against Jews solely on the basis of their background.

Was that moral? Hell no, it wasn't.

It was legal in America to ban blacks from lunch-counters simply on the basis of their race. Was that moral?

This idea of yours, that legality equals morality, is deeply flawed. I hope you never discover those flaws yourself, at first-hand. But if you do, don't whine about it here.

Well, technically, they can change how you feel about a matter. Societal pressure has a big impact on individuals. By laying that groundwork for your punishment, they are telling you what your society, at least formally, deems right and wrong. This is all implicit, not explicit. I can understand  how one would fail to notice this.

It's not that I "failed to notice it"; it's that, unlike you, I really don't give a shit what societal expectations are outside my obeying the law. I do that to stay out of jail, but I don't care about any groundwork you claim is being laid, because so long as I don't get arrested -- or so long as I can afford a decent attorney -- assholes who try and push social mores and law can suck a fart out of my ass.

They may have changed how you feel about morality, but that's only you, one of seven billion, and no more privileged than any other.

You can punish yourself, it's all good, but don't think for a moment that your surrender -- and that's what it is, you've surrendered to social convention -- speaks for me at all. You have a long ways to go before you even understand me, much less speak for me. They may change how you feel. Accept that and deal with it on your own time, without projection.

Which questions are you referring to?

Perhaps you should read the thread? I won't repeat myself for your sake, either you're quick enough to keep up, or not.

Guess I know that answer already, given your question.

[Joods]

Oh look.... the same fucking thing I first posted. Don't see anyone jumping all over this though.



Typical.

/sarcasm

Climb down off the cross, hon. You're not being criticized for saying "eww", you're being criticized because "eww" is not a rational basis for law-making.

I never said it was. And I never said I agreed with the laws. Period.

[Excited Penguin]

Perhaps enforcement isn't the best word for it. They represent a certain morality, though, by enforcing social behaviour.

But that isn't enforcing outlook, and morality is about outlook. There are folks who need laws to not steal from you, no doubt -- but there are also folks who have internal laws which prevent them stealing fro you even if they can get away with it legally.

This idea of yours that legislation is morality -- or that morality is legislated, I'm not sure how you want to spin it -- the two aren't equivalent. It was very legal in Germany in 1937 to discriminate against Jews solely on the basis of their background.

Was that moral? Hell no, it wasn't.

It was legal in America to ban blacks from lunch-counters simply on the basis of their race. Was that moral?

This idea of yours, that legality equals morality, is deeply flawed. I hope you never discover those flaws yourself, at first-hand. But if you do, don't whine about it here.

Well, technically, they can change how you feel about a matter. Societal pressure has a big impact on individuals. By laying that groundwork for your punishment, they are telling you what your society, at least formally, deems right and wrong. This is all implicit, not explicit. I can understand  how one would fail to notice this.

It's not that I "failed to notice it"; it's that, unlike you, I really don't give a shit what societal expectations are outside my obeying the law. I do that to stay out of jail, but I don't care about any groundwork you claim is being laid, because so long as I don't get arrested -- or so long as I can afford a decent attorney -- assholes who try and push social mores and law can suck a fart out of my ass.

They may have changed how you feel about morality, but that's only you, one of seven billion, and no more privileged than any other.

You can punish yourself, it's all good, but don't think for a moment that your surrender -- and that's what it is, you've surrendered to social convention -- speaks for me at all. You have a long ways to go before you even understand me, much less speak for me. They may change how you feel. Accept that and deal with it on your own time, without projection.

Which questions are you referring to?

Perhaps you should read the thread? I won't repeat myself for your sake, either you're quick enough to keep up, or  not.

Guess I know that answer already, given your question.

I don't know how else to say this for it to get through. You should stop for a second, open a real dictionary, search for the letter m, than for mo, mor, moral. Please read all the definitions slowly. Make sure you comprehend them.

Then take a little break. After ten minutes or so, come back to the dictionary and read those same definitions again. Do this for an hour or so. Make sure you think about them. Then come back to this thread, and read any of my previous replies with this new information in mind.


Good luck.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Where am I even suggesting that I have more common sense than you do?

Right here:

I guess some of us just posses more common sense than others in that regard.

