Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

[Mr Poltroon]

37 minutes ago, Jun Inoue said:

Turkey is truly lovely, these past few years.

Here, the Spanish government is getting ready to implement the 155 article of the constitution, seizing our government and all of its functions, in order to stop the seditious break-away.

Portugal will, of course, take the chance to go and conquer Spain, since that's the thing to do here in the Iberian Peninsula every time a country is in civil war.

 

Wait, that may be ever so slightly outdated.

[Ouraibaa Hjyuraa]

4 hours ago, Funyarinpa said:

Relatable. 

 

Turkey just voted to legalize imam-made marriages, which have historically been used to marry very young girls to adult men. Extensively so. 

The government claims that the new legislation will cut down on illegal imam marriages, but will that work? Of fucking course not lol

Of course there will be a cut down on illegal imam marriages if those marriages are made legal, lol. But I know what you mean, it won't do jack shit to deal with the child-adult marriages.

[Jun Inoue]

7 minutes ago, Mr Poltroon said:

Portugal will, of course, take the chance to go and conquer Spain, since that's the thing to do here in the Iberian Peninsula every time a country is in civil war.

 

Wait, that may be ever so slightly outdated.

Might be for the better. Spain does need some change very desperately

[Mr Poltroon]

1 minute ago, Jun Inoue said:

Might be for the better. Spain does need some change very desperately

The country was literally burning just a few days ago. I don't know what kind of change you're looking for, but probably not this one.

 

God bless the victim's souls. And everyone else, while he's at it.

[Kenshin_sama]

13 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

Which reforms would that be?

Namely anything that can prevent needless loss of life. For the most recent attack in Vegas, it probably would've been best to ban sales of automatic and semi-auto weapons. For others, better-enforced background checks, universal background checks, mandated training for concealed carry permits, maintaining records of gun sales, etc. Just basic common sense stuff.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Kenshin_sama

[Ouraibaa Hjyuraa]

4 hours ago, Kenshin_sama said:

Namely anything that can prevent needless loss of life. 

Like how people propose the banning of trucks and vans in some European countries? Let's ban knives, too.

 

4 hours ago, Kenshin_sama said:

For the most recent attack in Vegas, it probably would've been best to ban sales of automatic and semi-auto weapons.

That would go against the 2nd Amendment. Besides, the dude was rich. It'd hardly have stopped him.

 

4 hours ago, Kenshin_sama said:

For others, better-enforced background checks, universal background checks

He passed all of those. Those also didn't stop the Sandy Hook kid, who had a history of mental illness, from getting hold of a gun.

 

4 hours ago, Kenshin_sama said:

maintaining records of gun sales

This is actually unconstitutional to enforce for criminals. The Supreme Court ruled that making a felon register their illegal weapons was a violation of their 5th right to not self incriminate. All gun registration laws have to contain a carve out stating they only apply to those who lawfully posses their guns.

Besides, every country in the world who has such a database has proven that is does not prevent gun crime, just criminalizes law abiding gun owners. Canada dumped just such a program because of this.

 

 

[colekitt]

Really, last week a deer came up to me and licked my hand, then shit on my lawn so I geuss it's bad all over.

[Ouraibaa Hjyuraa]

Sorry Kenshin, Jun. Cole just won the Victim Olympics. Nothing to top that. Our Thoughts and Prayers are with you, Cole.

[Kenshin_sama]

2 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

Like how people propose the banning of trucks and vans in some European countries? Let's ban knives, too.

Did I ever suggest banning guns completely? I would absolutely love it if guns were regulated as much as trucks and vans.

2 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

That would go against the 2nd Amendment. Besides, the dude was rich. It'd hardly have stopped him.

Not necessarily. When a case was brought to the Supreme Court regarding the ban on semi-automatic weapons in Connecticut, they refused to hear it, and the ban was allowed to remain (Shew v. Malloy). There was a case in New York for the same kind of repeal, but that was ignored as well (Kampfer v. Cuomo). As with the 1st, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee unlimited freedom in the area it protects (The 1st Amendment doesn't cover obscenity, fighting words, defamation, child porn, incitement to lawless action, real threats, solicitations to commit crimes).

