Jump to content

Incest.


sulker

Recommended Posts

@Everyone.

 

Just as anyone with a statistically higher chance of producing deformed children can use contraception, so can incestuous couples.  By reproducing they are making themselves responsible for the child.  A woman past the age of say 35, has a much higher chance of giving birth to children with Down's syndrome.  By principle, that woman is equally responsible for the child's deformity as an incestuous couple.  By extension, should we sterilise women past the age of 35?  No.  Should we sterilise incestuous couples who are making an equally conscious choice?  No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I mean it's hard to judge this because there are no recent examples of incest

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202069/Inside-Brazilian-ghost-town-live-indoors-Deadly-disorder-causes-lose-faces-sun.html

 

Somewhat recent, because of the incestuousness origins of that town it made a rare normally recessive gene become "dominant" leading to a majority of the people there having the same rare disorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If incest was legal, alot more retarded babies would be born.

 

This indeed is a real problem ...

 

But on the other hand

  • homosexuality = no babies ...
  • we could screen couples who want to get married to see if their children have higher chance of certain genetic disorders ... but we don't do this.
  • 2 people that know they have a dormant gene, and have a 1/4 chance the would get a child who's genetic disorder ... and they still get to make that choice for themselves
  • people who have a genetic disorder still are allowed to have children as well, dispite obvious risks as well.

The law is clearly based upon morallity, not logic. Incest is forbidden, because we (nobody personal, just society in a whole), consider it - in some form - bad.

 

As for why morality frowns upon it, we would have to look at psychology - empathy & justification (or, lack there of). If I were to venture a stab in the dark, I would guess that, innately, we're all in favor of improving the gene pool. But looking at the points I made above

  1. homosexuality doesn't "polute" the gene pool - so not a "real" problem
  2. might effect ourselves - it's very 1984 /  big brother
  3. might effect ourselves as well (suppose you want children, but suddenly find out the love of your life shares the some certain gene)
  4. I reckon we already feel sad for these people, or don't consider them to have a high chance to have a romantic relationship, ...

Oppositely, with incest would not have a symelar psychological empathy or justicifcation -- explaining why it's considered morally wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone give me an actual source detailing just how much of a higher risk of genetic problems there is for children born of an incestual relationship? I know it's a fact, but I think it's a little bit overstated if it's just one generation deep.

Source? I can pick up my genetics...

 

 

basic genetics & notation

 

'aa' + 'aa' --> 'aa'

'AA'+'AA' --> 'AA'

'Aa' +'aa' --> 50% 'Aa' 50% 'aa'

'Aa' +'AA' --> 50% 'Aa' 50% 'AA'

'Aa' +'Aa' --> 25% 'AA' 50% 'Aa' 25% 'aa'

 

Lower case 'a' denoting the dominant gene, so 'AA' having a property, 'Aa' being a carrier of that property, 'aa' being free of the property. A property can be postive (to some degree), negative (to some degree), or neutral

 

Mechanisms

 

Consider 2 mechanisms:

  • INTRODUCTION: getting a property neither mother or father had

    (red)

  • TRANSFORMATION: losing properties of one parent for that of the other parent

    (2 types of green, dependant on parent)

(the only way to lose a property, is if one of the parent's didn't have it, and thus this would be transformation)

Transformation would transfrom

  • a bad property of you to a good property of your spouce
  • a good property of you into a bad property of your spouce. However, assuming your spouce is healthy, this property will not be too bad

Introduction changes

  • a good property of you & your spouce had, into a bad property
  • a bad property of you & your spouce had, into a good property. However, assuming you both are healthy, this will propabbly be a minor bad proporty you lose with this mechanism.

As you can see, assuming healthy people, Transformation is much much better then introduction.

