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.
Yeah that’s not how life works. If you want specificity you provide it or request it. I’ve requested, they haven’t provided and you simply assume benevolence when there’s no evidence that that is the case.
Any reasonable meaning in the case of law is the worst assumption not the best. We don’t assume people wanting to take part in incest are altogether reasonable, logical or for that matter moral so assuming any of those things is the unreasonable thing to do.
But again what happened to the rest of your argument and all those non existent fringe cases that are already legal in North America?
That is a rhetorical fallacy called “begging the question”. Rejected.
In the field of philosophy, “Hanlon’s Razor” is the most relevant concept. In law, it’s called the “pro reo principle” or the “rule of lenity”. Related, the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”. We should, indeed, assume benevolence until malfeasance is positively proven.
Basically, reasonableness is the default state. We don’t need any sort of evidence to assume reasonableness. We need evidence to demonstrate unreasonableness.
Here, that means “old enough” is, actually, what any reasonable person would deem old enough. OP is not making any sort of argument regarding the current age of consent laws. OP’s argument is that, whatever society deems an appropriate age of consent, an incestuous relationship initiated above that age of consent (with capacity and with consent) should also be legal.
They certainly exist. Marriage, for example, has a wide variety of financial and legal benefits and consequences. Incestuous marriage is criminal. I don’t need to provide a full, comprehensive list of all the ways that criminalizing incest affects every possible victim of anti-incestuous bigotry. Any social or legal distinction is sufficient to question the need for that distinction.
Uh huh. Californias law starts at 14 so what do you have to say about that?
Legality is not philosophy unsurprisingly enough.
Where, who and what laws are you referencing. These should be easy to provide if they in fact exist.
It doesn’t. You’re misreading the incest statute as the age of consent statute. Nothing in the incest statute allows an 18-year-old to have sex with a 14-year-old. That is statutory rape, with or without incest laws or incest being a factor. The minor lacked the capacity to consent to sex with the adult.
Minors do not lack the capacity to consent to sex with other minors. There is no issue of capacity between two 14-year-olds. There is no criminality in such a relationship. Unless the 14-year-olds are related; then they are to be imprisoned. As are the 24-year-old couple. As are the 57-year-old couple.
Nope. In California 14 and 17 is legal and 18 15 is legal hence the law.
Have a nice day.
Like I said you keep saying that when you have a question you can’t answer and maintain your bullshit.
Should I point out in California there is no minimum age to marry and after marriage there is no statutory rape?
It’s gross to defend removing them bud.
Bad faith argument. None of that is being challenged. Have a good day.
Yeah, except the person you’re defending. You’re adorable, tell me to have a nice day and then continue the conversation one more time, it’ll be our thing.