Incest in a lift

[corbin]

^ Agreed. Very f'ed up.

I wonder... is the ability to ruin people's life with the flick of a pen increased with the use of CCTV cameras? To a certain degree it is, as more information, some of which has the potential to be incriminating, is gathered about a person.

 

[RandFan]

That may be true, but being against incest as a matter of mere utility doesn't justify the view of it being "depraved" or "disgusting." It is obvious that people don't have such vociferous and strong opinions about incest out of a nuanced and scientific concern for the future of the human species as a whole - their sentiment is more emotional and conditioned than it is rational. Indeed, as I have been arguing, it isn't rational at all and cannot be justified. Remember, I'm saying that the contention that incest is disgusting, immoral, psychologically wrong or depraved cannot be objectively sustained while simultaneously holding the view that flagrant lust in general is perfectly acceptable - they are mutually exclusive. I'm not disputing the less frequently mentioned contention that incest leads to bad outcomes.

I'm not sure you understand my point or maybe it's my fault.

Let me try this, humans are far more likely to have a strong fear of heights than not. Not all humans. It goes from no fear to maladaptive fear with a gradient in between. On the other hand, statistically, humans are much less afraid of driving in cars. It's because we evolved to fear heights. Cars didn't exist during our evolution.

You could say our fear of heights is irrational when compared to the relative risk of cars and you would be right. That fact won't take away the queasy feeling many people get when looking over a cliff.

It's not an intellectual viewpoint I'm talking about but rather an evolved sense.

 

[WildCat]

I'm of the opinion that a paper posting their details for everyone to see like that is a much worse act than what they did. God knows what this will do to their potentially already fragile mental health.

I agree, incest should be strictly a family affair.

 

[corbin]

I'm not sure you understand my point or maybe it's my fault.

Let me try this, humans are far more likely to have a strong fear of heights than not. Not all humans. It goes from no fear to maladaptive fear with a gradient in between. On the other hand, statistically, humans are much less afraid of driving in cars. It's because we evolved to fear heights. Cars didn't exist during our evolution.

You could say our fear of heights is irrational when compared to the relative risk of cars and you would be right. That fact won't take away the queasy feeling many people get when looking over a cliff.

It's not an intellectual viewpoint I'm talking about but rather an evolved sense.

Yes, I suspect our difference is that I am talking about the rationality of two philosophical beliefs while you are talking about "rationality" in the sense of a trait being evolved. Now, I do think its a bit obtuse on your part to define "rationality" as "what we are evolved to do" and then bring it up in a debate that involves the meaning of what people say and philosophy.

You may be correct that aversion toward incest is an evolved trait, but that doesn't make the sentiment any more rational. We can evolve irrational traits, as you admit. Thanks for elucidating the evolutionary psychology of WHY people believe incest is disgusting or depraved, but my aim was to show what they believe is incorrect, not why they believe it, which says nothing about verity (at least in this case)

EDIT: Reading back in the thread, RandFan, I see that my language has been very confusing... I even said at one point that the argument is now about "why people believe incest is disgusting," and now I'm saying the opposite. Sorry about that. I still think my point stands, however. In saying "why" I meant "how people justify..."

 

[RandFan]

EDIT: Reading back in the thread, RandFan, I see that my language has been very confusing... I even said at one point that the argument is now about "why people believe incest is disgusting," and now I'm saying the opposite. Sorry about that. I still think my point stands, however.

Thanks for last para. I'll ignore the points previous to that. I think the evolved sense very important but now that I understand your point I would agree with you. However, I'm not sure I would use the accusation of hypocrisy to make the point, but that's your call.

 

[Brian-M]

Assuming they're using contraception, I'd be more unhappy about them doing it in a public elevator than the fact they're doing it with each-other.

What I don't understand is why the newspaper chose to report names and pictures. They could have accurately reported the incident without revealing these things, and that would have been more than enough for the majority of their readers.

The only purpose I can see for publishing their names and pictures is to deliberately and unnecessarily ruin their lives and subject them to public scorn and ridicule. An act possibly worse than that of the incestuous couple.

