And Jaime Lannister shrugged, and asked: "Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP PUTS BROTHER AND SISTER IN JAIL

Friday afternoon Montgomery County Precinct 4 Deputy Constables were dispatched to the Porter Wal-Mart in reference to a shoplifter. When they arrived Loss Prevention officers directed them to their office where they had Charlene Marie Ellet detained for shoplifting. Ellet told deputies her brother Cameron Beck, age 26, had driven her to Wal-Mart along with her two 2-year-old twins. A short time later Beck appeared at the Loss Prevention Office looking for his sister.

Deputies then went to the vehicle and after getting consent searched it. Inside they found a backpack with a bag inside it, Inside the bag were a light bulb with burn marks and a cut pen with a crystal substance on it. That material tested positive for Methamphetamine. Ellet admitted she and Beck had smoked the meth approximately two weeks prior.

Both were places in custody for possession of a controlled substance. It was at that point Beck asked if they could just charge his sister as she had a clean record.

In addition Ellet was issued a citation for shoplifting under $50.

When they arrived back at the office both were placed in adjoining cells. As deputies worked on the booking reports they witnessed Beck and Ellet kissing each other on the lips through the bars. One of the deputies questioned what they had told them earlier about being brother and sister and Ellet admitted they were.

Ellet was then removed and taken back to another office and questioned about the strange relationship. She told them she was adopted and had the same biological mother but a different father. She stated that Beck had been in prison and they had been writing each other. He was released in November of last year.

She also stated that they had been staying in a motel and her, Beck and the twin girls were sleeping in the same bed. She admitted to being involved in a sexual relationship with her brother since his release.

She explained that the room had a partition and the children would stay on the other side of the partition when she and her brother had sex. Other times she and her brother would just go to the bathroom.

The children were released to Ellet’s sister.

Ellet and Beck were both placed in the Montgomery County Jail for possession of controlled substance and prohibited sexual conduct.

**Soladrin**

I... Well...

Yeah, I'm not sure how to react to this. Just seems dumb.

**LordofHats**

You could say they're...

*puts on sunglasses*

Paying their debts.

**Jimsolo**

I like how both of these degenerates look like they have no idea why they're under arrest.

No shame whatsoever.

**Ouze**

LordofHats wrote:
You could say they're...

*puts on subglasses*

Paying their debts.

Well played, sir.

**SilverMK2**

Why would you consent to a search if you had meth?

And then kissing each other in a police station?

Clearly not the first relatives having sex in the family shrub.

**easysauce**

strange... why on earth would kissing your relative be illegal?

OBS its gross, disgusting, breaches biblical codes and so on, but if other sexual preferences that some consider "too much" are ok, why not that?

sick sick couple though, glad they are finally caught and the kids taken away to a safer home hopefully.

**LordofHats**

strange... why on earth would kissing your relative be illegal?

Incest is illegal in a lot of US states I think, but like sodomey laws not regularly enforced.

**Ouze**

easysauce wrote:
strange... why on earth would kissing your relative be illegal?

I think the issue is where she admitted that he would kiss her vagina with his penis.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Why would you consent to a search if you had meth?.

Out of all the messed up stuff in this article, that one was the weirdest right? :mindblown: I literally cannot fathom the chain of thoughts that led to that OK.

**hotsauceman1**

easysauce wrote:
strange... why on earth would kissing your relative be illegal?

TBH, i think it is mre then likely they where arrested for having sex possibly infront of minors. Atleast I got the impression

**SilverMK2**

With modern genetic screening there is far less of an issue with intra-family breeding. A lot of the problem with them is it is very difficult to seperate the genuine relationships from very harmful abuse. Many laws against sexual acts with step family are to give greater sentencing options to non-genetically related family members (ie step parent) engaging in sexual activity with a step child of example.

**SlaveToDorkness**

easysauce wrote:
strange... why on earth would kissing your relative be illegal?

OBS its gross, disgusting, breaches biblical codes and so on, but if other sexual preferences that some consider "too much" are ok, why not that?

Because the people with this particular sexual preference have yet to organize and start a social movement to change the publics opinions... Yet.

**Orlanth**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Because the people with this particular sexual preference have yet to organize and start a social movement to change the publics opinions... Yet.

Indeed, not too long ago people were openly saying the same about gays.
There have even been moves to change perceptions on underage sex.
We are in an almost anything goes society, incest is not illogical if it is not used for breeding, just socially uncomfortable.

**Breotan**

A different lover is nota sin
Believe capital H-I-M
I love my life, I love this record and
Mi amore vole fe yah

I'm beautiful in my way,
'Cause God makes no mistake
I'm on the right track,baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret,
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
Baby, I was born this way
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
I'm on the right track, baby,
I was born this way

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

I understand why they were sentenced for taking drugs. I do not understand why they were sentenced for making love to each other. As long as it is consensual (and it really looks like it is) and both have reached the age of consent, they can do what they want !

