Author Topic: Incest  (Read 42133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #200 on: August 12, 2008, 06:17:54 AM »
I cry Bullshit !  Intentionally placing somebody (or a potential somebody) at risk, by having unprotected sex with a close relative, is wrong.  If you object to the label of 'child abuse,' say so, don't BS me by saying the point is invalid.
And I just showed you why that line of reasoning is not backed up by facts. Don't you read?

I read it, I just didn't believe you were serious.  Okay, here goes.  (Kuro's post then AJ's)

First off you say that my argument assumes you don't care for the child.  Far from it, my argument assumes you DO.  If you didn't there would be no basis for argument as you intend the child harm.

Second, you say that the best way to guarantee no defects is to not conceive at all.  True.  However, we are considering propagation of the species, not extinction of the species.

Third, if you conceive a child normally (no incest and you intentionally pick a partner to propagate with who has no obvious genetic defects), then you are doing all you can under normal circumstances to limit the likely hood of a genetic defect.  That aspect is good parenting, regardless of what else you do.

Fourth, you say that only a dastardly devil would create a 'defective' child so that they can revel in it's misery.  What a load of horse-hockey !  Most people who have children through incest do so through ignorance and stupidity, not malicious intent.  Ignorance is no excuse, however.  It is still child abuse. 

Would you excuse somebody for leaving a child in a locked car in sweltering heat if they claimed they didn't know it would hurt the kid ?

AndyJames' Arguments:

Mutation:  Sorry, I should of specified that I meant inbreeding, not 'mutations'.  For some real life examples of the perils of inbreeding, take a look at many royal families.

Recessives:  There is a higher chance of reinforcing a recessive when you breed with close relatives.  You have no way of knowing if you carry dangerous recessives or not.  Given the dangers of inbreeding, it usually is not worth the risk.

Exogamy:  Your final point is that exogamy (breeding or marrying with somebody outside you clan or tribe).  You are correct, exogamy is a fine idea because it brings in fresh blood and helps eliminate the dangers of, you guessed it, INBREEDING !  And  yes, it also increases the likelyhood that your mate will have immunities and resistances to things you don't, giving any children a possible leg up in life.

So, to recap,  there are some fine reasons why you should not fuck your sister or any other close relative without taking precautions against pregnancy.  First and foremost in my mind, is the fact that it is dangerous to the potential children.  If you do not take this into consideration, then you are a heartless SOB, IMHO, but that is just my opinion.  Darn, I almost made it without any 'emotional arguments'.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 06:41:52 AM by Sirperry »
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #201 on: August 12, 2008, 06:21:54 AM »
Since when have I argued for or against caring for the child? You did not read what I wrote. Your entire post proves it.



Hint: You *might* be referring to Kuro's post, but definitely not mine.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 06:27:29 AM by AndyJames »

Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #202 on: August 12, 2008, 06:43:42 AM »
Sorry, looks like you read it before I finished.  I had to put my kids to bed.
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Nox_Noctis

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1236
  • A Simple Exchange
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #203 on: August 12, 2008, 08:22:03 AM »
Fourth, you say that only a dastardly devil would create a 'defective' child so that they can revel in it's misery.  What a load of horse-hockey !  Most people who have children through incest do so through ignorance and stupidity, not malicious intent.  Ignorance is no excuse, however.  It is still child abuse.
I don't feel like getting in the middle of the debate as a whole, but this point is simply incorrect because of the purpose clause. The purpose clause, "so that they can revel in it's misery," rules out ignorance since you have to be aware of a possibility in order to hope it occurs to bring you pleasure. Of course, dropping the purpose clause changes the sentence dramatically, but that isn't the point.
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #204 on: August 12, 2008, 02:18:32 PM »
AndyJames' Arguments:

Mutation:  Sorry, I should of specified that I meant inbreeding, not 'mutations'.  For some real life examples of the perils of inbreeding, take a look at many royal families.

Recessives:  There is a higher chance of reinforcing a recessive when you breed with close relatives.  You have no way of knowing if you carry dangerous recessives or not.  Given the dangers of inbreeding, it usually is not worth the risk.