As for whether or not it would've helped, I'm inclined to believe it would've. The shooter was a reasonably sane person who just so happened to snap that day (his motives are still unknown), so I don't think he would've committed any kind of crime in purchasing illegal weapons.

2 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

He passed all of those. Those also didn't stop the Sandy Hook kid, who had a history of mental illness, from getting hold of a gun.

Not quite universal, and there are still workarounds to even further decrease their effectiveness. Also, the Justice Department under the Obama Administration was incredibly lenient on prosecuting people for falsifying background check information (fewer than 1% actually get prosecuted).

The NICS is still very poorly funded, so the laws passed for background checks are almost completely ineffective. They have the ability to work as intended, but they lack the funding.

2 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

This is actually unconstitutional to enforce for criminals. The Supreme Court ruled that making a felon register their illegal weapons was a violation of their 5th right to not self incriminate. All gun registration laws have to contain a carve out stating they only apply to those who lawfully posses their guns.

Besides, every country in the world who has such a database has proven that is does not prevent gun crime, just criminalizes law abiding gun owners. Canada dumped just such a program because of this.

Not after D.C. v. Heller.

 

"Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Canada saw a 41% drop in long-gun homicides from 1995 (when the registration was introduced) to 2010. I'm pretty sure it worked very well for them, and that it was scrapped for political gain.

If someone's gun was used in a murder, and the owner didn't make a reasonable attempt to secure it, the owner should be held responsible. My step-father was a hardcore gun enthusiast and a longtime member of the NRA, but he was highly responsible with his guns and always kept them in a safe when he wasn't using them.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Kenshin_sama

[colekitt]

The simple solution to the gun problem is to just get rid of all the guns and start using swords. Think about it, swords are much cooler and if everyone had one we would get a bad ass sword fight if anyone tried to go on a rampage.

Edited October 20, 2017 by colekitt

[Kurisu-Chan]

The problem with guns in the USA is a matter of culture, not of law enforcments, as long as it's part of the cultural legacy of the USA to glorify...no sorry, overglorify weapons and wars and soldiers, the gun problem will still exist, no matter what, that is why you won't rule out these things just by putting new laws to prohibit weapons or regulate them, remember prohibition.

Also it's kinda weird how americans stick to their constitution like it's a religious book sent by some sort of god, it's a fucking book of rules writen in the past, in an era where.

Bazookas, machineguns, bombs, tanks, assault rifles, grenade launchers, missiles didn't exist, the second amendment was strictly made by thinking of ancient weaponry : aka single-shot rifles, single-shot pistols, bayonets, swords, muskets, tomahawk...etc

 

 

[Ouraibaa Hjyuraa]

9 hours ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

The problem with guns in the USA is a matter of culture, not of law enforcments, as long as it's part of the cultural legacy of the USA to glorify...no sorry, overglorify weapons and wars and soldiers, the gun problem will still exist, no matter what, that is why you won't rule out these things just by putting new laws to prohibit weapons or regulate them, remember prohibition.

I'm not sure what you mean. How does over-glorification of guns cause gun problems, and how would it continue to do so despite regulations? (not that regulations would work anyway, imo)

9 hours ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

Also it's kinda weird how americans stick to their constitution like it's a religious book

It's treated that way because it's what guarantees them their rights.

 

9 hours ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

Bazookas, machineguns, bombs, tanks, assault rifles, grenade launchers, missiles didn't exist, the second amendment was strictly made by thinking of ancient weaponry : aka single-shot rifles, single-shot pistols, bayonets, swords, muskets, tomahawk...etc

I've always found this to be a silly argument. When the Constitutions was written, it wasn't uncommon for citizens to own cannons. And there was a TON of advancement in firearm weaponry during the past couple hundred years, going from matchlock to wheellock to flintlock. Not to mention that multiple-shot guns had already existed for 200 years, with the 8-chambered matchlock revolver made in Germany. The earliest known "Machine gun" is the Puckle Gun from 1718. Another repeater design that could shoot 20 shots in 5 seconds was commissioned by Continental Congress in 1777, though it was rescinded when the price proved disagreeable.

The right to bear arms exists so as to avoid a tyrannical government who could hold down its people by force. However deadly weapons become doesn't change that, unless you think it sensible to fight government soldiers armed with assault rifles while only using a musket. And if you think "naaaah, that could never happen in the U.S.!" I'd like to point out that the Jews of Germany probably felt the same way back after WW1. A tyrannical government is always a possibility.

 

It's easy to blame guns, but if we go just half a century back in time, it doesn't really hold up. Guns were infinitely easier to get in the 60s. Go into any hardware store you liked, come out with a gun. Hell, high schools used to have shooting ranges and rifle training! When the first school shooting in modern times occurred in 1966 at Texas University, professors at the school left their classrooms, went out to their cars, took out rifles, and started laying suppressing fire at the sniper, stopping him from getting any more kills. Guns were so common in the 60s that professors had them just lying in their car trunks. Yet the 60s had nowhere near the problems with gun violence that today does, despite the much higher availability for guns. Hell, going slightly earlier than that, up until the 1930s, you can mail order a machine gun, no questions asked. No background checks, no nothing.

 Plano, Texas, has the highest amount of guns per capita in the U.S., yet one of the lowest rates of gun violence per capita and in fact has less homicide per capita than most European countries, most of which has nowhere near as many guns. The amount of guns in the U.S. from 1994 to 2011 increased by nearly a third, while the homicide rate dropped by nearly 50%.

The problem with gun violence today is not due to the guns. Its due to the lack of proper police enforcement and societal breakdown of morality (which is mostly due to the family breakdown. In fact, if you normalize by single-motherhood in the black community, the crime rate virtually disappears.). If we got rid of guns, the source of the problem would just find another outlet. Japan has a lot fewer guns than the U.S., but instead they have people poisoning the air in subways. On the other hand, in Switzerland nearly every grown man owns a gun, yet they have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

 

[colekitt]

Well, we've been dead for about a week now so I figure it's time I bring up something to create some discussion. The other day I was talking to someone and we somehow got on the topic of homosexuality. Since we are both of the generation that really doesn't care about who people are with we both agreed that the marriage thing was cool with us. (Not that we're in a place where our opinion matters but w/e) Then my friend said something like what must the people who don't want to allow gay marriage be thinking. So I started thinking what kind of relationship would seem most taboo to me that would be equitable to homosexuality then I found it, incest. To me incest just seems weird but I don't really have a reason, let's take two siblings, a boy and girl brother and sister, now lets say they love each other in a special way. I now have two scenarios for you guys and you tell me which one you find weird and maybe we can get to the bottom of this. So lets say they are raised as brother and sister since birth, fell in love and became a couple, they then found out they were not actually brother and sister and one was adopted, Would this be okay? The next scenario would be the opposite if two people meet fell in love and then found out they were blood related siblings separated at birth would this be okay? See I now put this to you because talking about this to anyone else would seem like I'm trying to make incest acceptable and I feel like you are all so weird you will give me a conversation that those normies never could. Also just watched the new justice league anyone else not care too much for the movie but really like aqua man and the flash?

Edited November 22, 2017 by colekitt

[Plk_Lesiak]

1 hour ago, colekitt said:

See I now put this to you because talking about this to anyone else would seem like I'm trying to make incest acceptable and I feel like you are all so weird you will give me a conversation that those normies never could.

We're all so weird? Well, thank you for the compliment.

I actualy find it surprising how strong the taboo of incest still is nowadays, people are super uncomfortable speaking about it and the discussion can pretty much instantly jump into child molestation and stuff like that, instead of relationships between consenting adults and whether we have any right to judge them/get in their way. I think that with siblings, cousins, step siblings etc. it should really be no one's business, even the medical dangers are usually grossly overstated - in most cases inbreeding can have negative consequences if continued over longer periods of time, not in single generation. With parents and children, even foster parents it's obviously much more complicated due to inbalance of power/emotional dependency of children. 

What I've observed in the past is that people that actually have opposite-sex siblings are much more disturbed by the idea of incest. I think people unconciously put a long-term effort to desexualize these relations and any attempt to breake that activates some defence mechanisms.

In anime and VNs, it's usually the cliche of non-blood related siblings, falling in love with each other and then discovering they can actually pursue their love. Oreimo tried something different, but from what I heard the producers blocked authors from pursuing an actual incestous conclussion to the story, turning the ending into the mess we've got in the end. Going back to VNs, one of my favorite western ones, Love Ribbon, did quite a good job of tackling the issue, with a romance between two sisters - pointing to the logical fallacies used to support the taboo, but never ignoring the costs of breaking it.

Still, no matter what we say or how logical it might sound to us, I think that people are by nature dogmatic and distrustful towards everything that's different from their experience. These kinds of cultural battles are always long and hard and some people will hate everything that threathens their worldviews and the order of thing that they're used to, no matter how wrong it might seem from our perspective. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Plk_Lesiak

[iamnoob]

3 hours ago, colekitt said:

To me incest just seems weird but I don't really have a reason

Then you have no logical reason to oppose. If you oppose that then you essentially become a hypocrite since homophobes use the same argument. Only criteria I would implement would be no children due to lack of biological diversity, children deformed ect. I'm a physicist so my principles are simple. Logical foundation with evidence.

[Ouraibaa Hjyuraa]

1 hour ago, colekitt said:

Well, we've been dead for about a week now so I figure it's time I bring up something to create some discussion.

Lmao. Yeah, 'cause the thread dying is so unusual. xD

But fair enough, I'll add to the conversation. Caveat, though! I'm quite tired, so I might ramble a bit.

 

1 hour ago, colekitt said:

Then my friend said something like what must the people who don't want to allow gay marriage be thinking.

I'm not against gay marriage myself, but I can try and play the Devil's advocate (ironically). One reason for being against gay marriage can be the religious aspect, though that would also involve prohibiting atheists or people of other religions getting married. Then again, in that scenario, there could just be established a non-religious marriage, with a non-religious authority figure to legalize the union. So meh. Another reason could be the fear of a slippery slope, which is not without credibility, where people are afraid it's gonna go towards disaster one tiny step at a time. The reason I say it's not without credibility is because I remember seeing advocates for gay marriage on old TV debates going "Oh come on, it's just marriage! It's not like we're gonna start teaching it to kids in school!" Not only is it being taught to kids in school, but so is transgenderism, which I think is an appalling thing to do. That does not mean gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, obviously, but that kind of fear might be what fuels the position. Also, the homosexuality "movement" is needlessly perverse, which is not helping their cause. If you want to convince regular people that you're a normal human being just like them, maybe you shouldn't dress up in spandex and BDSM gear at your pride parades. Not to mention making prepubescent boys twerk half naked on the street.

 

1 hour ago, colekitt said:

 So I started thinking what kind of relationship would seem most taboo to me that would be equitable to homosexuality then I found it, incest. To me incest just seems weird but I don't really have a reason

I've read your question and I will answer it, but let me give my 5 cents about incest in general first, as it's actually a subject I find quite interesting. I have a great interest in morality and general philosophy, so it's a topic I've thought about on and off for a long time.

 

Okay, so I actually wrote an entire paragraph, but found myself rambling way too much, and I've decided I need to try and condense it. I think one of the most important things to understand before going into this discussion is this: Human societies are in a constant battle between two separate ideals: Collectivism (i.e. order) and Individualism (i.e. freedom). Both have their pros and cons, and society cannot function with only one of them. Collectivism says that people must make sacrifices to their freedom and independency for the good of the group. Like paying taxes or not breaking the law. Taken to its extreme, we get totalitarian states, like the Soviet Union, where your rights are non-existent and you are expendable. You only exist in order to be a benefit for the nation, as it sees fit. It represents the absolute of order. But order without happiness doesn't work, and we can't have happiness without individuality. So on to individualism. Individualism says that the individual is supreme over the collective. That everyone is unique and does not belong to any group. Taken to its extreme, it means no one is bound by any rules other than those they set for themselves. It means reality is subjective, your gender is whatever you want it to be, the law does not apply to you, ectera. A society can not be purely individualistic, as it will instantly turn into an anarchy if it ever tries to be.  It represents the absolute of chaos.

