Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (8918)	12/14/2010 9:38:09 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

They were usually bought. I don't think so. You are either captured into slavery or born into slavery. Once enslaved, you may be sold, but the original owner paid nothing. People selling themselves into slavery to extinguish their debts. First of all, the amount of the debt would be the selling price. Second, with debt bondage, the party did not sell himself but rented himself for the specified period of time. Thats not true, there are lots of liberals and even libertarians arguing that incest really isn't that big a deal. Not "that big a deal" doesn't mean it's moral, only that it has relatively minor consequence to society. Just because someone isn't as exercised over it as you are doesn't not signify approval. Do you have a link to any support or advocacy? I can think of at least one common word. Not very informative... Sure there is ... Not very informative... Aren't gays a class based on a sexual behavior? Defense of gays is defense of their behavior. Absent their unique behavior, they wouldn't exist as a "class". Gays are a class based on sexual orientation. It is part of their essence. They don't have to engage in any behavior to be part of the class. They just are. As for behaviors, it's not what they do that's different, just whom they do it with. Humans have body parts. Sexual activity will involve whatever parts are available and of interest. That's the way it works regardless of orientation. you proved it in an earlier post by advocating marriage laws recognize incestuous unions. You can't argue there's no slippery slope when you have yourself advocated pouring grease on the slope. I keep trying to make distinctions and you keep blurring them. I try to choose my words carefully. You often see only undifferentiated opposition to your position. I never advocated incestuous marriages. I merely questioned why, if we have to have civil marriages at all, they would have ANY criteria other than that the person be legally competent and free to enter into the contract. That's not greasy. But lots of people are sympathetic to the people who engage in those things. Lack of avid opposition does not denote sympathy, only lack of avid opposition. If you think there's sympathy, show me where. Really? What states have decriminalized parent child incest? One more time, this discussion has been about adult incest and potential marriage. New Jersey, for one, has decriminalized it. Many likely don't enforce it. Incest with children is child abuse!!! But you have advocated it by posting your preference of legalizing it as well as extending legal recognition of parent-child marriage. You may be under that impression but that is not the case. It is your inference. I understand how anything less that full condemnation might feel to you like advocacy but it isn't advocacy. In my case it's simple libertarian discomfort with government overreach. It's a simple assertion that sex in private between informed, consenting, and mentally competent adults is nobody else's business, not mine, not yours, not the government's. None of the government's business is not the same as sympathy let alone advocacy.