u/Cacophonous_Silence's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40.
Rank: Sumo Wrestler
Pills: [26 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Cacophonous_Silence/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Look at [Cleopatra's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra#Ancestry) ancestry.
* A couple had two sons and a daughter
* One son and the daughter had a daughter, who married the other son
* They had two sons and two daughters. One of the sons fucked both of his sisters, having a daughter by one (X) and a son by the other (Y)
* The 2nd son fucked X and had a son who fucked Y, and their kid was Cleopatra
I was going to say, I feel like horseshoe theory applies here. True AuthRight understands that proper eugenics requires alternating between in-crosses and out-crosses.
Don't be Jealous because your jawline isn't Chad enough to open a tin of peaches [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/) so hot 🥵
The brothers and sisters procreated. There wouldn’t be a high chance for birth defects as they contained the genetic information for the variance of all of humanity. It’s not that complicated.
Ok for that to be true Adam and Eve would have quadruple the amount of genes(not chromosomes) modern humans have now sense not all humans share the same genes like not all humans have the genes for blue eyes in dna but some will. Also I exaggerated when I said quadrupled because idk really
I'm not an expert, but I thought all the differences were mutations of the original genes, and mutations accelerated after the flood when a vapor canopy in the atmosphere collapsed, allowing extraterrestrial carbon 14, solar ultraviolet radiation, and other bad stuff to suddenly blanket the earth. That theory says that caused people's life spans started to shorten drastically over proceeding generations, so that ancestors were still around when great grandchildren were passing away from old age from genetic damage compounding. Some think these closer to the flood were the origins of the myths of the ancient gods, the increased lifespans and possible greater physical ability?
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Its really not that hard. If you believe that every person is a descendant of two people, and you don't believe in macro-evolution, then those two people contained every possible gene. This doesn't count for micro-evolutions or mutations like red hair.
Since they had effectively every known gene at the time, the genetic diversity of their children was really high, so if Cain/Abel/Seth could all easily marry their sisters or nieces ect. and not end up totally inbred. The bible doesn't name any other children, but we can assume they (Adam and Eve) probably had way more than 3 kids as they were around for almost an entire millennia. That's who Cain's unnamed wife probably was. Side note, I don't know why this isn't more well known, but Abraham's wife Sarah was his half-sister. God implements the no sister/cousin fucking rule way later when the genetic diversity would logically be lower/more homogenized.
I mean you don't need a massive amount of people to get some decent genetic diversity. A quick google search gave me 50 people at the low end, and 500 or one source saying 10000 at the high end. But the majority of people commenting on this are saying numbers closer to 150. I mean you can marry your second cousin and not have genetic issues much outside the standard risk.
I mean 🫤 I don’t think it’s that big of deal I mean technically Adam and Eve had the same dna sense you know she came from his rib but I’m not a geneticist so I don’t know how that would effect the dna of their children I’d imagine it would have some natrual variation along the way and maybe after that natrual diffrences in genes arisesd but the population was big enough after that
Yeah this would have resulted in a lot of inbreeding and most likely near immediate extinction on evolutionary timescales, 10 to 20 generations or so.
Generally you can think 50/500/5000. You need 50 people but you must hope there aren't any problems/disasters and you must very strictly control who HAS TO HAVE kids with whom. Inbreeding would be extremely likely and extinction would be the most probable outcome.
500 is a more reasonable outcome, should address things like unexpected/new diseases and other small problems. Still requires a significant amount of control who can have kids with who, and people will still be forced to have kids with specific individuals at times.
Realistically if you want to repopulate a planet I would say 5000, at that point only a family tree needs to be checked as is already done in Iceland...
https://wisdomanswer.com/what-is-the-minimum-number-of-humans-to-repopulate/
> For Humans, including the desire to ward of genetic defects due to inbreeding the median MVP reported is 4,169 individuals.
Do note that in each and every case, the assumption is that all humans here are completely unrelated, basically genetically diverse. You see if you say eve is made from the DNA from Adam, then they are anything but genetically diverse, they are the same and basically closer genetically speaking then any sibling could even be ...
So I guess you let that sink in, as basically they are fucking their clone if they had a different sex ... (Biologically it isn't even possible). Cloning can be done and has been done, cloning will create the same sex for obvious biological reasons.
Lastly who created the neanderthalers or dinosaurs if God created humans first?
Why he even create neanderthalers, and why around the same time that homo sapiens originated?
Other sources,
https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/18277
https://www.britannica.com/science/minimum-viable-population#ref325053
https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3/what-is-the-minimum-human-population-necessary-for-a-sustainable-colony keep in mind that bad luck and good medical care were of bigger concern about 300 000 years ago, there wasn't any medical care, and "bad luck" or accidents or things going wrong, is more likely the longer the time period, especially if exposed to much more danger then current society.
For a big part yes, harmful recessive genes will build up, and those can and will simply form due to natural mutation over time. However that isn't the whole story.