For society to function, we need a balance of both collectivism and individualism, so as to have both the order of the former and the happiness of the latter. However, society always tend to lean more to one or the other. But unlike traditionally where it has leaned more towards collectivism than individualism, we now lean towards individualism, and I'd argue that we're on a steady course towards complete individualism. Because once you start putting individualism over norms and traditions, there's no logical place to stop. This is why the LGBTQASKLNTRKESAMwhatever is spinning out of control and why we suddenly have 127 genders. If we put what the individual thinks above what society thinks, everything becomes subjective, and if everything is subjective, then nothing is real and everything is meaningless and the only thing that matters is one's own subjective perception and feelings. That's the basis of the arguments of feminists and all the other "civil rights" advocates.

I probably did a really shitty job of explaining all that, but like I said, I'm tired, so forgive me. ^^

So why was any of that relevant? Because, like I said, we're leaning towards individualism, so these issues get increasingly tackled from an individualistic approach. The only ways you can advocate against something like incest are with either morality or societal pragmatism, both of which use a collectivist foundation rather than an individualistic foundation, which is where the problem arises. Because individualism doesn't care about morality because morality is imposed by the collective on the individual, and societal pragmatism puts the needs of the group above the individual, so that's out of the question too. (If you wonder what I mean, by "societal pragmatism," I mean, for example, how legalizing incest is extremely bad for the stability of families and opens up the floodgate for a whole host of problems. But since the individual reigns supreme in individualism, that doesn't matter.)

So to answer your question, it depends entirely on your value system. If you value collectivism above individualism, then you'll adhere either to the morality of the society you find yourself in, or to the pragmatism of context. If you value individualism over collectivism, then you don't have any argument against it. Or really any sexual activity, including bestiality and pedophilia. Not without having an inconsistent argument, anyway.

 

Feel free to offer counterarguments if you want. I'm sitting here yawning every 30 seconds, so I probably made an error of logic here and there. Or everywhere.

[Plk_Lesiak]

43 minutes ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

If you value individualism over collectivism, then you don't have any argument against it. Or really any sexual activity, including bestiality and pedophilia. Not without having an inconsistent argument, anyway.

I think that's a misrepresentation of what individualism would mean in this content - what you described is a pretty extreme version of moral nihilism (a'la that in de Sade's writing).  For individualism to work as any kind of ethical/ideological stance you must accept one basic principle - that the limit to your freedom is the good of another person. So you should be free to reject any kind of moral and intellectual stances that the collective tries to force on you, but can't use that freedom to hurt others. Pedophilia and bestiality are not defendable on the grounds of individualism, because a child or an animal cannot consent to sex and can be expected to suffer from that kind of action. Gay sex or an incestous relationship between consenting adults, in most cases, is absolutely justified from this perspective, because its an expression of freedom and intent of those involved and fundamentally shouldn't be a concern for anyone not directly affected by it.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Plk_Lesiak

[Ouraibaa Hjyuraa]

1 minute ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

For individualism to work as any kind of ethical/ideological stance you must accept one basic principle - that the limit to your freedom is the good of another person.

I disagree, but I might also be conflating individualism with postmodernism.  If you say that the good of another person restricts you in individualism, then there's no difference between individualism and collectivism, as a society or tribe or group is just a collective of individuals. The point of individualism is that the individual is supreme, and that every individual is supreme, but only as far as they themselves is concerned. Individualism says that all the opinions of everyone is equally valid. If I want to rape you, I can do that if I want. If you don't want it, you can resist. Both stances are equally valid.

 

7 minutes ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

Pedophilia and bestiality are not defendable on the grounds of individualism, because a child or an animal cannot consent to sex and can be expected to suffer from that kind of action.

