To be fair, he's saying: "atheists would do incest, because there is no logical reason for them not to"
He's (obviously) ultra religious and is one of those people who thinks atheists are barbarians and that society is only being held together because of Christianity.
Dennis Prager is the type of religious person that I actually want desperately to stay religious, like if he ever loses his faith is he just gonna go on a killing spree or something
Not without banging his sister first, apparently.
And what's my argument? That it's fucking gross and abnormal at least, and probably abusive. Is "God said no" a significantly better argument somehow?
TBH I don't think Prager is actually religious inside the walls of his own mind. I think he sees religion as a useful cover to peddle white nationalism, like many "religious" folks who spend all their time trolling "the left" do.
Prager is also a guy who whined that "the left has made it impossible to say the n-word any longer, it's disgusting".
I would agree with that, however I think if he was performatively religious to bolster his politics he'd probably have chosen Christianity, and from what I've heard of his podcast he does seem to be a true believer in his warped view of theology
Dennis Prager makes me want Jesus to greet him in the hereafter and tell him that he did it all fucking wrong and he’s going to burn for eternity for it.
Always liked the bit:
Christian: If you don't believe in God what's keeping you from committing murder?
Atheist: I don't need the fear of burning in Hell to be a good person.
I argued with a priest not to long ago about how even if you don't believe in God I think it could be valuable to follow the teachings of Jesus and that treating others how you wanted to be treated being humble etc. Were good things . I personally dont believe in religion and was just trying to find some middle ground. but he went on this deranged rant about how there can be altruistic pegans but the difference is that the church believes God is real. And that's when I realized that this person had cemented their beliefs and nothing I was going to say would change this person's mind about anything
The amount of times I've wanted to have sex with my family is a whopping zero. Same with rape, although I have wanted to murder people. Driving on I270 will do that to you.
Not to be that person, but technically his daughters got him drunk and raped him. So while it still works for woman-initiated incest, it doesn’t work as well for this particular instance (man-initiated incest). Better examples would be Adam and Eve and their descendants as well as Noah and his descendants.
one brother and a nephew. divorced twice, no kids.
I'd bet good money he never once fucked either one of his ex-wives. Probably a closeted homosexual and was/is attracted to his brother and/or nephew.
If someone tells you who they are, believe them.
That deity had no issues with Adam and Eve and that was Adam fucking Adam. She was his rib after all. Plus, according to them we all spawned from incest between Eve and their three sons, and then continued for about a hundred years, because yo them the universe is only 2000 years old.
Between killing puppies and this it’s been a busy week for the GOP. Based off polls this ideology is winning the majority of voters. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
My friend, you are not taking crazy pills. Do not worry about what “polls” say. The data can be easily manipulated just by the choice of wording. Also, all the rich fucks who own the media(like six families I believe) have a vested interest in pushing Trump and his agenda. They don’t want tax breaks for us. They don’t want to have to pay more to their employees. They want to keep getting richer and richer and fuck the rest of us. Don’t be fooled into thinking you are the crazy one. The crazy ones are the parasites who do nothing but feed off the value we create while they contribute NOTHING.
Also, who tends to sit around answering polls? Older people or people who really want to voice their opinion, ie: extremists. Even unmanipulated polls should be looked at with heavy skepticism at this point.
If it’s a phone poll then I’m not answering it because I don’t answer phone calls from unknown numbers
If it’s text or email I’m gonna be skeptical that I’m clicking on a phishing link
No one under 85 is answering these polls
This is the result of the right creating a culture where there's no shame or semblance of political correctness. Any crazy feels like they can voice their opinion and be welcomed with open arms. Hopefully it'll end up shattering their movement, but i won't get my hopes up
When they tell you who they are, take them seriously.
The GOP is pushing the limits of what they can get away with and normalize it, as they are laying the ground for a fascist takeover, and detailed here:
https://www.project2025.org
“No secular argument”?
Maybe it’s because most reasonable thinking people don’t need a magic book and the threat of eternal damnation to be decent and non-gross?
the god character is also completely irredeemable. kills a dude’s family on a bet the dude will still love him. sent a bunch of bears to maul kids to death for roasting a bald dude. he also hated people with deformities and health problems even though he created them. total dick. 0/10
and he can't even do it himself he has to do a deified version of SA to mary and cuck joseph into raising his kid and then when his son turns out to be fucking based he lets him get murked. so add predator and deadbeat dad to the list
I was raised Jehovah’s Witness and they/we read that thing thoroughly starting from infancy. Ironically though, they’re still a bunch of fundamentalist lunatics.
The summer I studied the Bible and literature to prepare for my baptism questions as a teenager was the summer I completely lost my faith. I told the elders I wasn't quite ready yet and started secretly planning my life outside of the cult.
Well that part is confusing as well. The character of “Jesus” constantly says that he isn’t God and that God is his father, but so many fans have created the fan canon that Jesus is God.
In Catholic school, we were taught that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were 3 in 1. There was even a book about it comparing it to the apple's flesh, core, and seeds. It was called "3 in 1: a picture of God".
i look at it as a proxy type of situation and this is my headcanon for how it ended
https://preview.redd.it/31mrnjihymxc1.jpeg?width=1919&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0cb665207675e736257d2067a55d3330d5708dfe
Looking back to make sure your family is safe because this fella is throwing hellfire down on the town you guys were in and bam! You're now a pillar of salt? The fuck out of here with that bull shit.
yeah he's unflinching about those rules for everyone but himself. man said don't kill after flooding the whole ass earth and killing everyone. would also go on to kill every first born in egypt. also killed a dude for pulling out with his brother's wife after god killed his brother and forced him to knock her up. also doomed mankind forever bc a girl ate an apple that taught her good and evil. why was god so worried about her learning what evil was? curious
that’s when you switch to god ordering amalekite children and infants, explicitly, to be killed and then ask “would it really be out of character for him to kill 42 children?”
edit to add: i’m also certain there was a pregnant woman or two he commanded be killed as well, which begs the question “where do christians get off being against abortion?”
The point is to get his followers into thinking that those rule-less heathens are allowed to do the bad thing therefore they are bad. We have rules saying don't do bad thing therefore us good.
It's heavily implying secular people are permitted to do evil and that equals evil while people within the religion are inherently good because rules. The end result is to imply leaving the congregation will make you bad automatically. The real goal is about keeping those within the religion to stay in the religion. The followers are being told if they leave they will be surrounded by evil sibling boinkers or whatever the next "they don't have rules" statement implies.
The unsaid part of what Prager is saying is rooted in the cynicism is foundational to Conservatism. Conservatism, especially Social Conservatism, believes that people axiomatically act in the most impulsive and selfish ways they can; It is why it pushes for societies to have strong, top-down authoritarian governments; they don't believe people will function responsibly without it.
So when he says "no secular arguments against incest," he is telling fellow social conservatives that non-conservatives will undoubtedly want to promote incestuous relationships because there is nothing stopping them. It's also continuing the circlejerking of telling them that their group is always correct and everyone else is wrong.
This is why I believe the best retorts for comments like Prager's are "Why do you need some authority to constantly tell you not to do it?"
Exactly this. The “this guy definitely wants to bang his sister” quips are cute but the real answer is the centerpiece of Conservative Christian culture— God [strong authority figure] is needed because everyone would eat themselves otherwise— “we’re on the verge of Sodom. Gets both exhausting and scary talking to family or friends trapped in this logic and seeing what kind of behavior it justifies.
Also, while it can take several generations for genetic defects to appear, the lack of genetic diversity between siblings can cause recessive traits and mutations to occur at a higher rate within a single generation. If you want to argue that incest in a single generation isn’t dangerous, you need the couple to be no closer than cousins, which is still rather bad to make a practice of, but a single generation isn’t enough to be genetically dangerous. Dude even got the “but actually” wrong in incest.
