I know this is a shitpost, but I'm assuming someone fabricated that message on top of a picture of two people. In which case, I don't like sharing this as it's basically cyberbullying.
Thank you for your valuable feedback! I have gained significant insights from your contribution, which will undoubtedly inform my future endeavors. I believe that continuous self-reflection and a commitment to personal growth are essential for fostering a more accepting and tolerant global community.
You can't mispunctuate spoken language. There's an unneeded apostrophe in "we're" and a missing apostrophe in "cause", but no misspellings. Les u reckon it shud b spelt "cuz", but that there's a matter-a style now ain't it
The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral. Also there's a good chance childhood trauma is at play for siblings to want to bang, or at the very least some questionable power dynamics, that are worth at least looking into. Supposing none of that is an issue I guess I'm not going to yuck someone else's yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral.
one could ask the question whether inbreeding is fine as long as it's exclusively non-productive sex, i.e. they don't make any children. some people have sex just for enjoyment.
Obviously it’s against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.
You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra "fuck you" to the human race.
If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they'd bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?
Who's to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.
If the parents' families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?
What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?
Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down's Syndrome?
I'd rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
It's definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren't considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it's fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they're generally beneficial for children.
I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.
Eugenics isn't inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you're a eugenicist.
Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You're preferring genes again! Don't like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes...
Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won't live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you've practiced eugenics!!
Eugenics itself is not bad. It's the racist fuck desire to want to "cleanse" the "race" of humanity that's bad.
Nah, not necessarily imperative. An individual can still be a eugenicist without external support. The only reason the old beliefs that often get credited as "eugenics" were mostly wrong is because they were mostly just ignorance and masked racism, not actual genetic analysis.
All it takes to be a eugenicist is to believe that certain people shouldn't have children because you believe their genes are bad. That's it. It's literally just:
Eu: Prefix meaning "good"
Gene: Relating to genes
ecist: Believer (not totally sure on this one as search results to verify my beliefs mostly returned "-ition" results, with no explicit statements for -ecist or similar)
It's just a silly thing for a common fool to believe in, since genetics is complicated! Many confirmed genetic disorders are not inheritable. Many health issues are latent. You can have two totally healthy people birth genetic defects nigh 100% of the time. On the other end, someone with certain genetic disorders can absolutely have totally fine children with little extra worry. It completely depends on what genes are messed up and why.
Someone unfamiliar with the INSANE complexity of biology even in the basics of reproduction have zero right to hold a strong opinion on eugenics, IMO. (which of course immediately excludes 99% of conservative fuckwits who would happily call themselves eugenicists)
yuck someone else's yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
I'm quite the same honestly, but like you said - there isn't a need to be a dick about it, already a surplus of them around.
In terms of birth defects, that may be right. But it really depends on the generation of in-breading. A single generation wouldnt do much harm but has the potential to if it continues. Of course, about the trauma and power dynamic bits, that may be a hit or miss as it doesn't really hold.
That is correct, and that is why we shouldn't make any wild assumptions which dont hold up to the facts. This is essentially shooting blindly within the smoke - there are better ways than relying on assumptions or the "feel".
Feel free to review any of the 54,000 scientific papers if you don't like the one I shared. If you'd read and understood the abstract, you'd have seen that it is both an original study and review of the field of previous research. The page also includes links directly to dozens of related and cited papers. Psychological and behavioral studies are typically case studies, or group studies like this. This is considered a larger study in the field.
Feel free to present any paper that supports your counterclaim that there is simply not enough known about the issue to determine whether sibling incest is harmful or not. Please be sure that is is from this century and well-cited, since I did you the same courtesy. You can access full-text articles through an academic login, many public libraries, or archive sites.
In cases of close family sexual contact, consent is not a matter of a simple statement. There are lots of reasons why a person might make a statement of consent while they are in fact unwilling or unable to consent. This is always true, but particularly so in dealing with close family sexual contact.
Well, since he's only one person, "We're both drowning" (she and her man) makes a certain grammatical sense, although it would make saving him more difficult.
101 replies
My friend. Please be careful lmao, this is a weapon.
