|
|
|
|
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 1:50:19 AM | If it wasnt for daddy messing with things below the belt with his DAUGHTER we wouldnt have this thread on this subject.
I take offence to men who fark their daughters. And also in people who try to over intellectualisc something for the sensationalism of it all..
dare i say it ..... BAD FORM.
So bite me if i am outta line.!
Yep shrexy it is a no brainer.. unfortunately some show there limited brain capacity on this topic.
x mmm
 | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 1:53:14 AM |
We all feel repulsed, no question
yep we are but some people get repulsed eating frogs legs or fish eggs
doesnt mean its wrong.
why are we not repulsed over the adam and eve mythological tale?
or the kids breeding with eachother?
on a really "out there" point theres many people who believe we are from the one creator find incest quite sickening, but if we are from the same creator then we all are into the incest thing.
our objections are as a result of the way we were taught as kids.
now as long as both are adults and both deemed mentally competent we should get a life ,like they did. | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 4:34:39 AM | Does anybody remember the song some years ago............. I think it went something like this ......... " Woe is me , shame and scandal in the family "
In Trinidad there was a family
With much confusion as you will see
It was a mama and a papa, and a boy who was grown
Who wanted to marry and have a wife of his own
He found a young girl, that suited him nice
And went to his papa to ask his advice
His papa said son, I have to say no
This girl is your sister but your mama don't know
Refrain:
Woe, is me, shame and scandal in the family
Woe, is me, shame and scandal in the family
A week went by and the summer came 'round
And soon the best cook in the island he found
He went to his papa to name the date
But papa shook his head and to him he said
You can't marry this girl, I have to say no
This girl is your sister but your mama don't know
Refrain
He went to his mama and covered his head
And told his mama what his papa had said
His mama she laughed, she said go, man, go
Your daddy ain't your daddy, but your daddy don't know...........................
Just a thought that came to mind   | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 6:00:45 AM | ^^ I say Nature says it's wrong because Inbreeding usualy results in deformity or death for the child. Other than rodents I think inter-breeding is not usual among higher level animals.
I know one pair of rats can have over 1 million decendants in 6 months, scary hey?? | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 1:52:17 PM |
Ahh, but can you discuss death without being "pro-death" ? i think so
discussing anything in that statement is a deflection, it is the substance of the subject your discussing. The point was you are iether pro insest or not. That is what you would discuss and in fact are discussing it is not the same as having an opinion. ( Last time i checked the dead dont usually discuss death LOL)
Shrexy seems to be making a simple statement that is quite easy to comprehend. You are either pro or not there is no middle ground.
I just dont see why there is a need to over intellectualise simplistic statements into long winded statements by some here seem to do on something so simple.
Yes or NO? would you shag dad? or Mum or want your children to? Its not hard??
Xmmm
| |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 6:23:11 PM |
I just dont see why there is a need to over intellectualise simplistic statements into long winded statements by some here seem to do on something so simple.
Yes or NO? would you shag dad? or Mum or want your children to? Its not hard?
m&m&m you dont like spending more than 5 seconds thinking about a very emotional and perssonal question - far to intellectual - so how do you like this:
m&m&m, i think you would shag your brother and dad and have babies with them if
- you wouldnt know you are related
and/or
- you would have been rased in another time and culture
and/or
- you would have been raised to believe it very normal, natural and ethical and if you would have had no other points of reference
and/or
- you would think you had no other choice
If we wouldnt dont stop sometimes and question our belief we would still be sacrificing virgins and children, eating their hearts, throwing christians to the lions, burning witches, shooting natives on sight and gasing jews which were all perfectly justified and ethical within their frame of reference.
Think.
 | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 7:14:16 PM |
Shrexy seems to be making a simple statement that is quite easy to comprehend. You are either pro or not there is no middle ground.
I'm sorry, I was of the impression that the topic was put up for discussion which for me generally means a bit more than yes or no, there's other things like why, when, who, how............but that's just me.