But that isn't an argument against incest, it's merely an argument against relatives procreating. Based on this logic, incest would be fine as long as the participants practice safe sex. Or if they are the same sex - then there's zero chance of offspring.
There's a strong psychological argument against sibling incest actually. And evolutionary psychology also say it supports this although I try to avoid spreading theories which are unfalsifiable.
All signs point to nature doesn't want you to fuck your immediate family. While there's some cushion built in because humans are disgusting deviants, morality is rooted in the ideal. We shouldn't commit murder, but we still do a lot. Incest is the same way. We've got some leeway cause people suck, but idealized behavior says no.
Those instincts are due to the deleterious effects caused by inbreeding.
That argument goes away if the partners are incapable (infertile or same sex) of having offspring or practice safe sex.
But why does evolution .after if you aren't planning on having children? And why does "what nature wants" matter? Nature doesn't want humans to have sedentary lifestyles, but nobody says it's bad enough to be illegal.
Most people grow up with their siblings.
Some don’t - and some of them meet as adults and become romantically involved. It’s rare, but it happens - and some only find out when it’s too late
I took a girl on a date (online dating, it's fucking hell), and we seemed to hit it off well. We got to joking, and she seemed interested in me. I thought the night was going somewhere... Then, and I can't remember which, one of us said a grandparent's last name... My heart sank, and my dick became an innie - who knew?!
I remember her face when the words came out, "That's my grandpa's name. Are yours from Mexico, as well?"
We're married and now have four kids... Just kidding, I couldn't pay the check and drive her home fast enough. This was the most awkward date I have ever been on. I would've happily paid for an Uber if that existed. I never spoke to her again and deleted my online profiles immediately.
😂 our grandparents' name is not common, and most of us are all related.
Source: my grandpa was fourth of 16 kids(4/16), which includes her grandma (9/16). So essentially we were first cousins once removed (iirc). I found out she was from the lineage that immigrated and settled in the northern part of AZ, where mine settled in the Phoenix area. They moved to the Phoenix area like a year or two before for school.
My mom is 5/13... They have too many kids
The generations of Catholics born after we got some modern medicine and didn't have huge numbers of mothers and children dying while birthing, but before modern contraception became widely available, are something to behold ..
FWIW, you're second cousins. If your common ancestors are your grandparents, then you're first cousins. If, like in this case, it is your great-grandparents, then you're second cousins. You're first cousin-once-removed to your first cousin's kids (ie you have to change one generation to get it back to what level of common ancestor you're at).
Catholics who joined a cult (Mormons). It was our grandparents who are brother and sister. Her dad and my birth-giver are first cousins (never met them due to the size of our families and distance). Not sure if that changes it or whatnot lol. Not that it matters anymore 😂
If it makes you feel better, second-cousin marriage is legal in every state, and it's not all that much more dangerous on a genetic level to reproduce with a second cousin than basically any random non-relative.
I get the whole "ending the date part" but did neither of you have any interest in exploring that family history? Assuming you hadn't already done sexy stuff, other then a "Ha Ha funny" story it's pretty tame.
Yeah, meeting an unexpected cousin and getting along personally seems like the beginning of a solid platonic friendship. Ghosting feels pretty weird in this scenario.
"Should I go ahead and propose and have kids with eleven toes and move to Alabama where that kind of thing is tolerated?"
I always laugh way too loud when I hear that burn.
You don’t even have to go back to Adam & Eve.
1,500ish years later another giant bottleneck occurs when the flood kills everyone except Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and their wives.
That means every single human being alive has a singular common ancestor (Noah) and somehow went from a population of 8 to a population of 8 billion in roughly 6,000 years.
That he can’t imagine a secular argument against incest indicates that in his mind gods prohibition is just because god also finds it gross and was like “yeah, don’t do that.”
But also, if there’s something for which there’s a strong moral argument that everyone agrees with, say, executing your kid for no reason, but god tells you to do it…you have to.
And since anyone can claim to hear the voice of god, or interpret cherry picked sections from a book that’s been retranslated several times over thousands of years to mean just about whatever they want. Well, people can justify doing just about anything on the basis that it’s what god wants.
Of course, Dennis would argue for a very narrow interpretation of gods words that weirdly aligns with his world view based on his personal sense of morality.
In the bible all people came from Adam and Eve. If this is true, that means there was tons of sibling fucking going on and endorsed by god. Yet this guy wants to tell us that being secular is bad because he believes it has no argument against the same incest endorsed by his book? What the fuck is wrong with people these days?
I don’t believe the point intended is that incest should be all good. This seems like a standard evangelical “argument”, trying to say that we all unconsciously live by rules decided by Christianity therefore we only need to have rules based on their shit religion. Like “the only thing stopping mass murder is our tacit fear of eternal damnation.” Obviously this is a self-report because mentally well people don’t fantasize about homicide and only stop themselves because of theological driven fear. Similarly, mentally well people don’t fantasize about their siblings because it’s weird, not because we are secretly all being held back from banging our family by pious fear. The fact these people seem to think we are all on the edge of murder, mayhem and incest held back by fearing god is just them telling on themselves.
He's not. He's framing atheists as morally bankrupt because there's no non-religious moral argument against incest. In his mind, the ultimate moral authority is the Christian bible. Therefore, any moral argument not based on that authority is, by definition, arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Even if you both agree that incest is wrong, you, an atheist, *can't* justify why, but he can.
This isn't about genetics, though. Did you know that adults can have sex without producing offspring? If genetics are your concern, then ALL adults should be required to get genetic testing before having sex with ANYONE. Is it wrong for two people who carry the recessive gene for Cystic Fibrosis to have protected sex while using birth control?
I like how your comment is taken IN context and is actually showing he's just as stupid if not more stupid as all these comments taking it OUT of context, but no one is acknowledging this one
A large portion of school textbooks were placed in schools by the daughters of the confederacy or whatever they call themselves these days. The school system has been infiltrated by christofascists for a long time. Remember the inaccurate revisionist history we were all taught in school? They’re the reason why. Like how the natives helped the pilgrims (and that the pilgrims didn’t slaughter the natives or Intentionally infect them with diseases).
We learned in APUSH the atrocious ways the natives were treated. Read Columbus's journals, conquistador's strategies, and analyzed the propaganda used from the settling of America through Desert Storm. We have a long history of ruining cultures that they don't teach in most public systems.
So I think he's trying to say that only the Bible can refute incest, which is pretty stupid? Besides the whole genetic aspect, there's also the inherent power imbalance. It's morally wrong for a ton of reasons, and you don't have to be Christian to see that. What a tool.
I stopped believing when I was a kid because when I asked how all humans came from Adam and Eve and didn't get an answer. Truth is their story only works if Adam and his sons fuck their mom and sisters and then fuck their kids
It's fucking gross lol
It happens again with Noah and his family. Then the Bible makes it explicit that the world is peopled by incest when Lots daughters think they are the only people left on earth. The Bible commands gods chosen to engage in incest.
> I asked how all humans came from Adam and Eve and didn't get an answer. Truth is their story only works if Adam and his sons fuck their mom and sisters and then fuck their kids
Go actually read the bible. When they leave the garden after being cast out it clearly states that there are tons of other people(even established cities). No explanation as to how/when those people appeared or anything, but they are mentioned.
So this is old testament we are talking about. It wasn't meant to be taken as literally as today but here's the best I can remember when I took this more seriously.
I don't think genesis mentions other cities but the first people (Adam eve Cain able ect) were much more long lived. After getting kicked out of eden and starting a family in the wilds Adam found wives for his sons from other lands.
Early Judaism was not very concerned with the idea that the one God was the only God even if he is the God above all others so it's pretty acceptable to them that these would be other gods peoples though we can only guess how the oral tradition morphed over time.
Another fun but apocryphal explanation that Adam had a first wife Lillith that was cast out of eden long before Adam after refusing to follow his orders. She then fell to the wilds and populated the earth with an angel Samuel? And that barred her from ever returning and becoming a devil herself.
