by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Lazarus Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .4,3834,3844,3854,3864,3874,3884,389. . .4,4284,429»

Arclandia wrote:How nazi-esque something is should be determined by the integrity rating of the speaker. Go check ours and get back to us. The nazis were studying cloning. Should we avoid scientific advancement there because we're afraid of being them? We should instead endeavor to maintain high ethics in these scientific pursuits and ensure that we are not suppressing the people unduly altogether. You seem okay with simply saying that cousins shouldn't be allowed to marry but have no sense of irony about that limitation in freedom even though the marital prohibition does nothing to actually stop inbreeding. Why is it okay to withhold one freedom but not the other? No... We have chosen instead to let them get married and have a family instead of regulating their love. That's not a choice nazis make. We considered why people who are too closely genetically linked are prohibited from marrying and then addressed that issue without suppressing their love. If you don't like our solution to the inbred child issue, find one of your own, but take your nazi panic elsewhere. LoL It's remarkably counterproductive.

...uh m8 I'm the guy that said that cousins should be allowed to marry. Dernel is the one that's against that. Also letting the government sterilize people "for the good of the gene pool" is exactly something the nazis would (and did) do.

New Vedan wrote:...uh m8 I'm the guy that said that cousins should be allowed to marry. Dernel is the one that's against that. Also letting the government sterilize people "for the good of the gene pool" is exactly something the nazis would (and did) do.

They weren't doing it so cousins could marry. They were doing it for racial purification. It's a huge difference, especially in implementation. Don't compare us to nazis again. We were polite in saying it the first two times.

New Vedan wrote:...uh m8 I'm the guy that said that cousins should be allowed to marry. Dernel is the one that's against that. Also letting the government sterilize people "for the good of the gene pool" is exactly something the nazis would (and did) do.

Except that it is unnecessary to the ends posted. Since we are forced in a capitalist society, the current day combination or lack of opportunities (work, housing, and so on) is more than enough force to sterilize people (the demographics pyramids in Europe) are pretty clear.

Besides, instead of doing the brute, inefficient and morally bankrupt way, you have only to offer economic incentives to push in one direction (plus media campaigns in that order). Besides, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and other maternal care are enough to catch some of the worst problems.

Although some of the more subtle effects pass on. Besides, the genetic counseling to stop genetic problems can be and has been done on a voluntary basis even with religious support.

In most programs, carrier screening and counseling are being performed on a voluntary basis. In Cyprus, however, the Orthodox church requires a certificate proving that screening for β-thalassemia has been performed before marriage, but allows the final decision on marriage and a reproduction option to be left to the couple (Angastiniotis and Hadjiminas 1981; Kalokairinou 2007). When Cyprus became a member of the European Union in 2004, the requirement for this certification became unnecessary for civil weddings (Kolnagou and Kontoghiorghes 2009). In a number of Muslim countries including Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Gaza Strip (Samavat and Modell 2004; Inati et al. 2006), the national premarital programs are mandatory and aimed at limiting carrier marriage. In most of these countries, nowadays, interruption of the pregnancy is permitted for severe fetal disorders but only within the fourth month of gestation. In China, prenatal screening was compulsory to obtain marriage permission by the marriage law office (Li 2009). Because of worldwide criticism, the requirement for a certificate of premarital screening was withdrawn.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3552345/

P.S. It is a bit tiring the use of the "nazi" card every time human genetics are discussed.

Arclandia wrote:They weren't doing it so cousins could marry. They were doing it for racial purification. It's a huge difference, especially in implementation. Don't compare us to nazis again. We were polite in saying it the first two times.

Afraid there is no diffrence as far as I'm concerned. Forced sterilization is forced sterilization, and it's wrong. No matter what reasoning you have behind it nobody has any right to sterilize someone else.

New Vedan wrote:You know the whole "hur dur those people marry there cousins" stereotype.

Yeah, it'd be expected not funny.

