Opus Angelorum
Member
It genuinely took me a few seconds to figure out which was male/female.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Brother has sex with sister in lift, pays her £20
- Thread starter fisheyes
- Start date
- Status
fabricated backlash
Member
Jintor said:
No kidding... lol.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
apana said:
£20.
A Lannister always pays his debts.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
...nicely done.UnluckyKate said:
Broder Salsa
Banned
With a sister like that, I don't know if I would be able to control myself either.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Amir0x said:
Inbreeding increases the probability that an embryo will be homozygous, but so what? It's not illegal for carriers of Huntington's to go at it, nor for two carriers of a recessive genetic disease to enjoy a bit of the old in-out-in-out. Incest is illegal because it's a social taboo, but outlawing because it increases the risk of congenital abnormalities it is just baby's first eugenics.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
Adidas and Nike dont mix bro, or is it sis?
dude said:
Yes, two mentally retarded individuals should not be allowed to conceive. It's not even a controversial statement. The same goes for a variety of other severe handicaps, because the strain on society at large is not negligible. To say that it's based on "gut feelings" - which, by the way, you actually mean real substantive genetic repulsion built into us because of how risky it is - is just absurd.
Now there is risk assessment. Not all handicaps are created equal. People with dwarfism, for example, need not be banned - it's extremely easy to function in society with dwarfism, particularly in this day and age. But it's a case by case basic, and the end value based on whether you should be allowed to conceive is the probability that the child reared will be able to function in society by him/herself without requiring substantial societal welfare-type care.
The type of genetic defects children born of two siblings create is frequently devastating. Often these kids have severe mental handicaps, are malformed in such a way that makes any meaningful contribution to society difficult.
dragonlife
Member
Yeah.Relix said:
They really look like bridge trolls or something.
Maybe the brother was simply paying the troll toll to get inside the girl's hole.
Lionheart1337
Member
Amir0x said:
With all the people I see having kids that I think have no business doing so, I can't even be mad if bro and sis procreate as well
The Hermit
Member
UnluckyKate said:
Post of the year.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
I dont even know why someone would want to have sex with their brother/sister.
MetalAlien
Banned
In the movie The Hotel New Hampshire Jodie Foster and Rob Lowe who play brother and sister have a 24 hour sex-capade. That was gross and it was just movie.
Mr_Brit said:
not reaaaally.
I have no problem with these two having sex provided they really cut off the chance of having kids. Like if, for example, she gets her tubes tied. Same goes for any other class we're talking about.
But unfortunately, mental handicap of the severity we're discussing is a burden on society, and if there are ways to avoid it we should try to. That doesn't mean we treat those who make it through the net differently or without the utmost care. I still visit my autistic foster brother in his home, and he is so severely handicapped he can't talk and he punches himself so needs must wear a helmet.
But the reality is if he started going around fucking other autistic kids, it'd be disturbing because the end result upon conception would be another child with severe handicaps who cannot support itself and requires years of stressful and painful therapy to an end result which means complete reliance on welfare-type programs.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Scotland, I am disappoint.
By the same reasoning homophobia could be "built in" in order to distance us from "gay genes" that might harm a primitive society that has to have guys who wants to create some babies.Amir0x said:
It's a stupid point in either case.
Oh please, by your reasoning the moment people with any sort of gene of a fatal diseas are found they should be banned from having sex for the risk of carrying n those harmful genes. I'm not talking about mental retardation - I'm talking about many fatal, harmful genetic diseases. This is a controversial subject, and just saying it make you look like an idiot.Amir0x said:
By your "welfare burden| reasoning we should also ban the poor from having sex, lest they create more children depndant on welfare.
Sorry, no one has the right to say who someone may or may not have sex with as long as all party consent. It's just none of your business what people do in their bedroom.
Mr_Brit said:
ah, it's actually a legitimate counter point so it needed responding to anyway.
