Incest

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?

Honestly, I really don't give a shit who is boinking who. I hear a lot of people talking about genetic regression and my response is usually "So?"

If a brother and sister decide they want to screw, it's not my place to approve or disapprove.

Lawnmooer:

HalfTangible:

Lawnmooer:
Is incest morally wrong?

Not really, in the animal kingdom incest happens all the time. Heck we humans force animals into incest in order to control various genes or to observe genetic anomalies (Not ones caused by inbreeding, things like hereditary diseases)

I would just like to point out that what animals are willing to do isn't a good moral compass (EX: Dolphins commit rape and kill for fun). Especially for something like incest, where potential issues are long-term and genetic, something animals don't understand beyond perhaps an instinctual level.

Though animals are a good representation of the risk, since they'll commit incest fairly frequently, yet they still maintain healthy individuals and have been reproducing for hundreds and thousands of years.

We also have several examples of human bloodlines (particularly royal bloodlines) going 'thin' in later generations due to incest, leading to insanity and genetic defects. Granted, it likely won't be a problem until after a few generations, but frankly humanity's got very narrow genetic variance to begin with.

Heck laboratory mice have been bred via incest since the early 20th century and they still prove to be identical to the first one of it's type.

If nearly 100 years of incest hasn't caused the entire species to develop horrendous defects, I doubt that the odd couple having children incestually will have dramatic effects (Especially when compared to the multitude of other conditions that can be brought on via 2 non-related people having children if they just happen to both be high risk)

1) I don't want to be like a lab mouse and I don't know a single human being that does. =P Even the ones who go through medical experiments at least want to get paid.

2) The human species is already very genetically similar. I can't find exact data on mouse genetics but I doubt that a species that has been reproducing like rodents (for obvious reasons) for millenia if not longer is going to have the same sort of bottleneck humans have had.

3) The species is not the only consideration to be made here. You can asses some risk factors but ultimately you can't make an infant one way or the other without modifying genetics (which is a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't get into here, or the thread may derail)

The issue of morality would come from whether you get a majority of your morals from society (Which would make the act of incest morally wrong as it's taboo and also provides some risk of genetic mutation) or if you develop your morality instictually (Usually via common sense stuff such as; Harming others is wrong) society seems to like looking down on a great many things that shouldn't be a problem to many people.

So the only reason I would find incest creepy would be if i was a mindless socialite and don't develop morals on my own? Nice to know.

... Okay, that was harsh and a little stupid of me. Look, I agree society places too many tabboos on things that don't make sense, but that doesn't mean everything society tells us is wrong isn't.

Incest should be illegal because it's detrimental to the human race. We don't need negative and recessive genes debilitating future generations.

Im not sure about this.

On one side id usually say what goes on between 2 ppl in the bedroom is none of my business, but inbreeding leads to genetic problems so it isnt just the 2 ppl that are concerned, its their offspring and what effect it would have on the wider society.

And that...is more my business. It already sickens me when i see people having way more kids then they can handle, or parents that have kids for silly resons just as tax benefits or to entrap a husband (these cases sadly do exist) so the whole sister and bro boinking then having kids really does kinda irk me.

So guess i don't find it morally wrong for a sister and brother to hook up without having kids, but if they were then that would be crossing a line in my book. My 2 cents.

Frankster:
Im not sure about this.

On one side id usually say what goes on between 2 ppl in the bedroom is none of my business, but inbreeding leads to genetic problems so it isnt just the 2 ppl that are concerned, its their offspring and what effect it would have on the wider society.

And that...is more my business. It already sickens me when i see people having way more kids then they can handle, or parents that have kids for silly resons just as tax benefits or to entrap a husband (these cases sadly do exist) so the whole sister and bro boinking then having kids really does kinda irk me.

So guess i don't find it morally wrong for a sister and brother to hook up without having kids, but if they were then that would be crossing a line in my book. My 2 cents.

Would it also cross the line for you if a person with a hereditary genetic illnes would have children with someone that they are not not related to?

I say go for it.

There's really no good reason why the sex and relationships should be illegal.

Children is another story. I think the risks would need to be better weighed and more tests and studies performed before that was fully legalized.

And no, it doesn't disgust me. I won't go in to it too far, but let's just say I wish a few of my family members felt the same way I do.......

In all honesty, I am not comfortable with incest. I wouldn't hate nor bash two people who love each other and are close relatives, but I won't lie about the consequences/negatives outweighing the positives on this ride.

Besides the kids having high chances of having physical issues from genetics, incest is something in which sort of bothers me because if it's a brother and sister who are close- you guys came from the same mother. I guess if it's so unnatural and uncommon, people will react badly towards it. In this case though, I do not blame them. Still, treat each individual with dignity and respect for no one's better then anyone else.

George R.R. Martin believes that incest causes wars.

(No I don't mean it)

Other than that I have nothing else to offer to this thread

Nah, do what you want mate.

I have to admit it isn't an issue i have spent a great deal of time considering but i would have to say i don't think there is a logically justifiable case that incest is morally wrong in itself. I will qualify that by saying the actual idea makes me feel unsettled, but the things that disturb us aren't always logical.
I do however believe strongly that incestuos conception is morally wrong (as would be any kind of conception where you knowingly take that kind of risk with a potential childs health).

Pretty much anything I want to say has been covered, albeit scattered among several posts, so I will summarize my feelings on the matter.

I am completely okay with other people engaging in incest(Although I wouldn't engage in it personally). It should definitely be legal. As for children, due to the fact that I don't want to spend the next day researching this, I will just say this. Some people mentioned some kind of reproductive counselling, and I think that they should do that, and if there is sufficient evidence to show that the likely-hood of birth defects are high, then they should not be allowed to have the child. I feel that this should be applicable to any couple that yields such as result after testing as well. But if there is no such way of accurately testing people, and determining how high the risk for defects are, then I guess that option is out the window.

