Ben Carson refers to slaves as "Immigrants"

[trav 6834]

Just now, Yunki said:

You also state that your fine with it because birth defects are essentially random. But it is well-known and agreed upon that when you mate with first-degree relatives there WILL be an increased chance at severe birth defects. This doesn't require extensive research.

 

What about two people with birth defects? Should they be allowed to procreate with the more than likely chance that they will procreate a child with a birth defect?

 

/devilsadvocate

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

There's once again a difference. Gay sexual interactions harm noone. Incest potentially does because it creates higher risks of birth defects so like I said there's a murky ground. 

 

1 hour ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

But if someone genuinely believes someone has less rights because of their sexual orientation or personal identity I will consider them a trash human being.

 

While being in an incestuous relationship doesn't have anything to with sexual orientation, I did consider it to fall under personal identity. Do you disagree? 

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

What about two people with birth defects? Should they be allowed to procreate with the more than likely chance that they will procreate a child with a birth defect?

That's a good question. It also brings up if women with HIV and other STIs or drug addictions should be allowed to give birth. There a few variable that would need to be addressed before finalizing an answer, making this more complicated then an incestuous relationship.

 

1. is the birth defect caused by a dominant or a recessive allele.

   1a. If dominant, are any of the parents homozygous dominant.

2. How severe is the birth defect? (Life expectancy, medical cost to sustain life, etc.)

3. Ultimately, does the government need to get involved

 

PERSONALLY, if one of the parents is homozygous for a severe dominant birth defect and the other parents also has a dominant allele, they should not procreate. Should the government get involved? I don't know, probably not. What will/can they do, imprison you? Force you to get an abortion? It's a sticky situation, and while it has it's similarities to the consequences of incestuous procreation, I think they are still separate areas. 

We all have some sort of birth defect, the severity and probability is the main concern.

 

That bring up another point though, can the government actually punish you for procreating with your relatives. They probably do in some areas, but I can't think of a reasonable punishment for that crime, maybe some sort of therapy/rehab?

 

So basically, I think under certain circumstances it is wrong for you to procreate while knowing your offspring might be affected by your defect, however the government shouldn't be able to punish you. 

 

tl;dr

making babies with first-degree relatives = always bad

making babies with a non-relative knowing you can pass a birth defect = sometimes bad

 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

Wtf

So you think incestuous relationships should be allowed to procreate because at the moment of them having sex no one alive is suffering from it? That's incredibly short-sighted. You know something like incest isn't good for your species when chimpanzees even fucking plants posses mechanisms in order to prevent incest from occurring (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169534796100288) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/abs/466926a.html) [You have to pay to see the actual information, I'll see if I can find a free link]. Regardless, sure maybe no one is being harmed right now, but guess what, in 6 months when that baby comes out prematurely and more than likely has a birth defect as a result of two people who share 50% of their genes, then someone is being harmed.

 

You also state that your fine with it because birth defects are essentially random. But it is well-known and agreed upon that when you mate with first-degree relatives there WILL be an increased chance at severe birth defects. This doesn't require extensive research.

If you read my other posts you'd see I listed that there's a ton of dangers and I'm murky. If you read me and fats back and forth you'd see it was becoming more of a philosophical debate than anything. I expressed reservations about allowing them to procreate from a practical standpoint but pointed out philosophically my beliefs would say that they should be allowed. My statement came as a response to fatb0y arguing procreation is a civil right which I agreed with but I numerous times said that issue was murky and I wasn't concrete on. Never said I was fine with it

Just now, fatb0y said:

 

 

While being in an incestuous relationship doesn't have anything to with sexual orientation, I did consider it to fall under personal identity. Do you disagree? 

Like I said I'm not against the relationship itself. Its a personal identity. I  just pointed out there's murky ground in regards to procreation because it can harm others which is a pretty unique situation among consensual relationships. Philosophically I believe they should have the right but in practice it shouldn't until science gets to the point we can hopefully eliminate the risk of birth defects. I should have been more clear that I was thinking of this issue philosophically at this point because Yunki seems to believe I was arguing for a change in law and denying science 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

 

 

So basically, I think under certain circumstances it is wrong for you to procreate while knowing your offspring might be affected by your defect, however the government shouldn't be able to punish you. 

 

 

 

So why attack me when we were arguing the same thing essentually ? This was in the context of civil rights. If you're saying the government shouldn't intervene then they have a civil rights to procreate. I was saying they shouldn't but that they should be allowed to. 

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

If you read my other posts you'd see I listed that there's a ton of dangers and I'm murky. If you read me and fats back and forth you'd see it was becoming more of a philosophical debate than anything. I expressed reservations about allowing them to procreate from a practical standpoint but pointed out philosophically my beliefs would say that they should be allowed. 