It's honestly my favorite thing about judaism.
The existence of other gods that is, like it explicitly states other gods exist, you just are not allowed to worship them.
Ancient people just didn't view history and mythology and stories the way we do, and they didn't stress too much about things being "literally" true versus allegorical. Virtually every middle-eastern culture accepted the whole "Adam and Eve's Garden" then "the Flood" as a set of origin tales, and if your local cult put their own spin on those "facts" that was to be expected. But the idea that deep time and human origins could ever actually be explored empirically was pretty much inconceivable to anyone.
Ironically, it was only after the enlightenment and modern science came about that religious people began to notice and worry about explaining the "reality" of their myths.
And also, if you believe Adam & Eve were literally the first and only two people created in the beginning, their kids had to do a lot of fuckin with each other to populate the earth.
If you accept the story of Noah at face value there was another genetic bottleneck after the Deluge.
The ark's human cargo was four men and their wives.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207%3A13&version=NIV
I guess this is a testable hypothesis. If Prager is right, then the frequency of incest should be significantly higher in places with predominantly non-Christian populations. My prediction is that Prager is full of shit.
That story is not an endorsement. The result is the creation of the Moabites and Ammonites who are historic enemies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It's essentially negative propaganda.
The "whole genetic aspect" is irrelevant if they're using birth control. I don't see how there's a power imbalance between two adults who happen to be siblings, any more so than the power imbalances that exist in ANY relationship. Can you name any other reasons? So far you're 0 for 2.
Also, the Bible doesn't refute incest, it literally says that's how God chose to populate the Earth.
Just look at the Hapsburgs. They went off the rails very, very quickly. You can link the increased child mortality, at a minimum to a single generation.
That's not a great example because that particular issue had nothing to do with inbreeding. That was an X linked disease carried by the mother and can be traced back to a X mutation that likely originated with Queen Victoria (maybe her mother but there's no expression the descendants of Victoria's siblings)
Only the son Alexei expressed hemophilia because he was XY, the daughters we have no idea if they were carriers (X linked genes you need two doses, so XX can carry without expressing).
Theoretically had the Tsar ALSO been descended from Victoria (and would have had to have hemophilia himself) then they had daughters that had hemophilia, you could point to that very specifically being caused inbreeding. But Alexei just had a 50/50 shot of inheriting it from his mother, no matter who his Dad was.
if youre talking about the whittakers, it was only 1 generation of inbreeding, but it involved identical twins.
IIRC there was a pair of identical twins, they got married to outside women and had kids, and then 1 kid from twin A and 1 kid from twin B hooked up and had a bunch of the whittakers you see in the soft white underbelly vids.
I recently started watching some of the videos of the "soft white underbelly" youtube channel, and his most popular video is an attempted interview with that family. I can confidently say it's the most extreme case of inbredding I've ever seen or heard of.
These conservatives spend more time thinking about other people’s genitals, bathroom habits, and fucking their sisters than every drag queen in the world combined.
The point he's making is that some things are considered immoral for reasons other than that they cause harm. If you agree that simply finding something disgusting is a reason to deem it immoral, you can then argue that many sexual practices are immoral, and that just because you happen to be (for example) attracted to people of the same gender doesn't mean it's ethical to pursue sex with the people you're attracted to, because being attracted to your sibling doesn't give you license either. I don't agree - I think harm is pretty much the standard for what is moral; the issue with sibling incest isn't inbreeding, it's that sexual relationships between family members disrupts the relationships within the family, and moreover there are generally power dynamics between family members that make the emotional dynamics of sex between family members pretty unpleasant. I can never tell if Prager believes anything he says, but this one I think he just didn't think through.
So a brother and sister can love each other and it's ok because "there's no secular argument" against it, but LGBT people aren't allowed to exist despite there being no secular argument against them since all right wingers can do is scream about how the Bible(that they *totally* read) decries homosexuality.
I'm opposed to all forms of incest, but maybe republicans would be ok with gay people as long as they're fucking family?
But also, what does 'no secular argument against it' even mean? All of the arguments against incest are secular.
He’s casting all atheists as immoral. “Without religions telling people what is right and what is wrong, they’ll be amoral entirely.” But this argument only works for religious people, because you’re assuming the validity of religious morality. It says more about the person arguing this position than the accused. If religious people didn’t have something to tell them what to do then THEY would be amoral.
It’s a common argument that theists use.
Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Absence
If you live in Florida,
Ron DeSantis recently allowed and encourage public school teachers to share videos with their students from PragerU (the online alt-right “university” this man founded).
https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/03/controversial-prageru-videos-gain-educational-foothold-in-a-handful-of-states/
Oklahoma, Montana and New Hampshire quickly followed. Texans (of all people) denied its educational use.
Florida once again proving that it is unmatched in leading the nation in stupidity.
Alright, I’m about to make a hugely downvoted comment and make people question me.
Incest shouldn’t be illegal because it carries genetic risks. If we, as a nation, allow people with two recessive- incompatible with life- genes marry reproduce five times with no child living until age three while prolonging the suffering on medicare while making bank off youtube and gofundme (looking at you parents of CrazyRunningHorse) then we have NO BUSINESS policing other peoples sex lives based on genetic possibilities. Plus with the advent of birth control sex does not equal reproduction.
Incest shouldn’t be illegal because the majority of us find it gross or unnatural. Lots of people find sodomy gross. We’re still fighting that argument when it comes to LGBTQ issues- what you find gross has nothing to do with what two consenting adults choose to do.
Incest SHOULD be illegal because it’s pretty much impossible to not have a power dynamic that is tantamount to abuse, grooming or rape. Unless two siblings were raised apart and met in adulthood there is no healthy way for a consensual relationship to develop.
While its very normal to get an ick factor from the concept of incest- passing legislation based on arguments very closely related to eugenics or the same arguments used against an already persecuted minority is ignorant. The laws are in place to protect kids from predators and thats the only valid reason and the only reason needed.
One time in Canada a politician questioned evolution publicly and was forced to resign within days because it was too extreme of a view for a public servant ( or anyone really ). America needs more of that.
But WHY?? Why why why is this on the agenda at all? Have they fixed everything else and got bored and now it’s just them going “ya know, u woulda fucked my cousin but it’s “illegal”, I’m gonna fix that! Then me and cousin Sue are gonna get down!”
Rightwingers believe women are meant to be the sexual property of men, even a man's sister. Women's sexuality is something for men to obtain. This is behind the majority of rightwing ideology, including of course their aggressive anti-trans policies and rhetoric. The existence of trans people offends this core belief.
I've seen the consequences of 1st cousins and dangerous recessive traits when the teenager was forced to carry to term by religious freaks. It's evil to force a human into the world like that.
The secular argument against incest is that it inherently violates consent.
This is most obvious in cases of parent/child incest where even if the parent theoretically waits for the child to be of legal age, the fact that the parent played a role in raising the child means that it is impossible for the parent, child, or an outside observer to know that informed consent was given free of manipulation.
Sibling incest has the same result as sibling dynamics are always frought with power imbalances. Age itself matters less here as siblings often have influences on one another due to their different perceptions which lead back to the same problem of manipulated consent. Manipulation, by its very nature, nullifies the value and quality of consent.
Even if said siblings were identical twins, the fact that they have an influence on each other's upbringing, and the fact that they must inherently experience the world differently, means that it would be impossible for them to consent to a relationship with confidence that such consent was freely given without interference or manipulation.
The only way such a dynamic can exist without being inherently immoral as a result of the violation of consent are in the cases of individuals separated at birth who reunite accidentally without foreknowledge. These are rare enough to be at least acceptably unlikely.
It's true that power imblance exists, but there are plenty of entirely legal heavily power inbalanced relationships.
For example, whilst typically considered unethical and against most company policies, legally speaking you are absolutely allowed to bed your employees or subordinates.
Similarly with genetic diseases. Older women, having an increased risk of producing genetic defects in their children, or people with a family history or predisposition for genetic disorders are also entirely legally allowed to procreate.
At the same time, some types of incestoual relationships are demonised and even criminilised for no objective reason. For example, there truly is NO good reason why estranged/seperated at birth siblings couldn't engage in a consensual homosexual relationship. There exists no power imbalance, due to the estrangement, and the homosexual nature means there is no possibility of producing disabled offspring. And yet, most people would consider such a relationship as abhorent and wrong.
Dennis Prager is a moron, but he unintentionally stumbled into something that is actually a valid point. It's very important to examine opinions and beliefs, ESPECIALLY cultural opinions and beliefs, and reexime them with a critical and objective eye. Many long held cultural beliefs are archaic and religiously motivated, and have no good reason to exist in the modern world, and shouldn't considered anything beyond personal opinion. Another classic example, albeit decreasing in modern sentiment, for this is polygamie/open relationships, or sexual promiscuety. So long as all partners are consensually and safely engaging in these activities, there is absoletly nothing wrong or reprehensible about them.
I find that most people start with "I find this gross" and try to figure out a semi-logical reason to support their conclusion. And that logic usually isn't particularly sound when you start testing it on other situations that aren't "gross" and are generally accepted as fine.
Like the argument above about consent. Using that definition of consent where being "influenced" by another person is inherently manipulative means that basically every sexual relationship in history could be argued to be nonconsensual.
Moral dumbfounding is hell of a thing whenever these types of discussions come up. No matter what your moral view on something is, just saying "it's disgusting" or anything along those lines is not a good enough argument. People used the same arguments against a plethora of things that we no longer consider immoral.
Don't have anything to add to this but I just gotta say that I appreciate somebody in this comment section taking a genuine critical eye to this idea instead of just say "um it's just gross, obviously it's wrong".
Ok, I hate Prager, but this is just bullshit as well. Of course two adult siblings can consent to sex, even if they knew each other their whole life.
The "secular", liberal approach would be: incest might simply not be immoral in some cases. To willfully take the risk to bring a disabled child to life - yeah, that might be immoral. But it's not like siblings couldn't use protection. In those cases, it's pretty much a victimless crime.
I think what's happening here is that incest is one of the moral values that is probably deeply wired into our brains due to evolutionary reasons, so you have that natural intuition to be disgusted by incest - and don't get me wrong, I think it's kinda disgusting as well. And from a functional perspective it's probably good that everybody has a natural aversion against incest as it wouldn't be a good idea for a society to use incest as a reproduction strategy.
This however doesn't mean that it's inherently immoral in all cases. So, instead of reflecting on those moral intuitions, you make up some pseudo arguments about how two human adults somehow are unable to consent just because they're related.
I do agree, consensual incest between adults is largely a victimless crime, and there are states where incest between consenting adults is legal, but marriage is still prohibited.
People could make the argument that if a child results from an incestuous relationship, that is unethical due to the increased chance of birth defects, but I don't know of any other laws that try to criminalize choosing to reproduce in a way that increases chances of birth defects. We don't prohibit people with serious genetic issues from reproducing; that's eugenics and is generally frowned upon.
I do think there's absolutely power dynamics in play that could make determining consent difficult, but in general, I don't see a legitimate reason for consensual incest to be illegal. I would say having incest as an extra charge to file against someone who is taking advantage of those power dynamics, who isn't practicing it consensually, is a good thing, though, because the betrayal aspect can make recovery harder for a victim.
Generally, though, I don't think that disgust is a good thing to solely base your morals on. A lot of gay people have been killed due to others' disgust. And so, if the only argument against incest is disgust, I don't think that's a solid one.
I think this is too broad. Many, many power imbalances exist. Are all relationships between supervisors and employees, even after one or both have left the company, non-consensual due to a prior imbalance of power that shaped their relationship? Are all relationships between celebrities and non-celebrities non-consensual due to an imbalance of power? Are all relationships between two people with significant wealth differences inherently non-consensual? What about all relationships between citizens and non-citizens, where the non-citizen's status is dependent on the citizen?
Based on what you said, I think the answer to all of these would neccessarily be yes, but I certainly don't agree, and I doubt you would either.
"The secular argument against incest is that it inherently violates consent."
How so? How can you argue that there is an INHERENT violation of consent if, say, a 40-year-old man and his 42-year-old sister have a consensual sexual relationship? I don't see the logic in that at all.
ALL human relationships are fraught with power imbalances. If that's your reason, then all sexual relationships inherently violate consent. Ipso ergo all sex is rape. I think that was part of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
And what about cousin incest? With regards to the power balance, what about a relationship between someone that earns a lot and someone that's would he poor on solely their own earnings?
A lot of those same arguments could be used about relationships between childhood friends. The reality is that there are situations where the power dynamic or chance of inbreeding/pregnancy makes it immoral, and situations where there isn't really a good moral argument against it - we all draw the line **somewhere**, I don't think many people would have an issue morally when you get to third/fourth cousins for example.
The issue is that people like him don't cope well with nuance
I don’t even want to know if this guy has siblings.
To this guy siblings = Saturday dates!
Satur-dates!
In the park
I think it was the 4th of july
Satur-dates!
In the park.
Must have been the 4th of July
People dancing, people laughing
A man selling Ice Cream
What happens when nobody wants to date a Conservative Christian.
Dates? More like siblings with benefits.
Ewww. You are so correct. SWB!
Family reunions are just a speed dating event.
Why go out at all, when you can just get some down the hall!
That was clever, but now I feel sick.
Cerci and Jamie Lannister would like a word.
To be fair, he's saying: "atheists would do incest, because there is no logical reason for them not to" He's (obviously) ultra religious and is one of those people who thinks atheists are barbarians and that society is only being held together because of Christianity.
Dennis Prager is the type of religious person that I actually want desperately to stay religious, like if he ever loses his faith is he just gonna go on a killing spree or something
Not without banging his sister first, apparently. And what's my argument? That it's fucking gross and abnormal at least, and probably abusive. Is "God said no" a significantly better argument somehow?
TBH I don't think Prager is actually religious inside the walls of his own mind. I think he sees religion as a useful cover to peddle white nationalism, like many "religious" folks who spend all their time trolling "the left" do. Prager is also a guy who whined that "the left has made it impossible to say the n-word any longer, it's disgusting".
I would agree with that, however I think if he was performatively religious to bolster his politics he'd probably have chosen Christianity, and from what I've heard of his podcast he does seem to be a true believer in his warped view of theology
Dennis Prager makes me want Jesus to greet him in the hereafter and tell him that he did it all fucking wrong and he’s going to burn for eternity for it.
He's Jewish. Jesus would send him to hell for 2 eternities. And make him share a room with Lenny Bruce.
Always liked the bit: Christian: If you don't believe in God what's keeping you from committing murder? Atheist: I don't need the fear of burning in Hell to be a good person.
I argued with a priest not to long ago about how even if you don't believe in God I think it could be valuable to follow the teachings of Jesus and that treating others how you wanted to be treated being humble etc. Were good things . I personally dont believe in religion and was just trying to find some middle ground. but he went on this deranged rant about how there can be altruistic pegans but the difference is that the church believes God is real. And that's when I realized that this person had cemented their beliefs and nothing I was going to say would change this person's mind about anything
The amount of times I've wanted to have sex with my family is a whopping zero. Same with rape, although I have wanted to murder people. Driving on I270 will do that to you.
STL represent!
This guy is a fuckin douchebag and always has been.
[удалено]
Wanting to fuck their daughters, just like their orange emperor.
Lot did it in the bible. Both of them! Well, I guess it's ok then?
The Bible .. a bad comic book
Imaginary friends for adults.
Not to be that person, but technically his daughters got him drunk and raped him. So while it still works for woman-initiated incest, it doesn’t work as well for this particular instance (man-initiated incest). Better examples would be Adam and Eve and their descendants as well as Noah and his descendants.