Do I personally find it disgusting? Well, parent and child incest I do find to be quite gross, but I don't really find incest among siblings to be particularly gross, unless it is male homosexual sex, which I find gross regardless of how they are related. Also notable, I don't really consider having sex with your cousin to be incest, just your direct siblings from the same parent.

But yeah, so basically, I am completely fine with it, and am fine with children as the result of an incestuous relationship, provided that the risk for birth defects is shown to be no higher than a normal couple's.

Bhaalspawn:
I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?

I'm sorry but I just have to ask. What the hell is self marriage? What would be the point of marrying yourself? What's the difference between an unmarried person and a self-married person?

More on topic: The belief that incest is unethical because of the increased risk of genetic deformities manifesting is tantamount to a belief in the goodness of eugenics.

It's illogical to condemn incest while not simultaneously condemning couple who suffer from genetic deformities.

Either incest is ethical or eugenics is ethical and I hope that no one here is sophomoric enough to think that eugenics is ethical.

Entitled:

Would it also cross the line for you if a person with a hereditary genetic illnes would have children with someone that they are not not related to?

Good question. Ill need to be more informed on the subject and the nature of hereditary illness in question before i can answer it though.
The answer might potentially mean i support a limited form of eugenics which would be horrible at first glance but then again, if im against healthy people having too many kids if they can't handle them, i suppose this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

I don't feel like I'm in the position to say. I have no siblings, am not particularly close with my family, and my mother is conventionally unattractive so I don't know if I find her unattractive because she IS or because she's my mother.

I guess it's not my business, but I'm not really a good judge over how "sick" or "wrong" it supposedly is.

Don't really care about it one way or the other.
My gut reaction to the idea is one of disgust, because I've grown up with perception that it's one of the worst things you could do. Rednecks with oddities being the result of said relationships, genetic defects galore, two depraved individuals.

Though when I apply some logic to it, eh.
Defects happen regardless of who it is. Miscarriages happen regardless of who it is.
I'm certain that there's more disgusting acts that humanity has partaken in, of a non-sexual fashion.

When there's two consenting adults, how can you say that it's (the act) wrong?
If anything, the reaction to it is wrong and the aftermath (pregnancy) could also be wrong.
So I suppose I'm someone that's neutral to it, but wouldn't/couldn't do it myself.

Iron Lightning:

Bhaalspawn:
I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?

I'm sorry but I just have to ask. What the hell is self marriage? What would be the point of marrying yourself? What's the difference between an unmarried person and a self-married person?

A smug sense of superiority. Plus being able to use "I'm married" as a reason to get your friends to stop dragging you to bars with them.

Or perhaps that's just me.

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged lately (I pause here to hear you groan) and I'm starting to think that the status quo is hating on the, what 5%, while wider philosophical considerations are shunned.

>Atlas Shrugged
Stopped reading there, Invalidates all your arguments

Kidding, Okay, but you need to follow that up by reading Marx and Orwell. Marx is actually very good at describing the difference between Libertarianism (which he claims is what capitalism is sold as) and working Capitalism.
Ayn Rand, if you haven't noticed, was very apt to dehumanise people.

Actually, I did buy 1984 along with Atlas Shrugged. But I'll probably read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris next, then Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche. I also fail to see how Ayn dehumanises people, all I've seen is the very opposite.

The Ubermensch:

I agree with this, but the issue that we have is that I know it won't stop there.

How do you know? And where will it go? And will it matter if it goes there?

In that order
-Based on projections made on personal observations and correlations in human behaviour
-Full blown inappropriately regulated Eugenics
-In my opinion yes

I highly doubt, with all the speculative fiction, and bioethcis and shit like that, that we'll ever come to something like that. But I guess only time will tell.

The Ubermensch:

Again, it is very possible that it wouldn't be homogenised, and that's what testing is for. Lots and lots of testing. Also ensuring that we have the science of epigentics accounted for as best as possible.

The testing screens for Issues, not homogenisation, example. you have four couples and 16 genes, they each have two kids. the best Gene is selected from each parent

Oh, I get that, I'm saying that in the future when we do have the technology (just as we'd have the tech for higher level eugenics).

The Ubermensch:

AB + CD = AC + AC
EF + GH = FG + FG
IJ + KL = JL + JL
MN + OP = NO + NO

Congratulations, you've just halved your genetic diversity!

they then mate and you do the same again

AC + FG = FC + FC
JL + NO = NL + NL
FG + JL = FG + FG
NO + AG = AO + AO

Okay, you haven't quite halved it this time, but the pools gettings shallower

See where I'm going with this? Yeah the examples not perfect but it illustrates my point. You can try and regulate this but it would be really difficult to do

I'd imagine it wouldn't really matter. If we can synthetically create DNA for the eugenics there would be no problems with genetic diversity, as any problems that would be caused via two people mating 1. Generally arises from those killer ressessives I mentioned earlier and 2. Could be replaced by the very same process that caused them to be homogeneous in the first place.

The Ubermensch:

No, but a very high burden of performance will be placed on the first generation of "Goopers"

Not if you make it double blind.

*First production models of Goopers

Alright, what do you mean by high burden of performance? If you mean there'll be big things expected of them and such and that'll skew the results, a double blind study would eliminate that.

The Ubermensch:

I don't agree. Eugenics is not inherently wrong. It could be applied wrong, but there are almost certainly ways it could work.

Yeah, I doubt it though

We'll see I guess. I think that most of any potential problems that could arise from it come from those rejecting it without knowing what they are talking about, just like stem cell research and GM foods.

The Ubermensch:

I'm sure there is, I'm just a really cynical person. Haven't you noticed?

You're cynical? I'm cynical. I just don't like to speak in absolutes and rule out potential solutions based upon potential problems.

image

Like it or not, you need someone to call out the potential problems

Oh of course, I'm not saying not to do that, I'm just saying not to throw out the whole idea due to those potential problems.

