I'm afraid I'm struggling to see what your actual argument is.
Tim Send a noteboard - 12/01/2011 11:14:29 PM
If you allow necrophilia if the person consented while alive then you have to allow cannibalism as well. Throw in bestiality because it really doesn't make sense to able to screw your sister or dead brother but not your sheep or pig. And hey I can screw my dead brother's pet cat after eating him for breakfast why can't I snort crystal meth.
And what if I were to say "Well yeah" to all of that? How would you argue that any of these things were wrong? (Also, it sounds as though you think snorting crystal meth is morally worse than bestiality and cannibalism of relatives. Really?)
Society has the right to say there are certain taboos that are not allowed and it does have the right to set limits on acceptable behavior. People are willing to allow hate speech laws but oppose laws that violate the social norms of virtually every human society in history. Those social norm evolved for a reason and it is very dangerous to think you can just toss them out at will.
1. Yes, of course society has that right. But that doesn't mean there can be no discussion as to where those limits should be set.
2. Which "people" are you talking about? I don't know of any pro-incest or pro-necrophilia campaign groups. This was an academic question.
3. What is the reason you refer to? I'm interested in your view about what (if anything) can justify the prohibition.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
Some legal questions.
- 12/01/2011 06:16:23 PM
713 Views
Yes to both
- 12/01/2011 06:31:14 PM
471 Views
No and depends
- 12/01/2011 06:44:02 PM
462 Views
Re: No and depends
- 12/01/2011 07:01:35 PM
411 Views
Re: No and depends
- 13/01/2011 10:08:15 AM
414 Views
No and yes, because of the issue of consent.
- 12/01/2011 07:11:31 PM
393 Views
Only people can provide consent. Corpses are not people, just rotting meat. *NM*
- 12/01/2011 08:40:02 PM
174 Views
I suppose that's fair, but I wouldn't try selling it to the family.
- 12/01/2011 08:56:30 PM
419 Views
You're confusing two separate issues.
- 12/01/2011 09:01:55 PM
420 Views
I think the trauma to the familys could (and probably should) be considered criminal as well.
- 12/01/2011 09:07:57 PM
391 Views
How? Why?
- 12/01/2011 09:40:32 PM
424 Views
I thought the rights of next to kin were pretty generally recognized.
- 13/01/2011 09:54:39 PM
373 Views
And I certainly don't think consensual incest should brand someone a sexual predator for life.
- 12/01/2011 07:20:32 PM
461 Views
Some personal opinions in the form of answers.
- 12/01/2011 08:37:25 PM
444 Views
Re: Some personal opinions in the form of answers.
- 12/01/2011 11:01:50 PM
400 Views
no to both
- 12/01/2011 09:43:28 PM
416 Views
I'm afraid I'm struggling to see what your actual argument is.
- 12/01/2011 11:14:29 PM
410 Views
My argument is that society has the right to say some things are just wrong
- 13/01/2011 12:12:01 AM
405 Views