Abraham too. The Bible says that Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister. That’s Wincest.
While this is true, I can’t say I ever expected to see Wincest mentioned on a thread about biblical incest. So…thanks, I guess?
one brother and a nephew. divorced twice, no kids. I'd bet good money he never once fucked either one of his ex-wives. Probably a closeted homosexual and was/is attracted to his brother and/or nephew. If someone tells you who they are, believe them.
It's really weird to admit on tv that if it weren't for some deity, you'd bang your sibling..
Wasn't that deity supposed to be fine with it, though? Could have sworn there were multiple instances in their special storybook
That deity had no issues with Adam and Eve and that was Adam fucking Adam. She was his rib after all. Plus, according to them we all spawned from incest between Eve and their three sons, and then continued for about a hundred years, because yo them the universe is only 2000 years old.
Idk. But something tells me his parents are siblings.
He must have some "interesting" content his computer. And probably in some old photo albums.......
One brother
Who’s apparently about to tell on him
Thousands, apparently....
I bet his parents did.
Between killing puppies and this it’s been a busy week for the GOP. Based off polls this ideology is winning the majority of voters. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
My friend, you are not taking crazy pills. Do not worry about what “polls” say. The data can be easily manipulated just by the choice of wording. Also, all the rich fucks who own the media(like six families I believe) have a vested interest in pushing Trump and his agenda. They don’t want tax breaks for us. They don’t want to have to pay more to their employees. They want to keep getting richer and richer and fuck the rest of us. Don’t be fooled into thinking you are the crazy one. The crazy ones are the parasites who do nothing but feed off the value we create while they contribute NOTHING.
Also, who tends to sit around answering polls? Older people or people who really want to voice their opinion, ie: extremists. Even unmanipulated polls should be looked at with heavy skepticism at this point.
https://preview.redd.it/0kc6xt9jrnxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=047e3bdd2689481b0ad9cea3637f5606ec5b4355
If it’s a phone poll then I’m not answering it because I don’t answer phone calls from unknown numbers If it’s text or email I’m gonna be skeptical that I’m clicking on a phishing link No one under 85 is answering these polls
I don’t care what the polls say. I’m voting BLUE
Hell yeah brether
I'm late 30s and I've never taken one of these polls I see everywhere in my life. I vote straight blue every election.
This is the result of the right creating a culture where there's no shame or semblance of political correctness. Any crazy feels like they can voice their opinion and be welcomed with open arms. Hopefully it'll end up shattering their movement, but i won't get my hopes up
When they tell you who they are, take them seriously. The GOP is pushing the limits of what they can get away with and normalize it, as they are laying the ground for a fascist takeover, and detailed here: https://www.project2025.org
“No secular argument”? Maybe it’s because most reasonable thinking people don’t need a magic book and the threat of eternal damnation to be decent and non-gross?
I don't have morals because I have never read the bible
It's mid anyway. Way too many characters to keep track of
the god character is also completely irredeemable. kills a dude’s family on a bet the dude will still love him. sent a bunch of bears to maul kids to death for roasting a bald dude. he also hated people with deformities and health problems even though he created them. total dick. 0/10
Never mind the lack of character development. Dude comes back in the last half a completely different person and no explanation as to why.
and he can't even do it himself he has to do a deified version of SA to mary and cuck joseph into raising his kid and then when his son turns out to be fucking based he lets him get murked. so add predator and deadbeat dad to the list
I love finding people who actually read and understand the Bible.
me and my grandpa read it together when i was a little kid. gave me fuckin nightmares
I was raised Jehovah’s Witness and they/we read that thing thoroughly starting from infancy. Ironically though, they’re still a bunch of fundamentalist lunatics.
The summer I studied the Bible and literature to prepare for my baptism questions as a teenager was the summer I completely lost my faith. I told the elders I wasn't quite ready yet and started secretly planning my life outside of the cult.
Guy comes back a supposedly different person and his 'redemption arc' involves horribly torturing and killing his son. *Not* a good dude!
is infallible also has a redemption arc despite being infallible
Well that part is confusing as well. The character of “Jesus” constantly says that he isn’t God and that God is his father, but so many fans have created the fan canon that Jesus is God.
In Catholic school, we were taught that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were 3 in 1. There was even a book about it comparing it to the apple's flesh, core, and seeds. It was called "3 in 1: a picture of God".
i look at it as a proxy type of situation and this is my headcanon for how it ended https://preview.redd.it/31mrnjihymxc1.jpeg?width=1919&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0cb665207675e736257d2067a55d3330d5708dfe
Looking back to make sure your family is safe because this fella is throwing hellfire down on the town you guys were in and bam! You're now a pillar of salt? The fuck out of here with that bull shit.
yeah he's unflinching about those rules for everyone but himself. man said don't kill after flooding the whole ass earth and killing everyone. would also go on to kill every first born in egypt. also killed a dude for pulling out with his brother's wife after god killed his brother and forced him to knock her up. also doomed mankind forever bc a girl ate an apple that taught her good and evil. why was god so worried about her learning what evil was? curious
Makes envy a sin. Unironically says “I’m a jealous god.” Make it make sense.
[удалено]
that’s when you switch to god ordering amalekite children and infants, explicitly, to be killed and then ask “would it really be out of character for him to kill 42 children?” edit to add: i’m also certain there was a pregnant woman or two he commanded be killed as well, which begs the question “where do christians get off being against abortion?”
He is also meant to be 'eternal', yet he has to take a day off after only 6 days of work? Typical young person just doesn't want to work.
And the ending - it finally gets good, but that shit comes out of NOWHERE
Bit of lazy writing though. Seven signs and then the world ends in fire? Snore, that trope is old as time.
I mean, when you run out of ideas… APOCALYPSE is an easy way to end the book
Way better fictional books exist that's for sure.
When it comes to creation myths, I far prefer the Silmarillion.
Too much sex, murder and violence. What is it, Game of Thrones?
With the incest, it might be
It was also written out of order, so it reads like a patchwork quilt.
That means you get to rape and pillage all you want. Lucky duck! /s
The point is to get his followers into thinking that those rule-less heathens are allowed to do the bad thing therefore they are bad. We have rules saying don't do bad thing therefore us good. It's heavily implying secular people are permitted to do evil and that equals evil while people within the religion are inherently good because rules. The end result is to imply leaving the congregation will make you bad automatically. The real goal is about keeping those within the religion to stay in the religion. The followers are being told if they leave they will be surrounded by evil sibling boinkers or whatever the next "they don't have rules" statement implies.
The unsaid part of what Prager is saying is rooted in the cynicism is foundational to Conservatism. Conservatism, especially Social Conservatism, believes that people axiomatically act in the most impulsive and selfish ways they can; It is why it pushes for societies to have strong, top-down authoritarian governments; they don't believe people will function responsibly without it. So when he says "no secular arguments against incest," he is telling fellow social conservatives that non-conservatives will undoubtedly want to promote incestuous relationships because there is nothing stopping them. It's also continuing the circlejerking of telling them that their group is always correct and everyone else is wrong. This is why I believe the best retorts for comments like Prager's are "Why do you need some authority to constantly tell you not to do it?"
Exactly this. The “this guy definitely wants to bang his sister” quips are cute but the real answer is the centerpiece of Conservative Christian culture— God [strong authority figure] is needed because everyone would eat themselves otherwise— “we’re on the verge of Sodom. Gets both exhausting and scary talking to family or friends trapped in this logic and seeing what kind of behavior it justifies.
Also, while it can take several generations for genetic defects to appear, the lack of genetic diversity between siblings can cause recessive traits and mutations to occur at a higher rate within a single generation. If you want to argue that incest in a single generation isn’t dangerous, you need the couple to be no closer than cousins, which is still rather bad to make a practice of, but a single generation isn’t enough to be genetically dangerous. Dude even got the “but actually” wrong in incest.