 

 

Maths

Ideal genetics (mother & father completely different) gives

  • 25% 'aa' (6.25% 'aa+aa', 6.25% 'aa+Aa', 6.25% 'Aa+aa', 6.25% 'Aa+Aa')
  • 50% 'Aa' (6.25%,'Aa+aa',6.25% 'Aa+AA', 12.5%'Aa+Aa', 6.25% 'aa+AA', 6.25% 'aa+Aa',6.25% 'AA+aa', 6.25% 'AA+Aa')
  • 25% 'AA' (6.25% 'AA+AA', 6.25% 'AA+Aa', 6.25% 'Aa+AA', 6.25% 'Aa+Aa')

     

    From a parents perspective, there's 12% transformation into the other, and 6.25% introduction

Worse case genetics (genetically identical (theoretical, as this genetic idendical also would mean same sex))

  • 37.5% 'aa' (25% 'aa+aa', 12.5% 'Aa+Aa')
  • 37.5% 'AA' (25% 'AA+AA', 12.5% 'Aa+Aa')
  • 25% 'Aa' (25%,'Aa+Aa')

     

    There's 0% transformation, and 12.5% introduction

Brother/Sister incest would average between these numbers, and give about 6% transformation & 9.5% introduction

 

 

 

 

don't like maths // TL;DR:

- normal reproduction: 12% vs 6.25%

- incest 6% vs 9.5%

 

However, this is not substraction: we look at the bad side of things: it's better to be "normal eyes & immune system" then it is to have "super eyes but ill", or "blind but never sick".

 

Ergo, we would be talking about 6.25 vs 9.5, or about a 50% bigger chance of problems with incenst compared to a normal senario.

 

(disclaimer, this is ONLY genetics. Not all problems are genetics. Smoking while pregnant will effect the baby; incenst or not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source? I can pick up my genetics...

 

 

basic genetics & notation

'aa' + 'aa' --> 'aa'

'AA'+'AA' --> 'AA'

'Aa' +'aa' --> 50% 'Aa' 50% 'aa'

'Aa' +'AA' --> 50% 'Aa' 50% 'AA'

'Aa' +'Aa' --> 25% 'AA' 50% 'Aa' 25% 'aa'

Lower case 'a' denoting the dominant gene, so 'AA' having a property, 'Aa' being a carrier of that property, 'aa' being free of the property. A property can be postive (to some degree), negative (to some degree), or neutral

 

Mechanisms

Consider 2 mechanisms:

 

  • INTRODUCTION: getting a property neither mother or father had

    (red)

  • TRANSFORMATION: losing properties of one parent for that of the other parent

    (2 types of green, dependant on parent)

(the only way to lose a property, is if one of the parent's didn't have it, and thus this would be transformation)

 

Transformation would transfrom

  • a bad property of you to a good property of your spouce
  • a good property of you into a bad property of your spouce. However, assuming your spouce is healthy, this property will not be too bad
Introduction changes

  • a good property of you & your spouce had, into a bad property
  • a bad property of you & your spouce had, into a good property. However, assuming you both are healthy, this will propabbly be a minor bad proporty you lose with this mechanism.
As you can see, assuming healthy people, Transformation is much much better then introduction.

 

 

Maths

 

Ideal genetics (mother & father completely different) gives

  • 25% 'aa' (6.25% 'aa+aa', 6.25% 'aa+Aa', 6.25% 'Aa+aa', 6.25% 'Aa+Aa')
  • 50% 'Aa' (6.25%,'Aa+aa',6.25% 'Aa+AA', 12.5%'Aa+Aa', 6.25% 'aa+AA', 6.25% 'aa+Aa',6.25% 'AA+aa', 6.25% 'AA+Aa')
  • 25% 'AA' (6.25% 'AA+AA', 6.25% 'AA+Aa', 6.25% 'Aa+AA', 6.25% 'Aa+Aa')

    From a parents perspective, there's 12% transformation into the other, and 6.25% introduction

Worse case genetics (genetically identical (theoretical, as this genetic idendical also would mean same sex))

  • 37.5% 'aa' (25% 'aa+aa', 12.5% 'Aa+Aa')
  • 37.5% 'AA' (25% 'AA+AA', 12.5% 'Aa+Aa')
  • 25% 'Aa' (25%,'Aa+Aa')

    There's 0% transformation, and 12.5% introduction

Brother/Sister incest would average between these numbers, and give about 6% transformation & 9.5% introduction

 

 

don't like maths // TL;DR:

- normal reproduction: 12% vs 6.25%

- incest 6% vs 9.5%

 

However, this is not substraction: we look at the bad side of things: it's better to be "normal eyes & immune system" then it is to have "super eyes but ill", or "blind but never sick".

 

Ergo, we would be talking about 6.25 vs 9.5, or about a 50% bigger chance of problems with incenst compared to a normal senario.

(disclaimer, this is ONLY genetics. Not all problems are genetics. Smoking while pregnant will effect the baby; incenst or not)

I already pretty much knew this, just cause I know basic genetics and how stuff is passed on. I just want an actual source rather than an explaination
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already pretty much knew this, just cause I know basic genetics and how stuff is passed on. I just want an actual source rather than an explaination

You want a source which will explain the exact same thing? It's basic genetics and google is a link away and you can have all the sources you want :l

 

Why am I getting a weird deja vu of highschool where the teacher will annoyingly disregard everything you say unless you sourced it on a forum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a source which will explain the exact same thing? It's basic genetics and google is a link away and you can have all the sources you want :l

 

Why am I getting a weird deja vu of highschool where the teacher will annoyingly disregard everything you say unless you sourced it on a forum...

Because it's a logical fallacy to tell me to find my own sources for something you stated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's a logical fallacy to tell me to find my own sources for something you stated.

 

And asking for a source for something you apparently already knew is logical?

 

Not only did you essentially completely disregard basic maths and logic but you also wasted the time of Hyper who typed up all the equations to break it down to you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me explain how incest is completely 100% detrimental.

 

Kids find their relatives sexually attractive at times. It's not really that weird to see a kid get hard when he sees his sister get hard, one going through puberty, and then snapping out of it and thinking 'Jesus, this is my sister! I can't have those thoughts!'. Aunts, cousins, hell even your fucking grandmother if you're into that kind of shit.

 

There's a difference between 'having sex' with your siblings, and having a 'love' relationship with your sibling (which is not quite possible due to the familial FEELINGS, not ones of actual love).

 

When we look at homosexuality, we don't look at how the homosexuals have sex, but the impact of homosexuality on society. Gays raising a kid wouldn't be all that bad after all but that's down to your personal judgement.

 

The impact of incest is disastrous. It completely destroys the familial bond between a brother and his sister, or a man and his aunt for instance, because one's consciousness is plagued by that thought. They either like it, and want more sex, or don't like it, and feel 'ugh''d out, which is understandable. If they do like it, it's a friends with benefit relationship, not one of love or care/affection. You don't love your gf like your sister, even though most people like their siblings in a familial way.

 

This whole relationship transforms human beings into superficial assholes who seek sex from their sister's pussy. Once you get enough pussy you'll stop having the same thrill, and you'll be irk'd out of it. If you aren't irk'd out of it you will persist and develop into someone who just has sex with his sister.

 

Having that sex leads to your kids being fucked up. My aunt did incest with her cousin, and their kid had immunitiy deficience, the kid died after a few years and it broke their hearts. Their two other kids are short as shit, and I doubt that their idiocy comes from the incestual intercourse.

 

Homosexuals can raise a kid fairly, it's understandable. If you do incest though, the kid will be weirded out because society does NOT accept incest, your mommy and daddy are siblings, you're going to get bullied the hell out of your existence in school, and mocked, even alienated later on in life. Just fucking think about the mere infatuation you have for the said sibling, infatuation is 100% temporary and goes off after a certain while, it is NOT love. We should not allow incest because kids will come out as fucked, incest also converts people to manipulative and superficial beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-copypasta-

You claim that homosexuality is not comparable to incest because homosexuality apparently does not destroy family structures, and because the 'ugh' factor of incest makes it a social taboo and therefore it should not be allowed.  Furthermore, you describe how lusting after a family member is wrong because of its 'superficiality'.