 

I think it's pretty amusing that the topic turned to eugenics after fatb0y went on to show you how thinking others in that regard as trash isn't right. He did a decent job too as you eventually hit a crossroads of "yes, moral" or "no, immoral for siblings to procreate"; a few more facts towards immoral and you might've done exactly what you spoke out against (believing someone has less rights).

 

Eugenics is getting pretty interesting, at least for the negative portion of it. While CRISPR-Cas9 (which I'm sure everyone has heard of by now even if they don't read the news) can't create the "ideal" baby (smart,strong,blackskinxd,etc), one of the few things that researchers say for certain is that it definitely can be used to treat genetic diseases. A large stopper to the progress of the technology is the ethical side to simply using the technology, so mabey once that's addressed, I can finally bang my cute lil' sis.

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

So why attack me when we were arguing the same thing essentually ? This was in the context of civil rights. If you're saying the government shouldn't intervene then they have a civil rights to procreate. I was saying they shouldn't but that they should be allowed to. 

 

I did not like your reasoning. Your reason was, and I quote:

Quote

 I suppose if I had to give a concrete answer I'd say that my personal beliefs lean towards it should be allowed just because personally it dosent harm any living being at that point and the issue of birth defects is still essentially random.

 

My reason was more or the less - The government doesn't have a reason to intervene nor a reasonable punishment for the crime. Sex therapy MIGHT be an option, however I would suggest that only if we as a country agreed that the desire to procreate with a relative is a mental illness/disorder.

 

 

 

[Ironic 2278]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

He did a decent job too as you eventually hit a crossroads of "yes, moral" or "no, immoral for siblings to procreate"

That's all these arguments really are. It's nothing to do with factual "yes, this is right/this is wrong" it's all based upon your own opinion/morals of what you think is right and wrong. Not everyone is going think the same.

[trav 6834]

Just now, Ironic said:

That's all these arguments really are. It's nothing to do with factual "yes, this is right/this is wrong" it's all based upon your own opinion/morals of what you think is right and wrong. Not everyone is going think the same.

 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

 

I think it's pretty amusing that the topic turned to eugenics after fatb0y went on to show you how thinking others in that regard as trash isn't right. He did a decent job too as you eventually hit a crossroads of "yes, moral" or "no, immoral for siblings to procreate"; a few more facts towards immoral and you might've done exactly what you spoke out against (believing someone has less rights).

 

 

I mean my original point was always about how I think it's wrong to want to restrict rights of people who engage in consensual sexual intercourse that harms noone. I acknowledged that incest was tricky because in that case there is a heightened risk for a theoretical child. I eventally did say procreation is wrong but they deserve the right. 

 

Just now, Yunki said:

 

I did not like your reasoning. Your reason was, and I quote:

 

 

 

 

 

My answer was philosophical and I never said I wanted laws changed. Merely that my personal beliefs would say the right exists for them but that it's dangerous. As far as saying it's random that was me just using fatboys own description of genetic defects I obviously understand there's a science behind it and that incest leads to more risk. This whole original discussion started with my statement that I believe it's wrong to believe people have less rights in cases where they negatively affect noone at all

[Sith 1050]

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, Ironic said:

That's all these arguments really are. It's nothing to do with factual "yes, this is right/this is wrong" it's all based upon your own opinion/morals of what you think is right and wrong. Not everyone is going think the same.

 

We're essentially discussing ethics ITT. At the core of ethics are values, and you learn in Ethics 101 that there are inherent values that you are born with and there are learned values that you learn from the people around you growing up, meaning everyone holds different values (compassion, loyalty, selflessness, list goes on). Not only that, but there are different approaches to ethics: one where the consequences of the action determines if it is moral or not, one where some things are intrinsically immoral/moral no matter what and it's our duty to know and remember those, and then there's one where you simply judge the guy by his virtues: his actions are simply a reflection of those -- if he's a good guy doing a bad thing, he probably had good intentions and so he was being moral.

Those two things combined, values and approaches, means that almost everyone will think differently on a topic.

 

For example, the 36 year old dating a 16 year old situation mentioned above. A virtue ethicist would look at both persons and examine the virtues that they possess. If the 36 year old genuinely means no harm, values compassion/affection with the 16 year old demonstrating capablity/intelligence/maturity, and both of them are genuinely in love with the other, it'd be completely moral for the two to get together. I listed a bunch of things but some would agree with it being moral with less stuff.

