Well here's hoping you never claim, you don't want to ban/take guns away.

I would hope that from my posts it is clear that I DO want to ban/take (some) guns away.

Also not that I would ever impeach such stirling and balanced sources as the Daily Mail and the very impartial sounding Bearingarms.com...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns/australia-data-shows-gun-controls-a-huge-success-20-years-after-mass-shooting-idUSKCN0XP0HG

It is possible to own a gun in Australia but it is very tightly regulated.

Most people who take opiates do so responsibly ergo there should be zero regulations on there sale and distribution. Or whatever other simile you want to dream up.

There are assloads of regulations on the sale and distribution of firearms. What additional regulation do you propose?

Conservatives don't do jack shit. The only thing they have done is try to make everything difficult for Obama for 8 years, and changing Healthcare to be worse.

Well conservatives in government also roll over and sell out their libertarian-leaning base in misguided "compromises" then celebrate the "victory" by playing up the theocratic elements of the deal.

SMALL counterpoint -- my personal experience with fed-controlled healthcare has left me firmly and completely convinced that anything and everything done to fight US single-payer is a win. I get that it's appealing to the uninitiated, but I don't wish what I got on anybody, and when the GOP fights it, I'm happy with the GOP. Can go deeper on that again if you missed the last episode of mdk backstory, but be warned my feelings are strong.

MORE TO THE POINT: Conservatives don't do jack shit, because conservatism is about small government that doesn't do jack shit. That's.... kind of our deal. No federal regulation of any kind is going to motivate those three Broward County cops to go in and do their fucking job -- to pretend otherwise is a waste of time. I mean we can push whatever law you want through Congress, but the three trained locals holding the weapons? They are the real law. We're all gonna be a lot happier with our real law if I handle mine and you handle yours. Hell, buy your own gun, if god forbid you need it you'll find the individual matters a whole lot more in the real world than the virtues we signal in D.C.

So how far is too far for you? Incest? People marrying their 3DS? (if only this was a joke.) How about sex? I feel like when you start going..."Yeah, polygamy is probably sustainable and mentally healthy." I don't even understand why'd you deny anyone love at that point. Go full progressive. For lack of better term.

I start from the premise that all relationships take place between consenting adults, a DS, however mature and cute, cannot consent. It doesn't really matter if I think its mentally healthy or not. I've certainly met poly people who are in seemingly healthy happy relationships and traditional marriages which are clearly mental deathtraps which shouldn't exist in a just universe. I don't think we can use whether they are 'mentally healthy' as a metric.

At the risk of being somewhat controversial - Incest is actually sort of an interesting case and I'd like people to keep an open mind about it. On the one hand there is an ick factor which society assigns to it but I'm not sure that is all that valid as an objection. On the other hand there are the very real genetic dangers faced by offspring of those unions. Its tempting to disqualify them on that basis alone but there are plenty of genetic conditions which offer similar or worse threats to potential offspring. While we counsel people with these genetic markers we don't have any legal mechanism to preclude them from having children. Then again not all relationships have producing children as a goal. It creates a sort of moral double standard. I'll admit that I suffer from the same social ick factor as most people but I'm not sure that should be controlling.

At the risk of being somewhat controversial - Incest is actually sort of an interesting case and I'd like people to keep an open mind about it.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nope.

I get that its a little icky.

I'm open to a counter argument that wouldn't apply equally to people with inheritable genetic disorders.

I would hope that from my posts it is clear that I DO want to ban/take (some) guns away.

Okay. Neato. I recommend watching that AR video I posted. To add more to your ban list. (Might I suggest all, saves the trouble of needing more laws later. *read this like a waiter recommending you the soup of the day*) Though you really should post this in the discord thread. Make both sides mind explode. Please? We'd probably both get a kick out of it? I'll give you a humble bundle of steam games codes if you at @ everyone who uses it. You can even say "I made you do it." <.< *I'm like 80% serious about this joke bribe*

Though I'll note you can't give me a 'bias' pass off, the daily mail ain't right wing. (that I'm aware of.) And ignoring the best phrase of "even a broken clock is right twice a day." It would be beneficial for you personally, to not disregard something just because of the person or thing saying it. But I digress.

If you'll allow me to be snarky. Australia "allows" guns, like Canada "allows" speech...until you misgender someone Then off to the tribunals with you heathen.

And a quick reply to that.

I start from the premise that all relationships take place between consenting adults.

