I'm fairly sure most (all) of us feel parent/child incest is wrong, and for fairly obvious reasons.
However, if a brother and sister are very careful about pregnancy prevention or, better, one or both of them is unable to conceive, what would be wrong with it?
BTW, I'm NOT trying to decide whether to do it with my sister (LOL). This is just a question that came to mind while in a discussion with another person.
I think it is wonderful you have a positive experience on this site.
I will increase that positivity when I leave again as I will not be missed by you.
Just do what I do. Ignore the one playing the devil's advocate for no reason at all or whatever it may be and everything will be fine
Left? And yet, you got wind of this discussion somehow.
I love good intellectual debates. I find that using that as an excuse for poor behavior, or rudeness, or condescension is a hallmark of a some sort of personality defect.
Insecurity perhaps? Why else would one need to tear someone else down just to debate?
Or perhaps some sociopathic tendencies thus mandating a need to show off ones abilities to establish a position of authority.
Or maybe it's a form of retardation of the mirror genes, resulting in a profound lack of empathy.
Or maybe I'm just being "challenging, provoking, stimulating, and confrontational."
I hope you'll get the point, and treat folks with more courtesy. Debate is good. Being a jerk, not so much.
Sadly, I am worried I may have wasted my time...
I looked again. I STILL don't see it. Where is this bad behavior? PLEASE quote the offending passages and follow them with your interpretation.
On the other hand, no one needs to interpret your posts. Your post, the one I am replying to is, in my opinion, one of the most vile, ruthless, and bloody attacks I've EVER seen on-line.
I don't psychologize people, but rather take them at face value without wondering about their motives. I think people who spend time looking for motives in others are paranoid or extremely insecure. I think a sociopath is probably maiming cats or putting out cigarettes on someone in his soundproofed basement. He would find heated discussions on forums a bit unexciting by sociopathic standards. I'm not sure anything here reaches a level of seriousness or potential harm requiring empathy.
It's an online forum, what do you expect lol - Just because we are all atheists doesn't mean we are perfect in an online world.
Make the page "Skittles" themed with lots of bright colors and a white fluffy Super Mario cloud backdrop and I will join.
What did I miss? Has someone deleted some posts or something? I've read Unseen's posts several times. I'm afraid I don't see ANY SIGN of an "attack". Quite the contrary. From my perspective he's trying to conduct a general discussion on an interesting topic. To paraphrase and summarize many of the replies, I see, "How dare you suggest such a disgusting and unnatural thing. Leave your sister alone." and, "There you are being forthright again. I'm leaving."
My congratulations, Unseen, for actually persisting. I don't think I could have.
I think it's because members on this forum don't like having their posts criticized in a discussion and they just want to post their thoughts in a leisurely way without having to back them up with anything else when asked. I didn't see anything from unseen that would constitute an 'attack' either...except people attacking him for being a troll or having serious mental issues as another poster put it.
Let me ask you this Unseen, would we thrive as a species if we all slept with our siblings? If the answer is no then that's all the explanation you really need. Brenda is pointing out that it is not natural. She's right. If you want to leave the emotional impact aside, which I don't think you really can, But if you are looking for an explanation based on pure facts, consider what it would do to healthy reproductive rates. (as one example of many)
In regards to your question about why is it worse than interracial, interethnic, or interreligious sex, I would like to point out that you do not have the biological component to contend with, only the societal acceptance/impact. When you play with the gene pool you are ultimately affecting our species as a whole. Yes I know condoms exist, However the only thing that is 100% for certain is abstinence, which is the way it should be for the above stated reasons. Is that more of what you are looking for? BTW great question! it's kinda tough to answer. Gets the wheels turning for sure...
Maybe you didn't read the part where I eliminated the genetic issue. I said suppose either one or both of them was unable to conceive or were committed to terminating any conception. I might also add that suppose they limited themselves to noncoital sex with no risk of conception?
There need be no biological or genetic impact.
The "suppose everyone did it" argument seems attractive at first, but there are many things some people do which would be disastrous if everyone did the same. For example, some people need to use rather large doses of insulin. Some people commit suicide.
Anyway, you aren't seriously asserting the possibility that ALL siblings would become incestuous someday, are you? That's just silly.
Now, many people—both theists and atheists—seem to think humans aren't bound by what's "natural." In a state of nature, it's the law of the jungle, but it's argued we're better than that. We live outside nature in a world of artifice. Abortions aren't natural, for example, and yet most of us support a woman's right to have one. Actually, life saving surgery isn't natural, either. I might argue that sibling incest has to be more natural than surgery, since it requires no technology or even training and involves doing something that seems to come naturally.