Two days in and already starting arguments...

 

I apologise if i'm being too forward for a newbie, but these ideas were what lost me a lot of family, and I don't really like to sit by and watch someone say that it's ok, as long as they have no real usefulness.

 

Nope, the Nazis were hideously wrong. They took away each individuals rights in situations, which is not (necessarily) what I'm on about; and we are going off topic here, but...

I've lived as a sibling to a disabled child. I've had to be the third adult in the household since my younger brother was born, and took on his father figure for him. That in itself, isn't too bad.

However, the bullying my sister faced (and still faces), and CAN'T UNDERSTAND was terrible. I (numerous times) had to try to explain to the other kids that no, she wasn't a freak. She was just different, and they should leave her alone.

Having lived through that as a bright young lad, I wouldn't want to have to put any other child through the same thing.

Hell, easy way to sort it out (but not a cheap way yet)?
Genetically screen everyone, so they are AWARE of what GDs they might pass on, and then they can (when they want a child) discuss with their partner whether they should get a test-tube baby, and so not have to worry about GD (to any real level).

I'm not saying we should kill people off. The Holocaust was wrong, and there is no way to justify it.
BUT
A disabled person is not the only person effected by their disability. Many of my sister's friend's families have been messed up due to disabilities - the strain is not something everyone is equipped to deal with.

No matter how I try to present this argument, it will come out sounding somewhat like the Nazis. However, there would not be psuedoscience (IE - blond people are the most awesome. Proof? PAH, I need none!) involved - genetic screening , actual scientific discussion. Not "this entire group of people are not good. Kill them all.", but "this group of people are at a disadvantage. Can we make any less people have this disadvantage?"

EDIT (ninja-ed)

Also, @El Duderino; slightly inflammatory language, going straight to the Nazi stick. I get that it is a touchy subject, but maybe take a breath, and ask to clarify. Extrapolation of arguments doesn't tend to work well, unless we all get fired up. Which disrupts the discourse, and thus ruins any debate.

 

Less people yes, but to say that there's a 50/50 chance that you're child will be disabled, therefore you shouldn't go for the better half of the odds is not the best idea, as having a child with someone is supposed to be the most personal and wonderful thing in the world. But still, the argument would be slightly acceptable, if you took into account the fact that you are not seeing that plenty of disabled people want to have children who are their own flesh and blood, and you would basically forbid them, just because their child could be less able than another. I think i'll leave it at that, and not get this into a bigger argument, as this thread has nothing to do with what we're talking about really.

 

Solaceon: There is nothing necessarily wrong with incest. It weirds me out, but so does being propositioned by a man or an unattractive female for me. There may not be a reproductive incentive in it, but when you begin to say that the other guy 'bonking his mom' loses him brain cells then you're a bit retarded.

There is no right or wrong answer to having fetishes or socially inappropriate relationships, as long as the other half of the equation has the wherewithal to consent. You might not like it personally, but get over yourself. I don't like plenty of things that people have every right to enjoy, which I attribute to conditioning.

Then again it's hard not to be a hypocrite on the issue of equality. There's a slippery slope in that discussion that is impossible to get around. So mostly you decide on what you like, what you don't, and bitch at people who feel otherwise.

The end result of this for most people who go deep enough is: meh.

Edit: Not so ninja-edits. Yah.

 

He didn't say that, and nor did I. He said offspring would have the chance of being disabled. Try to read properly.

 

Uh huh...

Please complete my hypocrisy argument for me. Thanks.

 

Uh. I'm pretty sure genetic screening doesn't prevent you from having your own children.

And while I really don't give a fuck about incest and feel that the consequences could be exaggerated some countries take on a huge burden in the form of the health of their citizens. Forcing them to take on responsibility for such children is a problem. And this doesn't just go for incestous couples, if genetic screening was cheap enough, I'd do it for everyone, and then leave them with the choice.

Your post was terribad by the way. Learn2format.

