English Forum Switzerland

English Forum Switzerland (https://www.englishforum.ch/forum.php)
-   Swiss politics/news (https://www.englishforum.ch/swiss-politics-news/)
-   -   Bundesrat wants to remove incest law (https://www.englishforum.ch/swiss-politics-news/101465-bundesrat-wants-remove-incest-law.html)

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 12:22

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolaschulz (Post 1042315)
I cannot see into the minds of potential or active paedophiles, but my opinion was, and still is, that the relaxing of certain laws may be seen as a green light, given that they already have a propensity to commit said crimes.


Again you simply restate your sole argument without providing any further reasons we should believe you.

Upthehatters2008 12.12.2010 12:29

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastro Gnome (Post 1042422)
Nature with a capital 'N'? Is this like God with a capital 'G'?

Nice try, but fail. Grammatical diversions are a bit tiresome and distract from the main point. It has been made clear by me many times in many posts that I am an atheist and that the issues at hand here are beyond morals and ethics. But let me assist you anyway, and pour cold water on your attempt to open up a God Basher front in this argument.

Nature as in Mother Nature.
Get it ?

12.12.2010 12:35

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042430)
Nice try, but fail. Grammatical diversions are a bit tiresome and distract from the main point. It has been made clear by me many times in many posts that I am an atheist and that the issues at hand here are beyond morals and ethics. But let me assist you anyway, and pour cold water on your attempt to open up a God Basher front in this argument.

Nature as in Mother Nature.
Get it ?

No, I don't get it but GG's way too late. I already made the point that it seemed you were imbuing nature with an anthropomorphism that it didn't deserve page 6 of this thread I think). If we're both seeing it, maybe it's true. There are no "laws of nature". There are natural laws, but once broken even once, they're no longer laws. Come on UTH, you're better than that sort of sarcasm.

Mark75 12.12.2010 12:49

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVertigo (Post 1041350)
Seriously, the Bundesrat has no other urgent and important topics to address. How many people are concerned? Does it make sense to have a law for such few cases.

That's exactly the reason the Bundesrat gave for getting rid of the law. In recent years only about 3 or 4 people have been convicted per year.

Honestly, about 99.999% of the populace wouldn't even think about an incestious relationship (or only in disgust :p). So why prosecute those few who feel different? Don't have the courts anything more important to deal with?
IMHO it's none of the governments business anyway as long as only consenting adults are involved. So why not get rid of a law that's not really needed?

Upthehatters2008 12.12.2010 12:54

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by economisto (Post 1042434)
No, I don't get it but GG's way too late. I already made the point that it seemed you were imbuing nature with an anthropomorphism that it didn't deserve page 6 of this thread I think). If we're both seeing it, maybe it's true. There are no "laws of nature". There are natural laws, but once broken even once, they're no longer laws. Come on UTH, you're better than that sort of sarcasm.

I was parrying the stab by GG at implying My Natural beliefs were somehow religious.

I forgot to reply to yours about no laws in nature, there are of course. They are a superset of the Scientific laws. Males do not conceive and give birth being a start. Males do not menstruate. Whales do not fly.

12.12.2010 12:58

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042446)
I was parrying the stab by GG at implying My Natural beliefs were somehow religious.

I forgot to reply to yours about no laws in nature, there are of course. They are a superset of the Scientific laws. Males do not conceive and give birth being a start. Males do not menstruate. Whales do not fly.

Those are truisms not laws. Much as "some humans have intercourse with their siblings". If yours are laws then so is mine.

Upthehatters2008 12.12.2010 13:09

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by economisto (Post 1042447)
Those are truisms not laws. Much as "some humans have intercourse with their siblings". If yours are laws then so is mine.

No, my examples reflect that nature obeys physical laws. Maybe we should define Law here

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natur...edirected=true

12.12.2010 13:13

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042454)
No, my examples reflect that nature obeys physical laws. Maybe we should define Law here

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natur...edirected=true

Nature obeying physical laws doesn't mean there are Natural Laws since everything obeys physical laws. Your statement is instead, another truism.