The consent argument is not consistent with individualism. It has its basis in collectivism. And an animal is not an individual/person. Otherwise, every time you kill cattle for food or bugs because they bug you, it's murder.

[Plk_Lesiak]

1 hour ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

I disagree, but I might also be conflating individualism with postmodernism.  If you say that the good of another person restricts you in individualism, then there's no difference between individualism and collectivism, as a society or tribe or group is just a collective of individuals. The point of individualism is that the individual is supreme, and that every individual is supreme, but only as far as they themselves is concerned. Individualism says that all the opinions of everyone is equally valid. If I want to rape you, I can do that if I want. If you don't want it, you can resist. Both stances are equally valid.

Really, this might be the first time I've seen anyone trying to sell such Nietzschean/de Sadian nihilism as "individualism". Even if we set a dychotomy where this kind of egomaniacal freedom is "individualism" and every sustainable ethical system, no matter how minimal,  is "collectivistic", it will be completely useless for the discussion at hand. Because for acceptance of incest or LGBT+ interests this kind of fringe stance is not in any way necessary. It's also nowhere close to being an agenda of most progressive groups or a dominating trend in society IMO.

Quote

The consent argument is not consistent with individualism. It has its basis in collectivism. And an animal is not an individual/person. Otherwise, every time you kill cattle for food or bugs because they bug you, it's murder.

Probably it is, from a moral point of view? Most of the animals we eat have personality, can feel pain etc. There's a reason we outlaw animal abuse, bestiality in most cases is simply considered one form of it. So, it's not something easily defendable on the grounds of personal freedom. Whether eating meat is, I will not judge, I don't claim to be a moral person anyways...

Edited November 22, 2017 by Plk_Lesiak

[Ouraibaa Hjyuraa]

14 minutes ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

Really, this might be the first time I've seen anyone trying to sell such Nietzschean/de Sadian nihilism as "individualism".

My usage of the word "individualism" was arbitrary. I  felt it was the word most fitting to describe the ethical system in which we put the value of individuals higher than the value of the society in which they live. If individualism usually describes a different school of ethics, then I am sorry for the confusion. Please view the word "individualism" in accordance with the context I've used, not with any prior ethical meaning to the word. Or feel free to offer a fitting alternative name that intuitively describes the ethical approach of putting the individual above society. Lord knows I'm too tired to come up with it. I've reached the point where my lenses are so dry I blink twice every two seconds.

 

38 minutes ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

Because for acceptance of incest or LGBT+ interests this kind of fringe stance is not in any way necessary.

Acceptance for incest or any other sexual right is always based on individualism. Because the only argument is, "because we want to." It completely revolves around whether people should be allowed to do what they want, regardless of what society thinks of it (or if it hurts society). If agree with that argument, that automatically means you agree with a slew of other things, including incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and polygamy.

 

43 minutes ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

It's also nowhere close of being an agenda of most progressive groups or a dominating trend in society IMO.

I'd like to respond to this, but first I'd like you to define the "it" as I don't feel confident in my deductive ability right now. Of course, I could come back to this when I wake up, but I still have 5 hours more I need to be awake for, and you're the best entertainment I've got right now. So what is nowhere close of being an agenda?

54 minutes ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

There's a reason we outlaw animal abuse, bestiality in most cases is simply considered one form of it.

Define most cases. The most common forms of bestiality are with dogs, horses, and goats. Is that rape? Animals can't give consent, but then again, that golden retriever seems pretty content as its humping away. Is it potentially rape? So it's okay if the animal isn't harmed? Well golly-gee fun fact, but that's the case with the vast majority of bestiality cases. And if rape of animals is a thing we punish people for, what about when animals rape animals? Male ducks routinely rape female ducks. Are we gonna have people on watch ready to separate them at a moment's notice? If we see it, do we call the police?

Humans have this bad habit of attributing human norms and characteristics to animals that don't posses them. It's ridiculous to apply human morality to animals. Morality exists to be a benefit for human society. It doesn't extend to other animals.

[Plk_Lesiak]

3 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

My usage of the word "individualism" (...) 

I'm sorry, I don't think this is going anywhere. Most moral conflicts of today, such as gay rights, drug laws etc. center around a liberal understanding of individualism, that is personal freedom of choice and pursue of happiness, coupled with respecting the same freedom of others. This idea of individualism is struggling against a conservative notions of tradition, established moral order, religion etc. The form of individualism you've described, the one I would call libertinism or moral nihilism is an absolutely marginal factor here. The main arguement for gay rights, gay marriage is not "we just want it", but "we need this to fulfill ourselves, to live our lives with the same hapiness and dignity as others". And it's at its core a collective issue, because it's about the ability to not just take these moral stances ("I'm gay, I want to marry a person of the same sex"), but to act on them within the social and institutional order we live in (being able to actually marry that person or at least be in a relashionship with him/her without facing discrimination)  - after all, a human being without a collective of some sort is just an animal. This does not mean that every such claim is credible and should be accepted, because there is the fundamental barrier of the good of other free individuals - not some collective interests per se, but personal autonomy of every citizen that has to be protected. That's why pedophilia (or rather - child rape) cannot be accepted, it will always be predatory behavior that infringes on the best interest and safety of the child.

With animals, even of they are not moral creatures, it doesn't mean they should be necessarily excluded from moral limitations on the part of humans - if they're aware, feeling creatures there's a good reason to think we shouldn't abuse our power over them. I really don't see any good arguement against this stance, apart from questionable sense of evolutional superiority. On the bestiality, yeah, it might be somewhat complicated. And surely in most cases isn't worse than what's happening daily on pretty much every animal farm out there. This still doesn't mean it's not morally questionable - I'm pretty sure than an average goat or horse would choose not being fucked by it's owner if that was a possibility.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Plk_Lesiak

[colekitt]

I really didn't expect five walls of text when I came back .-. oh well time for a sixth

12 hours ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

We're all so weird? Well, thank you for the compliment.

Obviously we're weird, who else could turn a game getting translated into 743 pages of nothingness that somehow has made some of the best points and most interesting arguments I've seen in my life?

12 hours ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

I actualy find it surprising how strong the taboo of incest still is nowadays, people are super uncomfortable speaking about it and the discussion can pretty much instantly jump into child molestation and stuff like that, instead of relationships between consenting adults and whether we have any right to judge them/get in their way. I think that with siblings, cousins, step siblings etc. it should really be no one's business, even the medical dangers are usually grossly overstated - in most cases inbreeding can have negative consequences if continued over longer periods of time, not in single generation.

  Well now that I see all this perhaps it was a case of the frog in the well, I assumed everyone thought that it was gross because its always been something that was really only in VNs and animes but usually very watered down and never really seen by me in real life. After seeing this I can really say I've fallen into a category that could be considered bigotry.

 

10 hours ago, iamnoob said:

Then you have no logical reason to oppose. If you oppose that then you essentially become a hypocrite since homophobes use the same argument. Only criteria I would implement would be no children due to lack of biological diversity, children deformed ect. I'm a physicist so my principles are simple. Logical foundation with evidence.

Well that's the whole point, after attempting to understand homophobic people who say "I just don't like it" I found that I feel similar with cases of incest and thought presenting it to you all might also give you insight into someone's thoughts that you couldn't have gotten otherwise. Since at least for me, this is a case where logically I can see that there really shouldn't be anything wrong with it but, if there was a vote to allow incestuous marriage I'm not so sure I could vote yes.

 

9 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

Lmao. Yeah, 'cause the thread dying is so unusual. xD

But fair enough, I'll add to the conversation. Caveat, though! I'm quite tired, so I might ramble a bit.

  Maybe I'm just too used to the good old days when you went to sleep you either had to back track five pages or lose it all, also isn't being half asleep and on the internet how most of life's problems get solved?

 

9 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

 I'm not against gay marriage myself, but I can try and play the Devil's advocate (ironically). One reason for being against gay marriage can be the religious aspect, though that would also involve prohibiting atheists or people of other religions getting married. Then again, in that scenario, there could just be established a non-religious marriage, with a non-religious authority figure to legalize the union.