 

I meant it as an insult to Rakkety Tam. And insults don't often make sense. But yeah, it was shitty logic. My bad.

On the topic of Rakkety Tam, we've reached an understanding via PM. No more mudslinging. =O

 

Apologies for my lack of formatting. Got a bit carried away.

And i'm not saying that screening stops you having children, but the idea of screening to see if your child will be disabled makes the person probably decide that it's more socially acceptable to not have the child.

But anyways, i'm settling this elsewhere, so my input to this shall be limited methinks.

 

If anyone expected an incest thread to not turn into a discussion of incest taboos... :facepalm

My greatest wish is to never see another unanswerable discussion thread on DLP again, but that's fanciful thinking.

 

An idea would be to not comment or look at them...?

 

And this is bad thing...why? If the person is healthy and has other chances at a normal child why shouldn't they have one instead of throwing money and happiness down the drain? Now I'm not saying that it's not possible to be happy with a disabled child but it is harder for them to cope in particular. Not everything is about the parents and their happiness. Sometimes the kids suffer just for being born and if that can be avoided then let it.

 

I can sense that if I reply to this, it will spiral out of control, and we'll end up with a massive argument happening here.

I have one thing to say therefore.

Lily is a MILF. I couldn't care less about the possible ramifications of the intercourse between her and her son anymore.

I'm simply going to enjoy the ride.

 

If it were an entirely voluntary choice I could probably support genetic screening (I plan to go through it myself, eventually, to see just how many strains of cancer I'm preprogrammed to have) on a nationwide scale, including of embryos so that the choice may be given to the parents on whether to have it or not. I'm pro-choice in the first place, and this is just an extension of that.

So yeah, as long as the only thing given out by the doctors is information on what could happen (or if the child would be horribly disabled), I don't see it as wrong to want to prevent the worst of it.

That said, I'm aware of the degree of elitism ingrained in that. Is it our choice to decide whether a person's presumed quality of life should dictate whether they even have a chance to live it? I'd say yes, but there are many who wouldn't.

 

:facepalm.

I've never understood this. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, and it's not just in the circle-jerk "Molly couldn't bet Bellatrix" way. It's a legitimate topic and one that can be discussed.

Having arguments (although discussion may be a better word) about stuff is not always a bad thing. The only way you know if your views hold water is if they are challenged. But not today, now we have the world of "That's just your opinion." and "Judge not." which allows people to walk around never having to scrutinize their views in the slightest.

Now maybe you have some personal connection to the topic that prevents you from discussing it rationally, if so my apologies for assuming the worst. But this constant shying away from conflict by everyone is just ridiculous.

 

You are correct in your final point. I do indeed have a personal connection to this topic, so I cannot rightly discuss it without being irrational to a certain extent.

 

I couldn't resist:

 

Every topic is legitimate to someone.

Every topic can be discussed but isn't necessarily meant to be because anyone can take a look at this and tell that none of you are going to win this debate regardless of how big your posts are or how much external links you post.

Why do we want Harry to bang Lily?

Harry kicks ass. Lily is hot.
We want to kick ass. We want hot chicks. (Or, MILFs in this case.)

Deal with it.

 

I don't know; mother/son incest seems mighty creepy to me. Not necessarily because it's incest (although the idea of someone banging their own mother does produce a very visceral, negative response in me), but because of the whole authority dynamic. A parent or older relative is someone in a position of authority, and thus it could not possibly be an equal relationship.

On the other hand, stuff like Harry/his hypothetical sister doesn't weird me out anywhere near as much, since with two siblings with no real authority over one another, the undertone of coercion isn't there, particularly if the age difference is minor or nonexistent.

Timetraveling!Harry/Lily lies somewhere between these two extremes. It's two people of the same age or thereabouts, and technically speaking Lily isn't his mother yet. On the other hand, unless he's lost his memories, Harry sure as fuck is in a position of power over Lily, because he knows everything that will happen in the future, up to and including the fact that she'll be his mother.