Another example, pedophilia. A deontological ethicist (the second approach I mentioned) would immediately say STOP, that's an immoral state of mind and under no circumstances would it be okay. A consequentialist ethicist (the first approach) might ask, what if the pedophile only watches hentai or cartoons involving pedophilia (as opposed to videos of actual kids involved in porn, as that could lead to blackmarkets of it). Guy watches pedophilia only in its abstracts and never in his entire life would he actually involve a real kid (he in fact scorns the real life market of pedophile porn). A consequentialist (and mabey even a virtuist) would definitely consider this scenario moral, as nothing and noone is harmed. You might think, well we don't know if they won't do anything to real kids, it's only a matter of time -- we all play violent video games involving shooting other people, it's only a matter of time before we do so irl.

[JFK 546]

38 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

I think it's pretty amusing that the topic turned to eugenics after fatb0y went on to show you how thinking others in that regard as trash isn't right. He did a decent job too as you eventually hit a crossroads of "yes, moral" or "no, immoral for siblings to procreate"; a few more facts towards immoral and you might've done exactly what you spoke out against (believing someone has less rights).

 

From what I can tell from their argument, the deal breaker here in fatb0y's slippery slope fallacies is that social acceptance of openly gay individuals and transgender doesn't dramatically increase the risk for genetic diseases the way incest can. The reasoning for why they believe someone should have less rights when it comes to certain relationships are ultimately different.

 

Incest and homosexuality are similar in that both can involve consenting adults, and have been declared illegal in the past, were considered deviant and so on. They also have differences and the most obvious one is that that homosexuality only involves homosexuals and that incest only involves family members. One of the two carries the risk for genetic disorders and it's not the former.

 

It's also very telling Ordinary emphasizes the scientific concerns of Incest like genetic disorders in making his case for being conflicted on the issue. A liberal mindset would likely be against incest for the same reason they would be a proponent for mandatory vaccines while a conservative mindset would likely be against LGBT rights because they personally feel uncomfortable with homosexuality or transgender groups.

[trav 6834]

What if the incestuous relationship between brother and sister knew the outcomes of them reproducing and decided to adopt to start a family. Would we deem an incestuous marriage fit for society if they were not allowed to procreate? 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Travesty said:

What if the incestuous relationship between brother and sister knew the outcomes of them reproducing and decided to adopt to start a family. Would we deem an incestuous marriage fit for society if they were not allowed to procreate? 

I'd argue that that should be acceptable. It only causes harm if society itself decides to punish the kid

[JFK 546]

Just now, Travesty said:

What if the incestuous relationship between brother and sister knew the outcomes of them reproducing and decided to adopt to start a family. Would we deem an incestuous marriage fit for society if they were not allowed to procreate? 

 

Personally, I'd be set with that. As long as there was no sexual abuse involved.

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

I'd argue that that should be acceptable. It only causes harm is society itself decides to punish the kid

 

Just now, JFK said:

 

Personally, I'd be set with that. As long as there was no sexual abuse involved.

 

Just so I'm 100% clear, if, hypothetically, in the next press conference we were informed president Trump wants to ask congress to institute a new law allowing first-degree relatives to marry and raise a child, you would support it?

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, JFK said:

 

From what I can tell from their argument, the deal breaker here in fatb0y's slippery slope fallacies is that social acceptance of openly gay individuals and transgender doesn't dramatically increase the risk for genetic diseases the way incest can. The reasoning for why they believe someone should have less rights when it comes to certain relationships are ultimately different.

 

I agree, in fact I was going to write a response asking whether or not it was fair to parallel the two together. I felt, however, that fatb0y's intention was not to compare the two but more-so to get Ordinary to see why someone might think another person should have less rights, something he felt was invariably wrong. I'm not saying that it's a correct point of view, but showing the logical path of someone coming to that conclusion, as well as following that with the question of whether it's right or not to think less of someone (trash, even) who logically came to that conclusion was a good lesson. The takeaway here is that people have differing moral beliefs and that thinking less of someone who doesn't feel the same way of you isn't a great way to go about it.

(although tbf on Ordinary's part, he was merely making a broad comment against bigots in general.)

 

Just now, Travesty said:

What if the incestuous relationship between brother and sister knew the outcomes of them reproducing and decided to adopt to start a family. Would we deem an incestuous marriage fit for society if they were not allowed to procreate? 

That's an interesting topic that my Ethics professor also pointed out. He compared a mutually loving relationship between a brother and a sister (both consenting and both intelligent adults) to that of a couple that borderlined abuse (constant shouting and fighting heard throughout the nights if they were your neighbor). If you moved into the house separating the two couples, which of them would be more moral or "fit for society?" The adoption addition pops the favor even more towards the incestual couple.

 

I'll posit another: our current argument against incest is merely birth defects. What if we got to the point in technology where birth defects are a complete thing of the past -- would incest still be immoral?

I love it when technology and ethics collide, since ethics should stand the test of time -- it questions deontological philosophy. Like, what if we had a paste that solved world hunger for cheap -- its super nutritious and we can mass produce it. Would killing animals simply to enjoy eating a steak still be moral? Or if we invented a machine that could immediately detect pedophilia in a person's thoughts: would it be moral to immediately arrest that person? neat stuff.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

 

 

Just so I'm 100% clear, if, hypothetically, in the next press conference we were informed president Trump wants to ask congress to institute a new law allowing first-degree relatives to marry and raise a child, you would support it?

Yes to the marriage but as I've said there's scientific difficulties concerning the kid. This is still a different sort of issue than conservatives wanting to eliminate gay marriage because morally they find it wrong. I'd probably argue the government should encourage they adopt(I'd encourage this of anyone because the earth can't sustain population growth for long) but not outright outlaw having a kid because we already dont  have laws against people with mental defects procreating.

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

 

-snip-

 

I'll posit another: our current argument against incest is merely birth defects. What if we got to the point in technology where birth defects are a complete thing of the past -- would incest still be immoral?

I love it when technology and ethics collide, since ethics should stand the test of time -- it questions deontological philosophy. Like, what if we had a paste that solved world hunger for cheap -- its super nutritious and we can mass produce it. Would killing animals simply to enjoy eating a steak still be moral? Or if we invented a machine that could immediately detect pedophilia in a person's thoughts: would it be moral to immediately arrest that person? neat stuff.

I have class soon, so I might be delayed to reply if you respond to me but...

 

Incest by nature is unwanted. Even if we were able to fix the reason why we found it immoral (Eugenics), it is still, in principle, undesirable. Suppose we reach a point where birth defects do go away, and now we do allow incest, is it not unethical for us to change our nature? 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

What if we got to the point in technology where birth defects are a complete thing of the past -- would incest still be immoral?

I love it when technology and ethics collide, since ethics should stand the test of time -- it questions deontological philosophy. Like, what if we had a paste that solved world hunger for cheap -- its super nutritious and we can mass produce it. Would killing animals simply to enjoy eating a steak still be moral? Or if we invented a machine that could immediately detect pedophilia in a person's thoughts: would it be moral to immediately arrest that person? neat stuff.

1st part. If there's no defects then I'd argue incest would essentually be the same as anything else in effect and therefore morally should be looked at the same way.

2nd the meat thing. This one's complicated but one argument would be it's immoral because cows cause environmental damage that harms non producers(this argument could go on and on)

3rd the pedo machine. I'd argue the arrest is wrong because as we said before pedophilia is a condition that can't really be helped by the person. If we somehow managed to invent a machine that could guess magically the likelihood of them acting on it it's still iffy because we could never account for every variable. 

This is the kind of debate I like

Just now, Yunki said:

Suppose we reach a point where birth defects do go away, and now we do allow incest, is it not unethical for us to change our nature? 

Marriage is against our nature. There's a reason males evolved with the ability to essentially infinitely impregnate women. You could say all of the structure of society today is against our nature as animals. How would incest really be any more against nature than the numerous forms of sexual expression society has developed. You think cavemen were getting blowjobs?

[JFK 546]

Just now, Yunki said:

Just so I'm 100% clear, if, hypothetically, in the next press conference we were informed president Trump wants to ask congress to institute a new law allowing first-degree relatives to marry and raise a child, you would support it?

 

As long as it meets those conditions Travesty set.

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

 

Marriage is against our nature. There's a reason males evolved with the ability to essentially infinitely impregnate women. You could say all of the structure of society today is against our nature as animals. How would incest really be any more against nature than the numerous forms of sexual expression society has developed. You think cavemen were getting blowjobs?

Fair point, really never thought that humans were polygamous but it makes sense now.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Yunki said:

Fair point, really never thought that humans were polygamous but it makes sense now.

Once we accept this point I feel we can accept that any deviation in sexuality that dosent harm another living thing is ok  because any deviation that can occur cannot be further out from nature than our belief in monogamy 

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Once we accept this point I feel we can accept that any deviation in sexuality that dosent harm another living thing is ok  because any deviation that can occur cannot be further out from nature than our belief in monogamy 

Since we are already talking about hypothetical questions, what would we do about the inevitable overpopulation with people not dying at an earlier age because of no birth defects.

How far will we allow Eugenics to go before deciding it's too much? Will it be okay for us to change our baby's height so they can become an NBA All-Star? Rootbeer brought this up in a steam message, if the procedure to do this is expensive, won't this make the rich stay rich and the poor unaffected by the benefits of eugenics.

Are we going to allow government intervention in this?