cococandy: But if they are ra'ped,
then having an abortion is no longer a crime?
Or if the child has the chance of being born abnormal having an abortion is no longer a crime?

Or if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother and foetus having an abortion is no longer a crime?

Or if one's wife got abducted and was molested during the time she was held against her will,got pregnant and was maybe released after a month in captivity. The husband and wife decide to get rid of the ensuing pregnancy they didn't commit a crime?

Maybe like crackhuas you think you can try shake me up with the abortion question but there's a reason why I'm not interested in going all over this abortion ish AGAIN just now.

And that's because
There can only be SELECTIVE abortion laws.
So abortion in some cases is a crime while in other cases it is not.
Do you now see why it is not in the same league with incest?

Saga is pulling your legs, honey.

He is not one of "them". Trust me sis.

carefreewannabe:
Saga is pulling your legs, honey.
He is not one of "them". Trust me sis.

I'm very sure he's not.
Neither are the others.
Pulling my legs seems to be the order of the day

Let me just humour them

carefreewannabe:

I am very disappointed now.

Why are you disappointed?

Is there a point to unnecessary elongation of arguments when it has been resolved?

Sagamite:

Why are you disappointed?

Is there a point to unnecessary elongation of arguments when it has been resolved?

I don't want to elongate arguments. I don't want to have another debate.

I just want to know your opinion on in.cest (between siblings, not homo.se*xuality) being a punishable act.

I am not going to contradict, neither am I going to agree.
I just want to know.

cococandy: But if they are ra'ped,
then having an abortion is no longer a crime?
Or if the child has the chance of being born abnormal having an abortion is no longer a crime?

Or if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother and foetus having an abortion is no longer a crime?

Or if one's wife got abducted and was molested during the time she was held against her will,got pregnant and was maybe released after a month in captivity. The husband and wife decide to get rid of the ensuing pregnancy they didn't commit a crime?

Maybe like crackhuas you think you can try shake me up with the abortion question but there's a reason why I'm not interested in going all over this abortion ish AGAIN just now.

And that's because
There can only be SELECTIVE abortion laws.
So abortion in some cases is a crime while in other cases it is not.
Do you now see why it is not in the same league with incest?

If your argument is that laws are selective and the Germans are being selective in applying their concept of "human rights" here, then I can see why. If not, I can't.

Neither do I want to be locked up.
So why jail me for drug runs when I'm just doing business like other business men out there.
Denying me The right to buy and sell.

Because that decision doesn't end with me or you alone. It affects others.

Now kindly stop trolling
Or
I'll stone you with the bone of the chicken I just finished eating if you won't behave

pickabeau1:

No...I don't want to be sterilized
Our love must culminate in children like everyone else

Why deny us rights available to others

Some parents have genetic issues n may have kids with other congenital diseases n are not sterilised

Why d double standard

cococandy:
I'm very sure he's not.
Neither are the others.
Pulling my legs seems to be the order of the day

Let me just humour them

GO AHEAD!

They are being sensible in applying the laws of human rights.
And being sensible requires some measure of selectivity.

Sagamite:

If your argument is that laws are selective and the Germans are being selective in applying their concept of "human rights" here, then I can see why. If not, I can't.

cococandy: Neither do I want to be locked up.
So why jail me for drug runs when I'm just doing business like other business men out there.
Denying me The right to buy and sell.

Because that decision doesn't end with me or you alone. It affects others.

Now kindly stop trolling
Or
I'll stone you with the bone of the chicken I just finished eating if you won't behave

You are side stepping my q

Drugs are harmful and introduce psychological change in the users.

What is harmful in two loving people who just want to be together... They just happen to be related

Why r u being selective in your bigotry...



On trolling....

U r d one trolling...selecting answers based on your feelings or whatever belief seems expedient

If your mantra is live n let live
How does it affect you what a brother n sister do in the comfort n privacy of their own home


Mind you these are the same reasons that led to the acceptance of homosexuality

Dbestmax:
Did u jst say dat or wia u jst thinking it

No...I mean it
After all in the same Europe
..my gay friends love each other and no one is hurt by them

carefreewannabe:

I don't want to elongate arguments. I don't want to have another debate.