**FirePainter**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I understand why they were sentenced for taking drugs. I do not understand why they were sentenced for making love to each other. As long as it is consensual (and it really looks like it is) and both have reached the age of consent, they can do what they want !

Except that incest in illegal in many states

**Jihadin**

Same sex marriage battle...its two consenting adults
More then one wife/husband battle..its well all adults
Incest battle..its two consenting adults.

Republicans going to be at fault when these battle rages

**Da Boss**

There are fairly valid reasons for disallowing incest though- inbreeding is bad for the children of those couples.

**Ahtman**

Edit: Nevermind Da Boss said it.

**LordofHats**

It's also been noted by psychologists and sociologists that incest relationships have a tendency to be abusive relationships. Yeah, the same thing was said about homosexual relationships not too long ago, but there are good studies backing up the accusations direct at incest behavior (A significant % of rapes committed in the US are committed by close family members).

EDIT: However its also been noted that initial sexual fantasies and experimentation at times are directed at siblings, suggesting that in itself brief incest may not be uncommon, but that long term relationships quickly become unhealthy. Appropriate to the thread, substance abuse is often associated with such relationships.

**chaos0xomega**

I think the laws are only really strictly enforced in Appalachia, where there are actually serious social/economic issues resulting from largish inbred populations in some areas...

**Jihadin**

Vasectomy or tube ligation.
Problem solve. two consenting adults
Yep I went outside the box of thinking on this.

**Da Boss**

I would have less of a problem with it if the couples were voluntarily sterilised, but I do feel there is a fair scope for abuse in these sorts of situations. There is scope for abuse in any intimate relationship though.

I'd be dead against forced sterilisation though.

**LordofHats**

In the end, it wouldn't shock me to see society throw its hands up and say "we don't care" and you know the world's hardly going to end because of it. Life goes on, mutated or otherwise.

**Frazzled**

And people will still keep shouting "slippery slope!" like it didn't actually happen.

Actually I'd proffer this does not develop. Very few societies permitted this among the peasant folk, and its riddled with abuse/differential power relationships.

**LordofHats**

You can find about as many instances of slippery slope in history that ring true as you can find instances where it didn't. Saying we shouldn't do something because it might lead to something else later is still logically fallacious. Of course, more people carry logical fallacies to absurd places. You can make an argument based almost entirely on logical fallacies and still be right. Your reasoning might suck, but you could still be right XD

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
You can find about as many instances of slippery slope in history that ring true as you can find instances where it didn't. Saying we shouldn't do something because it might lead to something else later is still logically fallacious.

WHy because it says that in a textbook. History can indeed be a guide.

**Jimsolo**

LordofHats wrote:
You can find about as many instances of slippery slope in history that ring true as you can find instances where it didn't. Saying we shouldn't do something because it might lead to something else later is still logically fallacious. Of course, more people carry logical fallacies to absurd places. You can make an argument based almost entirely on logical fallacies and still be right. Your reasoning might suck, but you could still be right XD

As a brief aside, I keep hearing that 'slippery slope' arguments are inherently fallacious. Unfortunately, I didn't have any electives to spare in college, so I couldn't afford to take a philosophy course. I'm afraid I don't understand WHY they are inherently fallacious.

"If I let my toddler play with packets of restaurant condiments, he might splatter them all over."

"If condiments are splattered in my living room, I might get ants."

"I'm not going to let my toddler play with restaurant honey packets because it might lead to us getting ants."

Seems like a pretty reasonable slippery slope argument to me. Have I missed a step here?

**Ahtman**

Those aren't really slippery slope arguments as the lack taking things to the extremes needed to make a point using a slipper slope argument. Slippery Slope isn't just a statement of cause and effect, which is more or less what you are presenting. It must be an argument in which "some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question". What you said is a rational expectation and not a wild leap in analysis.

**LordofHats**

I'm afraid I don't understand WHY they are inherently fallacious

Because they assume that if we do B then C will happen, even though there's no reason to believe C will happen just because B did happen. Rhetorically, it is fallacious because it assumes C must happen.

For your example you said; I might get ants. 'Might' keeps the statement from being fallacious because you've acknowledged (more or less) that its possible you won't get ants.

Marriage laws have become the rallying cry for some people in the US who oppose anti-slippery slope arguments. They happily ignore that the legalization of gay marriage probably has a lot more to do with the growing acceptance of homosexuality in society and is only marginally related to allow blacks and whites to marry (i.e. the two are really only related in being civil rights issues and otherwise are connected by much). So, C didn't happen because of B. Rather B happened then a few decades, and some social changes in perspective later, C happened which was helped along by B happening but also because D and E happened.

Not so much evidence that a slippery slope actually occurred but rather, that people don't bother reading into how events unfold much and would rather just decry the moral decay of American society.

EDIT: A good quote on this came from Bill Maher;

"Gay marriage will not lead to dog marriage! When we gave women the vote we did not also have to give it to parakeets. When we freed the slaves we were not obligated to free the gerbils."