Incest

Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
I say go for it.

There's really no good reason why the sex and relationships should be illegal.

Children is another story. I think the risks would need to be better weighed and more tests and studies performed before that was fully legalized.

And no, it doesn't disgust me. I won't go in to it too far, but let's just say I wish a few of my family members felt the same way I do.......
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
George R.R. Martin believes that incest causes wars.

(No I don't mean it)

Other than that I have nothing else to offer to this thread
 

TallanKhan

New member
Aug 13, 2009
790
0
0
I have to admit it isn't an issue i have spent a great deal of time considering but i would have to say i don't think there is a logically justifiable case that incest is morally wrong in itself. I will qualify that by saying the actual idea makes me feel unsettled, but the things that disturb us aren't always logical.
I do however believe strongly that incestuos conception is morally wrong (as would be any kind of conception where you knowingly take that kind of risk with a potential childs health).
 

DeltaEdge

New member
May 21, 2010
639
0
0
Pretty much anything I want to say has been covered, albeit scattered among several posts, so I will summarize my feelings on the matter.

I am completely okay with other people engaging in incest(Although I wouldn't engage in it personally). It should definitely be legal. As for children, due to the fact that I don't want to spend the next day researching this, I will just say this. Some people mentioned some kind of reproductive counselling, and I think that they should do that, and if there is sufficient evidence to show that the likely-hood of birth defects are high, then they should not be allowed to have the child. I feel that this should be applicable to any couple that yields such as result after testing as well. But if there is no such way of accurately testing people, and determining how high the risk for defects are, then I guess that option is out the window.

Do I personally find it disgusting? Well, parent and child incest I do find to be quite gross, but I don't really find incest among siblings to be particularly gross, unless it is male homosexual sex, which I find gross regardless of how they are related. Also notable, I don't really consider having sex with your cousin to be incest, just your direct siblings from the same parent.

But yeah, so basically, I am completely fine with it, and am fine with children as the result of an incestuous relationship, provided that the risk for birth defects is shown to be no higher than a normal couple's.

 

Iron Lightning

Lightweight Extreme
Oct 19, 2009
1,237
0
0
Bhaalspawn said:
I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?
I'm sorry but I just have to ask. What the hell is self marriage? What would be the point of marrying yourself? What's the difference between an unmarried person and a self-married person?

More on topic: The belief that incest is unethical because of the increased risk of genetic deformities manifesting is tantamount to a belief in the goodness of eugenics.

It's illogical to condemn incest while not simultaneously condemning couple who suffer from genetic deformities.

Either incest is ethical or eugenics is ethical and I hope that no one here is sophomoric enough to think that eugenics is ethical.
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
Entitled said:
Would it also cross the line for you if a person with a hereditary genetic illnes would have children with someone that they are not not related to?
Good question. Ill need to be more informed on the subject and the nature of hereditary illness in question before i can answer it though.
The answer might potentially mean i support a limited form of eugenics which would be horrible at first glance but then again, if im against healthy people having too many kids if they can't handle them, i suppose this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
I don't feel like I'm in the position to say. I have no siblings, am not particularly close with my family, and my mother is conventionally unattractive so I don't know if I find her unattractive because she IS or because she's my mother.

I guess it's not my business, but I'm not really a good judge over how "sick" or "wrong" it supposedly is.
 

NightmareExpress

New member
Dec 31, 2012
546
0
0
Don't really care about it one way or the other.
My gut reaction to the idea is one of disgust, because I've grown up with perception that it's one of the worst things you could do. Rednecks with oddities being the result of said relationships, genetic defects galore, two depraved individuals.

Though when I apply some logic to it, eh.
Defects happen regardless of who it is. Miscarriages happen regardless of who it is.
I'm certain that there's more disgusting acts that humanity has partaken in, of a non-sexual fashion.

When there's two consenting adults, how can you say that it's (the act) wrong?
If anything, the reaction to it is wrong and the aftermath (pregnancy) could also be wrong.
So I suppose I'm someone that's neutral to it, but wouldn't/couldn't do it myself.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
The Ubermensch said:
Arakasi said:
I've been reading Atlas Shrugged lately (I pause here to hear you groan) and I'm starting to think that the status quo is hating on the, what 5%, while wider philosophical considerations are shunned.
>Atlas Shrugged
Stopped reading there, Invalidates all your arguments

Kidding, Okay, but you need to follow that up by reading Marx and Orwell. Marx is actually very good at describing the difference between Libertarianism (which he claims is what capitalism is sold as) and working Capitalism.
Ayn Rand, if you haven't noticed, was very apt to dehumanise people.
Actually, I did buy 1984 along with Atlas Shrugged. But I'll probably read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris next, then Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche. I also fail to see how Ayn dehumanises people, all I've seen is the very opposite.

