|
| Thread: Real Life problems.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:27 PM |
|
|
Well bliz, I honestly don't know if people are more likely to have sex with their siblings, should there be no social restraints. The same goes for suicide, and in my opinion, it's peoples own choice if they want to commit suicide, no matter if everyone committing suicide would mean no humans at all.
I understand there's a difference, at least committing suicide you don't bring someone to the world as a retard (lack of better word, sorry). That difference may be important to some, not to others, and there may very well be other differencies. All in all, I just think it's a too general viewpoint (what if everyone did it) to be applied, maybe on any circumstances.
Quote:
Admit it, ohfor, you are just jealous. 
To be honest, yes. Yes, I am
To have someone so close to you and not have any awkward feelings? Heck I have awkward feelings even around close friends, because of the ways of my body. Yet I see the pursuit of sex as something that would potentially ruin any good friendship, it's something I think is independent.
An analogy of how I view it. When I'm really really hungry, I can more easy get irritated upon something I would not get irritated upon if I were not hungry, even if it's someone I love deeply. Imagine how stupid I feel, when I've eaten, then. I had hurt someone, just because I were hungry, I didn't think clearly, I forced someone I actually care about into feeling bad, just because I felt bad, myself.
In any regard, I'm fishing for some advice, so I won't feel like I'm betraying her as a friend. So far I'm gonna follow Adrius' advice and ask her to think about the social consequence and otherwise just stay the **** out of what they're doing together.
Edit:
Am I the only one who'd like to pull the tricker on the gun Yaeliccc is holding up against the head of the kitty?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't see a problem with two adults, who are siblings,m having sex with one another? Yeah it's their life but do you not at all find that a bit weird and disgusting? Maybe I'm the weird one for thinking that's wrong but I doubt it.
We're actually "programmed" to have an "ewww" reaction about this, so what you are feeling is completely fine and normal.
however, if we try to look past our programmed prejudices, I really see nothing wrong with a brother and sister falling in love or even having sex. While certainly unique and weird, it really does not hurt ANYBODY, of course there's the massive chance of genetically burdened offspring but if they decide not to have any, I'm fine with that.
We should only condone things that bring some sort of hurt, imho. not the ones that just make our aesthetic sense go "eww".
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:46 PM |
|
|
|
With "programmed", do you mean an evolutionary superior trait to inheret negative feelings considering sex with siblings, doom?
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:48 PM |
|
|
You gain some sorta ewww feeling towards sexual acts with people you grow up with in family-like situations.
Nor sure how it works really, it just does.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:58 PM |
|
|
You're right adrius, but it's not always so. I don't know when precisely some stuff you just feel really really bad about talking with those close to you about, but for me, it was not always like this.
I can recall an event from when I was somewhere around 6-9 years old.
This is in all seriousness and not meant to insult anyone, if it's insulting I apologise right here, right now. Sorry.
So I had found out that when my pipi (penis) got stiff (hard), it felt good. So I would often while in bed fantasize on some bizare situation that made it go stiff and it felt really nice, like stretching after having sitting a bit uncomfortably, just more powerful.
Anyway, on the same time I had this strong feeling towards telling my parents everything, even if it had nothing to do with them, because I was afraid anything else would be wrong by me (heck I told my dad about how me and my friend was watching pron movies at his house, when I was seven (not that I think it turned me on or anything, it was his incentive really)).
So one day, I realied I maybe should tell my parents about my pipi going stiff, and the response was it was something I should not tell.
Since then I never told about it, and some time later on (as written earlier, I don't know when exactly) it got really uncomfortable to think about even talking with my parents about.
In hindsight, maybe this is the time (when a child starts to find interest for this kind of stuff, but is still feelings awkward about it) where most parents should have that talk with their children about life, masturbation, sex and stuff, eventhough it won't be relevant for them for many years to come?
Maybe it would be that kind of base knowledge, you know, when your parents maybe told you that 75% of the Earth is covered in water, so no matter if some teacher or other kid some years later said it was 80%, you'd never change opinion about this, despite the only "argument" you've ever recieved is your parents word (a word that would not be sufficient today)?
