Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-12-16 07:24:23
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6740|Toronto | Canada

ghettoperson wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Incest is illegal not just due to moral reasons.  Its proven that incest brings about recessive mutations in the genotype of pretty well all organisms, basically causing severe problems or death in offspring. 

Biology 101
Actually I don't think the numbers are anywhere near as bad as everyone makes out. Certainly not with cousins, not sure about parent/child, which lets be honest is far more fucked up.

But in any case, as long as they don't have kids what's the problem?
Are you just basing this on your feelings or actual proof?  If I wasnt lazy I'd show you my lecture slides showing how inbreeding has severe effects, even for cousins and second cousins.  Also, it causes genotypic homozygosity in populations, which is proven to have negative effects as well.

tl;dr dont talk out of your ass

And even if they dont have kids its
a) really fucked up
b) if theyre allowed to have sex, how long do you think itll be before they make the case that they should be allowed to have children as well?
2010-12-16 07:25:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Its immoral and unatural for a father to have a relationship with his own daugther. Just as poligamy is illegal too.
I'm not a fan of polygamy or Mormonism, but in all seriousness, if more than 2 adults want to marry, who am I to stop them?

Now, don't get me wrong, we'd definitely need to revise tax laws to deal with this sort of thing, but other than that, it's not really the business of the state.
It's not... but it's also just plain wrong. Whatever. To each his/her own.
Are you saying polygamy is wrong or what Eveira mentioned?
2010-12-16 07:26:01
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5360|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I'm not a fan of polygamy or Mormonism, but in all seriousness, if more than 2 adults want to marry, who am I to stop them?

Now, don't get me wrong, we'd definitely need to revise tax laws to deal with this sort of thing, but other than that, it's not really the business of the state.
It's not... but it's also just plain wrong. Whatever. To each his/her own.
Are you saying polygamy is wrong or what Eveira mentioned?
Incest is wrong. Polygamy, meh, that doesn't bother me at all.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-16 07:32:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Winston_Churchill wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Incest is illegal not just due to moral reasons.  Its proven that incest brings about recessive mutations in the genotype of pretty well all organisms, basically causing severe problems or death in offspring. 

Biology 101
Actually I don't think the numbers are anywhere near as bad as everyone makes out. Certainly not with cousins, not sure about parent/child, which lets be honest is far more fucked up.

But in any case, as long as they don't have kids what's the problem?
Are you just basing this on your feelings or actual proof?  If I wasnt lazy I'd show you my lecture slides showing how inbreeding has severe effects, even for cousins and second cousins.  Also, it causes genotypic homozygosity in populations, which is proven to have negative effects as well.

tl;dr dont talk out of your ass

And even if they dont have kids its
a) really fucked up
b) if theyre allowed to have sex, how long do you think itll be before they make the case that they should be allowed to have children as well?
When I went to a Richard Dawkins lecture at Duke University, someone asked him about the nature of breeding amongst close relatives.  This question was inspired by the concept of our origins as a species.  Obviously in the beginning, there weren't many homo sapiens in existence, so at some point, a lot of inbreeding occurred.

Dawkins pointed out that, although it is statistically much more likely to have defects among immediate relatives breeding, the percentages drop off considerably between cousins and further relations.  It's still much more dangerous than breeding among non-related (or technically very distantly related) people, but he also explained that a species can survive a lot of inbreeding and produce normal and healthy offspring if enough births occur.  Of course, this involves a lot of dead offspring by the end of the process.

He also mentioned some isolated community in South America where so much inbreeding happened that the people living there today have a really high amount of identical twins, but they surprisingly have very few defects.
2010-12-16 07:32:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


It's not... but it's also just plain wrong. Whatever. To each his/her own.
Are you saying polygamy is wrong or what Eveira mentioned?
Incest is wrong. Polygamy, meh, that doesn't bother me at all.
Ah, I agree.
2010-12-16 07:41:12
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5360|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


Actually I don't think the numbers are anywhere near as bad as everyone makes out. Certainly not with cousins, not sure about parent/child, which lets be honest is far more fucked up.