I just want to know your opinion on in.cest (between siblings, not homo.se*xuality) being a punishable act.

I am not going to contradict, neither am I going to agree.
I just want to know.

It is disgusting and unnecessary, so should be banned.

That said, I think, as violently disgusting as it is, it is less disgusting than homosexual sex.

Societies need to make laws that is dependent on good morals and ban such (i.e. both) from mainstream.

If people (adults) then want to bone themselves behind closed doors, as long as we would not know about it and no one is coming to tell me "this is the 21st century! Accept it, it is funky", then it is not my business or concern.

If I suspect someone (an adult) is banging their sibling, I would not give a fck. Just like I don't give a fck if I know someone is an homosexual but the person is not putting it in front of me, calling me a bigot or telling me to accept it.

Sagamite:

It is disgusting and unnecessary, so should be banned.

That said, I think, as violently disgusting as it is, it is less disgusting than homosexual sex.

Societies need to make laws that is dependent on good morals and ban such (i.e. both) from mainstream.

If people (adults) then want to bone themselves behind closed doors, as long as we would not know about it and no one is coming to tell me "this is the 21st century! Accept it, it is funky", then it is not my business or concern.

If I suspect someone (an adult) is banging their sibling, I would not give a fck. Just like I don't give a fck if I know someone is an homosexual but the person is not putting it in front of me, calling me a bigot or telling me to accept it.

So disgust is the yardstick, right?

I am not commenting, just asking, both hands up, don't shoot, please.

cococandy: They are being sensible in applying the laws of human rights.
And being sensible requires some measure of selectivity.

Good!

Next time, we should all collectively tell them and Obama & Cameron and their impressionable, moronic mouthpiece proxies to fck off when they start their homosexuality crusade and criticising countries for banning homosexuality by referring to Human rights.

Every country on Earth selectively applies it.

Come to think of it, how come two consenting adults had sex and produced a child, then the authorities accuse them of inceest but yet only the man was sent to jail?

Sexist West?

carefreewannabe:

So disgust is the yardstick, right?

I am not commenting, just asking, both hands up, don't shoot, please.

Disgust is my yardstick for this one. For homosexuality, it is not the only yardstick.

Germany won't be alone on this smh

pickabeau1:

You are side stepping my q

Drugs are harmful and introduce psychological change in the users.

What is harmful in two loving people who just want to be together... They just happen to be related

Why r u being selective in your bigotry.

And I thought he was kidding.

And those psychological changes poses a threat to other people hence the ban.

Cigarretes are harmful to your health.
Cholesterol is too
Alchohol is too.
There's no law prohibiting them.
It is your body. Do as you wish. You'll only be warned of the possible harm to you.

A law only comes in place when your consumption of such things makes you a danger to the next person.
That's why drinking isn't a crime but drinking and driving is(it affects the next person)

Ince'st is too because it affects the next person(the future generation)

So what's living and let live by allowing someone do something that has the possibility of affecting the next person negatively?

Just give it up pickabeau. You don't have a point this time.

pickabeau1:

You are side stepping my q

Drugs are harmful and introduce psychological change in the users.

What is harmful in two loving people who just want to be together... They just happen to be related

Why r u being selective in your bigotry...



On trolling....

U r d one trolling...selecting answers based on your feelings or whatever belief seems expedient

If your mantra is live n let live
How does it affect you what a brother n sister do in the comfort n privacy of their own home


Mind you these are the same reasons that led to the acceptance of homosexuality






No...I mean it
After all in the same Europe
..my gay friends love each other and no one is hurt by them

Dis is Soooo strange

cococandy:
And I thought he was kidding.

And those psychological changes poses a threat to other people hence the ban.

Cigarretes are harmful to your health.
Cholesterol is too
Alchohol is too.
There's no law prohibiting them.
It is your body. Do as you wish. You'll only be warned of the possible harm to you.