Exogamy:  Your final point is that exogamy (breeding or marrying with somebody outside you clan or tribe).  You are correct, exogamy is a fine idea because it brings in fresh blood and helps eliminate the dangers of, you guessed it, INBREEDING !  And  yes, it also increases the likelyhood that your mate will have immunities and resistances to things you don't, giving any children a possible leg up in life.

So, to recap,  there are some fine reasons why you should not fuck your sister or any other close relative without taking precautions against pregnancy.  First and foremost in my mind, is the fact that it is dangerous to the potential children.  If you do not take this into consideration, then you are a heartless SOB, IMHO, but that is just my opinion.  Darn, I almost made it without any 'emotional arguments'.
There is so much wrong here that I don't even know where to begin. I won't bother as this will turn into a flamefest. I hate arguing with the ignorant. They tend to wind me up with their stupidity, drag me down to their level and then beat me with experience. I have to deal with enough idiots at work that I don't want to deal with them here. And I certainly do not want to deal with someone who uses the same tactics and know just about as little as greenies. I have enough of those frakktards just because of where I live.

Here is what you need to do: You need to read up on genetics, learn probability and statistics, and get trained in cause and effect. Most of all, *understand* each of those principles. And then start thinking about this subject in terms of those factors. Once you have done that, come talk to me again.


And here's a hint: Pointing at an example without understanding the fundamental causes of the problem is akin to believing there is a God of Diseases out who cause the plague rather than place the blame on germs where it belongs.

Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #205 on: August 12, 2008, 05:59:13 PM »
Fourth, you say that only a dastardly devil would create a 'defective' child so that they can revel in it's misery.  What a load of horse-hockey !  Most people who have children through incest do so through ignorance and stupidity, not malicious intent.  Ignorance is no excuse, however.  It is still child abuse.
I don't feel like getting in the middle of the debate as a whole, but this point is simply incorrect because of the purpose clause. The purpose clause, "so that they can revel in it's misery," rules out ignorance since you have to be aware of a possibility in order to hope it occurs to bring you pleasure. Of course, dropping the purpose clause changes the sentence dramatically, but that isn't the point.

Nox, that is kinda my point.  There is no intent to cause harm.

AJ, the flames thus far are from you.  Your self righteous, holier than thou attitude is getting a lil stale. 
BTW, What practical experience do YOU have with genetics, oh great and knowledgeable AJ ?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 06:08:51 PM by Sirperry »
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Incest
« Reply #206 on: August 12, 2008, 06:56:47 PM »
I do believe there was mention of AJ being a Biology major or somesuch in another topic (I may be wrong though, but I definitely remember him being on that specific topic. I'm not about to go combing for the mention, though.

Quote
First off you say that my argument assumes you don't care for the child.  Far from it, my argument assumes you DO.  If you didn't there would be no basis for argument as you intend the child harm.

Second, you say that the best way to guarantee no defects is to not conceive at all.  True.  However, we are considering propagation of the species, not extinction of the species.

Third, if you conceive a child normally (no incest and you intentionally pick a partner to propagate with who has no obvious genetic defects), then you are doing all you can under normal circumstances to limit the likely hood of a genetic defect.  That aspect is good parenting, regardless of what else you do.

Fourth, you say that only a dastardly devil would create a 'defective' child so that they can revel in it's misery.  What a load of horse-hockey !  Most people who have children through incest do so through ignorance and stupidity, not malicious intent.  Ignorance is no excuse, however.  It is still child abuse.

Would you excuse somebody for leaving a child in a locked car in sweltering heat if they claimed they didn't know it would hurt the kid ?

Well, since I SERIOUSLY have nothing better to do, here's my reply.

First of all, you're contradicting yourself. On your first point, you basically state that it's not abuse if they didn't mean ill. On your last line, you claim ignorance is no excuse. Really, which is it?

Frankly, I don't know where you were going with your second point -- so I'll leave it at that.

On your third point, you just made me think of the following scene.
A couple has been married for about 5 years. Then one day the lady (or the guy) comes up and says, "Honey, I want children!"