(nearly wet me shorts, some dummy will see this while driving and generate a news story, etc.)
Haha! I am glad you liked it as much as I did my friend!
I know this is a shitpost, but I'm assuming someone fabricated that message on top of a picture of two people. In which case, I don't like sharing this as it's basically cyberbullying.
Thank you for your valuable feedback! I have gained significant insights from your contribution, which will undoubtedly inform my future endeavors. I believe that continuous self-reflection and a commitment to personal growth are essential for fostering a more accepting and tolerant global community.
What in the LLM is this
I think they couldn't be arsed to actually respond to a comment that is kind of just an outspoken opinion?
They could have also done:
fuck you
While we're here, there aren't actually any spelling errors in the post, just mispunctuations.
If it was spoken yes, but in this case it is a misspelling
You can't mispunctuate spoken language. There's an unneeded apostrophe in "we're" and a missing apostrophe in "cause", but no misspellings. Les u reckon it shud b spelt "cuz", but that there's a matter-a style now ain't it
Omg i misread your comment as "mispronunciation". Then yes you are correct and I agree
Ah gotcha, I was confused lol
Well, enough Internet for this week
Enough internet for today. Let's get back to work
Aww... were [sic] just getting to the good part, tho
Why does she give off 👽 vibes
Reminds me of the alien in American dad playing a new part, what he looks like with a wig and makeup on
It's a complete lack of eyebrows.
Stuff happens when you date your brothers for a few generations
On the one hand anything between consenting adults is good and valid.
On the other hand, incest is too ingrained of a taboo for me yet.
The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral. Also there's a good chance childhood trauma is at play for siblings to want to bang, or at the very least some questionable power dynamics, that are worth at least looking into. Supposing none of that is an issue I guess I'm not going to yuck someone else's yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
one could ask the question whether inbreeding is fine as long as it's exclusively non-productive sex, i.e. they don't make any children. some people have sex just for enjoyment.
Obviously it’s against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.
Yeah, but it seems a bit eugenical.
You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra "fuck you" to the human race.
If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they'd bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?
Who's to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.
If the parents' families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?
What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?
Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down's Syndrome?
I'd rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
It's definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren't considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it's fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they're generally beneficial for children.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.
While I tend to agree, that's a highly controversial view (see eugenics).
My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don't need to see shit!
Eugenics isn't inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you're a eugenicist.
Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You're preferring genes again! Don't like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes...
Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won't live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you've practiced eugenics!!
Eugenics itself is not bad. It's the racist fuck desire to want to "cleanse" the "race" of humanity that's bad.
Colloquially eugenics refers not to personal preferences, but to collective imperatives, as far as I know.
Nah, not necessarily imperative. An individual can still be a eugenicist without external support. The only reason the old beliefs that often get credited as "eugenics" were mostly wrong is because they were mostly just ignorance and masked racism, not actual genetic analysis.
All it takes to be a eugenicist is to believe that certain people shouldn't have children because you believe their genes are bad. That's it. It's literally just:
Eu: Prefix meaning "good" Gene: Relating to genes ecist: Believer (not totally sure on this one as search results to verify my beliefs mostly returned "-ition" results, with no explicit statements for -ecist or similar)
It's just a silly thing for a common fool to believe in, since genetics is complicated! Many confirmed genetic disorders are not inheritable. Many health issues are latent. You can have two totally healthy people birth genetic defects nigh 100% of the time. On the other end, someone with certain genetic disorders can absolutely have totally fine children with little extra worry. It completely depends on what genes are messed up and why.
Someone unfamiliar with the INSANE complexity of biology even in the basics of reproduction have zero right to hold a strong opinion on eugenics, IMO. (which of course immediately excludes 99% of conservative fuckwits who would happily call themselves eugenicists)
Why'd you have to bring my potato body into this?
It sort of also assumed that just because relatives are fucking that they'll even have a kid.
I'm quite the same honestly, but like you said - there isn't a need to be a dick about it, already a surplus of them around.
In terms of birth defects, that may be right. But it really depends on the generation of in-breading. A single generation wouldnt do much harm but has the potential to if it continues. Of course, about the trauma and power dynamic bits, that may be a hit or miss as it doesn't really hold.
