This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
72 year old grandma has a kid with her grandson
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
homosexuality ... unnatural and disgusting
You know what? Just... I'm done. I'm done.
Just screw you MyTie. You're a moronic idiot who should just get the hell off of the internet, and get the hell away from anyone who you can taint. I don't want children raised by you, I don't want anyone poisoned by your idiotic ideals, and I sure as hell want everyone in the world who is even remotely like you to just get a lobotomy and stop being able to think, although I doubt I would call what you do now thinking so much as spreading bigotry. I don't care if I were to get banned for this post (although let's face it, that won't happen), because it would be worth it. I'd rant at you, MyTie, but it doesn't help. If I thought it would change anything, I'd right a goddamn book on how much I hate you.
But it won't.
So I'm done.
It would be bigoted if I treated the individuals differently based on their sexuality. Truth is, I don't. I do hold my opinions about homosexuality, and they are negative opinions, but I leave my opinions out of questions of legality, and the way I treat people on an individual basis.
You don't know me. You don't take the time to get to know me or my opinions or the way I use my opinions. Perhaps you could be a little more understanding in the future?
I haven't ranted on anyone, or bashed anyone, or tried to drive anyone off, on an individual basis, like you are doing to me. I don't appreciate it. I hope in the future you'll be as understanding as others here are to differing views and opinions.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I haven't ranted on anyone, or bashed anyone, or tried to drive anyone off, on an individual basis, like you are doing to me.
Forgotten Vikey already?
Elaus also for that matter. You have a good point. I'm not kind to everyone as I should be. However, I don't attack people based on their differing values from me. For instance, I got onto Vikey for not
thinking
before he acted, like rubbing glitter on himself, and I got onto Elaus becuase his actions were potentially detremental to randomness. Point is, I didn't get onto these people because of who they were, but what they were doing. I didn't hate them. However, I could have and should have been kinder.
What you are doing to me is much different, and entirely unacceptible.
Post by
Orranis
The human subconscious has realized over the years that inbreeding leads to a smaller gene pool, and with no genetic diversity we are much more likely to get wiped out completely by a disease (never mind the mutations), so we have better survival chances if we don't inbreed.
If you strip the social aspect out, from a science perspective, the next step would be to suggest that all white Anglo-Saxons should reproduce with Asians, in order to mitigate against genetic defects specific to either race.
You would be hard pressed to argue that we're inherently attracted to people of different races for the sake of genetic diversity, when neuropsych tells us that people can barely distinguish the difference between two people of a different race (eg, English people can't tell the difference between Koreans and Japanese, Chinese people can't tell the difference between Sweeds and Germans, etc)
Mutations are no more or less likely in inbreeding than in anyone else with similar genetic histories.
No, but diseases might be. For example, the potato blight of Ireland. They only farmed a single breed of potato, so when it got a blight, a famine was created. Had they had two potato breeds, they would have been hit less hard. The whole point is diversity, which is why we wouldn't want to breed ourselves into a single race (which could only happen if we mitigated all mutations) either.
Post by
MyTie
Are you people still on the dang glitter incident? >:P
flibafdifdopjfasdiofaaiorepqwroasfdlsduweio!
also, glitter is fantabulous. ;)
I thought it was quite a reach as well. I find it to be quite a compliment when someone who wants to be my nemesis has to etiher take me out of context, or reach years into my past to find something even remotely damning.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The whole point is diversity, which is why we wouldn't want to breed ourselves into a single race (which could only happen if we mitigated all mutations) either.
You're screwed either way then. If you don't intermingle with other races, you're at risk of only your race being wiped out. If you do mingle with other races, you're at risk of the combined race being wiped out.
Your argument could be extended to the idea that you *shouldn't* marry people outside your family, because that will introduce genetic flaws into their / your bloodline, putting the human race at risk. After all, not breeding within your family would mean breeding ourselves into one giant single family, again, only happening if we're mitigating mutations by not breeding internally.
You can twist the science whichever way you want, but the arguments are identical. You can't argue that in one context it's 'right' and one it's 'wrong'.
Post by
Skreeran
Interestingly enough, on the topic of mutations, I find it rather funny that people seem to only be aware of negative side effects.
Really, just going on what I know of high school genetics, it can actually produce phenotypes with an even greater chance at survival.
For example: I have a strong dog and a weak dog. They reproduce, producing a litter of four puppies, two with the "strong" gene, and two with the weak. I breed the two strong offspring together, and get all strong dogs in the next litter. I breed the strongest of those together, and so on.
Inbreeding is just a part of evolution. All it does is cause a greater likelihood of the implementation of recessive genes.
Post by
Squishalot
You don't need inbreeding to do that, though. Selective breeding and inbreeding aren't mutually exclusive, but they are independent of each other.
Post by
Skreeran
You don't need inbreeding to do that, though. Selective breeding and inbreeding aren't mutually exclusive, but they are independent of each other.Inbreeding sure helps though, say a new gene for calcified skeletons in fish comes about. If none of the descendants of the first specimen breed with any of the other descendants, the gene will just be diluted by the rest of the gene pool and will eventually disappear altogether.
At least by my understanding of genetics.
Post by
Squishalot
You don't need inbreeding to do that, though. Selective breeding and inbreeding aren't mutually exclusive, but they are independent of each other.Inbreeding sure helps though, say a new gene for calcified skeletons in fish comes about. If none of the descendants of the first specimen breed with any of the other descendants, the gene will just be diluted by the rest of the gene pool and will eventually disappear altogether.
At least by my understanding of genetics.
For a few generations. By definition, we're all part of the same gene pool. It's fair to say that when we talk about in-breeding, we're referring to a fixed number of generational gaps (I believe 3 is the general consensus about the minimum number to avoid 'high' risk of genetic disorders), rather than a broad coverall 'all descendants' measure.
Marrying your 7th cousin, with whom you share a single great great great great great grandmother, isn't considered incest, generally speaking.
Post by
560264
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Interestingly enough, on the topic of mutations, I find it rather funny that people seem to only be aware of negative side effects.
Really, just going on what I know of high school genetics, it can actually produce phenotypes with an even greater chance at survival.
For example: I have a strong dog and a weak dog. They reproduce, producing a litter of four puppies, two with the "strong" gene, and two with the weak. I breed the two strong offspring together, and get all strong dogs in the next litter. I breed the strongest of those together, and so on.
Inbreeding is just a part of evolution. All it does is cause a greater likelihood of the implementation of recessive genes.
..Unless diseases mutate to be resistant to the "strong" gene.
Post by
Adamsm
Interestingly enough, on the topic of mutations, I find it rather funny that people seem to only be aware of negative side effects.
Really, just going on what I know of high school genetics, it can actually produce phenotypes with an even greater chance at survival.
For example: I have a strong dog and a weak dog. They reproduce, producing a litter of four puppies, two with the "strong" gene, and two with the weak. I breed the two strong offspring together, and get all strong dogs in the next litter. I breed the strongest of those together, and so on.
Inbreeding is just a part of evolution. All it does is cause a greater likelihood of the implementation of recessive genes.
..Unless diseases mutate to be resistant to the "strong" gene.
Or is attached to the strong gene.
Post by
Skreeran
Inbreeding sure helps though, say a new gene for calcified skeletons in fish comes about. If none of the descendants of the first specimen breed with any of the other descendants, the gene will just be diluted by the rest of the gene pool and will eventually disappear altogether.
At least by my understanding of genetics.
Your understanding of genetics is...too simplistic. A calcified skeleton is a gain of function mutation, which would most likely be dominant. Even then, recessive genes are hard to be bred out. We'll probably never see the "death of blue eyes" eugenicists feared nor will we see the complete removal of recessive genetic diseases without vigorous genetic screening programs.
The genetic dangers of incest only exists if there is a history of genetic disease in the family. Even then it has to be extremely recent (siblings) or ongoing. Use this as an example: Asterisks indicate a carrier, primes indicated someone with no history. We'll use the average incidence of Tay Sachs carriers in the U.S. population (1 in 300) as a baseline for people with no histories. Quotes indicate an affected individual. Pluses indicate siblings.
M*--F*
|
F+"F"+M+F----M`
| |
|============F
|
?
In this case, the product of incest (shown by the double line) of an uncle and niece. The chance of their child having the genetic disease their mutual grandfather carried? .000
55
% or about 1 in 1800. Worse than the average population (1 in 360,000), markedly but not terrible. If we change the grandmother to unknown history and remove the affected child, the numbers become even more forgiving.Thanks, I think that is approximately what I had thought about the matter, but I lacked the ability to explain it as well, leading to a poorer example. I'm only in eleventh grade, and my knowledge of genetics is limited to one AP Biology course last year, and I've forgotten far too much of it.
Post by
Blitzfire
Wow.......isn't incest illigal?
And if not, it should
Monarchies in general. 'nuf said.
Edit: was called out, only read first page, sorry if this is already here.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.