The Ubermensch:

Wait, what?
I am not saying that I don't want to know, I am saying that others don't and they're the danger, especially as they are much more likely to be able to be indoctrinated with false information.

Of course I don't take arguments souly from authority. I attempt to judge all arguments without prejudice, and weigh them by merit.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of
the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity
and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.
For he is truly his brother's keeper... and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger
those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I
am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

Some people will away's need a shepherd, unfortunately false ones exist.

Thanks to Ayn Rand that has become one of my more despised Bible passages. I still maintain that so long as you do no harm to others, selfishness is just. More harm seems to come from people calling others selfish, then demanding what they do not deserve.

Finally, yes, some people will always need a shepard. It is a shame really, I think the school system carries a significant amount of the blame. That is one area where I will admit that Ayn Rand is naive, she puts too much faith in human beings.

Entitled:

Frankster:
Im not sure about this.

On one side id usually say what goes on between 2 ppl in the bedroom is none of my business, but inbreeding leads to genetic problems so it isnt just the 2 ppl that are concerned, its their offspring and what effect it would have on the wider society.

And that...is more my business. It already sickens me when i see people having way more kids then they can handle, or parents that have kids for silly resons just as tax benefits or to entrap a husband (these cases sadly do exist) so the whole sister and bro boinking then having kids really does kinda irk me.

So guess i don't find it morally wrong for a sister and brother to hook up without having kids, but if they were then that would be crossing a line in my book. My 2 cents.

Would it also cross the line for you if a person with a hereditary genetic illnes would have children with someone that they are not not related to?

I know this question is not directed at me, but that is a good point.

I am forced to say yes (for the worst genetic illnesses), because you are knowingly creating a creature which will be significantly disadvantaged from the word 'go'. Is that not the height of cruelty? Adoption (or IVF) should be the first thing to a person with a genetic illness's mind when they wish to have children.

Arakasi:

I highly doubt, with all the speculative fiction, and bioethcis and shit like that, that we'll ever come to something like that. But I guess only time will tell.

I'd imagine it wouldn't really matter. If we can synthetically create DNA for the eugenics there would be no problems with genetic diversity, as any problems that would be caused via two people mating 1. Generally arises from those killer ressessives I mentioned earlier and 2. Could be replaced by the very same process that caused them to be homogeneous in the first place.

Yeah, we are a ways off from being able to calculate how synthetically generated genes effect Mammalian development, though interestingly enough a team recently created a working, replicating bacteria with completely synthetic DNA... and created the "superior" XNA... So go figure.

Alright, what do you mean by high burden of performance? If you mean there'll be big things expected of them and such and that'll skew the results, a double blind study would eliminate that.

I think if you commercialised this technology, which if you're an objectivist you would, I think the parents that paid for the treatment would be a bit pissed off that they didn't get the advertised product.

Secondly, how much is IVF at the moment? like fucking expensive. How expensive would genetic selection be? because that's IVF plus genetic manipulation. I'd say there would be a fair few people with high expectations of their prodigy's. Again this is speculation, but its speculation based on correlated observation.

We'll see I guess. I think that most of any potential problems that could arise from it come from those rejecting it without knowing what they are talking about, just like stem cell research and GM foods.

Yeah, on reflection I'm a little bit wrong in my thinking here. Science isn't inherently good or evil, its what we do with it. Still, I prefer transhumanisation and Cybernetics to Eugneics.

Thanks to Ayn Rand that has become one of my more despised Bible passages. I still maintain that so long as you do no harm to others, selfishness is just. More harm seems to come from people calling others selfish, then demanding what they do not deserve.

Yes, but the issue that I have is that when you become the Director of a big business and start having employees it's your responsibility to look after them in a fair manner, be careful about the waste you manufacture because it can damage the environment, etc. The problem is that today a lot of these people in these positions of power have attained it via birth right alone; the difficulties of the education system, etcetera.

Ayn Rand may have had some valid points in her time but we're almost 80 years later, where as Marx bloody called it.

Finally, yes, some people will always need a shepard. It is a shame really, I think the school system carries a significant amount of the blame. That is one area where I will admit that Ayn Rand is naive, she puts too much faith in human beings.

... Hang on a second... I bet you do listen to Nickleback!

seydaman:
For a starting
-Is incest morally wrong?

I don't think it is morally wrong as long as both parties have given consent.

-In the case of no possible offspring?

This is quite a big point, providing they don't reproduce then I'm fine with it.

-With offspring?

I think that couples that come under the boundaries of incest shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. See gene therapy.

-Should incest be legally banned?

No.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

No, because well... um Twincest, not gonna lie.

As well that it won't effect me if it become legal, just like how Gay marriage won't effect anyone else.

Personally? Not interested.

Other people? I don't really have any control over what other folks do. So...have at it, I guess?

Bhaalspawn:
I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?

Honestly, I really don't give a shit who is boinking who. I hear a lot of people talking about genetic regression and my response is usually "So?"

If a brother and sister decide they want to screw, it's not my place to approve or disapprove.

No contest on the gay marriage front.

As to the 'boinking' business not affecting you at all - I'd like you to reconsider.

Do you pay taxes? If yes, depending on where you live, it is highly probable that you also pay into some form of NHS fund. So... it is bound to affect you, albeit in a mostly roundabout way. You have no control over how your money is used, and all you can do is hope there's enough money left when it's your turn to be in need of some pills and other, more refined fixin'.

Do you pay 10% (or even more) of your monthly income into some form of health insurance? Then it is bound to affect you.

If you pay neither taxes, nor health insurance, then you are indeed free to act and think as you please, as you refuse to partake in the rather costly enterprise of just being a good citizen.