A law only comes in place when your consumption of such things makes you a danger to the next person.
That's why drinking isn't a crime but drinking and driving is(it affects the next person)

Ince'st is too because it affects the next person(the future generation)

So what's living and let live by allowing someone do something that has the possibility of affecting the next person negatively?

Just give it up pickabeau. You don't have a point this time.

You r still going roundabout in a circle

1.How does incêst affect YOU
Simple q

2. Does homosexuality affect you.how

Explain please....


Using disgust to determine another's human rights
I expect logic

As sagamite has said he is more disgusted with homosexuality than incëst

So where do we stop

Dbestmax:

Dis is Soooo strange

Why strange

What is your opinion on homosexuality

You're trying to make me argue for gay rights.
Sadly I'm indifferent to that ish.

I would be all up in arms against it,if I know of the negative effect it has on anyone apart from the couple.(To me that should be the basis of selectivity)

But I can't find any such reason all the while I've known about it, so I've kept my opinion about it to myself until such a time as when we will have the reason to backed with proof to argue against it.

Sagamite:

Good!

Next time, we should all collectively tell them and Obama & Cameron and their impressionable, moronic mouthpiece proxies to fck off when they start their homosexuality crusade and criticising countries for banning homosexuality by referring to Human rights.

Every country on Earth selectively applies it.

cococandy: You're trying to make me argue for gay rights.
Sadly I'm indifferent to that ish.

I would be all up in arms against it,if I know of the negative effect it has on anyone apart from the couple.(To me that should be the basis of selectivity)

But I can't find any such reason all the while I've known about it, so I've kept my opinion about it to myself until such a time as when we will have the reason to backed with proof to argue against it.

I am not trying to make you argue for homosexuality.

Prior to this, I never knew if you were for or against homosexuality, so I can't be trying to push you.

All I was trying to do was highlight the hypocrisy of the West considering their consistent moronic arguments about why homosexuality should be legal.

Their moronic arguments piss me off and this is one way to show it was moronic. That's all.

It is a shame the Western media is extremely bias in favour of homosexuality, otherwise we would have had one of them ask the Western leaders like Obama (and the other advocators) how come he supports homosexuality but is not fighting for the ban of polygamy and inceest.

I would pay a million dollars to watch him answer like a confused person.

pickabeau1:

Why strange

What is your opinion on homosexuality

U know I think Homosexuality defines d fact dat same sex mating is actually wrong..hw can u insert a dickk in a place meant for removing excreta...
Dat tells it all....
homosexualty is not individual right...rada...an infringement to individual rights...coupled with ignorance...totally devilish

Sagamite:

I am not trying to make you argue for homosexuality.

Prior to this, I never knew if you were for or against homosexuality, so I can't be trying to push you.

All I was trying to do was highlight the hypocrisy of the West considering their consistent moronic arguments about why homosexuality should be legal.

Their moronic arguments piss me off and this is one way to show it was moronic. That's all.

It is a shame the Western media is extremely bias in favour of homosexuality, otherwise we would have had one of them ask the Western leaders like Obama (and the other advocators) how come he supports homosexuality but is not fighting for the ban of polygamy and inceest.

I would pay a million dollars to watch him answer like a confused person.

Good to know you have a million dollars.

@bold

You can't answer the question all by yourself?

You're the one going in circles.
Maybe you need to take a break and come read again.

Homosexuality doesn't affect me or anyone apart from the couple involved.

Inceest affects both the couple and their next generation.
If allowed,the soceity will receive a healthy dose of deformity which will be passed if it continues.
So the law isn't about how the law makers feel about it.
But is based on the possible consequence which they are trying to avoid.

If that is not logic to you,I wonder what is.

Who's talking of making decision based on disgust?

You're the one using disgust as your yardstick here.
Homosexuality disgusts you so it should be banned.
Incesst disgusts you so likewise.



Both to me are not desirable. But what appeals to me shouldn't be the basis on which laws are made.
What makes you even think either of them disgust me?
I'm more about consequences than how I feel about them.
I've learnt my feelings shouldn't decide how others live their lives.
So my point against ince'sst isn't based on feelings but logic


If brother and sister can mate without producing a kid. Then knock me if I try to mock them.
(I go just face my front)
Sadly it will affect everyone at large. Hence this.

You on the other hand are all about disgust. Trying to use incee'st to paint homosexuality black. So don't try to turn tables.

You've been given a good reason why ince'sst shouldn't be allowed.
If you decide that reason isn't enough,(because that reason can't be applied to homosexuality) the good for you.

You stop at the line where it hurts the next person's existence duh

pickabeau1:

You r still going roundabout in a circle

1.How does incêst affect YOU
Simple q

2. Does homosexuality affect you.how

Explain please....


Using disgust to determine another's human rights
I expect logic

As sagamite has said he is more disgusted with homosexuality than incëst

So where do we stop

Dbestmax:
U know I think Homosexuality defines d fact dat same sex mating is actually wrong..hw can u insert a dickk in a place meant for removing excreta...
Dat tells it all....
homosexualty is not individual right...rada...an infringement to individual rights...coupled with ignorance...totally devilish

In that case any further discussion between you and I is not needed

Because the same argument that led to acceptance of homosexual can be applied here

Who r they hurting

I am waiting for cococandy response

pickabeau1:

Who r they hurting

I am waiting for cococandy response

For the millionth and one time. The kids to be borne of their union.
If that's not a good enough reason for you,you and I shouldn't be debating either

carefreewannabe:

Can you read?

And wat did you read?

cococandy:
For the millionth and one time. The kids to be borne of their union.
If that's not a good enough reason for you,you and I shouldn't be debating either

So with all the facts that only 10 to 30 percent of kids from an incestuous relationship are at risk of congenital defects..you continue spouting this your line?


Do u think kids raised in a 2 father or 2 mother scenario are better than those raised by a man n woman who JUST happen to be related

Are u advocating sterilisation of couples with genetic issues so they don't have kids who will be a disturbance to you

Heck..why not make laws to sterilise parents who could have genes with downs syndrome since it affects the next generation

Coco's.world..where disgust determines which laws reign

cococandy: You're the one going in circles.
Maybe you need to take a break and come read again.
Homosexuality doesn't affect me or anyone apart from the couple involved.
Inceest affects both the couple and their next generation.
If allowed,the soceity will receive a healthy dose of deformity which will be passed if it continues.
So the law isn't about how the law makers feel about it.
But is based on the possible consequence which they are trying to avoid.
If that is not logic to you,I wonder what is.
Who's talking of making decision based on disgust?
You're the one using disgust as your yardstick here.
Homosexuality disgusts you so it should be banned.
Incesst disgusts you so likewise.
Both to me are not desirable. But what appeals to me shouldn't be the basis on which laws are made.
What makes you even think either of them disgust me?
I'm more about consequences than how I feel about them.
I've learnt my feelings shouldn't decide how others live their lives.
So my point against ince'sst isn't based on feelings but logic
If brother and sister can mate without producing a kid. Then knock me if I try to mock them.
(I go just face my front)
Sadly it will affect everyone at large. Hence this.
You on the other hand are all about disgust. Trying to use incee'st to paint homosexuality black. So don't try to turn tables.
You've been given a good reason why ince'sst shouldn't be allowed.
If you decide that reason isn't enough,(because that reason can't be applied to homosexuality) the good for you.
You stop at the line where it hurts the next person's existence duh

cococandy:
I'm very sure he's not.
Neither are the others.
Pulling my legs seems to be the order of the day

Let me just humour them

I have read your response to him, you did not humour me.

If there's a 50% possibility that the offspring from an incestuous relationship will be born normal, would you support it then?

carefreewannabe:

Saga is pulling your legs, honey.

He is not one of "them". Trust me sis.

I wonder if this was supposed to make 'us' feel bad...

Remember that thin line between confidence and cockiness again?

.

carefreewannabe:

Good to know you have a million dollars.

Your problem is that you don't know who my FAAAADA is.

carefreewannabe:
@bold

You can't answer the question all by yourself?

What do you mean?