why heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality a deviance

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

46 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

This is what happens when our society lacks religion 

   No, this what happens when a few users troll, gaslight and derail the thread in clever ways. I think what OP intended was talking about heterosexuality and homosexuality and their nature, but we derailed into homophobia and heterophobia topics, and briefly anime topic, then into incest and arguing back and forth about incest and whether humans or animals get it on with their family members, and some about non-consent and consent, rape, parent child relations, and maybe meta ethics??? Yeah this thread is a wild tree. We need to Bonsai this tree back to topic. 

[An young being]

True, let us create a separate topic to discuss incest, the topic of incest is interesting and I had never discussed or thought of it so deeply before, so I am not going to let it disappear before getting some insights!

[Carl-Richard]

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

You are mislabelling what is wrong here though. When abuse happens in a homosexual relationship, that doesn't make the homosexual relationship wrong, that simply makes the abuse wrong. So, whether or not it is common, it is not the incest that is the immoral thing, but the abuse.

I agree: not all incest is wrong. I don't know how I can make myself any more clear.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

But you are constructing your hypotheticals in an inappopropiate way. What you described is wrong for several reasons that have nothing to do with potential, but inherent, known risks and inability to understand.

A child firstly, cannot conceive of risk, so of course it is wrong.

It can be wrong for other reasons than potential risks too, sure. But I think one of the potential risks (the bullet exiting the barrel) is a big factor.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

Secondly, there is not merely potential of risk, but absolute risk (meaning, we know there is a bullet in the gun and there is an actual risk involved, which is not the case in relationships).

If you want to define actual risk that way, then I can define the risk associated with the power differential that way (as an actual risk). The power differential is "actually there".

I don't think "potential vs. actual" is a useful distinction to get stuck on. Both involve risks, and both are therefore relevant to morality. In fact, I mentioned "potential" in a very casual way which didn't affect the argument much.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

If two consenting adults engage in an incestious relationship doesn't mean that there is a risk involved (even though I don't know if for such relationships that did not have prior grooming, between adults, is actually significantly risky in that way).

In most cases, that is probably true. Still, power differentials are risky regardless of the particular situation. If you define adult as age 18 and above, especially in a parent-child (or parent-"adult") relationship, there are still potential issues you can point to (financial dependence, role-blending, etc.).

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

Whether or not a risk is involved will not depend on whether or not it is incestious, but whether or not the individuals are dysfunctional in relation to their psychology and how they relate to others. So, the risk isn't inherent to incest, it doesn't make sense to attribute it to that thing.

I agree. But again, you can still talk about many concrete cases of incest where morality is an issue. Again, I'm not saying all incest is therefore immoral.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

But a teacher holds inherent power of the student, this is not necessarily the case in a relationship with two consenting adults that happen to be related.

What does "inherent" mean in this case?

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

Teachers and students are a bad example because we are talking about minors vs adults, college professors and their students would be a better example, which I would not really consider wrong at all to engage in.

I was including professors in that. You could also extend it to other professional relationships (e.g. employer-employee). It has to do with role-blending. But of course this is a more contentious area, but there are arguments to be made there.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

Consenting adults should have the right to engage in relationships that are risky, there is nothing wrong with that. With professional relationships there are different arguments because of standards of care and so forth, and potentials for compromise of their duties.

So you do have a conception of role-blending. I would just apply it to more situations (e.g. parent-child relationships).

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

This is why I said, the only argument between parent and child you can make that is good (assuming both are adults and have not been groomed) are duties the parent might have to the child. Which, I personally find are not very robust arguments.

You're getting somewhere.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

Again, you are identifying what the actual problem is and then saying it is the incest that makes it problematic. It would be equally wrong whether or not the individuals had a blood relation or not. The thing that makes it wrong is the abusive of power.

Again, I'm not.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

You can even have relations with significant power differentials. I would wager that, if you have more or less same aged adults siblings engaging in sexual relations, if it wasn't such a taboo and require a certain type of psychology to engage with, you would see that relationships between 30 and 20 year olds would have a higher likelihood of abuse.

We don't even know what the numbers here would look like, because incest is illegal. I guess you could look at countries where incest is legal and if there are in insane amount of cases of adult consenting family members who end up in super abusive relations.

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

But either way, people have a right to engage in these risks, in ending up in abusive relations. It might be stupid, but it's not immoral. Adults should be given the choice to evaluate these things themselves, even if the likelihood for abuse as calculated by some statistic were to be 90%. They are not children, they are not playing russian roulette, they are making choices about who they want to engage in romantic relationships with.

If you want to prevent abusive in relationships, educate people, treat the root cause, instead of morally condemning incest.

Again, my main approach to dealing with immoral people is to help them, not shame them. 

Anyways, I don't see it necessary to mix into the discussion much how we should deal with immoral people, and that we can just focus on whether incest is wrong or not (which you seemed to want to do earlier).

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

It's not necessarily wrong. But with minors, we decided they cannot consent, and the only reasonable way to legislate this is by having clear, defined lines.

With consenting adults the whole game changes, because they do have the ability to consent, and can make bad choices if they want to. People make all sorts of life choices that are incredibly stupid. Smoking is probably far dumber than engaging in incest with your family members (assuming it was legal and had no taboo associated with it).

Obviously in a society in which incest is a taboo and illegal, the only cases when it will happen will be exceptional, meaning as a result of sociopathic behaviour and the like.

 

This is the problem with children: Children cannot engage in informed consent, therefore they cannot consent to the risk of harm that could fall upon them for the act they were to engage in. Adults are capable of informed consent, so they are capable of consenting to even a significantly high risk of abusive relationships.

In fact, adutls can consent to abusive relationships full stop. There is nothing immoral about it. How insane would it be to put people in prison because they are in an abusive relationship? You put the person to prison if they abuse someone, that's it. There is no evaluating whether or not a relationship is potentially abusive, we don't do that with adults and then call them immoral for engaging in such "potentially risky" relations.

I think letting most of your morality hang on a murky concept like "consent" (are we talking verbal or non-verbal consent?), and also morally greenlighting everything that goes on in a relationship past the affirmation of consent, ignores a lot of the complex and covert nature of relationships and how rife these dynamics are for abuse (even with so-called affirmation of consent).

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

Contemplate this:

If we found that, interracial relationships lead to an 80% chance of an abusive relation (which is probably significantly higher than what would be the case with sibling incest if it was legal and acceptable, and I wager even if it wasnt, and in fact I wage even between parent and child adults), would we call interracial relationships immoral, or prohibit them by law? No, of course no. People can take that risk if they want, they have every right to try and be one of the 20%, or even the 80%.

Now, if someone does do something abusive, they should be persecuted at that point. But we can't be doing this Minority Report shit and punish or condemn people who engage in risky behaviour, especially because we then include those 20% who aren't even engaging in it.

80% is a lot. I would consider something like a cultural taboo to be appropriate in that case, i.e. strong disincentivization, not necessarily punished by law. Morality does not necessarily imply legality.

Again, I don't see it necessary to mix into the discussion much how we should deal with immoral people.

 

On 11.12.2023 at 2:33 AM, Scholar said:

This doesn't make sense to me whatsoever, I think you misread the studies, or they got it wrong. But I am not that interested in this to make sure.

See "humans versus other animals" in Table 2. The p-value is 0.14, meaning it's not statistically significant (the alpha level is usually between 0.01-0.05).

Edited December 12, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

@An young being @Danioover9000

The OP abandoned the thread, a low-quality thread to begin with, a miracle it wasn't closed. It's on its own two feet now. I feel that this particular discussion is soon over though.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

@An young being @Danioover9000

The OP abandoned the thread, a low-quality thread to begin with, a miracle it wasn't closed. It's on its own two feet now. I feel that this particular discussion is soon over though.

   Yes, the OP abandoned this thread like an unfit parent, put it for adoption into foster care, and it's up to us adults to continue the miracle. So, with that said, is parental abandonment, detached households and the foster care system natural and just? Is intake family homes better for children?

[Majed]

@Danioover9000 i did not abandon this thread, i'm still here

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Majed said:

@Danioover9000 i did not abandon this thread, i'm still here

*proceeds to not respond to any other posts* 😂

[MysticalSnow]

I was actually expecting some kind of argument but instead just got "NATURE HAS DUH MALE AND FD FEMALE FOR THE REPRODUCTIONZ AAAA."

 

[Danioover9000]

@MysticalSnow

18 minutes ago, MysticalSnow said:

I was actually expecting some kind of argument but instead just got "NATURE HAS DUH MALE AND FD FEMALE FOR THE REPRODUCTIONZ AAAA."

 

   What is there to argue about something natural to begin with, that allowed Humanity to survive this long buddy?

[MysticalSnow]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@MysticalSnow

   What is there to argue about something natural to begin with, that allowed Humanity to survive this long buddy?

I think people misunderstand. Fear exists in nature but is not necessary. It's just there among the survival instincts because it's the natural entropic state and too inefficient to get rid of. The same thing applies to a hypothetical "pure heterosexuality", which doesn't exist because the vast majority of mammals including humans are bisexual.

[Danioover9000]

   Speaking about an aversion to incest, this is one reaction of just anime drawings:

   middle of video, between 24:00 to 28:00 minutes(watch whole video or the series for context), that's one example of a defensive and just from his tonality disgust and revulsion of incest. IMO the irony is that even if he's a let's play gamer, and he's producing content that's somewhat transformative and somewhat both educational and entertaining, the margin of that transformative work off of the original content creator, the writer Nasu who wrote this series and different works, he's leeching off of him and being functionally similar to other reactors that leech off of smaller content creators.