If 'Trans' is the new gay. whats next?

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Whatever you think morals are aside...

I suggest that any judgment to another person or group of people, especially one you know nothing of is ignorant.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexanSo I shouldn't use your words as evidence of your thoughts or beliefs? That's surely going to create worthless debate.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds


no, just jokes on you

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

originally posted by: Annee


Why are we talking about incest anyway?

It probably happens a lot more then people think.

How does it really hurt anything? Except in a scientific way?

It's socially unacceptable simply because Man said it is.

How should this be interpreted?

Is that anything but fact?

Oh, you want an Emotional response.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: veracityMorals are a personal perspective. If one is to declare that their values are dictated by popular thought or law, then they would appear to me to be amoral:- without morals. This person has merely adopted a certain code of conduct decided by others.

You'd suggest otherwise?

I would suggest that when someone amends their statement to agree with your more appropriate statement, you should probably follow the flow of conversation. This isn't court. Going back 3 pages to quote what someone said isn't going to be some watershed moment.

Its all casual conversation.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexanSo I shouldn't use your words as evidence of your thoughts or beliefs? That's surely going to create worthless debate.

No, you should not. Because I am not the topic of this thread.

Doing so creates a worthless debate because its ad hominem. If you want worthwhile debate, go after the ball and not the player.

a reply to: veracityIt seems to be fashionable on this thread to abandon all lines of debate as and when it suits, but if I could encourage you to answer this: where are these judgements of mine that you disapprove of?

To Annee:

How should I interpret your comments on incest?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Annee

I am not being sarcastic.

It is a taboo created by man.

But, there is legitimate scientific reason not to procreate in the same blood line.

Trying to make it a Moral or religious argument is where I take issue.

That's okay Annee. Everybody has the right to be wrong, even you.

Guess you have to explain the wrong.

Or is that a judgment?

I kept my response brief, because looking at some of the content, it looks like the topic of incest is tangential to the OP topic and is being frowned upon.

But I certainly don't mind telling you I have spent a good 20 years of my life trying to put victims of incest back together again -- . I could write a book about it. In fact, I might have already .....

So yes. My opinion is that if you believe it is harmless, I can patently tell you it isn't. It is very damaging and is quite often a damage that is life long. Even with therapy.

a reply to: AnneeNo, it's not ad hominem, I'm refering to your words; the material which you have contributed to this debate.

You can make no credible complaint if your words are used as evidence of your beliefs.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Annee

I am not being sarcastic.

It is a taboo created by man.

But, there is legitimate scientific reason not to procreate in the same blood line.

Trying to make it a Moral or religious argument is where I take issue.

That's okay Annee. Everybody has the right to be wrong, even you.

Guess you have to explain the wrong.

Or is that a judgment?

I kept my response brief, because looking at some of the content, it looks like the topic of incest is tangential to the OP topic and is being frowned upon.

But I certainly don't mind telling you I have spent a good 20 years of my life trying to put victims of incest back together again -- . I could write a book about it. In fact, I might have already .....

So yes. My opinion is that if you believe it is harmless, I can patently tell you it isn't. It is very damaging and is quite often a damage that is life long. Even with therapy.

I definitely 100% do not support incest.

NO, I do not believe it is harmless.

But, what I posted is a fact. It was not and is not my personal feelings on incest.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
To Annee:

How should I interpret your comments on incest?

This is factual. Whether anyone wants to accept it or not.

1. Incest probably happens a lot more then people think.
2. How does it really hurt anything? Except in a scientific way?
3. It's socially unacceptable simply because Man said it is.

Kids left on their own are going to experiment. That is just a fact. Incest probably happens more then we know.

Having sex with a sibling is not physically harmful. It used to be common practice in royalty.

If it was not a social taboo, no one would consider it as doing something wrong. Its just a sex act.

--------------------------------------------

Scientifically it is bad because it weakens the gene pool and off spring are often negatively affected.

-------------------------------------------

But, you want an emotional, personal response.

We live in a society of rules/laws - - what is acceptable here in the states - - may not be acceptable somewhere else - - vice versa.

I personally/emotionally am very protective of children. I will support and stand by anything that protects a child from harm.

Sexual assaults of any kind in this culture will negatively affect a child. Incest is a sexual assault.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

I am under the impression that you believe that transgendered people have no morals.

Am I wrong?

If so sorry.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

also morals are just plain doing the right thing, what your momma taught you in kindergarten, what Jesus preached.

"treat others as you would like to be treated..."

Morals are not any "perception" of the society at large or anything like that.

They are the rules to make you a purposeful addition to society.

a reply to: AnneeI have no ineterest in provoking an emotional response from you.

I also think that there are more than merely genetic issues with regards incest. And you seem to concede this by refering to it as a sexual assault.

But then you suggest that the damage caused by sexual assault, is culturally determined; that the damage caused by such acts are only relative.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: AnneeI have no ineterest in provoking an emotional response from you.

I also think that there are more than merely genetic issues with regards incest. And you seem to concede this by refering to it as a sexual assault.

But then you suggest that the damage caused by sexual assault, is culturally determined; that the damage caused by such acts are only relative.

If sex is not culturally taboo - - then what's the problem?

Get out of your head.

a reply to: Annee

You completely missed the point. The proposition described a person givíng permission to somebody before dying, in the same manner as donating your body to science. And we're not talking for sexual study, we're talking for sexual intercourse..

I thought that would be abundantly clear, obviously you couldn't bequeath your body to someone after you're dead meaning it would have had to been arranged beforehand.


a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Well.. I guess societal change would have remained static all throughout history if you really were right about that. Really?
Come on now.

Obviously there is a point, if someone is clueless about the dangers facing us you enlighten them. If they're wrong you correct them. If they don't care, you find someone else that does care. I find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't fall behind a movement that would seek to expose the elite globalists and their agenda. All you need to do is reach a critical mass.. we already have the evidence..

You make this casual thoughtless comment about my premise.. and your whole idea is.. just ridiculous. I don't even know what kind of thought process you must have gone through writing that crap but it makes no sense.

a reply to: veracityWhile you seem to have mis-understood much of what I have said and as such can't really respond to a lot of what you have said.

I think that if you had read my posts you'd realise much of what I was saying was that morals are not rules. Despite even the most intense sexual attraction to a woman, I would never ever rape. Not because of societies conditioning, but because her reaction would be deeply upsetting to me.

To only see morals as rules sounds psychopathic to me.

a reply to: TheLaughingGodIt seems a rather large claim to suggest that societal change only takes place because of moral development. I'd suggest that the biggest changes are due to war.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

I read and re-read your post and it makes no sense.

Morals are rules to live by...Love thy neighbor...do unto others as you would do unto them...respect your elders


NOT...judge others who are not like you, judge others who are less fortunate than you