Author Topic: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."  (Read 2436 times)

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2904
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #60 on: November 03, 2016, 05:33:59 pm »
The westermarck effect is a biological mechanism to avoid incest, it isn't the reason it is taboo.

Online Shiakou

  • Member
  • Posts: 832
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #61 on: November 03, 2016, 07:35:15 pm »
Perhaps not the sole reason, but it surely can't have helped people to keep an open mind when they were biologically programmed to feel bad about it. I think it helps explain why the taboo for incest is widespread, though not universal. You've got entire societies where 99% of people feel disgusted or upset for thinking about incest, how long until they decide that its abnormal to desire it? How long until they decide to ban it?

Offline Nikkoru

  • Member
  • Posts: 5890
  • Cyberpun
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #62 on: November 03, 2016, 08:21:42 pm »
Regardless of your opinions on the morality of incest, it seems like a rather weak motivation for a theoretical villain.

Villain: "Witness this moment, Hero! Where my first cousin will become mine for eternity! Our life-long battle is ending at last in the only way it could, with excruciating awkwardness and subtle disgust!"
Hero: "'l'm really not into that, do I have to?"
Villain: "Yes, you do! Yes, you will! Or I shall wreak unforgettable harm upon you!"
Villain: Maniacal Laughter
Peace, Love, and Tranquility

Online Shiakou

  • Member
  • Posts: 832
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2016, 03:50:23 am »
Realistically, its more likely that an incestual villain hates society for rejecting him and/or his loved one. His motivation might be revenge for a lifetime of suffering.

Although that probably makes him too sympathetic for this sort of story.

Online Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11026
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2016, 04:59:52 am »
I don't think there is anything evil about incest within consenting adults and there are several people here who have expressed similar views so the assertion that it's universally considered bad is just disproved. In fact, I only really feel the "gross factor" if I think about incest between me and my own family. I don't feel grossed out by the idea of other people having sex with their own. Inbreeding has problems of its own but incest doesn't necessarily lead to pregnancy and we don't usually judge infertile sex based on the eventual consequences if the same people had offspring together (e.g. I don't think sex between two trisomics is intrinsically evil).
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 08:24:26 pm by Burkingam »
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2904
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2016, 08:19:59 pm »
Perhaps not the sole reason, but it surely can't have helped people to keep an open mind when they were biologically programmed to feel bad about it. I think it helps explain why the taboo for incest is widespread, though not universal. You've got entire societies where 99% of people feel disgusted or upset for thinking about incest, how long until they decide that its abnormal to desire it? How long until they decide to ban it?

The westermark effect isn't family specific. It's specific to the people you grew up around. That's a very big and massive distinction.

This usually includes a boatload of friends you grew up with and excludes the family a lot of people didn't, i.e. cousins and the like. This would be where "incest is gross because westermark" fails.

Also, take into account the expect reproductibility period of people of old and usual age discrepencies in marriages. A lot of close family falls out of that range very very fast.

It exists so that we diversify our gene pools, so that they would marry outside of the little villages they grew up in. Yet marrying your neighbour isn't considered gross.

Online Shiakou

  • Member
  • Posts: 832
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2016, 11:59:56 pm »
Does that mean it makes no difference to the taboo's existence?

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2904
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2016, 11:47:45 am »
Does that mean it makes no difference to the taboo's existence?

It should be completely irrelevant to it.

Online Shiakou

  • Member
  • Posts: 832
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #68 on: November 05, 2016, 12:10:22 pm »
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think the Westermarck Effect is the only cause/reason (or even the biggest) behind the incest taboo, but the idea that it has zero effect on the taboo doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Online Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11026
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #69 on: November 05, 2016, 09:57:57 pm »
And I think it has everything to do with it. Social norms approximating our intuitions and trying to enforce those approximation.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2904
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #70 on: November 05, 2016, 11:03:12 pm »
First thing first. "Incest is gross", isn't an age old thing. If you look at what we have for genetic data of populations for the pre-industrial age, it's inbred as all fuck. People hardly moved, ancestries were in practice set into small little villages for centuries upon centuries. The conditions were honestly so bad that there was little difference genetically between you and your cousin and you and your neighbour. Family marrying within family was also a rather standard approach if a family didn't want to divide their wealth endlessly, which if you were the economically dominant family, you'd have to do if you mixed.

"Incest is gross", to extend down the family line anywhere as close to what we perceive it in the modern times is what we came up with as a society after we figured out the consequences of it, either from looking at our prestigious blue bloods and various other genetic experiments.

While there does exist an intrinsic aversion between offspring/parents. This is not due to the westermark effect, rather due to the fact that children cannot perceive their parents as sexual beings at all. There are no such strong mechanisms what concerns siblings, cousins, extended family or whatever else. Because if there was, humanity would have died out, because literally only the deviants in secluded pre-modern areas would fuck at all.

The westermark effect isn't expressed anywhere near that strongly, in practice all it did was give an impetus to look for wives outside the little area you grew up in. Because EVERYONE in that area was kind of genetically too close to you.

Online kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9280
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #71 on: November 06, 2016, 04:00:21 am »
lets bring up a different topic, "humans are bad" yeah they are, i mean we all are.
if only we could function like ants with their queens, entirely systematized right? but that breaks human rights, right?

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2904
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #72 on: November 06, 2016, 01:02:07 pm »
lets bring up a different topic, "humans are bad" yeah they are, i mean we all are.
if only we could function like ants with their queens, entirely systematized right? but that breaks human rights, right?

Going into teenage philosophy now, eh?

I disagree. Humans aren't anymore evil or righteous than any other living organism. All living beings are programmed, be it ants or us. It's just that ours is a bit more complex.