You already are too right wing for progressives at slate. And also more Conservative than U.S law. :D

(Pedophiles and age of consent laws very wildly around the globe, let alone US. To explain my sarcasm.)

It doesn't really matter if I think its mentally healthy or not.

Society kind of matters though. And it honestly should...since you also limit consent and adults...you can't "not" judge and still have standards. Deja vu, I know I've said this before.

I've certainly met poly people who are in seemingly healthy happy relationships and traditional marriages which are clearly mental deathtraps which shouldn't exist in a just universe.

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015…

politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/p…

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01…

themerelyreal.wordpress.com/2012/08/2…

bigkingken.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/p…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782180

I uh...provided more options for you this time. ^-^'

Also on tradition marriages...the thing that best guarantees personal health and happiness and financial stability being in your term "a mental death trap" I disagree strongly...

louderwithcrowder.com/facts-marriage-…

At the risk of being somewhat controversial - Incest is actually sort of an interesting case and I'd like people to keep an open mind about it. Then again not all relationships have producing children as a goal.

I'm glad you'd like that...frankly the fact you added the caveat of being controversial...but your original quote actually doesn't exclude incest...I wonder if you've really thought about what you're advocating for here.

And to paraphrase someone else's joke. An asexual society, can't last very long. But to be more serious, we're already seeing the problems of not enough births in other nations around the world. Like...(So in short. Yeah. Sex was literally made for that purpose...And marriage was the best way to do that and not have a single parent household.)

marketwatch.com/story/low-fertility-r…

worldview.stratfor.com/article/fertil…

It creates a sort of moral double standard. I'll admit that I suffer from the same social ick factor as most people but I'm not sure that should be controlling.

You should be. It's not just because it's "icky". Society didn't want too many of the population fucking their relatives, because babies are born risking more horrible problems with health/birth defects. To spare sounding any more politically incorrect I won't get into all the other examples that don't exactly produce offspring. Something that has potential to end civilizations...

The gist of the argument in all of those sources seems to be that polyamory has historically worked out poorly for women and low status men.

Ok? I don't see that as a particularly compelling argument against it in the here and now. Marriage in general has been a pretty pro male power structure in most places.

They also cite genetic concerns.

Ok? Is the purpose of traditional marriage some sort of low key genetic control program?

(Pedophiles and age of consent laws very wildly around the globe, let alone US. To explain my sarcasm.)

Im down with establishing 18 as an age of consent for marriage seeing I am talking about the legal rights derived from it.

Society kind of matters though.

In an abstract sense sure. This same fear mongering went on with gay marriage and lo the sun still rises.

Also on tradition marriages...the thing that best guarantees personal health and happiness and financial stability being in your term "a mental death trap" I disagree strongly...

Not advocating for traditional marriage to be abolished. To my knowledge no straight person has been forced into a gay marriage since the supreme court decisions, despite the right wing fear mongering.

I'm glad you'd like that...frankly the fact you added the caveat of being controversial...but your original quote actually doesn't exclude incest...I wonder if you've really thought about what you're advocating for here.

[/quote]
My quote is questioing wether there is a moral ground for precluding incestuos relationships between consenting adults. Paricularly seeing there does not seem to be an analogous argument being made against people with heritable genetic disease.

marketwatch.com/story/low-fertility-r…

worldview.stratfor.com/article/fertil…

The purpose of marriage is not to provide children. If so you wouldn't have a moral case for sterile people to be married or for homosexuals or for people who just flat out didn't want children.

You should be. It's not just because it's "icky". Society didn't want too many of the population fucking their relatives, because babies are born risking more horrible problems with health/birth defects. To spare sounding any more politically incorrect I won't get into all the other examples that don't exactly produce offspring. Something that has potential to end civilizations...

The argument that there is an increased risk of genetic problems applies equally well to a whole range of people with heritable genetic diseases so unless you want to fire up the eugenics program...

While there are genetic diseases and deficiencies that are created through non-incest breeding, Incest is typically uncommon not just because it is a cultural taboo, but because we as a species (and many other mammals) instinctually find our siblings or close family members to not be sexually attractive through minute things like smell. If evolution is so against it, I believe it is a bit more serious than inheriting asthma from your father or something along those lines.

If anyone remembers the Climate Change argument I had with Sleeping a few weeks ago involving the 200,000 dead Taiga that died mysteriously in 2015 and it was linked to climate change? It was also linked to a lack of genetic diversity due to inbreeding a few thousand years prior, which led to 2/3rds of its species becoming extinct in less than 72 hours.

My point is, it is usually a bit more complicated that merely adding an increased chance of disease, and it could potentially be catastrophic. And it is, evolutionary speaking, unnatural and uninstinctual.

This again assumed that the purpose of marriage is genetic. If we teleported into Cathamber's magic wonderland of easy genetic engineering would the moral objection still exist? What if they were sterile? Is there any grounds to object to it other than social taboo because that same taboo applied (and applies) to same sex marriage.

This again assumed that the purpose of marriage is genetic.

I'm talking about the future of the species if society deems it ok, and any kind of coupling that bring offspring, not just marriage.

If we teleported into Cathamber's magic wonderland of easy genetic engineering would the moral objection still exist? What if they were sterile? Is there any grounds to object to it other than social taboo because that same taboo applied (and applies) to same sex marriage.

It would still be icky in society, and we as a species would naturally be disinclined to it because of our evolutionary history and instincts. However, if the genetics were modified for their children, there was no religion against it, nor cultural taboos, then if I had to guess there would be a small population of genetically odd individuals that don't have the same genetic coding as most do, so they find their sister fuckable!

<Snipped quote by Penny>
I'm talking about the future of the species if society deems it ok, and any kind of coupling that bring offspring, not just marriage.

<Snipped quote>
It would still be icky in society, and we as a species would naturally be disinclined to it because of our evolutionary history and instincts. However, if the genetics were modified for their children, there was no religion against it, nor cultural taboos, then if I had to guess there would be a small population of genetically odd individuals that don't have the same genetic coding as most do, so they find their sister fuckable!

So is the purpose of marriage to enforce some arbitrary genetic control? Should marriage rights be determined by that genetic scheme? If that is the case then you should have no objection to incestuous marriages that produce no children right? Also you should be concerned with people who are passing along genetic diseases. Why stop there, why not pick genetic traits that you personally like and select for them?

@PennyNo. I was merely saying how incest could bring more potential problems than you were indicating, and that it's something that is more destructive than many diseases historically. I was just giving food for thought on your discussion with Sleep. I have no opinion one way or the other on it being allowed or not in marriage other than the ick factor and how unhealthy psychologists deem it. (I recall they did studies that indicated it was problematic but I can't remember how much or why).

Without getting into our previous discussion on designer babies way back when, genes often have more than one purpose and altering a code to change your child's appearance or what-have-you could effect them in other ways that we 1) cannot change or 2) do not yet understand. Plus a big problem to the designer baby thing is an eventual lack of genetic diversity, something that you can't 'alter' away very easily without infringing on the theoretical rights of the designer parents. But past those points, we'd just repeat the ethics of it like we were ;)

I am concerned with people passing along genetic diseases to their kids as well. I cannot tell if this is bigoted of me, but I do sometimes see someone with a disease such as down syndrome and they announce they are having a child and I think to myself "that's probably not a good thing" because I feel it is somewhat unfair to the child, potentially.

I will say that if we look at ourselves completely scientifically as a species, the point of the species is to survive and thrive the best way it can. Hence the natural inclination to not marry your sibling or mother or father past it being arranged to keep some arbitrary bloodline 'pure.'

Social and pseudo-genetic engineering aren't adequate reasons to deny people the right to marry (at least not morally). The exact same types of arguments were deployed against interracial marriage and gay marriage.

Social and pseudo-genetic engineering aren't adequate reasons to deny people the right to marry (at least not morally). The exact same types of arguments were deployed against interracial marriage and gay marriage.

I agree. Maybe if it happens someday there could be regulations on them having a child? Then again, humanity is pretty large. Lack of genetic diversity wouldn't be a problem for a long time.

Particularly seeing the number of people who would take advantage of this option would be relatively low. I only bought it up because I couldn't find a firm moral reason to object to it. In fact if it wasn't for the issue of children (the issue of issue?) I don't think I could find any objection and even then if they were given the same counseling as people with the aforementioned genetic diseases, it would be hard to exclude one group and not the other and remain consistent.

Particularly seeing the number of people who would take advantage of this option would be relatively low. I only bought it up because I couldn't find a firm moral reason to object to it. In fact if it wasn't for the issue of children (the issue of issue?) I don't think I could find any objection and even then if they were given the same counseling as people with the aforementioned genetic diseases, it would be hard to exclude one group and not the other and remain consistent.

This might tell you something about your 'consistent' position, if you let it.

