B3Chandler said: The forum trolls are going to go ape shit over this topic. Ape shit, huh? Actually, some psychologists say that pedophilia is the same like homosexuality, you are born with it, of course, the environment makes you notice earlier or later... |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
InfiniteRyvius said: Itami-chan said: monty1 said: whats wrong with incest? You have to be joking. Incest = Wincest Twincest being the best incest. |
| LUL |
| Couldn't really care less if the people were 18 and 50. Who am I to question weather or not their love for one another is genuine or not. As for pedohilia. There is nothing wrong with pedohilia itself, but rather, you know, the whole rape thing which often times comes from it. That said, I think that if there is no harm involved, then there would be nothing inherently wrong with it. Obviously though, even if I say that, it's hard to say that I would actually accept such actions. Regardless of whether or not harm is involved, but by principle, harm should be the main concern. Same goes with incest. Obviously reproducing with someone closely blood related can lead to all sorts of unwanted things for the baby. But if you were to make sure that the chance of pregnancy was null, then I don't see anything wrong with it. "Eww, that's icky" isn't exactly much of an argument, and it's the exact same attitude many would have had (and still do) towards my sexuality. |
TrapaliciousDec 29, 2012 9:26 AM
| Saying "pedophilia" is wrong without any concrete reasons or saying that "incest" is wrong without any concrete reasons except "Everybody says so" is retarded. Yeah, we can all agree with you Trap. But then the whole "harm" thing comes in context... How can "pedophilia" not harm a child if he can't consent by law? That's the problem here... And I think the case he shows is also not alright, if the child can't consent then how can he know he is in a relationship? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
monty1 said: I rest my caseDJIzzyIzzyHitler said: whats wrong with incest? we weren't even old enough to reproduce]dont try to dance around the bush, you fucked your cousin, you had to make pedophilia worse by bringing up early instances of incest in your life. Thats just sick man. |
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
Immahnoob said: Do i really even need to explain this to you? Incest is wrong because if you have a kid with a relative you are drastically increasing the chances of causing very nasty birth defects, and no im not talking about things like having a birth mark or some moles, i mean shit like the worst possible cases of autism, bring born with horrible diseases that can kill them before the age of 18, It can cause severe disabilities in the child Saying "pedophilia" is wrong without any concrete reasons or saying that "incest" is wrong without any concrete reasons except No it doesnt happen every time as there are cases where incest babies end up for the majority fairly normal, but thats a rare thing to happen, and yes there is a lower chance of these things happening by reproducing with a cousin rather than a sister or brother, but thats like saying getting shot in the stomach has better survival ratings than getting shot in the neck, either way your still getting shot and are likely to die in either, just like its likley the kid in an incestrous relationship will genetically be fucked up So in other words, i guess you can be ok with incest if you are a heartless bastard who is ok with their son/daughter being born into a life where they will never truly live normally and may possibly die at the age of 2 weeks here you go, heres a example of what incest can do for genetics, warning this is depressing http://www.faithfreedom.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/deformed-child.jpg |
JizzyHitlerDec 29, 2012 9:40 AM
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
| First, the increase on chances and with how much is still being debated on, we do not know for certain on how much it increases, the chance is still there even without it being incest (and this is certain). Second, this is also an appeal to possibility, he might have problems or might not. And that analogy is really weak, because the chances for the kid to be "genetically fucked up" are still there nonetheless, not only that, it does not fit our situation. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Within reason it doesn't matter, it depends more on whether both parties want a relationship and there is pressure from either side. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Immahnoob said: yes its still there normally, but the fact of the matter is incest babies not only happen significantly more but also have much worse cases. The only cases that end up being worse are ones from teenage or younger pregnancy, First, the increase on chances and with how much is still being debated on, we do not know for certain on how much it increases, the chance is still there even without it being incest (and this is certain). Second, this is also an appeal to possibility, he might have problems or might not. And that analogy is really weak, because the chances for the kid to be "genetically fucked up" are still there nonetheless, not only that, it does not fit our situation. But if you want to deny it then.....lets see your proof |
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
