Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
People can adopt if they want to form a family. Are you referring to a kind of jealousy that is unique to a situation like this? Please explain. I think most relationships have some form of jealousy in them.
Nah i mean i guess this will be absolutely another type of jelaousy. Like yeah you love each other but you know you should left this behind in case you want a healthy family.
Ex - Moderator of russian sections
Ex-Event squad defender
Ex-Tori Agents Sentinel
Ex-Event squad defender
Ex-Tori Agents Sentinel
Originally Posted by Breadbug
who is making the judgement? how is that conclusion made? what is the relationship between the two groups? do the groups exist separately, or does one exists within the other? once you have an answer to these questions related to your hypothetical, please consider points 1-4 again.
also google "ethnocentrism"
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but I'll play the game.
Society makes the judgement, based on the bible(?). Incesters are part of society.
Originally Posted by Breadbug
some factors as to whether or not a group deems something to be acceptable includes:
1.) the foundational values of the group at its conception (spiritually, morally, etc)
2.) whether or not consensus has shifted since foundation
3.) is the act necessary or justified to meet an end goal
4.) can cohesion be maintained while permitting the act at various capacities
1.) Values are opposed to incest
2.) Hasn't changed
3.) I guess the end goal is pleasure? Incest can give pleasure to the partakers, does that justify it? It is not the only way to get pleasure, but that's not a good reason to not do it.
4.) I believe it could be maintained
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Ethnocentrism is used in social sciences and anthropology to describe the act of judging another culture and believing that the values and standards of one's own culture are superior – especially with regard to language, behavior, customs, and religion.
Non-incesters think they are superior to incesters? I still don't understand.
Originally Posted by Breadbug
objective morality does not exist, at least within humans.
Don't know what you meant then.
Originally Posted by Krummschwert
My biggest issue with it is the risk. I don't really see too much morally or physically wrong with it as a concept. But after studying more genetics than any man ever should, I don't believe anyone should even take the risk of procreation with someone along the same genetic line. The short term disorders are fine, but the long term effects can literally tear apart an entire population with cancer related defects and more. Along with the crazy amount of internal organ issues that can arise from it. There are proven cases of heart chambers not being properly formed in babies from such results of DNA alikeness.
Now I know the situation has the hypothetical protection. But as we all know, condoms (even when used correctly) still have about a 98% of failure. When used less correctly or by the common population, those rates drop to about 95% or lower effectiveness. This is an issue because that mean 1/20 times you will have a child appear with defects. Now if you stack birth controls you may have better effects, but it's still no where near perfect in terms of avoidance. I'd say between two family members that are extremely intelligent and use protection properly, they may never run into this issue. And then in fact if they are able to properly able to outweigh the consequences and go about the whole process safely, then it may not be that dangerous. The only bad obligations would be the social implications that arise.
My biggest and by far worst issue with the whole concept is the usual suspects that take place in incestual acts. The average age that incestual acts take place at is the usual hormonal ages of 15-18. This leads to issues because the brains of these teenagers no where nearly developed enough to make conscious decisions about the possible destruction they could bring to a future life and to an entire future generation and family tree. Also with this age comes along improper use of condoms and other safe sex tools and devices. Along with that it has been proven that most families and people that give into incest driven acts are those of a less than average IQ. This is because the desire for sexual pleasure and gratification is easily able to overpower the low moral processing power of the brain. This is why you end up seeing most family members who commit incestual acts having offspring. Because they're not currently at the age of proper mental processing.
To end up my argument. Do I think incest is wrong personally? Yes, the risk of ruining a future child's/adult's life is awful. I don't even want to see families that are unprepared having children even if they aren't incestual.
Do I think incest would be the worst thing ever if both participating parties were properly above the age of 18, even more near 22? Possibly not. They would have more control over sexual hormones and they would have a much higher level of sexual education in order to keep their family tree safe from any sort of defects that could be spread highly into the future.
But that is if, and only if, they're proper age, not full of hormones, and able to hold an IQ that allows for the proper safety measure to be taken.
This post pretty much sums it up, though I think the genetic doom scenario could only occur if unprotected incest is more widespread than it is now. Let me know if I'm wrong.
Originally Posted by Fiend
Nah i mean i guess this will be absolutely another type of jelaousy. Like yeah you love each other but you know you should left this behind in case you want a healthy family.
I would argue that you can still have a healthy family, through adoption.
alright guy
I'm not on any side of the argument because I really don't care but the fact that fudgie is really trying to drive home the fact that incest isn't immoral makes me wonder about the relationship he has with his family.
part of the uri-nation rateyourmusic
frog up his ass or something
Originally Posted by Rifle
I'm not on any side of the argument because I really don't care but the fact that fudgie is really trying to drive home the fact that incest isn't immoral makes me wonder about the relationship he has with his family.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
I feel like I have to put a disclaimer after this, so here we go: I do not engage in incestuous relations (or any for that matter), nor do I want to. I am simply playing the role of devil's advocate here.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
Devil's advocate here, [...]
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In common parlance, the phrase playing devil's advocate describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using a valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.
It is interesting to me that a topic which at first seems to have an obvious answer, upon closer inspection does not. The reason why I kept countering the posts made by other members is because I wanted to point out a flaw in their reasoning, making them realise it's not as simple as they think. It's purely for debate's sake.
alright guy