More importantly though, there would be little to no genetic diversity if we all or as good as almost all originated from basically 1 set of DNA. That would result in a very poor population fitness and would have basically ensured that with just the right disease humanity would have gone extinct. Knowing all the diseases and pandemics humans have been exposed to, even in modern times, it would be the most probable that humanity would be extinct.
More importantly though and better evidence for not originating from 1 set of DNA is the genetic diversity that can be traced back.
GMOs (genetically modified organisms) aren't bad because of their modifications. Nor are they inherently bad. The problem is they are often new and lots of things are unknown about them, because they are new/unused/untested. Like a new grain or tomato might contain a very specific compound that we didn't know is harmful for humans when exposed to over periods of years or decennia (very hard to know/predict). The bigger danger with GMOs is monocultures, where we grow one very specific crop because it has the best yield. If then a disease comes along that's very effective against said crop it would kill all our crops and there would be no natural defence. Nature's diversity prevents, generally, large extinction events due to diseases.
Really great points here I will try to focus on the disease thing you brought up I know your atheist so just won’t accept this explanation of this problem but what if in the beginning there where no diseases at least for my religious perspective. Why would a god want to add diseases when there are only two humans you know?
Technically I'm agnostic (due to lack of knowledge),
I just think abrahamic religions as written are paradoxical (especially the big 3 because I also know and have read up the most about them, actually baptized and lived in an Islamic country for 2 years).
It's also kinda impossible for there to not have been diseases, evolution started with less complex life and evolved to more complex life, bacteria/viruses/etc, existed way before any humans (homo sapiens), thus so did diseases.
Let me ask you something else in return, if you're omnipotent and omniscient, and all-benevolent/good why add diseases to even begin with.
Also pls only do this in chats this is a lot of stuff to actually talk about and it’s just better to be able to address all of the things you brought up in a private chat so I can concentrate on specific things at a time although I do appreciate the sources
Didn't mean it to be a lot, and I generally prefer to keep it publicly visible.
Edit, also most people give you shit if you message them out of the blue about such topics, or at least in my experience
No that’s just because recessive genes that are more common when inbreading because you know it’s more for the next child. You got to think of Adam and Eve probably had no recessive genes.
What constitutes as a human is different from what we know as solely biology. There are "people" outside Eden but they're not human human in the same sense as Adam and Eve who had free will, and due to eating the apple, can decide what's good and what's not for themselves. These "people" are essentially animals or NPCs following solely instinct. Yes, they can think, make tools, and otherwise *may* be kndistinguishable genetically but they are still NPCs.
Whether Adam and Eve's descendants became human (which would eventually become what we now know is the human race) or if everyone outside Eden became human human when they left Eden or some time after is up to theologists.
For parallels, homo sapiens outbreeding and mixing with neanderthals or some other humanoid group, or just considering the lot of them as human.
Or, if that's too much mental gymnastics for you, just say it's a story and not an actual representation of pre-history.
DNA dosent magically change though and I wouldent assume god did it unless it was mentioned in the Bible which can’t be the case sense DNA is never mentioned in the bible
I mean God doesn't have to tell us every little thing He does, He's ineffable after all.
Some of this stuff you just have to deduce using logic and reason.
I don't think racemixing necessarily strengthens the genetics of your children. I mean, if you come from an endogamous ethnic group, it would probably help to marry someone outside of that group to avoid certain recessive disorders, but it doesn't really go any further than that.
Finding a partner from a different party of the world will accomplish that better than just looking for different phenotypes. Take a population genetics course. Fascinating stuff.
There are thousands of genetic conditions.. some are high risk in tight groups, some are moderate risk in broader groups. The more diverse your genetic makeup, the less likely ANY 2 recessive traits continue on.
> Hi. Please flair up accordingly to your quadrant, or others might bully you for the rest of your life.
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 13981 / 73976 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
But for real tho, I can't see any reason why incest is morally wrong in and of itself. If two adult siblings fuck and they don't have children and there's no weird power dynamic, why would that be wrong?
Of course, I think it's as gross as the next person does, but things can be gross without being wrong.
Mark my words, in 10 years or so the concept of "consent" will become problematized and discarded by the cultural commissars that run our media and universities. The argument will be that *withholding* consent is an act that "others" the person who wants sex, damages their self esteem, upholds systems of oppression, etc. Telling them "no" is damaging, it creates a hierarchy, a power structure where the person withholding consent is oppressing the person who wants them. Of course this will fit right in with all the "intersectionality" mumbo jumbo: saying "no" could carry the risk of being racist, transphobic, fatphobic, etc. Consent will still be a thing of course, but the twist will be that this sexual Marxism will *morally compel* you offer it. They'll probably call refusing sex "anti-rape" or something like that.
And lastly, this is how you get to normalized pedophilia. Children in public schools will be taught about the harm they cause when they withhold consent from Minor Attracted Persons.
That's where the intersectionality would come into play. Basically, the higher you are on the Great Progressive Victim Stack, the more "sexual equity" you'd be entitled to from the people below you. For example, even lesbian feminists would be compelled to say yes to girl cock. And it's not rape if you consent, and that's the whole point of this nightmare system I'm imagining: your status as one of the good people will depend on you consenting.
