Log in

View Full Version : Incest



The Feral Underclass
3rd January 2004, 13:06
I was talking to a friend about Libertarianism and he asked me how far would I go with this whole freedom thing. My answer was that anyone could do anything as long as it did not harm or negativly effect anyone else.

He asked me about incest? In my oppinion two consenting adults have the right to conduct any relationship they want with anyone they want without being stigmatised by society.

I think that questions like incest etc are questions left up for indeviduals. Meaning that if a brother and sister decided they wanted to have a relationship that is their choice just as a brother and sister have the choice not to have a relationship with each other. Every human being should be able to have the choice whether to do something or not, as long as it dosnt hurt anyone else.

What are peoples thoughts?

JustSoul
3rd January 2004, 13:12
I support you. Infact in some cultures incest is even promoted. But that is bad for the tribe,country,nation etc for obvious genetic reasons.

ComradeRobertRiley
3rd January 2004, 13:16
I and www.freepeoplesmovement.tk (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.tk) agree with you.

Y2A
3rd January 2004, 13:33
While I do support the freedom for one to do as he wishes at his home. Incest unfortunately leads to children with disablities but looking at it realisticaly there is no way to make it illegal and enforce it. They should have that freedom.

Kez
3rd January 2004, 14:18
incest, a game for all the family ™

sometimes occurs in muslim countries, whether its cultural or religious i dont know.

Its pretty fucked up tho, it cant be natural, with the gene pool being decreased, unhealthy, why risk bringing a disabled kid into the world? surely its not gonna be good for them?

Hate Is Art
3rd January 2004, 14:23
yeah thats whats wrong with it, end up with strange kids :( like prince charles :lol: hehe anyways surely under anarchism there is no way to stop so what can you do? we don't have the right to tell people what to do or whatever so I guess it's none of my business.

ComradeRobertRiley
3rd January 2004, 14:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 05:18 PM
incest, a game for all the family ™

sometimes occurs in muslim countries, whether its cultural or religious i dont know.

Its pretty fucked up tho, it cant be natural, with the gene pool being decreased, unhealthy, why risk bringing a disabled kid into the world? surely its not gonna be good for them?
Thats true but irrelevent. If thats what they want to do then its up to them.

The Feral Underclass
3rd January 2004, 15:41
incest, a game for all the family ™

sometimes occurs in muslim countries, whether its cultural or religious i dont know.

Its pretty fucked up tho, it cant be natural, with the gene pool being decreased, unhealthy, why risk bringing a disabled kid into the world? surely its not gonna be good for them?

You can not say what is fucked up or what is natural. You can say what you as am indevidual would do or not do, but for someone else they may choose something different. Your decisions are completely subjective and can not be used in general.

Y2A
3rd January 2004, 15:48
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2004, 04:41 PM
You can not say what is fucked up or what is natural. You can say what you as am indevidual would do or not do, but for someone else they may choose something different. Your decisions are completely subjective and can not be used in general.
Most of us aren't saying that it is unnatural though, most are just worried about the kids that would grow up with disabilities which is a natural thought but at the same time is irrational. The reason why is simple. First off there would be no way to regulate it and second off making it "legal" would certainly not increase the number of individuals engaged in this activity.

Al Creed
3rd January 2004, 15:49
Actually,

-"Incest" is not practiced in ANY culture. Incest is one of the few cultural universals left in the world. You see, what We view as incest, may not be seen as incest in another culture (IE the marriage of second cousins, ect)

-Incest RARELY produces the "Monster" children we've seen on TV and movies. Look at most of the Royal families throughout Europe, all products of what we deem here in the West as "Incest." No physical abnomalities (mental, on the other hand...)

Y2A
3rd January 2004, 15:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:49 PM
-Incest RARELY produces the "Monster" children we've seen on TV and movies. Look at most of the Royal families throughout Europe, all products of what we deem here in the West as "Incest." No physical abnomalities (mental, on the other hand...)
Actually it is a well-known fact that some members of the royal family suffer from a disease, I do not recall what it is called at the time, in which they can not be cut because it would lead to excessive bleeding.

Al Creed
3rd January 2004, 16:06
You mean Physical?

The point I was getting at was you don't see Elizabeth with three arms, or Phillip with an extra eye or two. The only evidence is Charles' ears, but they're more goofy than Monsterous.

JustSoul
3rd January 2004, 16:07
Yep what Y2A said and also it leads to few mental anomalities.

Kez
3rd January 2004, 16:41
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2004, 04:41 PM

incest, a game for all the family ™

sometimes occurs in muslim countries, whether its cultural or religious i dont know.

Its pretty fucked up tho, it cant be natural, with the gene pool being decreased, unhealthy, why risk bringing a disabled kid into the world? surely its not gonna be good for them?

You can not say what is fucked up or what is natural. You can say what you as am indevidual would do or not do, but for someone else they may choose something different. Your decisions are completely subjective and can not be used in general.
i can say what is fucked up, i just did, so :P

2ndly, the belief that its ok to risk human disability for your own momentary pleasure is fucked. im talking about having children here, what right do 2 parents have to make a child disabled?

Also, just because the 2 consent, it doesnt mean its right (See: German Canibals frying and eating their consenting partners cocks)

ComradeRobertRiley
3rd January 2004, 16:50
Originally posted by Kez+Jan 3 2004, 07:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kez @ Jan 3 2004, 07:41 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2004, 04:41 PM

incest, a game for all the family ™

sometimes occurs in muslim countries, whether its cultural or religious i dont know.

Its pretty fucked up tho, it cant be natural, with the gene pool being decreased, unhealthy, why risk bringing a disabled kid into the world? surely its not gonna be good for them?

You can not say what is fucked up or what is natural. You can say what you as am indevidual would do or not do, but for someone else they may choose something different. Your decisions are completely subjective and can not be used in general.
i can say what is fucked up, i just did, so :P

2ndly, the belief that its ok to risk human disability for your own momentary pleasure is fucked. im talking about having children here, what right do 2 parents have to make a child disabled?

Also, just because the 2 consent, it doesnt mean its right (See: German Canibals frying and eating their consenting partners cocks) [/b]
I think that cannible should be allowed to do that, the other guy was willing so whats the problem.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
3rd January 2004, 18:53
This is a slippery slope here. What about fathers and daughers, mothers and sons? If that, then why not legalize pedophilia? The very important part of a relationship is to go out and find people to have a relationship with, and when you go out there amongst everyone, you learn some very important things about yourself (and tastes in other people). Is it best to have a partner with similiar interests as your own? What type of personally do you like most? etc. To marry someone in your family takes that whole experience away. I would have to say no.

mhallex
3rd January 2004, 18:57
This is a slippery slope here. What about fathers and daughers, mothers and sons?
Why not leave that up to the people in question instead of making the choice for them?


If that, then why not legalize pedophilia
Children cannot consent, adults can. Thats the difference.


The very important part of a relationship is to go out and find people to have a relationship with, and when you go out there amongst everyone, you learn some very important things about yourself (and tastes in other people).
Thats your opinion of course, there isnt a real objective standrad on this sort of thing.

The heart has its reasons that reason cannot reason. If its two cousins, then why not?

Besides by that logic childhood sweethearts shouldnt marry since theyre not really going out adn finding people.

Kez
3rd January 2004, 19:05
it seems an emergency call out to all anally liberal armchair socialists has been called out to post in favour of incest. yey.

SonofRage
3rd January 2004, 19:13
I find the idea extremely gross and disturbing. That being said, if it is between consenting adults then it is no business of the state or anything else.

mhallex
3rd January 2004, 19:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:05 PM
it seems an emergency call out to all anally liberal armchair socialists has been called out to post in favour of incest. yey.
Evil libertarian capitalist exploiter of the wrokers, actually.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
3rd January 2004, 19:34
Cousins? OK. Brothers and sisters? No. However, I don&#39;t see this becoming a big issue in the near future. Once I start seeing incest pride parades, then it might be a real issue. :blink:

(*
3rd January 2004, 19:43
How about...

Cousins? NO. Brothers and Sisters? HELL NO.

The Feral Underclass
3rd January 2004, 19:49
Can I just ask what makes you think you have the right to judge other peoples actions?

ComradeRobertRiley
3rd January 2004, 19:55
Because they dont think people should have freedom.

They want to tell people how they should live and what they can and cant do.

The individual shouldnt have they right to choose what he/she wants.

Misodoctakleidist
3rd January 2004, 19:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:55 PM
Because they dont think people should have freedom.

They want to tell people how they should live and what they can and cant do.

The individual shouldnt have they right to choose what he/she wants.
is this the same ComradeRobertRiley who wants to make religion illegal?

ComradeRobertRiley
3rd January 2004, 20:04
Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jan 3 2004, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Jan 3 2004, 10:57 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 08:55 PM
Because they dont think people should have freedom.

They want to tell people how they should live and what they can and cant do.

The individual shouldnt have they right to choose what he/she wants.
is this the same ComradeRobertRiley who wants to make religion illegal? [/b]
LOL yes thats me&#33; :D


The one and only&#33;


I see what your saying but with the religion I would allow people to believe what they want and in their own home they can preach if they want its just public religion churches and stuff i want banning

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
3rd January 2004, 20:34
Naturally, you can&#39;t ban what people think...

ComradeRobertRiley
3rd January 2004, 20:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:34 PM
Naturally, you can&#39;t ban what people think...
im sure the U&#036; is working on a way

(*
3rd January 2004, 21:31
How about...

Cousins? NO. Brothers and Sisters? HELL NO.




Can I just ask what makes you think you have the right to judge other peoples actions?

Judge? I&#39;m not judging anyone...

In reference to myself. NO and NO.

I couldn&#39;t care less what other people do, it doesn&#39;t affect me.

Comrade Ceausescu
4th January 2004, 22:56
I just think its creepy.Really creepy.I mean,I don&#39;t think its like homosexuality where you cant help it.Not to say that you need to.But incest just seems so,so,so unneccasserary to me.Its not like you are just naturally attracted to people just in your family.

ComradeRobertRiley
4th January 2004, 22:58
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 01:56 AM
I just think its creepy.Really creepy.I mean,I don&#39;t think its like homosexuality where you cant help it.Not to say that you need to.But incest just seems so,so,so unneccasserary to me.Its not like you are just naturally attracted to people just in your family.
I think anyone can fall in love with anyone. Friends, family, male or female it makes no differance.

Sure its not everyones cup of tea but everyone should have the right to choose.

Ortega
4th January 2004, 23:03
Originally posted by ComradeRobertRiley+Jan 4 2004, 06:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRobertRiley @ Jan 4 2004, 06:58 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 01:56 AM
I just think its creepy.Really creepy.I mean,I don&#39;t think its like homosexuality where you cant help it.Not to say that you need to.But incest just seems so,so,so unneccasserary to me.Its not like you are just naturally attracted to people just in your family.
I think anyone can fall in love with anyone. Friends, family, male or female it makes no differance.

Sure its not everyones cup of tea but everyone should have the right to choose. [/b]
I&#39;d have to agree with that. Incest is creepy, but if one happened to be attracted to a member of their family, I suppose that I wouldn&#39;t get in the way of that. It&#39;s not my business, or anyone&#39;s really...

monkeydust
4th January 2004, 23:29
What is very interesting to me is that the majority of people I&#39;ve met seem to consider homosexuality fine but incest grossly wrong. Are they really that different?

Both aren&#39;t considered productive to the human gene-pool, both aren&#39;t &#39;the norm&#39; and both don&#39;t do any harm if the cuple are both consenting. I used to consider incest &#39;wrong&#39; but then i was posed with the question: Why is incest wrong yet homosexuality acceptable?

Rob
5th January 2004, 00:30
Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 3 2004, 04:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 3 2004, 04:53 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 04:49 PM
-Incest RARELY produces the "Monster" children we&#39;ve seen on TV and movies. Look at most of the Royal families throughout Europe, all products of what we deem here in the West as "Incest." No physical abnomalities (mental, on the other hand...)
Actually it is a well-known fact that some members of the royal family suffer from a disease, I do not recall what it is called at the time, in which they can not be cut because it would lead to excessive bleeding. [/b]
The disease is called hemophilia. Basically, if two parents have the same genetic trait, they&#39;re more likely to pass said trait on to their child (alleles and recombination and all that). Of course, if the parents are from the same family, they&#39;ll be more likely to have the same genetic traits. So yes, incest would likely be bad for the gene pool. That being said, I don&#39;t care what two consenting adults are fucking. Hopefully they wont have any kids though.

drdoogie
5th January 2004, 00:51
I don&#39;t think we can tell people that they absolutely cannot have incestuous relationships. However, as people have already pointed out, there are genetic reasons not to have a child with such a partner, which may be compelling to the individuals involved. I think that the reason that incest is such a touchy subject is that there is a strong cultural taboo about it, which springs from the genetics problem. Even if we said that people could legally marry with whomever they wanted, I don&#39;t think there would be many incestuous marriages - for a while, at least - because of the cultural factor. After all, we are all products of our culture.

IHP
5th January 2004, 01:03
As to the Royal family mentioned early, they do have a genetic defect. Hemophelia is seen throughout their bloodline.

Jesus Christ
5th January 2004, 01:04
didnt Marsha and Greg Brady have a little thing going on? :blink:

IHP
5th January 2004, 02:00
Almost certainly...but they weren&#39;t blood related.

BuyOurEverything
5th January 2004, 04:18
The negative reaction towards incest is simply one of the last remnants of Judeo-Christian sexual values. People are slowly coming to terms with homosexuality and women&#39;s liberation but still have a deep irrational hate towards those who practice insest. People should know by now that when the words "sick" or "wrong" are the main basis of one&#39;s argument, the argument is generally bullshit. Obviously, there is an elevated risk of deformaties but that is hardly reason enough to ban it. People should be educated about the hazards but their ultimate decision should be respected. As for "pedophilia", that of course, should be legalized too.

Scottish_Militant
5th January 2004, 05:58
Rob Riley on another thread was moaning about commies needing to kill people, fair enough, but he&#39;s saying it&#39;s ok to kill someone but it&#39;s not ok to tell a girl to stop sucking her dads cock? :blink:

man, I&#39;m glad I don&#39;t live in Cyprus

Tiki Man
5th January 2004, 06:02
As for "pedophilia", that of course, should be legalized too.

And if the child is afraid to tell the do not give their consent? I think the age limits should be changed slightly, but not entirely. I think once one is capable of reproduction they should be allowed to decide.

As for incest, if you and your sibling are in love, that&#39;s as stoppable as homosexuality, so in that sense I say "why not". But then if the child suffers a condition caused by incest, who should be held responsible, and for what? Could it be considered child abuse?

Danton
5th January 2004, 08:19
Personally I think it&#39;s completley sick, I worry when people start raising issues like this in the name of freedom... It&#39;s perverse, end of.. What&#39;s next? Animals?

synthesis
5th January 2004, 08:55
Opposition to incest on genetic grounds strikes me as little more than culturally accepted eugenics.

After all, if one is to prevent brother and sister from mating on the basis that it could produce a disabled or "genetically inferior" child, why not prevent those with other genetic conditions from mating?

Strike another one for the "state has no business in the people&#39;s bedrooms" option.

The Feral Underclass
5th January 2004, 09:19
Personally I think it&#39;s completley sick, I worry when people start raising issues like this in the name of freedom... It&#39;s perverse, end of.. What&#39;s next? Animals?

I am suprised that a fellow anarchist can take this kind of attitude. Your subjective view about what is perverse has absolutly no relevance on anything.

Freedom must, and always has to be about allowing people the right to choose. We can not pick what is an acceptable freedom and what is not simply because someone might be offended by it. If you do not wish to sleep with a family member then you have that choice.

Danton
5th January 2004, 10:00
It&#39;s my personal opinion and I don&#39;t think it&#39;s too much of an assumption to say that most people are repelled by such behaviour... Also I think it&#39;s the sort of issue we should&#39;nt expend much energy on for the sake of breaking down taboo&#39;s...

There are far more important matters than father/sister/brother mother fucking...

The Feral Underclass
5th January 2004, 10:09
However che-lives is a discussion message board the point of which is to debate issues just like this one. Of course people may be repelled by it but I do not think they have a right to be so judgmental.

Danton
5th January 2004, 10:43
We have no right to be judgemental but we can shag our family members... Persueing non-issues like this raises terms like "Loony left" and justifiably...

I don&#39;t see inscest practicioners being rounded up and harrassed so what are you looking for, social acceptance? Never, ever going to happen....

Invader Zim
5th January 2004, 12:06
Why do you think the entire European monarchies were all headed by insane people with 9 toes?

No

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
5th January 2004, 13:28
Incest is determental to the very existance of a healthy family life. What will happen is some mothers/fathers might have children purely for the purpose of their own sexual satisfaction. Of course, it&#39;s not the child&#39;s fault, that&#39;s just that he/she was brought up. Anything of the sort should be considered child abuse, and allowing/teaching your children to have sex with each other should be considered negligence. All of which should result from the removal of the children from the house and put into the state&#39;s care.

Scottish_Militant
5th January 2004, 14:22
Freedom must, and always has to be about allowing people the right to choose

In socialism we will remove the right for one man to &#39;choose&#39; to exploit another through wage-labour. Not all choices are good choices, and you must look at what is best for all society.

I think people who commit incest should be treated like any other person with mental health problems however, they should be helped and not hounded.

The Feral Underclass
5th January 2004, 14:48
In socialism we will remove the right for one man to &#39;choose&#39; to exploit another through wage-labour. Not all choices are good choices, and you must look at what is best for all society.

As long as those choices to do not hurt anyone what is the problem. What relevance is it too you?

This argument about children. The first child to a brother or sister is not going to have any problems, it is continuas inbreeding which creates a problem. I also think that people can understand and make the choice not to have children.

Danton
5th January 2004, 15:35
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 5 2004, 03:48 PM
The first child to a brother or sister is not going to have any problems,
So what if your mother bore you by your grandfather or your brother, fuck there are many equations.. "Hey son by the way I&#39;m your father and your brother"

That way leads madness...

Lardlad95
5th January 2004, 15:36
The genepool is fucked up enough as it is, so I&#39;m gonna abstain on this one.

Do two consenting adults have the right to have a relationship? Yes....

If they are brother and sister, or sister and sister, or brother and borhter...or any other weird freaky combination you can come up with I wouldn&#39;t advise it

The Feral Underclass
5th January 2004, 17:27
So what if your mother bore you by your grandfather or your brother, fuck there are many equations.. "Hey son by the way I&#39;m your father and your brother"

But you are concering yourself with things that dont concern you. Maybe this is the case for some family but it has fuck all to do with you.

If you met someone who was in this situation would you be scornful to them. If you were living in a collective and the person you were doing your socially necessary work was planning on marrying his sister and asked you to go to the wedding would you say no...

Scottish_Militant
5th January 2004, 19:01
of course, I hate the sound of banjo&#39;s :lol:

ComradeRobertRiley
5th January 2004, 19:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:58 AM
Rob Riley on another thread was moaning about commies needing to kill people, fair enough, but he&#39;s saying it&#39;s ok to kill someone but it&#39;s not ok to tell a girl to stop sucking her dads cock? :blink:

man, I&#39;m glad I don&#39;t live in Cyprus
If thats what that girl wants to do then why would you stop her?