But in any case, as long as they don't have kids what's the problem?
Are you just basing this on your feelings or actual proof?  If I wasnt lazy I'd show you my lecture slides showing how inbreeding has severe effects, even for cousins and second cousins.  Also, it causes genotypic homozygosity in populations, which is proven to have negative effects as well.

tl;dr dont talk out of your ass

And even if they dont have kids its
a) really fucked up
b) if theyre allowed to have sex, how long do you think itll be before they make the case that they should be allowed to have children as well?
When I went to a Richard Dawkins lecture at Duke University, someone asked him about the nature of breeding amongst close relatives.  This question was inspired by the concept of our origins as a species.  Obviously in the beginning, there weren't many homo sapiens in existence, so at some point, a lot of inbreeding occurred.

Dawkins pointed out that, although it is statistically much more likely to have defects among immediate relatives breeding, the percentages drop off considerably between cousins and further relations.  It's still much more dangerous than breeding among non-related (or technically very distantly related) people, but he also explained that a species can survive a lot of inbreeding and produce normal and healthy offspring if enough births occur.  Of course, this involves a lot of dead offspring by the end of the process.

He also mentioned some isolated community in South America where so much inbreeding happened that the people living there today have a really high amount of identical twins, but they surprisingly have very few defects.
A good percentage of the natives on Martha's Vineyard are deaf due to being isolated for so many decades. The gene pool was pretty small for a long time and this was the genetic defect they ended up with.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-16 07:46:11
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6740|Toronto | Canada

Turquoise wrote:

Dawkins pointed out that, although it is statistically much more likely to have defects among immediate relatives breeding, the percentages drop off considerably between cousins and further relations.  It's still much more dangerous than breeding among non-related (or technically very distantly related) people, but he also explained that a species can survive a lot of inbreeding and produce normal and healthy offspring if enough births occur.  Of course, this involves a lot of dead offspring by the end of the process.

He also mentioned some isolated community in South America where so much inbreeding happened that the people living there today have a really high amount of identical twins, but they surprisingly have very few defects.
And those dead offspring are what laws are there to prevent... Its also not as much a one time thing over one generation (though that is still significant), but if it happens over 5, 10, 50, 100, etc generations its a massive problem.

The problem with that type of community is their genotypic homozygosity.  There's likely very little variation in their overall genotype, meaning if a virus of any sort caught on they would all be wiped out since nobody will have any different genes to provide a defense or resistance to it.  Its just not a good thing in any case.
2010-12-16 07:49:48
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6655

Turquoise wrote:

Dawkins pointed out that, although it is statistically much more likely to have defects among immediate relatives breeding, the percentages drop off considerably between cousins and further relations.  It's still much more dangerous than breeding among non-related (or technically very distantly related) people, but he also explained that a species can survive a lot of inbreeding and produce normal and healthy offspring if enough births occur.  Of course, this involves a lot of dead offspring by the end of the process.
Yeah, and the percentages aren't that high to begin with...you could say you have double the change of defects, and be right, but you're talking about and increase from maybe 2.5% to 5%.  I suppose it's significant, but it's much less significant than the social taboo associated with it in our culture. 

Now, if you have a specific genetic defect that runs in your family, and begin intermarrying close relatives, then you are obviously at more significant risk (hemophaelia in many royal bloodlines in Europe is a good example...).

Darwin married his cousin.  I'm pretty sure Einstein did too.  And there was another geneticist/evolutionary theorist whose name escapes me who married his cousin...someone asked him about it, and he pointed out the fact that, in the grand scheme of human history, not marrying a first or second cousin is probably outside the "norm".

There is both potential benefit, and risk, associated with doing so:  on the one hand, you increase the chance that "your" genes (or genes from your "bloodline") survive for future generations, as a relative will have a much higher chance of exhibiting similar genetic makeup.  This is balanced out by the increased risk that the bad stuff in your genetic makeup will be exacerbated by doing so.

It's really more of a cultural big deal than a genetic one.  Just don't make babies with your sister....

...which brings me full circle to "incest is fucked up".
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
2010-12-16 07:59:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dawkins pointed out that, although it is statistically much more likely to have defects among immediate relatives breeding, the percentages drop off considerably between cousins and further relations.  It's still much more dangerous than breeding among non-related (or technically very distantly related) people, but he also explained that a species can survive a lot of inbreeding and produce normal and healthy offspring if enough births occur.  Of course, this involves a lot of dead offspring by the end of the process.

