Author Topic: Incest  (Read 41615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #220 on: August 13, 2008, 08:00:35 AM »
Ya know, I could see it wouldn't work from the start but I had to try.  AJ, all you seem to be interested in is talking down to people and being an insolent jackass.  You call people names and belittle them.  You intentionally misquote people, you make absurd comparisons and flame people incessantly.  All while pretending to take the moral and intellectual high ground.  It is ridiculous and I'll not play with ye anymore.
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Incest
« Reply #221 on: August 13, 2008, 08:24:18 AM »
I'm apparently not as educated as you seem to be AndyJames, I'm forced to look things up, and check the bibliography in a cursory fashion. I accept what wikipedia has on inbreeding as fact.

Now, I'm looking for clarification here: are you trying to say that anyone mating with anyone else has the same chances of propagating a bad recessive gene, no matter how they're related? (Bad dominant genes will propagate at a steady rate, AFAIK, no matter who mates with whom so really should not be considered)

If, and only if, that is what you are trying to say, then I deny it. Inbreeding has a good chance to result higher expression of undesirable recessive traits until those with those traits are culled through intent or failure to mate. This is not how I want to approach human reproduction: the death of children whether unfit or fit, is undesirable to me, and the purpose of having children is to have healthy ones who can have teeny weenie children of their own.

I was never talking about a simplified situation where there is only one undesirable recessive trait. Most people have a number of undesirable recessive traits. I have no idea how large that number is, but I will assume that it is large, like 50-100. Those traits are less likely to be expressed the larger the gene pool is. They will even be passed on less often in a larger pool. It's my opinion that preventing the bad recessives is more important than reinforcing the good ones. That is what I meant when I said "The risks can outweigh the potential benefits..."

Also, in the first generation of directly incestuous inbreeding, a 25% chance of a recessive gene being expressed means that parental or direct sibling incest has a very good chance of presenting any bad recessives that might exist. Even first cousins have about a 6.25% chance of expressing recessives. So one in four recessive traits will be expressed in a parent/child or brother/sister pairing. Of those, what percentage would be preferred traits, and what percentage would be undesirable? From the evidence that higher expression of undesirable recessive traits occurs more often within inbred populations (especially in the first generation), unless they're culled, I'd say that inbreeding among humans is to be avoided when possible. And that goes to responsibility.

As far as terrorism, I don't see it. What I got from Sirperry's statements is this: "I find the risks involved with incest too great to be considered responsible parenting. Irresponsible parenting is abusive." I do note that it was stated in a cursory, non-specific fashion, and can simplify, as a verbal equation, to "Incest is abusive to the progeny". If that's not what he said, or not what you took away, then we see things differently. As far as irresponsibility being abusive, I tend to agree. As far as irresponsibility being the nastiest form of abuse, I don't.

If you are trying to claim that inbreeding with a high inbreeding coefficient among humans is a neutral practice rather than a generally negative one, go ahead. I will continue to disagree; perhaps even voicing said disagreement.
*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 #222 on: August 13, 2008, 08:29:44 AM »
I want numbers that conclusively state that "The risks can outweigh the potential benefits..." I gave you numbers that show neutrality when you asked. I expect the same in return.

Otherwise, you yourself have answered one of the questions you posed earlier "Why don't I educate fucktardis neanderthalis up there?"

Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #223 on: August 13, 2008, 08:34:18 AM »
Kuro, first off, I said nothing against education.  I am actually quite fond of it.  I merely pointed out that I had asked for real world experience and then that education is not it.  But, let me refine your analogies a bit.  Einstein would be a great guy to ask about the physics behind an atom bomb.  But I would not ask him to repair one.  And a forensics expert who has never fired a gun is the wrong guy to take hunting, unless you just want somebody to carry your gear.

Secondly, I gave a single example.  YOU assumed that that is all I know.  I've raised livestock most of my life and I've had tons (literally) of experience with the effects of inbreeding.  And I know for a fact that you get too many culls to try to replicate that kind of practice with humans.

Third, you said abuse implies harm. Well, you are welcome to think that.  However, as Chemus said, negligence can be abuse.  Child neglect, for instance, is child abuse.  Hmmm, kinda funny how that fits into this conversation so nicely, isn't it ?