However, you might understand that I, who, to this day, has paid an average 100 times more into the system than I got out of it for myself (and my loved ones) don't feel much sympathy for notions like the one you just so carelessly spouted from in between clenched teeth. Not certain if generally grinning or just angry by default.

Captcha: stool pigeon - wth?

Picture added to save a thousand words from being slaughtered:

image

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

I highly doubt, with all the speculative fiction, and bioethcis and shit like that, that we'll ever come to something like that. But I guess only time will tell.

I am yet to read 1984, but that sounds incredibly sensationalist.

The Ubermensch:

I'd imagine it wouldn't really matter. If we can synthetically create DNA for the eugenics there would be no problems with genetic diversity, as any problems that would be caused via two people mating 1. Generally arises from those killer ressessives I mentioned earlier and 2. Could be replaced by the very same process that caused them to be homogeneous in the first place.

Yeah, we are a ways off from being able to calculate how synthetically generated genes effect Mammalian development, though interestingly enough a team recently created a working, replicating bacteria with completely synthetic DNA... and created the "superior" XNA... So go figure.

Yep, the future both outperforms and underperforms what sci-fi writers think of. Where's our damn flying cars.

The Ubermensch:

Alright, what do you mean by high burden of performance? If you mean there'll be big things expected of them and such and that'll skew the results, a double blind study would eliminate that.

I think if you commercialised this technology, which if you're an objectivist you would, I think the parents that paid for the treatment would be a bit pissed off that they didn't get the advertised product.

I was talking about initial testing. It should only become commercialised when it is safe. Also, I am not an objectivist. I don't believe in free will and also think that Ayn Rand puts far too much faith in the mental capacity of the average human, without a good education anyway.

The Ubermensch:

Secondly, how much is IVF at the moment? like fucking expensive. How expensive would genetic selection be? because that's IVF plus genetic manipulation. I'd say there would be a fair few people with high expectations of their prodigy's. Again this is speculation, but its speculation based on correlated observation.

It would only be as expensive as the market determines. You've got to strike the right balance between the highest price possible for the most customers possible. So it really couldn't be that expensive unless it were entirely done by small firms who catered entirely to the richest.

The Ubermensch:

We'll see I guess. I think that most of any potential problems that could arise from it come from those rejecting it without knowing what they are talking about, just like stem cell research and GM foods.

Yeah, on reflection I'm a little bit wrong in my thinking here. Science isn't inherently good or evil, its what we do with it. Still, I prefer transhumanisation and Cybernetics to Eugneics.

Well, I'd ideally prefer cybernetics or some equivalent, but I don't think it can solve a lot of the problems that genetic modification could.

The Ubermensch:

Thanks to Ayn Rand that has become one of my more despised Bible passages. I still maintain that so long as you do no harm to others, selfishness is just. More harm seems to come from people calling others selfish, then demanding what they do not deserve.

Yes, but the issue that I have is that when you become the Director of a big business and start having employees it's your responsibility to look after them in a fair manner, be careful about the waste you manufacture because it can damage the environment, etc.

When it comes to waste and damaging the environment and such, I have given a lot of thought about it. The objectivist would say that the only environment the industrialist has the right to damage is the one that the industrialist paid for, so if you want to pollute a river or an ocean you'd better bloody well own it (and ensure it can't escape your property) otherwise you're going to be in a shitload of trouble. As for the workers, they are selling a skill, and ideally (I have no idea how this would work in reality) There would be a marketplace for jobs, and the most skilled workers would prefer the safer environments, encouraging employers to make their workplace safer. Of course, there would still be a place for suing the pants off your employer for making you operate an unsafe machine (provided you weren't told it would be unsafe).

The Ubermensch:

The problem is that today a lot of these people in these positions of power have attained it via birth right alone; the difficulties of the education system, etcetera.

Yes, that is one of the larger flaws I see in Ayn Rand's work. Although she herself seems to be disgusted with the power attained by birth thing also. I can't be bothered to find the quote, but she certainly believes in people leaving big companies and such in the best hands, as opposed to the hands of an incompetent blood relative.

The Ubermensch:

Ayn Rand may have had some valid points in her time but we're almost 80 years later, where as Marx bloody called it.

Marx called what? Rand said society would slowly deteriorate due to the pollution of the capitalist system by 'altruistic' policies which caused inbalance and corruption, that was the centre of Atlas Shrugged, except that was an example of someone speeding up the inevitable. I know it's difficult to see how it could have been altruistic policies that caused it, but she made some really damn good points to show it.

The Ubermensch:

Finally, yes, some people will always need a shepard. It is a shame really, I think the school system carries a significant amount of the blame. That is one area where I will admit that Ayn Rand is naive, she puts too much faith in human beings.

... Hang on a second... I bet you do listen to Nickleback!

I'll have you know I listen to metal and classical primarily. Current pop music makes my ears bleed.

Really?
Admittedly I have only skimmed through the responses but I am surprised by the general positive attitude to incest.

If I was dating my sister you guys would really have no problem?

I just find it a little strange. Is it ok then?

Let's search definition of what you guys wouldn't care about. What could I "Have at" if I was so inclined?

Second Cousin?
Cousin?
Aunt?
Mother?
Sister?
Daughter?

Hell, I am implying the feminine? Would it be better/worse if it was Uncle, Father, Brother or Son?

Disclaimer:
I should probably point out that a discussion of incest is absolutely not related in any way to a discussion of sexuality.

Arakasi:

I am yet to read 1984, but that sounds incredibly sensationalist.

Two things you have to understand about Orwell, one, he's was a communist until Stalin went bonkers, two he saw the same warning signs in western culture. That was the point of 1984.

We never did talk about Blade Runner but I think this is sort of important for you to understand why I feel this way. Thankfully there's a guy on You Tube that thinks almost exactly the way I do

Perhaps I've just grown up with cyberpunk in my face and have been indoctrinated to think this way, but perhaps these are valid questions everyone should ask themselves.

I was talking about initial testing. It should only become commercialised when it is safe. Also, I am not an objectivist. I don't believe in free will and also think that Ayn Rand puts far too much faith in the mental capacity of the average human, without a good education anyway.

How can you not believe in Free Will? A MAN CHOOSES, A SLAVE OBEYS

It would only be as expensive as the market determines. You've got to strike the right balance between the highest price possible for the most customers possible. So it really couldn't be that expensive unless it were entirely done by small firms who catered entirely to the richest.

... You see a problem with that I hope...

Well, I'd ideally prefer cybernetics or some equivalent, but I don't think it can solve a lot of the problems that genetic modification could.

The only thing it couldn't solve is brain related issues, and even then we don't know for certain.

When it comes to waste and damaging the environment and such, I have given a lot of thought about it. The objectivist would say that the only environment the industrialist has the right to damage is the one that the industrialist paid for, so if you want to pollute a river or an ocean you'd better bloody well own it (and ensure it can't escape your property) otherwise you're going to be in a shitload of trouble.

... How the fuck, no just think about this for a second, how the fuck can you "Own land". No just think about it for a second, who initially has the rights too it? Who has the rights to sell it? If the answer is the government then how did they acquire it? Because if the government owns it now they acquired it via murder.

I think you can lease land, I think you can operate it for a long time, I think you can use the land to store waste providing that it doesn't spread, but most waste does.

As for the workers, they are selling a skill, and ideally (I have no idea how this would work in reality) There would be a marketplace for jobs, and the most skilled workers would prefer the safer environments; encouraging employers to make their workplace safer. Of course, there would still be a place for suing the pants off your employer for making you operate an unsafe machine (provided you weren't told it would be unsafe).

This is pretty much what happens at the moment and its not working. You have thousands of illegals killed every year by machinery, doing unskilled work. Because they do this, and I want to point out that I'm not against illegals, I'm against the system that they are exploited in, the value of labour is determined only by the employer, and so the wage gap only gotten bigger.

You mention skill, skill is given by education. Who owns the lobby groups that petition the state and federal governments for lower taxes? what do taxes pay for? Why do middle class have to pay tax when the big businesses don't? Especially when the wage gap is so high? How can you afford privatised education when half of the work force is on the poverty line?

Your ideal is what's happening in America and it's not working.

Yes, that is one of the larger flaws I see in Ayn Rand's work. Although she herself seems to be disgusted with the power attained by birth thing also. I can't be bothered to find the quote, but she certainly believes in people leaving big companies and such in the best hands, as opposed to the hands of an incompetent blood relative.

You know this is what the Japanese do? The owner of Suzuki hasn't been of the same blood line as the previous owner for three generations.

I'll have you know I listen to metal and classical primarily. Current pop music makes my ears bleed.

image

Though even in a book of lies there is some truth to be had

Dascylus:
Really?
Admittedly I have only skimmed through the responses but I am surprised by the general positive attitude to incest.

If I was dating my sister you guys would really have no problem?

I just find it a little strange. Is it ok then?

Let's search definition of what you guys wouldn't care about. What could I "Have at" if I was so inclined?

Second Cousin?
Cousin?
Aunt?
Mother?
Sister?
Daughter?

Hell, I am implying the feminine? Would it be better/worse if it was Uncle, Father, Brother or Son?

Disclaimer:
I should probably point out that a discussion of incest is absolutely not related in any way to a discussion of sexuality.

I think a lot of us find it a little strange, but I also think a lot of us understand that it's impossible to have full context and therefore as long as its consensual we don't really have a right to say anything.

You can make the health service arguments if you want, they have some validity I guess, but there are a lot bigger drains on revenue than genetic deformity

Dascylus:
Really?
Admittedly I have only skimmed through the responses but I am surprised by the general positive attitude to incest.

If I was dating my sister you guys would really have no problem?

I just find it a little strange. Is it ok then?

Yep. Though admittedly, I mostly see that kind of attitude on gamer and related nerd forums, where people's view of sexuality tends to be extremely liberal in every sense, to the point of treating all tradition-based sexual morals as some sort of incomprehensible alien rituals.

http://xkcd.com/592/

Dascylus:

Disclaimer:
I should probably point out that a discussion of incest is absolutely not related in any way to a discussion of sexuality.

Don't you mean "sexual orientation" here? Because incest is absolutely an isue of sexuality.

HalfTangible:

We also have several examples of human bloodlines (particularly royal bloodlines) going 'thin' in later generations due to incest, leading to insanity and genetic defects. Granted, it likely won't be a problem until after a few generations, but frankly humanity's got very narrow genetic variance to begin with.

Yeah, there is some risk caused by incest, but stuff like the royal bloodlines (Where they try and keep their blood "Pure" for as long as possible) are just extreme cases, I don't think that if incest was legal that everyone would start having children with only people in their immediate families for multiple generations. It'd probably be a rare occurance that would most likely (I don't know the actual numbers) be less chance of causing defects than what some people can get for various problems like cancer risk or other things.

1) I don't want to be like a lab mouse and I don't know a single human being that does. =P Even the ones who go through medical experiments at least want to get paid.

It was just an example of long term forced incest that still yields genetically identical offspring, to show how the risk isn't going to be as high as "Every instance of incest will yield freaky babies with webbed feet" or something crazy. That said, if someone was to try and breed their family over 100 years, they may encounter at least some problems.

2) The human species is already very genetically similar. I can't find exact data on mouse genetics but I doubt that a species that has been reproducing like rodents (for obvious reasons) for millenia if not longer is going to have the same sort of bottleneck humans have had.

True, humans are at higher risk of genetic mutation when committing incest (If I recall correctly I believe it's something to do with how the embryo forms for humans) while animals are usually less likely to encounter such problems, it still would most likely require multiple generations of incest to cause most/any problems.