He also mentioned some isolated community in South America where so much inbreeding happened that the people living there today have a really high amount of identical twins, but they surprisingly have very few defects.
And those dead offspring are what laws are there to prevent... Its also not as much a one time thing over one generation (though that is still significant), but if it happens over 5, 10, 50, 100, etc generations its a massive problem.

The problem with that type of community is their genotypic homozygosity.  There's likely very little variation in their overall genotype, meaning if a virus of any sort caught on they would all be wiped out since nobody will have any different genes to provide a defense or resistance to it.  Its just not a good thing in any case.
Agreed, but again, subsidized abortion or subsidized sterilization would fix that.  If two immediately related people want to...  you know...  then we just need to encourage them not to have offspring.

Incest is definitely disgusting, but I'm not really sure if prosecuting it when it involves 2 adults is really worth the effort.

It should most definitely be prosecuted when a minor is involved, but that's a different issue.
2010-12-16 08:13:34
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6740|Toronto | Canada

Turquoise wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dawkins pointed out that, although it is statistically much more likely to have defects among immediate relatives breeding, the percentages drop off considerably between cousins and further relations.  It's still much more dangerous than breeding among non-related (or technically very distantly related) people, but he also explained that a species can survive a lot of inbreeding and produce normal and healthy offspring if enough births occur.  Of course, this involves a lot of dead offspring by the end of the process.

He also mentioned some isolated community in South America where so much inbreeding happened that the people living there today have a really high amount of identical twins, but they surprisingly have very few defects.
And those dead offspring are what laws are there to prevent... Its also not as much a one time thing over one generation (though that is still significant), but if it happens over 5, 10, 50, 100, etc generations its a massive problem.

The problem with that type of community is their genotypic homozygosity.  There's likely very little variation in their overall genotype, meaning if a virus of any sort caught on they would all be wiped out since nobody will have any different genes to provide a defense or resistance to it.  Its just not a good thing in any case.
Agreed, but again, subsidized abortion or subsidized sterilization would fix that.  If two immediately related people want to...  you know...  then we just need to encourage them not to have offspring.

Incest is definitely disgusting, but I'm not really sure if prosecuting it when it involves 2 adults is really worth the effort.

It should most definitely be prosecuted when a minor is involved, but that's a different issue.
You think prosecution is more effort than forcing them to get an abortion or sterilization?
2010-12-16 08:30:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

And those dead offspring are what laws are there to prevent... Its also not as much a one time thing over one generation (though that is still significant), but if it happens over 5, 10, 50, 100, etc generations its a massive problem.

The problem with that type of community is their genotypic homozygosity.  There's likely very little variation in their overall genotype, meaning if a virus of any sort caught on they would all be wiped out since nobody will have any different genes to provide a defense or resistance to it.  Its just not a good thing in any case.
Agreed, but again, subsidized abortion or subsidized sterilization would fix that.  If two immediately related people want to...  you know...  then we just need to encourage them not to have offspring.

Incest is definitely disgusting, but I'm not really sure if prosecuting it when it involves 2 adults is really worth the effort.

It should most definitely be prosecuted when a minor is involved, but that's a different issue.
You think prosecution is more effort than forcing them to get an abortion or sterilization?
I never said we should force abortions or sterilizations.  I said we should subsidize them.  In other words, we should pay for the costs of these things if two incestuous people want to have them to avoid making offspring.

In the case of sterilization, we should pay the people as well.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-16 08:30:36)

2010-12-16 08:36:06
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6474|Kakanien

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Incest is illegal not just due to moral reasons.  Its proven that incest brings about recessive mutations in the genotype of pretty well all organisms, basically causing severe problems or death in offspring. 

Biology 101
what he said
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2010-12-16 08:38:45
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6470

Turquoise wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Agreed, but again, subsidized abortion or subsidized sterilization would fix that.  If two immediately related people want to...  you know...  then we just need to encourage them not to have offspring.

Incest is definitely disgusting, but I'm not really sure if prosecuting it when it involves 2 adults is really worth the effort.

It should most definitely be prosecuted when a minor is involved, but that's a different issue.
You think prosecution is more effort than forcing them to get an abortion or sterilization?
I never said we should force abortions or sterilizations.  I said we should subsidize them.  In other words, we should pay for the costs of these things if two incestuous people want to have them to avoid making offspring.

In the case of sterilization, we should pay the people as well.
So you are advocating the use of tax money to support that kind of lifestyle.