Dernel wrote:The issue here is that the example given is purely anecdotal, it doesn't represent the whole situation. Evidence is shown that an average child born of an under 35 mother has about a 3% chance of having any birth defect. When between cousins this doubles. If over 35, this goes from 3% to 4% meaning, that between cousins it is an 8% chance of a birth defect compared to a normal couple.

Now, I understand your argument, of love is love, and as long as it doesn't effect anyone else it doesn't matter. Only issue is, it does affect someone else. It affects the child. Even if it doesn't pass on to the grand children, it still messes with that child's entire life. When you double the chances of someone's life being generally messed up, or even completely destroyed, it's not something one should be ok with, much less encourage.

But that'll be fixable soon enough, so who cares? Also, does that statistic apply to new mutations or recessive genes?

Axixic wrote:3. BTW: Denisovans and Neanderthals are human. Your sentence is the equivalent of saying the Welsh interbred with the Irish and the Scots. True but irrelevant.

To my knowledge the Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens are/were all subspecies of human. I wouldn't compare that to modern ethnicities or whatever, because that isn't a good can of worms to open and reeks of white mans burden and imperialism.

Venacia wrote:One thing though, not wrong about Homo denisova technically, Denisovans were a subrace of human and therefore completely human.

Subspecies, so they'd be Homo sapiens denisova probably.

Arclandia wrote:They weren't doing it so cousins could marry. They were doing it for racial purification. It's a huge difference, especially in implementation. Don't compare us to nazis again. We were polite in saying it the first two times.

They were doing it to keep out genetic defects. Their version of a defect included being black, but still to remove defects. They were slightly insane—shocking I know—so they might've considered encouraging inbreeding at some point, although considering the "freedom" they gave their scientists, that would have been short lived.
Now I may believe in heavy welfare, high taxes, and in cameras recording everything—I wouldn't call it surveillance, because it's complicated—but I am still a liberal damn it, so let people do whatever they want; we can fix it later.

New Vedan wrote:Afraid there is no diffrence as far as I'm concerned. Forced sterilization is forced sterilization, and it's wrong. No matter what reasoning you have behind it nobody has any right to sterilize someone else.

Our citizens are free to emigrate should they find our policies or the rationale behind them untenable. That notwithstanding, we're a Scandinavian liberal paradise that's 61st in the region for integrity while you're in the top 5% in the region for corruption. You'll forgive us for disregarding lectures from the likes of you about rights and nazis.

Arclandia wrote:Our citizens are free to emigrate should they find our policies or the rationale behind them untenable. That notwithstanding, we're a Scandinavian liberal paradise that's 61st in the region for integrity while you're in the top 5% in the region for corruption. You'll forgive us for disregarding lectures from the likes of you about rights and nazis.

Was I meant to be in character for this discussion?

Free Market Buisnesses wrote:Was I meant to be in character for this discussion?

{OoC: I am always in character unless I have specified otherwise like this. I'm not really concerned about whether others are IC. I just assume people are representing as their nations -- if they are never IC, I take their nation to represent who they are as a person. If they are always IC, I take them to represent their country. Either way, no Arclandian is entertaining subpar rhetoric about ethics from a nation or person who doesn't sport the stats to suggest that they take rights seriously.}

Arclandia wrote:Our citizens are free to emigrate should they find our policies or the rationale behind them untenable. That notwithstanding, we're a Scandinavian liberal paradise that's 61st in the region for integrity while you're in the top 5% in the region for corruption. You'll forgive us for disregarding lectures from the likes of you about rights and nazis.

Wait you've been in charecter this while time? I thought this was a OOC discussion.

Arclandia wrote:{OoC: I am always in character unless I have specified otherwise like this. I'm not really concerned about whether others are IC. I just assume people are representing as their nations -- if they are never IC, I take their nation to represent who they are as a person. If they are always IC, I take them to represent their country.}

Ah. I go based off if the thing they were replying to was OC or IC. If it's not based on anything and nobody else has responded I either think of something I find amusing or guess.
Wait, how often do you think I'm IC?

