Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hello!

Susan and Batrick are Couples but not as anyother couple they're siblings and now they have four children !!

Batrick was raised in a foster family but finally found his real mother and his sister was living their and moved in with them after their mother died they continued to live together and fall in love


jQp0KowG67A

And?

Jail time for incest is retarted

Good one them. I would hope that they exercised their right to abort if something comes up their reproducing, though.


Other than that: a couple finds love and are raising a family in that loving relationship. Sounds like they are excellent contributors to society and good parents.


Nothing to see here: move along.

Because of the societal standards I grew up with, I guess that is a bit...strange. But hey, it's their life. If they are not harming others, they should be able to live it how they wish to.

Originally posted by Lestov16
But hey, it's their life. If they are not harming others, they should be able to live it how they wish to.

Bam. This is how all laws should be made: if the individual is not harming others, they should have any freedoms they want.

Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened.

Some people;

The real crime is someone naming their son Batrick.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The real crime is someone naming their son Batrick.
I figured it was German for Patrick like the starfish from Sponge Bob.

Whatever.

Originally posted by Astner
Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened.

Some people;

Agreed. The relationship is their business but having children with such a high likelihood of defects is not right. Their children followed the statistics to the letter, two of the four are disabled.

Originally posted by Astner
Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened.

Some people;

This isn't 1750: they can always abort as soon as they find out there is a problem.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This isn't 1750: they can always abort as soon as they find out there is a problem.
Well then they're not having children, are they? Read what you're replying to.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Agreed. The relationship is their business but having children with such a high likelihood of defects is not right. Their children followed the statistics to the letter, two of the four are disabled.


Your argument is not very accurate.

"According to the recent report, children of unrelated parents have a 3 percent to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. Children of first cousins have only a slighter higher risk--roughly a 4 percent to 7 percent chance. Thus, the ban on cousin marriages will not go very far toward the general problem of preventing birth defects."

For first degree consanguinity, the risk is 6.8% to 11.2%.

In fact, research indicates inbreeding actually improves/improved the human gene-pool when inbreeding occurs over time.

And following the statistics to the letter would not result in a 2 out of 4 chance. It would be between 0 and 0 out of 4 chance...if you round down at .5 and below. If you were to follow the statistics to the letter, you would probably state the average and then the standard deviation. I believe the 6.8%-11.2% numbers represent 1 or 2 standard deviations.


It took me about 3-5 minutes to find the following links:

http://www.genetics.edu.au/Information/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/When-Parentsare-Relative-Consanguinity-Genetic-Testing-Screening-and-Prevention-FS16

http://www.larasig.com/node/2020

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508879/




But, based on yours and others' line of reasoning, you should demand cigarettes and alcohol be banned rather than cousin and sibling marriages because there are significantly greater risks of birth defects when those items are used during pregnancy. We are talking prevalence ratios as high as 1.62 (62% more likely over the population average) for clubfeet or 1.47 for microcephaly (small head (not small brain) disorder). Overall, the risks in multiple areas are at a much higher level. There are problems with this study's methodology: failure (it does not matter if it was intentional or accidental) of the mother, father, parents, or legal guardian to put onto the birth certificate if the mother smoked. So the prevalence may actually be underrepresented, here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12037261



So where do you put the bar? Do you put the 'birth defect risk' bar at 11%? If so, then we should eliminate lots of "things" and situations that have a birth defect likelihood of 11.2% or more. In other words, there are problems out there with much higher birth defect probabilities than inbreeding. If you're concerned about birth defects due to sibling marriages, you'll be even more concerned about smoking, drinking (significant, not just light drinking), and other birth defective risk factors.

Originally posted by Astner
Well then they're not having children, are they?

Your question (your implied meaning) makes no sense when taken in context with the post of mine you quoted UNLESS you assume that all 4 of their children have birth-defects: which they don't.

Again, for my point to make sense, here is your point, again:

"Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened."





So, basically, you did not understand my point.

The point is, your point might be valid in an earlier time when abortions could not be done very easily and with a significant mortality risk to the mother. Since they can get abortions in a MUCH safer "modern medical science" time period, your point is literally invalid (as long as they exercised their right to abort as soon as a defect was discovered (before 5 months)).






Originally posted by Astner
Read what you're replying to.

You should definitely take your own advice as the problem is not on my end.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your argument is not very accurate.

"According to the recent report, children of unrelated parents have a 3 percent to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. Children of first cousins have only a slighter higher risk--roughly a 4 percent to 7 percent chance. Thus, the ban on cousin marriages will not go very far toward the general problem of preventing birth defects."

For first degree consanguinity, the risk is 6.8% to 11.2%.

In fact, research indicates inbreeding actually improves/improved the human gene-pool when inbreeding occurs over time.

And following the statistics to the letter would not result in a 2 out of 4 chance. It would be between 0 and 0 out of 4 chance...if you round down at .5 and below. If you were to follow the statistics to the letter, you would probably state the average and then the standard deviation. I believe the 6.8%-11.2% numbers represent 1 or 2 standard deviations.


It took me about 3-5 minutes to find the following links:

http://www.genetics.edu.au/Information/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/When-Parentsare-Relative-Consanguinity-Genetic-Testing-Screening-and-Prevention-FS16

http://www.larasig.com/node/2020

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508879/
First and foremost, you'll have to learn to differentiate between what's accurate and what's consistent with modern science. Secondly none of your sources supports that inbreeding is beneficial under any conditions, period. Thirdly, even if it was a risk increase of 0.1% that's still enough to keep it illegal, in my opinion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, based on yours and others' line of reasoning, you should demand cigarettes and alcohol be banned rather than cousin and sibling marriages because there are significantly greater risks of birth defects when those items are used during pregnancy. We are talking prevalence ratios as high as 1.62 (62% more likely over the population average) for clubfeet or 1.47 for microcephaly (small head (not small brain) disorder). Overall, the risks in multiple areas are at a much higher level. There are problems with this study's methodology: failure (it does not matter if it was intentional or accidental) of the mother, father, parents, or legal guardian to put onto the birth certificate if the mother smoked. So the prevalence may actually be underrepresented, here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12037261
The difference of course being that alcohol and cigarettes are integrated into society. To ban something isn't the same as keeping something illegal.


Originally posted by dadudemon
So where do you put the bar? Do you put the 'birth defect risk' bar at 11%? If so, then we should eliminate lots of "things" and situations that have a birth defect likelihood of 11.2% or more. In other words, there are problems out there with much higher birth defect probabilities than inbreeding. If you're concerned about birth defects due to sibling marriages, you'll be even more concerned about smoking, drinking (significant, not just light drinking), and other birth defective risk factors.
See the argument above.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your question (your implied meaning) makes no sense when taken in context with the post of mine you quoted UNLESS you assume that all 4 of their children have birth-defects: which they don't.
I didn't imply anything. Refute what I literally wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, basically, you did not understand my point.

The point is, your point might be valid in an earlier time when abortions could not be done very easily and with a significant mortality risk to the mother. Since they can get abortions in a MUCH safer "modern medical science" time period, your point is literally invalid (as long as they exercised their right to abort as soon as a defect was discovered (before 5 months)).
No, I understand your point it's just that you didn't understand mine. I never said that they couldn't have unprotected sex, I said that they shouldn't be allowed to have biological children with one another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You should definitely take your own advice as the problem is not on my end.
No, you didn't understand the point then and you still don't. Reread what I wrote.

Originally posted by Astner
First and foremost, you'll have to learn to differentiate between what's accurate and what's consistent with modern science.

Not only is that inaccurate, it is a red herring on your part.

But I appreciate you trying to detract where you have gone wrong.


Originally posted by Astner
Secondly none of your sources supports that inbreeding is beneficial under any conditions, period.

Maybe that's because I did not cite that particular point I covered...which, by the way, that particular point was irrelevant to the vast majority of the content in my post.


But, I am sure that if you really cared about that point, you could have verified it was either correct or false with less than 30 seconds of Google searching. (I just tried it myself to see how long it took...found the study and the name of the head researcher popped up on the first page of results). Be my guest: use the internet.


Originally posted by Astner
Thirdly, even if it was a risk increase of 0.1% that's still enough to keep it illegal, in my opinion.

Oh, boy, you just opened up a can of worms. This, my friend, is a known as "slippery slope".

Care to venture any guesses on what potential risk factors there are for birth defects?

You might as well skip to the end of this particular point of our conversation and say, "I am a strong believer in eugenics."


Originally posted by Astner
The difference of course being that alcohol and cigarettes are integrated into society. To ban something isn't the same as keeping something illegal.

Couple of things wrong with what you're trying to do, here:

1. Incest is integrated into many societies all over the world. It is a part of human history and we would probably not exist, as a species, if were not for inbreeding.

2. So, because cigarettes and alcohol are integrated into society, you are okay with them being around despite the fact that you said this, earlier:

"even if it was a risk increase of 0.1% that's still enough to keep it illegal, in my opinion."


Hmmm. Something here is not adding up, Astner. You either support your .1% idea or you don't. You can't have both sides.



Originally posted by Astner
See the argument above.

1. No thanks.

2. Which argument? The one directly above or the one even further above that that directly contradicts your directly above?


Originally posted by Astner
I didn't imply anything. Refute what I literally wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Oh, so you were not commenting on incest births, at all, huh?

So there was no implied meaning that you were commenting directly on the topic of incest births...at all? Right? Let me know if you were not directly OR indirectly commenting on incest births increasing the likelihood of birth defects. If you were, your above point is irrelevant. If you were not, your above point is still irrelevant because the results of your statement still directly apply to the topic.


In other words, you can ask me to comment on only the words you directly wrote, but that's not going to work because your words directly apply to the topic at hand regardless if you intended them to or not: you must think the implications of your statements through if you want a very very narrow and specific interpretation.

Originally posted by Astner
No, I understand your point it's just that you didn't understand mine.

Incorrect: I understood your point but you did not understand mine nor do you yet understand the implications of your points. So here's what happened:

1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.


Originally posted by Astner
I never said that they couldn't have unprotected sex, I said that they shouldn't be allowed to have biological children with one another.

See, regardless of your claims of me not understanding your point, I literally understood it in the most direct way possible and I directly commented on it. You tried to play a dodge game, but it didn't work.

So, again, here are the results of your position (and why it fails):

"This isn't 1750: they can always abort as soon as they find out there is a problem."


You obviously want them to abort (aborting does not necessarily mean classic "abortion" all resultant births when that is not reasonable nor is it medically sound.

Originally posted by Astner
No, you didn't understand the point then and you still don't.

I did understand it and I still do.


1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.



Originally posted by Astner
Reread what I wrote.

No thanks: I had to quote your post back to you, remember?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not only is that inaccurate, it is a red herring on your part.
No, it's not a red hearing as I addressed the point below.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I appreciate you trying to detract where you have gone wrong.
I'm not trying to detract from anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe that's because I did not cite that particular point I covered...which, by the way, that particular point was irrelevant to the vast majority of the content in my post.
Most likely because you either didn't have such a source or because it was of questionable validity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, I am sure that if you really cared about that point, you could have verified it was either correct or false with less than 30 seconds of Google searching. (I just tried it myself to see how long it took...found the study and the name of the head researcher popped up on the first page of results). Be my guest: use the internet.
Assuming that it's true -- which once more, you've yet to provide evidence for -- we're not talking about inbreeding over time. So it's irrelevant to the argument in the first place.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, boy, you just opened up a can of worms. This, my friend, is a known as "slippery slope".
No, it's not a slippery slope, it's an opinion piece. Also, look up what a slippery slope is because you clearly don't understand what said logical fallacy means.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Care to venture any guesses on what potential risk factors there are for birth defects?
Any risk over 0% is an unnecessary risk.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You might as well skip to the end of this particular point of our conversation and say, "I am a strong believer in eugenics."
Stay on topic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Couple of things wrong with what you're trying to do, here:

1. Incest is integrated into many societies all over the world. It is a part of human history and we would probably not exist, as a species, if were not for inbreeding.

2. So, because cigarettes and alcohol are integrated into society, you are okay with them being around despite the fact that you said this, earlier:

"even if it was a risk increase of 0.1% that's still enough to keep it illegal, in my opinion."

Hmmm. Something here is not adding up, Astner. You either support your .1% idea or you don't. You can't have both sides.
The argument centers around modern times in Germany, where it's currently illegal.
Alcohol and cigarettes aren't illegal.
Are you starting to comprehend my position?

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. No thanks.

2. Which argument? The one directly above or the one even further above that that directly contradicts your directly above?
Concession accepted.
It doesn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, so you were not commenting on incest births, at all, huh?

So there was no implied meaning that you were commenting directly on the topic of incest births...at all? Right? Let me know if you were not directly OR indirectly commenting on incest births increasing the likelihood of birth defects. If you were, you above point is irrelevant. If you were not, your above point is still irrelevant because the results of your statement still directly apply to the topic.
Learn to differentiate between implications and what's directly stated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In other words, you can ask my to comment on only the words you directly wrote, but that's not going to work because you words directly apply to the topic at hand regardless if you intended them to or not: you must think the implications of your statements through if you want a very very narrow and specific interpretation.
What part is it that is so difficult for you comprehend? We're discussing my moral reasonings for why incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to have biological children.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect: I understood your point but you did not understand mine nor do you yet understand the implications of your points. So here's what happened:

1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.
You repeatedly prove that you don't understand my point by misinterpreting my position and repeatedly get off topic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
See, regardless of your claims of me not understanding your point, I literally understood it in the most direct way possible and I directly commented on it. You tried to play a dodge game, but it didn't work.

So, again, here are the results of your position (and why it fails):

"This isn't 1750: they can always abort as soon as they find out there is a problem."

You obviously want them to abort (aborting does not necessarily mean classic "abortion" all resultant births when that is not reasonable nor is it medically sound.
So let's reexamine the post you were replying to:
Originally posted by Astner
Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened.

Some people;
I'm specifically pointing out that they shouldn't have children. Not saying anything about sex, yet you bring up abortion.

A woman who decides to have an abortion is not having children.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did understand it and I still do.
Then why do you repeatedly act as if you didn't.

Let's make this simple. Explain to me what you think I meant.

Originally posted by Astner
No, it's not a red hearing

It is.


Originally posted by Astner
as I addressed the point below.


You didn't.


Originally posted by Astner
I'm not trying to detract from anything.

You tried and failed: that's very simple.


Originally posted by Astner
Most likely because you either didn't have such a source or because it was of questionable validity.


None of the above. Try again.

Originally posted by Astner
Assuming that it's true -- which once more, you've yet to provide evidence for -- we're not talking about inbreeding over time. So it's irrelevant to the argument in the first place.

That aside of mine that you addressed directly referred to it being overtime. You are now trying to move the bar on something you cannot move: it was my point, not yours.

Here's what most likely happened: you found a study or two that does coincide with what I said and you realized your antagonistic approach to that particular topic was ill-advised (because now you know you were wrong). So you are trying to move the bar by putting a "clause" into your commentary on that topic by stating "we're not talking about inbreeding over time". Sorry, Astner, I most certainly was talking about inbreeding over time on that particular point that you contended and I addressed.



Originally posted by Astner
No, it's not a slippery slope,

It is a slippery slope because anything that increases the risk by .1% now has to be excluded from breeding, by your book.

You made a silly statement that had silly implications: move on.

Originally posted by Astner
it's an opinion piece.

The set of "opinion pieces" is not mutually exclusive to the set of "slippery slope logical fallacies": nice try?

Originally posted by Astner
Also, look up what a slippery slope is because you clearly don't understand what said logical fallacy means.

Again, you should not be giving out this advice (I highly recommend you not give out advice because every time you have, you have been the one guilty of the item you were advising on). This is advice you need to take. You make sweeping statements that have silly implications, it is a slippery slope.


If you need assistance with knowing why setting a cuttoff at .1% tolerance of increased brith defect risk above the population average (and it varies from region to region, too...so that's going to be a tough number to sell) then the slippery slope comes in because of the implications of such a number: you goal is inbreeding. But it doesn't stop at inbreeding. It can include silly things like "no kids after 35" or "no kids if you are going to be around second hand smoke, ever". The wedge, for your slippery slope fallacy, is the .1% number you decided to make a point about inbreeding. The actual "slippery slope" portion is the inevitable slide down to the absurd exclusions.

A very common slippery slope argument is stating the abortion will lead to infanticide. You do not have to state that the implications of your .1% number eventually lead to absurd bans such as "no mothers that have ever smoked can have kids" because the .1% is most likely there.


Originally posted by Astner
Any risk over 0% is an unnecessary risk.

Now you're making it worse. Guess we gotta keep all moms indoors, and feed them non-allergenic goo, strap them to a bed, and only allow electrical plate exercise. Gotta git rid of that .001% chance that something bad could happen. Unnecessary risk, man!


Originally posted by Astner
Stay on topic.

I am: that's the absurd implications of your argument. Basically, eungenics. Any risk factors a mother has cannot be even a single tenth of a percent above the population average: might as well call it eugenics.


Originally posted by Astner
The argument centers around modern times in Germany, where it's currently illegal.
Alcohol and cigarettes aren't illegal.
Are you starting to comprehend my position?


1. Where was this "argument centers around modern times in Germany" established? Because I have clearly been arguing a general application and not a "state specific" application. It makes no sense to center it around one particular country when you and another brought up the genetic problems of inbreeding. We should look at multiple studies: not just the social and lawful constructs of Germany.

2. If you actually understood my point, you would not be telling me that alcohol and cigarettes are illegal. Instead, you would be saying that, "Yes, I do see the slipper slope implications of my argument can lead to statements like 'if inbreeding is going to be illegalized (or upheld to be illegal) due to the increase in birth defects, then so should alcohol and smoking: those are just risks we cannot take.'


Originally posted by Astner
Concession accepted.
It doesn't.

1. You first have to be right in order to get a concession. Since you were not only wrong but literally did not understand my point (and then accused me of not understand your point), you cannot obtain a concession, yet, from me.
2. I know it doesn't: that's the point of the smilie face.


Originally posted by Astner
Learn to differentiate between implications and what's directly stated.

Unnecessary: I am doing quite stellar with it. You should definitely learn, though.

This still applies: "you must think the implications of your statements through if you want a very very narrow and specific interpretation."


Originally posted by Astner
What part is it that is so difficult for you comprehend? We're discussing my moral reasonings for why incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to have biological children.

Apparently, no part was difficult for me to understand because I directly addressed that. I pointed out the slippery slope-ness of said implications, as well.

This is by far and away not the only conversation you and I have had where you simply did not "get it". At this point, there's nothing I can do to help you understand any better besides say this:

Dude, you made a very stupid statement. Rethink your position because the implications of that statement are just that: stupid.


Originally posted by Astner
You repeatedly prove that you don't understand my point by misinterpreting my position and repeatedly get off topic.

That's not true: I repeatedly have proven that I fully understood your position and pointed out where you did not understand mine. We have gone off topic because you did. I only responded to what you have. The one area I was off topic, originally, was with another poster towards which you quoted and commented.


Originally posted by Astner
So let's reexamine the post you were replying to:

No, let's not, because you'll just drag this out more and show why you still do not get it. But let's continue....


Originally posted by Astner
I'm specifically pointing out that they shouldn't have children.

That was established as being "understood" by me, with my very first comment towards you. I rejected the notion that they should not have children (because you reasons were the birth defects) by pointing you to another solution to the birth defects problem: abortions. Your idea seems to completely exclude abortion as a viable solution. Mine does not: it brings your attention to the use of safe abortions. It is no longer 1750: abortions can be done quite safely. No need to prevent them from having children, period.


But you did not understand any of that. For some reason, all of that escapes you. I still do not know if you're just trolling out of boredom or you really do not think abortion is a solution to your complaint.

Originally posted by Astner
Not saying anything about sex, yet you bring up abortion.

I do not believe I said anything about the "s*x" either: just the results of s*x (I'm at work, gotta censor).

And we are talking about having children inside of incest relationships: why do you think I brought up abortion?

Originally posted by Astner
A woman who decides to have an abortion is not having children.

Oh, I see where your problem is:

A woman who decides to abort a single fetus that is malformed or has some type of genetic defect is not precluding herself from having any kids, forever. It just prevents her from having that single "defective" child. She can "try again", you know.



Originally posted by Astner
Then why do you repeatedly act as if you didn't.

1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.



Originally posted by Astner
Let's make this simple. Explain to me what you think I meant.

Let's make it simpler: why do you think that incest couples should be excluded from having children when they can abort the "bad ones" if they want?

Dude's name is "Patrick".

This annoys me, though, especially since he underwent a vasectomy, lets just leave them an peace and NOT incarcerate them for bullshit.

Seriously, Germany, first losing in the Euro semi-final, now this? Shape up!


Also, lol, "red hearing"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, lol, "red hearing"
It's my favoritess mistake in my post.

I'm with dudemon here; it's not like not having the children - i.e. not giving them life at all - is more moral.

There are inherent risks with a lot of things we do. Shouldn't make them illegal, or even morally objectionable, when there's nothing they can reasonably do about it. I'd sooner make drugs/alcohol/smoking illegal for the same reason, except this couple can control their intake. They can't control their genes.

...not an endorsement of incest, btw. Just commenting on this case.

The reported incidence of defects varies and I suppose I was simply going with the high end. Regardless it's much higher than that of non-related couples all other things considered. I also think that much older couples should consider adoption because of their hightened risk of having children with defects over the age of 40 or so.

The only slippery slope I see in it is with their children who would have an even higher risk of defects if they have children. It's going to seem a bit hypocritical of them to tell their kids that they can't be together if they choose to be considering that their own mother and father are an incestuous couple.

i dont see an issue here...it's not like they're gay.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
The reported incidence of defects varies and I suppose I was simply going with the high end. Regardless it's much higher than that of non-related couples all other things considered. I also think that much older couples should consider adoption because of their hightened risk of having children with defects over the age of 40 or so.

Agreed, though none of this is grounds for making it illegal/immoral. We can advise caution while still allowing people to make risky decisions. Which, again, according to most philosophies and religions, is still better than them NOT having a life to live, regardless of its quality.

Adam and Eve's children were a bunch of incestuous butt****ers, so I don't see where anyone can bring in disapproval from a Judeo-Christian standpoint.

Personally, it's ****ing gross, there are at least hundreds (if we keep local to them) of other people these two could date. Come on.

THEY HAD 4 CHILDREN 2 OF THEM WERE TOKEN FROM THEM THE THIRD THEY HAVE HIM THE 4TH NEVER BEEN MENTIONED

i think after a certain point (when survival of the species doesn't require incest) then it's considered wrong.



it is gross but they say "you can't help who you fall in love with" or some crap like that. if they were just dating for the hell of it then yeah but this is "love" were talking about.

look at just about any romantic comedy

Originally posted by dadudemon
And following the statistics to the letter would not result in a 2 out of 4 chance. It would be between 0 and 0 out of 4 chance...if you round down at .5 and below. If you were to follow the statistics to the letter, you would probably state the average and then the standard deviation. I believe the 6.8%-11.2% numbers represent 1 or 2 standard deviations.

wut?

ok, so, if you round down at .5, having one kid who has a 50% chance of getting a disease would be expected to produce a 0 out of 1 chance..., going by your logic. essentially you are saying someone who has a 50/50 chance of passing on a disease will never pass it on if there is only one child... like, it seems like you are saying, anything less than a 1 in 8 chance should just be ignored...

each child has a 6.8-11.2% chance, you can't change that by expressing it in a different metric, and especially, you can't "round down" a probability....

lol, just sayin'

Originally posted by juggerman
i think after a certain point (when survival of the species doesn't require incest) then it's considered wrong.

Where do you draw that line though?

This rationalization also supposes that procreation is the sole reason for sex. We're self-aware creatures - it may have been the case at one point, but certainly isn't anymore.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Regardless it's much higher than that of non-related couples all other things considered.

No it is not.

Unless, of course, you consider "much higher" to be a few percent.

Originally posted by inimalist
wut?

ok, so, if you round down at .5,

This is where you may have gone wrong, from the beginning: round down FROM .499999...... round up from .5.

Also, it was a joke, man.


But here is what the actual result would be if you multiplied 4 by 11.2%: .448.

So how can I manipulate that result to be as douchy as possible? Round down from .5 and now I say "nya nya". That was basically the point.



Originally posted by inimalist
lol, just sayin'

This is what happens when you take a joke seriously. We can't have nice things.

Genetic Sexual Attraction-biology's biggest practical joke.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not.

Unless, of course, you consider "much higher" to be a few percent.



This is where you may have gone wrong, from the beginning: round down FROM .499999...... round up from .5.

Also, it was a joke, man.


But here is what the actual result would be if you multiplied 4 by 11.2%: .448.

So how can I manipulate that result to be as douchy as possible? Round down from .5 and now I say "nya nya". That was basically the point.





This is what happens when you take a joke seriously. We can't have nice things.

.49999.... is .5

Originally posted by Bardock42
.49999.... is .5

Oh boy. Some people rage about that.

i just think thats the rationale for the "its ok that Adam and Eves kids did it but for you its wrong" crowd.

the line i guess is that now we have a choice not to bone our siblings to get married or have children at all



well no it isnt the sole reason for sex but in order to "be fruitful and multiply" when there were only people of the same family they had no other option then to pork their kin.

now that there are billoins of people in the world its frowned upon since there are other options.

Originally posted by juggerman
well no it isnt the sole reason for sex but in order to "be fruitful and multiply" when there were only people of the same family they had no other option then to pork their kin.

now that there are billoins of people in the world its frowned upon since there are other options.

At very few points in our history have we had but one choice of sexual partner.

Also, don't you see the double standard? It's ok...until it's not. If it's not morally objectionable at one point, how does it become so as soon as people start turning their noses up at it? This sounds more like bandwagon morality than anything resembling a coherent moral perspective.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But here is what the actual result would be if you multiplied 4 by 11.2%: .448.

that's not right though, or else, if you had 10 kids, the probability would be over 100%. I don't know the exact equation, but the actual probability of one kid being disabled (at a 10% chance each) is 34.39%.

twice if you believe the Bible (Adam and Eve's time and Noah's ark)



well pooping outside used to be ok too...

Originally posted by juggerman
well pooping outside used to be ok too...


We can point to public health and sanitation for this as justification. But again, it might be distasteful, but I wouldn't consider it immoral. You're really not providing enough justification for your stance on this being wrong.

oh i wasnt taking a stance on it being wrong at all. i was just stating why others (Juedo-Christians as Robtard put it) might think it was wrong while it wasnt considered wrong when Adam and Eves kids did the nasty

Originally posted by juggerman
oh i wasnt taking a stance on it being wrong at all. i was just stating why others (Juedo-Christians as Robtard put it) might think it was wrong while it wasnt considered wrong when Adam and Eves kids did the nasty

Oh, ok then.

tehe thats yucky but to everyone each their own... is what I always say. umm it would have been weirder if they grew up together then got together, but I KINDA UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD FALL IN LOVE?? firstly they only had each other... secondly they were apart for so long it was only natural... thirdly their mother died so she couldnt say no..lol

some culture will not allow such practice.I think it is some kind of sickness.

That is just sick, disgusting and wrong.

it would be funny if they broke up..lol
I mean get sick of each other after so long then seperate
those are going to be some f up kids, could u imagin your dad is ur uncle too...

The great thing about incest is you do not have to go anywhere for family reunions.

Meow.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This isn't 1750: they can always abort as soon as they find out there is a problem.

And you call yourself a Christian...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And you call yourself a Christian...
He calls himself a Mormon.

Mormons are better than ordinary Christians.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Mormons are better than ordinary Christians.

yeah they all dress in suits like if their going somewhere.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The great thing about incest is you do not have to go anywhere for family reunions.



Or worry about mother-in-laws.....

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And you call yourself a Christian...

Appealing to a non-Christian using their beliefs is hardly a reflection of my own beliefs. Also, the smilie face was indicative of how much of a smartass I was being.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Or worry about mother-in-laws.....

BAM!

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And you call yourself a Christian...

So in your opinion, if someone isn't against abortion rights, they can't be a Christian?

Originally posted by manikunis
some culture will not allow such practice.I think it is some kind of sickness.

You are right. Especially if they're Catholics.