Pretty hardcore.
2010-12-16 08:41:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:


You think prosecution is more effort than forcing them to get an abortion or sterilization?
I never said we should force abortions or sterilizations.  I said we should subsidize them.  In other words, we should pay for the costs of these things if two incestuous people want to have them to avoid making offspring.

In the case of sterilization, we should pay the people as well.
So you are advocating the use of tax money to support that kind of lifestyle.

Pretty hardcore.
Hey, I'd pay everyone for sterilization if it were up to me, but that's probably not feasible in a fiscal sense.
2010-12-16 08:43:06
Ticia
Member
+73|5337
The genetics argument can't be used without procreation, take two brothers or a father and a son.

But if we really think about it is clear why a sexual relationship between immediate family members is wrong. One thing is if this guy only got to know her after she was an adult, but raising her as his daughter and later ending up in bed with her is if nothing else pretty disturbing.

Every family is different but can't help but wonder how unsafe a home can be when parents see their own kids as potential sexual partners. Allowing it is opening the door to all sorts of abuse.
2010-12-16 08:46:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

The genetics argument can't be used without procreation, take two brothers or a father and a son.

But if we really think about it is clear why a sexual relationship between immediate family members is wrong. One thing is if this guy only got to know her after she was an adult, but raising her as his daughter and later ending up in bed with her is if nothing else pretty disturbing.

Every family is different but can't help but wonder how unsafe a home can be when parents see their own kids as potential sexual partners. Allowing it is opening the door to all sorts of abuse.
While I definitely agree with the contextual side of this, I believe it becomes a moot point when both people are adults.

Social services should have the funding and power to stop abuses such as these during childhood, but if 2 adults want to do this sort of thing, then legal recourse is no longer relevant.

It's the difference between having a nanny state and having common decency.  Obviously, we can't allow child abuse, but the government can't get involved in the sex lives of consenting adults.
2010-12-16 08:55:14
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

The genetics argument can't be used without procreation, take two brothers or a father and a son.

But if we really think about it is clear why a sexual relationship between immediate family members is wrong. One thing is if this guy only got to know her after she was an adult, but raising her as his daughter and later ending up in bed with her is if nothing else pretty disturbing.

Every family is different but can't help but wonder how unsafe a home can be when parents see their own kids as potential sexual partners. Allowing it is opening the door to all sorts of abuse.
While I definitely agree with the contextual side of this, I believe it becomes a moot point when both people are adults.

Social services should have the funding and power to stop abuses such as these during childhood, but if 2 adults want to do this sort of thing, then legal recourse is no longer relevant.

It's the difference between having a nanny state and having common decency.  Obviously, we can't allow child abuse, but the government can't get involved in the sex lives of consenting adults.
A father and a daughter even as adults are never equal. I don't know if this is the case but if she grew up with him the power he has over her will blurry her consent. In fact if it becomes legal how will a daughter or a son refuse their parents sexual advances, when they might even see it has a parents right?
2010-12-16 08:58:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

A father and a daughter even as adults are never equal. I don't know if this is the case but if she grew up with him the power he has over her will blurry her consent. In fact if it becomes legal how will a daughter or a son refuse their parents sexual advances, when they might even see it has a parents right?
Good point...   Do you believe the laws should be the same regarding a brother and sister if both are adults?
2010-12-16 09:07:36
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

A father and a daughter even as adults are never equal. I don't know if this is the case but if she grew up with him the power he has over her will blurry her consent. In fact if it becomes legal how will a daughter or a son refuse their parents sexual advances, when they might even see it has a parents right?
Good point...   Do you believe the laws should be the same regarding a brother and sister if both are adults?
Yes.
Inside the safe haven family is supposed to be sex can only complicate things.
2010-12-16 09:12:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

A father and a daughter even as adults are never equal. I don't know if this is the case but if she grew up with him the power he has over her will blurry her consent. In fact if it becomes legal how will a daughter or a son refuse their parents sexual advances, when they might even see it has a parents right?
Good point...   Do you believe the laws should be the same regarding a brother and sister if both are adults?
Yes.
Inside the safe haven family is supposed to be sex can only complicate things.
I'm sure it can, but hypothetically, if no history of abuse is there, if a brother and sister wanted to do this as adults, I can't really see how the government can get involved.