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:02 PM |
|
|
I'm still doubting the extent of that programming. As Adrius suggested; that feeling isn't necessarily exclusive to family-members. I have the same 'eww' feeling - to a lesser extent - toward a girl I grew up near and was friends with. She's an attractive person and yet I'm not strongly sexually drawn to her.
Evolutionarily it makes sense that we would feel disinclined to breed with our relatives, but evolutionarily it would also behoove us to have giant eagle wings with jet propulsion systems that allow us to soar through the skies. Just because something is beneficial doesn't necessarily mean it's there to a great extent. At any rate, I doubt such programming is more potent than if we were raised a certain way.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:17 PM |
|
|
I'm no expert on evolution theory, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Is it not that there's a set of genes that undergo certain mutation, due to the effect of the environment, some muations are random, some are predictable (if you know the environment).
This set of genes is then inherited to the offspring. If the mutation is an advantage in regard to the environment, where he an advantage is defined as higher probability to get an off spring multiplied with the probability of the specific mutation, then these traits we get from this specific set of genes, are what we eventually end up like?
So my thought is that either eagle wings have a very very low chance of occuring, and when compared to how much of an advantage it would give us, (it also have to go through several stages, each being an advantage of their own right? [here stages are genererations of offsprings]) then it simply is not of high probability to have occured when looking at the time humans have existed in an environment where eagle wings would be an advantage.
I also think that maybe evolutionary lines are chaotic. With which I mean that we can have very short periods of time, where 50/50 outcomes of who survives can determine how we develop to a large degree, whereas for long periods of time, maybe the likelyness for evolving something like eagle wings are very very low.
As an example, my idea is that for much simpler organisms, maybe the pre-set for future generations to be birds, mammals, or reptiles are determined very early. So the likelyness of the simple organisms offspring being birds in the next 10000 years is maybe very high the first 8000 years and then when the progress speeds up, the likelyness to evolve traits more accustomed to mammals or reptiles falls dramatically.
Another example is with dependent outcomes. Imagine if you throw a coin, it'll either be tails or anti-tails. Now if it's tails, it'll set off a set of motions that for each single element in this set of motions have 1% chance multipiled with the earlier chance to go the opposite direction (e.g. go the anti-tails direction, if you get tails) (where f(0)=1). Then first you've 50% chance of going in tails direction, then you've 1%, then 0,01%, then 0,0001%, etc.
If you continue at infinite, some offsprings of yours, should they exist, will probably have eagle wings, like despite the 0,000000000000000001% chance of an event, the event might eventually happen.
Edit:
Heck if the integral of the probability function (however it may look like) over infinite time, assuming all possible environment changes (so taking it for an infinite different variables), doesn't add up to 1, then we might never get eagle wings by pumping eachothers asses!
Edit#2:
So ehm... my main point was simply where eagle wings might be a sufficient advantage at some point of time... not producing offspring with a sufficient level of disadvantage is probably a much stronger advantage. Likewise it's not a question about evolving extra limbs, but changing feelings, so I think such a mutation is likewise much more likely to happen.
So is the disadvantage of producing offsprings with your sibling sufficient for it to be an evolutionary advantage to evolve feelings against doing this? Maybe. I don't know for how many thousands of years it has been like this. I don't know sufficiently how the environment has changed and how it effects us. All I think, is that time will tell, i.e. if we end up without these feelings in a sufficient far away future (where I don't know what is sufficient, it probably again depends on stuff like how the probability function exactly behave, i.e. how sluggish this system actually is, and how fast our environment changes), it was not an advantage, vice versa it was an advantage.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:23 PM |
|
|
You should read some of Richard Dawkin's earlier books. If you ignore all the over-the-top atheist rhetoric (more more prevalent in his latter works) there's some really accessible information about evolutionary theory in there.
Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker are very good choices.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:29 PM |
|
|
Thank you!
I'll certainly look into it when I get my summer vacation.
|
|
yaeliccc
Known Hero
Undead, but warm and fuzzy
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:40 PM |
|
|
degenerated offsprings are just a myth created by us coz the phenomena of incest is a taboo, a good thing in my opinion. there was a research in australia within a really kinky society (tribe) which did the whole incest thingy to the fullest extent of the word  abnormalities/degenerations in offsprings were within normal deviation proving that its just a myth just like its a myth we use only 10% of the brain. the only time the incest is dangerous to the offspring is when there is a genetical disorder/disease in which case both brother and a sister carry the disease  the offspring is a goner for sure  thats the biological thingy but its still a bloody disturbing issue IMO
and..... dont shoot the kitten 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:43 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:52, 27 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
degenerated offsprings are just a myth created by us coz the phenomena of incest is a taboo, a good thing in my opinion.
This is factually incorrect. When the diversity of genetic material is restricted, the prevalence of deleterious recessive phenotypes increases substantially.
EDIT: See founder effect, evolutionary bottleneck, etc.
There are numerous historical examples of this: Ashkenazi Jews (Tay-Sachs disease), deafness in Martha's Vineyard, and bizarre diseases with high prevalence on small islands where genetic diversity is restricted.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:44 PM |
|
|
Again, it's only disturbing because we're programmed that way.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:46 PM |
|
|
I don't find Corribus' post disturbing, doom
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Again, it's only disturbing because we're programmed that way.
Programmed as in socially indoctrinated or programmed as in inherited?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
degenerated offsprings are just a myth created by us coz the phenomena of incest is a taboo, a good thing in my opinion.
This is factually incorrect. When the diversity of genetic material is restricted, the prevalence of deleterious recessive phenotypes increases substantially.
EDIT: See founder effect, evolutionary bottleneck, etc.
There are numerous historical examples of this: Ashkenazi Jews (Tay-Sachs disease), deafness in Martha's Vineyard, and bizarre diseases with high prevalence on small islands where genetic diversity is restricted.
Or, most famous in history, the downright mentally retarded and/or psychopathic Russian royalty, which had to import Catherine the Great from Germany because their own bloodline was so unbelievably ****ed up.
The more diverse the melting pot, the healthier the gene pool. Even breeding with cousins will marginally increase the risk. Breeding with immediate family hugely increases the risk.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Programmed as in socially indoctrinated or programmed as in inherited?
Try this, if wikipedia is a credible source to you. 
Aesthetic shouldn't be a reason for us to condone something tho.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
yaeliccc
Known Hero
Undead, but warm and fuzzy
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 10:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
degenerated offsprings are just a myth created by us coz the phenomena of incest is a taboo, a good thing in my opinion.
This is factually incorrect. When the diversity of genetic material is restricted, the prevalence of deleterious recessive phenotypes increases substantially.
EDIT: See founder effect, evolutionary bottleneck, etc.
There are numerous historical examples of this: Ashkenazi Jews (Tay-Sachs disease), deafness in Martha's Vineyard, and bizarre diseases with high prevalence on small islands where genetic diversity is restricted.
but what youre saying has nothing to do with defects/degenerations ive spoken of ?
inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes.
A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population. The overall consequences of these diverging effects depends in part on the size of the population.
translation - if brother and sister dont have genetic defects, the baby wont have one either buuuuuuuut its still sick IMO
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 10:17 PM |
|
|
|
May I remind everyone that we are "just" talking about sex, not reproduction.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 10:21 PM |
|
|
Even from a strictly pleasure/relationship point of view I think incest is less than ideal. It's yet another factor - a very strong one at that - for people to become increasingly isolated within their own tiny little circle. Not that I think that's reasoning enough to legislate against it, but I would prefer to live in a world where incest is discouraged by the public.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 10:31 PM |
|
|
Not to mention, if incest were legalized, this would provide a whole new meaning to "family game night".
:shudder:
|
| |
|
|
