Idiot loudmouth Dennis Prager claims Secularists Have No Argument Against Incest "
https://www.salon.com/2022/10/13/right-w...t_partner/
https://www.comicsands.com/prager-adult-...49412.html
The flaws in reasoning are as followed
1. He dismisses the genetic argument by insisting it takes multiple generations to see ill effects. This is false of course in one generation you can see problems as pointed out here and even if it's a long-term problem it's still a problem if incest were normalized and consistently practiced among relatives on a society-wide basis. The moral wrong is neither short-term nor purely individual.
2. He insists only Judeo-Christianity has an answer for incest even though the bible is full of incest and Christianity did not stop incest in Christan societies nor were Christians the only religion/culture to have an issue with incest. So the notion that modern condemnations are mere relics of Christianity is simply not justified.
3. He insists that any Jew or Christain that doesn't subscribe to his narrow-minded ultra-literalist view of religion "isn't serious" as if you can't take religion seriously and disagree with him. For instance, he insists you can't be pro-cross-dressing and a Jew/Christain because Deuteronomy 22:5 says it's wrong while ignoring that some Jews/Christain interpret this as a condemnation of certain reasons for crossdressing rather than cross-dressing itself. He tries to insist Jews/Christain must have had a blanket condemnation of nudity despite Christain nudists existing and there being arguments that nudity is a question of intent rather than action. He also totally fails to establish these as default positions of leftism.
Overall a terrible argument from a simplistic and ignorant partisan blowhard
Sources
The effects of incest can be short term
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/152391
https://www.geisinger.org/health-and-wel...mortality.
What Deuteronomy 22:5 might actually mean
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scri...construed.
Christain Nudism
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com...dists.html
https://bronlea.com/2014/10/30/can-chris...e-nudists/
https://www.salon.com/2022/10/13/right-w...t_partner/
https://www.comicsands.com/prager-adult-...49412.html
The flaws in reasoning are as followed
1. He dismisses the genetic argument by insisting it takes multiple generations to see ill effects. This is false of course in one generation you can see problems as pointed out here and even if it's a long-term problem it's still a problem if incest were normalized and consistently practiced among relatives on a society-wide basis. The moral wrong is neither short-term nor purely individual.
2. He insists only Judeo-Christianity has an answer for incest even though the bible is full of incest and Christianity did not stop incest in Christan societies nor were Christians the only religion/culture to have an issue with incest. So the notion that modern condemnations are mere relics of Christianity is simply not justified.
3. He insists that any Jew or Christain that doesn't subscribe to his narrow-minded ultra-literalist view of religion "isn't serious" as if you can't take religion seriously and disagree with him. For instance, he insists you can't be pro-cross-dressing and a Jew/Christain because Deuteronomy 22:5 says it's wrong while ignoring that some Jews/Christain interpret this as a condemnation of certain reasons for crossdressing rather than cross-dressing itself. He tries to insist Jews/Christain must have had a blanket condemnation of nudity despite Christain nudists existing and there being arguments that nudity is a question of intent rather than action. He also totally fails to establish these as default positions of leftism.
Overall a terrible argument from a simplistic and ignorant partisan blowhard
Sources
The effects of incest can be short term
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/152391
https://www.geisinger.org/health-and-wel...mortality.
What Deuteronomy 22:5 might actually mean
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scri...construed.
Christain Nudism
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com...dists.html
https://bronlea.com/2014/10/30/can-chris...e-nudists/
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