Incest is almost never between two consenting adults. There is almost always an inappropriate power dynamic, coercion, and/or grooming.
I don't think we have enough data to make that assumption.
That is correct, and that is why we shouldn't make any wild assumptions which dont hold up to the facts. This is essentially shooting blindly within the smoke - there are better ways than relying on assumptions or the "feel".
No, it's pretty well studied.
Only abstract is available by that link.
And the abstract doesn't support your exact claims.
Also:
Do you call this well studied?
Yes.
Feel free to review any of the 54,000 scientific papers if you don't like the one I shared. If you'd read and understood the abstract, you'd have seen that it is both an original study and review of the field of previous research. The page also includes links directly to dozens of related and cited papers. Psychological and behavioral studies are typically case studies, or group studies like this. This is considered a larger study in the field.
Feel free to present any paper that supports your counterclaim that there is simply not enough known about the issue to determine whether sibling incest is harmful or not. Please be sure that is is from this century and well-cited, since I did you the same courtesy. You can access full-text articles through an academic login, many public libraries, or archive sites.
I think we do.
But then the problem is the grooming not the incest so grooming should be the taboo
Both can be Taboo, and should be.
So in the cases where it is not, you'd allow incest?
…yet?
They're working on it apparently
Yeah. To not be upset about it seems logical and fair.
But I still feel uneasy.
I agree, as long as consent is stated then no harm is done. Consent between people is important; but in these cases, they should know where they stand
In cases of close family sexual contact, consent is not a matter of a simple statement. There are lots of reasons why a person might make a statement of consent while they are in fact unwilling or unable to consent. This is always true, but particularly so in dealing with close family sexual contact.
There is no sign of land
You are coming down with me
Hand in unlovable hand
Convenient
Habsburg or Alabama?
Saarland
Das Land das so groß ist wie ein Saarland?
based on how they look, I'll say it's a fmily tradition
Hank, why do you drink?
To get...
a taste of my sister's pie?
I wonder what kind of coffee they drink...
Extract from those oily rainbow'ish road puddles
THIS IS A PETES COFFEE HOUSE!!
Wow! Your mother must be so impressed that her son can eat an entire cactus. Next time your butt should eat the cactus. lol
??
I think they're referring to this video, involving Folgers coffee (satire)
https://youtu.be/fhfcWTZeP1k
Edit: adding the shorter real commercial as well for context (thanks M0oP0o)
https://youtu.be/uMwFWDIFVCU
I'm so glad you posted the correct one
💀
Although the follow up video is satire, it stems from a very real very un comfy Folgers ad with the same actors.
I think they're not the same actors.
I may be wrong on what was what in the “Folgercest” was happening.
I totally forgot about the real commercial part! Thanks for adding that, that's an important detail, and super funny
It was really weird they looked at the ad and went, sure this is normal.
They drink Folgers, fyi.
If me and my girlfirend were both drowning
Blah blah emoji emoji
I'd save both because my girlfriend is my hand heart emoji eggplant emoji spooge emoji
You and your hand are related by birth, just saying.
I think that counts as your girlfriend saving you!
Little Arkansas joke
Incest! It's fun for the whole family!
Smh
Where*, right? 👍
W'erh'e
Whore!
(What do I win?)
why, an STD
Sweet! I like the taste of Cipro!
Well, since he's only one person, "We're both drowning" (she and her man) makes a certain grammatical sense, although it would make saving him more difficult.
Maybe that's inbreeding grammar, what do we know
It’s just autocorrect. Try typing “were” into an iPhone.
Be mindful, those might be muricans 😉
🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮
Wait, wut
Roll Tide!
Shit I told my ex I'd let her drown in a frozen lake to save my life.
And that's why you're alive and she's your ex, right?
Lol yeah 🤣
God Bless!
Suddenly incest! ...and I think I'm ok with that?
If baby Hitler and your family dog were both drowning in the lake, and you could only rescue one...
IS MY FAMILY DOG BABY HITTLER‽
You're a cat guy anyways. So who knows.
I'm not sure people understand the reference.