SportsAndLady;1542709 wrote:You're cool with brothers fucking their sisters?

ernest_t_bass;1542711 wrote:Because I wouldn't call the COPS means that I'm "cool with it?"

SportsAndLady;1542709 wrote:You're cool with brothers fucking their sisters?

ohiobucks1;1542705 wrote:It is. I just looked up the statute. Life imprisonment if its Dad, Mom, Daughter, Son, Sister, Brother, Uncle, Aunt, Nephew, or Niece

O-Trap;1542191 wrote:I don't know who made the first move, and I'd rather not ask. I haven't really gone out of my way to talk to the guy since finding out.

I agree that they should at least have the kids taken away. I don't really care if they go to jail.

justincredible;1542743 wrote:I am fine with consenting adults doing whatever they want in their bedroom. Even if it is creepy as shit. They aren't trampling on my rights, why should IGAF?

justincredible;1542743 wrote:I am fine with consenting adults doing whatever they want in their bedroom. Even if it is creepy as shit. They aren't trampling on my rights, why should IGAF?

SportsAndLady;1542771 wrote:Lol okay.

Because you should definitely be able to do whatever you want in your own home, right?

SportsAndLady;1542771 wrote:Lol okay.

Because you should definitely be able to do whatever you want in your own home, right?

SportsAndLady;1542689 wrote:I'm not going to respond to that entire post, as I don't really want to. But you seem to keep bringing up my "assumptions" I am simply saying in the case they have a child, that child is going to be fucked up to all eternity. Someone needs to say something to the police. They're fucking brothers and sisters for christ sake. They should not be fucking each other. Period.

Also, drunk drivers don't hurt anybody until they crash, right? Does a drunk driver going the speed limit and driving correctly, wrong? By your same argument, drunk driving isn't bad because you can't assume they hurt anybody. Right?

jmog;1542755 wrote:If I was the ex-husband of the sister, I would be fighting for full custody with no visitation, because you know he knows what is going on.

The incest would be front and center of the custody hearings.

jmog;1542776 wrote:Your assumptions are off still.

1. It is slightly less than 50/50 that a child from incest will have any problems mentally/physically at all. Yes, that is a HUGE number compared to less than 7% of babies from non-related parents. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that the child will be impared (and many of the 50% are slight problems).

2. Maybe one of them are 'fixed'? Maybe they can't have kids anymore. It doesn't make it 'right' as it is still morally wrong in my opinion, but would that change your "call the cops now!" attitude?

If this were me and it were my family, I would definitely try to get the kids out of the situation and let the adults be idiots. If I was in OTraps position, of barely knowing them, I wouldn't get involved either.

Trust me, I guarantee you the exes of both of them are VERY involved right now, especially with their own kids involved.

SportsAndLady;1542804 wrote:I'm not saying my attitude about this is "call the cops now!" Just saying if I was in otraps situation I would call the cops for sure. Wouldn't get involved just would make an anonymous call to the cops.

The less incest out there, the better.

ohiobucks1;1542822 wrote:You guys are missing the biggest point off all of this, by saying that because it's not effecting you that you should not GAF.


American's criminal law system was built with both retribution and utilitarianism in mind. However, it is mostly utilitarian in common law. What that means is that our criminal system was established to prevent people from doing things that go against what we deem to be against our conscious/social norms.

Anything that makes society "cringe" has statutes made to criminalize it. Incest is one of those offenses.

Incest may not effect YOU per se, but if 99% of you say that it is absolutely wrong, then it should be punished. That is the ideal our system is built on. It's the same argument that people that are pro-marijuana are currently (rather successfully) making throughout the country. Since society does not deem Mary-jane to be "Bad" anymore, it shouldn't be according to utilitarians.

ohiobucks1;1542822 wrote:You guys are missing the biggest point off all of this, by saying that because it's not effecting you that you should not GAF.


American's criminal law system was built with both retribution and utilitarianism in mind. However, it is mostly utilitarian in common law. What that means is that our criminal system was established to prevent people from doing things that go against what we deem to be against our conscious/social norms.

Anything that makes society "cringe" has statutes made to criminalize it. Incest is one of those offenses.

Incest may not effect YOU per se, but if 99% of you say that it is absolutely wrong, then it should be punished. That is the ideal our system is built on. It's the same argument that people that are pro-marijuana are currently (rather successfully) making throughout the country. Since society does not deem Mary-jane to be "Bad" anymore, it shouldn't be according to utilitarians.

I Wear Pants;1542828 wrote:And its a shitty way to do that, allows majorities to make minorities they don't like illegal. Legal retribution should be used for things that cause harm, not for what we think is icky.

justincredible;1542824 wrote:For the most part, America's criminal law system is fucked. Just because I (or society in general) don't like something doesn't mean someone should go to jail for doing it, so long as they aren't violating the rights of another person.

ohiobucks1;1542831 wrote:Your belief is un-american .

But seriously, that is how/why laws should/are supposed to be made.

Does doing drugs effect another person? No, but it's still criminalized. Why? Because it goes against our societal norms.

justincredible;1542834 wrote:I also disagree that drugs are criminalized because of societal norms.