It's difficult to talk about because of the extremes certain evil societies went with the idea, but it's kind of irresponsible of everyone to just try to act like it isn't a problem either.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
dude said:
I'd like to live in a world that worked that way. But actions have consequences. And when those consequences affect other people then those people usually feel they should have a say.
dude said:
A homosexual can't conceive with another homosexual of the same sex, so the genetic barrier is built into the reality of the situation anyway.
But, it's not the same because if a homosexual decided to adopt or whatever or allow some surrogate mother to carry his sperm to conceive, the end result would be two loving parents and a child perfectly able to function in society odds are. So the is no reason to be repulsed at the idea, and trying to compare the two is sensationalism.
dude said:
It's a risk assessment. If the chance of them passing on their fatal genes is so high, then yes they should not conceive. It's child abuse, firstly, and second of all it is damaging to society at large because it causes a financial strain on the system. Trying to dismiss this is just absurd and calling people names because they're in-tune to reality just makes you look like an alarmist.
dude said:
No, because there is no expectation that a child born to poor individuals would be any more likely to strain society at large than those born to rich people. They can grow up to be the president of the united states, for all we know.
The same cannot be said of the type of mental deformities and deficiencies born out of incest. You cannot equivocate the two because they are simply not the same.
serotonina
Member
dude said:
Survival of the fittest/natural selection. That's how nature works, and we are part of it.
Yes, we managed to find a backdoor to prevent a lot of deaths and the likes, but it's not necessarily a good thing.
By your logic, everyone should do what they want (I'm stretching it here, I got your point so no need to explain it again) in bed, but there are consequences too.
A kid with a genetic malfunction is bound to die by nature laws, we have to bend those laws so the kid can live (hell, even I would've died at the age of 21 because of a meckel diverticulum gone wrong), the whole point is there: Is it the right thing to do to keep everyone alive?
The whole history of man, and other animals, is entwined with the research of the best genes to procreate.
Lionheart1337
Member
Blackace said:
I love incense, keeps the place smelling reaaaallll nice......incest tho...
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well thats the whole moral dilema, isn't it? We've spent so much time developing technology to allow people to live far longer then natural, and to support people with otherwise debilitating conditions. Its been an ideal of progress for centuries. But there's a real question to be asked: should we?serotonina said:
I don't have an answer.
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
Roofy said:
What about gay incest? Seems unfair for them to full under this.
FreeMufasa said:
As long as we eliminate the possibility to conceive I have no problem with the idea. If the sister had her tubes tied, for example, I say let them go at it. Same with two brothers or two sisters. It's nasty, but as long as they're consenting I don't see the problem
Johnlenham
Member
Wheres that gif of the cartoon guys head recoiling from the pc up into the roof etc etc
Reading this thread title, followed by the OP, It was pretty much spot on my reaction followed by bursting out laughing at the pics.
Jesus Christ.
Reading this thread title, followed by the OP, It was pretty much spot on my reaction followed by bursting out laughing at the pics.
Jesus Christ.
Missed this ahahadaviyoung said:
A brother and a sister can be two loving parents if they adopt, and they can be two loving parents if they have a baby with some dformities.Amir0x said:
Again, I'm not talking about concieving (though I don't think that should be illegal either) I'm talking about having sex - because "the risk is too high", after all. You're saying to deny some people their right to have sex because of these genes.Amir0x said:
He might be the US president - but you'll agree with me there's a higher percent he's not going to break the welfare cycle and stay poor.Amir0x said:
Inbreeding doesn't not meant the child will immidietly be born a hideous freak uncapable of speech - it means he has a higher percent of heredetiry diseases, because both sides carry those genes. So they are comparable.
This is of course, all without mentioning the absurd thought that if we allow incest sex suddently our society will not be able to afford paying welfare for all those freak-children.
EDIT:
Alright, where crazy eugenics starts, I'm out. I don't have the time or will power to argue with those kinds of thoughts.serotonina said:
I'll just say that even by natural selection, it's the individual whochooses what genes to breed with, not some state or law.
- Status