freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
The harm from incest comes in at least two forms. One is abuse of power, which can happen even if both parties are adults. This undermines the concept of consent.
But it can occur in non-incestual relationships too, so why is it only legitimate in your eyes to curb people's freedom over it in this case?
And how do you justify curbing the freedom of those who have relationships of this nature that clearly don't involve abuse of power?
It seems that, not unlike me, you also disapprove of freedom when it comes to acts you consider to be wrong. You just aren't honest enough to admit it, fearing you'll appear as a hypocrite after harping on about unfettered freedom all this time.
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
There is also obviously harm to the potential offspring. This can theoretically be negated with birth control, though that would then involve the government interfering in your sex life and is unlikely to be effective.
Well I guess that's the choice they can make, no? Also there's plenty of people with inheritable genetic conditions, yet we don't intervene in their family planning choices, why not?
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
We have all sorts of double standards when it comes to animals.
So make yourself consistent then.
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
Buggering them does harm them.
I'm sure there's plenty of cases in which it doesn't. In those cases it should be legalised? For instance a female human pairing with a male horse is obviously dangerous to the human, but I'm sure the opposite way around should be ok in your freedom worshipping utopia shouldn't it?
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
Plus I suspect it can transmit nasty new disaeases.
Same with homosexuality, you don't seem to mind that. As the proponents of homosexuality argued: "If you practice safe sex, then it reduces the risks".
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
We generally assign a very limited set of rights to animals, usually along the lines of pain can only be justified for food and must be minimised where practicable.
I'm sure many animals would prefer to be buggerised than carved up and consumed.
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
Many people are harmed by drug abuse. This is an area of very active discussion regarding freedom and other values, as there are plenty of people who use hard drugs without harming others, and a lot of the damage is a result of legislation and not the drug abuse alone.
How about drinking goom?
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
In assisted suicide, the person assisting does harm to the person they kill, by killing them.
But they asked them to. They call it "mercy killing". So unassisted suicide is alright then?
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
Self mutilation is an act of freedom.
Your kind of freedom, yes, mine, no.
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
People do this sort of thing to varying degrees (starting with piercings and tattoos). I think we only intervene when it appears the person has psychological problems and will end up regretting it when those problems go away.
So people who have amputation fetishes and the like, no go? But if you just like to slash your skin a bit, it's all good?
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
Can you give a rough indication of what your concept of freedom is - as I did above?
My concept of freedom is simple, whatever God has permitted for us is allowed.
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
How can you reconcile this concept of freedom with slavery
Slavery in Islam is abolished except in one case. That of those who wage war against the Muslims. In this case they forfeit their rights to freedom. So it's quite easily reconcilable, as slavery is not something Islam promotes, it merely retains it as a punishment for one certain crime.
Imprisoning people is pretty much the same thing. People are imprisoned for life in this society, yet you don't think it is slavery... why not?
freediver wrote on Mar 20
th, 2012 at 12:47pm:
stoning people to death for rejecting Islam, all all the other ways that Islamic law restricts people's choice?
Again, do you think capital punishment for treason in the U.S means they don't believe in your vague concept of "freedom"?