*grabs Xenoblade Chronicles ... no tagline* *grabs Odin Sphere ... "Welcome to the splendid world called Odin Sphere", great* *grabs 10 games at once ... walls of text, no tagline* fuuu A siren' s howling rips the darkness. Fairly easy, but that will have to do.
Ah ok, I think "marginal" is the word you were looking for. ^^
To put it bluntly incest degrades the available genetic pool whereas homosexuality, like celibacy or sterility, only prevents the available genetic pool to grow. One messes with quality, the other with quantity. Our available gene pool is so vast that neither homosexuality, celibacy nor sterility imperil it. Trying to establish which degree of incest would imperil the species or become a clear cut handicap for the resulting children is much more difficult and leaves room for subjective standards. Er ... what makes you think it is unnatural ? This behavior has been consistently observed throughout the ages regardless of social norms, and is consistently observed in many other species.
Actually we humans are all conditioned to obedience via "training". We' re social animals, that' s what we do. We can express our thoughts in much more complex manners than the other social animals, which in turn led to much more complex society models, but other social animals are just as capable of making choices or disobeying as we are. They see their master as "the leader of the pack", that certainly doesn' t translate as "superior" to them, my parents' cat can display quite a lot of disdain sometimes. Violence is no more a requisite to effectively condition animals than it is to condition humans, it is merely the lazy and unimaginative method that many humans chose over actually learning the "language" of the animal they are training. For instance looking directly at cats with eyes wide open means they' d better stay away, while looking at them eyes half-closed would be an invitation to come closer. How many cat owners actually know this ? Conditioning animals do involve hitting them since we cannot talk to them, but it doesn' t have to actually hurt them. It only has to be strong enough that they can tell it wasn' t a pat, rather a symbolic "what you just did is wrong". When possible symbolically "banning them" is just as efficient. If you' re curious on this subject you should read this : http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/b30animalmorals.php Now, to get back on the topic at hand, although animals can make choices they' ll never philosophize about their feelings. Their intellectual understanding of the emotions they feel seem to match that of a very young human child at best, that' s why I draw a parallel between bestial relationships and child abuse and would not be ok with it.
Well, I just have a hard time thinking of any other explanation, can you ? OK, the way you worded this makes one thing crystal clear : you are very much aware, on a very conscious level, that your self-inflicted "punishment" is self-delusion. I suspect you also know fully well that the pain you wreck onto yourself causes pain to all the people who know you' re doing this to yourself. Contrary to the pain you inflict to others by "being here" the pain you inflict to others by hurting yourself is actually the real deal (and it is quite severe). Then please explain to me why being here would be perfectly ok for anyone but you ? Hell, why would it be wrong, period ? If you do realize that you have no real reason to feel guilty to begin with, and that your "solution" is nothing but a feeble attempt at self-delusion bringing you right back to guilt, yet can' t help repeating this cycle over and over then it means you' re addicted to it. If my making things super obvious to you doesn' t change anything then you do mean professional help, nothing we post on a few dozen lines will talk you out of it. I would know, I' m an addict myself.
^ This. Also, I can' t help but wonder why the hell you would feel such tremendous guilt over the utterly benign things that you listed. It kinda sounds like you just want to feel guilty and latch onto any excuse (valid or not) you could possibly find to relish into self-bashing. I' m curious, are you religious and/or raised by religious people ? I' m asking because inoculating irrational guilt is the basic premise of every religion, and because the idea of blood punishment to compensate for a, uh ... "sin" is a very religious concept. It' s also completely stupid. It doesn' t buy back or atone anything, it only adds one more bad decision to the list (and it may very well be the only decision in that list that is actually bad). Here' s an idea if you' re looking for atonement : atonement. Like, you know, trying to help the people you think you' ve wronged ?
It' s the other way around for me. I don' t even put any sugar, the bleck part is the best part.
I was basing my reasoning on the completely hypothetical assumption that I live in a secular democracy called France, that the subject was thrown on the table, and that a line had to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, on a case to case basis, I wouldn' t raise any moral objection at an isolated incestuous reproduction.
You missed my point. Assuming that you' re right, that the odds for your kids to also be incestuous aren' t increased, we' re still left with a problem : if we were to make incestuous reproduction legal for you it would have to be just as legal for your kids, otherwise there' s a double standard. In other words consecutive in-breeding in the same genealogical tree would be legal, chances are it would happen, and we know for a fact that the result is not a pretty sight. When did I deny any such thing ? Please don' t put words in my mouth. Just because reproduction is risky by default doesn' t mean I wouldn' t mind letting you willingly increase the risks exponentially. Wrong, whether you have "strong" or "feeble" genes is irrelevant to me. I don' t mind allowing everyone to reproduce with someone unrelated. I do mind allowing everyone to reproduce incestuously. By the same logic I wouldn' t mind letting incestuous couples adopt a child.