Fourth is genetic testing.  Yes, I meant it is expensive.  There is no 'violence' involved and if you think there is, maybe you should switch doctors.  ;)

Fifth is my mudhole.  No, I did not misread.  I volunteered the information.  You can find my patriotism a joke if you want, although I don't know where you get the idea.  I do happen to be patriotic fella, but now we are ranging far afield.  I do wish to point out, however that I did not say anything about 'us being smarter than you' or anything like it.  I am sorry if you took it that way, that was NOT my intent.  My apologies.

Finally, the bit of folk wisdom was intended as a (very) thinly veiled jibe at AJ.  Since you want to argue with EVERYTHING I say, though, let me add that the vast majority of all medicines on the market today are derived directly from folk wisdom and folk remedies.  There is a lot we can learn from our elders, if only we would listen.
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Incest
« Reply #224 on: August 13, 2008, 05:28:24 PM »
Quote
Kuro, first off, I said nothing against education.  I am actually quite fond of it.  I merely pointed out that I had asked for real world experience and then that education is not it.  But, let me refine your analogies a bit.  Einstein would be a great guy to ask about the physics behind an atom bomb.  But I would not ask him to repair one.  And a forensics expert who has never fired a gun is the wrong guy to take hunting, unless you just want somebody to carry your gear.

Secondly, I gave a single example.  YOU assumed that that is all I know.  I've raised livestock most of my life and I've had tons (literally) of experience with the effects of inbreeding.  And I know for a fact that you get too many culls to try to replicate that kind of practice with humans.

Third, you said abuse implies harm. Well, you are welcome to think that.  However, as Chemus said, negligence can be abuse.  Child neglect, for instance, is child abuse.  Hmmm, kinda funny how that fits into this conversation so nicely, isn't it ?

Fourth is genetic testing.  Yes, I meant it is expensive.  There is no 'violence' involved and if you think there is, maybe you should switch doctors. 

Fifth is my mudhole.  No, I did not misread.  I volunteered the information.  You can find my patriotism a joke if you want, although I don't know where you get the idea.  I do happen to be patriotic fella, but now we are ranging far afield.  I do wish to point out, however that I did not say anything about 'us being smarter than you' or anything like it.  I am sorry if you took it that way, that was NOT my intent.  My apologies.

Finally, the bit of folk wisdom was intended as a (very) thinly veiled jibe at AJ.  Since you want to argue with EVERYTHING I say, though, let me add that the vast majority of all medicines on the market today are derived directly from folk wisdom and folk remedies.  There is a lot we can learn from our elders, if only we would listen.

Einstein would refuse anyway.

Also, we're talking about PEOPLE here. People are not livestock. If anything, I'd assume genetics works the same way for everyone, but there are significantly more factors to consider on a human being's life than there is on cattle. As a general rule, cattle are also fairly more resilient (though obviously more stupid). You're making a fairly unreasonable demand in this matter, by the way: it appears to me that you would only accept anyone's opinion on the subject if they were A) incestuous with multiple children or B) doctors (the only two kinds of people I see, under this situation, that could have hands-on experience on the subject. correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, as for what Chemus noted (negligence can be abuse), there is a slight misconception there. Though both negligence and abuse cause harm, the main difference here is INTENT. That's the biggest qualifier that separates them. As I noted before, choosing to ignore the chances of something going wrong IS irresponsible, yes, but unless they did that with the SPECIFIC purpose of harming the child, then what happens there is negligence and NOT abuse. There are several reasons behind the differentiation of the two. Some of them are semantic in nature, while others pertain to the realm of the law - there is a REASON why negligence carries a smaller penalty than abuse in respect to children all over the world. That reason is intent.

As for the testing, I didn't mean literal, physical violence (puh-leeze, I know what it takes to test someone's DNA). I meant emotional violence. I mean, really. Don't you think it's awfully selfish of the parents to make sure to mate only if the child is perfect? Not to mention that it's an unrealistic expectation even among so-called "healthy" parents. There are just too many things that can go wrong with the formation of a person's body (and mind!) to only allow conception to those who'd be 'perfect'. Also, though people are not rocks, there's a little point I'd like to make: the strongest steel is not the purest. Many of our greatest discoveries were made by people who weren't AT ALL right in the head, lots of which displayed what would be later described as genetic pre-disposed forms of mental illnesses, and I assume the majority of which were not inbred.

And yes, I DO believe you DID misread. I actually asked what kind of cultural situation you thought the people at large lived in nowadays. The information about where you live is mostly irrelevant to the discussion as it only displays what your side of reality is - and I'm certain you know there are more sides than that. I showed mine as well, and even my side of reality is irrelevant to this particular discussion. We need a big picture, not a small one - otherwise there's no point in arguing.

I do accept your apology on the matter, though, since it is largely my prerogative to see lots of double-meanings to many things (I live among people who tend to make of it an artform).

And I don't mean to argue with everything you say. That'd be childish and counterproductive. Although I suppose saying that, in and of itself, apparently proves your point. That said, folk wisdom merely pointed them in the right direction, it didn't provide people with a complete answer. It's not as if our elders came up with such medicine in its refined form completely on their own. I do agree there's a lot to learn from them, but one should always be aware that knowledge is always a better thing to acquire when you have lots of ways to look at it, because the truth is never singular.
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 #225 on: August 14, 2008, 05:57:32 AM »
Well said.
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Incest
« Reply #226 on: August 18, 2008, 09:55:21 AM »
I want numbers that conclusively state that "The risks can outweigh the potential benefits..." I gave you numbers that show neutrality when you asked. I expect the same in return.

Otherwise, you yourself have answered one of the questions you posed earlier "Why don't I educate fucktardis neanderthalis up there?"

I must be one of those neanderthal fucktards, because the numbers I saw from you did not show neutrality to me: 25% and 5% chances in the first two generations of inbreeding of each potentially shared recessive traits being expressed is not negligible. There is currently no practical way of knowing what recessive genes we do or don't have, nor whether they're good or bad. The best defense we have right now is don't fuck your sister; get someone from farther afield.

I don't have numbers. Plus I mentioned statistics because you said that Sirperry should get educated in probability and genetics and then he'd be qualified to argue this with you, when you'd expressed zero creditable evidence.

The nearest book in the bibliography of the wikipedia entry that I linked to earlier that is in my library system is in a library 74 mi. away; I checked. I'm not waiting to order and read it, and I'm not driving there to get it. However, since the article is not in apparent dispute (except that someone thinks that it should be combined with linebreeding), I will reference it with this quote:

Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected[1]. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:

    * reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
    * increased genetic disorders
    * fluctuating facial asymmetry
    * lower birth rate
    * higher infant mortality
    * slower growth rate
    * smaller adult size
    * loss of immune system function.

Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental stresses, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.

[1]Griffiths, Anthony J. F.; Jeffrey H. Miller, David T. Suzuki, Richard C. Lewontin, William M. Gelbart (1999). An introduction to genetic analysis. New York: W. H. Freeman, 726-727. ISBN 0-7167-3771-X.

As the frequency of deleterious traits being expressed is noticeably higher, especially among the first generation, according to the four authors of the referenced book, one of whom I instantly recognize as a well respected biologist from my continent, no amount of potential benefits outweigh the potential risks to my own offspring. I want beautiful, healthy, children who can choose to have their own children. I'm not going to cull (remove from the 'herd', sometimes by killing them) my children.

And that's what I've been arguing: human children mean more to me than non-human ones. Acceptable risks in a population of sheep, for example, are unacceptable in human populations. The researched and codified risks, because they are greater in more inbred populations than in less inbred populations, are not acceptable risks. For my kids, only the lowest risk I can manage is acceptable.

Adding anything to the risk of producing mentally or physically retarded human children is irresponsible if you have control over the risk factors. Abuse or not, I find it stupid to breed with close relatives.
*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 #227 on: August 18, 2008, 01:27:27 PM »
I must be one of those neanderthal fucktards, because the numbers I saw from you did not show neutrality to me: 25% and 5% chances in the first two generations of inbreeding of each potentially shared recessive traits being expressed is not negligible. There is currently no practical way of knowing what recessive genes we do or don't have, nor whether they're good or bad. The best defense we have right now is don't fuck your sister; get someone from farther afield.
25% of Dual dominant, 50% of dominant-recessive, 25% of recessive looks pretty neutral to me.

And that is assuming a dominant-recessive parents, which, by the way, may or may not be siblings.

If the distribution is even (which it is not), there is a 25:50:25 chance anyone you procreate with will have dual dominant, dominant-recessive or dual recessive gene respectively regardless of relationship status. That is Probability Theory.

I will leave it up to you to decide if you are a fucktard or not.

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Incest
« Reply #228 on: August 18, 2008, 06:47:38 PM »
25% of Dual dominant, 50% of dominant-recessive, 25% of recessive looks pretty neutral to me.

Assume that you have a 25% chance to catch cold from an infected person. Now assume that you can't always tell who's infected, but those people who are often exhibit certain traits; runny nose, sneezing, lethargy, etc. Would you wash your hands a little more often when in prolonged contact with them, even though you know that you can get a cold from people who don't currently exhibit symptoms? The evidence of increased risk, even if the sneezer only has hay-fever, elicits a reaction from me: I wash a little more frequently, and avoid too-close contact. I try to minimize my risk, even though there's a '75% chance' I won't get sick in that situation, I want to reduce the number of exposures.

I know that that is not perfectly analogous, but that's where I see a 'balanced' probability as non-neutral.
Quote from: AndyJames, with my own bolding
And that is assuming a dominant-recessive parents, which, by the way, may or may not be siblings.

If the distribution is even (which it is not), there is a 25:50:25 chance anyone you procreate with will have dual dominant, dominant-recessive or dual recessive gene respectively regardless of relationship status. That is Probability Theory.
Probability and reality frequently don't mesh. That is Life.

Single-step distance, genetically, from each other increases the likelihood of there being common recessives to pair. There is no current panacea vs. recessive genes (good or bad ones), nor an easy test to determine whether deleterious recessives exist. The best defense is to mate outside your family, preferably outside your extended family. There may be no problems with some really, really close family relationships, but why borrow trouble?
*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 #229 on: August 18, 2008, 10:16:20 PM »
25% of Dual dominant, 50% of dominant-recessive, 25% of recessive looks pretty neutral to me.

Assume that you have a 25% chance to catch cold from an infected person. Now assume that you can't always tell who's infected, but those people who are often exhibit certain traits; runny nose, sneezing, lethargy, etc. Would you wash your hands a little more often when in prolonged contact with them, even though you know that you can get a cold from people who don't currently exhibit symptoms? The evidence of increased risk, even if the sneezer only has hay-fever, elicits a reaction from me: I wash a little more frequently, and avoid too-close contact. I try to minimize my risk, even though there's a '75% chance' I won't get sick in that situation, I want to reduce the number of exposures.

I know that that is not perfectly analogous, but that's where I see a 'balanced' probability as non-neutral.
Quote from: AndyJames, with my own bolding
And that is assuming a dominant-recessive parents, which, by the way, may or may not be siblings.

If the distribution is even (which it is not), there is a 25:50:25 chance anyone you procreate with will have dual dominant, dominant-recessive or dual recessive gene respectively regardless of relationship status. That is Probability Theory.
Probability and reality frequently don't mesh. That is Life.

Single-step distance, genetically, from each other increases the likelihood of there being common recessives to pair. There is no current panacea vs. recessive genes (good or bad ones), nor an easy test to determine whether deleterious recessives exist. The best defense is to mate outside your family, preferably outside your extended family. There may be no problems with some really, really close family relationships, but why borrow trouble?
The 75% chance is predicated on the fact that:

1) The original pair had dominant-recessive genes. If the original pair had dual dominants, the chance is 0% that you get sick. If the orginal were both dual recessives, you have a 100% chance of getting sick. To say that the original pair *must* be dominant-recessive is a fallacy.

2) The original pair were not brother and sister. The dual dominant is. You fail. Badly. As I said, it doesn't matter *where* the allelles come from. What matters is what *type* of allelles they are. There is no rule that states "incest automatically makes your genes dominant-recessive or dual recessive" except in the minds of those emotionally attached to the issue like the fucktard neanderthal above who used that emotional attachment as an argument in order to create a state of fear and cow others into his way of thinking. Like a fucking sloganistic greenie caveman wannabe.



NB.! I am only arguing this because of his debating tactics, nothing else. That you dealt yourself into the fight is unfortunate.

Darth Krzysztof

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Texan Metal Sith Lord
    • Cold Blood - my chat-based D&D v.3.5 Planescape campaign
Re: Incest
« Reply #230 on: September 02, 2008, 01:26:36 AM »
I used Sigil's Temple of the Abyss in my Planescape game. According to In the Cage: A Guide to Sigil, the high priest's consort, Noxana the Unwilling, is rumored to also be his daughter.

When the PCs talked to Noxana, she let that slip, though I wasn't quite sure at the time if she did so accidentally or purposefully (or whether it was even true, for that matter. Can you trust tanar'ri worshipers?). The stunned reactions of our heroes were worth it...

She has asked the heroes for help with getting away from the high priest, so we'll have to see how it plays out.
Cold Blood - my chat-based D&D v.3.5 Planescape campaign.

Read my diatribe about chat-based gaming here.

Sirperry

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Pbbbbth !
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #231 on: September 02, 2008, 05:54:39 AM »
My point exactly !
( ???)
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Darth Krzysztof

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Texan Metal Sith Lord
    • Cold Blood - my chat-based D&D v.3.5 Planescape campaign
Re: Incest
« Reply #232 on: September 02, 2008, 05:28:45 PM »
My point exactly !
( ???)

I'm sorry, I was trying to sidestep the argument and return this thread to something like the original discussion.

Maybe I should have said that.
Cold Blood - my chat-based D&D v.3.5 Planescape campaign.

Read my diatribe about chat-based gaming here.

Sinfire Titan

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • You've got one round to give a rat's ass.
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #233 on: September 02, 2008, 08:34:16 PM »
You know, I never really got the whole furry thing. I understand it's different from bestiality, but what is it's appeal? Just an honest question here, no criticism ;)

~Bowen

Um, fox girls are HOT? ???

Seriously though, it's something you either get or you don't. If you've looked at it, and aren't attracted... well it just isn't for you.

Careful though, because a lot of the artists make some flat out freaky shit that can easily give you the wrong impression if you think it's the whole.


Ok, rewind a bit here. I have something to mention about this:
[spoiler]http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/9769/poster94734280fa0.jpg[/spoiler]


Now back to the topic at hand.


[spoiler][/spoiler]

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Incest
« Reply #234 on: September 02, 2008, 09:04:51 PM »
Unless that is a crossdressing fox girl, gay =/= liking the opposite gender. Using gay as an insult, and out of context = Epic Fucking Fail. I expect better from you Sinfire.

If that is a crossdressing fox girl, it's 'gay' for that reason.

Lastly, jailbait isn't attractive.
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]

Sinfire Titan

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • You've got one round to give a rat's ass.
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #235 on: September 02, 2008, 09:58:55 PM »
Unless that is a crossdressing fox girl, gay =/= liking the opposite gender. Using gay as an insult, and out of context = Epic Fucking Fail. I expect better from you Sinfire.

If that is a crossdressing fox girl, it's 'gay' for that reason.

Lastly, jailbait isn't attractive.

Disclaimer: I did not make that. Found it on the internet.


Its actually somewhat on topic too, considering the character has a subconscious crush on his cousin, who is often mistaken for his sister.


[spoiler][/spoiler]

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Incest
« Reply #236 on: September 03, 2008, 02:13:53 PM »
:P
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]

Heliomance

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • Email
Re: Incest
« Reply #237 on: September 25, 2008, 01:04:32 PM »
Unless that is a crossdressing fox girl, gay =/= liking the opposite gender. Using gay as an insult, and out of context = Epic Fucking Fail. I expect better from you Sinfire.

If that is a crossdressing fox girl, it's 'gay' for that reason.

Lastly, jailbait isn't attractive.
One would assume, from the common meaning of the word "trap" on the interwebs, that that is in fact a male.

AndyJames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
  • Meep?
Re: Incest
« Reply #238 on: September 25, 2008, 01:09:25 PM »
It is a toon. It can be whatever they want it to be. From a guy that looks exactly like a girl, to a mass of hidden spiked tentacles courtesy of Evard :P

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Incest
« Reply #239 on: September 25, 2008, 04:48:10 PM »
This reminds me of the discussion around the gender of the character Poison of Final Fight and Street Fighter III fame. According to my sources, the whole thing started because a member of the localization team thought players would object to beating up women - so they made her into a transvestite instead in the american version.
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!