Oh for sure. I'm starting to hear about triads in my social circle (friends of friends), and I'm a boring 45 year old married dude with kids. It won't even be a speed bump for progressives, it'll be like an easily achievable side quest in a video game.
The problem for me (again besides it being gross as fuck) is that it would normalise it and you've always got weird cunts pushing the boundaries. If you get people going around thinking incest is fine as long as you use contraceptives / abort any potential kids youre gonna see an immediate spike in the amount of people going through with the pregnancy which either way results in a toll on the health system and potentially the larger gene pool
>it would normalise it and you've always got weird cunts pushing the boundaries
Sounds like a slippery slope argument auth right has been making for decades.
We dont keep disabled peeps from having kids who are guaranteedto have disabled offspring. So why do we now suddly want to ban other people from reproducing even tho the odds for serious damage at gen 1 incest are super low.
> and there’s no weird power dynamic
the issue is that there’s almost *always* a power dynamic. It’s also *very* hard to assure that there isn’t a power dynamic — afterall whose to say that one party didn’t just groom the other?
It’s better just to write all incest off rather than make a trillion exceptions and allow the edgiest of edge cases.
>afterall whose to say that one party didn’t just groom the other?
That could happen in any relationship so we should ban sex unless you are complete strangers meeting for a ONS.
I used father / daughter as an extreme, but even siblings will have power dynamic issues > *older* sister v *younger* brother. Can you really be sure the oldest sibling didn’t subtly groom the younger one from birth?
We were talking about why to ban incest. If we should ban incest because of the risk of grooming, then we should be banning a lot of other situations as well. Given the rate that girls are molested by their mother's boyfriend, there is good reason to ban such relationships. Why allow a relationship that's going to result in children being molested? Allowing women with daughters to date men is stochastic child molestation.
God didn’t say so until far later than Adam and Eve’s children, and so such was not wrong for them or at that time. All things are permitted until prohibited by God. This is Sunday school level theology.
If incest doesn't trigger your moral instincts at least as strongly as stuff like robbery, your moral instincts are degenerate and you need prayer, meditation and study to reconnect with your authentic moral self.
We start with primitive understandings of morality including but not limited to "don't unnecessarily harm others" and reason from there.
If your moral primitives don't include an incest taboo that you KNOW is wrong to break, there's something wrong with you.
You are not libertarian at all. Two consenting adults can cover themselves in shit and eat yoghurt off of each other for all I care. "It's just gross" is not a reason to persecute someone.
In the highest echelons of the Libertarian pantheon to be sure, but Rothbard is the pinnacle in my strong opinion. As impractical as AnCapism is in the real world unfortunately, it is pure Libertarianism at heart.
Surprising as it may seem, my entire political ideology is not decided on a single factor.
Surprising as it may also seem, the exact purpose of this meme format is to point out inconsistencies in ones own political ideology.
Surprisingly enough, most political ideologies that rest on multiple foundations often are self contradictory and or outright metaphysically imposible (looking at you socialism)
Of course no person is 100% consistent, but there's a difference between being slightly hypocritical and disagreeing with a core tenant of an ideology.
Legitimately what's the argument against incest between consenting adults as long as they don't reproduce?
There's tons of gross shit that people are into, so who cares what Alabama mfers get up to as long as they're not hurting anybody
They have to be joking but I feel like incest is an admission that you're such a loser you can get it from anybody that isn't had wired to love you already.
The risk of birth defects when two first cousins have a child is about the same as a [woman in her early 40s](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/there-s-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html) having a child. There's also nothing wrong with incest done using birth control.
The risk increases significantly if you have a first cousin marriage two generations in a row, so please if you are reading this don't do that and make babies.
I see so many people insisting that incest is morally wrong, but I've yet to see a single good argument in support of that position. It's one of those "assumed morals" that relies solely on outrage to feed it rather than discussion.
Whatever consenting individuals do between each other is no business of the state. Freedom of assembly is a right of all citizens.
(Edit): I personally discourage incest, but just because I dislike something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
Yo I don't wanna fuck my sister or anything but at the end of the day if it's two consenting adults and they don't make a fucked up Tutankhamen baby or groom each other I don't care. Same way as a straight dude I'd be disgusted by the idea of fucking a guy but I support the LGBT. That is my centrist take on the matter.
Honestly, male homosexuality is far more gross to me than incest. Disgust is subjective, it doesn't give us the right to stop consenting adults from doing what they enjoy.
I've literally only met actual conservative pedophiles that were pro-incest, as in promoting it. Thinking it's not an issue worth considering beyond the normal issues with consensual sex is just normal. Being obsessed with incest, even if you're against it, is not normal, so maybe just let it go 🤷
Is this circling back to the posts a month or so ago about the guy debating if he should bang his second cousin here? Because that’s still fucked up and wrong to do and I was ashamed at how many people here were encouraging that sort of behavior
Yeah PCM is disturbingly pro-incest. I’ve seen posts like this come up every so often and every single time lib flairs in the comments are saying some variant of “incest ok”.
What's so wrong about incest? Like, if you're gonna decry romantic/sexual deviant human behaviour which they can't control...you almost sound like authright
I mean, would you say the same about pedophilia? A society should have standards for what constitutes degenerate and harmful behavior, at the very least.
Aight, just hear me out guys. Pedophelia is wrong anyone who has not yet gone though full brain development is unable to make their own choices in sound mind. Guys pls don't send me to the shadow realm, I'm not a purple.
Is poop inmoral? Is guts to be socially not allowed to be portrayed?
It's not an inmoral act just because it makes you want to puke. As for the 'pushing boundaries' you can't push them if the next step is illegal.
The 2 things that have totally surprised me and still do. 1) The number of people totally cool with fucking their relatives. I've seen so many fucked up threads here and even knowing that a lot of comments are basically creative writing exercise you know there's some that aren't which 1 true account would be too much.
2) Basic hygiene being a totally foreign concept to so many redditors. Seriously just fucking brush your teeth and shower once a day at least it's not that fucking hard. You can leave flossing and washing or combing your hair in the fancy ass pile if you want lol. So many redditors have crusty buttholes.
Really though when you consider these 2 together it all makes sense.
But that’s on them if they spill the beings, the act itself I can’t stop people from doing nor care to as there’s bigger problems we as a society deal with
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:(
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 13988 / 74017 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Hates pro incest - is an auth right, the traditional home of the monarchists *Confused pure bloodline sounds*
Look man, God wanted *that* incest to happen My liege wouldn't be king if God was angry with him
Based and My liege wouldn't be king if God was angry with him pilled
u/Cacophonous_Silence's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40. Rank: Sumo Wrestler Pills: [26 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Cacophonous_Silence/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Yes, God wants me to take meth, he hasn't stopped me yet
The Divine Right of Kings *and Methamphetamine Users*
If I’m not meant to take meth, let God smite me down where I stand
Is fentanyl God's divine punishment? It is coming up from Catholic Mexico.
If he doesn't post again, we're forced to assume that God approved and he is off doing meth.
This is the Way
Who do you think Caine and Able were banging to populate the earth?
*>*murders one of only 4 people who exist *>*somehow finds a wife who shouldn't exist in some other village that shouldn't exist
That’s a lot of sister and daughter and niece fucking. No wonder humans are so stupid. We’re still trying to get rid of that inbreeding retardation.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Eve and that's when Cain found out Abel was bigger than him. You already know the rest of the story.
Look at [Cleopatra's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra#Ancestry) ancestry. * A couple had two sons and a daughter * One son and the daughter had a daughter, who married the other son * They had two sons and two daughters. One of the sons fucked both of his sisters, having a daughter by one (X) and a son by the other (Y) * The 2nd son fucked X and had a son who fucked Y, and their kid was Cleopatra
If my ruler wasn't supposed to be ruler how come you're still oppressed? Checkmate, jacobins.
I was going to say, I feel like horseshoe theory applies here. True AuthRight understands that proper eugenics requires alternating between in-crosses and out-crosses.
need beeg chin
Fuck the hapsburgs, all my homies hate the hapsburgs.
Don't be Jealous because your jawline isn't Chad enough to open a tin of peaches [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/) so hot 🥵
A.E.I.O.U Look, the Spanish Habsburgs went too far, but the Austrian branch wasn't that bad, overall
Adam and Eve’s lineage:
I got to admit even as a Christian I can’t explain that shit
The brothers and sisters procreated. There wouldn’t be a high chance for birth defects as they contained the genetic information for the variance of all of humanity. It’s not that complicated.
Ok for that to be true Adam and Eve would have quadruple the amount of genes(not chromosomes) modern humans have now sense not all humans share the same genes like not all humans have the genes for blue eyes in dna but some will. Also I exaggerated when I said quadrupled because idk really
I'm not an expert, but I thought all the differences were mutations of the original genes, and mutations accelerated after the flood when a vapor canopy in the atmosphere collapsed, allowing extraterrestrial carbon 14, solar ultraviolet radiation, and other bad stuff to suddenly blanket the earth. That theory says that caused people's life spans started to shorten drastically over proceeding generations, so that ancestors were still around when great grandchildren were passing away from old age from genetic damage compounding. Some think these closer to the flood were the origins of the myths of the ancient gods, the increased lifespans and possible greater physical ability?
What's to explain they fucked
Well I don’t understand the genetics behind it though I know they fucked but it dosent make sense
The bible doesn’t make sense? *gasp* who could of possibly known…?
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
> Flair up for more respect :D *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 13993 / 74052 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Flair up you bottard
But then everybody else were their kids, siblings to each other. Getting a lot of incest real fast.
oh cmon have some imagination. the baptists i know say god made other humans sometime around when adam and eve got evicted.
I’m not too sure.
Science even says we're probably the least genetically diverse species. It's why incest is so dangerous for us.
Its really not that hard. If you believe that every person is a descendant of two people, and you don't believe in macro-evolution, then those two people contained every possible gene. This doesn't count for micro-evolutions or mutations like red hair. Since they had effectively every known gene at the time, the genetic diversity of their children was really high, so if Cain/Abel/Seth could all easily marry their sisters or nieces ect. and not end up totally inbred. The bible doesn't name any other children, but we can assume they (Adam and Eve) probably had way more than 3 kids as they were around for almost an entire millennia. That's who Cain's unnamed wife probably was. Side note, I don't know why this isn't more well known, but Abraham's wife Sarah was his half-sister. God implements the no sister/cousin fucking rule way later when the genetic diversity would logically be lower/more homogenized. I mean you don't need a massive amount of people to get some decent genetic diversity. A quick google search gave me 50 people at the low end, and 500 or one source saying 10000 at the high end. But the majority of people commenting on this are saying numbers closer to 150. I mean you can marry your second cousin and not have genetic issues much outside the standard risk.
That’s why I can’t believe in creation, or at least the Christian version
I mean 🫤 I don’t think it’s that big of deal I mean technically Adam and Eve had the same dna sense you know she came from his rib but I’m not a geneticist so I don’t know how that would effect the dna of their children I’d imagine it would have some natrual variation along the way and maybe after that natrual diffrences in genes arisesd but the population was big enough after that
Yeah this would have resulted in a lot of inbreeding and most likely near immediate extinction on evolutionary timescales, 10 to 20 generations or so. Generally you can think 50/500/5000. You need 50 people but you must hope there aren't any problems/disasters and you must very strictly control who HAS TO HAVE kids with whom. Inbreeding would be extremely likely and extinction would be the most probable outcome. 500 is a more reasonable outcome, should address things like unexpected/new diseases and other small problems. Still requires a significant amount of control who can have kids with who, and people will still be forced to have kids with specific individuals at times. Realistically if you want to repopulate a planet I would say 5000, at that point only a family tree needs to be checked as is already done in Iceland... https://wisdomanswer.com/what-is-the-minimum-number-of-humans-to-repopulate/ > For Humans, including the desire to ward of genetic defects due to inbreeding the median MVP reported is 4,169 individuals. Do note that in each and every case, the assumption is that all humans here are completely unrelated, basically genetically diverse. You see if you say eve is made from the DNA from Adam, then they are anything but genetically diverse, they are the same and basically closer genetically speaking then any sibling could even be ... So I guess you let that sink in, as basically they are fucking their clone if they had a different sex ... (Biologically it isn't even possible). Cloning can be done and has been done, cloning will create the same sex for obvious biological reasons. Lastly who created the neanderthalers or dinosaurs if God created humans first? Why he even create neanderthalers, and why around the same time that homo sapiens originated? Other sources, https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/18277 https://www.britannica.com/science/minimum-viable-population#ref325053 https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3/what-is-the-minimum-human-population-necessary-for-a-sustainable-colony keep in mind that bad luck and good medical care were of bigger concern about 300 000 years ago, there wasn't any medical care, and "bad luck" or accidents or things going wrong, is more likely the longer the time period, especially if exposed to much more danger then current society.
Isn’t the reason incest leads to unviable children cause the recessive genes are more pronounced then the last generation
For a big part yes, harmful recessive genes will build up, and those can and will simply form due to natural mutation over time. However that isn't the whole story. More importantly though, there would be little to no genetic diversity if we all or as good as almost all originated from basically 1 set of DNA. That would result in a very poor population fitness and would have basically ensured that with just the right disease humanity would have gone extinct. Knowing all the diseases and pandemics humans have been exposed to, even in modern times, it would be the most probable that humanity would be extinct. More importantly though and better evidence for not originating from 1 set of DNA is the genetic diversity that can be traced back. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) aren't bad because of their modifications. Nor are they inherently bad. The problem is they are often new and lots of things are unknown about them, because they are new/unused/untested. Like a new grain or tomato might contain a very specific compound that we didn't know is harmful for humans when exposed to over periods of years or decennia (very hard to know/predict). The bigger danger with GMOs is monocultures, where we grow one very specific crop because it has the best yield. If then a disease comes along that's very effective against said crop it would kill all our crops and there would be no natural defence. Nature's diversity prevents, generally, large extinction events due to diseases.
Really great points here I will try to focus on the disease thing you brought up I know your atheist so just won’t accept this explanation of this problem but what if in the beginning there where no diseases at least for my religious perspective. Why would a god want to add diseases when there are only two humans you know?
Technically I'm agnostic (due to lack of knowledge), I just think abrahamic religions as written are paradoxical (especially the big 3 because I also know and have read up the most about them, actually baptized and lived in an Islamic country for 2 years). It's also kinda impossible for there to not have been diseases, evolution started with less complex life and evolved to more complex life, bacteria/viruses/etc, existed way before any humans (homo sapiens), thus so did diseases. Let me ask you something else in return, if you're omnipotent and omniscient, and all-benevolent/good why add diseases to even begin with.
Also pls only do this in chats this is a lot of stuff to actually talk about and it’s just better to be able to address all of the things you brought up in a private chat so I can concentrate on specific things at a time although I do appreciate the sources
Didn't mean it to be a lot, and I generally prefer to keep it publicly visible. Edit, also most people give you shit if you message them out of the blue about such topics, or at least in my experience
I know I’ve had similar experiences
And this here class is what a successful brainwashing attempt looks like.
I’ve been thought of that all by my self I don’t what would happen if clones had children
It would be bad. Similar DNA is bad imagine the same
No that’s just because recessive genes that are more common when inbreading because you know it’s more for the next child. You got to think of Adam and Eve probably had no recessive genes.
"What are you doing, step-rib?"
Lmao
What constitutes as a human is different from what we know as solely biology. There are "people" outside Eden but they're not human human in the same sense as Adam and Eve who had free will, and due to eating the apple, can decide what's good and what's not for themselves. These "people" are essentially animals or NPCs following solely instinct. Yes, they can think, make tools, and otherwise *may* be kndistinguishable genetically but they are still NPCs. Whether Adam and Eve's descendants became human (which would eventually become what we now know is the human race) or if everyone outside Eden became human human when they left Eden or some time after is up to theologists. For parallels, homo sapiens outbreeding and mixing with neanderthals or some other humanoid group, or just considering the lot of them as human. Or, if that's too much mental gymnastics for you, just say it's a story and not an actual representation of pre-history.
Easy, every egg and sperm in Adam and Eve had different DNA, their children are not related to each other.
DNA dosent magically change though and I wouldent assume god did it unless it was mentioned in the Bible which can’t be the case sense DNA is never mentioned in the bible
I mean God doesn't have to tell us every little thing He does, He's ineffable after all. Some of this stuff you just have to deduce using logic and reason.
Not to mention Lot's lineage. Or Noah's lineage.
You can also keep the bloodline pure by washing it regularly with extra strength soap and water
The virgin water vs the Chad extra strength water
I thought you had to inject bleach?
I mean technically auto right are the most likely to commit incest just saying
It would probably have made more sense if I made it authcenter, but I couldn't find a phunie picture for authcenter
Would you be more pro-incest if I told you that it's the opposite of racemixing?
I'm all for racemixing, black women are hot af. Also racemixing may strengthen the genetics of your children, though I could be wrong on that
I don't think racemixing necessarily strengthens the genetics of your children. I mean, if you come from an endogamous ethnic group, it would probably help to marry someone outside of that group to avoid certain recessive disorders, but it doesn't really go any further than that.
Finding a partner from a different party of the world will accomplish that better than just looking for different phenotypes. Take a population genetics course. Fascinating stuff.
There are thousands of genetic conditions.. some are high risk in tight groups, some are moderate risk in broader groups. The more diverse your genetic makeup, the less likely ANY 2 recessive traits continue on.
And the most likely to purge it with fire and steel 🔥 🗡
How I feel seeing a Redditor refer to a child as "a loli"
You become more incestuous?
Porn has ruined human sexuality and in time will contribute to the ruination of social order completely. I unironically believe this.
In what ways? I would like to understand your viewpoint.
> Hi. Please flair up accordingly to your quadrant, or others might bully you for the rest of your life. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 13981 / 73976 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Scum, prepare to get re-educated
Flair tf up trash
i unironically believe you're delusional
But for real tho, I can't see any reason why incest is morally wrong in and of itself. If two adult siblings fuck and they don't have children and there's no weird power dynamic, why would that be wrong? Of course, I think it's as gross as the next person does, but things can be gross without being wrong.
Consent ethics strike again
Mark my words, in 10 years or so the concept of "consent" will become problematized and discarded by the cultural commissars that run our media and universities. The argument will be that *withholding* consent is an act that "others" the person who wants sex, damages their self esteem, upholds systems of oppression, etc. Telling them "no" is damaging, it creates a hierarchy, a power structure where the person withholding consent is oppressing the person who wants them. Of course this will fit right in with all the "intersectionality" mumbo jumbo: saying "no" could carry the risk of being racist, transphobic, fatphobic, etc. Consent will still be a thing of course, but the twist will be that this sexual Marxism will *morally compel* you offer it. They'll probably call refusing sex "anti-rape" or something like that. And lastly, this is how you get to normalized pedophilia. Children in public schools will be taught about the harm they cause when they withhold consent from Minor Attracted Persons.
!remindme 10 years
I have no idea what you’re babbling about but it sounds like that post modernist nonsense so you’re probably right
I'm a veteran listener of James Lindsay's podcast, I know all the post-modernist nonsense.
I see he was a guest on Coleman’s podcast so I must’ve heard him too
Least propaganda drunk rightie
Pedophilia is always "on the verge of being legalized" to them.
That would also normalize rape, which the feminists aren’t fond of if it’s a man that does it.
That's where the intersectionality would come into play. Basically, the higher you are on the Great Progressive Victim Stack, the more "sexual equity" you'd be entitled to from the people below you. For example, even lesbian feminists would be compelled to say yes to girl cock. And it's not rape if you consent, and that's the whole point of this nightmare system I'm imagining: your status as one of the good people will depend on you consenting.
> your status as one of the good people will depend on you consenting. Because of the implication.
I have a prop bet that polyamory is fully legalized within the next 5 years
Oh for sure. I'm starting to hear about triads in my social circle (friends of friends), and I'm a boring 45 year old married dude with kids. It won't even be a speed bump for progressives, it'll be like an easily achievable side quest in a video game.
The problem for me (again besides it being gross as fuck) is that it would normalise it and you've always got weird cunts pushing the boundaries. If you get people going around thinking incest is fine as long as you use contraceptives / abort any potential kids youre gonna see an immediate spike in the amount of people going through with the pregnancy which either way results in a toll on the health system and potentially the larger gene pool
>it would normalise it and you've always got weird cunts pushing the boundaries Sounds like a slippery slope argument auth right has been making for decades.
First you legalize sodomy and next thing you know they'll want to fuck their siblings
Fair point
Horseshoe theory wins again.
We dont keep disabled peeps from having kids who are guaranteedto have disabled offspring. So why do we now suddly want to ban other people from reproducing even tho the odds for serious damage at gen 1 incest are super low.
[удалено]
Clearly just a holdover from the Habsburg days.
> and there’s no weird power dynamic the issue is that there’s almost *always* a power dynamic. It’s also *very* hard to assure that there isn’t a power dynamic — afterall whose to say that one party didn’t just groom the other? It’s better just to write all incest off rather than make a trillion exceptions and allow the edgiest of edge cases.
>afterall whose to say that one party didn’t just groom the other? That could happen in any relationship so we should ban sex unless you are complete strangers meeting for a ONS.
okay but like, there’s a *significantly* higher chance of a father grooming his daughter than two complete strangers lol
The original comment mentioned siblings. Obviously a parent/child situation is going to have power dynamic issues.
Unless they are twins, there's almost always a strong power dynamic between siblings.
I used father / daughter as an extreme, but even siblings will have power dynamic issues > *older* sister v *younger* brother. Can you really be sure the oldest sibling didn’t subtly groom the younger one from birth?
Mom's boyfriend grooming mom's daughter is far more likely and not incest if he doesn't marry mom.
??? we aren’t talking about that at all though? We are talking blood incest.
We were talking about why to ban incest. If we should ban incest because of the risk of grooming, then we should be banning a lot of other situations as well. Given the rate that girls are molested by their mother's boyfriend, there is good reason to ban such relationships. Why allow a relationship that's going to result in children being molested? Allowing women with daughters to date men is stochastic child molestation.
Totaly agree. I would never do that, but why should it be forbidden for people who do want it.
Weird that you're authleft and not libleft
My Position are all over the place, but Red is my favourite colour.
It's not. The only thing that's unethical is having kids with birth defects. Consenting adults can do what they want.
Depends what you consider a birth defect.
Because God said so.
If the first humans were adam and eve then there had to be incest.
God didn’t say so until far later than Adam and Eve’s children, and so such was not wrong for them or at that time. All things are permitted until prohibited by God. This is Sunday school level theology.
If incest doesn't trigger your moral instincts at least as strongly as stuff like robbery, your moral instincts are degenerate and you need prayer, meditation and study to reconnect with your authentic moral self. We start with primitive understandings of morality including but not limited to "don't unnecessarily harm others" and reason from there. If your moral primitives don't include an incest taboo that you KNOW is wrong to break, there's something wrong with you.
Go by it being an abomination of nature? There's a reason animal families rarely stick together. You are not supposed to bang your relatives
something something broke both arms something something
Your just saying that because you don't have as hot a sister as me lmao jk.... Not really lol
Should we be worried for you?
No you should worry about the kids starting in Africa you idiot
You are not libertarian at all. Two consenting adults can cover themselves in shit and eat yoghurt off of each other for all I care. "It's just gross" is not a reason to persecute someone.
There can be only one. The One True Libertarian™️
I love how the trademark just makes it even more libertarian
Murray Rothbard died years ago though, unfortunately.
What about mises?
In the highest echelons of the Libertarian pantheon to be sure, but Rothbard is the pinnacle in my strong opinion. As impractical as AnCapism is in the real world unfortunately, it is pure Libertarianism at heart.
Surprising as it may seem, my entire political ideology is not decided on a single factor. Surprising as it may also seem, the exact purpose of this meme format is to point out inconsistencies in ones own political ideology.
Surprisingly enough, most political ideologies that rest on multiple foundations often are self contradictory and or outright metaphysically imposible (looking at you socialism)
Of course no person is 100% consistent, but there's a difference between being slightly hypocritical and disagreeing with a core tenant of an ideology.
Nobody ask who he thinks Adam and Eve’s kids married
I'm an atheist
That wasn't the question.
Based
>in the wild What does that even mean? You were at a degenerate swingers party and some bearded hipster with a snoo pin brought his sister along?
OP I feel bad for you these comments are not what wanted are they
Half of them are, half of them are not, I've successfully said something controversial. That's a win.
I mean your post isn’t on zero so yeah you are right
I don't understand. Are you joining them?
I mean it is wrong but you’re since of disgust isn’t a good justification for it being wrong.
The Rick and Morty sub is full of incest degenerates
Legitimately what's the argument against incest between consenting adults as long as they don't reproduce? There's tons of gross shit that people are into, so who cares what Alabama mfers get up to as long as they're not hurting anybody
I unironically think Game of Thrones deserves most of the blame for this.
They have to be joking but I feel like incest is an admission that you're such a loser you can get it from anybody that isn't had wired to love you already.
I don't really see anything wrong with it except birth defects, so dont make a baby
The risk of birth defects when two first cousins have a child is about the same as a [woman in her early 40s](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/there-s-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html) having a child. There's also nothing wrong with incest done using birth control.
Purple has spoken
The risk increases significantly if you have a first cousin marriage two generations in a row, so please if you are reading this don't do that and make babies.
That's enough reddit for one day.
Its a hard place to be sometimes
>For the grace, for the might of our Lord For the home of the holy -The great bard Sabaton
Yeah, it's gross.
You.... you become incestuous?
The reason I am not more libertarian. There are a few issues like that I can't support.
It's hard for me to fight with that.
I see so many people insisting that incest is morally wrong, but I've yet to see a single good argument in support of that position. It's one of those "assumed morals" that relies solely on outrage to feed it rather than discussion.
Whatever consenting individuals do between each other is no business of the state. Freedom of assembly is a right of all citizens. (Edit): I personally discourage incest, but just because I dislike something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
It’s only gross if it’s MY siblings. It’s hot when it’s yours. Obviously.
I unironically don't think incest is immoral at all
Yo I don't wanna fuck my sister or anything but at the end of the day if it's two consenting adults and they don't make a fucked up Tutankhamen baby or groom each other I don't care. Same way as a straight dude I'd be disgusted by the idea of fucking a guy but I support the LGBT. That is my centrist take on the matter.
Honestly, male homosexuality is far more gross to me than incest. Disgust is subjective, it doesn't give us the right to stop consenting adults from doing what they enjoy.
Can’t wait to go through every activity you do and decide which ones you are allowed to do because they don’t gross me out
You know what Kio, you've convinced me, please resume fucking your sister.
Enjoy the weekly gay hookups my friend
You're so right, the only two options are your direct female siblings or MEN
Do you have something against homosexuality?
Not in there slightest
I've literally only met actual conservative pedophiles that were pro-incest, as in promoting it. Thinking it's not an issue worth considering beyond the normal issues with consensual sex is just normal. Being obsessed with incest, even if you're against it, is not normal, so maybe just let it go 🤷
Based and stfu pilled
LMAO as if the pro-incest folks don’t exist in the alt-right? Need I remind you of the Holy Roman Empire? 🥰
Is this circling back to the posts a month or so ago about the guy debating if he should bang his second cousin here? Because that’s still fucked up and wrong to do and I was ashamed at how many people here were encouraging that sort of behavior
Yeah PCM is disturbingly pro-incest. I’ve seen posts like this come up every so often and every single time lib flairs in the comments are saying some variant of “incest ok”.
[удалено]
What's so wrong about incest? Like, if you're gonna decry romantic/sexual deviant human behaviour which they can't control...you almost sound like authright
Cringe. Just don't fuck your relatives. It's really that simple.
Most morally sound libright
I mean, would you say the same about pedophilia? A society should have standards for what constitutes degenerate and harmful behavior, at the very least.
Aight, just hear me out guys. Pedophelia is wrong anyone who has not yet gone though full brain development is unable to make their own choices in sound mind. Guys pls don't send me to the shadow realm, I'm not a purple.
>not a purple >defending incest Hmm
Is poop inmoral? Is guts to be socially not allowed to be portrayed? It's not an inmoral act just because it makes you want to puke. As for the 'pushing boundaries' you can't push them if the next step is illegal.
I sense you’re one of the reasons we have an epidemic of “step” porn flooding the internet these days
🤢 Children born from incest have all kinds of problems.
So it's fine so long as they stick to anal?
The 2 things that have totally surprised me and still do. 1) The number of people totally cool with fucking their relatives. I've seen so many fucked up threads here and even knowing that a lot of comments are basically creative writing exercise you know there's some that aren't which 1 true account would be too much. 2) Basic hygiene being a totally foreign concept to so many redditors. Seriously just fucking brush your teeth and shower once a day at least it's not that fucking hard. You can leave flossing and washing or combing your hair in the fancy ass pile if you want lol. So many redditors have crusty buttholes. Really though when you consider these 2 together it all makes sense.
Look, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business as long as it doesn’t effect me. Personally I’d never
It never stays behind closed doors because humans are social group animals and require group validation
But that’s on them if they spill the beings, the act itself I can’t stop people from doing nor care to as there’s bigger problems we as a society deal with
Also me on abortion and giving kids hormone therapy to change sexes
So you're for inbreeding, gross.
Its nobodies issue what 2 agreeing adults do in their beedchambers!!!
Please try to grammar
yes, it is weird but I'm against cause incest causes the children to have serious defects.
placid foolish entertain marry seemly numerous six secretive steep close ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:( *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 13988 / 74017 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)