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics
5th January 2004, 21:23
The child could be brought up in such a way as to believe it to be normal behaviour, for example if a child was sexual abuse by a parent everynight they will grow up thinking it happens to everyone, so whilst not making an outcry about it, they arent really consenting as they have been manipulated.

BuyOurEverything
5th January 2004, 21:45
Rob Riley on another thread was moaning about commies needing to kill people, fair enough, but he&#39;s saying it&#39;s ok to kill someone but it&#39;s not ok to tell a girl to stop sucking her dads cock?

That argument makes no fucking sense. Yes, killing people is neccessary sometimes but it has nothing to do with sexual relationships. You have every right to tell a girl to stop sucking her dad&#39;s cock if you wish, just as she has every right to continue, if she wishes.


And if the child is afraid to tell the do not give their consent?

Fear to say no is by no means limited to children. Anyone in a lower position of power in society, including the majority of women, can be intimidated into giving their consent. A tenant could just as easily fear to refuse to have sex with their landlord. Should we make a law against tenants having sex with their landlords and call anyone that breaks it sick and perverted?


Personally I think it&#39;s completley sick, I worry when people start raising issues like this in the name of freedom... It&#39;s perverse, end of.. What&#39;s next? Animals?


Then don&#39;t do it if you find it perverse. Why not animals?


Opposition to incest on genetic grounds strikes me as little more than culturally accepted eugenics.

After all, if one is to prevent brother and sister from mating on the basis that it could produce a disabled or "genetically inferior" child, why not prevent those with other genetic conditions from mating?

Strike another one for the "state has no business in the people&#39;s bedrooms" option.

I agree. There are many things besides incest which can cause birth defects, such as exposure to radiation or drug use. Again, should we ban these people from having sex and call them sick and perverted if they do?


Incest is determental to the very existance of a healthy family life.

Who the fuck cares? If that&#39;s the way a family chooses to live, why does it matter?


will happen is some mothers/fathers might have children purely for the purpose of their own sexual satisfaction.

Well, they kids can either refuse to consent, which would make any sexual activity rape, an entirely other issue. Or, if his daughter does consent, what&#39;s the problem?


Anything of the sort should be considered child abuse, and allowing/teaching your children to have sex with each other should be considered negligence. All of which should result from the removal of the children from the house and put into the state&#39;s care.

Why? You need a fucking reason&#33;


The genepool is fucked up enough as it is, so I&#39;m gonna abstain on this one.

Care to explain?


The child could be brought up in such a way as to believe it to be normal behaviour, for example if a child was sexual abuse by a parent everynight they will grow up thinking it happens to everyone, so whilst not making an outcry about it, they arent really consenting as they have been manipulated.

In our current society, people are brought up to believe that sex between two consenting adults is normal behaviour. Does that mean that nobody really consents to sex? Are they all just being manipulated into commiting perversion?

Edward Norton
5th January 2004, 21:58
This must be most fucked up thread on this forum.

Why is this thread in POLITICS??? :blink:

Why is everyone getting so worked up about this topic??? :blink:

Haven&#39;t we got BETTER/MORE IMPORTANT issues to discuss?

I also get the feeling that this thread is popular ONLY because it involves SEX (taboo sex at that) and appeals to the majority of teenagers on this forum&#33;

ComradeRobertRiley
5th January 2004, 22:02
I agree with you buyoureverything.


Animals cant concsent to sex.


Edward norton - i also agree that this is a shitty subject

BuyOurEverything
5th January 2004, 22:05
Animals cant concsent to sex.

They can&#39;t really consent to being kept in cages or on leashes or being killed and eaten either. I don&#39;t really think it matters.


This must be most fucked up thread on this forum.

Why is this thread in POLITICS???

Why is everyone getting so worked up about this topic???

Haven&#39;t we got BETTER/MORE IMPORTANT issues to discuss?

I also get the feeling that this thread is popular ONLY because it involves SEX (taboo sex at that) and appeals to the majority of teenagers on this forum&#33;

It&#39;s a discussion and if you have nothing to add or don&#39;t care, then don&#39;t fucking post in it.

Edward Norton
5th January 2004, 22:19
It&#39;s a discussion and if you have nothing to add or don&#39;t care, then don&#39;t fucking post in it

Fair point&#33;

If it is a chit-chat discussion about taboo sex, then why no move this to the chit chat section, it has NOTHING to do with politics&#33;


but it&#39;s not ok to tell a girl to stop sucking her dads cock?

You see, this is just about sex-mad teenagers with rather distrubing fantasies.

Sucking daddies dick is NOT a politcal topic&#33;

BuyOurEverything
5th January 2004, 23:10
This topic has to do with society&#39;s view of Judeo-Christian values and what laws, if any, should be made to promote or disuade them. How is that not political?

Danton
6th January 2004, 10:07
Well, they kids can either refuse to consent, which would make any sexual activity rape, an entirely other issue. Or, if his daughter does consent, what&#39;s the problem?

You see no problem with this? To a child, a daughter having sex with her father?
All politics aside that is so nasty words fail me... I&#39;m no puritan but we must draw a line here..What your advocating goes beyond the pale...


This topic has to do with society&#39;s view of Judeo-Christian values

Bullshit&#33; Any civilized culture has such values, their inherent... Fucking your family is wrong regardless of the liberalism your so proud of...

Why not animals?

What, you mean apart from the obvious physical incompatibility... Has the world gone mad?

But you are concering yourself with things that dont concern you. Maybe this is the case for some family but it has fuck all to do with you

So you would have me screw my nan but I&#39;m not allowed to express my distaste at such happenings which I feel are so rare as to be insignificant... Has anyone ever been prosecuted? I doubt it, therefore it&#39;s a non-issue...
But then again maybe it&#39;s just about shocking people and proving how radical you are.....

ÑóẊîöʼn
6th January 2004, 10:23
You see no problem with this? To a child, a daughter having sex with her father?
All politics aside that is so nasty words fail me... I&#39;m no puritan but we must draw a line here..What your advocating goes beyond the pale...


Prove that sexual relation between fathers and daughters are harmful... if anything they may strengthen the bond, it depends on the circumstances like most things.


All politics aside that is so nasty words fail me

Who told you it was &#39;nasty&#39;?


Bullshit&#33; Any civilized culture has such values, their inherent... Fucking your family is wrong regardless of the liberalism your so proud of...


Again, prove how it is wrong.


What, you mean apart from the obvious physical incompatibility... Has the world gone mad?

bestiality porn proves you wrong... humans and animals are compatible, the objection I have is whether animals can really consent or not.


But then again maybe it&#39;s just about shocking people and proving how radical you are.....

That&#39;s the job of communists, to shake the all the values and question all the morals of current society.


If it is a chit-chat discussion about taboo sex, then why no move this to the chit chat section, it has NOTHING to do with politics&#33;

Or maybe you&#39;re just afraid to discuss this sort of thing and wish it &#39;out of your sight&#39;

So in the name of your prudence, you wish this discussion stifled

NO&#33; :angry:

Danton
6th January 2004, 10:34
That&#39;s the job of communists, to shake the all the values and question all the morals of current society.

Really? Well whats next then, are you going to advocate peadophillia, the rape of the dead? Where are you going to draw a line? Or is it "anything goes" time?

Prove that sexual relation between fathers and daughters are harmful

Well, the victims of such abuse, and that&#39;s what it is because a child does not understand sex fully nor crave it - they will fucking prove it to you, you sick bastard&#33;

bestiality porn proves you wrong... humans and animals are compatible,

Is this a fucking joke?

ÑóẊîöʼn
6th January 2004, 10:41
Really? Well whats next then, are you going to advocate peadophillia, the rape of the dead? Where are you going to draw a line? Or is it "anything goes" time?

&#39;the rape of the dead&#39; you can&#39;t rape inanimate objects.
Consent is where I draw the line.


Well, the victims of such abuse, and that&#39;s what it is because a child does not understand sex fully nor crave it - they will fucking prove it to you, you sick bastard&#33;

Or maybe that have such a different view of sex due to their upbringing that they appear &#39;sick&#39;


Is this a fucking joke?

Do you see me laughing?

Danton
6th January 2004, 10:48
Ok, well.. Look I&#39;m not going flog a dead horse or fuck one for that matter, have it your way - I see what your trying to do, you and TAT... maybe your intentions are good.. It&#39;s pointless rowing about it..

ÑóẊîöʼn
6th January 2004, 10:52
And thus you gracefully retire from the debate...

KTHXBAI

The Feral Underclass
6th January 2004, 16:33
So you would have me screw my nan

I wouldnt have you do anything you didnt want to do...


but I&#39;m not allowed to express my distaste at such happenings

You have no right too&#33;


But then again maybe it&#39;s just about shocking people and proving how radical you are.....

Oh please <_< &#33; Having the word Anarchist in my user name is pretty much a prerequisite wouldnt ya think&#33;

swapna
6th January 2004, 20:21
Marrying first cousins is not considered incest in Hinduism and Islam.

It is completely legal to marry first cousins and maternal uncles in India and still being practiced a lot .

It is very rare that kids are born with deformities.

My grandfather and grandmother were first cousins. Many of my father side and mother side relatives and also neighbours married maternal uncles or first cousins.

Soviet power supreme
6th January 2004, 20:51
I havent read this thread but christianity is incest.

Think about it.The bible says that we are all grand-grand-grand-grand-grand.etc,etc children to Adam and Eve.

So when you are fucking someone, the person is related to you.

By the way how does the christianity explains the races?I mean how Adam and Eve can have white,black,jew,slav,chinese,indian,etc,etc grand children?

ComradeRobertRiley
6th January 2004, 21:58
The bible is bullshit, who cares what it says

Rob
6th January 2004, 22:55
Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 6 2004, 09:51 PM
By the way how does the christianity explains the races?I mean how Adam and Eve can have white,black,jew,slav,chinese,indian,etc,etc grand children?
Because even though racial characteristics (skin color, cheekbones, eyes, etc.) are inherited, it can be argued that they all adapted to different climates as humanity spread out from Africa. And the ethnic divisions you mention (white vs. slav for example) are social constructs.

Rasta Sapian
6th January 2004, 22:57
this topic is taboo, so go fuck your mothers and fathers you sick fuckers.

IHP
6th January 2004, 23:06
Danton,

I&#39;m with you on this one. If these freaks want to fuck their own mothers, then that&#39;s their bizarre business.

Scottish_Militant
6th January 2004, 23:14
Prove that sexual relation between fathers and daughters are harmful... if anything they may strengthen the bond, it depends on the circumstances like most things.

Fucking hell.... :rolleyes:

BuyOurEverything
6th January 2004, 23:57
Well amidst all the cries of "sick," "nasty," and "twisted" I failed to actually find any rational argument among those opposed.


this topic is taboo, so go fuck your mothers and fathers you sick fuckers.

If you have nothing important to say, shut the fuck up.


Fucking hell....

See above


I&#39;m with you on this one. If these freaks want to fuck their own mothers, then that&#39;s their bizarre business.

What makes them freaks? And you&#39;re damn right it&#39;s their buisness and you have no right to judge them for their decisions.


I havent read this thread but christianity is incest.

Think about it.The bible says that we are all grand-grand-grand-grand-grand.etc,etc children to Adam and Eve.

So when you are fucking someone, the person is related to you.

By the way how does the christianity explains the races?I mean how Adam and Eve can have white,black,jew,slav,chinese,indian,etc,etc grand children?

What CRR said. The bible also directly prohibits incest too, which is pretty fucked up.


You see no problem with this? To a child, a daughter having sex with her father?

None.


Bullshit&#33; Any civilized culture has such values, their inherent... Fucking your family is wrong regardless of the liberalism your so proud of...

Yes, they generally do. Our society&#39;s values are based on outdated Judeo-Christian ones. According to these, fucking your family is wrong, that doesn&#39;t mean it actually is.


Really? Well whats next then, are you going to advocate peadophillia

Yes.


the rape of the dead

You can&#39;t rape an inanimate object, so yes, I have no problem if someone wants to fuck a corpse.


Where are you going to draw a line? Or is it "anything goes" time?

Like NoXion, I draw the line at consent.

Misodoctakleidist
7th January 2004, 00:13
so far in this discussion those opposed to incest have used three arguments;

1. "thats disgusting, it&#39;s just wrong"

2. "would you advocate beastiality/pheadophilia ect."

3. "what about genetic deformities"

The first argument isn&#39;t even an argument, the second one is a faulty because we are discussion a relationship between two consenting adults not a child or an animal. As for the third argument, would those who put it forward also support banning two people with the same disease from reproducing or maybe two people with big noses? this is eugenics.

IHP
7th January 2004, 00:43
"What makes them freaks? And you&#39;re damn right it&#39;s their buisness and you have no right to judge them for their decisions."

Who am I to judge? I have as much right to judge someone who wishes to fuck their own mother as I do to judge a mass murderer. I perceive what they&#39;re doing as wrong, therefore I will form my own opinion. You love your mother as a nurturer, not a fuck-buddy.

BuyOurEverything
7th January 2004, 00:47
Who am I to judge? I have as much right to judge someone who wishes to fuck their own mother as I do to judge a mass murderer. I perceive what they&#39;re doing as wrong, therefore I will form my own opinion. You love your mother as a nurturer, not a fuck-buddy.

The point, though, is why do you percieve that it is wrong? A mass murderer harms other people, you have every right to judge them. One who practices incest harms no one. Everyone&#39;s relationships with their own families are their own buisness.

EneME
7th January 2004, 01:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:49 PM
Actually,

-"Incest" is not practiced in ANY culture. Incest is one of the few cultural universals left in the world. You see, what We view as incest, may not be seen as incest in another culture (IE the marriage of second cousins, ect)

-Incest RARELY produces the "Monster" children we&#39;ve seen on TV and movies. Look at most of the Royal families throughout Europe, all products of what we deem here in the West as "Incest." No physical abnomalities (mental, on the other hand...)
I completely agree with Raven&#39;s comment. According to research, marriage and sex between parents/children or siblings are forbidden in almost every society, the only evidence of it are in Ancient Egypt, Hawaiians, and Incas but this was only among the royalty to keep the wealth and power in the family.
The comments and the view of incest causing genetic defects doesn&#39;t hold water when looking at the evidence. If it was so then Hawaiians, Egyptians, or Incan cultures where populations have been highly inbred for many generations have survived quite well. The only harm genetically is to have a harmful gene perpetuated within the family over and over again, but then again there are many genetic defects between persons who aren&#39;t related as well. I mean, Sickle Cell Anemia runs rampid in Africa but it&#39;s not because of incest, it&#39;s just a genetic disease like Hemophilia.
Oh, and for the comment on Muslims practicing incest, the only incest practiced is between cousins. But, they aren&#39;t considered cousins because they are from different families altogether. Although genetically they are related cuz their parents are siblings,but one of the parents is a female who has married and has joined her husbands family. Her offspring aren&#39;t seen as related to her own nuclear family from her childhood.
(comes from studying anthro texts, not just made up and sorry if its confusing :lol: )

ÑóẊîöʼn
7th January 2004, 08:45
"Sick fuckers&#33;" "Freaks&#33;"

You have the current values of class society so deeply ingrained in your heads it maks me wonder whether you have actually achieved revolutionary class conciousness :angry:

Invader Zim
7th January 2004, 12:09
Well amidst all the cries of "sick," "nasty," and "twisted" I failed to actually find any rational argument among those opposed.

Well your inability to read is obvious then. The number of people who have pointed out that, incest leads to the imperfections of each set of inherited DNA which runs in the family, become magnified when reproduced by a child being the product of incest.

Diversity of the gene pool is imperative to support the future development of the human race. The results of incest are clearly visible through out humanity, by viewing the insanity/deformity and high child mortality rate of the Royal families of Europe, which is higher than what would be expected amongst aristocratic families during these times.

A good example is Henry V11 of England, who married his cousin I believe. Anyway both he and his wife were of the same line from John of gaunt, and Henry was unable to have a boy, and when he finally did the child was sickly and died before he reached adulthood. The male line of that family died out, very soon.

If you have nothing important to say, shut the fuck up.

You should take that advice and permanently cease all communication.

What makes them freaks?

A freak is an individual who is abnormal, usually I am dead against the use of the word, but when a parent uses their influence over a child to get some sick pleasure from them, then I think that the word begins to become appropriate.

The number of times you hear people abused by their parents as children, realise when they become adult, how very badly they have been abused, and then feel dirty and ashamed for the rest of their lives.

But that’s right mate, there’s nothing wrong with it.

you have no right to judge them for their decisions.


I have as much right to judge someone who wishes to fuck their own mother as I do to judge a mass murderer. I perceive what they&#39;re doing as wrong, therefore I will form my own opinion. You love your mother as a nurturer, not a fuck-buddy.

Think about it.The bible says that we are all grand-grand-grand-grand-grand.etc,etc children to Adam and Eve.

I am not religious but there is a huge difference between a sexual relationship between your cousin, and a person who’s only relation to you is most likely bordering on several 100 generations earlier.

None.

Then you advocate a 9 year old sleeping with say a 30 year old. A child of that age would find it incredibly difficult to deny her father anything, as he is an authority figure. So in short you support the rape of children. You are a sick fucker.

Our society&#39;s values are based on outdated Judeo-Christian ones.
They are also based on seeing the negative effects of action upon people. Just because its religious people happen to have prohibited incest does not automatically make it correct. You logic is fundamentally impaired.

According to these, fucking your family is wrong, that doesn&#39;t mean it actually is.

According to scientific fact its wrong, you may not trust the priests but I trust the doctors.

Yes.

Then you effectively support rape, like Kaptain Andre you should be caged for it.

You can&#39;t rape an inanimate object, so yes, I have no problem if someone wants to fuck a corpse.

I am sorry, but you may not give a rats ass about the dead, but I’m sure that the vast number of people don’t want you fucking their dead family members.

Like NoXion, I draw the line at consent.

But you clearly don’t, you said you support paedophilia, it is impossible for a child to give consent to an adult, as adults are authority figures, and it would be incredibly difficult for a child to actually directly tell an adult no.

You are one twisted person, I have my reservations against caging and banning people, but as you have openly stated you support the rape of children…

ÑóẊîöʼn
7th January 2004, 12:41
Medical care was practically non-existant, in fact some of it was negative as they prescribed ding for the treatment of some ailments (Which can get you infected&#33;)

No small wonder it is then that babies and mother died from giving birth.


A child of that age would find it incredibly difficult to deny her father anything, as he is an authority figure. So in short you support the rape of children. You are a sick fucker.

It is not only state authority that will be eliminated, but the authority of adults.
So if a kid says NO, they mean no, and don&#39;t have to be afraid to say so.
And who said anything about the daughter being a child?


I am sorry, but you may not give a rats ass about the dead, but I’m sure that the vast number of people don’t want you fucking their dead family members

Why this special reverence for corpses? It&#39;s silly. they are empty shells.


adults are authority figures,

Not in communist society.

Misodoctakleidist
7th January 2004, 15:02
The number of people who have pointed out that, incest leads to the imperfections of each set of inherited DNA which runs in the family, become magnified when reproduced by a child being the product of incest.

Then would you think it was wrong for two people with the same disease to reproduce?


Diversity of the gene pool is imperative to support the future development of the human race.

So to maintain diversity would you suugest preventing people of the same eye colour reproducing?