 

You first argument states that anything that does not conform to the outdated 'nuclear' family structure should not be tolerated.  You are therefore stating that married homosexual couples will also similarly destroy family structures.  Clearly, they don't.  Elton John and his husband live very happily together with their adopted children, and in our modern society it is clear that you don't have to follow the societal mold to be successful and happy.

 

Second, there is no justification behind your discussion of 'consciousness' (ostensibly, conscience) - in this case especially, forbidding something because it 'doesn't feel right' is blatantly wrong.  Homosexuals were legally persecuted and physically abused all around the world before progressive reforms allowed it to become mainstream.  There is no exception for incest either.

 

Third, you claim that there is something wrong if you think that your sister (for example) is attractive.  What is wrong with having a natural human reaction to someone's sex appeal?  Absolutely nothing!  This sex appeal is what makes people have one-night stands and have recreational sex.  In continuation of your argument, you are implying that anybody who just looks for the best-looking partner they can find is a 'superficial asshole'.  This covers a much broader spectrum of people, straight, homosexual or incestuous - anyone can be 'manipulative' and 'superficial' without being incestuous.  This does not stand as an argument solely against incest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And asking for a source for something you apparently already knew is logical?

 

Not only did you essentially completely disregard basic maths and logic but you also wasted the time of Hyper who typed up all the equations to break it down to you...

I think you forget that I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I already know this as a fact, but for sake of debate, which is the point of this thread, you would need a source to back claims that you have made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already pretty much knew this, just cause I know basic genetics and how stuff is passed on. I just want an actual source rather than an explaination

try "Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century" from Arthur P. Wolf & William H. Durham (2004).

 

The impact of incest is disastrous. It completely destroys the familial bond between a brother and his sister, or a man and his aunt for instance, because one's consciousness is plagued by that thought.

As evidenced by cultures where incest is a thing, I would disagree with you

 

As for your example of your aunt & her cousin... that seems extremely unlikely. As pointed out, brother & sister 'only' have 50% more chance of negative evolution then a normal child. Between cousins, these numbers would be much lower.

All three children having a negative evolution because of incent would mean a very weak gene pool, or extremely bad luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already know this as a fact, but for sake of debate, which is the point of this thread, you would need a source to back claims that you have made.

Asking for source for very outlandish claims is okay, asking for something which you already know even after when someone broke down basic maths and explained to you makes you a prick which disregards everything unless it's sourced which is something which shouldnt happen on a forum, it's something you see on a thesis paper.

 

To put it into perspective so you understand how annoying it is please give me a source of your claim that you need to reference your claims in a forum post. As far as I know when you're on a debating team you dont stand up with call cards of references/sources. I know what sources/references are an where they are appropriate but I will ignore your every argument until you source everything you say. Also i dont see any sources for all your claims in your previous 1000+ posts please reference/source those as well :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If incest should be banned because of a higher probability of creating kids with malfunctioning genes, should we by extension prevent people with genetic defects (e.g. disabled, mentally retarded people), or even normal people with a higher chance of passing down defective genes, from reproducing then?

Probably, yes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this still not in the GB? I really don't condone the act of incest, but if people want to do it, why stop them.

 

Why is that everyone's go-to for a conversation like this? If it needed to be in the GB, it'd be in the GB, several mods have evidently seen this.

 

If there's productive conversation taking place, it doesn't need to be in the festering trash-hole that is the GB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by OverduePixels, September 30, 2015 - Unnecessary post
Hidden by OverduePixels, September 30, 2015 - Unnecessary post

oohhh boy, I remember my cousin from Rio... That incest

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Personally, I believe it is not the business of other people. If a family member consents to having a child with other family member, then is isn't my job to look at that and say "That's wrong". 

 

However, from an objective perspective, it causes many problems, mainly in the genetics. On top, it can lead to some...unsavory...situations. Modern society certainly has a role to play in it because back in the middle ages, it was not odd to marry one's family member to ensure a legacy. Unfortunately, many of these long family clans eventually died out BECAUSE incest created a genetics problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

idk how people come up with these ideas, if you wanna fuck your sister go ahead but dont try and prove to me that it should be "morally correct".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...