So the only reason I would find incest creepy would be if i was a mindless socialite and don't develop morals on my own? Nice to know.

... Okay, that was harsh and a little stupid of me. Look, I agree society places too many tabboos on things that don't make sense, but that doesn't mean everything society tells us is wrong isn't.

Sure, but societies morals are full of double standards and things that don't make sense. For example; it's socially acceptable for men to sleep around with many women and can often be congratulated for it yet if a woman goes around sleeping with many men she gets labled as a "Slut" which is a complete double standard.

That's not to say that everything society tells us is misleading, or incomprehensible though the stuff that makes sense tends to be the common sense stuff. In the end you do have to draw from many different areas to provide yourself with your morality.

Headdrivehardscrew:

Bhaalspawn:
I'm pro Gay Marriage, pro consentual polygamy and pro self marriage. Why not got for the full house (literally)?

Honestly, I really don't give a shit who is boinking who. I hear a lot of people talking about genetic regression and my response is usually "So?"

If a brother and sister decide they want to screw, it's not my place to approve or disapprove.

No contest on the gay marriage front.

As to the 'boinking' business not affecting you at all - I'd like you to reconsider.

Do you pay taxes? If yes, depending on where you live, it is highly probable that you also pay into some form of NHS fund. So... it is bound to affect you, albeit in a mostly roundabout way. You have no control over how your money is used, and all you can do is hope there's enough money left when it's your turn to be in need of some pills and other, more refined fixin'.

The money I pay in taxes is not mine once it has been paid.

I pay my taxes for the privilege of living, working, and earning money within Canadian Borders. In return, the Canadian Government asks that a portion of my income is paid back to them to fund important things such as Health Care, Education, Infrastructure and so on.

What they do with that and who they help with it is not my call to make. All I can do is vote to elect new members of Parliment. I can honestly say that I am no so callous to believe that paying taxes gives me the right to deny certain people health care for whatever reasons they may be.

I am not a capitalist. I am not out for "Number One". I believe it is our societal obligation to help others, and things such as National Health Care is how we do that.

Considering how parents of sick children still struggle in Canada despite this measure, I don't think a few dozen inbreeding couples is going to create a recession.

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

I am yet to read 1984, but that sounds incredibly sensationalist.

Two things you have to understand about Orwell, one, he's was a communist until Stalin went bonkers, two he saw the same warning signs in western culture. That was the point of 1984.

Aha. Well that should certainly be a challenging read for one of my mindset. Though I my understanding was that it was primarily anti-authoritarianist and not necessarily communist.

The Ubermensch:

We never did talk about Blade Runner but I think this is sort of important for you to understand why I feel this way. Thankfully there's a guy on You Tube that thinks almost exactly the way I do

You should know that there is a reason beyond mere general critisism behind why I don't like Blade Runner and Gattaca: I was forced to study them in school. That'll ruin the best of movies. Although there was one technique I liked in Blade Runner, and that was the one where all the replicants in the film had their eyes flash, and in one scene, for a split second Harrison Ford's eyes flashed. And I do like the setting, it was basically ripped off by my favorite childhood games: Perfect Dark. I'll watch your video and respond should I find anything interesting to discuss about it.

The Ubermensch:

Perhaps I've just grown up with cyberpunk in my face and have been indoctrinated to think this way, but perhaps these are valid questions everyone should ask themselves.

I'm 19, if that gives you any indication of what I've grown up with. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily Pokemon.

The Ubermensch:

I was talking about initial testing. It should only become commercialised when it is safe. Also, I am not an objectivist. I don't believe in free will and also think that Ayn Rand puts far too much faith in the mental capacity of the average human, without a good education anyway.

How can you not believe in Free Will? A MAN CHOOSES, A SLAVE OBEYS

I agree, that doesn't however mean there is free will. I have argued this a trillion times on these forums and unless you're particularly interesting in understanding why there is no free will (I word it this way becase it is not an opinion it is fact, just one few think about and subscribe to).

The Ubermensch:

It would only be as expensive as the market determines. You've got to strike the right balance between the highest price possible for the most customers possible. So it really couldn't be that expensive unless it were entirely done by small firms who catered entirely to the richest.

... You see a problem with that I hope...

It all depends on the cost to the companies that can perform it. Admittedly it could be problematic were it only for the rich, creating a class divide and a genetic divide in one, however the GM rich could easily donate sperm to make shitloads of money on GM sperm and equalise the inequality.

The Ubermensch:

Well, I'd ideally prefer cybernetics or some equivalent, but I don't think it can solve a lot of the problems that genetic modification could.

The only thing it couldn't solve is brain related issues, and even then we don't know for certain.

The brain is just a machine; a highly complex biological computer. So theoretically it is possible, but I think using cybernetics to fix it is kind of like trying to stickytape an egg back together.

The Ubermensch:

When it comes to waste and damaging the environment and such, I have given a lot of thought about it. The objectivist would say that the only environment the industrialist has the right to damage is the one that the industrialist paid for, so if you want to pollute a river or an ocean you'd better bloody well own it (and ensure it can't escape your property) otherwise you're going to be in a shitload of trouble.

... How the fuck, no just think about this for a second, how the fuck can you "Own land".
No just think about it for a second, who initially has the rights too it? Who has the rights to sell it? If the answer is the government then how did they acquire it? Because if the government owns it now they acquired it via murder.

You can't like... Own things, man.

I kid, but this is something I've been thinking about. I suppose you own land by trading with the person who originally owned it, and if it isn't owned, I guess it could be claimed (within some sort of reason I haven't thought of) or perhaps the government does own it by default of being able to defend it then it sells it to the people as a contract that the government will defend that area of land, considered part of x country. I'd like to hear Rand's view on this, but I haven't heard of it as of yet.

The Ubermensch:

I think you can lease land, I think you can operate it for a long time, I think you can

Cut off mid-sentence?

