Atheist Professor Lawrence krauss rationalizes Incest

[Higher Tech]

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.

 

[Mowgli]

 

[Dooby]

Accept homosexuality...this is what's next? Snowball effect, in full...effect

 

[BlvdBrawler]

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.

Since I'm a moron I must have missed your answer.

Again, are you naturally attracted to your siblings? Why or why not?

 

[Blackking]

stop writing long ass repetitive shyt

I don't care about what other consenting adults do sexually. If incest doesn't produce any tangible harm on society, then what siblings do should be none of our business. Simply thinking its disgusting isn't enough. Unless you can make an argument that society is harmed, then it isn't a strong argument. Its simply trying to force your preference onto others.

Once again, what I deem right or wrong depends on reason, logic, and evidence NOT some book written by bronze age peasants.

lol @ you believing that a person saying a man shouldn't fukk his sister, is solely based on the bible or some shyt. I don't think most people will have to invoke religion to find ur logic completely fukked

 

[Swagnificent]

Since I'm a moron I must have missed your answer.

Again, are you naturally attracted to your siblings? Why or why not?

I've already answered this many times. No. I'm not naturally attracted to me siblings. I don't know why exactly but I'm willing to guess its based on genetics and evolution.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

I've already answered this many times. No. I'm not naturally attracted to me siblings. I don't know why exactly but I'm willing to guess its based on genetics and evolution.

So then you would agree that there is some basis of morality in what most would consider basic laws of nature, no?

 

[Swagnificent]

lol @ you believing that a person saying a man shouldn't fukk his sister, is solely based on the bible or some shyt. I don't think most people will have to invoke religion to find ur logic completely fukked

you guys really do lack reading comprehension skills

Since I think the bible is a load of crap, I obviously know that incest laws are based on something more than the words of some bronze age peasants. All around the world in almost every human society, incest is looked down upon. Just like all other universal behaviors within the human family, there must be an obvious evolutionary advantage against incest. It must obviously harm the gene pool which is why most societies have banned it.

My argument was that if this reason didn't exist (incest harming society) then there would be no reason to consider it bad or immoral. There is no such thing as objective universal morality. Incest will not be wrong forever. If new technology can alleviate some of the social ills that are produced by incest, then it might not be wrong anymore. That is what Professor Krauss was arguing and what I'm trying to get through your stupid minds.

 

[Blackking]

you guys really do lack reading comprehension skills

Since I think the bible is a load of crap, I obviously know that incest laws are based on something more than the words of some bronze age peasants. All around the world in almost every human society, incest is looked down upon. Just like all other universal behaviors within the human family, there must be an obvious evolutionary advantage against incest. It must obviously harm the gene pool which is why most societies have banned it.

My argument was that if this reason didn't exist (incest harming society) then there would be no reason to consider it bad or immoral. There is no such thing as objective universal morality. Incest will not be wrong forever. If new technology can alleviate some of the social ills that are produced by incest, then it might not be wrong anymore. That is what Professor Krauss was arguing and what I'm trying to get through your stupid minds.

I made the case for evolutionary advantage... for some reason you brought up the bible and bronze age.. Incest will be wrong forever and I laid out exactly why in the previous post. We are fully aware what atheist prof was stating.. he is incorrect based on what we know about how societal ideas are formed.

 

[NoMayo15]

I'll accept the scholarship of a Social Anthropologist on this topic over the uneducated opinion of an astrophysicist. Genetic counseling is needed, not an outright ban.
​

Well wait a minute. To be fair, this author is talking about children from parents who are cousins. It says nothing about closely related persons like brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter .... which is what I think most people think when we talk about incest. Is there a legitimate source that can confirm that these type of relationships are also at no greater risk than typical ones?

 

[MostReal]

Accept homosexuality...this is what's next? Snowball effect, in full...effect

I tried to tell people but no one wants to listen

this is what this cover is meant to do, plant seeds

@Brown_Pride @BarNone

so we can debate about this disgusting mess but my thread gonna be locked

unlock my thread brehs

 

[88m3]

Spoiler

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Well wait a minute. To be fair, this author is talking about children from parents who are cousins. It says nothing about closely related persons like brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter .... which is what I think most people think when we talk about incest. Is there a legitimate source that can confirm that these type of relationships are also at no greater risk than typical ones?

1st cousins ARE 'closely related'.​

 

[NoMayo15]

1st cousins ARE 'closely related'.​

Spoiler

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Spoiler

​