The Ubermensch said:
I agree with this, but the issue that we have is that I know it won't stop there.
How do you know? And where will it go? And will it matter if it goes there?
In that order
-Based on projections made on personal observations and correlations in human behaviour
-Full blown inappropriately regulated Eugenics
-In my opinion yes
I highly doubt, with all the speculative fiction, and bioethcis and shit like that, that we'll ever come to something like that. But I guess only time will tell.

The Ubermensch said:
Again, it is very possible that it wouldn't be homogenised, and that's what testing is for. Lots and lots of testing. Also ensuring that we have the science of epigentics accounted for as best as possible.
The testing screens for Issues, not homogenisation, example. you have four couples and 16 genes, they each have two kids. the best Gene is selected from each parent
Oh, I get that, I'm saying that in the future when we do have the technology (just as we'd have the tech for higher level eugenics).

The Ubermensch said:
AB + CD = AC + AC
EF + GH = FG + FG
IJ + KL = JL + JL
MN + OP = NO + NO

Congratulations, you've just halved your genetic diversity!

they then mate and you do the same again

AC + FG = FC + FC
JL + NO = NL + NL
FG + JL = FG + FG
NO + AG = AO + AO

Okay, you haven't quite halved it this time, but the pools gettings shallower

See where I'm going with this? Yeah the examples not perfect but it illustrates my point. You can try and regulate this but it would be really difficult to do
I'd imagine it wouldn't really matter. If we can synthetically create DNA for the eugenics there would be no problems with genetic diversity, as any problems that would be caused via two people mating 1. Generally arises from those killer ressessives I mentioned earlier and 2. Could be replaced by the very same process that caused them to be homogeneous in the first place.

The Ubermensch said:
No, but a very high burden of performance will be placed on the first generation of "Goopers"
Not if you make it double blind.
*First production models of Goopers
Alright, what do you mean by high burden of performance? If you mean there'll be big things expected of them and such and that'll skew the results, a double blind study would eliminate that.

The Ubermensch said:
I don't agree. Eugenics is not inherently wrong. It could be applied wrong, but there are almost certainly ways it could work.
Yeah, I doubt it though
We'll see I guess. I think that most of any potential problems that could arise from it come from those rejecting it without knowing what they are talking about, just like stem cell research and GM foods.

The Ubermensch said:
I'm sure there is, I'm just a really cynical person. Haven't you noticed?
You're cynical? I'm cynical. I just don't like to speak in absolutes and rule out potential solutions based upon potential problems.


Like it or not, you need someone to call out the potential problems
Oh of course, I'm not saying not to do that, I'm just saying not to throw out the whole idea due to those potential problems.

The Ubermensch said:
Wait, what?
I am not saying that I don't want to know, I am saying that others don't and they're the danger, especially as they are much more likely to be able to be indoctrinated with false information.

Of course I don't take arguments souly from authority. I attempt to judge all arguments without prejudice, and weigh them by merit.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of
the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity
and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.
For he is truly his brother's keeper... and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger
those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I
am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

Some people will away's need a shepherd, unfortunately false ones exist.
Thanks to Ayn Rand that has become one of my more despised Bible passages. I still maintain that so long as you do no harm to others, selfishness is just. More harm seems to come from people calling others selfish, then demanding what they do not deserve.

Finally, yes, some people will always need a shepard. It is a shame really, I think the school system carries a significant amount of the blame. That is one area where I will admit that Ayn Rand is naive, she puts too much faith in human beings.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
Entitled said:
Frankster said:
Im not sure about this.

On one side id usually say what goes on between 2 ppl in the bedroom is none of my business, but inbreeding leads to genetic problems so it isnt just the 2 ppl that are concerned, its their offspring and what effect it would have on the wider society.

And that...is more my business. It already sickens me when i see people having way more kids then they can handle, or parents that have kids for silly resons just as tax benefits or to entrap a husband (these cases sadly do exist) so the whole sister and bro boinking then having kids really does kinda irk me.

So guess i don't find it morally wrong for a sister and brother to hook up without having kids, but if they were then that would be crossing a line in my book. My 2 cents.
Would it also cross the line for you if a person with a hereditary genetic illnes would have children with someone that they are not not related to?
I know this question is not directed at me, but that is a good point.

I am forced to say yes (for the worst genetic illnesses), because you are knowingly creating a creature which will be significantly disadvantaged from the word 'go'. Is that not the height of cruelty? Adoption (or IVF) should be the first thing to a person with a genetic illness's mind when they wish to have children.
 

The Ubermensch

New member
Mar 6, 2012
345
0
0
Arakasi said:
I highly doubt, with all the speculative fiction, and bioethcis and shit like that, that we'll ever come to something like that. But I guess only time will tell.
Nearly every large metropolis now has its own second life of location-based game layers; whole buildings are wrapped in screens. There are ads for video games on video billboards, and ads on billboards inside of video games - sometimes even ads for other video games. Virtual Graffii is overlaid on the environment by portable computers. Anarchists and revolutionaries organize via encrypted virtual networks, And, really, anyone with the know-how can buy designer drugs or refined plutonium on secret websites using an experimental decentralized online currency.

Teenagers with smart phones wander the streets, wearing on them computers rivaling the most powerful consumer models from a decade ago. These youths wander around, compromising networks discretely from their phones, wreacking havoc and making a killing for themselves scanning other people's RFID Embedded credit cards and dumping the funds through multiple online bank accounts, while corporate executives plan the overthrow of state governments, with fascism creeping into politics and unmanned robots hovering in the skies. The hobos wander the rail tracks with backpacks full of movies and a laptop.

Police have come to fear the technology of protestors they suppress. Three letter government agencies plot increasingly intricate ways to monitor the population, from unmanned drones to city-wide CCTV installation to the questionably legal hacking of private CCTV networks and the use of facial recognition databanks to track people everywhere they go in the physical world while projects like Trapwire monitor everything they do online. New Brain-machine interfaces allow sensitive information like bank account and PIN numbers to be extracted form a person's brain involuntarily.

In the midst of the surveilance state, society begins to stagnate and the gap between the economic and political elites and the city-dwelling lower class widens into a gaping chasm. Hackers and whistleblowers risk life and limb to expose the activities of the surveilance state and expose the dangers of the powerful multinational corporations, travelling from hovel to hovel with backpacks full of high tech equipment just one step ahead of the authorities they oppose.

Cyberpunk didn't die, it became reality.

I'd imagine it wouldn't really matter. If we can synthetically create DNA for the eugenics there would be no problems with genetic diversity, as any problems that would be caused via two people mating 1. Generally arises from those killer ressessives I mentioned earlier and 2. Could be replaced by the very same process that caused them to be homogeneous in the first place.
Yeah, we are a ways off from being able to calculate how synthetically generated genes effect Mammalian development, though interestingly enough a team recently created a working, replicating bacteria with completely synthetic DNA... and created the "superior" XNA... So go figure.

Alright, what do you mean by high burden of performance? If you mean there'll be big things expected of them and such and that'll skew the results, a double blind study would eliminate that.
I think if you commercialised this technology, which if you're an objectivist you would, I think the parents that paid for the treatment would be a bit pissed off that they didn't get the advertised product.

Secondly, how much is IVF at the moment? like fucking expensive. How expensive would genetic selection be? because that's IVF plus genetic manipulation. I'd say there would be a fair few people with high expectations of their prodigy's. Again this is speculation, but its speculation based on correlated observation.

We'll see I guess. I think that most of any potential problems that could arise from it come from those rejecting it without knowing what they are talking about, just like stem cell research and GM foods.
Yeah, on reflection I'm a little bit wrong in my thinking here. Science isn't inherently good or evil, its what we do with it. Still, I prefer transhumanisation and Cybernetics to Eugneics.

Thanks to Ayn Rand that has become one of my more despised Bible passages. I still maintain that so long as you do no harm to others, selfishness is just. More harm seems to come from people calling others selfish, then demanding what they do not deserve.
Yes, but the issue that I have is that when you become the Director of a big business and start having employees it's your responsibility to look after them in a fair manner, be careful about the waste you manufacture because it can damage the environment, etc. The problem is that today a lot of these people in these positions of power have attained it via birth right alone; the difficulties of the education system, etcetera.

Ayn Rand may have had some valid points in her time but we're almost 80 years later, where as Marx bloody called it.


Finally, yes, some people will always need a shepard. It is a shame really, I think the school system carries a significant amount of the blame. That is one area where I will admit that Ayn Rand is naive, she puts too much faith in human beings.
... Hang on a second... I bet you do listen to Nickleback!
 

Bigsmith

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,026
0
0
seydaman said:
For a starting
-Is incest morally wrong?
I don't think it is morally wrong as long as both parties have given consent.
-In the case of no possible offspring?
This is quite a big point, providing they don't reproduce then I'm fine with it.
-With offspring?
I think that couples that come under the boundaries of incest shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. See gene therapy.
-Should incest be legally banned?
No.
-Does the act of incest disgust you?
No, because well... um Twincest, not gonna lie.

As well that it won't effect me if it become legal, just like how Gay marriage won't effect anyone else.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
81
33
Country
Free-Dom
Personally? Not interested.

Other people? I don't really have any control over what other folks do. So...have at it, I guess?
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
Bhaalspawn said:
I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?

Honestly, I really don't give a shit who is boinking who. I hear a lot of people talking about genetic regression and my response is usually "So?"

If a brother and sister decide they want to screw, it's not my place to approve or disapprove.
No contest on the gay marriage front.

As to the 'boinking' business not affecting you at all - I'd like you to reconsider.

Do you pay taxes? If yes, depending on where you live, it is highly probable that you also pay into some form of NHS fund. So... it is bound to affect you, albeit in a mostly roundabout way. You have no control over how your money is used, and all you can do is hope there's enough money left when it's your turn to be in need of some pills and other, more refined fixin'.

Do you pay 10% (or even more) of your monthly income into some form of health insurance? Then it is bound to affect you.

If you pay neither taxes, nor health insurance, then you are indeed free to act and think as you please, as you refuse to partake in the rather costly enterprise of just being a good citizen.

However, you might understand that I, who, to this day, has paid an average 100 times more into the system than I got out of it for myself (and my loved ones) don't feel much sympathy for notions like the one you just so carelessly spouted from in between clenched teeth. Not certain if generally grinning or just angry by default.

Captcha: stool pigeon - wth?

Picture added to save a thousand words from being slaughtered:

http://funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/house-incest.jpeg
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
The Ubermensch said:
Arakasi said:
I highly doubt, with all the speculative fiction, and bioethcis and shit like that, that we'll ever come to something like that. But I guess only time will tell.
Nearly every large metropolis now has its own second life of location-based game layers; whole buildings are wrapped in screens. There are ads for video games on video billboards, and ads on billboards inside of video games - sometimes even ads for other video games. Virtual Graffii is overlaid on the environment by portable computers. Anarchists and revolutionaries organize via encrypted virtual networks, And, really, anyone with the know-how can buy designer drugs or refined plutonium on secret websites using an experimental decentralized online currency.

Teenagers with smart phones wander the streets, wearing on them computers rivaling the most powerful consumer models from a decade ago. These youths wander around, compromising networks discretely from their phones, wreacking havoc and making a killing for themselves scanning other people's RFID Embedded credit cards and dumping the funds through multiple online bank accounts, while corporate executives plan the overthrow of state governments, with fascism creeping into politics and unmanned robots hovering in the skies. The hobos wander the rail tracks with backpacks full of movies and a laptop.

Police have come to fear the technology of protestors they suppress. Three letter government agencies plot increasingly intricate ways to monitor the population, from unmanned drones to city-wide CCTV installation to the questionably legal hacking of private CCTV networks and the use of facial recognition databanks to track people everywhere they go in the physical world while projects like Trapwire monitor everything they do online. New Brain-machine interfaces allow sensitive information like bank account and PIN numbers to be extracted form a person's brain involuntarily.

In the midst of the surveilance state, society begins to stagnate and the gap between the economic and political elites and the city-dwelling lower class widens into a gaping chasm. Hackers and whistleblowers risk life and limb to expose the activities of the surveilance state and expose the dangers of the powerful multinational corporations, travelling from hovel to hovel with backpacks full of high tech equipment just one step ahead of the authorities they oppose.

Cyberpunk didn't die, it became reality.
I am yet to read 1984, but that sounds incredibly sensationalist.

The Ubermensch said:
I'd imagine it wouldn't really matter. If we can synthetically create DNA for the eugenics there would be no problems with genetic diversity, as any problems that would be caused via two people mating 1. Generally arises from those killer ressessives I mentioned earlier and 2. Could be replaced by the very same process that caused them to be homogeneous in the first place.
Yeah, we are a ways off from being able to calculate how synthetically generated genes effect Mammalian development, though interestingly enough a team recently created a working, replicating bacteria with completely synthetic DNA... and created the "superior" XNA... So go figure.
Yep, the future both outperforms and underperforms what sci-fi writers think of. Where's our damn flying cars.

The Ubermensch said:
Alright, what do you mean by high burden of performance? If you mean there'll be big things expected of them and such and that'll skew the results, a double blind study would eliminate that.
I think if you commercialised this technology, which if you're an objectivist you would, I think the parents that paid for the treatment would be a bit pissed off that they didn't get the advertised product.
I was talking about initial testing. It should only become commercialised when it is safe. Also, I am not an objectivist. I don't believe in free will and also think that Ayn Rand puts far too much faith in the mental capacity of the average human, without a good education anyway.

The Ubermensch said:
Secondly, how much is IVF at the moment? like fucking expensive. How expensive would genetic selection be? because that's IVF plus genetic manipulation. I'd say there would be a fair few people with high expectations of their prodigy's. Again this is speculation, but its speculation based on correlated observation.
It would only be as expensive as the market determines. You've got to strike the right balance between the highest price possible for the most customers possible. So it really couldn't be that expensive unless it were entirely done by small firms who catered entirely to the richest.

The Ubermensch said:
We'll see I guess. I think that most of any potential problems that could arise from it come from those rejecting it without knowing what they are talking about, just like stem cell research and GM foods.
Yeah, on reflection I'm a little bit wrong in my thinking here. Science isn't inherently good or evil, its what we do with it. Still, I prefer transhumanisation and Cybernetics to Eugneics.
Well, I'd ideally prefer cybernetics or some equivalent, but I don't think it can solve a lot of the problems that genetic modification could.

The Ubermensch said:
Thanks to Ayn Rand that has become one of my more despised Bible passages. I still maintain that so long as you do no harm to others, selfishness is just. More harm seems to come from people calling others selfish, then demanding what they do not deserve.
Yes, but the issue that I have is that when you become the Director of a big business and start having employees it's your responsibility to look after them in a fair manner, be careful about the waste you manufacture because it can damage the environment, etc.
When it comes to waste and damaging the environment and such, I have given a lot of thought about it. The objectivist would say that the only environment the industrialist has the right to damage is the one that the industrialist paid for, so if you want to pollute a river or an ocean you'd better bloody well own it (and ensure it can't escape your property) otherwise you're going to be in a shitload of trouble. As for the workers, they are selling a skill, and ideally (I have no idea how this would work in reality) There would be a marketplace for jobs, and the most skilled workers would prefer the safer environments, encouraging employers to make their workplace safer. Of course, there would still be a place for suing the pants off your employer for making you operate an unsafe machine (provided you weren't told it would be unsafe).

The Ubermensch said:
The problem is that today a lot of these people in these positions of power have attained it via birth right alone; the difficulties of the education system, etcetera.
Yes, that is one of the larger flaws I see in Ayn Rand's work. Although she herself seems to be disgusted with the power attained by birth thing also. I can't be bothered to find the quote, but she certainly believes in people leaving big companies and such in the best hands, as opposed to the hands of an incompetent blood relative.

The Ubermensch said:
Ayn Rand may have had some valid points in her time but we're almost 80 years later, where as Marx bloody called it.
Marx called what? Rand said society would slowly deteriorate due to the pollution of the capitalist system by 'altruistic' policies which caused inbalance and corruption, that was the centre of Atlas Shrugged, except that was an example of someone speeding up the inevitable. I know it's difficult to see how it could have been altruistic policies that caused it, but she made some really damn good points to show it.

The Ubermensch said:
Finally, yes, some people will always need a shepard. It is a shame really, I think the school system carries a significant amount of the blame. That is one area where I will admit that Ayn Rand is naive, she puts too much faith in human beings.
... Hang on a second... I bet you do listen to Nickleback!
I'll have you know I listen to metal and classical primarily. Current pop music makes my ears bleed.
 

Dascylus

New member
May 22, 2010
255
0
0
Really?
Admittedly I have only skimmed through the responses but I am surprised by the general positive attitude to incest.

If I was dating my sister you guys would really have no problem?

I just find it a little strange. Is it ok then?

Let's search definition of what you guys wouldn't care about. What could I "Have at" if I was so inclined?

Second Cousin?
Cousin?
Aunt?
Mother?
Sister?
Daughter?

Hell, I am implying the feminine? Would it be better/worse if it was Uncle, Father, Brother or Son?

Disclaimer:
I should probably point out that a discussion of incest is absolutely not related in any way to a discussion of sexuality.
 

The Ubermensch

New member
Mar 6, 2012
345
0
0
Arakasi said:
I am yet to read 1984, but that sounds incredibly sensationalist.
Two things you have to understand about Orwell, one, he's was a communist until Stalin went bonkers, two he saw the same warning signs in western culture. That was the point of 1984.

We never did talk about Blade Runner but I think this is sort of important for you to understand why I feel this way. Thankfully there's a guy on You Tube that thinks almost exactly the way I do


Perhaps I've just grown up with cyberpunk in my face and have been indoctrinated to think this way, but perhaps these are valid questions everyone should ask themselves.

I was talking about initial testing. It should only become commercialised when it is safe. Also, I am not an objectivist. I don't believe in free will and also think that Ayn Rand puts far too much faith in the mental capacity of the average human, without a good education anyway.
How can you not believe in Free Will? A MAN CHOOSES, A SLAVE OBEYS

It would only be as expensive as the market determines. You've got to strike the right balance between the highest price possible for the most customers possible. So it really couldn't be that expensive unless it were entirely done by small firms who catered entirely to the richest.
... You see a problem with that I hope...

Well, I'd ideally prefer cybernetics or some equivalent, but I don't think it can solve a lot of the problems that genetic modification could.
The only thing it couldn't solve is brain related issues, and even then we don't know for certain.

When it comes to waste and damaging the environment and such, I have given a lot of thought about it. The objectivist would say that the only environment the industrialist has the right to damage is the one that the industrialist paid for, so if you want to pollute a river or an ocean you'd better bloody well own it (and ensure it can't escape your property) otherwise you're going to be in a shitload of trouble.
... How the fuck, no just think about this for a second, how the fuck can you "Own land". No just think about it for a second, who initially has the rights too it? Who has the rights to sell it? If the answer is the government then how did they acquire it? Because if the government owns it now they acquired it via murder.

I think you can lease land, I think you can operate it for a long time, I think you can use the land to store waste providing that it doesn't spread, but most waste does.

As for the workers, they are selling a skill, and ideally (I have no idea how this would work in reality) There would be a marketplace for jobs, and the most skilled workers would prefer the safer environments; encouraging employers to make their workplace safer. Of course, there would still be a place for suing the pants off your employer for making you operate an unsafe machine (provided you weren't told it would be unsafe).
This is pretty much what happens at the moment and its not working. You have thousands of illegals killed every year by machinery, doing unskilled work. Because they do this, and I want to point out that I'm not against illegals, I'm against the system that they are exploited in, the value of labour is determined only by the employer, and so the wage gap only gotten bigger.

You mention skill, skill is given by education. Who owns the lobby groups that petition the state and federal governments for lower taxes? what do taxes pay for? Why do middle class have to pay tax when the big businesses don't? Especially when the wage gap is so high? How can you afford privatised education when half of the work force is on the poverty line?

Your ideal is what's happening in America and it's not working.

Yes, that is one of the larger flaws I see in Ayn Rand's work. Although she herself seems to be disgusted with the power attained by birth thing also. I can't be bothered to find the quote, but she certainly believes in people leaving big companies and such in the best hands, as opposed to the hands of an incompetent blood relative.
You know this is what the Japanese do? The owner of Suzuki hasn't been of the same blood line as the previous owner for three generations.

I'll have you know I listen to metal and classical primarily. Current pop music makes my ears bleed.


Though even in a book of lies there is some truth to be had
 

The Ubermensch

New member
Mar 6, 2012
345
0
0
Dascylus said:
Really?
Admittedly I have only skimmed through the responses but I am surprised by the general positive attitude to incest.

If I was dating my sister you guys would really have no problem?

I just find it a little strange. Is it ok then?

Let's search definition of what you guys wouldn't care about. What could I "Have at" if I was so inclined?

Second Cousin?
Cousin?
Aunt?
Mother?
Sister?
Daughter?

Hell, I am implying the feminine? Would it be better/worse if it was Uncle, Father, Brother or Son?

Disclaimer:
I should probably point out that a discussion of incest is absolutely not related in any way to a discussion of sexuality.
I think a lot of us find it a little strange, but I also think a lot of us understand that it's impossible to have full context and therefore as long as its consensual we don't really have a right to say anything.

You can make the health service arguments if you want, they have some validity I guess, but there are a lot bigger drains on revenue than genetic deformity