New Vedan wrote:Wait you've been in charecter this while time? I thought this was a OOC discussion.

It was. Appears he just started talking IC.

New Vedan wrote:Wait you've been in charecter this while time? I thought this was a OOC discussion.

Arclandia wrote:{OoC: I am always in character unless I have specified otherwise like this. I'm not really concerned about whether others are IC. I just assume people are representing as their nations -- if they are never IC, I take their nation to represent who they are as a person. If they are always IC, I take them to represent their country. Either way, no Arclandian is entertaining subpar rhetoric about ethics from a nation or person who doesn't sport the stats to suggest that they take rights seriously.}

Arclandia wrote:if they are never IC, I take their nation to represent who they are as a person. If they are always IC, I take them to represent their country.

What about people with multiple puppets?

Free Market Buisnesses wrote:

What about people with multiple puppets?

{OoC: Since no one ever specifies who their mains and puppets are, I just react to each nation as a different person unless it's heckin' obvi that they're RP-mast*rb*ting themselves on the forums. I can't micromanage who owns what puppet around here! LoL In my headcanon around here, every nation is independent of every other nation and run by different people unless otherwise specified. I don't expect anyone else to keep track of who my puppets are.}

OOC: Personally I think it should be obvious that this was an OOC discussion, but when in doubt I always recommend people use the OOC/IC tags to clarify their posts.

This friendly dose of Lazarene mod wisdom was brought to you by Leonism (the player) rather than Imperator Konsul Leo I. of the Imperium of Leonism.

Leonism wrote:OOC: Personally I think it should be obvious that this was an OOC discussion, but when in doubt I always recommend people use the OOC/IC tags to clarify their posts.

This friendly dose of Lazarene mod wisdom was brought to you by Leonism (the player) rather than Imperator Konsul Leo I. of the Imperium of Leonism.

{OoC: And that right there is why I'm so aggressive about my OoC tagging and staying IC otherwise.}

Arclandia wrote:{OoC: Since no one ever specifies who their mains and puppets are, I just react to each nation as a different person unless it's heckin' obvi that they're RP-mast*rb*ting themselves on the forums. I can't micromanage who owns what puppet around here! LoL In my headcanon around here, every nation is independent of every other nation and run by different people unless otherwise specified. I don't expect anyone else to keep track of who my puppets are.}

This is a puppet of my main, but my main isn't in Lazarus, so I'm using this to talk. Plus corporate RP + this nation just makes sense. I think I posted as Mesilatia here once, but that was unusual. Also, seriously, what do you think my political views are? Also, what's strange about talking to yourself?

Free Market Buisnesses wrote:This is a puppet of my main, but my main isn't in Lazarus, so I'm using this to talk. Plus corporate RP + this nation just makes sense. I think I posted as Mesilatia here once, but that was unusual. Also, seriously, what do you think my political views are? Also, what's strange about talking to yourself?

I don't think there's anything strange about that.

Mesilatia wrote:I don't think there's anything strange about that.

Unfortunately it seems I may have accidentally allowed many of my puppets to CTE. Oops. And I'll ditto FMB's puppet on that.

Mesilatia wrote:I don't think there's anything strange about that.

Intended Hell wrote:Unfortunately it seems I may have accidentally allowed many of my puppets to CTE. Oops. And I'll ditto FMB's puppet on that.

Thank you, you wonderful nations that you are.

Free Market Buisnesses wrote:Also, seriously, what do you think my political views are?

{OoC: I don't actually perceive The Allied Markets of Free Market Buisnesses to be anything more than someone's personal experiment in creating the future US wherein it has finished its descent into corporate despotism just to see what that might look like. I have a similar experiment of my own running in The Corporate State of Monetillia. I haven't been able to determine your political views through FMB because whether you RP or don't, you haven't posted things that deviate too far from FMB's ideological script. I have enjoyed that your posts always have the flavor of FMB even when you're posting OoC.}

Free Market Buisnesses wrote:Also, what's strange about talking to yourself?

