Prager: "There's no secular argument against adult incest. Brother and sister want to make love, what's your argument? That they're going to produce mentally ret0rded offspring? That's nonsense. It takes many generations of inbreeding to do that."

Tweet

  • 7bicycles [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    There's no way to not be the target of ridicule for this but the inbreeding argument against incest is easily solved by birth control and the implication of "if you fuck to procreate your children might be disabled, so you don't get to" is....not great.

    I'm with /u/betelgeuse on this, it's fucking weird dude. Isn't there like an actual biological drive that makes you detest the concept (because birth control is super recent?)

        • hostilearchitecture [any]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I shudder to think what would happen if we could test for ASD in-vitro.

          I don't think it changes anything for those were/would've been before before the testing was available.

          Eugenics at the family level just doesn't concern me, it's none of my business.

      • 7bicycles [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        If, to create a more difficult example than “don’t fuck your twin brother”, some guy has a condition where all of his sperm are super mutated and produce a drastically deformed child, if for some reason he has some egotistical need to father children anyway, you should tell him not to.

        If this was a 100% percent chance, yes. But even then: birth control takes care of this problem. If it's a less than 100% chance, where do you draw the line?

        It’s like calling it eugenics to say that someone with a severe motor disability should not be a pilot (in a society where pilots are paid well).

        This is a bad comparison. Sex is an integral part of life, being a pilot ain't. I also don't want the pilot that can't actually steer the plane, sure, but who am I to stop him from fucking?

        It’s not aobut your fundamental worth, it’s about the fact you’ll get people fucking killed!.

        This just opens a tray of cans of worms, honestly. Like how far do you wanna extend this? What if my progeny becomes a cop? Am I culpable?

      • SadStruggle92 [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        So long as we’re not killing people or forcibly sterilizing them or whatever, trying to minimize the presence of disability in society is a reasonable position!

        I don't agree, the latter will inevitably lead to the former, as people with disabilities are inherently made more marginal by their lack of presence in a given society.

        IMO there is no such thing as a version of a society that embraces "genetic purity" that won't eventually do that. It inherently assumes that to be disabled is to be less human.

    • American_Communist22 [she/her,comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Good point. I'll stick with "Its fucking wrong what the hell? Why is god the one having to tell you this? Is he the only reason you don't?".

      Yeah, I really don't get the weirdos fixation on it, the very thought or image or really anything to do with it makes me want to throw up.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I mean it is weird but doesn't our perception of what is weird come from society.

        like the "murder bad cause Bible no murder is bad because I know murder is bad" argument does ignore that in England murder used to be a socially acceptable method of resolving disputes until Alfred the great thinking the sin of murder was bringing vikings fully outlawed feud based killings.

        If you were raised in a society that didn't have the value of these things as bad then you would not have that as a social value and to claim otherwise is idealism

        • ElGosso [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          "Murder" is basically "all bad killing" anyway. If feuds and duels are "good" killing then they're not murder.