Atheist Professor Lawrence krauss rationalizes Incest

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Conditioning drives behavior, not impulses. Example: We've all been conditioned not to be attracted to underage chicks, but if I asked, "Are you disgusted by the sight of a stacked 16 year old." none of us would honestly answer "no". I didn't ask if he fukked his sister, I asked if he was naturally attracted to her.

i dont know breh. i dont feel like ive been conditioned to not be attracted to stacked 16 year olds

 

[BlvdBrawler]

i dont know breh. i dont feel like ive been conditioned to not be attracted to stacked 16 year olds

 

[valet]

Didn't read the whole thread but I've said. With the way right and wrong is determined by some, I see no reason consider gay incest wrong. No babies being made. And if consenting adult is the main factor then that will be the next phase in society.

 

[Chris Mauro]

i dont know breh. i dont feel like ive been conditioned to not be attracted to stacked 16 year olds

if you're over 21 you shouldn't actively pursue or wife up a 16 yr old




but, 16 is the legal age of consent in most states and if she's a whore that's throwing the box at you then I don't see nothing wrong with taking it....or atleast getting some dome


It's not against the law my g

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

if you're over 21 you shouldn't actively pursue or wife up a 16 yr old

Why? 16 is legal.

The age of consent in New Jersey is 16.

There is an exception. If the victim is less than 18 and the partner is a parent, guardian, sibling or any other person closer than a fourth cousin or has any type of authority over the victim (for example, a teacher) then the assailant may be charged with a crime. For instance, it's criminal for a manager of any age to have sex with a 17 year-old subordinate, even if the sex was consensual.

State law specifies (by not saying anything) that minors between 13 and 15 years old may, in general, engage in a consensual sexual relationship with someone up to four years older. Therefore, for example, it is legal for a 14-year-old male or female to engage in consensual sex with a person up to 18 years of age.

Specifically, NJ state law details three circumstances of sexual assault under which the age of consent is pertinent.

For aggravated sexual assault (a crime of the first degree), a person must have committed sexual penetration (that is, intercouse, oral or anal sex or something inserted) while either (1) the victim was under 13 or (2) the assailant exercised some legal or occupational authority over the victim who was between 13 and 15. (All other conditions for aggravated sexual assault do not impact the NJ age of consent.)

Simple sexual assault (a crime of the second degree) is defined in two ways.
First, a person must have committed sexual contact (that is, intentional touching of intimate parts for sexual gratification) while the victim was under 13 and the assailant was over four years older. Or, second, a person must have committed sexual penetration (defined above under aggravated sexual assault) while not using force and either (1) the victim was 16 or 17 and one of the following conditions was true:

(a) the assailant was a third cousin or closer OR
(b) the assailant exercised some authority over the victim OR
(c) the assailant was a legal guardian in the household of the victim
or (2) the victim was between 13 and 15 and the assailant was over four years older. (All other conditions for simple sexual assault do not impact the NJ age of consent.)

For more information, see the actual NJ statutes at N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2

Who are you to tell me what I 'shouldn't' do??​

 

[Chris Mauro]

Why? 16 is legal.



Who are you to tell me what I 'shouldn't' do??​

cause it just don't look right to be chasing no young broad like that.




But if she's the one thats tryna hop on the train then

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

cause it just don't look right to be chasing no young broad like that.

It's perfectly legal. Whether it 'looks right' is just your opinion and ultimately meaningless.​

 

[Kings County]

God is immortal

:menlie:

thats a stupid talking point thats yall been spewing for ages because you have no proof of his existance.
3000 years is the beginning of mankind? :menlie:


why they dont talk about other planets in the bible, dinosaurs?

 

[Fervid]

Atheists cant rationalize anything as wrong accept believing in God. These cacs are pathetic but when you turn from God trash like this become your allies. Stop it, its disgusting!

Make sense much? Is English your second language?

 

[Mowgli]

Make sense much? Is English your second language?

Yes

 

[Mowgli]

You nikkas are stupid.

Explain this logic because it makes no sense. What i just said was highly intellectual.

 

[Swagnificent]

No, there aren't unless you have a pre-existing genetic disorder that you don't want to pass down to your progeny. Evolution doesn't explain morality since it isn't concerned with 'right' and 'wrong' in a moral sense. Incest is 'disgusting' to you because of societal conditioning and probably because your siblings are ugly. If you had a cousin that looked like this......

....you'd be trying to hit it like a H@LLOW thread.​

No. There is natural repulsion most people have to incest. I'm not saying incest is right or wrong morally. Incest is just disgusting to me. Just like gay behavior is repulsive to me because I'm straight.

The reason I support a ban of incest rather than a ban on gay behavior is because incest has potentially damaging results to the genetic pool. If those problems no longer exist then I wouldn't have any problem with incest.

 

[Swagnificent]

No, it doesn't at all.

Example: Do you have a sibling? Are you naturally drawn to them in a sexual way? Why or why not? I'm gonna need "reason, logic, and evidence" backing up whatever your answer is, btw.

Aaaaaand, go.

Note: If you don't have a sibling, then use your mother as an example.

you moron.....I said reason, logic, and evidence are needed when it comes to validating what is right or wrong.

I understand that evolution and society has conditioned me to certain inclinations. One those obviously being not attracted sexually to my siblings. But its also conditioned me to not be sexually attracted to other men.

Now just because I have this inclinations doesn't mean that those actions are somehow morally right or wrong. I determine what is right or wrong by using reason, logic, and evidence. As a result, even though I find gay behavior disgusting personally, there is no reason using logic, reason, or evidence to say that it is morally wrong.

Similarly, the only way to determine whether incest is morally wrong is to use our faculties of reason, logic, and evidence to determine if there are good reasons to ban such behavior. Regardless of what some of you have posted about genetic defects not being that big a deal, there are many good evolutionary reasons for incest being considered non-beneficial. One of them being that it would limit the genetic pool. Diversity is more beneficial to future off-spring than simply recycling the same genes over and over again. That is why even in the rest of the animal kingdom there is a preference for off-spring with non-relatives. Evolution has conditioned us this way. And that is why I would still support laws against incest.

If these evolutionary reasons no longer applied, then there would be no reason to ban incest or consider it morally wrong.

 

[Higher Tech]

Explain this logic because it makes no sense. What i just said was highly intellectual.

Why waste my time. I think both of yall are trolls anyway.

 

[Mowgli]

Why waste my time. I think both of yall are trolls anyway.

You wasted 2 posts insulting me so i figure why not use your brain instead. Trolling would mean im just joking around, and im not.