This is going to be a fun one.
So here are the facts:
I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:
Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.
The next day I discovered I’d been banned from that community for “pro-incest comments” and several others I don’t think I’ve ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.
You can see those here:
Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.
My comments had none of those things. I’d even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.
Now, I’m not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.
I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.
Bro you’re bending over backwards to defend word nuanced incest that seems to be a weird caveat only you need to have.
Dude literally wants it to be legal, all forms. You’re defending a pro rape advocate which I’m sorry makes you a pro rape advocate. Think it through Buddy, what your doing is gross.
That’s simply dishonest. OP clearly specified only cases where capability and consent are present. You are deliberately misrepresenting them. You are making a strawman argument: the point you are trying to make exists solely within your own head.
Engage in good faith, or do not engage at all.
No he doesn’t. What the fuck are you reading?
Literally the comments they were banned for. https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/339cfb4b-1bff-4421-9469-241ea43fe4de.png
Ed: you misunderstand her said so long as they consent, until iirc a year ago the lowest age of consent was 14. Op is saying after 16 incest should be legal with consent. None of your nuance, none of your direct relative exceptions. Just can they say yes?
I see. OP used the phrase “old enough”, and you think that refers to something other than “old enough”.
We aren’t having a discussion on the appropriate age of consent. We are having a discussion on incest. We will not be considering any participant unless YOU deem them “old enough”. We will only be talking about people that meet your definition of “old enough”. Feel free to raise the age of consent to 21, 25, 47. Whatever you deem an appropriate age is the age we will be using.
Insisting that OP is referring to underage individuals when they say “old enough” is intellectually dishonest. Engage in good faith, or don’t engage at all.
I refer to it that way because they don’t get specific and I think that’s for very specific reasons they refuse to deny but please do deny it on their behalf.
“Old enough” is sufficiently specific for you to assume “old enough”. Assuming anything less than “old enough” from the phrase “old enough” is a bad faith argument.
Old enough is wildly unspecific if they don’t want that to happen it’s easy to get specific. Notably they haven’t denied it and haven’t gotten specific.
True, and irrelevant: OP’s argument does not depend on this specificity. OP’s argument prevails no matter what age you decide is “old enough”. OP’s argument requires you remain consistent on that point: You cannot provide an age that is simultaneously “old enough” and “not old enough”. OP’s argument requires that you only consider participants above that age; “not old enough” remains a criminal offense.
You are continuing to make bad faith arguments. Engage in good faith, or do not engage.
It really really does. But again you abandoned your entire argument to focus on age because your bullshit scenario doesn’t exist and your example was similarly made up.
Talk about bad faith, you fucking made up Canadian law.