{OoC: Nothing's strange about talking to oneself. In fact, my therapists say it's healthy as long as I know all the participants in the conversation are me! What's strange and even a little rude is bloating the forums going back and forth with oneself when others could be having a real conversation with each other.}

New Vedan wrote:Encourage? Probably not. Be ok with? Yea why not. I mean jr probably still wont get a birth defect, it's a 8 out of 100 chance after all, and that's if hes born to a mother over 35. Even if he does theres no guarantee itll be some life changing disability. He could just have webbed toes or something.

Why take the risk? Again, its not just the lives of the two, its the third as well, what reasoning can you give for changing someones life in a way that puts them at a disadvantage compared to a normal person born of a normal family? Is it not the point of progress to attempt to prevent things like this? Is the point of progress, science, and medicine not to minimize the chances of someone having an issue no matter how big or small? Why take the risk, and throw the progress we have made as a species out the window simply for an urge that can likely be satiated elsewhere in a more respectable manner?

You cannot guarantee that webbed toes or a seemingly equally unimportant issue will be the change, or even the only change. As you perform these actions, you increase the possibility of ruining someones life, and that is the issue. Even if it were just a 1% for a normal child to have a severe issue, by having a child created through incest you increase that chance. That is the scientific reason why it is immoral, this doesn't even begin to explain the societal or religious reasons that something like this is immoral.

New Vedan wrote: Plus there plenty of other things that cause birth defects. Like smoking and drinking while pregnant, or certain medications. Which also shouldn't be encouraged, but people do it.

put in child terms:
You cannot encourage bad behavior with more bad behavior.

In the end you asked for a reason why it is considered wrong, I have given my reasons, others can if they choose, but I will not go on further as this is simply an opinionated topic that likely neither will change. (At least I certainly will not)

Dernel wrote:Why take the risk? Again, its not just the lives of the two, its the third as well, what reasoning can you give for changing someones life in a way that puts them at a disadvantage compared to a normal person born of a normal family? Is it not the point of progress to attempt to prevent things like this? Is the point of progress, science, and medicine not to minimize the chances of someone having an issue no matter how big or small? Why take the risk, and throw the progress we have made as a species out the window simply for an urge that can likely be satiated elsewhere in a more respectable manner?

You cannot guarantee that webbed toes or a seemingly equally unimportant issue will be the change, or even the only change. As you perform these actions, you increase the possibility of ruining someones life, and that is the issue. Even if it were just a 1% for a normal child to have a severe issue, by having a child created through incest you increase that chance. That is the scientific reason why it is immoral, this doesn't even begin to explain the societal or religious reasons that something like this is immoral.
put in child terms:
You cannot encourage bad behavior with more bad behavior.

In the end you asked for a reason why it is considered wrong, I have given my reasons, others can if they choose, but I will not go on further as this is simply an opinionated topic that likely neither will change. (At least I certainly will not)

But you aren't changing anyone's life. That third life wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for those two specific people having it. If I was right now to choose between being born with a birth defect vs not being born at all I'd take the birth defect. After all, the inbred person can later in life choose to commit suicide if they want to. I'd personally be okay with killing off the inbred children that literally have no agency and are braindead, but if they just have some birth defect that makes their life a bit harder I don't see why we should be worried about that when the alternative is them not being born at all.

Plus incest doesn't have to result in a child. Would you allow two brothers to have sex, or two sisters, or a brother and a sister using protection?

Free Market Buisnesses wrote:Oh, the crystals are free, it's the consultation that'll cost you.

What use would the crystals be if I dunno how to handle them?

Dernel wrote:I think with the early parts of the bible it simply says Adam and Eve were the first, but doesn't mention that they were the only ones, which I believe a better example in religion would be Noah.

Noah had 3 sons in the Ark, and each of the 4 had a wife with him. So you got some diversity there.

«12. . .4,3834,3844,3854,3864,3874,3884,389. . .4,4284,429»

Advertisement