I love how you project and put words into other people's mouths. I never once said we should have laws based on this. I said there ARE laws, which is true. There are already laws on the books in this country. That, ma'am, is a fact. So trying to insinuate that I'm saying something that I'm not, is in very poor taste. Even for you. I also never once said that I agreed with the law. What I said was, and apparently I need to repeat it because some people like to see what they want and not what is actually there, is that they broke the law. And they did. I never said I agreed with the law or the punishment.

... after having said:

It's about the fact that in this country, incest is against the law and they broke the law. And yes, what they did with each other IS gross.

If you are against it, this is a very odd argument. From this side of the screen, you seem okay with that law based on your own personal values. Perhaps we're talking past each other, but it seemed to me that your approval of the law was implicit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

with it. How is this any different than that? If we take issues with a bible telling a story of incest and we jump all over theists for believing in such a story, then turn around and do a complete about face and say, "well, this mother and son are consenting adults so they can do what they want", doesn't that pretty much put us in a "pot calling the kettle black" situation? We can't be okay with one situation and not okay with the other.

Because [url=http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Leviticus/18/6we are holding Christians to their own Bible.[/url] We can and should hold someone to their own moral bearings.

On the other hand, atheism has nothing to say about incest, and so an atheist who doesn't oppose it is not contradicting himself.

Maybe it would just be better to take a neutral stance on it and let those actually involved in those kinds of relationships, figure it out for themselves. The laws should get thrown out because hell, gun laws don't stop criminals from using guns, so how would any of these incest laws actually prevent incest?

Silly strawman ... more evidence of an argument from emotion. Weaksauce.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't know how else to say this for it to get through. You should stop for a second, open a real dictionary, search for the letter m, than for mo, mor, moral. Please read all the definitions slowly. Make sure you comprehend them.

Then take a little break. After ten minutes or so, come back to the dictionary and read those same definitions again. Do this for an hour or so. Make sure you think about them. Then come back to this thread, and read any of my previous replies with this new information in mind.


Good luck.

Hey, I'm sure you're this condescending in real life. No, really. I bet you talk to folks like this in the cafe, especially that big muscular guy with a scowl on his face.

Well, not really. I bet you're only this snide when you are guarded by an electronic halo.

_______________________

The idea that disagreement equals incomprehension is the hallmark of the adolescent mind. Perhaps you could actually explicate your point ...































... or more likely, you're unable to do so, given the obvious mental limitations in play.

[Joods]

Wrong. All I did was merely point out that they broke the law. I did not say that I agreed with it.

I didn't write the law. And I have said that it is pointless to have such laws. Why people continue to read more into what is there, is beyond me, but I am tired of having to go back and state the same thing over again.

[Joods]

with it. How is this any different than that? If we take issues with a bible telling a story of incest and we jump all over theists for believing in such a story, then turn around and do a complete about face and say, "well, this mother and son are consenting adults so they can do what they want", doesn't that pretty much put us in a "pot calling the kettle black" situation? We can't be okay with one situation and not okay with the other.

Because [url=http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Leviticus/18/6we are holding Christians to their own Bible.[/url] We can and should hold someone to their own moral bearings.

On the other hand, atheism has nothing to say about incest, and so an atheist who doesn't oppose it is not contradicting himself.

Maybe it would just be better to take a neutral stance on it and let those actually involved in those kinds of relationships, figure it out for themselves. The laws should get thrown out because hell, gun laws don't stop criminals from using guns, so how would any of these incest laws actually prevent incest?

Silly strawman ... more evidence of an argument from emotion. Weaksauce.

No it's not. But by all means, keep reading more into it than what is there.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because [url=http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Leviticus/18/6we are holding Christians to their own Bible.[/url] We can and should hold someone to their own moral bearings.

On the other hand, atheism has nothing to say about incest, and so an atheist who doesn't oppose it is not contradicting himself.


Silly strawman ... more evidence of an argument from emotion. Weaksauce.

No it's not. But by all means, keep reading more into it than what is there.

Feel free to address my points ... any time now.

Yeah, I didn't think so. Your own words are your own nails.

[Joods]

There is nothing to address. Read the subsequent posts I made. I don't have to reiterate what I've already explained just for your convenience. I also don't have to defend myself against someone wanting to twist what I say to fit their own agenda. If you can't be bothered to see what I have explained, then that's your issue to deal with, not mine.