Is forcing a child who didn' t ask for it to play the Russian roulette morally acceptable just because he might survive it ? Plus see the whole unaffected carrier business mentioned earlier. Also, Makaze already mentioned that if your kids are raised to see incest as an ok thing it increases the odds for them to be incestuous too. That' s precisely the kind of thinking that led to the degenerated European royal families. Would you tell your kids "it was ok for us but it' s not ok for you" ? Where would you draw the line ?
T' es à court de breath dial ? ^^ [IMG] Ouaip, ici aussi il fait chaud mais ça ne me dérange pas, je suis plutôt un frileux. Il faut...
I' m not gonna lie, such cases also make me feel icky, but as long as they don' t reproduce I don' t have any moral objections to raise. It has and does happen behind the curtains, probably more often than most people suspect it.
What the ... I closed the whole thing at the third question. Me speak English, French, Spanish, capish ? Me no speak color.
I' ll just quote the article I linked, I edited my post so you probably missed it : Over the past century, the evidence for Westermarck against Freud has grown. Arthur Wolf's study of "minor marriages" in China is one line of evidence. A traditional form of Chinese marriage was for parents to give their infant daughter to another family to be raised with the family's infant son, so that when the boy and girl reached maturity, they would be married. Wolf showed that these marriages were generally unsuccessful, because children raised together as siblings developed a sexual aversion to one another. Another line of evidence came from the experience of the Israeli kibbutzim. In the attempt to create a fully socialist community, the kibbutz would have infant children taken from their families and put in the "children's house," where they would be raised together communally. When they reached sexual maturity, the children were encouraged to find marriage partners among those with whom they had been raised. But the children resisted this, because even though they were not biological relatives, they felt as if they were siblings and thus felt revulsion at the thought of sexual mating with one another. To put it shortly, the aversion for incest is an emotional response. Natural selection (i.e. the consequences of inbreeding over a long period of time) spread this genetically embedded emotional response to most members of our species. Of course, incest does occur. But the pattern of incestuous behavior follows the predictions of Darwinian theory. Men are more likely to be the perpetrators of incest than are women, because men, unfortunately, are more indiscriminate in their sexual promiscuity. And some people might not feel any moral inhibition against incest because they suffer from a psychopathic poverty of moral emotions. But still, the natural aversion to incest among most human beings is so strong that we formulate moral and legal norms against incest and enforce them as expressions of our natural emotional dispositions. This may have been debunked though, I' ll keep fishing for info ...
I found this, I thought it was a good read on the subject : http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.fr/2006/10/so-whats-wrong-with-incest.html Yes you have. First, we can' t generalize those things under a formula like "the risk is doubled" or "goes up to 5%" because there are several different types of risks, and because incest doesn' t just increase the risk to be afflicted with a disease, it also increases the odds for the child to become an unaffected carrier (which in turn increases risks for his own children). Here' s two different type of risk to illustrate : Autosomal Recessive gene (Cystic fibrosis) : Recessive conditions are clinically manifest only when an individual has two copies of the mutant allele. When just one copy of the mutant allele is present, an individual is a carrier of the mutation, but does not develop the condition. Females and males are affected equally by traits transmitted by autosomal recessive inheritance. When two carriers mate, each child has a 25% chance of being homozygous wild-type (unaffected); a 25% chance of being homozygous mutant (affected); or a 50% chance of being heterozygous (unaffected carrier). Autosomal Dominant gene (Huntington Disease) : Dominant conditions are expressed in individuals who have just one copy of the mutant allele. Affected males and females have an equal probability of passing on the trait to offspring. Affected individual's have one normal copy of the gene and one mutant copy of the gene, thus each offspring has a 50% chance on inheriting the mutant allele. Approximately half of the children of affected parents inherit the condition and half do not. If both parents have the condition all their children will inherit it. If you want to see what happens with the other types of genes see here : http://www.uvm.edu/~cgep/Education/Inheritance2.html#AutoDom Also, keep in mind that each parent could carry much more than one disease gene. tl,dr : it' s much more dangerous than you make it sound. I suppose you read an article about the risks of random incest happening here and there in nature, which probably aren' t that high; Machina and I are talking about the risks of incest happening several time in the same genealogical tree, which are devastating.
Desert, not dessert, or was that a joke lost on me ? Spoiler [video=youtube;MV-Zzasrky8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV-Zzasrky8[/video]
Why do you even care ? You hide your rep and you can' t do anything with it. You know I wanted to rep you, it' s all that matters, right ? ^^ I...
---------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G39GgvCjTZs ---------- Lol, hadn' t seen that one, but alas, I must spread some reputation.
[video=youtube;xyNXnuHNF8k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xyNXnuHNF8k[/video]
Can' t you just close your DS to pause the game whenever you wish to ?