Maybe it's just me but I think that's long over due anyway, I've seen atheist married by catholic priests just because that's what they always saw in T.V. and movies. But hey, at least their union is cool with the god they don't believe in.

9 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

Another reason could be the fear of a slippery slope, which is not without credibility, where people are afraid it's gonna go towards disaster one tiny step at a time. The reason I say it's not without credibility is because I remember seeing advocates for gay marriage on old TV debates going "Oh come on, it's just marriage! It's not like we're gonna start teaching it to kids in school!"

Definitely not without credibility since the start of my logical argument for incest is "well it's not that much different from gay marriage so how bad can it be?". So with that in mind I'm going to guess five to six years before marriage between first cousins is legal in the west and seven to eight more for siblings.

10 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

Also, the homosexuality "movement" is needlessly perverse, which is not helping their cause. If you want to convince regular people that you're a normal human being just like them, maybe you shouldn't dress up in spandex and BDSM gear at your pride parades. Not to mention making prepubescent boys twerk half naked on the street.

Well isn't that being a normal human being? BDSM is a pretty common kink that almost always has a spot on porn websites maybe that is them saying "yes just like you we all like weird things so let us be weird with the people we like." and isn't our culture needlessly preserve anyway, I can't tell you how many times I've been driving around and then random tits pop up on a bill board. Also as denizens of the internet wouldn't it be pretty easy to find young girls twerking (not that I have ever looked mind you) is just the fact that it's in real life and the way to avoid it is to look away rather than not search for it that bad?

10 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

Okay, so I actually wrote an entire paragraph, but found myself rambling way too much, and I've decided I need to try and condense it.

starting the petition to release the unabridged post

 

10 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

If you value individualism over collectivism, then you don't have any argument against it. Or really any sexual activity, including bestiality and pedophilia. Not without having an inconsistent argument, anyway.

 I think lumping all of these together might be a bit presumptuous you can't over look the importance of consent, just guessing here but I don't thing LGBTQ would be okay with rape. I like to think that humans aren't a collection of extremes and that we're capable of saying "I like pink but not red." even if we are a bit inconsistent at time <(")

10 hours ago, Ouraibaa Hjyuraa said:

Feel free to offer counterarguments if you want. I'm sitting here yawning every 30 seconds, so I probably made an error of logic here and there. Or everywhere.

Oh we will, slowly but surely we will, and once we have finished this we will go onto something else and this is how we revive the thread. LONG LIVE THE UCW!!!!!!

Hmmm looking at the rest of the posts I feel like i don't have much to add other than "dance my puppets dance keep talking and we shall live again!!!"

Next let's talk about immigration slowly we will rebuild muhuhuhuhuhuhuhu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ranzo]

Honestly I never understand why people get so engaged with having political arguments with total strangers online like you'll click on a facebook photo or youtube clip and there are these total weirdos typing out these long diatribes to someone that they've never met and someone they don't give a shit about. You are not going to change their opinion.  Even if it is stupid, ugly, and hateful. Especially that.

Me I'll occasionally post my stance on a forum and never return to it, I might read the response but I'll most likely just leave it at that.

They don't  have to know there wrong, hell they probably don't deserve that much.

[Kenshin_sama]

42 minutes ago, Ranzo said:

Honestly I never understand why people get so engaged with having political arguments with total strangers online like you'll click on a facebook photo or youtube clip and there are these total weirdos typing out these long diatribes to someone that they've never met and someone they don't give a shit about. You are not going to change their opinion.  Even if it is stupid, ugly, and hateful. Especially that.

Speak for yourself. I use to lean conservative until someone on the internet convinced me otherwise.

[Jun Inoue]

I've seen plenty of people change their opinion due to Internet discussions. It's certainly waaaaay more rare than just sticking to what you believe because "my balls say so", but it does happen. Ofc, it's conditioned on people being both able and ready to challenge their ideas and facing the possibility of being wrong, which helps make it so odd to see in real life.

Kinda like politics, with how candidates spend more time trying to ingrate themselves to the people through shallow gestures and words rather than state how their plans will benefit them.