| I'm 19, and I think the oldest I would go is like 27. And that may be because I have a celebrity crush on a 27 year old, but who knows. |
 "It's just...a bad dream! Wake up, wake up...!" |
| I think my highest I'd go for right now is maybe early-mid 20s, 23-25 maybe. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
| The chances of having genetically "wrong" children in an incestuous relationship increases only with a few percentages. http://www.lotscave.com/files/Journal%20of%20Genetic%20Counseling%20(Vol.%2011,%20No.%202,%20April%204,%202002).pdf (Copy the whole thing...) Percentages like 1% to 5% for first cousins, could not find anything about parent/son (or daughter) relationships. Also, using this argument means that the people that have higher chances of having genetically wrong children even in a normal relationship should not be able to reproduce either. http://bigthink.com/think-tank/is-incest-wrong This also explains my points pretty well... |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
NicoleB said: I think my highest I'd go for right now is maybe early-mid 20s, 23-25 maybe. Hoe fo'sho |
darkyuu said: NicoleB said: I think my highest I'd go for right now is maybe early-mid 20s, 23-25 maybe. Hoe fo'sho I'm sorry, I just don't like you that way. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
NicoleB said: darkyuu said: NicoleB said: I think my highest I'd go for right now is maybe early-mid 20s, 23-25 maybe. Hoe fo'sho I'm sorry, I just don't like you that way. I'll always love you for what you are Nicole. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: But then the whole "harm" thing comes in context... How can "pedophilia" not harm a child if he can't consent by law? That's the problem here... And I think the case he shows is also not alright, if the child can't consent then how can he know he is in a relationship? Well, pedohilia is just the attraction itself. Anyway, the problem people have with consent is that the child can be persuaded, so their permission wouldn't hold much ground. I guess my problem with that, is that any age can be persuaded given that they're not well educated enough. It's really a case-by-case situation, it's impossible to say "Well this person is X years, thus they are too unaware". I mean, Spain's is 13, compared to my country's 16. Which really makes the entire situation odd. |
| Yeah, but education can't truly be "measured" can it...? What type of "tests" could they do to show if they're aware or not of the situation? Laws are not made by logic necessarily, are they? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| There's a 9 year gap between me and my boyfriend; I'm 21 and he's 30 and we're doing great! |
  |
| He's talking about underage x adult. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: What's that?NicoleB said: darkyuu said: NicoleB said: I think my highest I'd go for right now is maybe early-mid 20s, 23-25 maybe. Hoe fo'sho I'm sorry, I just don't like you that way. I'll always love you for what you are Nicole. |
| ^_^ |
| Just date whomever you want to date just make sure you skip sex until she grows up. |
YorozuyaGinSan said: I'd like to date an 11 year old girl... And have sex. It's kinda fun, ON YOUR HEAD, but we gotta respect the lil' girls :D |
 |
| I've seen a lot of people do it, It's not much of a big deal XD |
|
| I'm personally against little girls marrying/dating older guys its just disgusting wither its arranged by parents (like in some countries) or not its repulsive especially if they have sex. Now if these girls are 18+ and go after an older guy like lets say 50 something then hell let them since they will be legal adults able to make their own decisions. For me I'd rather the guy I love at least be 3~4 younger or older than me. |
"What has two arms, two legs, and is alive? Not your favorite character lol! xD" |
| 5 years age difference is as low as I'll go. |
Kazeshini said: 5 years age difference is as low as I'll go. but you would go higher??? |
Immahnoob said: The chances of having genetically "wrong" children in an incestuous relationship increases only with a few percentages. http://www.lotscave.com/files/Journal%20of%20Genetic%20Counseling%20(Vol.%2011,%20No.%202,%20April%204,%202002).pdf (Copy the whole thing...) Percentages like 1% to 5% for first cousins, could not find anything about parent/son (or daughter) relationships. Also, using this argument means that the people that have higher chances of having genetically wrong children even in a normal relationship should not be able to reproduce either. http://bigthink.com/think-tank/is-incest-wrong This also explains my points pretty well... lol you realize that even 1% increased risk is significant and 5% increased risk is just ridiculous from a medical biostatistical standpoint? did you even read the article (its relevant parts at least) that u posted? the EXCESS death rate/rate of occurrences of severe defects in the offspring resulting from incest was calculated to be 31.4% using one method of analysis, and 17.6% in a more "forgiving" analysis. |
RandomChampionDec 29, 2012 4:40 PM
