Posts from Sacred Haven of Debauchery Auto-translated

This is where it stops making sense.

It wouldn't make sense if the idea was that people are forbidden from dying after the age of 18, but as it is, there's no logical connection between these two excerpts...

people are forbidden from dying after the age of 18.

Once upon a time, the law officially prohibited this.
Now, it has remained at the level of strong public condemnation ("Have you thought about your parents?! How would they feel?!"), and, of course, the good old religion never fails ("Our all-forgiving God will send you to hell for daring to dispose of your own life").
And in our country, for example, it is forbidden to help such people, even by simply providing them with useful information about methods of dying.
In short, formally, the law does not prohibit it, of course, but we all understand.

A more relevant example of hippopotamism: incest between adults is prohibited in many countries, while this is mainly justified by inbreeding, and at the same time, there is no legal obstacle preventing people with real and serious genetic diseases from having children.

>an adult wants to have a child
>the child cannot agree as it doesn't exist yet (neutral position)

Don't you think it would be fair to legally allow children to kill their parents? Provided that appropriate procedures are followed and well-thought-out and well-established safeguards are in place. For example, if a comprehensive and impartial analysis of the life of the citizen requesting the exercise of this right shows that the level of existential suffering of this citizen exceeds the established norm and is related to factors directly influenced by the parental organisms. That is, if a person is unhappy because they live in a ghetto; because they were born with multiple health problems, which were influenced by heredity, or the corresponding actions of the parents during the gestation/raising period; because of psychological violence within the family, which traumatized the citizen for life; because of the inability, even understanding the fact of existence and realizing the severity of existential horror, to instill the right mindset that will help a member of society overcome this serious threshold? And so on. In addition, this would significantly reduce the problems of child abuse, as well as irresponsible procreation, caused by a momentary surge of hormones in the brain and blood in the genitals.

Well, the good old religion never fails (OUR ALL-FORGIVING GOD WILL SEND YOU TO HELL FOR DARING TO DISPOSE OF YOUR OWN LIFE)

Come on, the point here is for religious people that this is relevant and reasonable for them (for us), the rest don't care anyway...

Legally, nothing prevents people with real and serious genetic diseases from having children.

I think, in many ways, this is because they already have reduced chances of having children...
And the problem with inbreeding is not only that hemophilia can be propagated, but rather that factors such as a decrease in genetic, psychological, and social diversity come into play. Close relatives are, on average, more attractive to each other, so there is a high risk that a bunch of closed-off small groups will emerge. Or there was a high risk.
Now, everything is changing, of course. Maybe in 40-50 years, we can forget about even thinking about various genetic diseases in everyday life.

Inbreeding explains the ban on sexual intercourse itself, rather than on bearing offspring, because the use of contraception does not exempt one from criminal responsibility (hence the inconsistency). As for the social aspect, in countries where there is no ban, there is no observed increase in **incest between relatives, so this argument also doesn't hold water.**

I believe that, in many ways, this is due to the fact that they already have reduced chances of having offspring...

But not zero chances. In the end, it all boils down to society's dislike of this phenomenon rather than rational reasons.

I don't know anything about it, but for me, even homosexual incest is disgusting, as is pedophilia. Sick bastards.

Nebok, do you generally dislike love songs, or specifically those with a romantic undertone, i.e., about a boy and a girl?

I wouldn't say I dislike everything. I like Modern Talking songs. But most likely, it's because they evoke positive memories.
This song is good. But probably because it's Nightwish.
This one. But probably because it's a Manson cover.
I can't think of anything else I like right now. In general, it probably depends on the presentation. And the song shouldn't be a whiny ballad about unrequited love for Mary. That's unpleasant to listen to.

and what if a girl is singing?)
and in general, love for different people can exist...

what if a girl is singing?

Well, if she's singing about how her очередной Sheriff left her, and she LOVED him, then it's still unpleasant.

In any case, I've never been infatuated with anyone the way poets and love-struck people describe, so I don't understand it and it's foreign to me.

and in general, love for different people can exist...

Like love for relatives or friends?

And what about the love of money? and of oneself

What do you mean by “love of money and self”?

When you touch banknotes with one hand and yourself with the other.

Well, there are songs dedicated to the love of money, and the idea that the more you have, the better. They're like hymns to greed.
As for the love of oneself, you can look at it from the perspective of narcissism, or from the perspective that you should love yourself. And there's also a rather direct interpretation... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Added after 31 seconds

When you touch banknotes with one hand and yourself with the other.

This is if you implement both options.