Discussion Forums > The Lounge

Incest

<< < (9/35) > >>

Soulreaper77:

--- Quote from: Tiffanys on October 08, 2010, 06:37:59 PM ---Incest itself isn't the problem, it's siring children from close blood relations due to the nature of recessive alleles.

Generally everyone has some sort of recessive disease of some kind or another. When mates are chosen from a non-related group then generally there's a very small chance that you're going to happen to find a mate that possesses the same recessive diseases that you do. But, if you were to mate with say your brother or sister, then there's quite a higher chance depending on how closely your genetic similarities are. Identical twins for instance would have a hell of a time, except for the fact that identical twins have that whole tiny little problem of not being able to sire offspring with the same gender and all. Generally, if you get half from your mother and half from your father than you have a 1 in 4 chance of having something and your sibling would also have a 1 in 4 chance which then makes it a 1 in 16 chance of passing it on to your offspring if the two of you were to get it on.

So, producing offspring with a close blood relation is generally not a good idea since it has much higher chances of producing bad results (1/16 compared to about 1/800). But, with that aside, I don't see any problem between the relationships themselves. Sexual, or otherwise.

--- End quote ---

Which is exactly why it's illegal. Most people would want children at some point in their life - natural instinct. And to prevent the human population spiraling into retardation laws were made to prevent incestuous relationships. Because if you tried to have children with your blood related family you would doom your offspring to a life more horrible than living in the poorest place in the world. If looking at incest from a biological standpoint it's the worst thing you can do. Humans have sex to reproduce (pleasure is its secondary function) and reproducing offspring that has a way higher chance to "fail" is bad.
Besides it's only more advantageous for species to diversify their gene pool because it can give birth to whole new levels of protection to the environment and thus increasing the rate of survival.

The relationship itself is not something special. It's just a man and a woman having a relationship. No matter how you label them it all boils down to that simple fact. As long as they do not reproduce themselves I don't really care, even though it disgusts me a bit.


Also to those people that label humans as a separate species than animals are ignorant. Humans are animals, just because we have developed our brain doesn't mean we suddenly become another species. It only happens to be that if you have a higher developed brain surviving becomes more easy. Thus it makes us the most successful animal species that ever existed but animal nonetheless.

TightMuffin:
But, by that same logic, shouldn't we also be sterilizing the mentally retarded, or the insane, or criminals, to keep these traits from spreading?  A bunch of retards going around making more retards does just as much toward 'tarding up our planet as an incestuous couple.

ludwigrm:

--- Quote from: undetz on October 08, 2010, 02:25:47 PM ---
--- Quote from: ludwigrm on October 08, 2010, 12:13:25 PM ---I think that incest in real world is something we shoudn't morally accept, first and foremost to protect the people who make incest. it's not only a social matter, it has do with istinct.
everyone feels instinctively repulsion toward parents/sibling under that point of view and when that does not happen and there is a sexual intercourse between very close relatives, then istinct makes other people say: "no. stay in line".

I also think that when someone feels attracted to, for istance, his sister, it does not mean that he his different from "normal" people, it only means that he is child-like, immature: those kind of people are probably afraid of the world and subconsciously think to the their sister as the woman they can have without going outside of the house. I think they like their sister because she is the only woman they think they can have. it happens to most children with siblings but it is something subconscious and usually disappears when they grow up. I heard of teenegers feeling attracted to sisters/brothers, they are probably just a bit immature.

Maybe there are exeptions, siblings who really really love each other without being mentally disturbed or just immature, but I don't know.
--- End quote ---
YES! Let's make shit up! Let's invent facts and reasons that may have nothing to do with reality.


--- Quote ---that being said, I'm for absolute freedom.... if two adults feel that need, although they're close relatives, then... well, do as you want, but it is morally wrong, it goes against nature.
--- End quote ---
But at least you don't want to take your inventions and fabulations and use them to make laws, that's the sole redeeming factor for your previous tripe.




There're a couple of big problems with your line of reasoning, though. Firstly, you conflate "natural" and "moral" and that's a very dangerous thing to do. The line of reasoning goes that it's "natural" for one man and one woman to have sex, therefor it's "immoral" for two men or two women to have sex. It's natural for the man to put food on the table and for the woman to take care of the children, therefor it's immoral for women to work and for men to stay at home. It's natural that the strong thrive and the weak perish, therefor it's immoral to support those who can't support themselves.
You see where this is going, right? Moral and natural have nothing to do with each other. Morality is concerned with how people should treat each other and, to a lesser degree, with how people should treat non-human beings and the world in which they live. The question of what's "natural" is, imo, a dead end. Anything that can be observed in nature is "natural" by definition, this means that "natural" takes on such a broad meaning that it's practically useless. It also means that "natural" is only concerned with how things are, not with how they can be or how they should be. A question of morality may start by looking at how things are, but the end result is always about how things should be. Those are two quite big gaps you'll have to bridge before getting from the natural to the moral, and you didn't even attempt to do so in your post.

The second problem is your use of "instinct" to derive the immorality of incest. Allow me to disagree and call you out on your bullshit. You claim that people instinctively feel repulsion towards incestual relationships, and then you stop. You don't in any way support your argument, you merely state it and expect us to accept it. What you should be doing is explain why people feeling repulsion towards something is caused by their instincts and not by their upbringing. I can't tell the difference between the two kinds of repulsion, certainly not in other people, I'm amazed that it's so simple for you. Or, more likely, you're talking out of your arse about something you only understand tentatively, if at all. By all means, go ahead and enlighten the rest of us about the different causes for the feeling of repulsion, but until you have presented a compelling argument I will continue to consider the option of any feelings of repulsion resulting from upbringing to be at least as likely as that of them resulting from instincts.

Thirdly and finally, by attempting to make the people you are talking about seem defective in some way, "child-like", "immature", "afraid of the world" and "mentally disturbed" were the terms you used, you only succeed in making yourself look like an arsehole. You don't even consider the possibility that there may be nothing wrong or even different about them, but launch directly into full "make the other group look inferior"-mode. Are you serious? All you do here is speculate about people you've never met, never even talked to. And yet you think you can dismiss them as mentally disturbed, and by implication as not to be taken seriously. But I understand you, it's the easy way to take after all. If the other person can be declared not mentally sound you save yourself a lot of time and effort by dismissing them, especially if you know the majority shares your opinion. But that's not how you get a debate, imagine I had dismissed you as intellectually inferior and left things at my first two lines. I would have saved myself the time and effort it took to type this out, but it wouldn't have been debating. Instead I decided to take you seriously and point out where the flaws are in your argument. Try doing the same sometime, I think it's a good habit top be in.

--- End quote ---

well, it's not like a speech is shit just because you don't like it...
the only reason why my speech seems so strange is that it is entirely different from yours.

1. I did not invent: my argumentations about "immature siblings" start from a very simple idea: even the strangest things have very pratical reasons as their basis. in this particular case, fear of the outside world. why is it to hard to accept?
"Immature" doesn't mean "monster". I always said "child-like" and "immoral" and only one time "disturbed", because in some cases, in very rare cases (like, I would say, 0,1% of cases?), such a condition could grow worse and develop in a stronger desease, but this applies to every human being who subconsciuously doesn't feel free to act as he/she would like and is not strictly related to only incestuous people.

2. I think it is something instinctual and not cultural because, as I already told before, I don't know of any human group where it is commonly accepted. if it were cultural, then at least in some places it would have to be different, while, on the contrary, it is not as far as I know. How can a cultural concept develop in the very same way throughout the world, in all ages?

why you need that bad a particular explanation? It is not so important, since there are several possible reasons you can easily read about on the net. the most common, which I agree with, is the idea that you shared the same womb with your brother/sister. or, talking about mother/son relationship, the idea of fucking the womb where you come from.

The strangest thing in all this discussion is that I'm being depicted as a racist, which I'm not. But I'm going to end this tomorrow because it is 4 o'clock in my place and I'm too tired to end this one properly.


edit: I never met incestuous people, you say. did you?
I never told, neither implied, that people doing incest are inferior. Almost every single man has his weaknesses, I think incest is an expression of a particular weakness or a way to react to a particular weakness, so if they were "inferior", then almost every single man should be called like that.
still, incest remains something repulsive. but I also said from the beginning (first post) that, if it were for me, I would let them do as they want, while in my country (Italy) it is illegal (even for consenting adults) and parents of an incestuous child are not allowed to keep their baby.

TightMuffin:
So what if it is instinctual?  Rape is probably instinctual too, but that doesn't make it right.

i_am_otep:
A wise boxtorrents member once said:

"Incest is the best! Put your sister to the test!"

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page