Hey here's an idea; how about we change the way these forums operate so that when someone puts a topic up people are only allowed to tick a yes or no box, that should make for a riveting read. | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/10/2008 10:31:46 PM | Its not whether there is anything to discuss as you can support either outcomes of one's thinking to the cows come home. But some subjects wil by nature esentially com edown to limited choices. Thats a container is marker yes or no doesnt prevent one from filling them with whatever they think or consider substantiates their rationale.
But logically..the outcome to this is either a yes or no... or sorry...is there a maybe.. or a kinda...or a sometimes.. or a try-it-first..etc etc.
It is either NO...for whatever reasons...or a Yes..for whatever reasons..
So the discussion can be long and involved.. but like it or not you will be faced with an either /or question.
Some people just dont like this.. .they'd rather hide behind a lot of circuitous ponderings !!
So I pray folk wont confuse a choice with its justification or other wise
So by all means use a 'box' system...just allow space for explanations as to how the decider arrived at that yes or no !! | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 12:17:51 AM |
So the discussion can be long and involved
I think there is a big difference between a discussion and a im right and you are wrong be damned attitude.
There are shades of grey in all aspects of life and to say otherwise is just a bit naive in my mind. No one is going to agree with incest but to me there is a whole world of difference between this particular case and a parent having an incestuous relationship with a child. Yeah so they shouldnt have bred, that goes without saying but apart from that they are two adults,they are consenting so if they want to do their thing why not just leave them to it?
As for the way the child will be viewed once people know of her parentage, I guess there will be bigots who cant see past where she came from but stuff them.....who cares about those types of people anyway! | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 2:24:06 AM |
As for the way the child will be viewed once people know of her parentage, I guess there will be bigots who cant see past where she came from but stuff them.....who cares about those types of people anyway!
I don't think anyone here has thought badly of the child. Quite the opposite, in that people probably wouldn't have cared so much if the couple hadn't involved a third person(the child). It's this action that has infuriated people the most. | |
|
| |
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:08:33 AM | Let me address this.... to those who know me sorry i have to its ridiculous to reply too, but hey Im bored ....
He said SHe said
he said....
m&m&m you dont like spending more than 5 seconds thinking about a very emotional and perssonal question - far to intellectual - so how do you like this:
she said.....
What emotional and personal question is it i dont spend 5 seconds thinking about.. or are you still figureing one out??
he said....
HOw i like this is.....
shes said....
boring blah blah blah with a boredom invoked response
he said....
m&m&m, i think you would shag your brother and dad and have babies with them if
- you wouldnt know you are related
she said.....
duh... unlikely senario as i know who they are .. so its just a what if, maybe senerio..
so what if you shagged your daughter the baby died so you had another??? Thats what did happen and was waht the op spoke about...
he said........
and/or
- you would have been rased in another time and culture
she said.........
I hate to tell you this but I am only giving my thoughts to the culture and time i am raised in which is now and australian.. As that is my real world. I do try to live in it. Novel idea i know..but what the hell I am living in it so i shall exist in it..
he said........
and/or
- you would have been raised to believe it very normal, natural and ethical and if you would have had no other points of reference
she said........
Well clearly anyone would thats like stating the obvious duh.... and your point is what? Still doesnt take away from the fact its 2oo8 and its also a western country I live in and was raised in. What other cultures do and dont do is not what was is being presented by the OP and the specific case mentioned..
he said.........
and/or
- you would think you had no other choice
she said.................
there is always a choice.. i would NEVER do it.. i was born with the freedom of choice.
your arguements are base on what ifs and maybes what i can tell you
it is DEFINATELY wrong...
for the record i spent 6 mins and 34 seconds too long on this ...
xmmm
by the way still waiting for the interllectual part...xxx | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 113 | |
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:19:39 AM |
I don't think anyone here has thought badly of the child. Quite the opposite, in that people probably wouldn't have cared so much if the couple hadn't involved a third person(the child). It's this action that has infuriated people the most.