| I'll play devil's advocate in defense of Immahnoob here, for shits and giggles... The opponents of incest claim it is wrong on account of increased birth defects. I have 2 points against this: 1. Birth defects are a result of inbreeding, not incest in itself. Incestuous couples do not need to have their own children, they could adopt the same way homosexual couples do. Therefore the question of birth is irrelevant in itself. 2. Birth defects are not morally wrong, mental handicaps are not morally wrong; it is not the "fault" of the child nor the parents. If we were to legislate consistently based on this logic, where do we cross the line? Should we do genetic tests before birth for a variety of genetic abnormalities, like risks of cancer, obesity, aggression, heart disease, sickle cell, etc., and say to prospective parents who fail that they can't have children, or else it would be against the law? -- that the could be prosecuted because it is "genetically risky" for them to have children? A lot of people would say that logic is absurd and morally wrong, or against human rights. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RandomPerson2 said: Kazeshini said: 5 years age difference is as low as I'll go. but you would go higher??? I like my girls younger :3 |
katsucats said: I'll play devil's advocate in defense of Immahnoob here, for shits and giggles... The opponents of incest claim it is wrong on account of increased birth defects. I have 2 points against this: 1. Birth defects are a result of inbreeding, not incest in itself. Incestuous couples do not need to have their own children, they could adopt the same way homosexual couples do. Therefore the question of birth is irrelevant in itself. 2. Birth defects are not morally wrong, mental handicaps are not morally wrong; it is not the "fault" of the child nor the parents. If we were to legislate consistently based on this logic, where do we cross the line? Should we do genetic tests before birth for a variety of genetic abnormalities, like risks of cancer, obesity, aggression, heart disease, sickle cell, etc., and say to prospective parents who fail that they can't have children, or else it would be against the law? -- that the could be prosecuted because it is "genetically risky" for them to have children? A lot of people would say that logic is absurd and morally wrong, or against human rights. well i, for one, was just pointing out that imahnoob's interpretation of that article he posted was flawed. im not really interested in the whole discussion though lol. to mention, ;your first point is 100% legitimate in the sense that birth defects can't really be used as an argument against incest, period (since, like you said, it doesnt have to result in birth i guess) however your second point is not completely logically sound due to the fact that incest is an active and direct CAUSE of increased risk in the population pool. what i'm saying is that 2 individuals who are not especially genetically predisposed to certain things can produce a child who is at greater risk if the relationship is incestuous. basically (and extremely simplistically) Incest: normal+normal -> higher risk VS high risk+high risk -> higher riskl incest is basically bad for the gene pool while "normal" genetic dispersion is not |
RandomChampionDec 29, 2012 5:13 PM
| Well if the parents allow then who gives a damn |
“Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short and wear shirts and boots because it’s okay to be a boy; for girls it’s like promotion. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, according to you, because secretly you believe that being a girl is degrading.”—Ian McEwan, The Cement Garden (1978) |
| I guess incest is considerate wrong so it don't become an common practice that occur successively on many generation. Specially in smaller community. though the fertility reduction thing kinda fix the prob. by itself. Remind me "the lurking fear" novel. |
 I sometime have funky grammar, sorry about that. If you can correct some of my post, you would be an angel. |
RandomChampion said: The human population is so large that there's no scientific evidence that high genetic risk would adversely influence the future of mankind besides that it would allow evolution to thin out those who continuously engage in risky behavior. Aside from this, the logic of "polluting the gene pool" is faulty for 3 more reasons:however your second point is not completely logically sound due to the fact that incest is an active and direct CAUSE of increased risk in the population pool. what i'm saying is that 2 individuals who are not especially genetically predisposed to certain things can produce a child who is at greater risk if the relationship is incestuous. basically (and extremely simplistically) Incest: normal+normal -> higher risk VS high risk+high risk -> higher riskl incest is basically bad for the gene pool while "normal" genetic dispersion is not 1. It assigns a moral value to birth defects. 2. It is biased, by assigning responsibility to incestuous couples but not other people who may be equally risky in polluting the gene pool. 3. It is anti-free personal choice, by saying that certain people can't do something of their own will if it increases the risk of something without harming other people. By that rationale, homosexuality should be illegalized because anal sex is more susceptible to HIV. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. There's my tasteless comment for the day. |
katsucats said: homosexuality should be illegalized because anal sex is more susceptible to HIV. I've eared it's wrong, but I have no back-up. Something like it just unluckily occurred first in gay community, but there's no higher transmission rate. (I may be wrong) |
I sometime have funky grammar, sorry about that. If you can correct some of my post, you would be an angel. |
Hapax said: Anal sex (note: not necessarily between men) is higher risk for HIV. The virus load in the anal passage is higher, and since it's tighter, there's more chance for minor abrasions.katsucats said: homosexuality should be illegalized because anal sex is more susceptible to HIV. I've eared it's wrong, but I have no back-up. Something like it just unluckily occurred first in gay community, but there's no higher transmission rate. (I may be wrong) |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| If you want a true honest to goodness correlation between something and homosexuality, go for Crystal meth and the club scene, a gay user in the club scene is more likely to get HIV than a heterosexual user or a non user who's straight, or LGBT in the club scene. |
 |
| I've always had the theory that under the right conditions, inbreeding humans could create super intelligent, super strong, disease resistant, healthy humans. This comes from the fact that many police dogs, seeing eye dogs, and other particularly good dogs come from inbreeding. (Or line-breeding, which is inbreeding, with the exception of some semantics) These dogs weren't inbred under the supervision of geneticists though, just regular people selectively choosing dogs that seem to have the best traits, and are related. Of course these people fuck up a lot too. There's also many animals that are heavily inbred in the wild and it doesn't seem to be a big deal at all. Truth is that having a first generation inbred kid isn't going to have any noticeably higher chance of deformities than any other kid. The harm comes from unselectively inbreeding for multiple generations, where the chance of a plethora of harmful recessive genes becoming dominant increases. With the help of geneticists selectively inbreeding humans, I honestly think we could have some really goddamn healthy and robust people. Not like it's going to happen anyway though. |
Caze said: If anything I'd prefer humans become smaller, they'd need less food, smaller vehicles, smaller living spaces, use less resources all around.With the help of geneticists selectively inbreeding humans, I honestly think we could have some really goddamn healthy and robust people. Not like it's going to happen anyway though. |
Caze said: I've always had the theory that under the right conditions, inbreeding humans could create super intelligent, super strong, disease resistant, healthy humans. This comes from the fact that many police dogs, seeing eye dogs, and other particularly good dogs come from inbreeding. (Or line-breeding, which is inbreeding, with the exception of some semantics) These dogs weren't inbred under the supervision of geneticists though, just regular people selectively choosing dogs that seem to have the best traits, and are related. Of course these people fuck up a lot too. There's also many animals that are heavily inbred in the wild and it doesn't seem to be a big deal at all. Truth is that having a first generation inbred kid isn't going to have any noticeably higher chance of deformities than any other kid. The harm comes from unselectively inbreeding for multiple generations, where the chance of a plethora of harmful recessive genes becoming dominant increases. With the help of geneticists selectively inbreeding humans, I honestly think we could have some really goddamn healthy and robust people. Not like it's going to happen anyway though. It would be better to completely genetically engineer humans with those super traits like Coordinators in Gundam Seed or the imaginary and real numbers in Front Mission 3, without the mind altering side effects those had. |
|
Hoppy said: I don't understand what this adds to the discussion other than "meth is bad", which isn't exactly a profound discovery.If you want a true honest to goodness correlation between something and homosexuality, go for Crystal meth and the club scene, a gay user in the club scene is more likely to get HIV than a heterosexual user or a non user who's straight, or LGBT in the club scene. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
katsucats said: 3. It is anti-free personal choice, by saying that certain people can't do something of their own will if it increases the risk of something without harming. Eh, when it comes to affecting the lives of others, then I don't see why you can look it as a bad thing. Wanting a child is absolutely no excuse for potentially creating misery for another human being, and this goes for inherited disorders which the adults are aware of as well. As I already said before in the thread, if pregnancy was null, then I don't see anything wrong with incest. Hoppy said: If you want a true honest to goodness correlation between something and homosexuality, go for Crystal meth and the club scene, a gay user in the club scene is more likely to get HIV than a heterosexual user or a non user who's straight, or LGBT in the club scene. Do you by any chance watch Fox news? You're having a real laugh if you think gay clubs are any different than your usual clubs (the proportion of men included). |
TrapaliciousDec 29, 2012 7:15 PM
Post-Josh said: Hoppy said: I don't understand what this adds to the discussion other than "meth is bad", which isn't exactly a profound discovery.If you want a true honest to goodness correlation between something and homosexuality, go for Crystal meth and the club scene, a gay user in the club scene is more likely to get HIV than a heterosexual user or a non user who's straight, or LGBT in the club scene. I'd just like to interject here for a moment. But what you're actually referring to as "meth", is in fact called methamphetamine/Desoxyn, or as I have recently been calling it, methamphetamine or desoxyn. It's a legitimate medication approved by the FDA and used for my disease, which causes me to not focus on things I think are boring. |
Caze said: which causes me to not focus on things I think are boring. There's probably better ways to solve that brah. Where I live tons of coal miners use it to stay awake longer but end up getting addicted, and I can tell you it's not something you wanna be addicted to bro. |
abrams said: monty1 said: How do you feel about relationships with a big age difference for example, if a 20 year old male is dating an 11 year old girl (but have not had sex) and do you think it's more acceptable amongst anime fans than the general pop. That's a felony! On the other hand a 65 year old man with a still active member and a still active midlife crisis which he has to feed 18yr old petite shaved girls that look like 11yr olds, perfectly normal. It's only a felony if there is sex. |
Caze said: This is completely untrue. Professional dog breeders know what traits are dominant, just like professional plant breeders. What happens when you have a bunch of amateurs breeding dogs is genetic defects are bred into the progeny -- in fact, some dog species are, or will be, extinct due to excessive inbreeding.I've always had the theory that under the right conditions, inbreeding humans could create super intelligent, super strong, disease resistant, healthy humans. This comes from the fact that many police dogs, seeing eye dogs, and other particularly good dogs come from inbreeding. (Or line-breeding, which is inbreeding, with the exception of some semantics) These dogs weren't inbred under the supervision of geneticists though, just regular people selectively choosing dogs that seem to have the best traits, and are related. Dogs like the German Shepherd commonly have hip problems, Dalmations are usually deaf because the deafness gene is linked to the spots, Dachshunds are prone to arthritis because they are bred for shorter legs, and many dogs bred for large size will eventually have bone cancer and heart problems. Geneticists call this inbreeding depression -- meaning the more you inbreed, the more deleterious genes will get passed on to the next generation. An outcross, a cross between 2 distinct lines, will almost always have superior traits and faster growth, which is what they call hybrid vigor. No wonder mixed girls are so beautiful. There are ways to inbreed populations while limiting harmful effects, but it's not something any idiot pet owner could accomplish. For one, it requires a rather large source population. Secondly, it requires multiple inbred lines to be bred simultaneously, and when depression occurs, each line is crossed to each other, acting as sort of an outcross, but to a family of similar traits. Caze said: Most wild populations are vastly larger than domestic populations.Of course these people fuck up a lot too. There's also many animals that are heavily inbred in the wild and it doesn't seem to be a big deal at all. Caze said: First generation inbreeding yields 4-31% higher incidence of medical problems before age 16 -- read the article in Immahnoob's link.Truth is that having a first generation inbred kid isn't going to have any noticeably higher chance of deformities than any other kid. The harm comes from unselectively inbreeding for multiple generations, where the chance of a plethora of harmful recessive genes becoming dominant increases. Caze said: Sure, it's possible, but besides the questionably "moral" implications, it would also take hundreds of years. A "generation" of plants could be a couple months to a couple years, a generation of dogs could be 2 years until it could give birth, a generation of humans is 18 years legally at the least. It takes many generations, some false runs, to produce a superior inbred line. That time constraint makes it much more "worth it" to just artificially engineer a superior DNA instead.With the help of geneticists selectively inbreeding humans, I honestly think we could have some really goddamn healthy and robust people. Not like it's going to happen anyway though. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
SSJgoku91 said: And they'd look more like they're 11 years old, right?Caze said: If anything I'd prefer humans become smaller, they'd need less food, smaller vehicles, smaller living spaces, use less resources all around.With the help of geneticists selectively inbreeding humans, I honestly think we could have some really goddamn healthy and robust people. Not like it's going to happen anyway though. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Is English your native language? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 16 |
79 |
by dreamingneon
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
55 |
by dreamingneon
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
» which country would you NOT want to visit? ( 1 2 )removed-user - Mar 27 |
72 |
by Meusnier
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think there should be an age limit on friendship?Thy-Veseveia - Feb 28 |
48 |
by TheMechaManiac
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you live with regrets?Lightskynight - Apr 18 |
22 |
by _Nette_
»»
2 hours ago |