"Oh, I don't think we can afford all the lab tests this would take."

"Lab tests?"

"Of course! We'll have to make sure your DNA is completely clean to ensure our kid will have no problems whatsoever. Also, I'm going to need your medical history, your FAMILY's medical history and my family's medical history."

"Forget it. I'm gonna adopt."

On the fourth: what kind of ignorant mudhole do you think people live in nowadays? I call bullshit on this one -- it has no factual basis.

Heck, I live in a third world country and even the most stupid redneck around here knows that inbreeding can damage your kids.

I'm afraid I have to stand with AJ on this one, Sirperry. You're ignoring the facts. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion and we're entitled to ours, but even if you choose to remain of the same opinion AFTER your arguments have been proved wrong (you don't always need rational logic to justify an opinion. All you have to do is say "it doesn't feel right to me"), please do not try to force it on other people. It's not polite, it's tiresome, and it gets old REALLY quickly.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #207 on: August 12, 2008, 08:26:24 PM »
I asked for practical experience.  Being a bio major is book learnin', not real world experience.

I NEVER said that it isn't abuse and I don't understand where  you got that impression.

As for genetic testing before conception, sure it's a good idea.  But right now it really isn't an option for most people.

As for the little mudhole I live in, Oregon is a nice place and I like it here.  But, even here, there are people too ignorant to know better and I seriously doubt folks are any smarter where you live.  The folks I am talking about grew up within a couple miles of me.  They are brother and sister and they have 2 kids.  Both children are 'challenged'.  I think they had another kid that died young but I would rather not ask them about it to make sure.  My point is, most everyone knows it is taboo, but some people do NOT know that there is an actual danger to it.  Even today.
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #208 on: August 12, 2008, 10:01:28 PM »
I have yet to see any glimmerings of *understanding* of the topic at hand from you, SirPerry. All you have stated are personal anecdotes and historical examples which point out *A* *possible* effect of inbreeding without ever delving into the *reasons* and *causes* behind it. That is like saying "This boot on my foot moves. It must be alive." Yet, you do nothing but claim that you are right, ignoring the analysis of the causes of the effect and the analysis behind it, and advancing your personal theory based on nothing more than emotions and an attitude that you very explicitly stated: "if you disagree with me, you are a "child abuser"."

You, sir, are worse than a greenie. You are an Aelryinth. Your attitude is one of "the world as I would like it to be". Good day, ignorant one.




Kuro, I was not a bio major in university. However, what I have stated is taught in high school biology (more precisely, Year 10, or Secondary 4 biology), which I did take. Biology has always been my highest scoring subject, and to this day, I still keep up in many areas of it for my own interest. My main areas of interest in this subject has always been... macro-biology, I believe it is called: the interactions between organisms within an ecosystem and/or society. This also butts up against another of my areas of interest: basic psychology.

Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #209 on: August 12, 2008, 10:29:12 PM »
Flamed again ! ;)

AndyJames, your superior attitude is grating.  Get a glimmer of this, this is a freakin' game board.  It is not an appropriate venue to discuss the finer points of genetics.  The fact that incest can case mental and physical defects is, of course,  not my personal theory.   The basis of this dispute is a moral question about how 'wrong' it is to commit incest.  Since there are no moral absolutes, this entire thread is nothing more than a series of opinions, ours included.  Now take the boot on your foot and put the livin' thing up yer arse. :o

Here is a bit of folk wisdom to think about, btw:  "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach"
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 10:32:35 PM by Sirperry »
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #210 on: August 12, 2008, 11:01:20 PM »
So, you ignore the science and just go "neener, neener, neener"? Right. You just proved my point about you being an Aelryinth clone.


That's it. I am done arguing with this iron-skulled cretin. He is the first guy I am putting on my ignore list.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Incest
« Reply #211 on: August 12, 2008, 11:08:18 PM »
Quote
Kuro, I was not a bio major in university. However, what I have stated is taught in high school biology (more precisely, Year 10, or Secondary 4 biology), which I did take. Biology has always been my highest scoring subject, and to this day, I still keep up in many areas of it for my own interest. My main areas of interest in this subject has always been... macro-biology, I believe it is called: the interactions between organisms within an ecosystem and/or society. This also butts up against another of my areas of interest: basic psychology.

I actually also had genetics class. I tend not to assume everyone has the same base knowledge (excluding the most basic math) because educational systems worldwide tend to differ almost as much as people do. My apologies if it offended you, however (as I mentioned in my post, I remembered you being in the discussion and there being mention of a biology major amidst them; I didn't check the facts for a citation).

Quote
I asked for practical experience.  Being a bio major is book learnin', not real world experience.

So since Albert Einstein never built an atomic bomb, that means he'd never be entitled to comment on the physics involved in an atomic bomb? If a forensics expert never fired a gun he's not adequate to analyze ballistics? If a doctor never practiced martial arts, he could not tell the difference between a stab wound and a hammer to the face?

To quote Gregory House: you go to the sea, you fill a glass of water. There are no fish in it. Is the ocean devoid of fish?

You happened to know ONE incestual couple whose children are challenged. The parents themselves are ignorant. And you think it MUST be the fact they're related that's the deciding factor here, because it's "wrong". Reminds me of Germany.
Quote
I NEVER said that it isn't abuse and I don't understand where  you got that impression.

Abuse implies a genuine wish to do harm. One part of your post implies that if the parents did not intend ill towards the child, then there would be no basis for argument. Then, near the end of the same post, you claim that ignorance is no excuse, but that people who "abuse" their children in such a manner do so through ignorance and stupidity. In so doing, you're contradicting yourself.

You cannot abuse someone 'accidentally'. Abuse implies ill will - a deliberate desire to harm, and harming requires knowledge of how to do so. Ignorance is no excuse for a lot of things, granted, but in this particular case, ignorance and ill intent are mutually exclusive. It's like trying to hurt a guy by squeezing his chest - ineffective at best.
Quote
As for genetic testing before conception, sure it's a good idea.  But right now it really isn't an option for most people.

You mean "all but the richest people", since it's outrageously expensive. DNA testing, at least where I live, is almost up there with brain surgery in terms of cost. And it's a violence to both sides of the couple. "Honey, I love you and wanna be with you, but if we're going to have babies, we need to check our DNAs first".

Quote
As for the little mudhole I live in, Oregon is a nice place and I like it here.  But, even here, there are people too ignorant to know better and I seriously doubt folks are any smarter where you live.  The folks I am talking about grew up within a couple miles of me.  They are brother and sister and they have 2 kids.  Both children are 'challenged'.  I think they had another kid that died young but I would rather not ask them about it to make sure.  My point is, most everyone knows it is taboo, but some people do NOT know that there is an actual danger to it.  Even today.

You misread. I wasn't asking where you live. I asked where did you think people lived (people as in human beings in general). That, and the fact I find patriotism to be an utter joke, means I'll let your semi-veiled "we are certainly smarter than you" comment slide.

Quote
Here is a bit of folk wisdom to think about, btw:  "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach"

Folk wisdom also taught people it was okay to drink water from rusty kettles for getting more iron in the blood. And this particular piece of wisdom fails to consider those who both teach AND do.

Practice without knowledge is as useless as knowledge without practice. Placing one above the other leads to disastrous results, like the current way the news are made and displayed.

Quote
You, sir, are worse than a greenie. You are an Aelryinth. Your attitude is one of "the world as I would like it to be". Good day, ignorant one.

Now, now, let's be PC here. I do believe they prefer to be called "disciples of Schopenhauer".
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #212 on: August 12, 2008, 11:39:05 PM »
No offense taken, Kuro. Just to let you know where I am :) I don't like to claim what I am not. I think the bio major is Squirelloid.

I have never been PC. Too blunt and honest for that kind of horsecrap.

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Incest
« Reply #213 on: August 13, 2008, 12:01:39 AM »
Wait, there's another Aelryinth clone? ???
Smiting Imbeciles since 1985.