Upthehatters2008 12.12.2010 13:18

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by economisto (Post 1042456)
Nature obeying physical laws doesn't mean there are Natural Laws since everything obeys physical laws. Your statement is instead, another truism.

My definition stands, physical laws are absolute (in theory anyhow), natural laws are observational events of physical laws in progress. When natural laws are broken, it is called a freak event. I am not saying natural laws cannot be broken, just that when they are it is an unnatural event. Incest clearly falls into the freak of nature exception list. Calling it a law or a truism ? Most txts refer to Natural Law avoiding the word truisms.

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 15:19

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042430)
Nice try, but fail. Grammatical diversions are a bit tiresome and distract from the main point. It has been made clear by me many times in many posts that I am an atheist and that the issues at hand here are beyond morals and ethics. But let me assist you anyway, and pour cold water on your attempt to open up a God Basher front in this argument.

Nature as in Mother Nature.
Get it ?

The replacement of 'God', with 'Nature' does not imply that you're seeing it religiously. I'm not saying that you're praying to the Earth or that you're trying to erect a new deity.

On the other hand, as one might challenge someone who believed in God to justify why and how that belief should translate into laws for human behaviour, so we might also ask why your particular conception of nature should translate into laws that seek to normalise behaviour. It's not the simple formulation you appear to think it is. You have to unpack it a bit.

You may be an atheist, and you also appear to have a veneer of science about your Mother Earth loving (it's all about observation). Nevertheless, your train of thought is clearly transcendental in nature . . . necessary, beyond humanity, unchangeable by humanity etc etc

You give the game away when you invoke Mother Nature. Yeah, I get it.

I've got a much simpler, more modern idea . . . Why don't we just stop telling other people how to live their lives?

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 15:21

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042457)
I am not saying natural laws cannot be broken, just that when they are it is an unnatural event.

I'm not making a rhetorical point here.

I'm just completely confused as to how you can decide what's 'natural' and what's not and why this should be used as a base for laws designed to normalise human behaviour.

At the moment it's not really coherent.

Upthehatters2008 12.12.2010 15:37

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastro Gnome (Post 1042556)
I'm not making a rhetorical point here.

I'm just completely confused as to how you can decide what's 'natural' and what's not and why this should be used as a base for laws designed to normalise human behaviour.

At the moment it's not really coherent.


Natural laws are based on observation and predictable reliable human behaviour. Consider the flow of human development, the natural order of partner selection is clear and obvious, and a natural law is formed to describe it. Incest falls outside of that law, the very name describes an unnatural position. It is to everyones credit that they define and protect the behind doors consented decision, but that does not invalidate the fact that it is an-natural act. The exception proves the rule. My argument has never been one based in morals or aversion.

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 16:52

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042454)
No, my examples reflect that nature obeys physical laws. Maybe we should define Law here

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natur...edirected=true

First you should read Aristotle and get a handle on his distinction between law and nature.

Second, skip to the end of the wiki article and read the bit about contemporary jurisprudence (which is related to what we're discussing in this thread).

Quote:

In jurisprudence, natural law can refer to the several doctrines:
That just laws are immanent in nature; that is, they can be "discovered" or "found" but not "created" by such things as a bill of rights;
That they can emerge by the natural process of resolving conflicts, as embodied by the evolutionary process of the common law; or
That the meaning of law is such that its content cannot be determined except by reference to moral principles. These meanings can either oppose or complement each other, although they share the common trait that they rely on inherence as opposed to design in finding just laws.
And then please explain what this has to do with your conception of Mother Nature and your concern about 'unnatural acts' and things like GMO. They're not really the same thing at all, except insofar as you have to resort to 'moral principles' . . . which it what your call to 'Nature' is, even if you don't recognise it yourself.

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 16:53

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042568)
Natural laws are based on observation and predictable reliable human behaviour. Consider the flow of human development, the natural order of partner selection is clear and obvious, and a natural law is formed to describe it. Incest falls outside of that law, the very name describes an unnatural position. It is to everyones credit that they define and protect the behind doors consented decision, but that does not invalidate the fact that it is an-natural act. The exception proves the rule. My argument has never been one based in morals or aversion.

So you're not averse to unnatural acts? The very un- is a sign of aversion.

Upthehatters2008 12.12.2010 16:54

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastro Gnome (Post 1042621)
First you should read Aristotle and get a handle on his distinction between law and nature.

Second, skip to the end of the wiki article and read the bit about contemporary jurisprudence (which is related to what we're discussing in this thread).



And then please explain what this has to do with your conception of Mother Nature and your concern about 'unnatural acts' and things like GMO. They're not really the same thing at all, except insofar as you have to resort to 'moral principles' . . . which it what your call to 'Nature' is, even if you don't recognise it yourself.

Save yourself some time and read my last post.

Upthehatters2008 12.12.2010 16:56

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastro Gnome (Post 1042623)
So you're not averse to unnatural acts? The very un- is a sign of aversion.

Again, read my previous reply to Mathnut as to my position in this argument.

Wollishofener 12.12.2010 18:11

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolaschulz (Post 1042315)
I cannot see into the minds of potential or active paedophiles, but my opinion was, and still is, that the relaxing of certain laws may be seen as a green light, given that they already have a propensity to commit said crimes.



there are some mistakes here

- paedophilia is not the same as incest
- there are clear and definite laws against paedophilia
- the law in question is NOT to be "relaxed" but to be deleted
- it is to be deleted as outdated and ineffective
- that paedophiles may have a "propensity" to commit incenst may be ----
---- but do you have proof for this theory ?
- people committing crimes generally do NOT expect to be caught

crime cannot be struggled against by outdated and ineffective laws, but only by modern and updated and to-the-point laws

to get into practical reality, a paedophile committing his deed in Bangkok is not better than the one who does so in Zurich. While a "returnee" is not to be handed over to Thailand, sufficient legal information supplied by the Thai judiciary should lead to legal proceedings here in Switzerland. A Thai delegate of the prosecution overthere should be allowed to court as assistant to the Swiss prosecutioner and as a procedural witness of the prosecution.

The "Holy Alliance of SVP CVP EVP" will succeed to keep an outdated law alive, unless the others provide more information and convincing information about their approach to tackle the problem

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 18:26

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042625)
Save yourself some time and read my last post.

I've read all of your posts and you keep saying the same thing. I really don't think I want to read all of your crap about banjo players again.

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 18:28

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042568)
Natural laws are based on observation and predictable reliable human behaviour. Consider the flow of human development, the natural order of partner selection is clear and obvious, and a natural law is formed to describe it. Incest falls outside of that law, the very name describes an unnatural position. It is to everyones credit that they define and protect the behind doors consented decision, but that does not invalidate the fact that it is an-natural act. The exception proves the rule. My argument has never been one based in morals or aversion.


OK. I've read it again. It still doesn't make sense.

Gastro Gnome 12.12.2010 18:34

Re: Bundesrat wants to remove incest law
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Upthehatters2008 (Post 1042568)
Natural laws are based on observation and predictable reliable human behaviour. Consider the flow of human development, the natural order of partner selection is clear and obvious, and a natural law is formed to describe it. Incest falls outside of that law, the very name describes an unnatural position. It is to everyones credit that they define and protect the behind doors consented decision, but that does not invalidate the fact that it is an-natural act. The exception proves the rule. My argument has never been one based in morals or aversion.

The first problem is that you are taking observation and deriving a norm. You are then applying that norm to a judgement on human behaviour. The move from descriptive to normative is problematic.

Secondly, just because something is rare in nature or indeed outside of the normal distribution does this mean it is unnatural? How about children who are born with developmental problems . . . they are outside of the 'normal' development process. Are they 'unnatural' in some sense. Your use of the word 'natural' remains undefined.

Lastly, you claim there is no moral sense or aversion in your use of the term unnatural. So what it the point of using it all, especially in a discussion about law.

One of your problems is that you have a muddled conception of what natural law means, as described on the wiki page.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:08.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0