The results of incest are clearly visible through out humanity, by viewing the insanity/deformity and high child mortality rate of the Royal families of Europe, which is higher than what would be expected amongst aristocratic families during these times.

Could you eleborate on this with some scientific evidence?


A good example is Henry V11 of England, who married his cousin I believe. Anyway both he and his wife were of the same line from John of gaunt, and Henry was unable to have a boy, and when he finally did the child was sickly and died before he reached adulthood. The male line of that family died out, very soon.

Actualy Henry VII had a perfectly healthy son. I think you mean Henry VIII, he had a sickly son by one wife but he also had five other wives by who he had two perfectly healthy daughters, there is no reason to think his son died as a result of incest.


Then you advocate a 9 year old sleeping with say a 30 year old.

Nobody said that, every woman is somones daughter not just children. We are talking about consenting adults.

Sabocat
7th January 2004, 15:17
A good example is Henry V11 of England, who married his cousin I believe. Anyway both he and his wife were of the same line from John of gaunt, and Henry was unable to have a boy, and when he finally did the child was sickly and died before he reached adulthood. The male line of that family died out, very soon.


FDR married his cousin and it worked out okay. ;)

People are confusing paedophila with incest. The question was should family members of consenting age be punished for having sex.

The answer is no, they shouldn&#39;t be punished. If they consent to it, what buisness is it of anyone else?

Also, sex doesn&#39;t necessarily mean child producing.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
7th January 2004, 19:07
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:41 AM
It is not only state authority that will be eliminated, but the authority of adults.
So if a kid says NO, they mean no, and don&#39;t have to be afraid to say so.

Whoa there killer, I&#39;d like to see you try and raise a kid sometime without exerting any authority some time. :lol:
A world run by kids&#33; YAY&#33;

truthaddict11
7th January 2004, 19:51
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:07 PM


Whoa there killer, I&#39;d like to see you try and raise a kid sometime without exerting any authority some time. :lol:
A world run by kids&#33; YAY&#33; [/quote]
what authority does anyone have the "right" to over children. Its been said dozens and dozens of times on this board CHILDREN ARE NOT PROPERTY :angry:

Invader Zim
7th January 2004, 21:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:02 PM

The number of people who have pointed out that, incest leads to the imperfections of each set of inherited DNA which runs in the family, become magnified when reproduced by a child being the product of incest.

Then would you think it was wrong for two people with the same disease to reproduce?


Diversity of the gene pool is imperative to support the future development of the human race.

So to maintain diversity would you suugest preventing people of the same eye colour reproducing?


The results of incest are clearly visible through out humanity, by viewing the insanity/deformity and high child mortality rate of the Royal families of Europe, which is higher than what would be expected amongst aristocratic families during these times.

Could you eleborate on this with some scientific evidence?


A good example is Henry V11 of England, who married his cousin I believe. Anyway both he and his wife were of the same line from John of gaunt, and Henry was unable to have a boy, and when he finally did the child was sickly and died before he reached adulthood. The male line of that family died out, very soon.

Actualy Henry VII had a perfectly healthy son. I think you mean Henry VIII, he had a sickly son by one wife but he also had five other wives by who he had two perfectly healthy daughters, there is no reason to think his son died as a result of incest.


Then you advocate a 9 year old sleeping with say a 30 year old.

Nobody said that, every woman is somones daughter not just children. We are talking about consenting adults.
Then would you think it was wrong for two people with the same disease to reproduce?

Absolutly not, the person I was talking to claimed that no one had provided a good reason, why Incest is wrong, I provided one. It also when used in conjunction with other arguments put forward, makes a very solid case, that even warped anarchist super liberalism cannot get round, doesnt stop the attempt though...

So to maintain diversity would you suugest preventing people of the same eye colour reproducing?


Dont be a fool, you know perfectly well what I meant. There is a huge differance between what I am talking about that, a minor genetic trait that effects eye colour, perhaps you need to work on the old elementary biology.

Could you eleborate on this with some scientific evidence?


For evidence of high child mortality, just take a look at the family tree of any royal household in western europe.

If you want scientific evidence on the harmful genetic problems caused by incest, then research it your self, i&#39;m sure you could find hundereds of articals in seconds using google, I refuse to explain or prove the obvious, more than I already have.

Actualy Henry VII had a perfectly healthy son.

My inadiquate linguistic skills strike again. Allow me to rephrase: -

A good example is Henry V11 of England, who married his cousin I believe. Anyway both he and his wife were of the same line from John of gaunt, and his (the produse of this relationship) son Henry was unable to have a boy, and when he finally did the child was sickly and died before he reached adulthood. The male line of that family died out, very soon.

That I think repairs the post, appologies to anyone who was confused.

I think you mean Henry VIII,

yep, thanks for telling me, I had not noticed I had mis written what I meant to say.

but he also had five other wives by who he had two perfectly healthy daughters,

Then this shows that the imperfection was on male line of the family.

Nobody said that, every woman is somones daughter not just children. We are talking about consenting adults.

No one told me that so i interpreted as I chose with the information given to me, and all the other pro incest people are pro paedophilia so the child could be any age. And as I have explained a child cannot consent in a realistic circumstance.

Misodoctakleidist
7th January 2004, 21:42
Enigma, if we are discussing incest in isolation from the issue of peadophillea then your only argument is the genetic one. You said that you would have no problem with two people with the same desease from reproducing so why then do you oppose incest?

Invader Zim
7th January 2004, 22:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:17 PM

A good example is Henry V11 of England, who married his cousin I believe. Anyway both he and his wife were of the same line from John of gaunt, and Henry was unable to have a boy, and when he finally did the child was sickly and died before he reached adulthood. The male line of that family died out, very soon.


FDR married his cousin and it worked out okay. ;)

People are confusing paedophila with incest. The question was should family members of consenting age be punished for having sex.

The answer is no, they shouldn&#39;t be punished. If they consent to it, what buisness is it of anyone else?

Medical care was practically non-existant, in fact some of it was negative as they prescribed ding for the treatment of some ailments (Which can get you infected&#33;)

You clearly failed to read my initial post properly I said and I quote: -

and high child mortality rate of the Royal families of Europe, which is higher than what would be expected amongst aristocratic families during these times.


Higher than expected being the part you seem to have failed to note.

It is not only state authority that will be eliminated, but the authority of adults.

Dont be an idiot, adults will still be authority figures even in an anarchist society. All society has codes of conduct, for example at meals you do not throw food, etc. if parents cannot enforce this kind of thing then your society will be made up of spoiled brats. Please god think about what you post, because this is just silly.

And who said anything about the daughter being a child?


The people who said that paedophilia made this OK, opened that possibility, and i intend to use that possible scenario in my argument.

Why this special reverence for corpses?

Go down to a graveyard wait for a funeral and ask a berieved family.

Not in communist society.

Yes in communist society, children have neither the experiance nor the knowledge to make informed decisions on many issues which relate to them. For example how many 7 year olds do you know that would go to school given a choice?


FDR married his cousin and it worked out okay. ;)

Well thats one example of it not being a problem, how many examples are there of it being a problem? Loads.

People are confusing paedophila with incest.

Well as certain people are advocating both, then thse people getting confused are "right" because incest can be paedophilia at the same time. if a father is fucking his 7 year old daughter, that doesnt stop it being incest.

The answer is no, they shouldn&#39;t be punished. If they consent to it, what buisness is it of anyone else?

Its the buisness of the deformed child their relationship may well produce. The phycologists who have to treat these kids when they grow up with phycological trauma. It is the buisness of the government offical who has to allocate cash to this phycologist to treat the child. It is the buisness of the whole society who has to provide this cash to fund this treatment. Need I go on?


Also, sex doesn&#39;t necessarily mean child producing.

So after allowing this relationship you would deny the right for the couple to have children? How very iliberal of you.

Nah, I know what you mean, there is the possibility that a child may not be the end product of the relationship, but there is an equily high possibility that there will be, especially if the relationship is a strong one.

what authority does anyone have the "right" to over children.

err lets think about that one shall we: -

- The right to make the kid eat their vegtables so they get a healthy balanced diet etc.
- The right to make children go to school.
- The right to make the child go to bed at a sensble time so that they dont get into bad habits, etc.


What a stupid question, in fact what a stupid post period.

BuyOurEverything
7th January 2004, 23:11
Well your inability to read is obvious then. The number of people who have pointed out that, incest leads to the imperfections of each set of inherited DNA which runs in the family, become magnified when reproduced by a child being the product of incest.

I don&#39;t consider slightly or moderately enchanced risks of birth defects to be a rational argument for keeping incest illegal. As has been said before, by that same logic, you must support banning people with physical and mental defects from having sex. Do you support examining people&#39;s DNA and sterilizing anyone who appears to have an elevated risk of giving birth to a child with birth defects?


You should take that advice and permanently cease all communication.

I was talking to Edward Norton, who made a post which had nothing to do with the subject.


A freak is an individual who is abnormal

Bullshit. The word freak doesn&#39;t simply mean abnormal, it has many negative conotations. Do you consider albinos freaks? They&#39;re abnormal. For that matter, in western culture, communists are abnormal. Do you consider us to be freaks?


The number of times you hear people abused by their parents as children, realise when they become adult, how very badly they have been abused, and then feel dirty and ashamed for the rest of their lives.

Well, unlike you I don&#39;t consider consentual sex to be &#39;abuse.&#39;


I am not religious but there is a huge difference between a sexual relationship between your cousin, and a person who’s only relation to you is most likely bordering on several 100 generations earlier.

Well 98 or 99 generations ago, it was a different story.


They are also based on seeing the negative effects of action upon people. Just because its religious people happen to have prohibited incest does not automatically make it correct. You logic is fundamentally impaired.

When did I say that I supported incest because religion opposed it? That&#39;s fucking ridiculous. I said the only reason why people oppose it is because of religion and I support it because there is no olgical argument against it.


Then you advocate a 9 year old sleeping with say a 30 year old.

I don&#39;t think &#39;advocate&#39; is the right word but I have no problem with it.


A child of that age would find it incredibly difficult to deny her father anything, as he is an authority figure. So in short you support the rape of children. You are a sick fucker.

Your logic is fucked up beyond repair. You think that any sex with someone who is in a position of lesser authority is rape?


you have no right to judge them for their decisions.

QUOTE
I have as much right to judge someone who wishes to fuck their own mother as I do to judge a mass murderer. I perceive what they&#39;re doing as wrong, therefore I will form my own opinion. You love your mother as a nurturer, not a fuck-buddy.

Mass murderers hamr other people. Those who practise incest do not. That comparison is bullshit.


According to scientific fact its wrong, you may not trust the priests but I trust the doctors.


Like I said before, that argument is invalid.


Then you effectively support rape, like Kaptain Andre you should be caged for it.

I in no way support rape. If you want to cage me for not subscribing to Christian sexual morality, I think you need to make your list alot longer. Start a thread in the CC if you want.


I am sorry, but you may not give a rats ass about the dead, but I’m sure that the vast number of people don’t want you fucking their dead family members.

The majority of people in this culture are capitalists too. That doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not complete bullshit.


You are one twisted person, I have my reservations against caging and banning people, but as you have openly stated you support the rape of children…

Like I said, start a thread. See if anyone support you.


Why this special reverence for corpses? It&#39;s silly. they are empty shells.

It&#39;s a religious thing. People can see through the ridiculous death rituals of other cultures but can&#39;t see through their own.


People are confusing paedophila with incest.

Yes, but I don&#39;t have a problem with either so I didn&#39;t say anything.


Absolutly not, the person I was talking to claimed that no one had provided a good reason, why Incest is wrong, I provided one. It also when used in conjunction with other arguments put forward, makes a very solid case, that even warped anarchist super liberalism cannot get round, doesnt stop the attempt though...

If you don&#39;t oppose two people with genetic diseases reproducing, than you&#39;ve just admitted that your argument against incest is invalid.

ÑóẊîöʼn
8th January 2004, 09:21
- The right to make the kid eat their vegtables so they get a healthy balanced diet etc.
- The right to make children go to school.
- The right to make the child go to bed at a sensble time so that they dont get into bad habits, etc.


So you would make children eat something which to their more sensitive tongues tastes like shit?&#33;?&#33;
You can live through your entire life without eating a a single fucking vegetable&#33;
Why make them eat foul tasting veggies? what&#39;s wrong with fruit? kids like fruit a lot more than veggies.

Children don&#39;t have to go to school. the current method of educating children is a waste of young minds.
They only thing they should have to learn is how read top an adult level, write legibly, and type.
After that that they should choose their own path.

Your third point is also bollocks. Children will go to bed when they&#39;re tired, and no sooner&#33;
It doesn&#39;t help that they have to sit 6 hours a day in a chair and not go out for some exercise.

Finally, define a child.

Invader Zim
8th January 2004, 13:34
Gd forbid you ever become a parent, reasons why a child should be given vegtables: -

-dark green leafy vegetables - for folate, calcium, and iron;
-red, orange, and yellow vegetables - for beta-carotene;

Especially as children are growing this is a major necessity. Ask any respectable dietrition.

However I accept that fruits are an alternative, for some nutrients such as Vitamin C, fibre & Iron.

If a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs then you utopian anarchists soceity will have its people dying in middle age because of poor diet control at a young age, collestorol starts to build up at an incredibly early age.

You can live through your entire life without eating a a single fucking vegetable&#33;

Chanses are you would die of malnutrition, so your life would be short. You cannot live of meat and confectionary.

Why make them eat foul tasting veggies?

The only reason why veggies taste foul is because the children are not made to eat them at a young age, and so do not appriciate the taste when they become young adults. If you think that potato&#39;s, pee&#39;s, carrots, cauliflower, etc taste bad then I would imagine its because you did not become accustomed to the taste at a young age.

Take a look at this nutrition diagram, not that fruit/veg is a very large part.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26813/foodguide.jpg

If you are not prepaired to make your child eat healthily then you should not be a parent, as you are not doing the child any favours in later life.

Children don&#39;t have to go to school.

Ohh dear. :rolleyes: So not only would you deny a child a healthy diet which will give them a better standard of living throughout their lives, but you would deny them basic education.

lets go back to the 18th century, and live like the Amish... at least they eat a good diet, and teach their kids at least two languages. Shame about the lack of basic aminities like electrisity.

the current method of educating children is a waste of young minds.

You can think of a better system for educating the young?

They only thing they should have to learn is how read top an adult level, write legibly, and type.

Then you would not teach history, you would not teach geography, you would not teach foreign languages, you would not teach basic computing skills other than typing, you would not teach design and technology, you would not teach mathmatics, you would not teach science, you would not teach children the Arts of Music and Drama.

I persoannly enjoy school, I lik learning, I like to study, and you would deny this to children? You would force your authority upon them and what they learn? You are no better then any other authoritarin socialist.

But of course your society would collapse because the expertise would not be available to support your society, anyway.

But having said that i&#39;m sure that anarchism would be reliant on the masses being uneducated. No one would put up with this rubbish if they knew that a better systems of socialism were available.

After that that they should choose their own path.

Without a basic insite into these subjects they will not be able to choose their own path, as they will have no idea what is involved with what they wish to persue.

Your third point is also bollocks. Children will go to bed when they&#39;re tired, and no sooner&#33;


yes very good, so they get into the habbit of going to bed at 1 in the morning, then they go and get a job... ohh shit, I have to change my sleeping patterns all of a sudden. Not to mention its not fair on the parents if they have to share their childs insane sleeping patterns.

It doesn&#39;t help that they have to sit 6 hours a day in a chair and not go out for some exercise.

Given the option of computer games, TV, Vidio or going out in the pissing rain and windy weather of the UK, what do you think the child will choose? Actually no I take that one back, because in your society they wont have central heating, electrisity because no one has the expertise to build such luxuries.


Finally, define a child.

Thriteen and down for child, 14-16 as youths, 17 up adult.

And finally for you... what you suggest is completely impractical and god forbid you ever have children.

RedFW
8th January 2004, 15:46
And finally for you... what you suggest is completely impractical and god forbid you ever have children.

Well, I have one, and I don&#39;t think anything that has been put forward is impractical.


If a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs then you utopian anarchists soceity will have its people dying in middle age because of poor diet control at a young age, collestorol starts to build up at an incredibly early age.

No different than what is happening presently then?



The only reason why veggies taste foul is because the children are not made to eat them at a young age, and so do not appriciate the taste when they become young adults. If you think that potato&#39;s, pee&#39;s, carrots, cauliflower, etc taste bad then I would imagine its because you did not become accustomed to the taste at a young age.

Take a look at this nutrition diagram, not that fruit/veg is a very large part.



If you are not prepaired to make your child eat healthily then you should not be a parent, as you are not doing the child any favours in later life.

Do you know why most babies and young children are not too fond of any food that isn&#39;t sweet? Breast milk is very sweet. Some children may eventually learn to like veggies, but some children don&#39;t, no matter how hard a parent tries. Fruit almost always goes down well with babies because it is sweeter. As pleasant as force feeding sounds, I prefer to give my daughter her vitamins and let her eat only the fruit and veg she likes. Making children eat things they don&#39;t like may not being doing them favours later in life as they could develop a complex about food and their parents. Food becomes used as a way to exercise power and control as is the case for a lot of people with anorexia.

Invader Zim
8th January 2004, 16:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:46 PM

And finally for you... what you suggest is completely impractical and god forbid you ever have children.

Well, I have one, and I don&#39;t think anything that has been put forward is impractical.


If a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs then you utopian anarchists soceity will have its people dying in middle age because of poor diet control at a young age, collestorol starts to build up at an incredibly early age.

No different than what is happening presently then?



The only reason why veggies taste foul is because the children are not made to eat them at a young age, and so do not appriciate the taste when they become young adults. If you think that potato&#39;s, pee&#39;s, carrots, cauliflower, etc taste bad then I would imagine its because you did not become accustomed to the taste at a young age.

Take a look at this nutrition diagram, not that fruit/veg is a very large part.



If you are not prepaired to make your child eat healthily then you should not be a parent, as you are not doing the child any favours in later life.

Do you know why most babies and young children are not too fond of any food that isn&#39;t sweet? Breast milk is very sweet. Some children may eventually learn to like veggies, but some children don&#39;t, no matter how hard a parent tries. Fruit almost always goes down well with babies because it is sweeter. As pleasant as force feeding sounds, I prefer to give my daughter her vitamins and let her eat only the fruit and veg she likes. Making children eat things they don&#39;t like may not being doing them favours later in life as they could develop a complex about food and their parents. Food becomes used as a way to exercise power and control as is the case for a lot of people with anorexia.
Well, I have one, and I don&#39;t think anything that has been put forward is impractical.

Why doesn&#39;t that supprise me? :rolleyes:

If you want to live in a society of fat overweight spoiled children, who have nothing, but the most basic of education, and dont know the basis of social conduct etc, then fine. But me I&#39;ll go off and be a robinson crusoe, as I refuse to bow to utterly impractical rubbish, its worse than listening to the stupid rubbish about banning school sports day (because its competative).

No different than what is happening presently then?

My point exactly, I recon you could significantly lower health costs if people just ate properly balanced throughout their lives. I also belive that we would have in general happier people, generally people who are healthy feal good... wonder why that is.

What do we have at the moment? People living of McDogshit, and wondering why they weigh 17 stone, and have diabites, etc.

Its insane.


Do you know why most babies and young children are not too fond of any food that isn&#39;t sweet?

Nope, I dont know why, and I dont wonder why, because its a completely trivial fact to know. Rather like knowing the date that the battle of Vitoria was faught etc. A mastermind question, if you know what I mean.

Breast milk is very sweet.

Well now I know.

Some children may eventually learn to like veggies, but some children don&#39;t, no matter how hard a parent tries.

A lot of veg is sweet, sweet potato&#39;s, sweet pea&#39;s, etc. So obviouslly that being the case the parent hasn&#39;t tried very hard. Also for centuries... no Millenia people have managed to get children to eat vegtables, so I find it hard to believe that modern children are some how "different", rather I think parenting is different. Perhaps a little more "if you dont eat your sprouts, no pudding" would be a better than, "pick and choose". Especially in a world where millions live below the poverty line, eat what you given and count your self lucky that you dont live in Ethiopia.

As pleasant as force feeding sounds, I prefer to give my daughter her vitamins and let her eat only the fruit and veg she likes.

She prefers pills to food? That must be very unique.

Making children eat things they don&#39;t like may not being doing them favours later in life as they could develop a complex about food and their parents.

Again people have been feeding their kids vegtables for millenia without their kids hating their parents for it.

Food becomes used as a way to exercise power and control as is the case for a lot of people with anorexia.

Anorexia is mainly caused by major self insecurity, I had a friend who was bulimic, she had serious depression which shrinks told her was linked to a family break up from when she was a young girl. I would consider situations like that are far more common than "I dont eat because my mom made me eat peas with my steak."


BTW its also nice to see you who accuses me of "ignoring bits of your post", completely ignoring 66.6% of what I wrote.

Invader Zim
8th January 2004, 16:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:42 PM
Enigma, if we are discussing incest in isolation from the issue of peadophillea then your only argument is the genetic one. You said that you would have no problem with two people with the same desease from reproducing so why then do you oppose incest?
Their is a huge differance between disabled people having a child, who have experianced the life their child will lead, and two completely healthy people doing it. It is a simple question of maorality.

Invader Zim
8th January 2004, 16:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:11 AM

Well your inability to read is obvious then. The number of people who have pointed out that, incest leads to the imperfections of each set of inherited DNA which runs in the family, become magnified when reproduced by a child being the product of incest.

I don&#39;t consider slightly or moderately enchanced risks of birth defects to be a rational argument for keeping incest illegal. As has been said before, by that same logic, you must support banning people with physical and mental defects from having sex. Do you support examining people&#39;s DNA and sterilizing anyone who appears to have an elevated risk of giving birth to a child with birth defects?


You should take that advice and permanently cease all communication.

I was talking to Edward Norton, who made a post which had nothing to do with the subject.


A freak is an individual who is abnormal

Bullshit. The word freak doesn&#39;t simply mean abnormal, it has many negative conotations. Do you consider albinos freaks? They&#39;re abnormal. For that matter, in western culture, communists are abnormal. Do you consider us to be freaks?


The number of times you hear people abused by their parents as children, realise when they become adult, how very badly they have been abused, and then feel dirty and ashamed for the rest of their lives.

Well, unlike you I don&#39;t consider consentual sex to be &#39;abuse.&#39;


I am not religious but there is a huge difference between a sexual relationship between your cousin, and a person who’s only relation to you is most likely bordering on several 100 generations earlier.

Well 98 or 99 generations ago, it was a different story.


They are also based on seeing the negative effects of action upon people. Just because its religious people happen to have prohibited incest does not automatically make it correct. You logic is fundamentally impaired.

When did I say that I supported incest because religion opposed it? That&#39;s fucking ridiculous. I said the only reason why people oppose it is because of religion and I support it because there is no olgical argument against it.


Then you advocate a 9 year old sleeping with say a 30 year old.

I don&#39;t think &#39;advocate&#39; is the right word but I have no problem with it.


A child of that age would find it incredibly difficult to deny her father anything, as he is an authority figure. So in short you support the rape of children. You are a sick fucker.

Your logic is fucked up beyond repair. You think that any sex with someone who is in a position of lesser authority is rape?


you have no right to judge them for their decisions.

QUOTE
I have as much right to judge someone who wishes to fuck their own mother as I do to judge a mass murderer. I perceive what they&#39;re doing as wrong, therefore I will form my own opinion. You love your mother as a nurturer, not a fuck-buddy.

Mass murderers hamr other people. Those who practise incest do not. That comparison is bullshit.


According to scientific fact its wrong, you may not trust the priests but I trust the doctors.


Like I said before, that argument is invalid.


Then you effectively support rape, like Kaptain Andre you should be caged for it.

I in no way support rape. If you want to cage me for not subscribing to Christian sexual morality, I think you need to make your list alot longer. Start a thread in the CC if you want.


I am sorry, but you may not give a rats ass about the dead, but I’m sure that the vast number of people don’t want you fucking their dead family members.

The majority of people in this culture are capitalists too. That doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not complete bullshit.


You are one twisted person, I have my reservations against caging and banning people, but as you have openly stated you support the rape of children…

Like I said, start a thread. See if anyone support you.


Why this special reverence for corpses? It&#39;s silly. they are empty shells.

It&#39;s a religious thing. People can see through the ridiculous death rituals of other cultures but can&#39;t see through their own.


People are confusing paedophila with incest.

Yes, but I don&#39;t have a problem with either so I didn&#39;t say anything.


Absolutly not, the person I was talking to claimed that no one had provided a good reason, why Incest is wrong, I provided one. It also when used in conjunction with other arguments put forward, makes a very solid case, that even warped anarchist super liberalism cannot get round, doesnt stop the attempt though...

If you don&#39;t oppose two people with genetic diseases reproducing, than you&#39;ve just admitted that your argument against incest is invalid.
I don&#39;t consider slightly or moderately enchanced risks of birth defects to be a rational argument for keeping incest illegal. As has been said before, by that same logic, you must support banning people with physical and mental defects from having sex. Do you support examining people&#39;s DNA and sterilizing anyone who appears to have an elevated risk of giving birth to a child with birth defects?

Point already addressed and disguarded.

The word freak doesn&#39;t simply mean abnormal, it has many negative conotations.

Clearly failed to read what I said.

Well, unlike you I don&#39;t consider consentual sex to be &#39;abuse.&#39;

I have already explained why it is impossible for a child to have consentual sex with an adult.

Well 98 or 99 generations ago, it was a different story.

No it becomes a different story at 2 generations.

When did I say that I supported incest because religion opposed it?

When you said that the only reason why it is considered wrong today was because of foolish religious values. Which suggests the vaues are wrong because they are religious and therefor reactionary.

I support it because there is no olgical argument against it.

This thread has already prodused quite a few.

I don&#39;t think &#39;advocate&#39; is the right word but I have no problem with it.

Then you support rape, as a child cannot in a realistic situation give consent to an adult.

Your logic is fucked up beyond repair.

No, I think you will find your the one who is using completely none existant logic to support paedophilia, not me.

think that any sex with someone who is in a position of lesser authority is rape?

No, I think that any sex between a child and adult is rape.

Mass murderers hamr other people.

So do paedophiles, and you support them, so that is a perfectly valid comparison.

Like I said before, that argument is invalid.


I have yet to see you provide any evidence to suggest that its invalid.

I in no way support rape.

Err yes you do you support sex between an adult and a minor who cannot give consent to sex in the situation described.

Start a thread in the CC if you want.


I have already learned from bitter experiance that getting people caged and banned is not the way forward. Not that I dont think that people who support rape shouldn&#39;t be caged.

The majority of people in this culture are capitalists too.

What because somone is a capitalist that somehow means that they are wrong to not want people to rape their dead family? Sorry, but that is one of the most stupid things I think I have ever heard&#33;

It&#39;s a religious thing.

I&#39;m an athiest and have been for years, yet I would not want someone to rape my family alive or dead. Your argument is bullshit.

If you don&#39;t oppose two people with genetic diseases reproducing, than you&#39;ve just admitted that your argument against incest is invalid.

Nahh its not, like I have explained their is a huge differance between the two. Not to mention the phycological dammage caused to a child who when they go to school says, ohh by the way my moms my sister... Ohh yeah and how legalising incest could be easily used by some people to easily kake advantage of people.

I cant believe anyone in their right mind can think like you.

ComradeRobertRiley
8th January 2004, 17:19
Enigma - Incest has NOTHING to do with sex with children&#33;

Edward Norton
8th January 2004, 17:46
QUOTE
You should take that advice and permanently cease all communication.


I was talking to Edward Norton, who made a post which had nothing to do with the subject.

Thats funny&#33;

If my posts having nothing to do with the subject, then why do you lot post a thread that has NOTHING to do with politics&#33;

Post this in chit chat, because there are more IMPORTANT issues to discuss than some thread on a rather dubious and wierd sexual activity&#33;

Pedro Alonso Lopez
8th January 2004, 18:38
Anarchist Tension you hold that our views are subjective and thus cannot hold any sway over the right of others in their actions.

Just to point out that objectivity which I am sure dosent exist in its pure form, &#39;Platonic Form almost&#39;, can be viewed as a way of people to express their general opinion. Thus like Kantian arguments for spcae and time human disgust at incest can be said to be in my opinion both objective and subjective like say time.

What I am saying is that your extreme liberal views ignore the inherent concerned nature of humanity. We seek in our &#39;laws&#39; or &#39;morality&#39; to not enforce upon others but to place before us all some kind of system which establishes our objective/subjective opinions. I hope you can grasp the essence of that duality, I know it seems complex but get into it, some Kant should do it.

I just don&#39;t believe Anarchism realises its potential for loosening the strings too much.

Invader Zim
8th January 2004, 18:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:19 PM
Enigma - Incest has NOTHING to do with sex with children&#33;
It depends on how old the family member is, which someone is fucking. If the person is 9 then it has everything to do with sex with children. Or have you never heard of parents raping their children? Or is that not paedophilia because its with family, or visversa? Anbyway the person I am arguing advocates both, so I am perfectly right in saying that the incidence of incest could be paedophilia as well.

Try "Reading" thread&#39;s before remarking on them.

RedFW
8th January 2004, 19:50
Why doesn&#39;t that supprise me? :rolleyes:

What doesn&#39;t surprise you? The fact that I have a child or that as a parent the ideas put forward do not seem impractical to me?

If you want to live in a society of fat overweight spoiled children, who have nothing, but the most basic of education, and dont know the basis of social conduct etc, then fine. But me I&#39;ll go off and be a robinson crusoe, as I refuse to bow to utterly impractical rubbish, its worse than listening to the stupid rubbish about banning school sports day (because its competative)

Making children eat their veggies is hardly a new concept, so it doesn&#39;t seem to be working, does it?




My point exactly, I recon you could significantly lower health costs if people just ate properly balanced throughout their lives. I also belive that we would have in general happier people, generally people who are healthy feal good... wonder why that is.

What do we have at the moment? People living of McDogshit, and wondering why they weigh 17 stone, and have diabites, etc.

Its insane.


Don&#39;t backpedal now, mate. That wasn&#39;t what you said. You said that &#39;if a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs then you utopian anarchists soceity will have its people dying in middle age because of poor diet control at a young age, collestorol starts to build up at an incredibly early age&#39;. Well, we are not living in an anarchist society now, and these things are happening in this society. Force feeding children their veggies isn&#39;t looking like a very successful approach, and it isn&#39;t a new one.


Nope, I dont know why, and I dont wonder why, because its a completely trivial fact to know. Rather like knowing the date that the battle of Vitoria was faught etc. A mastermind question, if you know what I mean...Well now I know.

And if you had a fucking clue, you would have been able to discern by the presence of a paragraph of yours I quoted that I was explaining why vegetables taste foul to babies and young children and why it is not always possible to feed these to children therefore making it difficult for children to acquire a taste for them.


A lot of veg is sweet, sweet potato&#39;s, sweet pea&#39;s, etc. So obviouslly that being the case the parent hasn&#39;t tried very hard. Also for centuries... no Millenia people have managed to get children to eat vegtables, so I find it hard to believe that modern children are some how "different", rather I think parenting is different. Perhaps a little more "if you dont eat your sprouts, no pudding" would be a better than, "pick and choose". Especially in a world where millions live below the poverty line, eat what you given and count your self lucky that you dont live in Ethiopia.

Sweet potato and sweet peas do not compare to the sweetness of breastmilk or formula. No, it isn&#39;t obvious that the parent hasn&#39;t tried hard; however, what is obvious is your complete lack of knowledge surrounding children and parenting.

Why not ask the child which veg or fruit they like? I am capable of cooking something for myself, until they can why not cook what they like. My daughter doesn&#39;t like a lot of veg. I stick with the things she does like and let her have fruit for pudding. So because millions live below the poverty line in Ethiopia, I should force feed my child veggies she doesn&#39;t like?


She prefers pills to food? That must be very unique.

Yeah, it would seem that way to any moron who only read half of what I wrote. Most doctors suggest children take vitamins. :rolleyes:


Again people have been feeding their kids vegtables for millenia without their kids hating their parents for it.

Really? How do you know this? Just because some don&#39;t end up hating their parents for it doesn&#39;t mean it should be done.


Anorexia is mainly caused by major self insecurity, I had a friend who was bulimic, she had serious depression which shrinks told her was linked to a family break up from when she was a young girl. I would consider situations like that are far more common than "I dont eat because my mom made me eat peas with my steak."

I am so glad you feel you know what mainly causes anorexia and the situations women and increasingly men are in who suffer from it. It would be even better if you were informed about it.

From a pamphlet I have on anorexia:

Some family styles may contribute to the development of anorexia nervosa. Families of people with the disorder are more likely to be:

Overprotective
Rigid
Suffocating in their closeness

In these cases, anorexia nervosa develops as a struggle for independence and individuality. It is likely to surface in adolescence when new demands for independence occur. Other characteristics of families that may increase the chance of developing anorexia nervosa are:

Overvaluing appearance and thinness
Criticizing a child&#39;s weight or shape
Being physically or sexually abusive


BTW its also nice to see you who accuses me of "ignoring bits of your post", completely ignoring 66.6% of what I wrote.

That is for two reasons. You were responding to someone specifically, and I felt my experience as a parent pertained to the part of your post dealing with children and food. But if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them so long as you remember that I will be ignoring your response if I feel it falls below the standard of intellect set by the rest of the board&#39;s members. Ta Ta ;)

ComradeRobertRiley
8th January 2004, 20:16
Originally posted by Enigma+Jan 8 2004, 09:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Jan 8 2004, 09:47 PM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 06:19 PM
Enigma - Incest has NOTHING to do with sex with children&#33;
It depends on how old the family member is, which someone is fucking. If the person is 9 then it has everything to do with sex with children. Or have you never heard of parents raping their children? Or is that not paedophilia because its with family, or visversa? Anbyway the person I am arguing advocates both, so I am perfectly right in saying that the incidence of incest could be paedophilia as well.

Try "Reading" thread&#39;s before remarking on them. [/b]
We are saying that incest should be legal not raping children.
We are saying as have many many times, that two consenting adults (by adult you know over the legal age to have sex).
No one is saying you should be allowed to have sex with kids.
you dick fuck&#33;

Invader Zim
8th January 2004, 21:00
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:50 PM

Why doesn&#39;t that supprise me? :rolleyes:

What doesn&#39;t surprise you? The fact that I have a child or that as a parent the ideas put forward do not seem impractical to me?

If you want to live in a society of fat overweight spoiled children, who have nothing, but the most basic of education, and dont know the basis of social conduct etc, then fine. But me I&#39;ll go off and be a robinson crusoe, as I refuse to bow to utterly impractical rubbish, its worse than listening to the stupid rubbish about banning school sports day (because its competative)

Making children eat their veggies is hardly a new concept, so it doesn&#39;t seem to be working, does it?




My point exactly, I recon you could significantly lower health costs if people just ate properly balanced throughout their lives. I also belive that we would have in general happier people, generally people who are healthy feal good... wonder why that is.

What do we have at the moment? People living of McDogshit, and wondering why they weigh 17 stone, and have diabites, etc.

Its insane.


Don&#39;t backpedal now, mate. That wasn&#39;t what you said. You said that &#39;if a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs then you utopian anarchists soceity will have its people dying in middle age because of poor diet control at a young age, collestorol starts to build up at an incredibly early age&#39;. Well, we are not living in an anarchist society now, and these things are happening in this society. Force feeding children their veggies isn&#39;t looking like a very successful approach, and it isn&#39;t a new one.


Nope, I dont know why, and I dont wonder why, because its a completely trivial fact to know. Rather like knowing the date that the battle of Vitoria was faught etc. A mastermind question, if you know what I mean...Well now I know.

And if you had a fucking clue, you would have been able to discern by the presence of a paragraph of yours I quoted that I was explaining why vegetables taste foul to babies and young children and why it is not always possible to feed these to children therefore making it difficult for children to acquire a taste for them.


A lot of veg is sweet, sweet potato&#39;s, sweet pea&#39;s, etc. So obviouslly that being the case the parent hasn&#39;t tried very hard. Also for centuries... no Millenia people have managed to get children to eat vegtables, so I find it hard to believe that modern children are some how "different", rather I think parenting is different. Perhaps a little more "if you dont eat your sprouts, no pudding" would be a better than, "pick and choose". Especially in a world where millions live below the poverty line, eat what you given and count your self lucky that you dont live in Ethiopia.

Sweet potato and sweet peas do not compare to the sweetness of breastmilk or formula. No, it isn&#39;t obvious that the parent hasn&#39;t tried hard; however, what is obvious is your complete lack of knowledge surrounding children and parenting.

Why not ask the child which veg or fruit they like? I am capable of cooking something for myself, until they can why not cook what they like. My daughter doesn&#39;t like a lot of veg. I stick with the things she does like and let her have fruit for pudding. So because millions live below the poverty line in Ethiopia, I should force feed my child veggies she doesn&#39;t like?


She prefers pills to food? That must be very unique.

Yeah, it would seem that way to any moron who only read half of what I wrote. Most doctors suggest children take vitamins. :rolleyes:


Again people have been feeding their kids vegtables for millenia without their kids hating their parents for it.

Really? How do you know this? Just because some don&#39;t end up hating their parents for it doesn&#39;t mean it should be done.


Anorexia is mainly caused by major self insecurity, I had a friend who was bulimic, she had serious depression which shrinks told her was linked to a family break up from when she was a young girl. I would consider situations like that are far more common than "I dont eat because my mom made me eat peas with my steak."

I am so glad you feel you know what mainly causes anorexia and the situations women and increasingly men are in who suffer from it. It would be even better if you were informed about it.

From a pamphlet I have on anorexia:

Some family styles may contribute to the development of anorexia nervosa. Families of people with the disorder are more likely to be:

Overprotective
Rigid
Suffocating in their closeness

In these cases, anorexia nervosa develops as a struggle for independence and individuality. It is likely to surface in adolescence when new demands for independence occur. Other characteristics of families that may increase the chance of developing anorexia nervosa are:

Overvaluing appearance and thinness
Criticizing a child&#39;s weight or shape
Being physically or sexually abusive


BTW its also nice to see you who accuses me of "ignoring bits of your post", completely ignoring 66.6% of what I wrote.

That is for two reasons. You were responding to someone specifically, and I felt my experience as a parent pertained to the part of your post dealing with children and food. But if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them so long as you remember that I will be ignoring your response if I feel it falls below the standard of intellect set by the rest of the board&#39;s members. Ta Ta ;)
that as a parent the ideas put forward do not seem impractical to me?

That part.

Making children eat their veggies is hardly a new concept, so it doesn&#39;t seem to be working, does it?

Yeah, its not a new concept, and people are ignorining it, hense the reason we have so many obese people. Kind of says perhaps we shouldn&#39;t be ignoring it, at least to me.

Don&#39;t backpedal now, mate.

How is that backpeddling, I said that if dietry values and disiplin are not taught by parents to children, then the kids will get fat. Modern society kind of backs up that view or are so many people obese just for the hell of it?

You said that &#39;if a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs then you utopian anarchists soceity will have its people dying in middle age because of poor diet control at a young age, collestorol starts to build up at an incredibly early age&#39;.

And every word I said was gospel truth, and only a fool would deny it.

Well, we are not living in an anarchist society now, and these things are happening in this society.

These things are happening to a large extent, yes, but many people still get healthy balanced diets from their parents, in an anarchists society, NO ONE would, simply because what will kids choose, sprouts, pea&#39;s and cabbage or a fry up and chocolate? Doesnt take a rocket scientist to work the answer to that question.

Cheers for reiterating my point. ;)

Force feeding children their veggies isn&#39;t looking like a very successful approach,

It is when people actually do. Its easily proved anyhow because how many overweight vegetarians do you know?

And if you had a fucking clue,

Ohh getting stressed are we, perhaps you should eat less red meat and more fruit and veg.

you would have been able to discern by the presence of a paragraph of yours I quoted that I was explaining why vegetables taste foul to babies and young children

I knew exactly what you meant, and what your point was, hense the reason I ripped your argument to shreads a few lines down. I just chose to answer you question, and point out that I dont sit down and learn trivial persuit cards by heart.

No, it isn&#39;t obvious that the parent hasn&#39;t tried hard; however, what is obvious is your complete lack of knowledge surrounding children and parenting.

My knowledge of parenting in this post comes from asking my mother who has had nearly 18 years worth of experiance in parenting. My knowledge of children comes from spending 7 years in a bording school with children aged 6 - 18 staying their. Of course I havent been their for a few years but I can remember our diets and what it was like living with 40 other kids. So I would say even though your a mother I have a hell of a lot of experiance with and around children. Its interesting to note that everyone ate the vegtables, because if they didn&#39;t, they didn&#39;t get any pudding. Simple as that.

Why not ask the child which veg or fruit they like?

Why would I have a problem with that? If the child likes say brocolli but not sprouts, then dont cook sprouts. If they like apples buy apples, but as long as they eat something.

My daughter doesn&#39;t like a lot of veg.

Thats a shame for her then, but do you make her eat some fruit or veg, right? If you dont then I worry for her future, because you can be sure that come secondary school that unless she likes vegtables the only thing she will eat is Pizza, Burgers and chips. And I can guarantee I know more about the current diet of Teenagers than you do.

I stick with the things she does like and let her have fruit for pudding.

In which case she gets a fine dose of Vitamins, but does she get enough Iron etc?

So because millions live below the poverty line in Ethiopia, I should force feed my child veggies she doesn&#39;t like?

There is a differance between force feeding, and saying, "if you dont finish those pea&#39;s then you wont get any ice-cream". Having seen this being highly effective in the past, you would be amazed how quickly kids will get to like most common vegtables.

As for the Ethiopia thing, you knew exactly what I mean, people are very lucky to live in the west, to have this kind of option for a healthy balanced diet. Others dont get that luxury and it says a lot about how much you obviously take for granted.

Most doctors suggest children take vitamins.

You will also find that most docters say that a child should have a healthy balanced diet.

http://intl.elsevierhealth.com/jamison/pdf/H06-13.pdf

A childs diet card.

http://www.bawarchi.com/health/child-diet1.html

Advice for parents on giving children a healthy balanced diet.

http://www.drgreene.com/21_191.html

Yet more advice for parents about what a child should eat.

And you call me a moron? I know what a healthy balanced diet it, like it or not vegtables are part of that, and unless you want your child growing up with health problems, and bad dietry habits in later life, then this is what you need feed your kid. That is unless you would rather that they live of Burger King etc.


Just because some don&#39;t end up hating their parents for it doesn&#39;t mean it should be done.

Then wahts your argument because last post you said: -

Making children eat things they don&#39;t like may not being doing them favours later in life as they could develop a complex about food and their parents.

Make your mind up.

Also what argument do you have that it should not be done? Giving your child a healthy balanced diet should not be done? Giving your child good dietry habits for the future isn&#39;t a good idea? So very convinsing.

am so glad you feel you know what mainly causes anorexia and the situations women and increasingly men are in who suffer from it. It would be even better if you were informed about it.


I know about Anorexia from having a good personal friend suffer from it and what she told me about it, if that doesnt agree with your pamphlet, then fine, but I believe what she told me.

That is for two reasons.

I cant wait so see what they are, I quiver in anticipation.

You were responding to someone specifically,

I was responding to someone specifiacally about, education, deitry needs of children and why children should go to bed at socialble hours. All you have done is insult me without actually placing forward an argument.

But if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them so long as you remember that I will be ignoring your response if I feel it falls below the standard of intellect set by the rest of the board&#39;s members.

I have no questions for you, except to ask what exactly is your argument, you say people should not force kids to eat vegtables. I ask you how they should get the necesarry nutrients and you call me a moron. What is your point, if you actually have one, should kids eat vegtables or not? And if they dont want to then how do you suggest that children have a balanced diet, and dont turn obese and have major problems come middle age?

Invader Zim
8th January 2004, 21:16
Originally posted by ComradeRobertRiley+Jan 8 2004, 09:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRobertRiley @ Jan 8 2004, 09:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:47 PM

[email protected] 8 2004, 06:19 PM
Enigma - Incest has NOTHING to do with sex with children&#33;
It depends on how old the family member is, which someone is fucking. If the person is 9 then it has everything to do with sex with children. Or have you never heard of parents raping their children? Or is that not paedophilia because its with family, or visversa? Anbyway the person I am arguing advocates both, so I am perfectly right in saying that the incidence of incest could be paedophilia as well.

Try "Reading" thread&#39;s before remarking on them.
We are saying that incest should be legal not raping children.
We are saying as have many many times, that two consenting adults (by adult you know over the legal age to have sex).
No one is saying you should be allowed to have sex with kids.
you dick fuck&#33; [/b]
We are saying that incest should be legal not raping children.

Some people have said both, or cant you read?

No one is saying you should be allowed to have sex with kids.

Err dumb ass then how do you explain this: -


Really? Well whats next then, are you going to advocate peadophillia Danton


Yes.: BuyOurEverything


You dick fuck&#33; :rolleyes:

Guerilla22
9th January 2004, 06:13
The problem is that our society under which we live in is always judging us. This comes mainly from theinfluence of orginized religion. I say this: Incest may not appeal to you, it definitely does not appeal to me, but who are we to judge the actions of someone else.

What gives us the the right to say what is normal and what&#39;s not and what&#39;s right and what&#39;s wrong. As long as one party is not victimized who is to say that anything, even incest is wrong?

Pedro Alonso Lopez
9th January 2004, 16:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:38 PM
Anarchist Tension you hold that our views are subjective and thus cannot hold any sway over the right of others in their actions.

Just to point out that objectivity which I am sure dosent exist in its pure form, &#39;Platonic Form almost&#39;, can be viewed as a way of people to express their general opinion. Thus like Kantian arguments for spcae and time human disgust at incest can be said to be in my opinion both objective and subjective like say time.

What I am saying is that your extreme liberal views ignore the inherent concerned nature of humanity. We seek in our &#39;laws&#39; or &#39;morality&#39; to not enforce upon others but to place before us all some kind of system which establishes our objective/subjective opinions. I hope you can grasp the essence of that duality, I know it seems complex but get into it, some Kant should do it.

I just don&#39;t believe Anarchism realises its potential for loosening the strings too much.

Can any anarchist reply to this?

RedFW
9th January 2004, 17:37
Yeah, its not a new concept, and people are ignorining it, hense the reason we have so many obese people. Kind of says perhaps we shouldn&#39;t be ignoring it, at least to me.

Well, if it isn&#39;t a new concept, it isn&#39;t an effectual concept as it isn&#39;t making people east their veggies, let alone children, why continue with it?


How is that backpeddling, I said that if dietry values and disiplin are not taught by parents to children, then the kids will get fat. Modern society kind of backs up that view or are so many people obese just for the hell of it?

You are backpedalling because the point you originally made was that members of &#39;utopian anarchist societies&#39; would be dying if the type of approach to children put forward was implemented. You singled out anarchism as being responsible for such a phenomenon, but when I pointed out that the situation is reflected in our current society, which is antithetical to an anarchist society, you made out that your point was something else.


And every word I said was gospel truth, and only a fool would deny it.

Do you understand the concept of a paragraph? They are not just blocks of sentences that are spaced apart from others to look pretty. The part you are responding to here was part of a larger paragraph that was a group of similar ideas or ideas developing out of one another. I first said you were backpedalling, and then I elucidated my criticism by quoting the part of your post that demonstrated this. I didn&#39;t ask if you thought what you wrote was &#39;gospel truth&#39;, and I really don&#39;t give a shit whether you think it is the truth or not. It is completely irrelevant to the point of the paragraph. This regular hand-holding is becoming tedious, and I think, hardly worth the effort.


These things are happening to a large extent, yes, but many people still get healthy balanced diets from their parents, in an anarchists society, NO ONE would, simply because what will kids choose, sprouts, pea&#39;s and cabbage or a fry up and chocolate? Doesnt take a rocket scientist to work the answer to that question.

Cheers for reiterating my point.

So parents will suddenly start only offering their children fry-ups and chocolate for meals because they live in an anarchist society? People will not stop caring about their health simply because they live in an anarchist society? It really isn&#39;t rocket science, Enigma. I allow my daughter to eat the things she likes. She has never, even as a baby, liked cooked carrots. I don&#39;t put them on her plate when I make dinner. In fact, I ask her before I make dinner which veg she would like, and I only offer her those I know she will eat. Why make her eat them when she does like corn and peas and cucumber or if she doesn&#39;t want veg she can choose a piece of fruit instead. She is happy to try things because I have never made her eat something she didn&#39;t like. She doesn&#39;t like cooked leeks on their own, but loves leek and potato soup.

Your point seems to change regularly, so I wouldn&#39;t be so certain I am reiterating anything for you.


It is when people actually do. Its easily proved anyhow because how many overweight vegetarians do you know?

No, it is part of the ethos of this society and has been for some time. The approach I have taken with my daughter is certainly not the norm. What exactly is your allusion to overweight vegetarians supposed to prove? :lol:


Ohh getting stressed are we, perhaps you should eat less red meat and more fruit and veg... knew exactly what you meant, and what your point was, hense the reason I ripped your argument to shreads a few lines down. I just chose to answer you question, and point out that I dont sit down and learn trivial persuit cards by heart.

Not stressed, just a little tired of needing to hold your hand through every post because you are apparently too stupid to make the connection between your conclusion that parents who cannot get their children to eat large quantities of veg haven&#39;t tried hard enough and the fact that it is perfectly natural for anything other than breastmilk to taste foul to babies thus making it difficult for parents to feed them to children in the first place. If you knew exactly what I meant and made the connection you wouldn&#39;t have said it was a &#39;trivial fact&#39;, a &#39;mastermind question&#39;, or in other words, something that had no relevance to the discussion, which it has. Your arrogance doesn&#39;t cloak your ignorance as well as you think it does. ;)

As for ripping my argument to shreads (LOL&#33;), where exactly did this occur?


My knowledge of parenting in this post comes from asking my mother who has had nearly 18 years worth of experiance in parenting. My knowledge of children comes from spending 7 years in a bording school with children aged 6 - 18 staying their. Of course I havent been their for a few years but I can remember our diets and what it was like living with 40 other kids. So I would say even though your a mother I have a hell of a lot of experiance with and around children. Its interesting to note that everyone ate the vegtables, because if they didn&#39;t, they didn&#39;t get any pudding. Simple as that.

Good for you&#33; My experience is different. What your comment shows is either being so determined to be right at all costs you are ignorning and dismissing other people&#39;s experiences or you don&#39;t have practical knowledge of parenting.


Why would I have a problem with that? If the child likes say brocolli but not sprouts, then dont cook sprouts. If they like apples buy apples, but as long as they eat something.

It isn&#39;t forcing children to eat their veg, iwhich is what you have been arguing for. It is recongising that children are people and have different tastes to other people and because of this should not be forced to eat things they don&#39;t like.


Thats a shame for her then, but do you make her eat some fruit or veg, right? If you dont then I worry for her future, because you can be sure that come secondary school that unless she likes vegtables the only thing she will eat is Pizza, Burgers and chips. And I can guarantee I know more about the current diet of Teenagers than you do.

Why is it a shame for her? Just because there isn&#39;t a lot of veg she likes doesn&#39;t mean she doesn&#39;t eat plenty of what she does. She eats only the veg and fruit she likes, and I don&#39;t make her eat anything.


In which case she gets a fine dose of Vitamins, but does she get enough Iron etc?

She gets enough of everything, Enigma. I am sure she gets enough iron from the fish and meat she eats. ;)


There is a differance between force feeding, and saying, "if you dont finish those pea&#39;s then you wont get any ice-cream". Having seen this being highly effective in the past, you would be amazed how quickly kids will get to like most common vegtables.

As for the Ethiopia thing, you knew exactly what I mean, people are very lucky to live in the west, to have this kind of option for a healthy balanced diet. Others dont get that luxury and it says a lot about how much you obviously take for granted.

There isn&#39;t when the child doesn&#39;t like peas. I am amazed people choose to do it when children will eat vegetables and fruit and get all the things they need without being forced to eat something they don&#39;t like. Oh, and making a child eat veg and then giving them pudding as reward isn&#39;t a very healthy approach because it would be better for them to eat their veg and only eat the occasional pudding. Yes, I understood what you meant about Ethiopia, and you are right except for offering this as a justification for forcing children to eat things they don&#39;t like.


You will also find that most docters say that a child should have a healthy balanced diet.

Did I suggest otherwise?


And you call me a moron? I know what a healthy balanced diet it, like it or not vegtables are part of that, and unless you want your child growing up with health problems, and bad dietry habits in later life, then this is what you need feed your kid. That is unless you would rather that they live of Burger King etc.

Yes, I call you a moron because of your rather stupid remark about her liking only pills because she takes vitamins. As much as you would love to hear that my child lives on Burger King and this is due to not force feeding her veg she doesn&#39;t like, I will have to disappoint you. She isn&#39;t forced to eat things she doesn&#39;t like and she is perfectly healthy, happy and doesn&#39;t have nutritional deficiencies.


Then wahts your argument because last post you said: -

Explain how the statements are in contradiction to one another?

One says children could develop complexes from being forced to eat things they refuse to eat. The other says, in response to your assertion that not all children will develop a complex or hate their parents, that just because some don&#39;t end up hating their parents doesn&#39;t make what you suggest right.


Also what argument do you have that it should not be done? Giving your child a healthy balanced diet should not be done? Giving your child good dietry habits for the future isn&#39;t a good idea? So very convinsing.

See, you think that one precludes the other. I don&#39;t. I know it is possible to allow children to eat the things they like and get a balanced diet. I know that teaching children about dietary habits without forcing them to eat things they don&#39;t like is possible. My argument against forcing children to eat things they don&#39;t like is that children are people. You wouldn&#39;t force another person to eat things they don&#39;t like, and I don&#39;t think children should be treated differently.


I know about Anorexia from having a good personal friend suffer from it and what she told me about it, if that doesnt agree with your pamphlet, then fine, but I believe what she told me.

Get the fuck over yourself, already. Yes, I forgot your mother&#39;s experience, your friend&#39;s experience and your own are the defining experiences for every problem and solution in the world. And is this another friend now because last time you said she had bulimia? :rolleyes:


I cant wait so see what they are, I quiver in anticipation

The quivering is probably due to being forced to eat things you didn&#39;t like.


I was responding to someone specifiacally about, education, deitry needs of children and why children should go to bed at socialble hours. All you have done is insult me without actually placing forward an argument.

You were responding to a specific post. The parts that pertained to my own ideas and experience I responded to. I have insulted you and have put forward an argument. My argument was and is that children do not and should not be forced to eat things they like, that they can and will still eat fruit and veg even if they are not forced to eat the ones put in front of them and they can have a balanced diet. If you seriously haven&#39;t got that from my posts you deserve every insult thrown at you.


I have no questions for you, except to ask what exactly is your argument, you say people should not force kids to eat vegtables. I ask you how they should get the necesarry nutrients and you call me a moron. What is your point, if you actually have one, should kids eat vegtables or not? And if they dont want to then how do you suggest that children have a balanced diet, and dont turn obese and have major problems come middle age?

I have answered all of this already.

SirJayofHinde
9th January 2004, 23:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 09:21 PM
Marrying first cousins is not considered incest in Hinduism and Islam.

It is completely legal to marry first cousins and maternal uncles in India and still being practiced a lot .

It is very rare that kids are born with deformities.

My grandfather and grandmother were first cousins. Many of my father side and mother side relatives and also neighbours married maternal uncles or first cousins.
Comrade,

I must take great exception to your statement.

While I&#39;ve noticed that it is very common for Muslims to marry first cousins, I have never seen or heard of this phenomenon amongst Hindu communities. In Hindu culture, there is no differentiation between immediate family and cousinial relations (including parent&#39;s cousin&#39;s offspring) -- i.e. cousins are considered as much a brother/sister as your close-kin own would be, with the only caveat being, of course, a cousin&#39;s father/mother are expected to provide for, discipline, etc. them.

In Southern India in particular -- say M&#39;rashtra south -- not only is it considered odd, but its considered quite taboo. Oftentimes communal tension occures because a local Muslim family does marry off two cousins, to the horror of others.


While perhaps in your case or community it is common, I must again stress that first-cousin marraige amongst Hindus would be a rare exception of the norm.


----=-=--=-=-----

Regarding the topic, I would be against consumating incest because the risk of deformities, etc. in babies are significantly greater. It is not the babies fault to come out of a dangerously regressive relationship. It is the same reason woman shouldn&#39;t be allowed to smoke crack during consumation.

-Jay

Invader Zim
10th January 2004, 19:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 06:37 PM

Yeah, its not a new concept, and people are ignorining it, hense the reason we have so many obese people. Kind of says perhaps we shouldn&#39;t be ignoring it, at least to me.

Well, if it isn&#39;t a new concept, it isn&#39;t an effectual concept as it isn&#39;t making people east their veggies, let alone children, why continue with it?


How is that backpeddling, I said that if dietry values and disiplin are not taught by parents to children, then the kids will get fat. Modern society kind of backs up that view or are so many people obese just for the hell of it?

You are backpedalling because the point you originally made was that members of &#39;utopian anarchist societies&#39; would be dying if the type of approach to children put forward was implemented. You singled out anarchism as being responsible for such a phenomenon, but when I pointed out that the situation is reflected in our current society, which is antithetical to an anarchist society, you made out that your point was something else.


And every word I said was gospel truth, and only a fool would deny it.

Do you understand the concept of a paragraph? They are not just blocks of sentences that are spaced apart from others to look pretty. The part you are responding to here was part of a larger paragraph that was a group of similar ideas or ideas developing out of one another. I first said you were backpedalling, and then I elucidated my criticism by quoting the part of your post that demonstrated this. I didn&#39;t ask if you thought what you wrote was &#39;gospel truth&#39;, and I really don&#39;t give a shit whether you think it is the truth or not. It is completely irrelevant to the point of the paragraph. This regular hand-holding is becoming tedious, and I think, hardly worth the effort.


These things are happening to a large extent, yes, but many people still get healthy balanced diets from their parents, in an anarchists society, NO ONE would, simply because what will kids choose, sprouts, pea&#39;s and cabbage or a fry up and chocolate? Doesnt take a rocket scientist to work the answer to that question.

Cheers for reiterating my point.

So parents will suddenly start only offering their children fry-ups and chocolate for meals because they live in an anarchist society? People will not stop caring about their health simply because they live in an anarchist society? It really isn&#39;t rocket science, Enigma. I allow my daughter to eat the things she likes. She has never, even as a baby, liked cooked carrots. I don&#39;t put them on her plate when I make dinner. In fact, I ask her before I make dinner which veg she would like, and I only offer her those I know she will eat. Why make her eat them when she does like corn and peas and cucumber or if she doesn&#39;t want veg she can choose a piece of fruit instead. She is happy to try things because I have never made her eat something she didn&#39;t like. She doesn&#39;t like cooked leeks on their own, but loves leek and potato soup.

Your point seems to change regularly, so I wouldn&#39;t be so certain I am reiterating anything for you.


It is when people actually do. Its easily proved anyhow because how many overweight vegetarians do you know?

No, it is part of the ethos of this society and has been for some time. The approach I have taken with my daughter is certainly not the norm. What exactly is your allusion to overweight vegetarians supposed to prove? :lol:


Ohh getting stressed are we, perhaps you should eat less red meat and more fruit and veg... knew exactly what you meant, and what your point was, hense the reason I ripped your argument to shreads a few lines down. I just chose to answer you question, and point out that I dont sit down and learn trivial persuit cards by heart.

just a little tired of needing to hold your hand through every post because you are apparently too stupid to make the connection between your conclusion that parents who cannot get their children to eat large quantities of veg haven&#39;t tried hard enough and the fact that it is perfectly natural for anything other than breastmilk to taste foul to babies thus making it difficult for parents to feed them to children in the first place. If you knew exactly what I meant and made the connection you wouldn&#39;t have said it was a &#39;trivial fact&#39;, a &#39;mastermind question&#39;, or in other words, something that had no relevance to the discussion, which it has. Your arrogance doesn&#39;t cloak your ignorance as well as you think it does. ;)

As for ripping my argument to shreads (LOL&#33;), where exactly did this occur?


My knowledge of parenting in this post comes from asking my mother who has had nearly 18 years worth of experiance in parenting. My knowledge of children comes from spending 7 years in a bording school with children aged 6 - 18 staying their. Of course I havent been their for a few years but I can remember our diets and what it was like living with 40 other kids. So I would say even though your a mother I have a hell of a lot of experiance with and around children. Its interesting to note that everyone ate the vegtables, because if they didn&#39;t, they didn&#39;t get any pudding. Simple as that.

Good for you&#33; My experience is different. What your comment shows is either being so determined to be right at all costs you are ignorning and dismissing other people&#39;s experiences or you don&#39;t have practical knowledge of parenting.


Why would I have a problem with that? If the child likes say brocolli but not sprouts, then dont cook sprouts. If they like apples buy apples, but as long as they eat something.

It isn&#39;t forcing children to eat their veg, iwhich is what you have been arguing for. It is recongising that children are people and have different tastes to other people and because of this should not be forced to eat things they don&#39;t like.


Thats a shame for her then, but do you make her eat some fruit or veg, right? If you dont then I worry for her future, because you can be sure that come secondary school that unless she likes vegtables the only thing she will eat is Pizza, Burgers and chips. And I can guarantee I know more about the current diet of Teenagers than you do.

Why is it a shame for her? Just because there isn&#39;t a lot of veg she likes doesn&#39;t mean she doesn&#39;t eat plenty of what she does. She eats only the veg and fruit she likes, and I don&#39;t make her eat anything.


In which case she gets a fine dose of Vitamins, but does she get enough Iron etc?

She gets enough of everything, Enigma. I am sure she gets enough iron from the fish and meat she eats. ;)


There is a differance between force feeding, and saying, "if you dont finish those pea&#39;s then you wont get any ice-cream". Having seen this being highly effective in the past, you would be amazed how quickly kids will get to like most common vegtables.

As for the Ethiopia thing, you knew exactly what I mean, people are very lucky to live in the west, to have this kind of option for a healthy balanced diet. Others dont get that luxury and it says a lot about how much you obviously take for granted.

There isn&#39;t when the child doesn&#39;t like peas. I am amazed people choose to do it when children will eat vegetables and fruit and get all the things they need without being forced to eat something they don&#39;t like. Oh, and making a child eat veg and then giving them pudding as reward isn&#39;t a very healthy approach because it would be better for them to eat their veg and only eat the occasional pudding. Yes, I understood what you meant about Ethiopia, and you are right except for offering this as a justification for forcing children to eat things they don&#39;t like.


You will also find that most docters say that a child should have a healthy balanced diet.

Did I suggest otherwise?


And you call me a moron? I know what a healthy balanced diet it, like it or not vegtables are part of that, and unless you want your child growing up with health problems, and bad dietry habits in later life, then this is what you need feed your kid. That is unless you would rather that they live of Burger King etc.

Yes, I call you a moron because of your rather stupid remark about her liking only pills because she takes vitamins. As much as you would love to hear that my child lives on Burger King and this is due to not force feeding her veg she doesn&#39;t like, I will have to disappoint you. She isn&#39;t forced to eat things she doesn&#39;t like and she is perfectly healthy, happy and doesn&#39;t have nutritional deficiencies.


Then wahts your argument because last post you said: -

Explain how the statements are in contradiction to one another?

One says children could develop complexes from being forced to eat things they refuse to eat. The other says, in response to your assertion that not all children will develop a complex or hate their parents, that just because some don&#39;t end up hating their parents doesn&#39;t make what you suggest right.


Also what argument do you have that it should not be done? Giving your child a healthy balanced diet should not be done? Giving your child good dietry habits for the future isn&#39;t a good idea? So very convinsing.

See, you think that one precludes the other. I don&#39;t. I know it is possible to allow children to eat the things they like and get a balanced diet. I know that teaching children about dietary habits without forcing them to eat things they don&#39;t like is possible. My argument against forcing children to eat things they don&#39;t like is that children are people. You wouldn&#39;t force another person to eat things they don&#39;t like, and I don&#39;t think children should be treated differently.


I know about Anorexia from having a good personal friend suffer from it and what she told me about it, if that doesnt agree with your pamphlet, then fine, but I believe what she told me.

Get the fuck over yourself, already. Yes, I forgot your mother&#39;s experience, your friend&#39;s experience and your own are the defining experiences for every problem and solution in the world. And is this another friend now because last time you said she had bulimia? :rolleyes:


I cant wait so see what they are, I quiver in anticipation

The quivering is probably due to being forced to eat things you didn&#39;t like.


I was responding to someone specifiacally about, education, deitry needs of children and why children should go to bed at socialble hours. All you have done is insult me without actually placing forward an argument.

You were responding to a specific post. The parts that pertained to my own ideas and experience I responded to. I have insulted you and have put forward an argument. My argument was and is that children do not and should not be forced to eat things they like, that they can and will still eat fruit and veg even if they are not forced to eat the ones put in front of them and they can have a balanced diet. If you seriously haven&#39;t got that from my posts you deserve every insult thrown at you.


I have no questions for you, except to ask what exactly is your argument, you say people should not force kids to eat vegtables. I ask you how they should get the necesarry nutrients and you call me a moron. What is your point, if you actually have one, should kids eat vegtables or not? And if they dont want to then how do you suggest that children have a balanced diet, and dont turn obese and have major problems come middle age?

I have answered all of this already.
Well, if it isn&#39;t a new concept, it isn&#39;t an effectual concept as it isn&#39;t making people east their veggies, let alone children, why continue with it?

Despite their being laws against theft, rape, murder, arson and drug dealing these crimes still occur, why not completely legalise all crime as enforcement is obviously inefectual.

Your argument is as usual stupid, and with a little examination riddled with flaws.

And the reason why we should continue with it is to stop societies children being unhealthy. Of course anarchists are against this idea and capitalists make money out of parents being too weak and ineffective to stand up to their kids which will actually help thenm in later life. Or are you so dense that you cant comprohend why McDonalds is nearly 100% aimed at children?

You are backpedalling because the point you originally made was that members of &#39;utopian anarchist societies&#39; would be dying if the type of approach to children put forward was implemented. You singled out anarchism as being responsible for such a phenomenon, but when I pointed out that the situation is reflected in our current society, which is antithetical to an anarchist society, you made out that your point was something else.


Did I say that unhealthy eating is "unique to anarchism"? No, so as usual your case falls apart at the first hurdle.

And what I said was that this anarchist view, that children should in no way have any control placed upon their lives, would cause obesity etc. That is not backpeddling. The only backpeddling that has occured in this thread is from you, when you said that you gave your child supliments, which is I doubt your child would eat without you telling her too.

Do you understand the concept of a paragraph? They are not just blocks of sentences that are spaced apart from others to look pretty. The part you are responding to here was part of a larger paragraph that was a group of similar ideas or ideas developing out of one another. I first said you were backpedalling, and then I elucidated my criticism by quoting the part of your post that demonstrated this. I didn&#39;t ask if you thought what you wrote was &#39;gospel truth&#39;, and I really don&#39;t give a shit whether you think it is the truth or not. It is completely irrelevant to the point of the paragraph. This regular hand-holding is becoming tedious, and I think, hardly worth the effort.

Blah blah blah, didn&#39;t answer the point.

So parents will suddenly start only offering their children fry-ups and chocolate for meals because they live in an anarchist society?


until they can why not cook what they like.

Kids like fry-ups and chocolate, and that i&#39;m afraid isn&#39;t a balanced diet.

People will not stop caring about their health simply because they live in an anarchist society?

Absolutly not, they just wont be able to do anything about it, as their kids will only eat what they like most, chocolate and fry ups, and their wont be anything the parent can do without enforcing authority on the child.

It really isn&#39;t rocket science, Enigma.

Your damn right it isn&#39;t, its a case of making children accustomed to the taste of food that if they wish to gain the necessary dietry needs they will have to eat if they wish to remain healthy throughout their lives.

You also seem to be unable to grasp the differance between ramming food into a child&#39;s mouth, and getting them to eat it by giving them treats when they do. Which is a recommended form of disiplining a child without ever having to use physical force.

She has never, even as a baby, liked cooked carrots.

She should try raw carrots, very nice.

I don&#39;t put them on her plate when I make dinner.

So if a child doesnt like any vegtables at all, then what do you do completely neglect their diet which is necessary to remain healthy?

Why make her eat them when she does like corn and peas and cucumber or if she doesn&#39;t want veg she can choose a piece of fruit instead.

Fruit does not contain the necessary nutrients which most vegtables do, for a start.

She is happy to try things because I have never made her eat something she didn&#39;t like.

Many children are wary of new things, just because your&#39;s isn&#39;t doesn&#39;t mean that all parents have it as easy to provide chilren food they will like.

She doesn&#39;t like cooked leeks on their own, but loves leek and potato soup.

And?

Your point seems to change regularly

Hardly my point has remained static, children need vegtables and sometimes some form of authority must be exerted so that the child meets these dietry requirments. I say this then you deny it, and your one and only argumjent seems to be that you feed your child the vegtables she likes, well not all parents have that luxurey. For example a cousin of mine has a boy who as a toddler hated all green vegtables he tried, what would you suggest his parents do? Just let his dietry needs go to hell and feed him ice cream and chips?

And at least I have a point, you dont seem to you just argue for the sake of argument.

The approach I have taken with my daughter is certainly not the norm.

I gather that, most parents from what I gather usually feed children too much of what they want, rather than what they need. Hense the growing heath problems in todays society.

What exactly is your allusion to overweight vegetarians supposed to prove?

The food children want, certainly isn&#39;t what they need, I doubt many children would touch most meals vegetarians eat, yet many vegetarian diets are very healthy.

Not stressed,

right. :rolleyes:

because you are apparently too stupid

Thats a possibility, but I have an IQ of 135, so I doubt intelect is a problem, maybe your complete lack of an argument is the problem?

You see what I have been saying is widly accepted dietry advice, and the method of getting a child to eat vegtables is a recomended method of getting children to eat less popular foods. So who&#39;s the stupid person really?

the fact that it is perfectly natural for anything other than breastmilk to taste foul to babies thus making it difficult for parents to feed them to children in the first place.

Well most mothers are told to start weening babies off breast milk at 6 months (at earliest), so I would have thought that 4 year olds etc, should not really have that excuse, as they are not babies.

Your arrogance doesn&#39;t cloak your ignorance as well as you think it does.

My arrogance? You obviously dont know the meaning of the word, as you exibit arrogance in every post you make because your not only patronising but you clearly think that you are gods gift to motherhood.


As for ripping my argument to shreads (LOL&#33;), where exactly did this occur?

Well you have completely failed to disprove a single comment I have made to you, where as I have on the other hand, have backed up my statments, with advice given to mothers, by experts, and you have absolutly failed to produce an argument other than what you as a mother do, which is in its self flawed, as some children are not as tolerant as yours is of new foods and vegtables. In short all you have done is critisise me, rather than my arguments.

Give it up you haven&#39;t got a point.

What your comment shows is either being so determined to be right at all costs you are ignorning and dismissing other people&#39;s experiences or you don&#39;t have practical knowledge of parenting.

LOL what bullshit. The simple fact is everything I have said is based on my own vast personal experiance of being around children, and what I asked my mother, to whome I actually showed your post, and asked what she thought of it, (and she has a lot of practical experiance of being a parent) and the responce she gave about the material was not flattering towards what you said at all. She said "wait until she [your girl] grows up a bit and then she [you] wont think that." Or something along those lines.

It isn&#39;t forcing children to eat their veg, iwhich is what you have been arguing for.

Well I was thinking about parents who have children who refuse to eat nearly all greens. And you also seem to have an exagurated view of what I mean by force. I do not mean physically forcing the food down. Rather saying "if you want pudding, eat the pea&#39;s".

It is recongising that children are people and have different tastes to other people and because of this should not be forced to eat things they don&#39;t like.


Children dont like to go to school, yet it would not be a wise move to allow a child to go without education, just because they dont want to go. In the same way you should not starve a child of what they physically need to remain healthy, just because they would rather eat a mars bar than eat a salad.

Why is it a shame for her?

Its rather restrictive to what food she will eat, so she&#39;s missing out on some really nice dishes.

Just because there isn&#39;t a lot of veg she likes doesn&#39;t mean she doesn&#39;t eat plenty of what she does.

You seem to be under the impression that all children are like that, they are not. Many hate a lot of vegtables, and unless their parents use a little bit of persuasion, the child will become unhealthy.

I am sure she gets enough iron from the fish and meat she eats.

Fish does provide Iron, yes, cod liver oil I remember reading has quite a lot, however I would imagine you would get more from red meats, if vegtables were not an option.

There isn&#39;t when the child doesn&#39;t like peas.

Pardon?

I am amazed people choose to do it when children will eat vegetables and fruit and get all the things they need without being forced to eat something they don&#39;t like.

Again if a child doesn&#39;t live vegtables at all very much, then many parents are left with little option.

Oh, and making a child eat veg and then giving them pudding as reward isn&#39;t a very healthy approach because it would be better for them to eat their veg and only eat the occasional pudding.

It depends on wht the pudding is, of course fats, oils and sweets should be taken sparingly, but it really depends on what the pudding is, if it is for example assorted fruits, like grapes, oranges, apple etc, with cream then its not going to be a problem. Also pudding is usually a small serving anyway, and a health site I visit sometimes recomends puddings containing fats, oils and sweets should only be 1 serving a day, where as Vegtables is 3-5 servings a day and the carbohydrate high foods such as bread, pasta, cerial, rice etc should be a large 6-11 servings. 6-11 seams a little excessive but i&#39;m sure they are right.

So yeah, pudding should be taken in moderation.

Yes, I understood what you meant about Ethiopia, and you are right except for offering this as a justification for forcing children to eat things they don&#39;t like.


The point was people should consider them selves lucky, it was rather an after thought, that a main part of the argument.

Did I suggest otherwise?

Well that can be difficult to achive unless a little authority is used.

I call you a moron because of your rather stupid remark about her liking only pills because she takes vitamins.

I never said that, I never even implied that, your a moron because you obviously cant read. You said you give your kid vitamin supliments, which are usually little pills, and I asked this question: "She prefers pills to food?", I also added a sarcastic comment, but you can ignore that.

As much as you would love to hear that my child lives on Burger King and this is due to not force feeding her veg she doesn&#39;t like, I will have to disappoint you.

You wait till she&#39;s a teenager...


One says children could develop complexes from being forced to eat things they refuse to eat. The other says, in response to your assertion that not all children will develop a complex or hate their parents, that just because some don&#39;t end up hating their parents doesn&#39;t make what you suggest right.

Which is rubbish, because I have never ever heard of a single case where a child has had a "complex" because their parents forced them to eat all the carrots on the plate, or whatever. Even if that was the case, then I would be willing to bet that the child also had other major contributing issues to this "complex".

And what you said was that a child could get a complex so they shouldn&#39;t be made to eat vegtables, you then said that, just because a kid is unlikley to get a complex from eating vegtables it shouldn&#39;t be done.

On a side note, their is also a possibility that a child may be hit by a car walking down the road, it doesn&#39;t mean that children should be restricted being near roads, just because some remote possible danger exists.

I know it is possible to allow children to eat the things they like and get a balanced diet.

I suppose it is possible but it is possibe to play the national lottery and win the jackpot every time, it is possible to break a 64 bit eyncription first time, just highly unlikley.

Just because your child happens to be easy to please when it comes to healthy eating doesnt mean that other children are.

My argument against forcing children to eat things they don&#39;t like is that children are people.

Judging that unless children aquire the taste for healthy food, which is more difficult to do than aquiring the taste for unhealthy food, you should neglect childrens health because children are people? Well, yes children are people, and as such they have dietry needs, and unless these dietry needs are appeased, then the child will become unhealthy.

You wouldn&#39;t force another person to eat things they don&#39;t like, and I don&#39;t think children should be treated differently.

Well other people are old enough to make an informed decision, on whether they should eat healthily or be unhealthy because unhealthy things happen to taste nicer. Young children do not have that luxurey.

Get the fuck over yourself, already.

From Red "i&#39;ve done this, i&#39;ve done that, ive got so much experiance, and i&#39;m so unconventional, and your a little moron" FW, sorry but you wont mind if I tell you where to stick it, you patronising, hypocritical, arrogant piece of shit.

And is this another friend now because last time you said she had bulimia?

Yeah thats because bulimia is a method of anorexia, you see they eat lots and get the pleasure of eating and then make them selves sick or use laxatives excessivly, so they can stay thin. It also goes by the name of bulimarexia, of course strictly speaking it is different from anorexia, but it takes a very pedantic person to pick some one out on it.

So thats right, you go back to your perfect parenting and absolute infalible experiance, while I go and visit the real world.


I cant wait so see what they are, I quiver in anticipation

The quivering is probably due to being forced to eat things you didn&#39;t like.

nahh, mainly because I&#39;m wondering what your next arrogant ranatage will be about, and wondering how exactly you will make it as patronising as possible.

I have insulted you and have put forward an argument.

This argument would that be, that it is "possible" for a child to eat healthily without making them eat what they dont want to. Possible being a very good word for it, as it is also possibe for that not to be the case.

If you seriously haven&#39;t got that from my posts you deserve every insult thrown at you.

No I get what you said, I just think that you have been lucky in your child&#39;s tastes etc, and others do not have that good fortune and have stubborn kids, who refuse to eat any vegtables.

I have answered all of this already.

yes you did manage it in the final post you made. It was obviously a great struggle for you, to actually answer the question, but you managed it.

RedFW
13th January 2004, 16:58
Despite their being laws against theft, rape, murder, arson and drug dealing these crimes still occur, why not completely legalise all crime as enforcement is obviously inefectual.

Your argument is as usual stupid, and with a little examination riddled with flaws.

And the reason why we should continue with it is to stop societies children being unhealthy. Of course anarchists are against this idea and capitalists make money out of parents being too weak and ineffective to stand up to their kids which will actually help thenm in later life. Or are you so dense that you cant comprohend why McDonalds is nearly 100% aimed at children?

If you are going to over-simplify and misrepresent [/i] my arguments, they will always &#39;be stupid&#39; and &#39;riddled with flaws&#39;. It seems to be the case with anything your respond to. The first problem with your response is that making children eat their veg isn&#39;t a law, so my suggestion that the approach be binned doesn&#39;t remotely resemble your absurd comparison. If I were to take your comparison, saying the approach is ineffectual is not the same as saying all crimes should be legalised. It is saying the approach to preventing the crimes isn&#39;t working, and, in fact, I believe exacerbates whatever problem does exist.

As you didn&#39;t respond to my question, I will ask it again. If it is ineffectual, why continue with it. You can whine all you want about children being unhealthy, but if the approach you are pushing hasn&#39;t worked, isn&#39;t working and is producing more problems, then why continue with an ineffective approach? I can comprehend McDonalds being aimed at children, what I cannot connnect is why this makes your approach more effective.


[b]Did I say that unhealthy eating is "unique to anarchism"? No, so as usual your case falls apart at the first hurdle.

And what I said was that this anarchist view, that children should in no way have any control placed upon their lives, would cause obesity etc. That is not backpeddling. The only backpeddling that has occured in this thread is from you, when you said that you gave your child supliments, which is I doubt your child would eat without you telling her too.

How does my case fall apart exactly? I never said you said unhealthy eating was unique to anarchism. You really are stupid, aren&#39;t you? What you are explaining here isn&#39;t the point I said you were backpedalling on, is it? I said you were backpedalling because you singled out anarchism and when I responded that what you described was the product of the current capitalist society you then backpedalled and said that was your point.

Do you understand the concept of backpedalling? It is, courtesy of dictionary.com, to withdraw or retreat from one&#39;s argument. Naming your speculation about whether I force feed my daughter vitamins or whether she she takes them herself backpedalling is a misnomer and is really irrelevant to the portion of my post you were responding to.


Blah blah blah, didn&#39;t answer the point.

Yes, I did. You said what you wrote was the gospel truth. I said &#39;I didn&#39;t ask if you thought what you wrote was &#39;gospel truth&#39;, and I really don&#39;t give a shit whether you think it is the truth or not.&#39; How else am I supposed to respond to the claim that what you write is gospel truth? *shrug*


Kids like fry-ups and chocolate, and that i&#39;m afraid isn&#39;t a balanced diet.

Kids like a lot of other things as well. Some kids like chocolate and fry-ups frequently, some like them occasionally, some don&#39;t like them at all. Don&#39;t generalise about the likes and dislikes of children, you wouldn&#39;t do it with adults. My daughter wouldn&#39;t like a fry-up for every meal nor would she wish to only eat chocolate. If children are allowed to choose which veg they eat from the time they are able to articulate or express their likes and dislikes, more would eat fruit and veg because they would be eating the fruit and veg they liked. And you didn&#39;t answer my question. Would parents only offer chocolate and fry-ups because they live in an anarchist society? Babies are fed all sorts of things so that parents can work out what it is they like. When this is worked out parents can offer these regularly so that the baby will eat. If the baby doesn&#39;t want to eat it , it will tighted its teeth and not allow the spoon to enter its mouth or it will continuously spit it out. Why is it different for children a bit older? Based on what they like as babies, why not offer them new foods, which if they don&#39;t like they don&#39;t have to eat, but still give them the things they like?



Absolutly not, they just wont be able to do anything about it, as their kids will only eat what they like most, chocolate and fry ups, and their wont be anything the parent can do without enforcing authority on the child.

I have already explained why I don&#39;t agree with this.


Your damn right it isn&#39;t, its a case of making children accustomed to the taste of food that if they wish to gain the necessary dietry needs they will have to eat if they wish to remain healthy throughout their lives.

You also seem to be unable to grasp the differance between ramming food into a child&#39;s mouth, and getting them to eat it by giving them treats when they do. Which is a recommended form of disiplining a child without ever having to use physical force.

I see the little physical difference there is, but I don&#39;t think either is effective nor would I be so stupid as to claim that rewarding children for eating things isn&#39;t a site of contention because it is exactly what doctors who have dealt with anorexics discourage because it makes food a site of power/control and many parenting books do not recommend it because the rewarding of sweets teaches children that it is okay everytime you have something healthy to have something sweet as a reward. It isn&#39;t doing them any favours.


She should try raw carrots, very nice.

That is why I made the distinction. She will eat raw carrots but not cooked carrots.


So if a child doesnt like any vegtables at all, then what do you do completely neglect their diet which is necessary to remain healthy?

I have never met a child who doesn&#39;t like any vegetables at all. In fact, out of all of my daughter&#39;s friends, there isn&#39;t one who doesn&#39;t like veg at all. They all like different veg and maybe cooked in different ways. If I had a child who didn&#39;t, I would offer fruit. Another approach would be disguising the veg in food. For example, I have already said my daughter will not eat cooked carrots, but she has eaten them in a shepherds pie. She doesn&#39;t like spinach, but she has eaten it in soup.


Fruit does not contain the necessary nutrients which most vegtables do, for a start.

Your point? Children are recommended to have five portions of fruit and veg a day. She doesn&#39;t need to always to choose veg.


Many children are wary of new things, just because your&#39;s isn&#39;t doesn&#39;t mean that all parents have it as easy to provide chilren food they will like.

Of course. But by not making food a site of power and control, she doesn&#39;t feel that by not trying something she is asserting control over herself. Because my approach is not the norm, it is my view that if it were some children would be less wary about trying new foods. So, you are now arguing parents don&#39;t have it easy when before you were saying they haven&#39;t tried hard enough, which is it?


Hardly my point has remained static, children need vegtables and sometimes some form of authority must be exerted so that the child meets these dietry requirments. I say this then you deny it, and your one and only argumjent seems to be that you feed your child the vegtables she likes, well not all parents have that luxurey. For example a cousin of mine has a boy who as a toddler hated all green vegtables he tried, what would you suggest his parents do? Just let his dietry needs go to hell and feed him ice cream and chips?

And at least I have a point, you dont seem to you just argue for the sake of argument.

My comment was an allusion to your earlier backpedalling. As for your cousin, I have already given the approach I would take. If I were going to argue for the sake of argument I can assure you I would not choose such a moronic time waster to argue with. In fact, I don&#39;t think I will be replying to anything you have to say in the future because it is not only tedious and a waste of time because you are too thick to engage in political discussion with you are also a self-righteous asshole. In other words, the worst type of moron one can encounter.


I gather that, most parents from what I gather usually feed children too much of what they want, rather than what they need. Hense the growing heath problems in todays society.

And this is relevant to my point because?

To save time because you seem to like to chop every paragraph up into nonsense, I will combine some of my responses:

I said: &#39;...you are apparently too stupid to make the connection between your conclusion that parents who cannot get their children to eat large quantities of veg haven&#39;t tried hard enough and the fact that it is perfectly natural for anything other than breastmilk to taste foul to babies thus making it difficult for parents to feed them to children in the first place. If you knew exactly what I meant and made the connection you wouldn&#39;t have said it was a &#39;trivial fact&#39;, a &#39;mastermind question&#39;, or in other words, something that had no relevance to the discussion, which it has. Your arrogance doesn&#39;t cloak your ignorance as well as you think it does.&#39;


You see what I have been saying is widly accepted dietry advice, and the method of getting a child to eat vegtables is a recomended method of getting children to eat less popular foods. So who&#39;s the stupid person really?...Well most mothers are told to start weening babies off breast milk at 6 months (at earliest), so I would have thought that 4 year olds etc, should not really have that excuse, as they are not babies.


What you have recommended is a site of contention. It is certainly currently seen by most parents as an acceptable way of getting children to eat veg.

The advice mothers actually get about when it is best to ween babies off breast milk varies. They were able to begin solid foods at four months but with regular milk feedings when my daughter was born. My friend was recently told to wait until her son was nine months to start solids and to ween at six months. You have only just introduced that age group into the conversation. It wasn&#39;t specified earlier. Maybe it would or would not apply to four year olds, but I know of children who have had their eating habits attributed to this, and certainly the younger they are the more likely it is that they will prefer sweet things. But really this is getting a bit ridiculous now because it was in reference to a comment you made several posts ago now.


My arrogance? You obviously dont know the meaning of the word, as you exibit arrogance in every post you make because your not only patronising but you clearly think that you are gods gift to motherhood.

I am sorry if my experience as a mother contradicts your argument for the need to make children eat things they don&#39;t like. I am sure you will get over it eventually.


Well you have completely failed to disprove a single comment I have made to you, where as I have on the other hand, have backed up my statments, with advice given to mothers, by experts, and you have absolutly failed to produce an argument other than what you as a mother do, which is in its self flawed, as some children are not as tolerant as yours is of new foods and vegtables. In short all you have done is critisise me, rather than my arguments.

Give it up you haven&#39;t got a point.

How does one disprove a comment? I am sorry if my experience as a mother contradicts &#39;expert advice&#39;. I have done rather a lot of criticising of your arguments; you are too thick to sit back and consider anything I posted regarding them. It has been a waste of time for both of us. I made clear my point in my last post.


LOL what bullshit. The simple fact is everything I have said is based on my own vast personal experiance of being around children, and what I asked my mother, to whome I actually showed your post, and asked what she thought of it, (and she has a lot of practical experiance of being a parent) and the responce she gave about the material was not flattering towards what you said at all. She said "wait until she [your girl] grows up a bit and then she [you] wont think that." Or something along those lines.

And what I have posted is based on my own vast experience and being a mother and a child. *shrug* What exactly is supposed to happen to my daughter that will convince me that making her eat something she doesn&#39;t want to eat is an effective approach?


Well I was thinking about parents who have children who refuse to eat nearly all greens. And you also seem to have an exagurated view of what I mean by force. I do not mean physically forcing the food down. Rather saying "if you want pudding, eat the pea&#39;s".

No, I don&#39;t have an exaggerated view of what you mean by force. If you would prefer to make a distinction between physically forcing food down a child and &#39;rewarding&#39; them, that is fine. But what is the next step if &#39;rewarding&#39; doesn&#39;t work?


Children dont like to go to school, yet it would not be a wise move to allow a child to go without education, just because they dont want to go. In the same way you should not starve a child of what they physically need to remain healthy, just because they would rather eat a mars bar than eat a salad.

Back to exaggeration then are we? This doesn&#39;t address my point about children having different tastes as well as adults. Why are we not forcing adults to eat things that are good for them even though they don&#39;t like it? Forcing the ignorant adults back to school? I am not even going to get into education and making children go to school because food has already been a big enough diversion from the topic, hasn&#39;t it?


Its rather restrictive to what food she will eat, so she&#39;s missing out on some really nice dishes.

She would probably argue that she isn&#39;t really missing much if she doesn&#39;t like it.*shrug*


You seem to be under the impression that all children are like that, they are not. Many hate a lot of vegtables, and unless their parents use a little bit of persuasion, the child will become unhealthy.

Well, I think it would be better they eat lots of the veg and fruit they liked rather than be forced/coerced to eat what they don&#39;t and have a pudding every time they manage to.


Fish does provide Iron, yes, cod liver oil I remember reading has quite a lot, however I would imagine you would get more from red meats, if vegtables were not an option.

Then why were you raising the question regarding my daughter&#39;s intake of iron?


Pardon?

Probably one of the many typos in this thread.


Again if a child doesn&#39;t live vegtables at all very much, then many parents are left with little option.

I don&#39;t think the approach I have taken is what is tried first. Many parents seem to have a great desire to control their children down to the finest points.


It depends on wht the pudding is, of course fats, oils and sweets should be taken sparingly, but it really depends on what the pudding is, if it is for example assorted fruits, like grapes, oranges, apple etc, with cream then its not going to be a problem. Also pudding is usually a small serving anyway, and a health site I visit sometimes recomends puddings containing fats, oils and sweets should only be 1 serving a day, where as Vegtables is 3-5 servings a day and the carbohydrate high foods such as bread, pasta, cerial, rice etc should be a large 6-11 servings. 6-11 seams a little excessive but i&#39;m sure they are right.

So yeah, pudding should be taken in moderation.


How is pudding to be taken in moderation if it is used as a reward to get children to eat their fruit and veg at mealtime? The people I know who use this approach end up having to give their children one for every meal they eat fruit and veg with because that is what it is rewarding. When they don&#39;t, a very big struggle about eating the veg ensues.


Well that can be difficult to achive unless a little authority is used.

I disagree for reasons already stated.


never said that, I never even implied that, your a moron because you obviously cant read. You said you give your kid vitamin supliments, which are usually little pills, and I asked this question: "She prefers pills to food?", I also added a sarcastic comment, but you can ignore that.

The use of the more general word &#39;pill&#39; instead of the more specific &#39;vitamin did imply it and the comment was completely irrelevant.


You wait till she&#39;s a teenager...

But that isn&#39;t what we are talking about is it? We are talking about an approach to get children to eat their fruit or veg. The approach I have taken is working. If you want to extend your argument into the teenage years, I would really like to know how you expect to make teens eat their fruit and veg. Maybe she will eat like that when she is older, the point is she doesn&#39;t now and if she does then your approach would be useless because she would have the ability to eat what she likes without me knowing and probably would more effectively resist eating something put in front of her if she didn&#39;t like it


Which is rubbish, because I have never ever heard of a single case where a child has had a "complex" because their parents forced them to eat all the carrots on the plate, or whatever. Even if that was the case, then I would be willing to bet that the child also had other major contributing issues to this "complex".

Once again, if you haven&#39;t heard of it it must not be true. The other major contributing problem is probably overbearing assholes for parents...just a guess.


And what you said was that a child could get a complex so they shouldn&#39;t be made to eat vegtables, you then said that, just because a kid is unlikley to get a complex from eating vegtables it shouldn&#39;t be done.

I said that a child could get a complex, yes. I never said because a kid is unlikely to get one that it shouldn&#39;t be done. I said in response to one of your comments that because some don&#39;t it still doesn&#39;t make it right. Two different statements.


On a side note, their is also a possibility that a child may be hit by a car walking down the road, it doesn&#39;t mean that children should be restricted being near roads, just because some remote possible danger exists.

It isn&#39;t a remote possible danger. Have a look at some recent parenting books and recent books on anorexia and eating disorders. Books means more than one book, Enigma. You can then be informed enough to decide what sort of danger you think it is.



I suppose it is possible but it is possibe to play the national lottery and win the jackpot every time, it is possible to break a 64 bit eyncription first time, just highly unlikley.

All totally relevant to the conversation.


Just because your child happens to be easy to please when it comes to healthy eating doesnt mean that other children are.

Of course, and I have never argued that all parents find themselves in the same situation I do. In fact, that was the point of the breastfeeding comment. However, I also know that most parents don&#39;t take the approach I have, so until they do, I believe that the more that do the better.


Judging that unless children aquire the taste for healthy food, which is more difficult to do than aquiring the taste for unhealthy food, you should neglect childrens health because children are people? Well, yes children are people, and as such they have dietry needs, and unless these dietry needs are appeased, then the child will become unhealthy...Well other people are old enough to make an informed decision, on whether they should eat healthily or be unhealthy because unhealthy things happen to taste nicer. Young children do not have that luxurey.


This is really getting tedious. More generalisations about what people think tastes nicer and what children will eat. I think children should be treated as adults are regarding food. Children know what they like the taste of, as do adults. Adults can choose to have something that is still healthy but they like the taste of, as should children. They can also choose not to eat something that is healthy as should children. Parents can help children to meet these needs by providing vitamins, offering the healthy foods they do like and perhaps even disguising the less tasteful ones in other dishes. I think this is less harmful than struggling over food and rewarding with puddings.


From Red "i&#39;ve done this, i&#39;ve done that, ive got so much experiance, and i&#39;m so unconventional, and your a little moron" FW, sorry but you wont mind if I tell you where to stick it, you patronising, hypocritical, arrogant piece of shit.

Perhaps the only thing we have in common is how we would describe one another? You certainly haven&#39;t demonstrated you transcend any of what you have called me. LOL&#33; Now why doesn&#39;t that surprise me?


Yeah thats because bulimia is a method of anorexia, you see they eat lots and get the pleasure of eating and then make them selves sick or use laxatives excessivly, so they can stay thin. It also goes by the name of bulimarexia, of course strictly speaking it is different from anorexia, but it takes a very pedantic person to pick some one out on it.

So thats right, you go back to your perfect parenting and absolute infalible experiance, while I go and visit the real world.

Yes, if I were you I would call anyone who pointed out my ignorance pedantic too because you obviously like to post bullshit and hope people will swallow it. Bulimia is a type of eating disorder. It is officially bulimia nervosa. And anorexia is anorexia nervosa. Go to any website about eating disorders and they are very clear about them being two different disorders and their different causes. It is not a method of anorexia though it may also lead to weight loss. An anorexic will not eat any food at all or verylittle. The anorexics I have known use their self denial of food as a way of controlling certain elements of their lives. Of course not all do for this purpose, but food is a site of control and power for anorexics.

I suppose the real world is out Milton Keynes way? It doesn&#39;t apply to anyone else&#39;s experience? Only yours? If you are going to post things and call it the real world, at least ensure it is accurate because people may just call your bluff and you might have to admit to authoring crappy fiction.


This argument would that be, that it is "possible" for a child to eat healthily without making them eat what they dont want to. Possible being a very good word for it, as it is also possibe for that not to be the case.

So that you don&#39;t convolute anything further here is my argument, again:

My argument was and is that children do not and should not be forced to eat things they like, that they can and will still eat fruit and veg even if they are not forced to eat the ones put in front of them and they can have a balanced diet. If you seriously haven&#39;t got that from my posts you deserve every insult thrown at you.


No I get what you said, I just think that you have been lucky in your child&#39;s tastes etc, and others do not have that good fortune and have stubborn kids, who refuse to eat any vegtables.

*shrug* and I think until more parents take the approach I have or until their authority is taken away we won&#39;t really know whether I have had good fortune.


yes you did manage it in the final post you made. It was obviously a great struggle for you, to actually answer the question, but you managed it.

Answering wasn&#39;t a great struggle; however, having to decipher the oversimplification and other shit that made up most of your posts was. ;)

I am going to reserve my time for people more informed and with more intelligence than you in the future, Enigma.

Invader Zim
13th January 2004, 17:48
RedFW

I have come to the conclusion that you are obviously pointless to argue with, if I said the grass was green you would disagree. I cant be bothered with it, just as I cant be bothered to read that latest thread of yours, as I imagine it will be filled with the same crap, which not only fails to answer the questions raised but is just full of insults. So you can have your opinion, but i&#39;m just glad not to be your child.

Enigma

redstar2000
15th January 2004, 12:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:34 AM
Gd forbid you ever become a parent, reasons why a child should be given vegtables: -

-dark green leafy vegetables - for folate, calcium, and iron;
-red, orange, and yellow vegetables - for beta-carotene;

Especially as children are growing this is a major necessity. Ask any respectable dietrition.

However I accept that fruits are an alternative, for some nutrients such as Vitamin C, fibre & Iron.

If a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs then you utopian anarchists soceity will have its people dying in middle age because of poor diet control at a young age, collestorol starts to build up at an incredibly early age.

You can live through your entire life without eating a a single fucking vegetable&#33;

Chanses are you would die of malnutrition, so your life would be short. You cannot live of meat and confectionary.

Why make them eat foul tasting veggies?

The only reason why veggies taste foul is because the children are not made to eat them at a young age, and so do not appriciate the taste when they become young adults. If you think that potato&#39;s, pee&#39;s, carrots, cauliflower, etc taste bad then I would imagine its because you did not become accustomed to the taste at a young age.

Take a look at this nutrition diagram, not that fruit/veg is a very large part.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26813/foodguide.jpg

If you are not prepaired to make your child eat healthily then you should not be a parent, as you are not doing the child any favours in later life.

Children don&#39;t have to go to school.

Ohh dear. :rolleyes: So not only would you deny a child a healthy diet which will give them a better standard of living throughout their lives, but you would deny them basic education.

lets go back to the 18th century, and live like the Amish... at least they eat a good diet, and teach their kids at least two languages. Shame about the lack of basic aminities like electrisity.

the current method of educating children is a waste of young minds.

You can think of a better system for educating the young?

They only thing they should have to learn is how read top an adult level, write legibly, and type.

Then you would not teach history, you would not teach geography, you would not teach foreign languages, you would not teach basic computing skills other than typing, you would not teach design and technology, you would not teach mathmatics, you would not teach science, you would not teach children the Arts of Music and Drama.

I persoannly enjoy school, I lik learning, I like to study, and you would deny this to children? You would force your authority upon them and what they learn? You are no better then any other authoritarin socialist.

But of course your society would collapse because the expertise would not be available to support your society, anyway.

But having said that i&#39;m sure that anarchism would be reliant on the masses being uneducated. No one would put up with this rubbish if they knew that a better systems of socialism were available.

After that that they should choose their own path.

Without a basic insite into these subjects they will not be able to choose their own path, as they will have no idea what is involved with what they wish to persue.

Your third point is also bollocks. Children will go to bed when they&#39;re tired, and no sooner&#33;


yes very good, so they get into the habbit of going to bed at 1 in the morning, then they go and get a job... ohh shit, I have to change my sleeping patterns all of a sudden. Not to mention its not fair on the parents if they have to share their childs insane sleeping patterns.

It doesn&#39;t help that they have to sit 6 hours a day in a chair and not go out for some exercise.

Given the option of computer games, TV, Vidio or going out in the pissing rain and windy weather of the UK, what do you think the child will choose? Actually no I take that one back, because in your society they wont have central heating, electrisity because no one has the expertise to build such luxuries.


Finally, define a child.

Thriteen and down for child, 14-16 as youths, 17 up adult.

And finally for you... what you suggest is completely impractical and god forbid you ever have children.
Behold, the Adolph Hitler of the Nursery...with an IQ of 135, no less&#33;

This post is so far beneath your usual (very low) level that of it weren&#39;t for the crappy typing, I&#39;d almost believe Moskitto wrote it.

"If a child is not taught some self diciplin when it comes to dietry needs..."

You propose to teach self-discipline by...imposed discipline from the parent or other adult authority.???

Good idea. :lol:

"The only reason why veggies taste foul is because the children are not made to eat them at a young age..."

Sadistic bugger, aren&#39;t you? It is a known fact that children&#39;s senses of taste and smell are far more sensitive than those of adults...forcing kids to eat certain "veggies" is the same as forcing you to eat a plate full of turds. Or, come to think of it, probably a good deal worse.

"You can think of a better system for educating the young?"

Considering yourself, it would be difficult to think of a worse one.

"I persoannly enjoy school, I lik learning, I like to study..."

No kidding. :lol: It shows&#33; :lol:

"yes very good, so they get into the habbit of going to bed at 1 in the morning..."

And the world comes to an end. :lol:

"Given the option of computer games, TV, Vidio or going out in the pissing rain and windy weather of the UK..."

Weather that bad, eh? I&#39;d still prefer it to listening to you. I think nearly all kids would agree.

"what you suggest is completely impractical and god forbid you ever have children"

The biggest risk of having children is that one of them might turn out to be an insufferable twit like Enema...you&#39;d end up paying the sod to move away.

He is living proof of the saying, "Ignorance can be cured; stupid is forever."

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim
15th January 2004, 17:57
Ahh I was wondering when you were going to lower the tone of this thread.

with an IQ of 135, no less&#33;


Jealous Redstar?

[This post is so far beneath your usual (very low) level that of it weren&#39;t for the crappy typing, I&#39;d almost believe Moskitto wrote it.


Thats great redstar, really, but do you care to actually refute anything I said? I thought not, all rhetoric no substance.

You propose to teach self-discipline by...imposed discipline from the parent or other adult authority.???

Self discipline is borne of habit, habits such as good behaviour, why not good eating habits? But who cares? You go off smoke a pack of fags, drink a crate of beer and have a large fry up with a slab of chocolate for pudding, and hopefully have a heart attack and die. We wouldn&#39;t have to put up with your asinine comments then.

Sadistic bugger, aren&#39;t you?

Well as you say we should execute rather than imprison, thats a bit hypocritical. But hey I come to expect that from you.

It is a known fact that children&#39;s senses of taste and smell are far more sensitive than those of adults...

OWW Bhoo-hoo,your so right, I completely change my mind, i&#39;m sure that every kid will thank you later in life when they have high cholesterol and diabetes.

forcing kids to eat certain "veggies" is the same as forcing you to eat a plate full of turds.

Well dont feed them those certain vegetables, god you must be dense. No what am I saying, you are dense.

Considering yourself, it would be difficult to think of a worse one.

Hmm tell me redstar did you go to university?

No kidding. It shows&#33;

Shame yours doesn&#39;t.

And the world comes to an end.

You would deny a parent sleep, which they need if they are to effectively operate? Did you know that sleep deprivation in those unaccustomed to it, will kill you quicker than malnutrition.

Weather that bad, eh?

Yep, We are on the same line of latitude as Newfoundland (actually we may be a little higher) after all.

I&#39;d still prefer it to listening to you

Who gives a shit what you think?

I think nearly all kids would agree.


Yeah whatever, but as i&#39;m in school with kids, your argument is as stupid as I have come to expect from you.

The biggest risk of having children is that one of them might turn out to be an insufferable twit like Enema...you&#39;d end up paying the sod to move away.

LOL I bet it took a lot of thought to come up with that one, must have hurt.


He is living proof of the saying, "Ignorance can be cured; stupid is forever."

I have only one thing to say that and a picture speaks a thousand words: -

http://www.che-lives.net/users/ak47/other/REDSTARSHIT.JPG

Dont have heart attack or anything...

Misodoctakleidist
15th January 2004, 18:56
Enigma, you&#39;ve done a good job of chaging the subject so as to avoid your hypocritical views on incect. You say that incest is wrong because it results is deformed children or whatever but you support two people with the same desease or disability reproducing, how do you justify that?

Invader Zim
15th January 2004, 19:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:56 PM
Enigma, you&#39;ve done a good job of chaging the subject so as to avoid your hypocritical views on incect. You say that incest is wrong because it results is deformed children or whatever but you support two people with the same desease or disability reproducing, how do you justify that?
Actually if you read the thread you will find it was not I who changed the subject.

Second my views on incest are not hypocritical, their is a vast differance between the disabled having children which could possibly (extreamly unlikley) be genetically deformed, as the chanses of the child inheriting the deformity is unlikley, the chanses in most cases of them being able to reproduse even more unlikley, etc, etc, and two healthy bodies people who may cause their family genetic problems for years to come. And its also basically canceling out evolution.

So really they aren&#39;t remotly similar.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
15th January 2004, 19:16
This convo is rediculous. If children were capable of making the right decisions for themselves, then they would be quite capable of raising themselves. However this is not the case. Children need to be instilled with certain moral values, the need to be taught right from wrong, and they need to given a healthy lifestyle. Children can&#39;t decide these things on their own, and 90% of the time, their parents don&#39;t do a very good job of it either. :/ I&#39;m playing with the idea that after a few months of care by the parents, the state should kick in and take it from there with mandatory boarding school.

Misodoctakleidist
15th January 2004, 19:28
Originally posted by Enigma+Jan 15 2004, 08:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Jan 15 2004, 08:15 PM)
[email protected] 15 2004, 07:56 PM
Enigma, you&#39;ve done a good job of chaging the subject so as to avoid your hypocritical views on incect. You say that incest is wrong because it results is deformed children or whatever but you support two people with the same desease or disability reproducing, how do you justify that?
Actually if you read the thread you will find it was not I who changed the subject.

Second my views on incest are not hypocritical, their is a vast differance between the disabled having children which could possibly (extreamly unlikley) be genetically deformed, as the chanses of the child inheriting the deformity is unlikley, the chanses in most cases of them being able to reproduse even more unlikley, etc, etc, and two healthy bodies people who may cause their family genetic problems for years to come. And its also basically canceling out evolution.

So really they aren&#39;t remotly similar. [/b]
The chances of genetic defects though incect aren&#39;t particularly high either, i think someone said earlier in this thread that it was 1% or something. You argument is basically that incest increases the chances of genetic defects which i don&#39;t think is a valid argument anyway, driving a car dramaticaly increases you chances of dying but i don&#39;t see you condeming that.

Kez
15th January 2004, 19:32
i officially believe this thread is the wankest thread in mankind, and the next person to post on this thread eats shit for a living....

(*
15th January 2004, 20:58
what?

redstar2000
16th January 2004, 01:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:16 PM
This convo is rediculous. If children were capable of making the right decisions for themselves, then they would be quite capable of raising themselves. However this is not the case. Children need to be instilled with certain moral values, the need to be taught right from wrong, and they need to given a healthy lifestyle. Children can&#39;t decide these things on their own, and 90% of the time, their parents don&#39;t do a very good job of it either. :/ I&#39;m playing with the idea that after a few months of care by the parents, the state should kick in and take it from there with mandatory boarding school.
Great idea...a whole generation of Enimas.

Why not go out in the street and play with yourself instead?

Take Enema with you.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim
16th January 2004, 06:39
Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jan 15 2004, 08:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Jan 15 2004, 08:28 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:15 PM

[email protected] 15 2004, 07:56 PM
Enigma, you&#39;ve done a good job of chaging the subject so as to avoid your hypocritical views on incect. You say that incest is wrong because it results is deformed children or whatever but you support two people with the same desease or disability reproducing, how do you justify that?
Actually if you read the thread you will find it was not I who changed the subject.

Second my views on incest are not hypocritical, their is a vast differance between the disabled having children which could possibly (extreamly unlikley) be genetically deformed, as the chanses of the child inheriting the deformity is unlikley, the chanses in most cases of them being able to reproduse even more unlikley, etc, etc, and two healthy bodies people who may cause their family genetic problems for years to come. And its also basically canceling out evolution.

So really they aren&#39;t remotly similar.
The chances of genetic defects though incect aren&#39;t particularly high either, i think someone said earlier in this thread that it was 1% or something. You argument is basically that incest increases the chances of genetic defects which i don&#39;t think is a valid argument anyway, driving a car dramaticaly increases you chances of dying but i don&#39;t see you condeming that. [/b]
Fair enough, thats your view, you know mine.

Why not go out in the street and play with yourself instead?

Take Enema with you.

Ahh playing with your self the only action your ever going to get...

ÑóẊîöʼn
16th January 2004, 09:51
Kez, if you don&#39;t like this thread, STFU.

che's long lost daughter
17th January 2004, 18:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:53 PM
Actually it is a well-known fact that some members of the royal family suffer from a disease, I do not recall what it is called at the time, in which they can not be cut because it would lead to excessive bleeding.
That is called Hemophillia...

che's long lost daughter
17th January 2004, 18:46
I agree with the freedom thing and all but I think incest is really disgusting.

The Feral Underclass
17th January 2004, 18:57
and the next person to post on this thread eats shit for a living....

are you looking for a companion to join you kez?

Iepilei
17th January 2004, 20:54
Subjects like this usually make me shudder.

While in a discussion a long while back with a group of bio majors they threw around random, yet interesting, facts in regards to the overall "nature" of humanity. Notions such as, our only instinct being how to suckle, and the like. They also mentioned that siblings have a genetic disposition for arguing, bickering, and the occassional dislike for another.

The justification for such actions? It keeps them from breeding.

Now I&#39;m not a bio major (though I was going to be) but there is much concrete evidence which proves the dangers of imbreeding and it&#39;s obvious (from such a viewpoint) that it acts against the &#39;natural&#39; methods of reproduction.

yes i am arab
19th January 2004, 03:11
i mean yeah, incest , its pretty fucked up, but its peoples choice...there shouldnt be a legal penalty. i think its more of like a moral standard that one should live up to...

Don't Change Your Name
19th January 2004, 03:58
I support it

but I&#39;m not sure about the consequences... but I wouldn&#39;t really worry about that too much because after all, I doubt incest can be stopped in the modern society and those doing this will not be so many, and the conservative crap can&#39;t criticize this because after all most things you do have a consequence...

Misodoctakleidist
19th January 2004, 16:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:54 PM
Subjects like this usually make me shudder.

While in a discussion a long while back with a group of bio majors they threw around random, yet interesting, facts in regards to the overall "nature" of humanity. Notions such as, our only instinct being how to suckle, and the like. They also mentioned that siblings have a genetic disposition for arguing, bickering, and the occassional dislike for another.

The justification for such actions? It keeps them from breeding.

Now I&#39;m not a bio major (though I was going to be) but there is much concrete evidence which proves the dangers of imbreeding and it&#39;s obvious (from such a viewpoint) that it acts against the &#39;natural&#39; methods of reproduction.
so you are opposed to incest from a biological view that it "isn&#39;t natural", but if there are people who want ot do it then it obviously is natural for them. If you are sugeesting that it causes desease or deformities or whatever then is that really a good enough reason to stop people from practicing it? Would you be opposed to disabled (where their disability is genetic) people reproducing? Why do you have the right to tell people what id good for them, are you going to say people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to eat unhealthy foods?

Yazman
21st January 2004, 15:47
err lets think about that one shall we: -

- The right to make the kid eat their vegtables so they get a healthy balanced diet etc.
- The right to make children go to school.
- The right to make the child go to bed at a sensble time so that they dont get into bad habits, etc.


1. I physically cannot eat many vegetables as my system does not digest them properly and instead makes me sick. I am in perfect health today, and it is extremely rare for me to catch any disease of any sort at all.

2. So why doesn&#39;t the government have the right to make you go to university, or a technical college, or something of the sort? Hmm? It&#39;s education, right?

3. Your body does not know what the time is. Time is simply a measurement system and it is scientifically proven that different people need differing amounts of sleep. I rarely ever sleep more than 6 hours a night and I have always been in perfect health.

And what&#39;s this about "they don&#39;t get into bad habits"? bad habits? wha?



Posted by Enigma
Thats a possibility, but I have an IQ of 135, so I doubt intelect is a problem, maybe your complete lack of an argument is the problem?



Whoopdy-doo, Enigma, you have an IQ of 135. How incredibly irrelevant to the reality of human intelligience.

Well, officially there are eight types of intelligience (theoretically nine, however), and it is known that an IQ test only tests one type of intelligience. So the IQ test is not an accurate measure of intelligience no matter what "score" you get unless the test itself takes into account every single type of intelligience.

Also take into consideration the IQ test was not originally made for everyday, common people to use to be able to "find out how smart they are", it was originally developed for use within hospitals for mentally ill people. The idea was that by creating this test they could figure out the average problem-solving ability of a while middle class american male and then apply this to a score. They would then give the same test to the mental patients and if they reached a score close to that of the average of "sane people", they would then know that the patient is close to being ready to be released.

However, if you try out an IQ test hoping to find out how smart or intellectually capable you are, then you need to realise that no matter what score you get, it is always extremely inaccurate.

Finally, many psychologists commonly argue themselves that it is simply impossible to actually measure human intelligience due to the pure intangibility of it.

Yazman
21st January 2004, 16:05
*whoops, double post*

Iepilei
21st January 2004, 17:43
Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jan 19 2004, 05:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Jan 19 2004, 05:46 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 09:54 PM
Subjects like this usually make me shudder.

While in a discussion a long while back with a group of bio majors they threw around random, yet interesting, facts in regards to the overall "nature" of humanity. Notions such as, our only instinct being how to suckle, and the like. They also mentioned that siblings have a genetic disposition for arguing, bickering, and the occassional dislike for another.

The justification for such actions? It keeps them from breeding.

Now I&#39;m not a bio major (though I was going to be) but there is much concrete evidence which proves the dangers of imbreeding and it&#39;s obvious (from such a viewpoint) that it acts against the &#39;natural&#39; methods of reproduction.
so you are opposed to incest from a biological view that it "isn&#39;t natural", but if there are people who want ot do it then it obviously is natural for them. If you are sugeesting that it causes desease or deformities or whatever then is that really a good enough reason to stop people from practicing it? Would you be opposed to disabled (where their disability is genetic) people reproducing? Why do you have the right to tell people what id good for them, are you going to say people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to eat unhealthy foods? [/b]
To be blunt, yes, I would be opposed to anyone with severe genetic deformaties reproducing. Does it mean I can stop them? No, but I can&#39;t stop a person from putting his penis in a blender if the moron considers it a natural thing for him. Why would you want to carry something as serious as a genetic deformity further, if you were in that position, anyways?

Now, I&#39;m suprised no-one attacked the "natural" reproduction comment I made with something along the lines of, "so let me guess you&#39;re against homosexuals too?" The answer to this, of course, is no. Why? Because homosexual couples usually don&#39;t have a high reproduction rate. If you are heterosexual enough to be drawn to a member of your family, what prevents you from being drawn to anyone else? I see no logic or validity for anyone feeling a &#39;natural&#39; urge to be drawn to their own genetic pool. There is genetic backing for homosexuality, but none for incestual relations.

The potential damage to others, as well as the lack of proof for such natural attraction are good enough for me.