BTFO

youtube.com/watch?v=mx457T7iWMA

Incestphobes BTFO'd !!!!!!!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/f1rPkeHodAc
vice.com/read/canadas-ridiculous-ruling-that-oral-sex-with-animals-is-legal-shows-need-for-new-bestiality-laws
ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar
youtube.com/watch?v=aWM4bJNpch0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Rationally there isn't really anything wrong with any act done amongst consenting adults. Not even cannibalism.

youtu.be/f1rPkeHodAc

That guy is retarded

>DA MILITARY WANTS TO STUDY ME PLS SUBSCRIBE

get your ass out of here

Can you explain why any act between two consenting adults should be made illegal?

How do you think royal bloodlines stayed royal?

I can't wait until liberals embrace rape as sexual diversity. They would go full circle.

Go fuck your dad and them bring me the answer.

Not an argument. Voluntary sexual intercourse does not violate the non-aggression principle.

Ive been saying it for a while now.

incest>pedophilia>bestiality>necrophilia

That's how the slope will slide.

>[arguing in molyneux language]

Oh, I got. Your dad already fucked you.

wtf I'm a liberal now

>molyneux language
The non-aggression principle does not come from youtubers, monkey man.

This is all a natural consequence of utilitarian morality, which is the only logical option when people abandon religion and spirituality

If everything that doesn't materially harm a person is permissible, which is essentially where we as a society are, there's literally no argument against stuff like incest

in other words you motherfuckers literally need jesus

incest>beastiality>pedophilia>necrophilia

vice.com/read/canadas-ridiculous-ruling-that-oral-sex-with-animals-is-legal-shows-need-for-new-bestiality-laws

Canada is almost there already.

How long before they are allowed to marry a fucking moose?

Because society doesn't end at the individual, and it doesn't end at law.

Look at SJWs, sometimes they try to change law but mostly they are trying to change morality, same thing with Jewish propaganda in movies, by changing the way people act you change the face of your entire society. Nothing wrong with being a faggot or two people of the same gender having sex. But then suddenly you have them all over the place, in pride parades, pushing for recognition and now every other character in a series is a gay dude and increasing numbers of men are experimenting or turning away from women altogether. So technically, two related individuals banging isn't that bad, except when it becomes widespread and this fucks people up even further. One of the psychological motivators for people to leave their families and start their own is getting laid outside of the family circle. You're going to screw your society if you allow this. Not to speak of the retarded, inbred children.

1.1. Non-aggression principle is bullshit.

1.2. You got that shit from Youtube.

1.3. Your dad fucked you.

>Non-aggression principle is bullshit.
Can you make a single argument as to why?

I think you could make a similar argument for bestiality as well if you really wanted to.

The basic consensus seems to be that it's illegal simply because animals can't consent, but does consent really matter? Do we ask for the cow's permission before slaughtering it? Do we ask for the cow's permission before milking it? Do we ask for the pig's permission before breeding it inside some factory farm and stuffing it into a cage so small that it can't even turn around in? The bottom line, is that an animal can't consent to many things, like having their baby being taken away, being milked, and being killed. If you can lawfully do all of these things to an animal without its consent, then how is having sex with it any more inhumane?

>Because society doesn't end at the individual, and it doesn't end at law.
The individual is everything.

Why should society care? The sexual act doesn't involve them. Get society out of the bedroom! The voyeuristic perverts.

well written post
shitty 4 word response

Honestly, that's why I shit post on Sup Forums. Putting effort into posts is wasted time.

Because the definition of aggression is highly subjective and supposes a strict libertarian definition of property. The NAP can therefore be used in almost any way its user intends, by changing the definition of aggression to suit their particular opinion/agenda.

Dead body is just an object. I'm allowed to have sex with my dead girlfriend, it's perfectly normal. It's no different than using a fleshlight, so what's the problem?

>ration
>morals
Don't be a fag. When discussing morals you can make arguments for your point, but if you start claiming some morals are more rational than others you might as well tip your fedora

Funny. Don't liberals make fun of right wingers as sister/cousin fuckers?

Elaborating on this, the individual is everything, and any laws which seek to restrict the individual outside of them restricting another individuals freedom, is wrong.

The definition of aggression is pretty solid, mate.

>is wrong.
Not an argument

This kind of arguing (amplification to the point of absurdity), while hilarious, doesn't always work. It can backfire.

One critic of abortion once told two feminists, "Give me one reason for abortion that can't also justify infanticide." They thought for a while and then came back with, "You've changed our mind. We're for killing babies now."

I like where your head is at, friendo.

25 words to say the same thing as in your 4 word post. Just stating something without explaining why is not an argument.
>restricting another individuals freedom, is wrong.
why

Because slavery is wrong, retards.

>slavery is wrong
Not an argument

>slavery isn't wrong
Fuck you!

You just started a new argument. "Restricting freedom = slavery". Elaborate on that and when you're done go back to the original argument.

Don't you know how to have a discussion. You can't just throw in arguments without explaining them or explaining arguments with other arguments.

Your PERSONAL definition of aggression is pretty solid.

Why do they have to be adults

No, the objective definition is pretty solid.

Every time I see that these interviews take place either in Venice or Santa Monica I just end up sad and numb.

I never said it's not wrong. I said saying something is wrong isn't an argument.

>Fuck you
Not an argument

5 years ago libs were chanting "muh slippery slope fallacy" when people were saying normalizing gay marriage would lead to more forms of deviancy being normalized

now look where we fucking are

The fact that you call your libertarian definition of aggression as "objective" doesn't make it objective, its just your wishful thinking.

Incest is fine with me as long as they abort any retard babies

its a society starting to crumble to nihilism, the girl that said she had no opinions even. nothing mattres

Retard babies only happen after repeated generations of it. A first time pairing has no more risk than non-related people. Not that it's ok or should be allowed, but it's a misconception.

>t. got an inbred in the family, completely normal and healthy

Its not fine. its a sign of a pathological family. If you want to be able to support homosexuality but reject incest. All you have to do is to say that: homosexuality is a normal natural phenomena (some percent of the population) It probably evolved for some purpose. You can also see this in animals.

Incest is damaging and its not seen in animals, And most people don't want it as long as its not something wrong with them.

Incest is actually observed in quite a few actually.

Dogs and Horses being the most obvious.

Why is the left so fucking degenerate?

...

>do not murder
>not more rational than do not eat pork
Really?

Is this Mark guy autistic? I couldn't watch the video beyond the 1 minute mark.

>are you kidding me?!!

As long as you use a space heater to warm up her thighs, you are fine It's only weird if you are fucking a cold pussy

>he fell for the moral relativism meme

literally nothing wrong with making love with a consenting adult relative

in fact there's nothing wrong with having kids with them either since it requires several generations for there to be birth defects and people let two midgets or otherwise genetic mutant peoples who would 100% have a deformed kid reproduce like its no big deal

>He thinks his personal morals are universal

only in england

This is great, you can see all the lie tells I seen on this video ,like ever person interviewed is lying
ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar

In what way do different definitions of aggression lend themselves to argumentation in that way?

Could you give me a few examples of changing definitions of aggression custom-tailored to an argument, is what I'm saying? Because I'm having troubles coming up with something here

>he thinks the fact not everyone follows the same set of universal morals means there isn't one

I like anyone who asks the uncomfortable questions and does Socrates work. But the last girl has a point she says she can't control how it makes her feel just how she reacts.

I don't care what you people think, I'm not wrong.

We don't care what you think, you haven't made an argument for your point yet. Just asserted a bunch of things

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING

Actually I think as long as there are no children, there is not a single objective reason for banning incest, only
>m-muh morals
And >it's disgusting

SJWs usually trigger me so hard, but on this point they're right.
Why make something illegal that literally doesn't affect anyone except the people involved.
Not to mention that it's imposible to check who breaks this law anyways.

>Rationally
Leafs being rational

I have no problem with incest sex and marriage as long one or both of them should get castrated.

>cum jo my

Aren't we all here due to incest at some point in time in our ancestral histories though? Technically, majorities of races are all parts of a racial family.

Manipulation. Coercion. Mental illness (undiagnosed). Shame. Paternal pressure. Sibling pressure. Long term mental health issues. Normalisation does seem to lead to familial pedophilia.

> work in social care and deal with the fall out of this shit every day.

And they said it wouldn't be a slippery slope.

is normal to make sex with mum

Well yeah, incest was a thing and the only reason we are disgusted by it is because subconscious mind is programmed to be disgusted by it unless there's no other alternative to procreate. Somewhere down the evolutionary path a trait to hate incest was acquired because it was beneficial. Same way you're disgusted by rotten food, corpses, vomit and feces are afraid of the unknown. It's all subconscious thing wired into the brain.

why is restring freedom wrong?

by what objective measure?

god isn't real, and there are no objective morals, as such, you're going in the fucking oven because your jewish individualism is a cancer that needs to be incinerated

and for the record, if you live life dictated by your passions and instincts you're already a slave, but the chains or in your pleasure center

youtube.com/watch?v=aWM4bJNpch0

Great rational argument, m8, try again.

why does this weird asshole have so many subscribers? "we're talking about how it would make me feel"

MUH CHRISTIAN FEELIES

>tfw Leftists uphold the principles of Personal Freedom more than so called "Conservatives"

But they already did, they support Islam and mudslimes

Can two consenting adults say whatever they want
without getting fines for hate speech?

>cum jo my
faggot, get rekt

>he lets other men poon his sister instead of doing it yourself
you are not a cuck, are you user?

Slippery Slope hasn't been a fucking fallacy for a long goddamn time. This shit has to stop.

>tfw broke the conditioning
I'd fuck a relative if she was hot and don't give a fuck if other people perform incest. Do people really get grossed out over that shit because they've been programmed to? What faggots.

Yes there is.

The family acts as a fundamental base of support for almost all people. To infect it with what is probably the most volatile and impassioned of all human relationships i.e. a sexual relationship, is wrong.

w-what? Of c-course I'm n-not a c-c-cuck mr. Shekelofgoshnekovgokonikeminikieminekeberg! I'll go fuck my sister right away!

it's fine under the abrahamic covenant, which has been replaced by mosaic and new

raised catholic here

im alright with gay marriage. whatever, i dont fucking care. if two people want to enter a bond they should get whatever other tax breaks and bullshit a man and a woman who enter that same bond do.

the relation between gay marriage and incest is none. incest being legal opens up a child abuse can of worms that never ends.

with that gay, regarding gay marriage, they should NOT, NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt children, or raise children. that will just create a black market for selling and buying kids, and it's fucked up for the kid. fuck that shit.

people been faggots since the ancient greeks though, all over the world. who the fuck cares.

Also, if we only fuck people in our race isn't that technically incest? Omg disgusting, im gonna find me a nice nigger to mix with right away!

>raised catholic here
>im alright with gay marriage.
You think you're special, huh? Most catholics are cucks like you.

>The big plus sign failed at putting two and two together

It's idiots like you Swiztzicuck, Catholic values dispense redpills at a marvelous rate to all who grow up in good conditions.

I'm not sure catholicism is a red pill dispenser the way you'd like it to be.

Other people look at catholics and think "wow, what a bunch of cucks" and turn further away from the mindset as a result.

sick

fully sick, i always thought horse pussys looked sexy ill probly look into moving to canada and buying a small farm

eh, try not to look at what the pope does. That's kinda like supporting Trump but then only getting all your news from MS media.

Look at actual catholic culture and tradition, and how it integrates into all types of life. You might find a lot of upstanding people are actually catholic value instilled people.

More likely than not you won't look into it and keep spouting whatever, it gets harder for me to care so I just end up shitposting.

Yeah mate, christians in general are much better than the pope

No man is an island...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man
retard

The laws of consent are retarded anyway. We don't need laws to regulate that stuff, parents and morals are enough.

My father almost sent me to the hospital when he found me and my sister in bed (We were not actually having sex just fooling around), he sent me to live with my aunt and told me that if he ever saw me close to her again he'd castrate me.

But the result is that i never even dared to even hug my sister until we were older.

No.. Unless you are in South Africa. In which case you will be the victim of hate speech more often than the propagator. I guess that's true for any country in which you are white though.

So: Can two white consenting adults say whatever they want
without getting fines for hate speech?

Because everyone else sure as fuck can.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.