Things that are more difficult redside, and hence more fun.

You are refuting my method, not my concept or opinion. I'm certainly feeling assaulted as a result. A debate is between concepts and ideas. You simply provided me with the opposing logical infallibility of "Oh yeah, well maybe some people DO think it's alright."

Well of course some people think it's alright! That doesn't change my opinion of them, either.

My method may be flawed, but that doesn't do anything to change my argument.


I'm told not to deal in absolutes, and am now presented with an absolute: That if I can't accept some social precedents I can't accept any.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm seeing in this "debate" is a bunch of people poking fun at a few words because they don't encompass EVERY eventuality. When that's not the case, I get this kind of stretching, as if it changes anything. You're arguing semantics while you understand the message. Don't like that the wording is exactly right? Tough. An opposing opinion isn't always going to measure up to exacting standards.

What aggravates me is that we're not discussing the opinions, but the exact wording, and I feel we're missing the point when it comes to that. It's wasting time and it's not dealing with the issue...

Plus, it tells me you can't come up with a proper way to defend your opposing point of view. You provide examples of it happening throughout history (which illustrated the fallibility of my absolute on its own, but you kept hamming on that like it was important), but the examples are shot down by the weight of their own end results. They illustrate my point just as readily.

The other argument I was given was one of "Well, he did this nice stuff for us, so we should allow him his depravity..."

That's like letting a serial child killer off the hook because he helped build a hospital. Yeah, he helped build the hospital, but he'll still be killing kids... And we could have still built the hospital without him.

You do not redeem yourself just to keep doing the horrible things you do. This is why I don't understand Confession. You are what you do, and if you're sleeping with your offspring, and you're increasing the propensity for recessive traits and follow-up defects, you're just spreading what's wrong in you.

Well, that's reassuring... Be wary that the people around you don't take advantage of your trusting nature. Your attitude is a good one to have when heads are getting hot.

There are worse things in the world than murder. I always thought it strange that maiming isn't regarded as serious a crime. If anything it's worse, you have deformed or crippled somebody for life, but "hey, at least you didn't kill him..."

Arguments needn't be "X" countered by "Y". In fact, that's generally an unproductive way of arguing. Pointing out flawed premises and logical fallacy can at least cause a person to re-examine the way the think about something. If you can reach common premises then two logical people should be able to reach the same conclusion.

You stated that social precedent had no bearing on your morality, but then cited it to support your stance, an apparent contradiction of your premises. I knocked it mostly for giggles, because I find this whole conversation about whether a fictional dude piddled his fictional granddaught amusing.

Good critical thinking there until you misunderstood our discussion XD We aren't talking about whether he did have sex with his granddaughter (although that is a contentious issue in of itself) we are talking about whether that makes him a monster.

If you believe in sin and you are American, I will make the generalisation that you are Christian. Therefore, you are contradicting yourself as no sin is unforgivable in the Christian religion.

In my opinion, the 10% pass rate for the Powers Department (although it could certainly be a conspiracy like one of the above posters suggested) if I were a Loyalist I would believe that that 90% were killed because they are a danger to utopia. And yep, that does take away their freedom, but again, as a Loyalist I would say "90% of metahumans, or 100% of the population of the world?".

I'll forgive the assumption, for I am not a Christian. You made an astute educated guess there, but I do not practice any denominational faith.

The closest faith I could be associated with would probably be Buddhism, but I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist because I don't follow any of the ritual or specific teachings. I really am a "live and let live" sort of person, but there are a few things that I simply cannot abide. Children and family are sacred to me, and it bothers me to see either abused.

Just because I shirk some teachings does not mean I have learned nothing from life. If I had to take an "all or nothing" approach to my education, I would have had to learn about the Moon Landing while at the same time internalizing the conspiracy theories that the Moon Landing was faked. I would have had to learn about the Holocaust while reading up on racist theories that it never happened. Barring all of this, I would sit in my house and stare at a blank wall until I forgot how to breathe.

There are practical reasons why I shirk the precedents and philosophies of the past while embracing more modern ones. We learned over time that those concepts proved themselves false as they devastated the people practicing them. Others were proven monstrous by their sheer audacity and lack of respect for their fellow human beings.

I like to think I adhere to the progressive lines of thinking, and anytime I hear about incestuous behavior it only strikes me as holding back progress (evolutionary or otherwise). It also strikes me as deeply manipulative and reeks of greed. As I said before, parents are supposed to be educating their children to survive in the world, not abusing their authority over them for their own gratification. Characters who embody this as one of their defining qualities are lost causes to me, for they are given wholly over to depravity in my eyes.

I think some argument could be made for a personification of Envy being Evil. "Evil" also doesn't immediately imply "effectual". Would you feel the same about Recluse if he WAS able to overcome Cole? Would he be Evil if he WON and conquered Paragon City? Because if his "not evil" is simply because he's a failure, then that's not really a fair judgement. You shouldn't need to be successful to qualify as being Evil. There are plenty of Evil failures.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

Depends on the Christian sect in question. Some sects do, in fact, have unforgivable sins.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

That's not biblically accurate. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters (Genesis 3:4). The sons would have married their sisters and nieces. Cain is mentioned specifically as having a wife, the others are assumed since there was male and female offspring and the daughters are kinda glossed over.

Still incest, but not parent/child.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

No, success would not equate Evil for Recluse. In fact the only thing that may may change, is removing the 'pathetic' descriptor. That is, depending on how he managed to finally succeed. Remember, the two plans we've actually seen him engage in is "Get someone else to do it" and "lock the future in place so it doesn't matter what he does, the outcome is, he wins."

My mistake. I haven't read Genisis in a few years, so knew I screwed something up somewhere.

With love,
Me! <3

Like a CO lifer going ahead and buying an STO lifetime sub?

Actually, wouldn't Adam and Eve count as that? If she's made from him, then isn't that like her being some sort of offspring?

But they haven't had the opportunities of men to kill so many.

Its more likley that than over any gender inherent of niceness.

They have - in the past, women were the main ones who prepared food - and that's the ideal place for poisoning someone
You could wipe out a whole castle that way - much faster and safer than a siege

Of course, Caine was cast out to Nod before Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden. Presumably, Caine took his wife (/sister) with him to Nod, as she bore him a son, Enoch, and then Caine built a city and named it after his son. But unless Enoch (and Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, and Lamech) was bedding Caine's wife or their own sisters/nieces/aunts, the city had a population of three (plus any of Enoch's sisters) before Enoch had a child, then there were people in Nod before Caine got there.

Well, in the interest of actually "arguing" then... I will lay aside semantics if you will (not that you have used that as a tactic... yet).

I guess I keep wondering why you have brought up genetic issues and birth defects via incest so much on one hand, and then used terminology such as "unforgivable sin" on the other. It has me confused: is your argument a logical one (incest has bad results, therefore don't do it) or a moral one (incest is wrong) or is it both?

Which, I suppose, brings me to another point. Compare, if you will, a genetic anomaly that crops up in a child of a consensual act of incest to a baby born with some genetic condition that the parents knew there was a good chance of it getting based on their own genetic predisposition. Does that mean that it is unforgivable also for known carriers of genetic diseases to reproduce? The same effect is created in the child (genetic problems) and the same knowledge is basically present (most people know that incest can bring about issues in their children). I am pointing this out to see just where you would draw the line. If one is bad, why not the other?

Trust me, I am about the most cynical and guarded person I know. Few take advantage of the trust I do mete out... because it is not given lightly. What I expressed to you earlier was my ability to step back a bit and look at words for what they really are. Something I am only good at when not arguing fervently. At this point, it is purely intellectual for me. I have no emotional stake in this.

You know, I think I agree with you. But it would be very hard to make practical. Imagine prison terms and murder rates as a result... You get life for making someone lose a finger, but only 10 years (or something) for murder. I think that people who busted each other up in a fight pretty bad would just finish the job in order to have it easier.

I still say it's possible to be both Evil AND Pathetic.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

While I agree that makes logical sense, most Christians, however, do not accept that interpretation.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

Yup. Phipps is a good example of that.

I'll resist a CO/Jack joke this time

The advent of genetic screening and IVF makes this less of an issue. The moral ambiguity gets reduced when only the embryos are press screened before implantation.

I've used it before in other arguments only to find I felt unsatisfied with the end result.

Then I realized I normally argued semantics simply because I couldn't find a logical retort. I'm not saying that's the idea here ("nerds" are wont to argue semantics and specification, largely because they're trying to be sure of exactly what they're talking about), but the focus on semantics still draws away from the topic at hand.

A little of both, really. The behavior has been demonstrated to be counterproductive to human progress, indeed to the progress of many creatures (animal breeders don't like to breed relative animals because of this risk; purebred Dalmations are a good example, as it is getting increasingly rare to acquire one that is free of maladies), so I have trouble understanding how anybody can see it as proper behavior.

As for referring to it as a sin, I personally see the behavior as an affront to humanity and society. It is the pinnacle of isolationism and ignorance, as the family is hoarded to itself in the interest of some unsettling ideal of "purity." I may be using an overly too serious word, but I can only think of saying aberrant, abhorrent and reprehensible (oh wait, I haven't used that one, yet) so often.

You know, now that I'm forced to the point, yes, I have trouble with parents who are clearly diseased creating children. It strikes me as torturous to the child and extremely irresponsible. Roughly the same chance exists between the scenarios that the child will come out perfectly alright, and that's not a very high chance at all.

However... As the gene pool of a line is further diversified, the congenital defects and disorders stand a better chance of fading from the line. Such chances for improvement don't occur with an incestuous family line.

So, I still have less of a problem with genetically hindered parents having children than I do with an incestuous relationship. Both are a gamble, but at least the generally traditional relationship is still working toward improvement, while the other is a stagnating gene pool.