That's quite true Briz. But if I I can be forgiven for ...eeek...wanting to think about what you and Hilly have said a little further, what worries me about that particular aspect is this...adults out there in society are discussing this right now, and some are thinking and talking about violence against the incestuous two just like some on here are (even throw away lines made at the dinner table about the two needing some sense knocked into them. But no, not against the kid herself). So the problem I foresee is that in houses where these types of discussions are happening, the children of the people who say they want to hurt the incestuous couple are listening in. Children learn how to behave by seeing how their mothers and fathers behave and following their example.They will learn that this is a situation where a disgusted, violent reaction is acceptable, because they witness and/or sense the vehemence of their parents about it all. Those kids ... they'll perhaps talk about it all with their friends, and it is them who'll think badly of this child. Children won't understand the distinction, and kids like to get in on their parents' emotion. Monkey see, monkey do. The child concerned is lucky she's only a baby right now, because if she was older, inevitably some of those kids would meet her. It's likely some would go so far as to act on their own parents words. I pity that child out there in years to come. I hope for her sake that this dies down quickly, because as long as the parents of her peers hate her own parents, she will wear some of that from her peers. I am so sad for her that her parents spoke so publicly. | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:27:09 AM | For God's sake has anyone seen the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels?? Steve Martin plays a retard in part of it called Ruprecht, That's what your inbreds turn out like!!
Ruprecht, don't take the cork off the fork!! Now eat your apple sauce!! | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:29:30 AM | thats a good point, i just watched american history x again.. and it highlights the whole monkey see monkey do phenomenon.
i also read today how the couple are recieving death threats.. in some ways i cant help but think they brought that on themselves, as well what other kind of scenario did they think would occur, the world is so not a perfect place, and i do believe they are asking for too much in 'asking for understanding'.. we as a society (today) are programmed right or wrong to believe that this situation (father and daughter) is wrong, especially i think more so in today's society with the last twenty? years of pedophillia really being brought to our attention.
hate isn't anyway to handle any situation. its a wasted emotion void of compassion, intelligence and clarity.
as for u either are for it or against.. well i dont think anyone is saying yay we all love incest and for u to think that is the sum total of this issue shrexy, u are looking too much inside the box, and that is of course ur right. but to down on the ppl who look outside the box is wrong of u. none of us are saying we love incest and its a little stupid of u to read the posts as being 'pro incest or anti incest' only. | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:34:23 AM | This is long, but anyhow....
Settled by His Honour, Judge Millsteed 20/3/08
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
MOUNT GAMBIER
THURSDAY, 20 MARCH 2008 AT 9.35 A.M.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE MILLSTEED
NO.DCCRM-08-125
R v JOHN EARNEST DEAVES AND JENNIFER ANNE DEAVES
HIS HONOUR IN SENTENCING SAID:
John Earnest Deaves and Jennifer Anne Deaves, you are related as father and daughter. You are aged 61 years and 39 years respectively.
Each of you has pleaded guilty to two counts of performing an act of incest with the other. The charges are representative of a course of conduct that spanned seven years. Your relationship produced two children. The first child was born in 2001 but died a few days after birth due to a congenital heart disease. The second child was born in May last year.
The first count of incest is based on the act of sexual intercourse that resulted in the conception of the first child. The second count is based on the act of sexual intercourse that resulted in the conception of the second child.
Mr Deaves, you married Ms Deaves’ mother approximately 40 years ago. She divorced you when you were serving a sentence of imprisonment for armed robbery. At the time, Ms Deaves was about three or four years of age. Ms Deaves’ mother did not encourage subsequent contact between you. As a result, you had little contact until about 2000. By that time, you, Mr Deaves, were living with your child and wife, at Yongala, in South Australia, and you, Ms Deaves, were living with your former husband and two children in Sydney, New South Wales. Those children are now aged 9 and 14.
Apparently both marriages were strained. You, Ms Deaves, decided to go and stay with Mr Deaves for a short while to give you an opportunity to assess the future of your marriage. During the stay, which lasted for about three weeks, the two of you became attracted to one another. However, no physical relationships developed until later that year, when the two of you took Mr Deaves’ children on a trip to Dubbo. Following that trip, the two of you ended your marriages and commenced living with one another.
Each of you say that the other has provided care and affection that was missing in your marriage. Mr Deaves also provided your children, Ms Deaves, with a loving father figure that your former husband failed to provide. You also say that although you are father and daughter, that you were virtually strangers when your relationship commenced and that the relationship was one based on mutual love and respect.
Ms Deaves, you have also assisted to care for Mr Deaves. He has been in receipt of a disability pension since 1996 due to a back ailment and also currently suffers from diabetes, depression, mild heart disease, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
After the relationship commenced you moved to Rockhampton, Queensland, where the first child from the relationship was born. You then moved to Port Pirie, South Australia. You were still residing at Port Pirie when the second child was born. You then moved to Bordertown. After the birth of your second child, the Department for Families and Communities South Australia were informed of the relationship. The police subsequently investigated the matter. When interviewed by police you both made full admissions. You deserve credit for cooperating with the police and for your early guilty pleas.
Since these charges were laid, the Department of Family and Community Services has obtained an order that your three children, Ms Deaves, be under the care and protection of the Minister for a period of at least 12 months. They are currently in foster care. You hope that you will be able to regain custody of the children in the near future.
It is to be observed that it was a condition of your bail, Mr Deaves, that you not have contact with Ms Deaves or the children. This order has exacerbated your depression and caused you to attempt to commit suicide on two occasions. You both say that you accept your sexual relationship must end, but hope that you will be able to continue to support one another and the children.
Whether either of you will be allowed to have contact with the children in the future is an issue for the Department of Family and Community Services. However, there can be no question that it is essential to impose a sentence that impresses upon you that a resumption of your incestuous relationship is unacceptable. Such conduct involves a breach of the criminal law.
As counsel submitted, the present offences are atypical instances of incest. This is not a case where a father has violated his daughter and used his position of authority to take advantage of her powerlessness. Rather, this is a case of a mutually consensual union, formed by adults, who had previously had little contact.
However, the offence of incest exists not merely to protect children from sexual abuse. In my view, other relevant factors include: the need to prevent the high risk of congenital defects of children born of incestuous relationships; and to prevent children, who are brought up in a family unit founded on an incestuous relationship, suffering psychological harm and social stigmatisation. Those factors assume significance in this case.
I take into account, Ms Deaves, that you have no prior convictions. Mr Deaves, you have a number of convictions but they are quite old and, indeed, in my view, quite irrelevant.
On 15 October 2007 you, Mr Deaves, were convicted in the Magistrates Court of failure to comply with a bail agreement. You were placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months. That offence involved you breaching a condition of your bail agreement, that you not have contact with Ms Deaves.
In relation to you, Ms Deaves, I am required to sentence you for the same offence. That charge has been called up from the Magistrates Court.
I turn to the sentence I must impose. In relation to each of you, I impose a single sentence pursuant to s.18A of the Sentencing Act. Because of the consensual nature of your relationship, the fact that it did not involve any form of exploitation and your early guilty pleas, good reason exists, in my view, to record a conviction against each of you, but discharge you upon entering into a bond in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for three years.
The bond will be subject to the following conditions:
1. That you appear before the court for sentence if you fail during the term of the bond to comply with a condition of the bond.
2. That you be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer and obey that person’s lawful directions.
I will not make it a condition of the bond that you not see each other. In my view such a condition would be unfair. However, you must both understand that if you breach this bond by engaging in further sexual activity or by breaching the bond in any other way, you will be required to appear before this Court to be sentenced for the present offences and for the breaching offence. I want to make it plain that the single sentence I have imposed applies to all matters
Are you prepared to enter that bond, Ms Deaves?
PRISONER JENNIFER DEAVES: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Deaves?
PRISONER JOHN DEAVES: Yes.
MR VIGAR: There is one thing I would like to say in relation to your remarks and it is perhaps to correct a misperception; that Ms Deaves’ children are with her, they have been returned.
HIS HONOUR: Sorry, I didn’t realise that, I thought they were still under a care and protection order.
MR VIGAR: No, they’re not, they have been returned to her, that was a short time after that. I perhaps didn’t make that clear in my submissions to you.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr Vigar.
MR VIGAR: I don’t think it has any bearing on the sentence.
HIS HONOUR: No, but thank you for drawing that to my attention.
AS TO EACH ACCUSED
BOND ACKNOWLEDGED
MS ANNELLS: Perhaps before Mr Deaves and Ms Deaves leave, there had been some mention in submissions that your Honour was considering ordering a continuing suppression of names in this matter to protect the child of the relationship. I was unsure whether your Honour had given further attention to that.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Handshin, what do you say about this? The child is not a victim in the usual sense of the word but I did raise with counsel on the last occasion that publication of her name may have an impact on her and whether there was a basis or justification for suppressing her name. If her name was suppressed, there would have to be suppression of the names of the parents.
MR HANDSHIN: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: What is your attitude to such an application? Would you like to think about the matter?
MR HANDSHIN: It would seem to me that there is at least the possibility of the child incurring some undue hardship if the names are published. On that basis, your Honour could make a suppression order under sub-s.(b) of s.69A of the Evidence Act. I accept that any such order would logically extend to the suppression of the parents’ names.
In the circumstances, it is a matter of weighing up whether potential hardship to the child outweighs the public interest in open justice.
HIS HONOUR: The child is only one-and-a-half now?
MR VIGAR: That’s correct.
HIS HONOUR: It is likely that by the time she’s grown up, this matter, for want of a better expression, would be dead and buried.
MR HANDSHIN: I think, in those circumstances, my submission, without having a further opportunity to consider it, would be that, although there is the remote possibility of some future hardship to the child, it is not immediate enough to amount to undue hardship for the purposes of s.69A.
HIS HONOUR: There are two other children though; they’re 9 and 14. Would you like an opportunity to consider the matter? I presume you’re making an application, Ms Annells?
MS ANNELLS: I don’t have instructions to make an application, I was just inquiring as to your Honour’s thoughts given it was raised in submissions.
HIS HONOUR: I raised that for counsel’s consideration, I would not make an order unless there is an application.
MS ANNELLS: No, I don’t have instructions to make an application.
HIS HONOUR: In that case I will not make an order for suppression.
ADJOURNED 9.53 A.M. | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 4:37:44 AM | Thanks for the accounting of that, Briz....
I am left to wonder though, how on earth anyone would ever know if they broke their bond conditions, if they finally used contraception... *sigh* pointless for me to ponder...and not meant to provoke further argument.
hnh
 | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 7:25:56 AM | Oh, good grief!
My g/f just dropped off a magazine where the cover story is of a woman who had a sex change operation to become the man she always felt she was trapped in a woman's body although she once was a contestant in a Hawaiian Tropic beauty pageant but ended up keeping her reproductive organs despite having her breasts removed and taking hormone therapy and is now happily with another woman and extremely pregnant that is to say the she-male is the pregnant one and all they want is 'a little understanding and respect from the rest of the world'. Sound familiar?
Yeah, the no grammar or punctuation was on purpose...
I won't even read the article, this was just from the cover and what my g/f told me, before I made her stop. One has to wonder why these things hold such a fascination in today's society, to the point of where magazines and the like pay millions to buy the rights to these stories. And we all know they make a profit from it too.
*sigh*
Blast away if you so wish, although that was not my intent.
Now if any of you want to read a truly funny thread, I invite you to browse the global one currently running; see
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9719692.aspx
for a laugh you'll not soon forget.
hnh
| |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:42:58 AM | What we're actually arguing here is an old argument that goes as far back as Plato. In modern philosophical terminologies the two camps are "Moral Relativism" (Whitegold and friends) and "Moral Objectivism" (Shrexy et al). The third view, Moral Absolutism has not been represented in this argument to my knowledge.
There are essentially three ways of looking at morality.
1. Moral Absolutism
There is an absolute definitive right and wrong. Normally this is the province of the religious, who have a predefined set of values, such as the 10 Commandments, that are rigidly adhered to. Mostly. Sometimes.
2. Moral Relativism
Moral Relativists believe that morality is a function of circumstance and upbringing, with no inherent objective "truth". For example, even things as clear as "Thou shalt not kill" are less clear in a thousand different circumstances, such as self-defense, euthanasia, etc. We know it's "wrong" to lie, but we usually think it's ok in certain circumstances. Most people are moral relativists if they're not religious.
3. Moral Objectivism
A kind of "middle ground" between the two, holding Relativism for the most part, but with specific things that are absolute. Murder, rape, incest, etc.
My personal view is moral relativism. I believe that all things and all morality is at all times subjective. More particularly I believe anything is permissible if no one is harmed. That part is particularly important.
What we disagree on is essentially a point of philosophy, and nothing more. The issue I have is that I see the world one way, and you see the world another way. I can't (and won't) force you to try to see the world my way, but you seem fixed on doing so. You cannot, or should not in my view, simply state that your worldview is the only correct one, and then insult and demean anyone who doesn't agree with that.
For having a view that differs from the prescribed official opinion I have been told the following, not necessarily directly to me, but certainly about me and my beliefs.
white gold... how is your relationship with your daughter?
Any of you who can not see this as wrong.. ought to go have a good hard long look at yourselves.
I take offence to men who fark their daughters. And also in people who try to over intellectualisc something for the sensationalism of it all..
Yep shrexy it is a no brainer.. unfortunately some show there limited brain capacity on this topic.
Some people just dont like this.. .they'd rather hide behind a lot of circuitous ponderings !!
So basically disagreement is "overintellectualising", and at the same time showing limited brain capacity. We're bad people who should take a look at ourselves. And probably are child molesters. Did I follow correctly?
Heaven forbid someone simply not agree with you. Next time a controversial forum thread is made can someone please state from the beginning what my opinion is supposed to be?
you ARE either agaisnt Incest.. or you re not. there can be no middle ground.
This is the thing that bothers me the most. Even more than the suggestion of molestation of my daughter/son, which is beneath either comment or anger, is this suggestion that everything can be so neatly categorised. I saw a good example of this in the movie Lions For Lambs, where Tom Cruise harrasses someone demanding "Do you want to win the War on Terror or not?" and when she says "Well I.." he attacks her. "Yes or no. This is the quintessential Yes or No question of our time. Yes, or no." Naturally things aren't that simple. What's the war on terror? How is it being fought? How would someone win? What compromises are implied? The same could be asked of other things. "Is murder wrong? Yes, or no" Well, you first have to define "murder". Does that include abortion? Euthanasia? Self-defense or defense of your family? So giving a "yes or no" answer just isn't that simple.
Because I know this thread is so vehemently against any kind of allegory, the point of which is to show related questions, with an obvious inference on the question at hand, I'll respond directly to the actually question.
Am I pro incest or not. My answer, of course, is no. But the question itself is so stupid and blind that it doesn't deserve a real response. My philosophical view is that there is no such thing as right or wrong, that judgements are made based on cultural and personal values. You disagree with that. Fine. But using my view, which is the only one I have, it's a non-question. Do I like it? No. Does that make it "wrong"? No. Because as far as I see things, nothing is "wrong".
Please note that I've said maybe 5 or 6 times that I am referring to actions that have no "victim". I've made that abundantly clear, but I have no doubt someone thinks I'm saying "Murder and rape are OK".