If you hear this music, run.

And don't forget:


There is no greater contribution than Hi Welcome.

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

IP proofing and avoiding being CAPed OR - how to make characters relevant in the long term.

Friends don't let friends be Short Bus Hobos.

[spoiler]
Sunic may be more abrasive than sandpaper coated in chainsaws (not that its a bad thing, he really does know what he's talking about), but just posting in this thread without warning and telling him he's an asshole which, if you knew his past experiences on WotC and Paizo is flat-out uncalled for. Never mind the insults (which are clearly 4Chan-level childish). You say people like Sunic are the bane of the internet? Try looking at your own post and telling me you are better than him.

Here's a fun fact: You aren't. By a few leagues.
[/spoiler]

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #214 on: August 13, 2008, 12:07:49 AM »
Read the above posts by SirPerry and decide for yourself ;)

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Incest
« Reply #215 on: August 13, 2008, 12:27:36 AM »
AndyJames, where are the statistics? If you're going to bitch about people being ignorant and unwilling or unable to learn, try to remedy the situation. And as far as a flame-fest, I see a self-fulfilling prophecy here in this quote from you. I'll bold the inflammatory bits to highlight them.

AndyJames' Arguments:

Mutation:  Sorry, I should of specified that I meant inbreeding, not 'mutations'.  For some real life examples of the perils of inbreeding, take a look at many royal families.

Recessives:  There is a higher chance of reinforcing a recessive when you breed with close relatives.  You have no way of knowing if you carry dangerous recessives or not.  Given the dangers of inbreeding, it usually is not worth the risk.

Exogamy:  Your final point is that exogamy (breeding or marrying with somebody outside you clan or tribe).  You are correct, exogamy is a fine idea because it brings in fresh blood and helps eliminate the dangers of, you guessed it, INBREEDING !  And  yes, it also increases the likelyhood that your mate will have immunities and resistances to things you don't, giving any children a possible leg up in life.

So, to recap,  there are some fine reasons why you should not fuck your sister or any other close relative without taking precautions against pregnancy.  First and foremost in my mind, is the fact that it is dangerous to the potential children.  If you do not take this into consideration, then you are a heartless SOB, IMHO, but that is just my opinion.  Darn, I almost made it without any 'emotional arguments'.
There is so much wrong here that I don't even know where to begin. I won't bother as this will turn into a flamefest. I hate arguing with the ignorant. They tend to wind me up with their stupidity, drag me down to their level and then beat me with experience. I have to deal with enough idiots at work that I don't want to deal with them here. And I certainly do not want to deal with someone who uses the same tactics and know just about as little as greenies. I have enough of those frakktards just because of where I live.

Here is what you need to do: You need to read up on genetics, learn probability and statistics, and get trained in cause and effect. Most of all, *understand* each of those principles. And then start thinking about this subject in terms of those factors. Once you have done that, come talk to me again.


And here's a hint: Pointing at an example without understanding the fundamental causes of the problem is akin to believing there is a God of Diseases out who cause the plague rather than place the blame on germs where it belongs.

And here I go into the fray...

Now, I don't know everything, although I like to give that impression if I can (seldom works :)). My understanding of the difficulties of inbreeding (assuming that they exist) is that recessive genes, genes that do not affect the progeny unless they are a matched pair from each parent, have a greater chance of pairing with parents from a smaller gene pool. A family is a pretty small gene pool, and the closer the relative the smaller the pool.

Please explain where this is wrong.

The bit about inbreeding being child abuse...I don't see a solid answer that's not opinion. I do think that inbreeding when there are potential consequences is as irresponsible as using drugs during pregnancy, and is reputed to lead to similar defects. If a child has greater potential for a healthy life when inbreeding doesn't occur, then inbreeding is irresponsible. Irresponsibility approaches negligence, and negligence is abuse.
*waves hand* This is not the sig you're looking for...
The freely downloadable and searchable 3.5 SRD I prefer (Web)
Camlen, Enniwey

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #216 on: August 13, 2008, 01:13:00 AM »
Recessive genes are recessive genes. If a family has it, then yes, it would pose a problem. However, it is no different if the family of the spouse also has that recessive gene. Some of these genes are pretty prolific. IIRC, myopia is a genetic condition tied to a recessive gene. Does that mean most parents out there are child abusers (see why I hate this type of emotional argument?)? Of course not. Does it mean that all those parents are incestuous? Again, no.