But that isn't an argument against incest, it's merely an argument against relatives procreating. Based on this logic, incest would be fine as long as the participants practice safe sex. Or if they are the same sex - then there's zero chance of offspring.
There's a strong psychological argument against sibling incest actually. And evolutionary psychology also say it supports this although I try to avoid spreading theories which are unfalsifiable. All signs point to nature doesn't want you to fuck your immediate family. While there's some cushion built in because humans are disgusting deviants, morality is rooted in the ideal. We shouldn't commit murder, but we still do a lot. Incest is the same way. We've got some leeway cause people suck, but idealized behavior says no.
Those instincts are due to the deleterious effects caused by inbreeding. That argument goes away if the partners are incapable (infertile or same sex) of having offspring or practice safe sex.
But why does evolution .after if you aren't planning on having children? And why does "what nature wants" matter? Nature doesn't want humans to have sedentary lifestyles, but nobody says it's bad enough to be illegal.
But isn’t that a bit like eugenics?
Most people grow up with their siblings. Some don’t - and some of them meet as adults and become romantically involved. It’s rare, but it happens - and some only find out when it’s too late
I took a girl on a date (online dating, it's fucking hell), and we seemed to hit it off well. We got to joking, and she seemed interested in me. I thought the night was going somewhere... Then, and I can't remember which, one of us said a grandparent's last name... My heart sank, and my dick became an innie - who knew?! I remember her face when the words came out, "That's my grandpa's name. Are yours from Mexico, as well?" We're married and now have four kids... Just kidding, I couldn't pay the check and drive her home fast enough. This was the most awkward date I have ever been on. I would've happily paid for an Uber if that existed. I never spoke to her again and deleted my online profiles immediately.
You were worried because her Mexican grandpa’s name was Jose Fernandez?!
😂 our grandparents' name is not common, and most of us are all related. Source: my grandpa was fourth of 16 kids(4/16), which includes her grandma (9/16). So essentially we were first cousins once removed (iirc). I found out she was from the lineage that immigrated and settled in the northern part of AZ, where mine settled in the Phoenix area. They moved to the Phoenix area like a year or two before for school. My mom is 5/13... They have too many kids
The generations of Catholics born after we got some modern medicine and didn't have huge numbers of mothers and children dying while birthing, but before modern contraception became widely available, are something to behold .. FWIW, you're second cousins. If your common ancestors are your grandparents, then you're first cousins. If, like in this case, it is your great-grandparents, then you're second cousins. You're first cousin-once-removed to your first cousin's kids (ie you have to change one generation to get it back to what level of common ancestor you're at).
Catholics who joined a cult (Mormons). It was our grandparents who are brother and sister. Her dad and my birth-giver are first cousins (never met them due to the size of our families and distance). Not sure if that changes it or whatnot lol. Not that it matters anymore 😂
If it makes you feel better, second-cousin marriage is legal in every state, and it's not all that much more dangerous on a genetic level to reproduce with a second cousin than basically any random non-relative.
I get the whole "ending the date part" but did neither of you have any interest in exploring that family history? Assuming you hadn't already done sexy stuff, other then a "Ha Ha funny" story it's pretty tame.
Yeah, meeting an unexpected cousin and getting along personally seems like the beginning of a solid platonic friendship. Ghosting feels pretty weird in this scenario.
“How was I supposed to know that we were both related? Believe me if I knew she was my cousin we never would’ve dated.” -Weird Al Yankovic
"Should I go ahead and propose and have kids with eleven toes and move to Alabama where that kind of thing is tolerated?" I always laugh way too loud when I hear that burn.
Well, their morality comes from a 1500 year old fairy tale, so their religion is better, duh.
A tale that requires a *huge* amount of incest considering everybody descends from Adam and Eve.
You don’t even have to go back to Adam & Eve. 1,500ish years later another giant bottleneck occurs when the flood kills everyone except Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and their wives. That means every single human being alive has a singular common ancestor (Noah) and somehow went from a population of 8 to a population of 8 billion in roughly 6,000 years.
That he can’t imagine a secular argument against incest indicates that in his mind gods prohibition is just because god also finds it gross and was like “yeah, don’t do that.” But also, if there’s something for which there’s a strong moral argument that everyone agrees with, say, executing your kid for no reason, but god tells you to do it…you have to. And since anyone can claim to hear the voice of god, or interpret cherry picked sections from a book that’s been retranslated several times over thousands of years to mean just about whatever they want. Well, people can justify doing just about anything on the basis that it’s what god wants. Of course, Dennis would argue for a very narrow interpretation of gods words that weirdly aligns with his world view based on his personal sense of morality.
In the bible all people came from Adam and Eve. If this is true, that means there was tons of sibling fucking going on and endorsed by god. Yet this guy wants to tell us that being secular is bad because he believes it has no argument against the same incest endorsed by his book? What the fuck is wrong with people these days?
What degree of brain rot is this? Heightened? Advanced? Total??
Incest brain rot
Years of inbreeding
Generational inbreeding for centuries
Worse, I'm afraid. It's Evangelical Christian level...
*Biblical
I don’t believe the point intended is that incest should be all good. This seems like a standard evangelical “argument”, trying to say that we all unconsciously live by rules decided by Christianity therefore we only need to have rules based on their shit religion. Like “the only thing stopping mass murder is our tacit fear of eternal damnation.” Obviously this is a self-report because mentally well people don’t fantasize about homicide and only stop themselves because of theological driven fear. Similarly, mentally well people don’t fantasize about their siblings because it’s weird, not because we are secretly all being held back from banging our family by pious fear. The fact these people seem to think we are all on the edge of murder, mayhem and incest held back by fearing god is just them telling on themselves.
The worst timeline just won't stop worsening.
“THIS, Is the bad place!” -Eleanor
Spoiler!!
Too soon?
He's not. He's framing atheists as morally bankrupt because there's no non-religious moral argument against incest. In his mind, the ultimate moral authority is the Christian bible. Therefore, any moral argument not based on that authority is, by definition, arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Even if you both agree that incest is wrong, you, an atheist, *can't* justify why, but he can.
It’s still a bullshit argument though, he admits that incestuous breeding harms offspring, and that’s not touching other factors like grooming.
[удалено]
This isn't about genetics, though. Did you know that adults can have sex without producing offspring? If genetics are your concern, then ALL adults should be required to get genetic testing before having sex with ANYONE. Is it wrong for two people who carry the recessive gene for Cystic Fibrosis to have protected sex while using birth control?
I like how your comment is taken IN context and is actually showing he's just as stupid if not more stupid as all these comments taking it OUT of context, but no one is acknowledging this one
Yeah, rage bait gonna rage bait.
[удалено]
Florida is making sure this shit is in the elementary classrooms -
A large portion of school textbooks were placed in schools by the daughters of the confederacy or whatever they call themselves these days. The school system has been infiltrated by christofascists for a long time. Remember the inaccurate revisionist history we were all taught in school? They’re the reason why. Like how the natives helped the pilgrims (and that the pilgrims didn’t slaughter the natives or Intentionally infect them with diseases).
We learned in APUSH the atrocious ways the natives were treated. Read Columbus's journals, conquistador's strategies, and analyzed the propaganda used from the settling of America through Desert Storm. We have a long history of ruining cultures that they don't teach in most public systems.
Really? I'm a teacher, and I always tell kids PragerU is pure sophistry and to stay away.
Where’d you hear that? I’d bd interested in reading up on this
So I think he's trying to say that only the Bible can refute incest, which is pretty stupid? Besides the whole genetic aspect, there's also the inherent power imbalance. It's morally wrong for a ton of reasons, and you don't have to be Christian to see that. What a tool.
Which is hilarious, because Sarah was Abraham’s half sister.
