• jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      that’s not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You’re gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I just misremembered. But my point still stands. You want to ban women over 34 having children?

            • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              no, I don’t. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn’t lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you’re using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn’t apply.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                It’s not a slippery slope, it’s the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.

                • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  no it wouldn’t and that’s your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You’re wrong.