The thing is, if your family does not have the recessive gene, then it is safer to be incestuous in order to ensure that your kids will never have it. Again, see why the child abuse argument against incest falls over? In this case, it would be, by his definition, child abuse *not* to be incestuous.

Also note that he used absolutes in his argument. Paraphrasing: "If you are incestuous, you are a child abuser." This is patently untrue as my above example proves.

Now, about it being smaller, that would depend on your parents. Now, using an extremely simplified case in which a characteristic is controlled by a pair of alleles:

Parent A has xX (where x is recessive and X is dominant).
Parent B has xX also.
There is a 50% chance that the kid would also be xX, and thus exhibit only the dominant gene.
There is a 25% chance of XX, which would again be dominant.
There is a 25% chance of xx, which would be recessive.
That is, 75% dominant, 25% recessive.

In generation two, we would have the following kids:
XX, Xx, Xx, xx
The chance becomes:
XX: 2+0+2+0 + 1+0+0+0 + 0+0+0+0 = 5
Xx: 1+3+1+3 + 1+2+1+0 + 1+1+0+0 = 14
xx: 0+0+0+0 + 0+0+1+2 + 0+0+1+1 = 5

And so on.

Note that the chances of recessive genes being suppressed is actually higher in the third generation (second set of children) than the second (first set of children): 20% of recessive genes showing compared with 25%. However, more of the third generation would be Xx compared with the previous generation. This is normal and is call the Central Limit Theorem, whereby a set of finite variables will tend to cluster around the central part of a Normal Curve. You can't get more finite than 2 pairs of alleles distributed using Probability Theory.

In a smaller genepool, the make-up of the original progenator (i.e., the original parents) would have a much more massive impact on the subsequent generations than if there is a larger genepool. There would be lesser variations, and the probability curve would be much narrower. Now, this can be a good thing or a bad thing, as have already been stated.

I don't think I can make it any simpler without going into the possible permutations engendered by a fluid society.

Nox_Noctis

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1236
  • A Simple Exchange
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #217 on: August 13, 2008, 01:53:55 AM »
Fourth, you say that only a dastardly devil would create a 'defective' child so that they can revel in it's misery.  What a load of horse-hockey !  Most people who have children through incest do so through ignorance and stupidity, not malicious intent.  Ignorance is no excuse, however.  It is still child abuse.
I don't feel like getting in the middle of the debate as a whole, but this point is simply incorrect because of the purpose clause. The purpose clause, "so that they can revel in it's misery," rules out ignorance since you have to be aware of a possibility in order to hope it occurs to bring you pleasure. Of course, dropping the purpose clause changes the sentence dramatically, but that isn't the point.

Nox, that is kinda my point.  There is no intent to cause harm.
My point was that because of the purpose clause, "so that they can revel in it's misery," there is intent to cause harm. The very existence of a purpose clause shows intent, and in this case, the intent is malicious ("revel in it's misery"). Thus, an ignorant person would not "create a 'defective' child so that they can revel in it's misery" [sic]. Only a "dastardly devil" (or other such cruel and malicious person) would do so.
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Incest
« Reply #218 on: August 13, 2008, 06:18:01 AM »
I understand that recessive and dominant traits are not defined by the quality of the outcome, good or bad, but by the pairings of genes. If you're trying to say that inbreeding/incest has little or no bearing on the health of the resulting offspring, I think that 'conventional wisdom' disagrees.

Whether or not there is a large probability that inbreeding/incest will produce defective offspring is immaterial to me. If the chances of healthy offspring are greater with exogamous breeding patterns than with incestuous ones, it behooves anyone who knows that fact to heavily favor the practice with better chances of healthy kiddies. To not do so is irresponsible, and as I said before, that's close to being negligent (a form of abuse).