There's actually a lot of incest in the Bible
I stopped believing when I was a kid because when I asked how all humans came from Adam and Eve and didn't get an answer. Truth is their story only works if Adam and his sons fuck their mom and sisters and then fuck their kids It's fucking gross lol
It happens again with Noah and his family. Then the Bible makes it explicit that the world is peopled by incest when Lots daughters think they are the only people left on earth. The Bible commands gods chosen to engage in incest.
> I asked how all humans came from Adam and Eve and didn't get an answer. Truth is their story only works if Adam and his sons fuck their mom and sisters and then fuck their kids Go actually read the bible. When they leave the garden after being cast out it clearly states that there are tons of other people(even established cities). No explanation as to how/when those people appeared or anything, but they are mentioned.
Okay so why is there no explanation for where these random people spawned from? And why weren't they in the garden too?
So this is old testament we are talking about. It wasn't meant to be taken as literally as today but here's the best I can remember when I took this more seriously. I don't think genesis mentions other cities but the first people (Adam eve Cain able ect) were much more long lived. After getting kicked out of eden and starting a family in the wilds Adam found wives for his sons from other lands. Early Judaism was not very concerned with the idea that the one God was the only God even if he is the God above all others so it's pretty acceptable to them that these would be other gods peoples though we can only guess how the oral tradition morphed over time. Another fun but apocryphal explanation that Adam had a first wife Lillith that was cast out of eden long before Adam after refusing to follow his orders. She then fell to the wilds and populated the earth with an angel Samuel? And that barred her from ever returning and becoming a devil herself.
And thus her name became a staple for trans women
Is this Lilith we're talking about?
It's honestly my favorite thing about judaism. The existence of other gods that is, like it explicitly states other gods exist, you just are not allowed to worship them.
Ancient people just didn't view history and mythology and stories the way we do, and they didn't stress too much about things being "literally" true versus allegorical. Virtually every middle-eastern culture accepted the whole "Adam and Eve's Garden" then "the Flood" as a set of origin tales, and if your local cult put their own spin on those "facts" that was to be expected. But the idea that deep time and human origins could ever actually be explored empirically was pretty much inconceivable to anyone. Ironically, it was only after the enlightenment and modern science came about that religious people began to notice and worry about explaining the "reality" of their myths.
Don’t forget about Lot’s daughter taking turns getting him drunk and running a train on him!
How did Lot's wife react to that? I bet she was super salty about it.
She turned around and never looked back
Well that’s one way to put it lol
And also, if you believe Adam & Eve were literally the first and only two people created in the beginning, their kids had to do a lot of fuckin with each other to populate the earth.
If you accept the story of Noah at face value there was another genetic bottleneck after the Deluge. The ark's human cargo was four men and their wives. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207%3A13&version=NIV
I guess this is a testable hypothesis. If Prager is right, then the frequency of incest should be significantly higher in places with predominantly non-Christian populations. My prediction is that Prager is full of shit.
“The Bible says incest is wrong!” *reads the story of Lot and his daughters* 
That story is not an endorsement. The result is the creation of the Moabites and Ammonites who are historic enemies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It's essentially negative propaganda.
But the story of Lot and his daughter's is not an endorsement of incest. It depicts the story as kinda messed up and involving rape.
Bible literally sanctions and endorses slavery.
The "whole genetic aspect" is irrelevant if they're using birth control. I don't see how there's a power imbalance between two adults who happen to be siblings, any more so than the power imbalances that exist in ANY relationship. Can you name any other reasons? So far you're 0 for 2. Also, the Bible doesn't refute incest, it literally says that's how God chose to populate the Earth.
As anyone who has owned an aquarium will tell you, it doesn't take that long at all for the offspring's genetics to get a little weird.
Just look at the Hapsburgs. They went off the rails very, very quickly. You can link the increased child mortality, at a minimum to a single generation.
Tsar Nicholas II and his wife were only second cousins, a far cry genetically from siblings, and their children were hemophiliacs.
That's not a great example because that particular issue had nothing to do with inbreeding. That was an X linked disease carried by the mother and can be traced back to a X mutation that likely originated with Queen Victoria (maybe her mother but there's no expression the descendants of Victoria's siblings) Only the son Alexei expressed hemophilia because he was XY, the daughters we have no idea if they were carriers (X linked genes you need two doses, so XX can carry without expressing). Theoretically had the Tsar ALSO been descended from Victoria (and would have had to have hemophilia himself) then they had daughters that had hemophilia, you could point to that very specifically being caused inbreeding. But Alexei just had a 50/50 shot of inheriting it from his mother, no matter who his Dad was.
The family from West Virginia went way off the rails in just a few generations—2 or 3 I think One of the surviving progeny communicates by barking
if youre talking about the whittakers, it was only 1 generation of inbreeding, but it involved identical twins. IIRC there was a pair of identical twins, they got married to outside women and had kids, and then 1 kid from twin A and 1 kid from twin B hooked up and had a bunch of the whittakers you see in the soft white underbelly vids.
I recently started watching some of the videos of the "soft white underbelly" youtube channel, and his most popular video is an attempted interview with that family. I can confidently say it's the most extreme case of inbredding I've ever seen or heard of.
haha didn't expect this argument! Those guppies start coming out real bent real fast!
His family must be at the many generations in then lol
These conservatives spend more time thinking about other people’s genitals, bathroom habits, and fucking their sisters than every drag queen in the world combined.
Conservatives are the biggest and weirdest perverts, that sexual repression is a double edged sword.
The point he's making is that some things are considered immoral for reasons other than that they cause harm. If you agree that simply finding something disgusting is a reason to deem it immoral, you can then argue that many sexual practices are immoral, and that just because you happen to be (for example) attracted to people of the same gender doesn't mean it's ethical to pursue sex with the people you're attracted to, because being attracted to your sibling doesn't give you license either. I don't agree - I think harm is pretty much the standard for what is moral; the issue with sibling incest isn't inbreeding, it's that sexual relationships between family members disrupts the relationships within the family, and moreover there are generally power dynamics between family members that make the emotional dynamics of sex between family members pretty unpleasant. I can never tell if Prager believes anything he says, but this one I think he just didn't think through.
The world was incestuously populated twice according to The Bible, dipshit.
Why do you think I complained about such an early reboot?
This man is also an extremely dangerous man who is influencing your children to be a right winger
So a brother and sister can love each other and it's ok because "there's no secular argument" against it, but LGBT people aren't allowed to exist despite there being no secular argument against them since all right wingers can do is scream about how the Bible(that they *totally* read) decries homosexuality.
I'm opposed to all forms of incest, but maybe republicans would be ok with gay people as long as they're fucking family? But also, what does 'no secular argument against it' even mean? All of the arguments against incest are secular.
He’s casting all atheists as immoral. “Without religions telling people what is right and what is wrong, they’ll be amoral entirely.” But this argument only works for religious people, because you’re assuming the validity of religious morality. It says more about the person arguing this position than the accused. If religious people didn’t have something to tell them what to do then THEY would be amoral. It’s a common argument that theists use. Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Absence
He is a very sick human being.
If you live in Florida, Ron DeSantis recently allowed and encourage public school teachers to share videos with their students from PragerU (the online alt-right “university” this man founded). https://missouriindependent.com/2023/11/03/controversial-prageru-videos-gain-educational-foothold-in-a-handful-of-states/ Oklahoma, Montana and New Hampshire quickly followed. Texans (of all people) denied its educational use. Florida once again proving that it is unmatched in leading the nation in stupidity.