I also have no doubt this will just be taken as the same
pontificating
an old ruse...distract.. misdirect
over intellectualisc
sensationalism
deflection
long winded statements
circuitous ponderings
previously stated.
Oh well. | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 1:37:59 PM | So ironic that those who argree with you are your friends ... so those that dont arent?? how cliquey!!
<div class="quote">. Moral Relativism
Moral Relativists believe that morality is a function of circumstance and upbringing, with no inherent objective "truth". For example, even things as clear as "Thou shalt not kill" are less clear in a thousand different circumstances, such as self-defense, euthanasia, etc. We know it's "wrong" to lie, but we usually think it's ok in certain circumstances. Most people are moral relativists if they're not religious.
you claim to be in this camp but let me get this perfectly clear.. you state your answer to incest is NO, doesnt that make you a Moral Absolutist.... Or is there a but.. here too..
o yes here it is..
But your also saying in certain circumstances ( and being we are not talking about a pigmy tribe in some lost jungle.. aplogies to any pigmy jungle dwellers but the year 2008) that Insest is Morally acceptable? We are talking about 2008 are we not.
I would kill to protect my child. I would not sleep with my child.
There are some lines you cannot cross. You know and I know that Screwing your child is a NO.
And you are either discussing what is right about it. or what is wrong. Im not sure here where the middle ground is.. I dont think there is one..because different people dont agree with you and your friends as you so aptly put it, or who cant be bothered with at times the over anaylitical babble that goes on .. which is an opinion I AM intitled to just as you are, you can attack me as you feel i have attacked you.... I guess it depends on who my friends are hey!
You seem to assume I dont get that in different cultures and time that this isnt considered acceptable and is considerably subjectable.. but my point has always been..
2008... australia.... now today... this is what we are talking about.?
One does wonder someones moral code when they argue a percieved pro stance on insect in this western culture we live in?
xmmm
I wonder since i believe without a skeric of a doubt that incest and by default child abuse is wrong.. so i am a NO.. ( like you w/g) does that make me by your little boxes a
Morally Absolute... or the fact that i would lie kill cheat to protect my children does that put me into Moral Relavtivism and there fore make me one of your friends.??
Or the fact that we both say incest rape is wrong make both of us Moral Objectiionable. .. or am i wrong and you do think rape is ok in certain circumstances ? | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 1:42:13 PM |
I'm sorry, I was of the impression that the topic was put up for discussion which for me generally means a bit more than yes or no, there's other things like why, when, who, how............but that's just me.
Again i say this.. to make super duper clear...
Incest... ( not murder adultery porn, lying, cheating )
yes .... why when who how
no....... why when who how
Middle ground..?????
xmmm
| |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 2:44:20 PM | Does 'consenting adults' justify any sexual behaviour?
Is it wrong? Of course it is. What are we going to do about it? Tar and feather them? Far more abhorred things go on behind closed doors actually. It's just that Peter Overton doesn't always get to spill the beans about it on national TV. At best they shouldn't be allowed to raise that child. | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 5:24:44 PM | | Some seem hell bent on over intellectualising this, I think you doth protest too much!! | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 6:21:42 PM | ^^^ Whitegold Message 119
Although we do have different views and stances on this issue, your post was well written and thought provoking and although I may not agree with you in theory I will always defend your rite to post whatever u you believe. Thank God we do live in a country where we can still do this, unless your Roo. !!!....I did enjoy reading this post and thinking about what you had written. I like to think I can always try and see anothers point of view without emotion but with rational thinking. Thankyou for sharing.
Cheers
Pookie | |
|
| Getting it on with Dad?
Posted: 4/11/2008 6:54:20 PM | "respect and understanding" are earned, I think. And as for the father/daughter thing, I guess I would want to know if there is biology involved or "step-" or adopted or...whatever. Nonetheless, it's a bit too creepy for ol' moi!
 | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