Genetic diversity allows for greater overall and individual chances for health, as well as greater chances of survivors of that plague sent by that deity of germs, What's-His-Name. Breeding with very close relatives can 'lock-in' certain traits, but there are often more offspring with damaging or otherwise undesirable traits as well. The risks can outweigh the potential benefits, especially with humans who have such a long-term attachment to their young.

Again, it is fairly accepted that inbreeding results in more undesirable traits than breeding from a wider gene pool. Even if we're talking about a 5% or less chance, it is greatly more responsible to our offspring, and to the race in general, if we breed so that we reduce the chances of undesirable traits being passed on. Undesirable traits will never go away, but reducing them is roughly equivalent to enhancing the chances of desirable traits being passed on.

While perhaps calling it child abuse is overkill, it's certainly not preferred behavior to expose your offspring to greater risk of genetically received problems. Abusive behavior is intentional harm; ignoring the greater risks of inbreeding is very close to intentional harm. As I said before, I see it in much the same light as drug-use during pregnancy.
*waves hand* This is not the sig you're looking for...
The freely downloadable and searchable 3.5 SRD I prefer (Web)
Camlen, Enniwey

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #219 on: August 13, 2008, 06:49:33 AM »
I understand that recessive and dominant traits are not defined by the quality of the outcome, good or bad, but by the pairings of genes. If you're trying to say that inbreeding/incest has little or no bearing on the health of the resulting offspring, I think that 'conventional wisdom' disagrees.

Whether or not there is a large probability that inbreeding/incest will produce defective offspring is immaterial to me. If the chances of healthy offspring are greater with exogamous breeding patterns than with incestuous ones, it behooves anyone who knows that fact to heavily favor the practice with better chances of healthy kiddies. To not do so is irresponsible, and as I said before, that's close to being negligent (a form of abuse).

Genetic diversity allows for greater overall and individual chances for health, as well as greater chances of survivors of that plague sent by that deity of germs, What's-His-Name. Breeding with very close relatives can 'lock-in' certain traits, but there are often more offspring with damaging or otherwise undesirable traits as well. The risks can outweigh the potential benefits, especially with humans who have such a long-term attachment to their young.

Again, it is fairly accepted that inbreeding results in more undesirable traits than breeding from a wider gene pool. Even if we're talking about a 5% or less chance, it is greatly more responsible to our offspring, and to the race in general, if we breed so that we reduce the chances of undesirable traits being passed on. Undesirable traits will never go away, but reducing them is roughly equivalent to enhancing the chances of desirable traits being passed on.

While perhaps calling it child abuse is overkill, it's certainly not preferred behavior to expose your offspring to greater risk of genetically received problems. Abusive behavior is intentional harm; ignoring the greater risks of inbreeding is very close to intentional harm. As I said before, I see it in much the same light as drug-use during pregnancy.
Where are your numbers and statistics for this? What makes you say the chance of undesirable traits is higher than locking-in good ones? The reason why I ask is that you have shown little or no understanding of what I just wrote, and in fact, merely hand waved it away. This is not the Force we are talking about. This is Probability Theory with a finite number of permutations, which means that there is an equal chance either way if you were to procreate with a random person.

Just because something is accepted does not mean it is automatically correct. Take the belief that the world is flat, for example.

Calling it child abuse is a repugnant attempt to sway others to his way of thinking by using hysterical hyperbolic scenarios. It is the same style of propaganda used by greenies. It creates and maintains a State of Fear, which I find much more abhorrent than just about anything out there. By any other name, people that use these tactics can rightly be called "terrorists" in the truest sense of the word.

This is basically what you are doing:
You are looking at one possible scenario: The "bad" genes is in your family already. All other people have "good" genes. Thus, if you procreate with anyone in your family, the "bad" genes will surface, but if you do it with all the other people with the "good" genes, your children are safe. That is horsecrap, as the number of people genetic problems around the world would attest to. And this number seems to be *increasing*. I wonder how many of them has parents who are incestuous...