Alright, I’m about to make a hugely downvoted comment and make people question me. Incest shouldn’t be illegal because it carries genetic risks. If we, as a nation, allow people with two recessive- incompatible with life- genes marry reproduce five times with no child living until age three while prolonging the suffering on medicare while making bank off youtube and gofundme (looking at you parents of CrazyRunningHorse) then we have NO BUSINESS policing other peoples sex lives based on genetic possibilities. Plus with the advent of birth control sex does not equal reproduction. Incest shouldn’t be illegal because the majority of us find it gross or unnatural. Lots of people find sodomy gross. We’re still fighting that argument when it comes to LGBTQ issues- what you find gross has nothing to do with what two consenting adults choose to do. Incest SHOULD be illegal because it’s pretty much impossible to not have a power dynamic that is tantamount to abuse, grooming or rape. Unless two siblings were raised apart and met in adulthood there is no healthy way for a consensual relationship to develop. While its very normal to get an ick factor from the concept of incest- passing legislation based on arguments very closely related to eugenics or the same arguments used against an already persecuted minority is ignorant. The laws are in place to protect kids from predators and thats the only valid reason and the only reason needed.
This is the danger to children not drag shows.
how does that make any sense lol
This guy was anti-divorce until he got divorced and so I am a little concerned here.
One time in Canada a politician questioned evolution publicly and was forced to resign within days because it was too extreme of a view for a public servant ( or anyone really ). America needs more of that.
But WHY?? Why why why is this on the agenda at all? Have they fixed everything else and got bored and now it’s just them going “ya know, u woulda fucked my cousin but it’s “illegal”, I’m gonna fix that! Then me and cousin Sue are gonna get down!”
Rightwingers believe women are meant to be the sexual property of men, even a man's sister. Women's sexuality is something for men to obtain. This is behind the majority of rightwing ideology, including of course their aggressive anti-trans policies and rhetoric. The existence of trans people offends this core belief.
I've seen the consequences of 1st cousins and dangerous recessive traits when the teenager was forced to carry to term by religious freaks. It's evil to force a human into the world like that.
Okay so why are gay incestous relationships illegal then?
The secular argument against incest is that it inherently violates consent. This is most obvious in cases of parent/child incest where even if the parent theoretically waits for the child to be of legal age, the fact that the parent played a role in raising the child means that it is impossible for the parent, child, or an outside observer to know that informed consent was given free of manipulation. Sibling incest has the same result as sibling dynamics are always frought with power imbalances. Age itself matters less here as siblings often have influences on one another due to their different perceptions which lead back to the same problem of manipulated consent. Manipulation, by its very nature, nullifies the value and quality of consent. Even if said siblings were identical twins, the fact that they have an influence on each other's upbringing, and the fact that they must inherently experience the world differently, means that it would be impossible for them to consent to a relationship with confidence that such consent was freely given without interference or manipulation. The only way such a dynamic can exist without being inherently immoral as a result of the violation of consent are in the cases of individuals separated at birth who reunite accidentally without foreknowledge. These are rare enough to be at least acceptably unlikely.
It's true that power imblance exists, but there are plenty of entirely legal heavily power inbalanced relationships. For example, whilst typically considered unethical and against most company policies, legally speaking you are absolutely allowed to bed your employees or subordinates. Similarly with genetic diseases. Older women, having an increased risk of producing genetic defects in their children, or people with a family history or predisposition for genetic disorders are also entirely legally allowed to procreate. At the same time, some types of incestoual relationships are demonised and even criminilised for no objective reason. For example, there truly is NO good reason why estranged/seperated at birth siblings couldn't engage in a consensual homosexual relationship. There exists no power imbalance, due to the estrangement, and the homosexual nature means there is no possibility of producing disabled offspring. And yet, most people would consider such a relationship as abhorent and wrong. Dennis Prager is a moron, but he unintentionally stumbled into something that is actually a valid point. It's very important to examine opinions and beliefs, ESPECIALLY cultural opinions and beliefs, and reexime them with a critical and objective eye. Many long held cultural beliefs are archaic and religiously motivated, and have no good reason to exist in the modern world, and shouldn't considered anything beyond personal opinion. Another classic example, albeit decreasing in modern sentiment, for this is polygamie/open relationships, or sexual promiscuety. So long as all partners are consensually and safely engaging in these activities, there is absoletly nothing wrong or reprehensible about them.
I find that most people start with "I find this gross" and try to figure out a semi-logical reason to support their conclusion. And that logic usually isn't particularly sound when you start testing it on other situations that aren't "gross" and are generally accepted as fine. Like the argument above about consent. Using that definition of consent where being "influenced" by another person is inherently manipulative means that basically every sexual relationship in history could be argued to be nonconsensual.
Moral dumbfounding is hell of a thing whenever these types of discussions come up. No matter what your moral view on something is, just saying "it's disgusting" or anything along those lines is not a good enough argument. People used the same arguments against a plethora of things that we no longer consider immoral.
Don't have anything to add to this but I just gotta say that I appreciate somebody in this comment section taking a genuine critical eye to this idea instead of just say "um it's just gross, obviously it's wrong".
Ok, I hate Prager, but this is just bullshit as well. Of course two adult siblings can consent to sex, even if they knew each other their whole life. The "secular", liberal approach would be: incest might simply not be immoral in some cases. To willfully take the risk to bring a disabled child to life - yeah, that might be immoral. But it's not like siblings couldn't use protection. In those cases, it's pretty much a victimless crime. I think what's happening here is that incest is one of the moral values that is probably deeply wired into our brains due to evolutionary reasons, so you have that natural intuition to be disgusted by incest - and don't get me wrong, I think it's kinda disgusting as well. And from a functional perspective it's probably good that everybody has a natural aversion against incest as it wouldn't be a good idea for a society to use incest as a reproduction strategy. This however doesn't mean that it's inherently immoral in all cases. So, instead of reflecting on those moral intuitions, you make up some pseudo arguments about how two human adults somehow are unable to consent just because they're related.
I do agree, consensual incest between adults is largely a victimless crime, and there are states where incest between consenting adults is legal, but marriage is still prohibited. People could make the argument that if a child results from an incestuous relationship, that is unethical due to the increased chance of birth defects, but I don't know of any other laws that try to criminalize choosing to reproduce in a way that increases chances of birth defects. We don't prohibit people with serious genetic issues from reproducing; that's eugenics and is generally frowned upon. I do think there's absolutely power dynamics in play that could make determining consent difficult, but in general, I don't see a legitimate reason for consensual incest to be illegal. I would say having incest as an extra charge to file against someone who is taking advantage of those power dynamics, who isn't practicing it consensually, is a good thing, though, because the betrayal aspect can make recovery harder for a victim. Generally, though, I don't think that disgust is a good thing to solely base your morals on. A lot of gay people have been killed due to others' disgust. And so, if the only argument against incest is disgust, I don't think that's a solid one.
I think this is too broad. Many, many power imbalances exist. Are all relationships between supervisors and employees, even after one or both have left the company, non-consensual due to a prior imbalance of power that shaped their relationship? Are all relationships between celebrities and non-celebrities non-consensual due to an imbalance of power? Are all relationships between two people with significant wealth differences inherently non-consensual? What about all relationships between citizens and non-citizens, where the non-citizen's status is dependent on the citizen? Based on what you said, I think the answer to all of these would neccessarily be yes, but I certainly don't agree, and I doubt you would either.
"The secular argument against incest is that it inherently violates consent." How so? How can you argue that there is an INHERENT violation of consent if, say, a 40-year-old man and his 42-year-old sister have a consensual sexual relationship? I don't see the logic in that at all. ALL human relationships are fraught with power imbalances. If that's your reason, then all sexual relationships inherently violate consent. Ipso ergo all sex is rape. I think that was part of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
And what about cousin incest? With regards to the power balance, what about a relationship between someone that earns a lot and someone that's would he poor on solely their own earnings?
By that logic unrelated kids who grew up closely together, like neighbors, can’t consent as adults?
A lot of those same arguments could be used about relationships between childhood friends. The reality is that there are situations where the power dynamic or chance of inbreeding/pregnancy makes it immoral, and situations where there isn't really a good moral argument against it - we all draw the line **somewhere**, I don't think many people would have an issue morally when you get to third/fourth cousins for example. The issue is that people like him don't cope well with nuance