I was going to reply to all the gun stuff, but I feel like everyone has said their piece and done a pretty decent job of articulating their points, and I don't feel like repeating myself. Instead, I'll just allow this to move forward into the discussion of allowing consensual adult polygamous incestual relationships, which, I'm not in favor for, let me be clear, just because of the insane amount of psychological damage I feel it would do to children that were witness to these arrangements, but for which I also have no empirical evidence and no desire to research. And that was a stupid-long run-on sentence, but fuck it.

Edit: You might all be beautiful people, though some of you might actually be terrible human beings, and I appreciate the vast majority of the discussion here and marvel at the maturity on display.

Also edit: Oh, and this just happened: washingtonexaminer.com/house-democrat…

So even though it will never pass, fully expect anyone you know that isn't an anti-gun liberal to spend their tax return on an AR-15. This is going to sell more guns than any marketing strategy that could ever be concocted.

@Penny There's many, many more problems and people haven't changed...biology never changed, there's still only 2 genders. You can pretend there's not a strong argument. I find absurdly high increased risks of health, a bit concerning. It's not even close to as dangerous and in percentage of commonality. (That goes to you too, it's not even close in determining risk factor of offspring between others that aren't related, because I was already aware there was more issues, hell I already posted them. @POOHEAD189)

ranker.com/list/genetic-mutation-from…

science-facts.net/human-health/what-i…

"The third major after effect of incest is the influence that it has on the psychology of an individual. Feelings of shame, moral degradation and self-disgust are among some of the more dominant results of the act of incest.

This is partly due to the moral laws that are laid down regarding the act and also due to the connection between the mind and the body. When we look at the moral taboos, we are dealing not only with religion but also with school education, home teachings, social values and legal rules.

Morality, in the case of incest, is deeply connected with the institutes of Law, Religion and even Science.

Overall, the effect of incest on the human psyche can truly be devastating. From depression to suicidal tendencies, the consequences are astoundingly serious and this can be one of the reasons that it is considered such a taboo among all."

There's a little more to it than you claim. You aren't even backing any actual arguments with evidence here, you are literally making the exact same fallacious arguments people were mocking. You just straight up compared gays to incest...so if you find both morally and psychologically equivalent, we can't find any ground to even agree to disagree. You're being outright intellectually dishonest. You just straw-manned too...no one whatsoever has argued about forcing straights to marry gays. This is the problem with being in a bubble...

Every. Single. Link. I. Posted. (clap emoji) Had more than health in their critiques of Incest. Proving you didn't even skim any of them to any substantial degree, let alone read one. How can we have an honest conversation, of nothing but fallacious arguments and not even read ONE of the links provided NEEDED to grasp the context of the argument...

And ignoring personal anecdotes. Prove to me, with counter evidence, how great incest relationships are...you need more than "oh, but I think it should be okay, who are we too judge" when health and society worsens from it. But since you've said "Life goes on." Like you expect morality and common sense to just collapse in on itself without consequences and in 5 years marrying your dog will be on the table and with enough people, you'll not want to judge that right? Why judge anyone it if it hurts their feelings? Because that thought process is impossible to be honest about, because it's completely against human nature. And society didn't grow of the whim of the stupidest and craziest among people...

Blah blah blah.

If all parties are of age and consent then it isn't up to me to determine whether or not it is emotionally healthy. Plenty of traditional marriages are super unhealthy as even a cursory review of domestic violence statistics will demonstrate.

All of that other crap really isn't relevant. Are there genetic and mental health risks? Sure but those are for the aforementioned consenting individuals to make decisions about just like any other relationship.

Interesting how people who claim to be on the individual freedom band wagon get so squeamish when you actually apply it to something the don't like.

Every point you make exactly mirrors the same objections which were trotted out over and over against gay marriage. I did not find them convincing them and I do not now.

"The third major after effect of incest homosexuality is the influence that it has on the psychology of an individual. Feelings of shame, moral degradation and self-disgust are among some of the more dominant results of the act of incest.

Morality, in the case of incest homosexuallity, is deeply connected with the institutes of Law, Religion and even Science.

Overall, the effect of incest homosexuallity on the human psyche can truly be devastating. From depression to suicidal tendencies, the consequences are astoundingly serious and this can be one of the reasons that it is considered such a taboo among all."

In other news I can now be indefinitely detained!

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/375791-supreme-court-rules-immigrants-can-be-detained-indefinitely