Don't get me wrong, I find it thoroughly disgusting, but I also just have a hard time justifying intervention in a situation like that.

Your argument involving a parent and son or daughter makes sense because of the inevitable connection to abuse, but with siblings, I can see how it might happen without abuse involved.
2010-12-16 09:32:00
Ticia
Member
+73|5337

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Good point...   Do you believe the laws should be the same regarding a brother and sister if both are adults?
Yes.
Inside the safe haven family is supposed to be sex can only complicate things.
I'm sure it can, but hypothetically, if no history of abuse is there, if a brother and sister wanted to do this as adults, I can't really see how the government can get involved.

Don't get me wrong, I find it thoroughly disgusting, but I also just have a hard time justifying intervention in a situation like that.

Your argument involving a parent and son or daughter makes sense because of the inevitable connection to abuse, but with siblings, I can see how it might happen without abuse involved.
Again, my only problem with it is if they grew up together. Can anyone be naive enough to believe a sexual attraction between siblings only arises when they're adults? When this happens, and despite popular belief and Freud is not common at all (look up Westermarck effect), is usually earlier and the abuse factor is almost always present.
2010-12-16 09:39:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:


Yes.
Inside the safe haven family is supposed to be sex can only complicate things.
I'm sure it can, but hypothetically, if no history of abuse is there, if a brother and sister wanted to do this as adults, I can't really see how the government can get involved.

Don't get me wrong, I find it thoroughly disgusting, but I also just have a hard time justifying intervention in a situation like that.

Your argument involving a parent and son or daughter makes sense because of the inevitable connection to abuse, but with siblings, I can see how it might happen without abuse involved.
Again, my only problem with it is if they grew up together. Can anyone be naive enough to believe a sexual attraction between siblings only arises when they're adults? When this happens, and despite popular belief and Freud is not common at all (look up Westermarck effect), is usually earlier and the abuse factor is almost always present.
Fair enough...  Thankfully, incest tends to be a rare occurrence in adult life anyway.  Unfortunately, it's not so rare in childhood....
2010-12-16 09:39:54
EVieira
Member
+105|6480|Lutenblaag, Molvania

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

Yeah, and the percentages aren't that high to begin with...you could say you have double the change of defects, and be right, but you're talking about and increase from maybe 2.5% to 5%.  I suppose it's significant, but it's much less significant than the social taboo associated with it in our culture.
That is hugely significant. A single 1% increase in the number of babies with defects means more than 40,000 babies with birth defects EACH YEAR, in the US alone. (According to the CIA factbook, there are aprox. 4.290.520 births each year in the US).

Its not just a social taboo.

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

Now, if you have a specific genetic defect that runs in your family, and begin intermarrying close relatives, then you are obviously at more significant risk (hemophaelia in many royal bloodlines in Europe is a good example...).

Darwin married his cousin.  I'm pretty sure Einstein did too.  And there was another geneticist/evolutionary theorist whose name escapes me who married his cousin...someone asked him about it, and he pointed out the fact that, in the grand scheme of human history, not marrying a first or second cousin is probably outside the "norm".

There is both potential benefit, and risk, associated with doing so:  on the one hand, you increase the chance that "your" genes (or genes from your "bloodline") survive for future generations, as a relative will have a much higher chance of exhibiting similar genetic makeup.  This is balanced out by the increased risk that the bad stuff in your genetic makeup will be exacerbated by doing so.

It's really more of a cultural big deal than a genetic one.  Just don't make babies with your sister....

...which brings me full circle to "incest is fucked up".
There is no potential benefit. The benefits of genes passed on is that the BEST genes are passed on, and they are not necesserarily the ones in your family line. By inbreeding you reduce the size of the gene pool and thus the chance of a good gene passed on is reduced, simply because there is a large chance he is not in the pool. Se the earlier post about deafness in Martha`s Vineyard.

As a species, the best for your DNA is diversity. The more diverse, the bigger the pool, the better the genes in the long run.

...which brings us full circle, incest is fucked up any way you put it.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2010-12-16 14:19:23
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6001|...
^ What he said.

And beyond that, even if - you can't control wether or not people are going to have a baby. Furthermore, legalizing incest is promoting something that's horribly wrong to begin with.
inane little opines
2010-12-16 14:38:51
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6499

what a lazy bastard. why go looking when there's one at home . . .

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard