How does /jp/ feel about incest? Secondly, was there ever a translation for this VN? (Akane-Iro Somaru Saka)

File: 272 KB, 1024x1031, MinatoDressHQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:23:20 2009 No.3524431 [Reply] [Original]

How does /jp/ feel about incest?

Secondly, was there ever a translation for this VN? (Akane-Iro Somaru Saka)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:24:20 2009 No.3524440 >First question Not /jp/ related >Second question Wakarimasen lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:24:20 2009 No.3524441 1. Interesting in 2D and fiction, not that interesting in real life. 2. No.

>>	MANkoto !/uhtKOHuio Sat Oct 10 19:25:20 2009 No.3524445 File: 6 KB, 450x300, edfcaeb87af1a5bbc3aecb46cf9104f0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Incest is pretty cool.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:27:20 2009 No.3524450

Incest is great when both participants are willing and attractive. When it's rape, or when the people involved are ugly, it's an abomination in the eyes of society and god and everybody with any sense.

This is why 2d incest is always fine - the people involved will be hot. 3d, not so much.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:27:20 2009 No.3524451

If someone hacks the engine and gives me a nice neat compiler/decompiler to make the script files neater and such, I'd translate it(After the first game in the series anyway)
I am a feng fan after all. Keep in mind that a lot of it is a bunch of jokes and references that only Japanese people would get though and wouldn't translate into English well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:28:20 2009 No.3524456 keep it 2D

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:28:20 2009 No.3524457 1. It's usually rape in real life, not so hot 3D. 2. Oh I wish

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:29:20 2009 No.3524458

>>3524431
I'm pretty apathetic about the whole interest thing, it occasionally adds a little bit to the story but I've never found it that interesting, and I don't really feel anything when a game suddenly reveals just before the sex scene that they're non blood-related brother and sister, it's just not that relevant to me.

2. Nope, and there aren't any translation projects in the works either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:30:20 2009 No.3524460 >>3524451 What, it's a series of games?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:32:20 2009 No.3524470 >>3524460 no. don't know what that guys talking about, but there was only one game that featured imoutits, unless you count the no-H-scene versions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:33:20 2009 No.3524479 >>3524460 They aren't direct sequels but they're a series of games that take place in the same general area(and some repeating characters and cameos and such, Mikoto was a side character in the first game)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:33:20 2009 No.3524483 Wow Nanoha is so bashful!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:36:20 2009 No.3524495 >>3524451 Someone has to be able to do this, or know someone who can.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:40:20 2009 No.3524508

I can't get enough incest in anime or VNs. I haven't played an incest VN in about 2 weeks and that was Sister Magic which I dropped, all sex, no story. Got caught up playing Flyable Heart which isn't exactly incest.

The idea of forbidden love is romantic. It's two people who overcome all opposition and still love each other and I'm just a sucker for it.

In real life though it's pretty icky ... yes I just used icky on 4chan. I knew a kid in highschool that had sex with his step sister and it screwed them both up pretty badly. He had to go to therapy and all sorts of shit happened to them and that wasn't even his real sister. Not so fun in real life.

I have not played Akane-iro but it's Japanese only.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:41:20 2009 No.3524512

>>3524457
>1. It's usually rape in real life, not so hot 3D.
Sometimes it's conditioned, theres this article on psychology and human sexuality that documented incest and sexual objects in different cultures.

I can't find it atm, its not that wonderful of a read, it makes you feel bad, it was posted on /r9k/ yesterday.

It's quite disturbing too if you have the western mindset that all incest is rape, pedophilia is bad etc.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:43:20 2009 No.3524519

>>3524508
>I knew a kid in highschool that had sex with his step sister and it screwed them both up pretty badly. He had to go to therapy and all sorts of shit happened to them and that wasn't even his real sister.
This only happens because society freaks the fuck out on them.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:44:20 2009 No.3524524

>>3524508
>icky
It's a lot more common than you think. If the guy you mentioned hadn't been a dick and got caught, do you think he would have checked himself into therapy? Hell no; it's just a social taboo that has no purpose anymore. Hell, I knew a guy in high school that told me he wanted to fuck his sister (2 years older). We're talking biological sister. I don't know if he ever did or not, but the fact is, it's more common than we usually hear about.

Also, I agree that the "two against the world", "all you need is love" attitude is what makes it so interesting. Also why rape incest sucks so bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:47:20 2009 No.3524536 2D is hot as hell, the common sense and whatever is just turned off and it is just hot. 3D i have no interest in.

>>	Fujiwara no Mokou !!mGXYMm0qKk/ Sat Oct 10 19:49:20 2009 No.3524548 I wholly support incest as long as both parties are mature and willing. The way society treats such true love as taboo to me is frankly immoral, trampling on a minority group's rights.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:56:20 2009 No.3524561

>>3524548
Wait 50 years.

In 1960, being gay was a mental disease. Now it's grudgingly accepted and even marriage-legalized in some states. Fifty years from now, society will slowly start to realize, "Hay, it's not really our business to cause problems for siblings just because two people love each other" and incest will be decriminalized and the taboo weakened.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:58:20 2009 No.3524567 >>3524561 Won't happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 19:59:20 2009 No.3524571 >>3524567 That's what they said about colored folks being allowed to vote.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:01:20 2009 No.3524575 >>3524571 It's not the taboo. it's the fact that nature itself works against it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:02:20 2009 No.3524582 File: 74 KB, 640x480, 3c65b38e2960957a10e806e94c890245.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3524445 Anna was so tsundere for Johan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:02:20 2009 No.3524585 >>3524575 that's like saying nature works against gays by not giving them children at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:02:20 2009 No.3524587 >>3524575 You could just "forbid" them to have children (unless they're getting adopted) or something like that, if that was really the only thing that mattered.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:02:20 2009 No.3524588

If being able to find a brother or sister attractive is related to genetics, then incest could cause inbreeding in that family to spiral out of control. If it's psychological, then it could still spiral out of control because having two parents who are related might encourage it in their children.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:03:20 2009 No.3524592

>>3524524
I dated a girl (In before anon has never dated before) who told me she was in love with her brother and didn't think it was fair that the boy she loved the most was off limits. I told /jp/ about it eons ago but the story ends when she married a mutual friend of ours.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:03:20 2009 No.3524593 >Then it could still spiral out of control because having two parents who are related might encourage it in their children. Just like having homosexual parents makes the child also gay, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:04:20 2009 No.3524596 >>3524593 No wonder there's so many of them.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:05:20 2009 No.3524599

>>3524575
>nature
No, it doesn't. It's a social element, not "nature," evidenced by the fact that every other species on the planet will engage in incest. It might not be a first choice, but it happens - just like with humans - and it produces viable offspring. Also, inb4 retarted babby argument, because that, too, is proven wrong through observing other species.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:05:20 2009 No.3524601 >>3524575 nature doesn't care old societies don't care either, it's a modern taboo

>>	Vector !NEy29ODpvs Sat Oct 10 20:08:20 2009 No.3524610 >>3524593 Possibly >>3524599 It happens, but only if a family keeps inbreeding over several generations.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:08:20 2009 No.3524612

>>3524599
It is proven incest increases the chances of the offspring having genetic defects due to the way genes work. Moreover, the westermark effect itself discourages these kinds of relationships; not only between sibling but between being who have been brought up closely.
People are supposed to fetch their females outside of their immediate circle.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:12:20 2009 No.3524625

>>3524610
It's a matter of good genetic code.

If the parents have strong genetics (no hereditary diseases or flaws) then their children will have good genes. This is no different than exogamous breeding. The dreaded "recessive alelles" problem only arises if either parent actually has a genetic timebomb in their code.

Observe the case of the german brother-sister couple. They had four kids, but two were disabled. That must mean a 50% chance of retardation, right? Only to the untrained eye - because they came from a family of 8 siblings, and 3 of the 8 were disabled too. That meant that their completely unrelated parents had almost the same failure rate as their inbreeding children.

Something to consider when throwing around the "nature says no to incest" argument.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:14:20 2009 No.3524629

>>3524612
>it is proven

no it isn't. there are several very flawed studies that support your argument, and no HUMAN studies that support mine. However, is that because my point is wrong, or that society is so against the possibility that incest isn't a huge biological problem and will not allow studies to be conducted in this regard?

Remember, if you tried to produce research that said the earth was round in Galilio's time, you got burnt for heresy, even if you were right.

>>	reiserFS !Hc6EcVkstI Sat Oct 10 20:14:20 2009 No.3524630 2D is fucking hot, 3D certainly is not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:14:20 2009 No.3524631 >>3524612 That doesn't even scratch the argument, there is no supposed to clause, that is social conditioning.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:17:20 2009 No.3524641

Inbreeding is really over-rated as a bad genetic practice.
People seem to think that inbreeding will net you like a 50% chance of a retarded baby or something, this is simply not true.

The human species (and really every sexually reproducing species) can take ALOT of inbreeding (we're talking many many generations) before diseases start to manifest. And that's only if they manifest at all, which only happens when a hereditary disease (if one exists) is passed down to most of the offspring.

So go ahead and fuck your sister, /jp/. You, your sister, your children, and their children will all be dead before inbreeding begins to effect the viability of the offspring.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:18:20 2009 No.3524645

>>3524625
If both siblings have the same genetic alterations, the odds will be against them.
However, if one man has a default in his code, the odds of breeding with someone sharing the same defaults are much lower if that person isn't from that family.
Both siblings will likely possess that 1/1000 default but you'd only have a low chance of meeting such a person from the outside.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:19:20 2009 No.3524648 2D incest is obviously awesome. 3D incest is only as disgusting as any other 3D love. I'd fuck my sister if she was interested.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:19:20 2009 No.3524649 >It is proven incest increases the chances of the offspring having genetic defects due to the way genes work. Even if this is the case, why should the government outlaw it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:21:20 2009 No.3524657 >>3524649 They don't want to pay for more retards like you

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:22:20 2009 No.3524663 >>3524657 Drinking alcohol while you're pregnant makes your baby retarded too, but that isn't illegal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:23:20 2009 No.3524668 >>3524571 colored voting was supported because it would give the south more votes

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:24:20 2009 No.3524670

>>3524657
see >>3524641

Seriously, inbreeding is not the best practice genetically speaking, but there is a pretty large genetic tolerance for inbreeding. You have to do it continually for a pretty considerable number of generations for it to manifest itself.
Outbred parents have plenty of retarded children too

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:24:20 2009 No.3524675 >>3524663 I'm pretty sure you can be charged with something.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:24:20 2009 No.3524678

>>3524645
>If

your whole argument hinges on the possibility that the siblings in question have a deleterous genetic flaw - a boobytrap that GOD put there to keep them from having babies together - and that it will manifest if the brother's sperm reaches his sister's egg.

It just doesn't work like that. Sure, you can get undesirable traits from inbreeding, but you can also get undesirable traits from having sex with a black dude. The fact is, incest laws have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with government control.

Families that inbreed become highly insular. As they grow larger, these clans will not require much assistance or accept guidance from outside their own group. Eventually the group may grow large enough to exert political or economic power over the government - it's how dynasties and baronies form. That's why governments don't like incest - the long-term effects of it result in a weakening of the state.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:25:20 2009 No.3524682 >>3524663 Woah, sharp wit, anon. That's going in my "awesome replies to retarded babby argument" folder.

>>	NewFriend !zkraGArAss Sat Oct 10 20:29:20 2009 No.3524691 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electra_complex

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:29:20 2009 No.3524693 >>3524657 So why is it ok for other couples to have a baby even when there is a high risk of birth defects/genetic disorders?

>>	(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ BOOF ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜) !AWEsomEEEE!!g4pQz5RFuPl Sat Oct 10 20:30:20 2009 No.3524700 I don't approve of it. then again, my sister is 14 and 340lbs

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:30:20 2009 No.3524702

>>3524678
Betting the life of your descendents over the absence of default of your genetic code seems like an awfully reckless thing to do.
And noble families took precious care to limit inbreeding, searching for spouses in other families as a motive for alliances or marrying between branches. Those who came to be with their siblings had an increase of the likelyhood of producing defective offspring; something nobody should aspire to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:31:20 2009 No.3524703 >>3524693 Because people don't want to be viewed as supporters of eugenics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:32:20 2009 No.3524704 File: 581 KB, 980x1400, 44.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This pretty much sums it up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:32:20 2009 No.3524705 >>3524675 nope

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:33:20 2009 No.3524710

>>3524700
>340lbs
HOOOLY MOLEY

On the other hand, if you become her personal trainer (and we're talking years of your life devoted to this cause) you might be able to shave 200 of those pounds off by the time she's 16. If you spend those two years of training grooming her and acclimating her to the idea that social taboos don't mean shit, you might get a 140lb 16 year old sister who owes you her life as a sex partner.

>>	(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ BOOF ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜) !AWEsomEEEE!!g4pQz5RFuPl Sat Oct 10 20:35:20 2009 No.3524717 >>3524710 oh boy! stretched out flabs of skin!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:35:20 2009 No.3524718 >>3524700 340lbs I'd hit it. With a harpoon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:36:20 2009 No.3524720 >140lb >16 year old PIG DISGUSTING

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:36:20 2009 No.3524721 Love how the incestfags try to simplify genetics into a binary system where you either got good genes or bad genes. Truth is we got a huge amount of genes of varying quality and they can potentially cause defects of equally varying severity.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:36:20 2009 No.3524723

>>3524702
>betting the life of your decendants

Oh, please. If you looked at how fucked up the human genome is, no rational being would breed knowing the problems that the child would have down the road.

Bad eyesight, hearing loss, baldness, hemmroids, melanoma, osteoporosis, and thousands of other problems are all hereditary. You aren't harming your desendents chances just because you told society "fuck you" and bred with someone you really loved.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:38:20 2009 No.3524729

>>3524702
You dont seem to be hearing it: You're not betting your descendants on a "default allele." More likely: you're stopping yourself from having kids because of the unlikely event that you both have a deleterious gene. Which is highly unlikely, and again only usually manifests itself over many many generations of inbreeding, if it ever occurs at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:39:20 2009 No.3524732 >>3524723 You don't really love your sister. you just want to fuck her.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:39:20 2009 No.3524733 >>3524429 stop spaming ur crappy bored on anoпtalk.com u retartet fagit's

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:39:20 2009 No.3524734 Here's what you get with too much incest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadoma

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:39:20 2009 No.3524735

>>3524710
Hate to break it to you, but your siblings will NOT obey you like that or see you as a mother/father type authority figure unless there are already extreme circumstances that merit you being the "de facto" adult of the family. (crackwhore moms with 5 children and no father around for instance)

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:40:20 2009 No.3524738

>>3524721
Goes for all humans, not just incesters.

Breed with someone you thought was hot? WHOOPS Downs syndrome! Life sucks. Don't talk about "playing the odds" by fucking outside the family. Sure, go ahead and do so if you find your sister an insufferable bitch. Just don't deny those who feel a romantic connection with their sibling a chance to do what humans do - breed and hope for a healthy child.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:41:20 2009 No.3524743

>>3524723
If your parents were the cause of such defects in you, would you be grateful to them ?
I was born with a lung defect that makes me taste my own blood as soon as I start straining my lungs because of my mother and curse her for that. Would you really want to be hated by your children ?
Is it worth it to say "fuck you" to society for something that is ultimately worthless ? Or do you believe something such as true love exits that can be found only between two specific people ?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:42:20 2009 No.3524748

>>3524735
Oh, I didn't expect the guy to gain any authority over her.

I expected that he'd start it out with, "Sis, you're fat, but I love you. Let me train you into a delicious gymnast-bodied sexpot for the purposes of wild and steamy incestuous sex." And the sister voluntarily accepting his offer.

Apart from the incest part, it's actually possible for people who want to change but don't know how to get help from family to make the change.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:43:20 2009 No.3524752

>>3524721
This applies to both incest and outside breeding. The difference with incest is that it sometimes (read: SOMETIMES) increases the chances of defects in children, and really this only becomes a measurable problem after many generations of persistent inbreeding.

You roll the dice with children whether or not you're inbreeding.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:45:20 2009 No.3524756

>Is it worth it to say "fuck you" to society for something that is ultimately worthless ? Or do you believe something such as true love exits that can be found only between two specific people ?

As I see it, you're the only one here saying that true love can only exist between two genetically-unrelated people. Hypocrite.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:45:20 2009 No.3524758

>>3524743
>true love worthless

I see our values are different.

I have plenty of genetic problems - every one of the women on my mother's side of the family has died or is dying of skin cancer. I have to live with that knowledge - that my fate or the fate of my children is tied to this one doom. That doesn't mean that I'm not planning of having children.

Humans get used to anything. Hate your parents for breeding when they knew they had genetic problems, but look at it this way: you wouldn't exist at all if they hadn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:45:20 2009 No.3524760 >>3524512Sometimes it's conditioned, theres this article on psychology and human sexuality that documented incest and sexual objects in different cultures. I'd like to see this.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:45:20 2009 No.3524762

>>3524752
It's like playing russian roulette with two rounds loaded instead of one.
Why take the risk ?
It's not like love can only be found once.
I doesn't even stay once you have it.
After a few years, most couples barely have more intimate relationships than good friends.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:47:20 2009 No.3524766

>>3524743
Do the children of two unrelated parents who have genetic defects (protip: it happens ALLLL THE TIME, more so in fact than incest because of the low incidence of incest today) curse their parents?

No, because they (and the parents) merely got unlucky. If they do curse them, they should probably kill themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:47:20 2009 No.3524769 >>3524756 I'm saying true love doesn't exist. What you've felt once for someone you can feel it for someone else. You can love your sister. You'll be able to love someone else just as much.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:47:20 2009 No.3524771 >>3524743 That just makes you a terrible person if you hate your mother for that.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:48:20 2009 No.3524773

>>3524735
>Hate to break it to you, but your siblings will NOT obey you like that
Kick their ass.

But then I wouldn't know much about that, as my sister is a well behaved, obedient, little sickly moe girl.

Well it would be moe if she didn't spend yesterday puking everywhere.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:49:20 2009 No.3524774

>>3524762
>no intimacy

Could that be because they never had true love to begin with?

Sex with your sister isn't just fucking a random bitch. It's making love to one of few humans on the planet you know you can live with and be happy - you know this because you have been living with this person for your whole life. Most people find the novelty of living with someone wears thin over time: sibling partners would never have that.

Plus incest sex, if I'm to believe my cousin who said he slept with his sister, is incredibly satisfying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:49:20 2009 No.3524775 >>3524743 What, so you hate your mother for carrying a genetic defect and giving birth to you? You are a terrible child. I'd tell you to kill yourself but it'd probably sadden your mother, and she's already pretty bad off.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:50:20 2009 No.3524779

>>3524762
>two bullets instead of one
Actually, the difference in odds is a lot lower than that. And it doesn't really even work like that in the first place, even if two completely unrelated people having children both are unlucky enough to be carriers of a deleterious gene, the odds may be 4/6 bullets, and for two relatively lucky incestuous people, if one or neither are carrying a gene, it may be 1/6 bullets or 0. It's not so black and white as "incestuous couples have a high risk" and "unrelated couples do not"

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:50:20 2009 No.3524780

>>3524771
In my case it wasn't genetic.
She smokes four packs of cigs a day.
However, both smoking and inbreeding increase the chances of defect.
And I have plenty of reasons to hate someone who has never been anything but a nuisance to me and my caretaker. This is but one of them.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:53:20 2009 No.3524788

>>3524780
Ahh, you dropped your troll-screen.

You claimed it was genetic earlier. Now you're comparing smoking (and if we let you, drinking) while pregnant to having sex with a sibling.

What if the brother and sister care so much for their unborn child that they both change their diets, never smoke or drink, and do everything they can to ensure a healthy baby?

Wouldn't that make them better and more worthy of a child than your unrelated parents?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:54:20 2009 No.3524794 >>3524704 >>3524704 >>3524704 >>3524704 >>3524704 >>3524704 WOOOMG gonna need a sauce on that, stat!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:55:20 2009 No.3524798 >>3524780 I hate people who make things up to try to win an argument.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:56:20 2009 No.3524800

>>3524788
Never claimed it was genetic. Just said it was her fault.
And these parents still have increased odds of having a defective child. Whether or not that makes them better than mine (It does) is irrelevant.
That's like comparing someone who's speeding without a seatbelt to someone speeding while wearing one. One's maybe safer than the other but both are still dangerous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:57:20 2009 No.3524802 Even as far as this highly educational debate goes, children are irrelevant as far as the topic goes. Not every sexing couple has to have children Incest is fucking hot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:58:20 2009 No.3524807 it's all fun and games until you're worrying about court

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:00:20 2009 No.3524810 File: 166 KB, 730x800, 2308687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3524800 see >>3524779 It's not as black and white as "incest is more genetically dangerous"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:01:20 2009 No.3524813 >>3524774Plus incest sex, if I'm to believe my cousin who said he slept with his sister, is incredibly satisfying. details

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:02:20 2009 No.3524821 >>3524810 Yes it is. There might not be any problems but if you have a defect, your sister might have it too. And her odds of having it will be higher than that of a random person.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:02:20 2009 No.3524822 You're a real loser if you can't get anything but one of your siblings.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:06:20 2009 No.3524834

I think using lesser species as examples of inbreeding not affecting the population is horrible. think about it; those animals don't have or require the brain functions that humans and more sentient lifeforms do. when they are retarded, it doesn't really matter, they either die off or they don't have enough brain function to disable

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:07:20 2009 No.3524836

>>3524821
>implying saying "yes it is" makes it true

Either you're stubbornly ignoring evidence or you're a troll.

If a person knows he has a genetic flaw, and fucks another person who knows they have a genetic flaw, that's a hell of a lot different than two siblings who have no idea what's up their genetic sleeve, and just want to express their affection for each other by starting a family.

And yes, it's possible to be tested for certain hereditary diseases. Jews in particular need to be cautious that they mate only with someone whose genes won't result in a harlequin baby.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:07:20 2009 No.3524839 >>3524834 Humans are animals. Your christfaggotry is showing.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:08:20 2009 No.3524840

>>3524821
Or you'll have it and your sister won't (or vice versa), and the disease won't manifest in your children, at most they will become carriers (this will happen with unrelated parents too)

Sure, the risk is slightly higher, but again, there is a lot of genetic tolerance in the human species for interbreeding, these kinds of problems generally never manifest for you and your sister's children, generally it starts happening for your children's children's children if they all inbreed with each other.

And again, I'll grant you that the risk is higher, but it's not greater than the risk of retarded children to unrelated couples (again, happens all the time) that incest can reasonably be outlawed or taboo'd.

If this small difference could reasonably argued that it should be outlawed, then why not do the MORE reasonable thing and genetically screen people to obtain the best genetics to ensure none of our children have to suffer genetic diseases? You know why we don't do that? Because it's eugenics, and in practice, it's a lot more sickening than a few unlucky genetically affected children.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:08:20 2009 No.3524842 The anti incest people here really don't understand genetics at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:08:20 2009 No.3524843 >>3524822 >You're awesome if you don't need anyone but one of your siblings fix'd that for you, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:09:20 2009 No.3524848 >>3524842 That's why they're anti-incest. Morons need to be told what to do by authority, and authority says NO INCEST.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:10:20 2009 No.3524860 >>3524839 you totally missed the point

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:11:20 2009 No.3524866

>>3524840
So eugenics is okay for siblings but not okay for the general population. Nice double standard, bro.

Further, if you don't carry a defect but your sister does, then just because YOUR kids with someone else would be healthy doesn't mean that your sister won't have kids with someone else who are unhealthy.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:13:20 2009 No.3524873

>>3524836
Starting a family has much deeper implications than simply "expressing affection".
That's why risks have to be minimized. Almost nobody does tests and those surely don't check for a single mutation on an isolated strand of DNA.
The number of people aware of the flaws in their genetic makeup is ridiculous compared to the number of people with defects, do you think simply because the siblings aren't aware of any problems there won't be any ?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:13:20 2009 No.3524874

>>3524860
No, your point was HUMANS HAVE SOULS AND MINDS HURR.

And that's bullshit. It's easy to tell if an animal is functioning with limited cognitive ability, just as it's easy to tell a human retard when you see one. Incest in animals == incest in humans, because humans are animals.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:14:20 2009 No.3524878

>>3524834
>I think using lesser species as examples of inbreeding not affecting the population is horrible.
And yet, most studies that point to incest being some horrible retarded baby-producing practice are mostly done using "lesser animals" as examples.
Doesn't sound so bad now that it's defending your side, now is it?

By the way, the "intelligence" part of your post is pretty invalid. Even stupider species often have much more complex metabolic pathways than we do (you'd have to to digest things like wood/grass etc). And don't forget that DNA is mostly coding for proteins that are part of that metabolic pathway

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:15:20 2009 No.3524887 >>3524873 Your argument is shit and I would be happy to explain why, but I'm not responding to it until you remove your "sage" and ask again. Don't act like you don't want to participate in the thread and then actively troll it.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:16:20 2009 No.3524892

>>3524866
>So eugenics is okay for siblings but not okay for the general population. Nice double standard, bro.
Never even said that.

>Further, if you don't carry a defect but your sister does, then just because YOUR kids with someone else would be healthy doesn't mean that your sister won't have kids with someone else who are unhealthy.
I never said that either. You fail at reading comprehension, post disregarded.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:17:20 2009 No.3524895

I have a plan. Ok, I have a couple plans. I figure if I can earn $20,000 I can pay some chick in a poor asian country (like some poor part of China) to have my child and not declare me the father. Return in 16 years with an additional $200,000 or it's equivalent value in 16 years due to market crash and hand it over to marry my 16 year old daughter.

OR. Get some whore pregnant but ditch the chick, keep track of where she goes with my daughter. Wait 16 years and drop cash down to impress the girl (it all depends on money dammit) into marrying me.

Not so keen on the second option because there's too many unseen variables, the 1st seems more likely to work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:17:20 2009 No.3524897 >>3524840 >that incest can reasonably be outlawed or taboo'd. Here's a hint: incest is taboo because it's sick. Just like scat and fucking animals is sick and forbidden in most places.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:17:20 2009 No.3524901 File: 244 KB, 800x800, 2308444.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3524887 >oh hi, I don't know what sage is used for protip: it's not for downvoting or expressing disapproval for a thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:18:20 2009 No.3524907 >>3524887 >Don't act like you don't want to participate in the thread and then actively troll it. Thanks, glad somebody finally says it. I hate those losers that sage for a dozen posts during a discussion, like they're ultra-cool or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:19:20 2009 No.3524912 >>3524901 Stop saging or stop posting, you dumbfuck.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:19:20 2009 No.3524916

>>3524897
>incest is taboo because it's sick.
>implying that an illogical prejudice is a "reasonable" reason for a taboo.
DURR HURR I THINK SOMETHINGS SICK THEREFORE IT IS SICK AND SHOULD BE OUTLAWED

You're the kind of person holding back societal progress.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:20:20 2009 No.3524919 >>3524892 You said both, and you aren't commenting because you don't like the slippery slope your argument leads to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:20:20 2009 No.3524920 >>3524912 I don't know about you but I don't want to see this thread on the first page all day. Use sage you fucking cunt. As if typing 4 letters in the mail field will suddenly make your point less valid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:20:20 2009 No.3524922 >>3524916 Fuck you. Try using goddamn common sense once in a while. INCEST IS NOT NORMAL, PLAYING WITH FECES IS NOT NORMAL, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FUCK DOGS Goddammit, your kind will be the downfall of humanity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:21:20 2009 No.3524925 >>3524920 Filtered.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:21:20 2009 No.3524928 >>3524922 2/10 You got a reply, but that's because they thought your "DERP DERP I KNOW WHAT'S NORMAL" was just ignorance and not trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:22:20 2009 No.3524931 >>3524912 jesus christ, you not only don't know what sage is for - you're not even willing to be educated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:22:20 2009 No.3524932 >>3524928 Sure, everyone who has morals is a troll, right? Oh, 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:22:20 2009 No.3524933 I like incest if it's sibling-sibling. Parent-sibling is too much.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:22:20 2009 No.3524935
File: 398 KB, 941x1043, 1228460884223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3524907
>>3524887
Newfags detected:

Sage: used either because
a.) Poster doesn't believe the thread is worthy of bumping
b.) Used respectfully to not bump a thread either because they don't believe their post brings enough information to the table to bump the thread; or simply doesn't want to disrupt the board unnecessarily by bumping a thread.

It's not a weapon, so stop acting like it is, you retards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:23:20 2009 No.3524936 >>3524931 Wrong, faggot. YOU do not know what sage is for. Protip: we're not Japanese, we don't do "polite" sages.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:23:20 2009 No.3524937 >>3524922 DRIVING CARS IS NOT NORMAL, FLYING IN AIRPLANES IS NOT NORMAL, INGESTING STRANGE CHEMICALS TO MAKE IT SO THAT YOU DON'T SHIT AND VOMIT YOURSELF HALF TO DEATH EVERY WINTER IS NOT NORMAL. Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:23:20 2009 No.3524938 This thread has been overcome with trolls. >sage is bad >using morals as an argument Both of those are signs of a degenerating thread.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:23:20 2009 No.3524939
File: 37 KB, 640x480, STOP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3524874
u mad? because it seems like ur mad
anyways, I never mentioned anything about souls and human supremacy. I only spoke of brain function. it seems like you're reading too much into stuff and are possibly too upset/raged to continue any sort of argument.
perhaps it would be best to take a break? maybe get something to drink and/or eat and then come back when you're relaxed and refreshed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:23:20 2009 No.3524941 >>3524932 Morals are like assholes and opinions: Everybody has one, and nobody cares about yours.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:24:20 2009 No.3524944 >>3524935 >a.) Then don't post. >b.) If your post contains zero information, again, don't post. And we're not Japs, sage is primarily used to insult on 4chan, NOT because it's polite.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:24:20 2009 No.3524945

>>3524933
Because that's an abuse of authority.

People find any relationship where there's a big age gap problematic. If a 40 year old man dates a 20 year old woman, it's considered pretty shameful. Likewise, parent-child incest is pretty much the adult dominating the child sexually.

Sibling incest, when consentual, has no such authority issue (inb4 older brother dominating younger sibling - that's also rape).

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:25:20 2009 No.3524949 >>3524941 Great, then I don't give two shits about your fucktarded opinion either, you fucking retard!

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:26:20 2009 No.3524954 File: 547 KB, 964x1400, 03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3524933 Parent-child is hot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:26:20 2009 No.3524957 >>3524937 There's a difference between things that are beneficial to society and things that just take everything down. Fucking your sister is NOT beneficial to society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:27:20 2009 No.3524963 Fuck ,guys, we were having an argument that maintained a semblance of civilisation and logic. Why did you have to barge in and fuck everything over ?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:28:20 2009 No.3524968

>>3524944
>durhur 4chan is rude and anti-establishment bro
Just stop. sage has always had it's use. It's use in this thread is innocuous and barely even noticeable. The only one shitting up this thread is you by making a big deal out of it. Notice how the thread has detracted? It's you and you're hypersensitivity.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:28:20 2009 No.3524969

>>3524939
Don't try the "HURR UR ANGRY" troll.

I truly love arguing wincest. It makes my heart dance when moralfags get circles run around them logically. You failed to present a strong argument and I presented what you said in a way you didn't like. Nothing more.

That's also not to say you're a moralfag - you're an openminded moralfag, which means I might be able to actually change your mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:28:20 2009 No.3524970 >>3524957 I don't see how it harms anyone, either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:29:20 2009 No.3524976 File: 53 KB, 379x300, 1161440862344.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3524968 >Just stop. sage has always had it's use. It's use in this thread is innocuous >it's use >It's you and you're hypersensitivity. >you're

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:29:20 2009 No.3524977 >>3524968 >you There's at least two of "us", fyi. If he wants to participate, he can participate without saging. That simple.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:29:20 2009 No.3524978

>>3524968
Your*
My mistake.

>>3524957
How isn't it beneficial? How is fucking ANYONE related or no beneficial, given overpopulation? Before you start jumping into genetic defects as I know you will (since I know you're too stupid to have already read the thread) Read the rest of the thread, that's been thoroughly debunked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:30:20 2009 No.3524981 File: 99 KB, 1280x720, snapshot20080422220112.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3524957

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:31:20 2009 No.3524986

>>3524969
Idiot, the reason incest is bad not based on logic, and does not need to be. It's based on emotion. We don't FEEL it is correct, and that is enough reason too. Just like it doesn't feel right to kill animals, even though you can LOGICALLY think you have to because you need to be fed, but it's still wrong.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:31:20 2009 No.3524988

>>3524977
And you're both hypersensitive faggots, what does it matter if there's two or sixteen of you? Sage is used to not bump a thread to the top of the board, there's nothing else to it. If you don't like it, find a forum where there is no such function, because people will continue to use it, and there's no reason to get upset about it, because it (by definition) has no effect on anything.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:32:20 2009 No.3524990

>>3524978
The genetics argument hasn't been debunked at all.
There's just been a bunch of posts saying " it doesn't work that way" "you understand nothing" etc.
Those don't count as rebuttals. One could just as easily say "hurr incest is bad and you incest guys just don't understand".

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:32:20 2009 No.3524991 >>3524704 >>3524704 >>3524704 Guys, I really, really, really, REALLY would love it if sauce was provided. REALLY

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:32:20 2009 No.3524995 >>3524986 Serial killers FEEL like they want to kill people, so I guess it must be good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:32:20 2009 No.3524996 >>3524978 "Debunked"? Hardly. You are simply downplaying the associated risks, but you cannot deny them. And like I said before, your "logical" arguments mean shit, because this debate is not rooted in logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:33:20 2009 No.3524998 >>3524990 Sage = no reply

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:34:20 2009 No.3525002 >>3524988 You should've used sage for that post. At least if you're following your own definition, considering you said a whole lot of nothing with that post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:34:20 2009 No.3525003 >genetic risks I wasn't aware babby was form every time you bone someone. Learn something new every day, huh?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:34:20 2009 No.3525004

>>3524986
>Idiot, the reason incest is bad not based on logic, and does not need to be. It's based on emotion. We don't FEEL it is correct, and that is enough reason too. Just like it doesn't feel right to kill animals, even though you can LOGICALLY think you have to because you need to be fed, but it's still wrong.

Troll detected, by that definition niggers truly are bad people just because white people in the 60s thought it's true. Emotion has no footing over logic. Only if you're an unevolved animal is that true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:34:20 2009 No.3525005 >>3524988 >>3525002 OWNED

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:35:20 2009 No.3525007

Oh and unlike that other guy, I believe this debate is completely a logical one. I would gladly concede if someone were to show me proof that incest does not increase the odds of genetic defects.
That other troll is just trying to undermine the whole argument by calling in things such as "morals"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:35:20 2009 No.3525008 >>3525004 >implying animals have emotions You really are something else.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:35:20 2009 No.3525009

>>3524996
You're talking to the wrong anon. Again.

And yes, downplaying is all you can do with the thread of genetic problems. That's because the threat is real - it's real for unrelated partners, too. If people realize there's a threat, but that it's no worse than having sex with someone with a genetic timebomb in their genes, then that will be a step in the right direction.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:35:20 2009 No.3525010

Well I play a round of Touhou 12 and suddenly this thread turned into some kind of attack on people sage posting. It's not an issue here, especially after that time moot increased the sage post limit to like 10 minutes and caused an uproar.

In short, don't make a big deal over sage posting unless you wish you demonstrate how new to /jp/ you are or look like a troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:36:20 2009 No.3525014 >>3525010 sage = no reply

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:36:20 2009 No.3525016

>>3524990
>hurr genetics dont work that way
Only if you're too stupid to read. All arguments here have been reasonable and supported. I've never just said "it doesn't work that way" I've BACKED IT UP: A lot better than you can say for having just said "hurr incest is bad becuz genetics"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:37:20 2009 No.3525019 >>3525009 Are you denying it is greater for siblings than for unrelated partners? Yes or no?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:37:20 2009 No.3525021 >>3525014 Then why are you replying? Here, I'll reply fully for you, since you're such a hypersensitive faggot (what's bad about sage anyways, why are you so extremely hurt in the butt?) >>3525010 Yeah man, full of piss-poor trolls

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:38:20 2009 No.3525024 >>3524995 It doesn't matter what a single person feels, what matters is what the majority feels. The majority feels killing is wrong. The majority also thinks incest is wrong. You need to fucking deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:38:20 2009 No.3525025 >>3525019 see >>3524779 Not my post, but effectively my position.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:38:20 2009 No.3525026 More importantly, is anyone ever going to give the source for >>3524704?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:39:20 2009 No.3525032 >>3525024 The majority thought lynching niggers was fine. The majority thought the spanish inquisition did a good job The majority in Islam think cutting off women's clitorises is a good idea. You're a fucking sheep.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:40:20 2009 No.3525035 >>3525025 So you agree that the chance of defects in sibling children is greater than those unrelated? So you just basically admitted there is a good reason for incest to be outlawed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:40:20 2009 No.3525039 >>3525021 Ahh, that's better! See, I knew you could post without sage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:40:20 2009 No.3525040 >>3525024 >the majority racism etc

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:41:20 2009 No.3525041 >>3525032 >The majority thought lynching niggers was fine. No, they did not. If you remember, niggers were actually set FREE, because the MAJORITY wanted it. Dumbass. I won't respond to your other two fucktarded examples.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:41:20 2009 No.3525042

>>3525019
Like I've already said, it's not as black and white as "it's riskier for one side"

If you were to genetically screen a brother and a sister; if they were fairly lucky, there would be a LOWER chance of them having a diseased baby, because neither or only one of them has inherited a deleterious gene.

And then you might genetically screen an unrelated couple and find that they both (just by bad luck) both have several deleterious genes and BAM, Down's Syndrome.

You truly do have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Even though the risk is slightly higher with incest, it's so low over the first generation of incest that it's largely negligible.

Understand that the genetic tolerance of sexually reproducing species to incest is very high. A couple generations of incest is unlikely to result in a higher risk of deformation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:41:20 2009 No.3525044 >>3525035 That's not what that post says at all. Read more carefully or ask some questions, because you clearly need clarification.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:41:20 2009 No.3525045 >>3525040 There is nothing inherently wrong with racism. Don't tell me you REALLY believe niggers are on the same level as you are?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:42:20 2009 No.3525048 >>3525042 Thanks for restating what I linked, though it will fall on deaf ears.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:42:20 2009 No.3525050

>>3525041
You're stupid as hell. Even the founding fathers and members of the god-damn underground railroad were racist against black people. This only changed because OVER TIME people began to see blacks as not racially inferior.

In short: Opinions changed. What you're saying is that incest is bad because everyone thinks that, and that it should stay that way. If that logic followed, then opinions about black people wouldnt have changed, and we'd still be hanging black people from the nearest tree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:43:20 2009 No.3525052 >>3525045 Fine, bad example. Look at the clit cutting one then.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:43:20 2009 No.3525053

>>3525016
They haven't.
By mathematic action the odds are against siblings.
We all know anyone can have a birth defect.
But siblings share a greater part of their genetic makeup than random people. So if an extremely recessive allele is present in one's genes, it had chances of being in the sibling's genes. Because the parents have the defect, both of the children potentially have it. On the other hand, someone who has a defect can meet a random person and that person could be totally free of that defect.
if one sibling has a defect, the other potentially has it, simply because they share the same parents and can have inherited the same characteristics. With two strangers, it is possible for one person to have the defect without the other person potentially having it.
So even if the odds are low, they are better for two strangers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:43:20 2009 No.3525054 >>3525044 Don't wiggle your way out of this. You admitted incest gives a greater chance of birth defects than if the two partners were NOT related. So there's a very good reason to ban incest.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:43:20 2009 No.3525055

>>3525035
So you agree that the chance of dying by walking off of a tall building is great than the chance of dying by walking down a flight of stairs?

So you just basically admitted there is a good reason for tall buildings to be outlawed.

Sex = walking to the top. Allowing a child to be born as a result = walking off. Think about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:44:20 2009 No.3525059 >>3525048 >though it will fall on deaf ears. I'm aware. People who are set on any kind of wrong or oppressive opinion will not change. This is because if they change, they'll have to say that they wronged other people. Nobody wants to admit to that.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:46:20 2009 No.3525065

>>3525054
No there isn't. What you are describing is eugenics. If 1/100000 normalfags have a certain genetically passed disease, and 1/90000 incest couples pass this diesease, the disease is negligable.

You don't have the right to say who breeds with who. That's eugenics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:46:20 2009 No.3525067 >>3525055 Nice analogy. He won't get it.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:47:20 2009 No.3525069

>>3525050
Yes, opinions can change. But the majority is still right, because society needs standards and is not helped by unrest, like people not following moral codes.

You may not like them, but if the society holds them you must obey them. That's just how it is. We won't wage a war over incest, sorry bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:47:20 2009 No.3525070 >>3525065 >You don't have the right to say who breeds with who. I beg to differ. >That's eugenics. The last, best hope of humanity, yes.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:48:20 2009 No.3525075

>>3525053
By that token, we re-implement eugenics: This way, we can screen people for deleterious genes or disease-causing genes. Then there will be no chance for affected children, because we will KNOW. Then, two unrelated couples will know that they arent both carrying disease causing genetics, and likewise, two related people can confirm that their genetics are "clean." Then again, the only way to be sure we move forward is to chemically castrate retards and people with genetic disorders

The math is totally with what I just said, doesn't sound so pretty now, does it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:48:20 2009 No.3525077 >>3525070 Don't tell me it's Godwin's Law time...

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:48:20 2009 No.3525078 >>3525065 No, you are giving a bad name to a good practice. Like calling sex with someone under the age of consent "rape" when it was consensual. Don't be a dumbfuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:49:20 2009 No.3525080 >>3525075 Don't reply to the sagefag.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:50:20 2009 No.3525089

>>3525069
>because society needs standards and is not helped by unrest
Civil Rights movement was unrest, The American revolution was unrest, the destruction of the gluttonous Roman Empire was in part due to civil unrest.

Civil unrest is the mechanism by which the old ways are done away with and we make progress. You must be a Republican, am I correct?

>We won't wage a war over incest
No, in fact, LOTS of societal change has been done without any bloodshed whatsoever. You're implying that the only way to move society forward is with war? You're a barbarian

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:50:20 2009 No.3525090

>>3525075
>>3525075
STRAWMAN.

>the only way to be sure we move forward is to chemically castrate retards and people with genetic disorders
WRONG. They don't need to be forbidden to have sex. Just to have kids.

Also, applying eugenics in one way does not mean we are "obligated" to go "all the way" and screen people before they have a kid or bullshit like that. We know incest is bad for the species and so it is forbidden. End of discussion.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:51:20 2009 No.3525093

>>3525075
Slippery slope fallacy.
I'm just saying it is better for the children if their parents aren't siblings. That's the whole point of my argumentation and I cared about nothing else since the start.
You shoot your child in the foot if you want but don't blame me for telling you he'd be better off if you didn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:52:20 2009 No.3525098 >>3525077 >Nazis >eugenics These two have as much to do with each other as Nazis and socialism. That is to say, nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:52:20 2009 No.3525099 >>3525090 >We know incest is bad no

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:52:20 2009 No.3525100 >>3525089 >You're a barbarian Says the guy who wants to fuck his sister... oh, the irony.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:53:20 2009 No.3525102 Honestly I don't care if people end up having children with siblings. Who cares if we get retarded children as long as they look good? If my daughter ends up looking good i'll end up fucking her anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:53:20 2009 No.3525104 >>3525098 How naive. Do some research on that and get back to me. Here, I'll lend you a hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:55:20 2009 No.3525109 >>3525104 No, he's right. Just because the nazis praciticed eugenics doesn't make it a bad thing by definition. What you're doing is argumentum ad hitlerium.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:55:20 2009 No.3525110 >>3525069 >society needs standards and is not helped by unrest In other words >CONFORMITY IS GOD'S WILL/ALLAH'S WILL/THE COMMUNIST IDEAL/THE NAZI IDEAL/etc. Yeah, a lot of good that does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:55:20 2009 No.3525111 >>3525100 Ah, so your elitist, too. Incest happens in all walks of life and at every end of the social spectrum. To think otherwise is foolishness. Did Jon Bennet Ramsey not teach you anything about this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:56:20 2009 No.3525115 >>3525110 Don't go fucking mixing communism with stalinism you ignorant cunt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:57:20 2009 No.3525119 >>3525104 Notice it's specifically labeled "Nazi eugenics" rather than just plain "eugenics", showing that the Nazi "version" doesn't even belong in the same category as the normal one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:58:20 2009 No.3525121 >>3525109 That is not a real logical fallacy. I should know: I taught my students 25 of the more common ones last week. College professorfag here. Inb4 appeal to authority

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:58:20 2009 No.3525126 >>3525111 Ah, so you're a populist, and think ignorance is fucking awesome and stupidity is just the best thing ever. I guess we can discount your opinion safely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:58:20 2009 No.3525127 >>3525110 You are implying society would benefit the most from anarchy. Are you 16 years old? Look at this hardcore unconformist dude here, guys! He's so cool, not giving a shit about morals and all that bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:59:20 2009 No.3525131 Notice how the anti-incest crowd completely ran out of arguments and are now complaining about the definitions of eugenics / communism / anything they can pull out of their asses? It was fun while it lasted. The rational debate, that is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:59:20 2009 No.3525132 >>3525127 You are implying society isn't already in a state of anarchy. Are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:59:20 2009 No.3525135 >>3525121 I think he knows it's a neologism, bro.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:59:20 2009 No.3525136

>>3525090
>>3525093
If you want to talk about fallacies: Either-or fallacy. Incest "weakening the species" is only a systematic result of generations and generations of inbreeding. Incestuous couples do not necessarily have the genes that will cause problems for children down the road
By the same token, UNRELATED couples do not necessarily NOT have the genes that will result in disorder.

You're probably thinking "yes, but there's a higher chance in inces-" Stop: That's not a good enough reason to ban people from coupling with and having children with someone they love, especially when the chances are only just so marginally higher with incestuous couples.
The fact is that you don't care about the species, you only want to get rid of something that you think is "icky." If you want to "minimize the risk" then you SHOULD genetically screen yourself and your partner, it's no morally more reprehensible than banning two related people from loving each other. If you're white, you MUST marry someone who isn't white: After all, they're LIKELY the least genetically similar to you.

P.S. when did 4chan get invaded with normalfags? A year or two ago, incest being awesome was the immensely prevailing notion

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:00:20 2009 No.3525138 >>3525121 Oh wow, implying I didn't know that is simply a fallacy said jokingly. And you're not a professor. You're too much of a dumbfuck to be one, if you think everyone saying "argumentum ad hitlerium" REALLY thinks that's the real definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:00:20 2009 No.3525140 >>3525126 >populist having anything to do with showing you that incest is more widespread than the lower class no

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:01:20 2009 No.3525147 >>3525132 Wow, just wow. We are dealing with a true retard here. Were your parents, by any chance, practitioners of your philosophy?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:01:20 2009 No.3525149

>>3525100
>Says the guy who wants to fuck his sister... oh, the irony.
>ignoring the rest of my post
Typical Christian behavior, point out the one part of a post they can find the slightest crack in (you failed even at that) and ignore the rest of the argument and say you've won.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:02:20 2009 No.3525153 >>3525136 A year or two ago, incest being awesome was the immensely prevailing notion For the people without siblings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:02:20 2009 No.3525155 >>3525140 Stop throwing around the word "elitism" if you don't know what it means. Better yet, ask your homeroom teacher what it means on Monday morning. You might be lucky enough for them to know. Maybe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:02:20 2009 No.3525156 >>3525149 I didn't say I had won, but if you considered I did, thanks I guess.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:03:20 2009 No.3525158

I don't think there's anything wrong with incest as long as the two people in question genuinely love each other. It's only the stuff like abusive father or other family member taking advantage of another family member or "raising" them up to have sex with them that I have a problem with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:03:20 2009 No.3525159 >>3525147 >a true retard Yes, I'm glad we agree on this. Now, why are they letting you online without supervision?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:04:20 2009 No.3525162

>>3525138
I didn't care if you thought that was serious or not.

I used it as an opportunity to brag, though. Feels good, man, to be able to see what I recently taught being used here. Conceivably, one of you might even be my student!

Just in case: Our 2nd research paper is due the 23rd, no exceptions.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:04:20 2009 No.3525163

>>3525136
I don't care at all if it's "icky" nor do I even consider it so. I don't even believe what you call "love" has any worth or even any relevance.
Point is : Children born out of incestuous relationships have an increased chance of genetical defect.
This is the only thing that matter.
From that point on, the argument stands.
You can talk about banning; you can decry it as eugenism; you can call my a nazi and ridicule me but you cannot blame anyone for not approving of incest without countering that point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:04:20 2009 No.3525166 >>3525159 Hmm, I expected a better comeback than that. Guess I overestimated you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:05:20 2009 No.3525169 Let's wrap this thread up, up to about >>3524878 this thread was a balanced, reasonable intellectual discussion with some substance Now you're all just crying and shouting and calling names and flinging "fallacies" at each other.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:06:20 2009 No.3525172

>>3525166
You mean "underestimated", bro. Not everyone is going to be sidetracked by your complete failure to show why I can't shoot the guy in the next room and rape my mother right now. No one can stop it, right? That's the very definition of anarchy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:06:20 2009 No.3525173 >>3525169 sage = no reply

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:06:20 2009 No.3525176 Incest makes fucked up kids. That is bad.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:06:20 2009 No.3525177

>>3525163
>Children born out of incestuous relationships have an increased chance of genetical defect.
Nothing more to really say than this. That's the facts, and you incest-lovers can try to downplay it all you want, you cannot deny it is true and is a valid reason for forbidden incestuous relationships.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:07:20 2009 No.3525179

>not approving of incest without countering that point.
I do believe that's what I've been doing for this entire thread, and you've been doing quite well just ignoring it and saying "THE RISK IS HIGHER" even when I've given a rebuttal about thirty times.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:07:20 2009 No.3525181 >>3525177 >you cannot deny We already have. Quite effectively, might I add.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:08:20 2009 No.3525190 >>3525172 Oh wow, now I know why you need to resort to inbreeding: nobody wants to help you carry on your family line.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:09:20 2009 No.3525193

>>3525176
Incest makes fucked up kids only when you and your sister have a fucked up recessive gene(s), or if your family was incestuous for generations with fucked up genes. If the incestuous couple have good genes, then there isn't any risk of webbed feet or a second belly button or third arm, or whatever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:09:20 2009 No.3525196 >>3525190 ad hominem, etc. etc...

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:10:20 2009 No.3525197 File: 76 KB, 854x715, 1233655633136.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3525153 Oh wow, took awhile for this bullshit to come up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:10:20 2009 No.3525198 >>3525181 No, you haven't. Or else you are claiming there is no higher risk of defects in incestuous relationships. Do you claim that? Do you admit to being a retard?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:10:20 2009 No.3525202 Best Thread on /jp/ It would have been even better with incest hentai

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:10:20 2009 No.3525203 >>3525190 I only wish it was so. It's annoying to have so many 3D sluts trying to hook up with me.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:11:20 2009 No.3525208

>>3525193
In fact, if your genes are strong - like, no genetic history of disease strong - then breeding with your sister would be a much better idea than having a child with a thyroid-addled, glasses-wearing, skin-cancerous girl from outside your family.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:11:20 2009 No.3525211 >>3525198 >No, you haven't. Get a dictionary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:11:20 2009 No.3525214 >>3525193 I don't have a sister. And everyone has recessive genes that can cause birth defects, so if two people from the same parents have a child, the chance of birth defects is higher.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:12:20 2009 No.3525216 >>3525198 Your chances of being run over by a bus are higher at a bus station than on the sidewalk. Do you deny you should never go to a bus station? Do you admit your argument is retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:12:20 2009 No.3525218 I'm not interested in starting a family with my sister, I just want to show her my affection with my dick.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:13:20 2009 No.3525222 >>3525218 Why not try both?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:13:20 2009 No.3525223

>>3525163
The risk is only higher given multiple generations of inbreeding (you're going to ignore this part, I can already tell), and is a much more shades-of-grey ballpark than that.

You say it's okay to ban relationships between two free and obviously intimate people since there's a higher risk of problems with offspring. Fine, I'll buy that for a moment.

Now, what if I genetically screened you and your wife and said that, unfortunately, you were both carriers of a gene for a horribly mutating retard-baby syndrome? Would it be okay for me to ban you from intercourse? Most of society would probably say no. But the fact is, that for you and your wife, you have a VERY high chance of producing a "species weakening" mutant child.
Meanwhile, the brother-sister relationship down the street got lucky, and have nearly no chance of producing a retarded baby, and at most only have a small chance of producing a baby that's a carrier (which would happen even if they were marrying unrelated people) According to your rule though, they are banned from having sex with each other (at least for the purpose of having a child, although you seem to be illogically against them having sex even with contraceptives)

Fair? Hell no.

My point is that if you're talking about risks, then you either have to genetically screen couples, and take it on a case-by-case basis, or not ban it at all, because it's unreasonable (for the reasons stated above)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:13:20 2009 No.3525225 >>3525216 I am free to take that risk, because it's my body. You are not allowed to take that risk with another human's (your child) life. That, and I am not going to support your retard kid with welfare money.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:13:20 2009 No.3525228

>>3525208
Well, of course. And even if it's not, if you practiced eugenics, you could have a lot of incestuous children over the generations and weed out all of the defects by disowning the offspring who show them, which would be impossible otherwise...

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:14:20 2009 No.3525233 >>3525225 >I am free to take that risk, because it's my body. You are not allowed to take that risk with another human's (your child) life. Then we just require genetic screening for everyone. Problem solved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:15:20 2009 No.3525235 >>3525225 But you'll support all the other retarded children that come about randomly from "traditional" couples. Everyone should be screened before having a child, incest should be legal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:15:20 2009 No.3525236 >>3525223 applause You're pointlessly casting pearls before swine, but good job. I've run out of steam rebutting these morons over and over. I'm glad one of us still has the energy to soldier on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:15:20 2009 No.3525238 >>3525216 The chance of getting run over by slow moving buses with trained drivers at a bus station is so low. I would risk going to the bus station. However, I would not increase the risk of my child having a birth defect.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:15:20 2009 No.3525239

>>3525225
>That, and I am not going to support your retard kid with welfare money.

Then actually drop your balls and make a stand, you faggot like to talk, you don't want to pay for someones retarded kid? Don't pay taxes then, what, you can't? WHAT A FUCKING EXCUSE MOVE TO SOMALIA

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:16:20 2009 No.3525245 >>3525225 Mothers can drink and smoke during pregnancy. Legally. This causes retarded babies that you pay for with your tax money. Your argument is invalid.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:17:20 2009 No.3525252

>>3525223
I hate to say it, but you're arguing to normalfags, which are the equivalent of christfags. They'll hold to one tiny shred of evidence, and even when you reason them into the ground, they'll just ignore you, shout you out (a la town hall meeting) and hold up the shining shred of evidence as if it completely negates everything you just said.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:17:20 2009 No.3525255

>>3525223
>Now, what if I genetically screened you and your wife and said that, unfortunately, you were both carriers of a gene for a horribly mutating retard-baby syndrome? Would it be okay for me to ban you from intercourse?
My aunt and uncle had a child that was born with a handicap, a serious one which meant she can't walk and her muscles are deteriorating over time (I don't know what it's called in English right now).

They immediately both got sterilization after they found out.

Society shouldn't need to tell you not to breed if you have such a high risk of retard children: it should be your own goddamn moral DUTY to do it. If you have children even when you KNOW you have a very high chance of bearing a child that will have to suffer, you are an amoral human being.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:17:20 2009 No.3525256 >>3525238 >However, I would not increase the risk of my child having a birth defect. That's just like, your opinion man, what has things I do which doesn't affect you in anyway got to do with you exactly?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:18:20 2009 No.3525264 >Incest thread >241 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Oh, Imoutits. Look at all the fuss you caused. Couldn't you just have quietly fucked your brother without telling everyone at school? Look what a mess you made.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:18:20 2009 No.3525265 >>3525245 You are suggesting I am against making those practices illegal.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:18:20 2009 No.3525266

>>3525216
One can logically admit it would be safer not to go near bus stations, yes.
>>3525223
You say the risk is only higher with multiple generations of inbreeding but that also means it doesn't get higher when inbreeding isn't present.
Hence, it poses an increased risk and should be avoided.
What's so hard to understand about that ?
Nobody's telling you you can't fucking do what you want. We're telling you there are some things that should be avoided.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:19:20 2009 No.3525273 >>3525233 No, too much effort. Forbidding incest is a simple solution to a simple problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:20:20 2009 No.3525281 >>3525256 Because in X generations, your inexistent retarded kid will be on welfare and cost my non-retarded inexistent kid some tax money.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:21:20 2009 No.3525283 >>3525239 Wow, someone is out of arguments, I see.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:21:20 2009 No.3525284 >>3525255 >moral DUTY Well, the cats out of the bag fellows.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:21:20 2009 No.3525289 >>3525255 But incestuous relationships don't necessarily have a higher chance for genetic disease. If both siblings were screened and found clean would you still be against it?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:21:20 2009 No.3525290

>>3525255
I hate to ask, but what the HELL are you trying to argue? If society shouldnt need to tell anyone, then why are they telling incestuous couples (who may or may not have a risk of producing diseased children) that they can't have children, when people do much worse things like drink alcohol and take drugs while pregnant LEGALLY? The incestuous couples should get themselves screened, and goddamnit, so should unrelated couples, because they may have a big risk too if they're unlucky. On the other side of the spectrum, if society SHOULD take an active role in eugenics, then what I'm saying is that there's no reason to just ban incestuous relationships, when they can produce just as many healthy, strong offspring. Why not have everyone get screened, then you're not a god damn hypocrite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:21:20 2009 No.3525293 >>3525281 Get to the part where I give a shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:22:20 2009 No.3525294 >>3525273 >>3525266 Oh for peat's sake. Can we start with the namecalling yet? Talking reasonably is getting us nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:22:20 2009 No.3525296 >>3525273 That doesn't solve the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:23:20 2009 No.3525299 >>3525273 Rehabilitating drug addicts is also too much effort. I say we just murder them.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:23:20 2009 No.3525300

Incest is an actual slippery slope. It could easily lead to child abuse and rape. Between a brother and sister it even seems questionable just because at times it would be difficult to differentiate between rape and consensual sex. Adults are more clear cut, but its going to be harder to catch. The slew of problems that legalization of incest brings makes it impossible.

Moreover, the religious people in the government would never accept it. And the intelligent people in the government who keep those idiots in check would see the consequences and not approve of it either.

Basement dwelling shits who idolize japan and their fetishes don't make the laws, kids.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:23:20 2009 No.3525302 >>3525289 No, but such a case is impossible, I'd wager.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:24:20 2009 No.3525307 >>3525302 >but such a case is impossible Well then, you don't know a whole lot about genetics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:24:20 2009 No.3525308 >>3525302 Then you'd lose.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:24:20 2009 No.3525309 >>3525293 The point is it concerns me. Your retarded incest born child is a fucking hindrance to society.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:24:20 2009 No.3525310 >>3525293 You don't give a shit about me? Fine, I don't give a shit about you wanting to fuck your sister. Cry me a river, moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:25:20 2009 No.3525312 >>3525307 I know there are a million variables that there will pretty much ALWAYS be a higher chance of retard kids between siblings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:25:20 2009 No.3525314 >>3525273 I don't think it can be called a solution if it only prevents an extremely small percentage of genetic defects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:25:20 2009 No.3525317 >>3525309 If there's any justice at all, your future offspring will be disabled. Then we'll see how fast you sing the praises of eugenics.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:25:20 2009 No.3525320

Inbreeding can actually produce superior children if you do it the proper way. That is to say, if any family member has shitty genes, they don't breed. Only the ones possessing desirable traits are allowed to breed. In the real world unfortunately people consider this inhumane in some ways to deny such a basic right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:26:20 2009 No.3525322 >>3525312 no read the goddamn thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:27:20 2009 No.3525323 >>3525296 Then if you don't give a shit, why are you trying to ban him from doing it, derrderp?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:27:20 2009 No.3525324

>>3525266
Way to ignore the rest of the post.
I agree that there is a higher risk for incestuous couples (albeit, as I have argued and argued although you seem to ignore it, the difference is a lot more slight than you think it is). However, as I have so exhaustively, unquestionably argued, there are unrelated parents who have higher risks for dysfunctional babies than some incestuous couples do, and it happens ALL THE TIME, weakening the so-called species even more than incestuous couples do, simply because there arent that many incestuous couples. So why should incestuous couples suffer the slings and arrows of eugenics policy, when unlucky unrelated couples with terribly high chances for retard babies, and people who smoke and do drugs and drink alcohol during pregnancy, do NOT have to suffer this?

What I'm saying is that if you claim to just want to move the species forward, you must be fair about it. Screen people and forbid those to have children who have bad genetics, or take your hands off and let what will be, be.

>Nobody's telling you you can't do what you want
Actually, they are. Incest laws.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:27:20 2009 No.3525326

>>3525309
So basically you're selfish, that makes two of us.

It concerns you? I don't care if it concerns you, who the heck are you, who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body.

You can whine all you like, fact is you won't change my opinion on the issue and I'll do damn what I want, even to the detriment of your future generation, they are not my concern, see.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:27:20 2009 No.3525328 >>3525317 He's not saying people with disabilities should be murdered. He's saying they should be prevented from being born. Big difference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:28:20 2009 No.3525330 >>3525323 Because I give a shit about MY money, you goddamn imbecile. Christ, please shut up. You're too stupid to engage in this discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:28:20 2009 No.3525331 >>3525317 I don't even wish anything happens to you. You have my nicest regards. I'm sterile.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:28:20 2009 No.3525333

>>3525320
That's the way we get awesome breeds like white tigers, Labrador Retrievers, and bananas. Yes, bananas. Every banana you buy from wal-mart to put on your cereal is a result of a concentrated inbreeding effort.

But no, inbreeding is always bad, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:29:20 2009 No.3525335 >>3525310 Who is the one crying here, all I see is you whining about INCEST IS BAD GUYS YOU EVIL EVIL PEOPLE. Cry me a ocean please.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:30:20 2009 No.3525341 >>3525328 >Big difference. No, not really. Not being born and being murdered are exactly the same--if it happens, you're not alive, and that's that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:30:20 2009 No.3525343 >>3525330 >MY >MY >MY Uh huh, and we care because?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:30:20 2009 No.3525345 >>3525326 Then don't expect any help for your retard kid. We'll let him starve to death, not our problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:30:20 2009 No.3525346 >>3525322 Yes. >>3525053 Is mathematical evidence. This cannot be refuted.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:30:20 2009 No.3525347 >>3525331 Then there IS a small taste of justice in the world. All your hypocricy and desire for others to be as unhappy as you are a result of your own genetic failure - and your parents weren't even related. There's certainly some irony there.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:31:20 2009 No.3525349

>>3525309
Don't you dare even consider talking about hindrances to society. You bring up math and probability, and yet you ignore what is right in front of your face.

The fact is, that 99.99% of the couples having children out there aren't incestuous, and legalizing incestuous couples will probably never change this percentage.

What I'm saying is that of the retard, hindrance, tax-sucking idiot babies that you are so vigilant about complaining about. The vast, vast, VAST majority of them came from
Get this: UNRELATED PARENTS.

If you want to stop this, you don't ban incest, you genetically screen people, and let the people who have good genetic compatibility (related or no) have babies, and you ban the people (again, related or NO) who have bad compatibility from having kids

Anything less is completely counter-productive to every bit of the venomous ignorance you're spraying from your keyboard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:31:20 2009 No.3525354 >>3525346 Quoting your own lies? Sage = no reply

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:31:20 2009 No.3525356 >>3525341 Haha, if you really believe that you are truly retarded. Like I said, some of you just shouldn't have even engaged in this discussion. You can't even bring one single argument to the table to rebut the fact incest makes retard babies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:31:20 2009 No.3525357 >>3525330 >I give a shit about ... money Well, here's the problem. We're human beings, and you're human filth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:33:20 2009 No.3525364 .>>3525347 If you think I care you're gravely mistaken. Your "happiness" is worthless. Only the species has any worth and my point has prevailed over yours. Soon you'll hope I stub my toe on a chair or something, won't you ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:35:20 2009 No.3525372 >>3525364 >Declaring victory over an internet argument. Real mature I see.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:35:20 2009 No.3525373

Oh man, how long have I been trolling now?

Jeez, you guys are way too easy. Well, this was fun, it was good to see all you faggots get so butthurt trying to defend your right to fuck your sister.

Fact is I don't really give a shit either way. Go make retard babies for all I care. I'm living off government money either way so a few more leeches doesn't matter to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:35:20 2009 No.3525374 >>3525364 No, now I pity you. You're a sad and broken sub-human, incapable of your primary function - preserve your race. There's nothing I could curse you with that would be worse than that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:35:20 2009 No.3525376 >>3525349 >>3525349 >>3525349 >>3525349 THIS, you dumbass "hurr all my money goes to the maybe 120 retarded-from-incest babies in the United States!" retards

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:36:20 2009 No.3525379 >>3525373 The LOL I TROL U defence? Yes we seen it before. Enjoy thinking you made anonymous people on the internet buttsore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:36:20 2009 No.3525385 >>3525324 There's no incest laws in my country. If you want to fuck your sister so much, move to any eastern european country.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:37:20 2009 No.3525387 >>3525379 Hahah, okay don't believe me. :) It doesn't matter either way, I had my laughs, thanks for biting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:37:20 2009 No.3525390 >>3525374 >primary function - preserve your race That's called "group selection", and it's pretty thoroughly proven to be bullshit. But you don't know anything about genetics, so why should you know anything about evolution?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:37:20 2009 No.3525391 >>3525385 Germany has very harsh incest laws. Anyplace further east is a shithole, sorry to say.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:38:20 2009 No.3525397 >>3525374 >Using the tactic of dehumanisation on people whom you disagree with. Godwin invoked yet? I'm sure it has. Enjoy your curse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:39:20 2009 No.3525404 >>3525390 Seriously. Your wimpering like a beaten dog moves me. May you find peace, in this life or the next.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:39:20 2009 No.3525407 >>3525374 I'm not actually sterile but it was fun claiming so. At any rate you won't get any children.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:39:20 2009 No.3525408 >>3525387 Okay, goodbye, if you were really trolling you would not respond to this post because it fills you with anger, and you definitely not want to come back with a remark saying no really guis im a troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:40:20 2009 No.3525411 >>3525397 I don't get it, he's acting all high and mighty like eugenics is such a bad thing, and then calls you a "sub-human". That's pretty much worse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:41:20 2009 No.3525417 >>3525404 Haha, your arguments are getting more than more pathetic with each additional post, even to the point where you just post sarcastic remarks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:42:20 2009 No.3525423 >>3525417 I haven't really seen any real argument other than "IT'S NOT AS BAD AS IT SEEMS GUYS" from the pro-incest crowd.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:43:20 2009 No.3525431 >>3525423 u troll me

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:43:20 2009 No.3525432 >>3525423 You say that as if we need another argument. We don't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:44:20 2009 No.3525434 >>3525431 It's hard to stop once you're going. Well, I'll go back to reading mango now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:45:20 2009 No.3525444 >>3525423 Hey man. It's not as bad as it seems ! I can't be exposed to the sun... but the moon is fine !

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:51:20 2009 No.3525470

>>3525379
As a person lurking this thread, I'm pretty certain that he was trolling from the start. My main reasoning being that /jp/ is usually free of real moralfaggotry, and the arguments presented for the anti-incest side were generally, shall we say, fallacious or vague.

But you know, if you feel you won the argument, and the other guy(s) feel they've successfully trolled, then I guess everyone wins. Except arguing on the Internet (much less 4chan) generally suggests otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:51:20 2009 No.3525474 >>3525423 You haven't even read any then, you've only been listening to the vocal minority of idiots going U GUYS ARE FAGETS If you think you have the intellectual jewels, >>3525349 >>3525324 >>3525290 >>3525223

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:52:20 2009 No.3525479 >>3525197 This pic always makes me lol hard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:55:20 2009 No.3525496 >>3525474 Those are mostly "HEY IT'S NOT SO BAD, BUT WAIT THERE'S SOMETHING EVEN WORSE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT INSTEAD"

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:55:20 2009 No.3525497

>>3525470
>fallacious or vague
that's because there is no strong or specific support for the anti-incest crowd. they have no proof to present because their side is in the wrong. It has nothing to do with trolling - they can only hope to succeed by drawing attention away from the real issue.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 22:58:20 2009 No.3525513 >>3525496 I see you suffer from a learning disability and have poor reading comprehension I suggest you separate your parents, they have bad genetics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:00:20 2009 No.3525521 You have to love how the incest crowd won the argument by conceding incest did increase genetic defect risks but that normal people also have risks and so should also be restricted. Some debate strategy !

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:01:20 2009 No.3525522 >>3525470 Yeah man, my first post was this: >>3524822 But I really started actively trolling here: >>3524897

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:04:20 2009 No.3525531 >>3525521 >the incest crowd won Well, you're half right, anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:06:20 2009 No.3525537 >>3525531 Still haven't been able to refute the fact that incest increases the risk of genetic defects ~ Not only that. You aknowledged it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:07:20 2009 No.3525543 >>3525537 And proceeded to explain why it's a moot point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:09:20 2009 No.3525552 >>3525543 One question, if I may: do you have siblings and do you seriously think incest is hot and you want to fuck one of them and raise a family with them?

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:13:20 2009 No.3525563

.>>3525543
Saying the risk is negligible is not making the point moot. Nor is saying most retarded people are born out of normal couples.
Do you agree, yes or no, that a lambda pair of siblings having a child out of an incestuous relationship is more likely to give birth to defective offspring (be it in this generation or in a hundred) than a couple of strangers ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:21:20 2009 No.3525603 >>3525563 no

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:23:20 2009 No.3525618

>>3525563
Yes, it does.

Unfortunately for your ego, the argument was about whether or not it's justifiable to ban incestuous coupling. Given the evidence, the very small margin of difference between incest and outside children, the fact that we don't ban unrelated couples that have "bad genetics" and that people can ingest substances that do much more damage to a fetus than any amount of incest could possibly do, then no, it's not justifiable to ban it.

On the other hand, it would make sense if we banned incest IF we also genetically screened outside couples to prevent birth defects and banned anyone we didnt see genetically fit from having sex, then fine, that is fair and balanced. However, if that's the kind of society you want to live in, then I think it's best we just agree to disagree in that respect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:23:20 2009 No.3525619 >>3525603 Fine, then this is over. You won't even be honest.

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:29:20 2009 No.3525652

>>3525618
I'm not even against incest or whatever.
Throughout the thread my only point has been that normal relationships have a lesser part of risk than incestuous ones.
As long as this point is agreed on, you can do whatever you want. Mine is that non-incestuous relationships are preferable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 23:29:20 2009 No.3525653 >>3525619 we explained why it's not more dangerous in many cases a half dozen times. you can cry "dishonsesty" all you want, but that doesn't make your side right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 00:04:20 2009 No.3525815 This thread is awesome.

Reply to thread

Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/jp/ - Otaku Culture