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 (8941)	12/14/2010 1:28:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

There wouldn't have needed to be a biblical limit if that were the case. No, quite the opposite. You demonstrate my point. The biblical limit of 7 years was the term for which he was rented. The term, slave, is used broadly. If he were a chattel slave, there would be no term. His property status would be permanent. 1) I'm only exercised that people are arguing on behalf of legalization of incest and legal recognition of incestuous marriage. So far you have not demonstrated that that is happening. Your accusation of me was unfounded. Perhaps you're similarly imagining support from other quarters. I'd have to be crude to be more informative. Well, if the only tailored label is crude, there can't be much societal acceptance behind the perpetrators. I think this is hair splitting. Pretty much all those with that sexual orientation act it out in behavior. I take your point about acting on the orientation, but it's still not hair splitting. For gays to be a protected group, they have to have some essential quality that defines them, not just a common behavior. You may not recognize that essential quality as inherent but that's still the basis. We don't set up anti-discrimination laws for behavior cohorts. Women are a protected class because of their essential female quality, not because they are prone to have babies. Me, I think one is either for recognizing incestuous marriages or against such recognition. Where is the blur? I understand your binary approach. (I've just finished the chapter in "Moral Politics" on the Strict Father perspective. Good and evil. Failure to advocate the moral order is immoral. I get it. <g>) But there is a lot of subtlety here, not even just points on a continuum but multiple intersecting continua. The dominant ones are morality and liberty. One can only try to explain various shades of gray to a black and whiter and hope for the best. You are interested only in the morality factor. I am interested as well in the liberty factor. I judge that the affront to liberty is greater than the affront to morality. I will come down on the side of liberty without hesitation whenever there is no victim. I'd say "your mileage may differ" if you at least recognized the liberty factor, but it seems you don't. Let's change the law so as to not punish the guy screwing his daughter Just because he's not punished under the law does not mean he's not punished. Society will punish him in various ways unless he keeps it secret. Punish her, too. I think you're just dancing around the issue. I understand why it looks that way to you. I am not a binary person. And as far as advocacy, again I think extending legal recognition of parent-child marriage amounts to practical approval. I agree. Which is part of why I wouldn't advocate it. Remember my point about the status quo being the default? If we were starting with a clean sheet of paper, then I would have the law be silent on it. But we aren't. Changing something from illegal to silent does sent a message of approval and I am not comfortable with that. But I wouldn't enforce it. At some point, your own expressions of moral disapproval could become hate speech. It's only hate speech when it disapproves of a class, not when it disapproves of a behavior. I can condemn murder on the steps of the Capital with a bullhorn and it will not be hate speech.