The Ubermensch:

As for the workers, they are selling a skill, and ideally (I have no idea how this would work in reality) There would be a marketplace for jobs, and the most skilled workers would prefer the safer environments; encouraging employers to make their workplace safer. Of course, there would still be a place for suing the pants off your employer for making you operate an unsafe machine (provided you weren't told it would be unsafe).

This is pretty much what happens at the moment and its not working. You have thousands of illegals killed every year by machinery, doing unskilled work. Because they do this, and I want to point out that I'm not against illegals, I'm against the system that they are exploited in, the value of labour is determined only by the employer.

See, a wise person would tell you that it was an inequality to begin with that caused the problem, the concept of 'illegals' not the system of capitalism.

The Ubermensch:

You mention skill, skill is given by education. Who owns the lobby groups that petition the state and federal governments for lower taxes? what do taxes pay for? Why do middle class have to pay tax when the big businesses don't? Especially when the wage gap is so high?

Not living in America I am not sure what you're talking about. I think taxes should pay for education (only the taxes of parents) (because face it, no one will ever get this right unless it is run by a board of scientists or something similar), the police and the military. I do like the idea of optional taxation, for example having a default tax that allows you access to universal health care, but being able to opt out of it should you think you don't need it. Same applies for roads.

The Ubermensch:

Your ideal is what's happening in America and it's not working.

Again, not an objectivist, and even so objectivism is certainly not what is happening in America otherwise Rand wouldn't have written a word.

The Ubermensch:

Yes, that is one of the larger flaws I see in Ayn Rand's work. Although she herself seems to be disgusted with the power attained by birth thing also. I can't be bothered to find the quote, but she certainly believes in people leaving big companies and such in the best hands, as opposed to the hands of an incompetent blood relative.

You know this is what the Japanese do? The owner of Suzuki hasn't been of the same blood line as the previous owner for three generations.

My respect for the Japanese has significantly risen in light of this information. I personally try not to be biased towards my family and that is seen as incredibly odd by, well, everyone. The Stoics seem to be pretty good for it though.

The Ubermensch:

I'll have you know I listen to metal and classical primarily. Current pop music makes my ears bleed.

image

Though even in a book of lies there is some truth to be had

I read xkcd, in fact that comic was one of the reasons I bought Atlas Shrugged. "You're telling me it's an evil terribly written piece of trash that attempts to justifiy absolute selfishness and that no one should ever read it ever? Yeah, well I'll think I'll decide that for myself. To the Book Depository!". I'm not saying that xkcd said that, but that sure seemed to be everyone else's opinon. Being about 5/6 through it, it doesn't deserve the rap it gets.

Milk:
This thread is going to end well.

seydaman:
-Is incest morally wrong?

Nope.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Gonna go with Milk here. Problematic genes don't set in till some generations down the road. So long as such a thing is not encouraged, I see no problem with it.

I'm personally not disgusted with incest.

Darken12:

Bug MuIdoon:
You missed the part where I stated that it wasn't my opinion, just playing the devils advocate, but that's cool.

I have to admit though, in light of your post, couples who go ahead fully knowing they will have a child with genetic implications is, in my opinion, incredibly wrong and borders on abuse. But that's a different topic, as is the whole abortion debate which you mentioned.

My bad!

The moment you start regulating a person's reproductive freedom is the moment you jump down the slippery slope towards eugenics and other similarly nasty things. We have to educate people and then trust they will do the right thing. That's the entire point of genetic counselling. It's a lot better to discuss this sort of thing in the open and non-judgementally, while providing access to contraceptives if they so desire.

Also this. Genetic counselling is the best option as it educates without discriminating. Honestly, unless this becomes an epidemic, I see no reason to police this. Christ, it took me 5 minutes to type this while drunk :/

Arakasi:

The Ubermensch:

Arakasi:

I am yet to read 1984, but that sounds incredibly sensationalist.

Two things you have to understand about Orwell, one, he's was a communist until Stalin went bonkers, two he saw the same warning signs in western culture. That was the point of 1984.

Aha. Well that should certainly be a challenging read for one of my mindset. Though I my understanding was that it was primarily anti-authoritarianist and not necessarily communist.

The Ubermensch:

We never did talk about Blade Runner but I think this is sort of important for you to understand why I feel this way. Thankfully there's a guy on You Tube that thinks almost exactly the way I do

You should know that there is a reason beyond mere general critisism behind why I don't like Blade Runner and Gattaca: I was forced to study them in school. That'll ruin the best of movies. Although there was one technique I liked in Blade Runner, and that was the one where all the replicants in the film had their eyes flash, and in one scene, for a split second Harrison Ford's eyes flashed. And I do like the setting, it was basically ripped off by my favorite childhood games: Perfect Dark. I'll watch your video and respond should I find anything interesting to discuss about it.

The Ubermensch:

Perhaps I've just grown up with cyberpunk in my face and have been indoctrinated to think this way, but perhaps these are valid questions everyone should ask themselves.

I'm 19, if that gives you any indication of what I've grown up with. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily Pokemon.

The Ubermensch:

I was talking about initial testing. It should only become commercialised when it is safe. Also, I am not an objectivist. I don't believe in free will and also think that Ayn Rand puts far too much faith in the mental capacity of the average human, without a good education anyway.

How can you not believe in Free Will? A MAN CHOOSES, A SLAVE OBEYS

I agree, that doesn't however mean there is free will. I have argued this a trillion times on these forums and unless you're particularly interesting in understanding why there is no free will (I word it this way becase it is not an opinion it is fact, just one few think about and subscribe to).

The Ubermensch:

It would only be as expensive as the market determines. You've got to strike the right balance between the highest price possible for the most customers possible. So it really couldn't be that expensive unless it were entirely done by small firms who catered entirely to the richest.

... You see a problem with that I hope...

It all depends on the cost to the companies that can perform it. Admittedly it could be problematic were it only for the rich, creating a class divide and a genetic divide in one, however the GM rich could easily donate sperm to make shitloads of money on GM sperm and equalise the inequality.

The Ubermensch:

Well, I'd ideally prefer cybernetics or some equivalent, but I don't think it can solve a lot of the problems that genetic modification could.

The only thing it couldn't solve is brain related issues, and even then we don't know for certain.

The brain is just a machine; a highly complex biological computer. So theoretically it is possible, but I think using cybernetics to fix it is kind of like trying to stickytape an egg back together.

The Ubermensch:

When it comes to waste and damaging the environment and such, I have given a lot of thought about it. The objectivist would say that the only environment the industrialist has the right to damage is the one that the industrialist paid for, so if you want to pollute a river or an ocean you'd better bloody well own it (and ensure it can't escape your property) otherwise you're going to be in a shitload of trouble.

... How the fuck, no just think about this for a second, how the fuck can you "Own land".
No just think about it for a second, who initially has the rights too it? Who has the rights to sell it? If the answer is the government then how did they acquire it? Because if the government owns it now they acquired it via murder.

You can't like... Own things, man.

I kid, but this is something I've been thinking about. I suppose you own land by trading with the person who originally owned it, and if it isn't owned, I guess it could be claimed (within some sort of reason I haven't thought of) or perhaps the government does own it by default of being able to defend it then it sells it to the people as a contract that the government will defend that area of land, considered part of x country. I'd like to hear Rand's view on this, but I haven't heard of it as of yet.

The Ubermensch:

I think you can lease land, I think you can operate it for a long time, I think you can

Cut off mid-sentence?

The Ubermensch:

As for the workers, they are selling a skill, and ideally (I have no idea how this would work in reality) There would be a marketplace for jobs, and the most skilled workers would prefer the safer environments; encouraging employers to make their workplace safer. Of course, there would still be a place for suing the pants off your employer for making you operate an unsafe machine (provided you weren't told it would be unsafe).

This is pretty much what happens at the moment and its not working. You have thousands of illegals killed every year by machinery, doing unskilled work. Because they do this, and I want to point out that I'm not against illegals, I'm against the system that they are exploited in, the value of labour is determined only by the employer.

See, a wise person would tell you that it was an inequality to begin with that caused the problem, the concept of 'illegals' not the system of capitalism.

The Ubermensch:

You mention skill, skill is given by education. Who owns the lobby groups that petition the state and federal governments for lower taxes? what do taxes pay for? Why do middle class have to pay tax when the big businesses don't? Especially when the wage gap is so high?

Not living in America I am not sure what you're talking about. I think taxes should pay for education (only the taxes of parents) (because face it, no one will ever get this right unless it is run by a board of scientists or something similar), the police and the military. I do like the idea of optional taxation, for example having a default tax that allows you access to universal health care, but being able to opt out of it should you think you don't need it. Same applies for roads.

The Ubermensch:

Your ideal is what's happening in America and it's not working.

Again, not an objectivist, and even so objectivism is certainly not what is happening in America otherwise Rand wouldn't have written a word.

The Ubermensch:

Yes, that is one of the larger flaws I see in Ayn Rand's work. Although she herself seems to be disgusted with the power attained by birth thing also. I can't be bothered to find the quote, but she certainly believes in people leaving big companies and such in the best hands, as opposed to the hands of an incompetent blood relative.

You know this is what the Japanese do? The owner of Suzuki hasn't been of the same blood line as the previous owner for three generations.

My respect for the Japanese has significantly risen in light of this information. I personally try not to be biased towards my family and that is seen as incredibly odd by, well, everyone. The Stoics seem to be pretty good for it though.

The Ubermensch:

I'll have you know I listen to metal and classical primarily. Current pop music makes my ears bleed.

image

Though even in a book of lies there is some truth to be had

I read xkcd, in fact that comic was one of the reasons I bought Atlas Shrugged. "You're telling me it's an evil terribly written piece of trash that attempts to justifiy absolute selfishness and that no one should ever read it ever? Yeah, well I'll think I'll decide that for myself. To the Book Depository!". I'm not saying that xkcd said that, but that sure seemed to be everyone else's opinon. Being about 5/6 through it, it doesn't deserve the rap it gets.

How long have you been reading it? 2 1/2 years? Joking, lol.

Ah what a tricky issue, well done OP for giving us something refreshing to discuss.

Well my view on it can be summed up as 'Whatever floats your boat mate, if your both up for it who am I to tell you what to do.'

As for the possibility of deformed children in heterosexual relationships then the incidence of defects is actually fairly small in the first few generations, like so small that it's almost no different to the incidence of genetic defects in offspring of regular non-related parents. It's the cumulative effect over multiple generations where it gets a bit messy.

Why is it such a taboo then?

Well that's partly human nature, partly religion, and partly societal bias.
See we as humans have a natural aversion to procreation with close relatives, it's sort of in built by nature to increase diversity in the DNA pool of our species. However not all people have such an aversion, that's just the way sexually reproductive populations work, not all individuals have the same traits, sure the majority do but the majority isn't everyone.

Religious bias against it more than likely steams from a time when communities were smaller and there was a higher incidence of deformity because of inbreeding over multiple generations. What better way to curtail it than to make it a sin? Making stuff a sin against God/Whoever was basically what we did before we came up with the idea of laws.

Societal bias against it is actually a fairly new thing. If you look back in history then you'll notice an awful lot of royalty are the products of incests...and people actually worshipped some of them as gods.

Sometimes I wonder though if my opinion is based on the fact that I'm an only child, maybe I would view the issue diffidently if I had a sibling. Who knows.

Kaulen Fuhs:
How long have you been reading it? 2 1/2 years? Joking, lol.

That's pretty fair, I have been taking a really long time reading it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked