Marcell
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Marcell
-
-
Go to any given porn site, look at how many categories there are, and then come back here and tell me that there is a "normal" thing to be attracted to.
-
Current:
[spoiler=]
I also have a slideshow going, so here's a few that were on the desktop previously...
[spoiler=]
[spoiler=]
[spoiler=]
[spoiler=]
-
Karel, and... Do we draft the last two or stop here because there aren't enough characters for another round?
-
Bartre/Karla and Jaffar.
-
If it makes you feel any better, I really wanted Lucius.
-
Serra and Fiora.
-
Is "white mage man" supposed to be Lucius?
Edit: I know that makes no sense, but I'm really freaking confused here...
-
Rebecca and Dart.
Yep, I went there.
-
Of course, I do see that. There's a difference between supporting incestuous relationships and openly admitting to the world you are in one. Who will come forward to admit participating in such a taboo thing where the majority of the public's reactions would be negative? Very few. Not enough to start any sort of movement. And where there is no movement, there will be no public show of support for such things.
Aside from one track-minded people, as I said in my previous post, the laws will never change because public health services (such as the UK's National Health Service) will fight tooth and nail against incest being made legal. And many will take their side.
The internet makes many things possible nowadays that were previously impossible. I think we'll being a lot of people coming together and forming movements for causes we would have never dreamed of seeing ten or twenty years ago.
-
What is a "normal familial relationship"?
Yeah, this. I'd be very careful throwing around the word "normal" nowadays.
-
Cool.
WE'RE GOIN RAVEN TONIGHT!!!
-
Wait, why are we suddenly talking about age differences and sexual assault? Sexual assault in particular in illegal for completely different reasons, irrelevant to incest also being illegal. I thought this was all about two siblings, of a similar age, who are consenting... if they are not consenting then it's wrong regardless of blood ties.
-
Creepy
-
THE NSIDER FORUMS! Man, that seems like a lifetime ago. I RPed on there as well, those were the days...
Anyway, welcome! Maybe I'll see you around the RP boards. It didn't even cross my mind to hop on there and try RPing, but maybe I'll give it a go again.
-
Master
-
The quick brown Wario farted over the anorexic snorlax
-
What I'm proposing is nothing, because there is only one answer that is correct: yes, they should be allowed to bear children. Eugenics is fundamentally wrong in the assumption that some traits are worth more than others. This is not even a matter of opinion, this is an axiom.
Fundamentally wrong? Um... it's certainly not fundamentally right. But it definitely, fundamentally is. I don't think that our genes are anywhere near as relevant as they once were because we gave natural selection a big ol' middle finger as soon as we started industrializing and making rapid technological advancements. But genes did mean everything, once. I don't think they do as much anymore, and thus I don't believe that we can judge a person's worth based solely on their genetic code. But as someone with family members whose lives have been heavily impacted by autism, I can say with absolute certainty that there are some genes that are less desirable. So forgive me if I defy your 'axiom'.
As I previously said, I don't believe that axioms exist in this world with the frequency that many others around me believe that they do. Or maybe I just thrive on controversy. I'll admit, I'm weird like that.
-
I fancy myself a libertarian, in the sense that I don't believe in prohibiting an individual from making their own choices unless it's for a good reason. The "good reason" part is pretty vague, and I'm still trying to work out the details of it (and I likely never completely will) but it's true.
And as for politics.... Ha. Ha. That is all.
-
I do not see how you do not understand.
Now, in an attempt to make this more clear to everyone:
eugenics - is a social philosophy which advocates practices that improve the genetic composition of a population, usually human. It advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits. In other words, one of it's aims is to reduce the amount of babies born with things like hereditary disorders. One of the ways to do this is to ban certain people (siblings and people who are afflicted by hereditary diseases) from getting children, because of the increased chance of those children having those disorders.
So, simply put, if you were to attempt to ban sibling couples (per example, more incestuous combinations are affected by this as well) from getting children, because of the increased chance of them having heriditary disorders or birth defects, then you'd unfortunately be forced to argue that people who were born with heriditary disorders should be banned from having children as well. Because it would be the same wine in a different sack, for both cases.
I thought that's what you meant, I just wanted to make sure, because I didn't want to respond with something completely off-topic and derail the conversation. Hence why I asked if you were asking us to consider the issues of hereditary diseases (i.e. "less genetically gifted") and incest to be treated equally as far as what side of the argument we're on goes. Sorry for the confusion.
I get what you're saying, though. But what you're proposing is a whole new can of worms; "should couples that have a high risk of producing defective offspring be allowed to bear children, regardless of the how or why?"
The article I linked speaks on that issue, somewhat. But I think there's more to worry about with incestuous offspring than just a higher possibility of birth defects... like the concept of family being a bit warped, perhaps.
Anyways, I'm not trying to argue that incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids, or that it should be against the law, or that it's any better or worse than some other issue that might propagate a genetic defect, because I don't believe that I'm qualified to do so (even though my Aunt and Uncle, not blood-related, had three kids with two of them being autistic because there was a high chance of that happening). I'm simply saying that if two siblings have sex with the intention to reproduce, there might be a problem. I'll leave the legality of it up to someone else.
-
Why don't you go look up what eugenics is before you start asking me questions.
I know what eugenics is. Still not sure what you mean, so I'm asking you to clarify. I think it would help if I knew if you were responding to anyone/anything in particular, which is why I asked...
-
Everyone brings up eugenics as a case for incest laws.
Why are you people so willing to be lumped together with a group of people who agree that "feeble-minded" folks should be removed from the gene pool? Why should this be a sound argument when no one would consider banning people with heritable disorders from reproducing?
(offspring of people with heritable disorders have a much increased chance of being afflicted by it)
Not sure who you're aiming the "you people" at... I'm actually not sure what you're getting at, period :p
Are you saying that we should consider the... 'less genetically gifted' of humanity to be in the same circles as those who are the product of incest? Help me out here.
-
Do manboobs count?
-
... sodomy was illegal for a while and still is in some places. That hasn't stopped people from objecting to certain laws and saying "no, that's a stupid law and you shouldn't have that law" and getting it changed.
And this is exactly why I don't take certain 'truths' for granted, like everyone around me seems to. The "that's just the way it is" argument never convinced of anything. It's the same reason I never understood a lot of gender stereotypes, laws, or religious doctrine, even from a young age.
In the case of incest, there are the genetic defects in offspring due the lack of genetic variance between two mates, which has been covered in this thread already. People have always known this from empirical evidence, and nowadays from scientific evidence. But with contraception, I really don't think it should be an issue anymore. Like you said, maybe we need a sibling to understand (I have half-siblings, but they're on the other side of the world so I'm pretty much an only child). Logically, though, bro/sis coitus shouldn't be a problem as long as there are no kids involved.
It's even less of an issue when you consider studies that show that even first cousins having children together doesn't pose a significant risk of birth defects.
So yeah, I think it's more of a social taboo than scientific, and one I don't expect to see change anytime soon. I hear you, though.
-
Cool, Marcus will probably work much better this way now. Thanks!
Playing "the game"
in Serious Discussion
Posted
This. This so much. You took the words right outta my mouth.
If I could add one thing, it's this: Make your intentions known from the get-go. If you want a relationship, and you know you want a relationship, make it clear. Simply asking someone out on a date is enough. Maybe you'll get rejected right away, but you're far more likely to spark a romance if you start your interaction with another human being on the pretense of romance. Then just be yourself after that. No game, no bull. And like Helios said, don't fear the rejection! If one person doesn't like you for you, there are literally thousands upon thousands of people you will meet in your lifetime who will.