Old enough is wildly unspecific if they don't want that to happen it's easy to get specific. Notably they haven't denied it and haven't gotten specific.

They don't. Old enough means what age exactly. Old enough where exactly.

For me and you and in this country, for other people and other places that varies wildly from one to another.

I don't know why you abandoned every other part of your argument to focus on age but I have some theories.

hi pal, i want to preface this by saying I'm with you, both because punishment is worse than crime, and because arguing about genetics presumes everyone is heterosexual. my reasons aren't really important though. i really hope you find community, offline or on, that respects you and bigs you up. I'm watching you fighting with these people who want nothing better than to call you a rape-lover, and i really want better for you. i want you to be able to express yourself and spread your philosophical wings without being piled on or called names. i hope you find kinder ecosystems. big up yourself in the meantime 👍

Old enough is wildly unspecific

True, and irrelevant: OP's argument does not depend on this specificity. OP's argument prevails no matter what age you decide is "old enough". OP's argument requires you remain consistent on that point: You cannot provide an age that is simultaneously "old enough" and "not old enough". OP's argument requires that you only consider participants above that age; "not old enough" remains a criminal offense.

You are continuing to make bad faith arguments. Engage in good faith, or do not engage.

Bad faith argument. Rejected. "Old Enough" is sufficiently descriptive to reject your insinuations of pedophilia.

According to whom and where?

It really really does. But again you abandoned your entire argument to focus on age because your bullshit scenario doesn't exist and your example was similarly made up.

Talk about bad faith, you fucking made up Canadian law.

After nearly a full day of inactivity where people lived their damn lives, you came back to offer nothing new, yet you keep trying to nitpick your way into an argument. Why is this so important to you?

Actually, no, don't answer. Just stay on your weird family-fucking hill until you die on it, as you so obviously want to. I'm done with you.

Nah, I didn't abandon anything. I've presented my whole argument, and I've adequately rebutted every point you've made. You have yet to provide any sort of justification for intruding on personal agency of competent adults. You've yet to provide any compelling state interest for interfering with freedom of association, both of which are necessary for criminalizing behavior.

We got hung up on age because you have insisted on inserting insinuations of pedophilia where underage participants are explicitly excluded.

I had a much better discussion elsewhere in this thread, where we were able to delve deeper into more important issues. The principal difference between that conversation and this one is that (for the most part) the parties argued in good faith, rather than assuming malfeasance. I don't think either of us convinced the other, but we did more broadly address the topic, rather than getting ourselves hung up on a pedantic discussion of an inconsequential phrase.

I feel this conversation has devolved to a point where no further insight is forthcoming. Thanks for playing.

Any reasonable, hypothetical person, hearing the phrase "old enough" would assume an age where the individual had acquired the requisite mental capacity. Any assumption of a lesser age is simply unreasonable.

Where the assuming party has been granted full license to adopt any reasonable meaning they want, refusal to do so is simply in support of a bad faith argument.

You're mad because I was busy for a day?

Why does it interest you?

Yeah that's not how life works. If you want specificity you provide it or request it. I've requested, they haven't provided and you simply assume benevolence when there's no evidence that that is the case.

Any reasonable meaning in the case of law is the worst assumption not the best. We don't assume people wanting to take part in incest are altogether reasonable, logical or for that matter moral so assuming any of those things is the unreasonable thing to do.

But again what happened to the rest of your argument and all those non existent fringe cases that are already legal in North America?

I appreciate that. I like Lemmy for the most part, and the response is pretty much what I expected.

Are you really arguing that laws are synonymous with morality?

You totally abandoned it in favor of hammering about age. Answer the question asked or you're abandoning the argument, that's how it works bud.

What laws are you referencing that make your weird fridge examples illegal.

I didn't insert pedophillia they did by referencing age of consent as the only boundary but fail to give that number and when that happens I get to assume. The lowest religious age of consent I know of is first blood which is around 14 most of the time and in the US I think it was one of the Carolinas that had the age of marriage and consent at 14 until like last year or something crazy like that.

You've said that like six times and it's always weirdly enough when there's a question in the table that is hard for you to answer and keep up your bullshit.

The word moral is not said in that comment at all nor is it implied in any way. Just answer the question in front of you with the words that actually exist therein.

You mean where you started calling me a molester, misgendered me, and said I defend fucking kids? No thanks. You seem too riled up for the kind of conversation.

Uh huh, so just time delay drive by bullshit then? Neat. See you tomorrow when you defend Nazis or whatever. Same bat time same bat place?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=285.&lawCode=PEN

Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or** who being 14 years of age or older,** commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

It's California. So what's that about reasonable?

Maybe there's a reason they don't get specific huh?

We don’t assume people wanting to take part in incest are altogether reasonable, logical or for that matter moral so assuming any of those things is the unreasonable thing to do.

That is a rhetorical fallacy called "begging the question". Rejected.

you simply assume benevolence when there’s no evidence that that is the case.

In the field of philosophy, "Hanlon's Razor" is the most relevant concept. In law, it's called the "pro reo principle" or the "rule of lenity". Related, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". We should, indeed, assume benevolence until malfeasance is positively proven.

Basically, reasonableness is the default state. We don't need any sort of evidence to assume reasonableness. We need evidence to demonstrate unreasonableness.

Here, that means "old enough" is, actually, what any reasonable person would deem old enough. OP is not making any sort of argument regarding the current age of consent laws. OP's argument is that, whatever society deems an appropriate age of consent, an incestuous relationship initiated above that age of consent (with capacity and with consent) should also be legal.

But again what happened to the rest of your argument and all those non existent fringe cases that are already legal in North America?

They certainly exist. Marriage, for example, has a wide variety of financial and legal benefits and consequences. Incestuous marriage is criminal. I don't need to provide a full, comprehensive list of all the ways that criminalizing incest affects every possible victim of anti-incestuous bigotry. Any social or legal distinction is sufficient to question the need for that distinction.

Have a nice day.

i don’t have any skin in this game, but you truley are not going to beat the “diying on this hill” allegations.

Uh huh. Californias law starts at 14 so what do you have to say about that?

Legality is not philosophy unsurprisingly enough.

Where, who and what laws are you referencing. These should be easy to provide if they in fact exist.

Uh huh, that's kinda what I thought.

..Which is extremely problematic - but not because OP did X or y, but because this community is about power tripping bastard mods not OPs morality.

That is the weird bit, and it proves that this community isn't what's promised.

It doesn't.

Humans are going to be human. We react to stimuli.

i'm coming here from social media like Tumblr, where it's a lot easier to curate your own experience. on tumblr, if you don't tag your post, the only way it's going to get in front of the eyeballs of strangers is if it gets significant reblogs, at which point you can switch off notifications and go to sleep. whereas here, you kind of have to be thrown in with everyone. tumblr has its own problems, namely centralisation, advertising and transmisogynoir, but i really don't think I'm going to be able to find a likeminded community anything like i did there, on Lemmy

Agreed, a strong foundation to rules is necessary. A lack of rules thereof or just relying on the "vibe" of the rule is insufficient and could cause malevolent actors to abuse such "vibes". Shitty people can cling to technicalities - such as people who cling onto the apparent vibes of the rule.

You can't have one without the other, as without one, you have people excusing something that isn't remotely within that rule.

A 14-year-old having sex with an 18-year-old is still statutory rape, with or without the law on incest. That doesn't change. We aren't talking about pedophilia; we aren't talking about age of consent; we aren't talking about statutory rape, or rape of any kind.

The median age of first sexual contact is 14, with another 14-year-old. It's a fair bet that when you were a minor, you had sex with other minors.

Two 14-year-olds having sex with eachother is not pedophilia; it's not statutory rape. There are no criminal penalties for two 14-year-olds choosing to have sex with eachother. Unless they are related by blood. Then, they can be sent to state prison. This is bigotry.

Two 24-year-olds, being well above the age of consent, there is no serious question that they are "old enough". They are capable of consent, and consent is granted. Completely inoffensive relationship; the state has no interest in intervening between them. And yet, if they discover they are biological kin, they are to be imprisoned. This is bigotry.

The pedophilic insinuations you are making play no role here. They serve only to distract. And yet you keep raising them, again and again. You insist on this unreasonable assumption that "old enough" doesn't actually mean "old enough", to distract and detract from the underlying issue. Engage in good faith, or don't engage at all. Discuss the same-age couples above. Justify the california law calling for them to be imprisoned. Justify depriving them of their right to free association. Justify stripping them of their personal agency regarding consent. Justify leaving their future to the whim of judicial discretion.

Or concede that incest should not be an inherently criminal matter.

Social media principle #1: "Questioning any aspect or detail of the Right side means you're on the Wrong side."

What a divisive issue lol

That is true, but in the context of this community the stimuli should be focused on the mod not whatever moral ideas op has.

Uh huh. Californias law starts at 14 so what do you have to say about that?

It doesn't. You're misreading the incest statute as the age of consent statute. Nothing in the incest statute allows an 18-year-old to have sex with a 14-year-old. That is statutory rape, with or without incest laws or incest being a factor. The minor lacked the capacity to consent to sex with the adult.

Minors do not lack the capacity to consent to sex with other minors. There is no issue of capacity between two 14-year-olds. There is no criminality in such a relationship. Unless the 14-year-olds are related; then they are to be imprisoned. As are the 24-year-old couple. As are the 57-year-old couple.

Sure but in California 18 15 isn't and neither is 14 17 hence the law.

I'm not insinuating anything, did you happen to notice op responded to me and still refuses to specify what they define as age of consent? Kinda weird huh?

Also they're free to associate they aren't free to fornicate, you really need to look into the difference.

Nope. In California 14 and 17 is legal and 18 15 is legal hence the law.

Have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

Like I said you keep saying that when you have a question you can't answer and maintain your bullshit.

Should I point out in California there is no minimum age to marry and after marriage there is no statutory rape?

It's gross to defend removing them bud.

Like I said you keep saying that when you have a question you can't answer and maintain your bullshit.

Should I point out in California there is no minimum age to marry and after marriage there is no statutory rape?

It's gross to defend removing them bud.

Then incest is only bad if the intent is procreation. If two sterile adults who also happen to be related have a bit of consensual sex, what's the issue?

Bad faith argument. None of that is being challenged. Have a good day.

Bad faith argument. None of that is being challenged. Have a good day.

Yeah, except the person you're defending. You're adorable, tell me to have a nice day and then continue the conversation one more time, it'll be our thing.

Yeah, except the person you're defending. You're adorable, tell me to have a nice day and then continue the conversation one more time, it'll be our thing.

Yeah, except the person you’re defending.

That's simply untrue, and your own citations demonstrate it. OP is clearly not discussing pedophilia, child marriage, age of consent, or any of the other issues you are trying to use as a distraction from the trouble you're having with consensual adult incest. Bad faith argument; have a good day.

They are overwhelmingly from the usa

Executive they are and nuh uh is a shitty argument bud.

Failed logic, since that premise implies abuser-victim dynamics are the default

With incest it is the default. In two-thirds of incestuous relationships one party is underage. Usually it's the father abusing a daughter. Familial bonds are almost by definition a power-dynamic where consent cannot be guaranteed. In the vast majority of cases, there's underlying abuse.

Incestuous relationships are only punished in one direction (e.g. the abuser is punished, not the victim). It's illegal to serve as a much easier lever to get a conviction, to protect victims. And it is, based on about every study you can find on the subject, very successful in this endeavour.

But that would be relevant if we are operating within a coherent logical framework in the first place. And western political ideologies (including communism) are based on the feelings of the plurality, or the whims of the guarding party.

Incest is generally considered taboo in many cultures around the world, western and non-western.

Former western (public) arguments against incest (and "inbreeding", extending to cousin marriage) were based on fake medical/genetic/... concerns that were fully based on mythical folklore that still partially survives.

You could argue this for cousin-relationships, but anything closer does in fact increase the chances of genetic defects. The effects of inbreeding are very well known. Even with cousins, multi-generational inbreeding can cause defects. Autosomal recessive disorders are simply much more likely (it's basically high-school biology, not "folklore"). Various animals also show inbreeding avoidance behaviour, it's not even exclusive to humans.