Granted, I doubt in real life there is ever an option of "sex with an under age person vs. sex with an animal".

Shipwrecked on a deserted island. With one under age person (and presumably many animals).

Even in that situation, self-pleasure and total abstinence are also valid options.

 

[corbin]

Even in that situation, self-pleasure and total abstinence are also valid options.

LOL at how the implication of his scenario is that you MUST have sex with something.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What I don't understand is why the newspaper chose to report names and pictures. They could have accurately reported the incident without revealing these things, and that would have been more than enough for the majority of their readers.

The only purpose I can see for publishing their names and pictures is to deliberately and unnecessarily ruin their lives and subject them to public scorn and ridicule. An act possibly worse than that of the incestuous couple.

They published the pictures because they wanted to make sure the reading public didn't read the story and think it was a little bit hot. It could sound hot, with the right treatment, but the film version will need considerable recasting.

 

[I Ratant]

LOL at how the implication of his scenario is that you MUST have sex with something.

.
When pull comes to push, any sex is better than none.

 

[Information Analyst]

outrageous... don't they know only blue blood royals can practice incest? see their pure blood prevents any retarded offsprings... right?

As an aside, do you have any recent examples of the "royal incest" to which you refer? Just curioius.

 

[Information Analyst]

Its simply too much to ask for a 15 year old boy to not be attracted to his hot cousin simply because she is allegedly (from his point of view) related to him.

Cousins isn't incest in many jurisdictions.

 

[Skeptic]

Fair enough... at this point I think the argument becomes about why people think incest is wrong. The disgusted attitude toward incest usually isn't taken because of the legitimate practical reasons of genetic problems that you mention - the reason is in fact never mentioned.

Oh, that's OK. Pretty soon we'll get the standard-issue "the genetic problems with incest are a myth!" and "you're just against it because it's icky, you can't PROVE it's wrong from pure logical deduction from first principles!" and "in some societies it's perfectly normal, you racist!" arguments in this thread.

 

[Information Analyst]

IIRC, marrying cousins was a cultural thing among aristocracy to keep fortunes and power in the family.

"Marrying cousins" is not restricted to "aristocracy."

 

[RandFan]

"Marrying cousins" is not restricted to "aristocracy."

I didn't say it was. It's just that it wasn't something that people generally did. There was a reason why the aristocracy did it.

 

[Brian-M]

When pull comes to push, any sex is better than none.

Just ask any rape victim. [/antijoke]

 

[Minoosh]

My ex and I were on vacation in London, waiting to use the 20 pence public toilet in Greenwich right before you cross under the Thames - it was "occupied" for the longest time & we joked that someone was having sex in there. Eventually we knocked, and then there was that flushing noise and a young couple walked out giggling. Which got us laughing and we had only one 20 pee piece so we had to go together. Even though these contraptions are automatically sterilized with each use - the whole room sort of flushes itself - it seemed yucky.

And for those in the UK - to the toilets sterilize themselves or is that wishful thinking?

 

[Information Analyst]

I didn't say it was. It's just that it wasn't something that people generally did.

Charles Darwin might disagree with you on prevalence in non-aristocractic circles.

There was a reason why the aristocracy did it.

Except that that reason was not restricted to the aristocracy.

 

[RandFan]

Charles Darwin might disagree with you on prevalence in non-aristocractic circles.

Oh jeez, A.) upper class (excuse me). B.) Darwin is a data point of 1 (anecdotal). And I've already conceded that it happened for people outside of the aristocracy (heretofore aristocracy is now upper class).

 

[RandFan]

Except that that reason was not restricted to the aristocracy.

Sheesh. Make one little mistake. Upper class. The poor hardly needed such a reason to do anything.

 

[Information Analyst]

Oh jeez, A.) upper class (excuse me). B.) Darwin is a data point of 1 (anecdotal). And I've already conceded that it happened for people outside of the aristocracy (heretofore aristocracy is now upper class).

You shifting the goalposts doesn't alter the fact that marriage between cousins was not uncommon in the past - or even currently - in many places.