Online Tanis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3236
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #73 on: November 06, 2016, 01:18:03 pm »
Starvation?

Online kitamesume

  • Member
  • Posts: 9280
  • Death is pleasure, Living is torment.
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #74 on: November 06, 2016, 03:11:00 pm »
Starvation?
i mentioned that a few posts back.

lets bring up a different topic, "humans are bad" yeah they are, i mean we all are.
if only we could function like ants with their queens, entirely systematized right? but that breaks human rights, right?

Going into teenage philosophy now, eh?

I disagree. Humans aren't anymore evil or righteous than any other living organism. All living beings are programmed, be it ants or us. It's just that ours is a bit more complex.
teenage philosophy? i thought it was common sense.

isn't that contradictory?
if we're more complex than all other living organisms, then we've obviously got a bigger variable.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2016, 03:14:09 pm by kitamesume »

Online Shiakou

  • Member
  • Posts: 832
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #75 on: November 06, 2016, 06:58:16 pm »
teenage philosophy? i thought it was common sense.

Define "common sense".  :laugh:

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2904
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #76 on: November 06, 2016, 08:02:53 pm »
lets bring up a different topic, "humans are bad" yeah they are, i mean we all are.
if only we could function like ants with their queens, entirely systematized right? but that breaks human rights, right?

Going into teenage philosophy now, eh?

I disagree. Humans aren't anymore evil or righteous than any other living organism. All living beings are programmed, be it ants or us. It's just that ours is a bit more complex.
teenage philosophy? i thought it was common sense.

isn't that contradictory?
if we're more complex than all other living organisms, then we've obviously got a bigger variable.

"Evil", "bad"... etc., implies intent, malice.

By being more complex, more technologically advanced, more widespread we increase the footprints of our actions. However, the actions themselves aren't anymore evil than those of ants. Life does what life needs, however that just might not be beneficial to other things that want to prosper.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2016, 08:06:36 pm by Saras »

Offline Johnny D

  • Member
  • Posts: 252
  • Kinda dumb
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #77 on: November 07, 2016, 11:34:24 am »
I do not agree. Cuz of:

Malice (as you well put it), indifference, laziness (sloth), conscientised lack of capacity (incompetency), there are all attributes of a species that has intellect and an developed engine of thought. And therefore at the end comes guilt or blame for those deemed responsible.
The degree of evil is directly proportional with the degree of guilt or blame one asserts for something or someone. What you say is life just happens and no one has any responsibility and accountability for his/her actions. What you say is that we are all animals or lower lifeforms! :happy:
It's the human urge to light up the dark corners for answers in other people… but at the end of the day, there are no answers there.
Just more lives as sad and singular as your own.

Do not go gentle into that good night, / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2904
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #78 on: November 07, 2016, 04:38:16 pm »
I do not agree. Cuz of:

Malice (as you well put it), indifference, laziness (sloth), conscientised lack of capacity (incompetency), there are all attributes of a species that has intellect and an developed engine of thought. And therefore at the end comes guilt or blame for those deemed responsible.
The degree of evil is directly proportional with the degree of guilt or blame one asserts for something or someone. What you say is life just happens and no one has any responsibility and accountability for his/her actions. What you say is that we are all animals or lower lifeforms! :happy:

I am, yes.

I also disagree, I do not believe that animals do not feel malice, cannot be indifferent, lazy, or lack ability. I do not find these traits to be particularly unique. Especially if we go with the higher orders, like mammalians.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 04:41:18 pm by Saras »

Offline Johnny D

  • Member
  • Posts: 252
  • Kinda dumb
Re: Name some things universally agreed upon as "bad."
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2016, 07:26:56 am »
Ofc they are not unique. But they grow with sentience(or level of self awareness - lucidity), memory storage (identity - knowing ones different build-up and uniqueness through detailed information), intellect (or thought engine - analyzer capabilities of the stored information) and emotions(^^')(subjectivity and quality of life :D). Animals have basic forms of these traits that are upgraded in humans characteristics. And every one of them has it's own importance. That doesn't mean they are unique as you say, just more or less developed, animals could develop them too given enough time. Aliens if they exist probably have them hyper enhanced long time since. And they most certainly can be chemically manipulated with drugs for enhancing memory storage, emotions, even a bit the intellect. Maybe even the sentience, or more rather not enhance it but keep it steady for a longer period of time = caffeine! :) If there will ever be invented one for enhancing it not deminquish it like most nowadays do, I would sign up for it immediately. That's why I sleep as much as I can, because the more rested you are, the more lucidity you have therefore the more you appreciate everything in life. People who wrongly thing if they sleep less they live more (sleep when your dead - motto) actually lose more, because they are not sentient enough most of the day to really SEE things, as they are less sentient, there is less of them there to spot everything there is = they lose more.  :yes:
(With other words, if you are tired, you can read 10 pages of something and not understand 50% of the information = having less fun doing it, sometimes even feel like a torture of sorts; but if you are completely rested even one page of something can make you feel nearly ecstatic, being of more use to you then the 10 pages read while tired. Less time spent much better!)

So I always say, it's not about the amount of time doing something or being awake, but the quality of it!

Don't wake up at 6 a.m., wake at 12!(If you can afford it ofc) Why torture yourself 18 hours a day rather than enjoying everything for 12!?
Because it's custom? FUCK CUSTOM, it's the enemy of true freedom, embrace your own way to be, whatever it might be!
It's the human urge to light up the dark corners for answers in other people… but at the end of the day, there are no answers there.
Just more lives as sad and singular as your own.

Do not go gentle into that good night, / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.