Dumbfounding bigotry of the Progressives

[Scholar]

Christian debaters often employ the argument of the ethics of incest against secularists. There is a long history of this, and it is surprising to me that secularists have such profound difficulty admitting that consensual incest is neither wrong, disgusting nor fundamentally pathological.

 

The arguments provided by secularists are functionally no different from homophobes in the past. In this case, Craig asserts that relationships between siblings are more prone to end in depression and suicidality. The first thing to note here is that such evidence simply does not exist. There is no study that looks at the outcomes of incestuous relationships between siblings. There in fact is no study looking at incestuous relationships period. The only studies we have look at incestuous abuse and incestuous incidents in general. And the studies including non-abusive behavior do not support this view at all, in fact when incestuous interactions between siblings occur in a consensual way, the impact on things like sexual confidence tends to be positive in the long run in women, for example.

But more pressingly, it wouldn't be surprising if it was the case that incestuous relationships did end up in depression and suicidality, given that such relationships are highly stigmatized and criminalized in many jurisdictions. The effect the resulting shame, social isolation and fear of criminal prosecuting will have on the psychology of individuals is obviously going tend to yield negative outcomes.

It's not different from homophobes of the past, including notable psychologist, having pointed at empirical data that homosexual urges and activities come with shame and self-destructive tendencies. The effects of the bigotry are used to justify the bigotry.

 

There is of course many more secular arguments against consensual incest between siblings and cousins that appear to be strong at first, and turn out absurdly contradictory on further inspection, but I think this example is telling because it would be so easy to simply admit: 

Obviously the solution to consensual incestuous feelings and relationships is not stigma and criminalization, but social support and integration, especially when they are pathological. In relation to our attitudes, we should obviously reject our biological impulses when we know they had a specific evolutionary function that no longer applies in this day and age. This extends to incestophobia as much as it did to things like homophobia or racism.

 

 

What this whole situation reveals is that bigotry and ignorance is not nearly as simple as it appears to be. It's not the case that the secularists and progressives have transcended forms of sexual persecution and witch hunting. In essence, they function the same when they are confronted with things that are sufficiently repulsive to them. The first reaction is not empathy towards individuals in such a situation, but rationalization of feelings of disgusting and hatred.

If we realize this, we can have more empathy with various forms of bigotry, because we can recognize in ourselves the dynamics which lead someone to adopt such views.

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Christian debaters often employ the argument of the ethics of incest against secularists. There is a long history of this, and it is surprising to me that secularists have such profound difficulty admitting that consensual incest is neither wrong, disgusting nor fundamentally pathological.

 

The arguments provided by secularists are functionally no different from homophobes in the past. In this case, Craig asserts that relationships between siblings are more prone to end in depression and suicidality. The first thing to note here is that such evidence simply does not exist. There is no study that looks at the outcomes of incestuous relationships between siblings. There in fact is no study looking at incestuous relationships period. The only studies we have look at incestuous abuse and incestuous incidents in general. And the studies including non-abusive behavior do not support this view at all, in fact when incestuous interactions between siblings occur in a consensual way, the impact on things like sexual confidence tends to be positive in the long run in women, for example.

But more pressingly, it wouldn't be surprising if it was the case that incestuous relationships did end up in depression and suicidality, given that such relationships are highly stigmatized and criminalized in many jurisdictions. The effect the resulting shame, social isolation and fear of criminal prosecuting will have on the psychology of individuals is obviously going tend to yield negative outcomes.

It's not different from homophobes of the past, including notable psychologist, having pointed at empirical data that homosexual urges and activities come with shame and self-destructive tendencies. The effects of the bigotry are used to justify the bigotry.

 

There is of course many more secular arguments against consensual incest between siblings and cousins that appear to be strong at first, and turn out absurdly contradictory on further inspection, but I think this example is telling because it would be so easy to simply admit: 

Obviously the solution to consensual incestuous feelings and relationships is not stigma and criminalization, but social support and integration, especially when they are pathological. In relation to our attitudes, we should obviously reject our biological impulses when we know they had a specific evolutionary function that no longer applies in this day and age. This extends to incestophobia as much as it did to things like homophobia or racism.

 

 

What this whole situation reveals is that bigotry and ignorance is not nearly as simple as it appears to be. It's not the case that the secularists and progressives have transcended forms of sexual persecution and witch hunting. In essence, they function the same when they are confronted with things that are sufficiently repulsive to them. The first reaction is not empathy towards individuals in such a situation, but rationalization of feelings of disgusting and hatred.

If we realize this, we can have more empathy with various forms of bigotry, because we can recognize in ourselves the dynamics which lead someone to adopt such views.

Yes, liberals call for inbreds to be stoned to death all the time,  @Scholar......

 

Incest is often from manipulation and abuse and results in genetic problems with offspring. 

[Emerald]

Are you saying that progressives are uniquely "bigoted" against people in incestuous relationships?

I'm very sure that there's not much difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of their opinions on incestuous relationships.  That's probably very similar across the aisle.

Incest taboo is actually universal in varying degrees across all known human civilizations. 

And there's very good reason for it to remain as a taboo, as it has serious genetic consequences for the offspring of incestuous relationships and isn't genetically healthy for society to normalize it as a common practice.

We can look at royal families who used to use incest to keep their bloodlines "pure" as evidence. There were many royals of the past who had serious deformities, mental problems, and health problems because of this normalization of incest within royal families.

I've posted an image of King Charles the II of Spain below. He was the son of an uncle and niece. His jaw was misshapen, which made it difficult for him to chew food or talk. And he died at 38 after a life that was filled with health problems. This gives an insight to why there is an incest taboo... because of the suffering it causes.

So, bigotry isn't the primary motivating factor for that taboo. It's because most people feel the instinctual ickiness of those pairings. And that instinctual ickiness we feel about incest comes from the natural aversion to what's genetically unhealthy for our offspring and (by extension) society at large.

Also, like the previous poster mentioned, incest tends to happen as a result of an older relative taking advantage of and coercing a younger relative. So, there's also often other layers of harm that's folded in with incest beyond just the genetic issues.

 

Edited yesterday at 07:47 PM by Emerald

[Elliott]

Heroin addicts too, we hate them. Give them addiction recovery, clean needles, but we refuse to legalize it. Bigots, the lot of us.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

but we refuse to legalize it. Bigots, the lot of us.

They legalized it in Oregon and it was a disaster.

Criminalizing hard drugs is not bigotry. It is common sense because easy access to hard drugs means your kids will easily access it.

[BlueOak]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Criminalizing hard drugs is not bigotry.

Its odd though.

Decriminalise use, with a guarantee of no time and no record if they give up their dealers. - Make this widely known. The addicts will keep coming back, and you'll keep nailing dealers. This is done to extent, but it should be a common policy, and zero time no questions asked, if they are true to their word.

Criminalise Dealing - If they rat out their suppliers make a sweet deal, if they don't give them a lot of years. Same principle and somewhat practised already.

Supplying and Producing - Make these sentences astronomical. Labor to pay back society, repay into the system they've drained for a few decades. These people should not leave jail for decades, more if they don't do prison labor.

 

[TheAlchemist]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They legalized it in Oregon and it was a disaster.

Criminalizing hard drugs is not bigotry. It is common sense because easy access to hard drugs means your kids will easily access it.

There is more to the story. Firstly, drugs were decriminalized without putting any money into social and medical programs to help addicts. This is the polar opposite of what was done in Portugal, for example, where after decriminalization, the money that was previously being spent on the war on drugs was directed towards social programs and other publically funded means of actually helping users use more safely. This directly reduced overdose deaths and reduced costs from treating addicts who would usually get to a very bad condition before getting any kind of support.

Secondly, it is likely that many homeless drug users headed there after decriminalization to use drugs without being harassed by law enforcement. This would not happen if drugs were decriminalized or legalized at the federal level. There are similiar reasons as to why there is such a concentration of homeless people in certain states. People head to those states because there is at least some support, and its a less horrible place to exist in their situation. 

Often when thinking about drug policy, we think about the harms of drugs, but we rarely think of the harms of prohibition. 

Edited 4 hours ago by TheAlchemist

[Elliott]

Bigotry toward fascists too. You need to treat nazis how you would like to be treated, never forget the golden rule. WWII should have never went the way it had, the bigotry toward nazis from the left was unconscionable. Nazis are just like you and me. Be nice with how you speak to and about fascists, they are human beings!

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott