Jump to content

Shockingly, cliched slogans don't constitute valid arguments.


Næt.

Recommended Posts

"It's good to be open minded, but not so much so that your brain falls out."

I hate this. I really really do. It's become the last bastion of defence used by people who've run out of arguments of substance. Take, for example, a recent discussion over marriage between close family members I had. The general gist of the argument went thusly:

A: It's weird

Me: So? It's not hurting anyone, is it?

A: Yeah, but it's un-natural.

Me: So's the internet, but I don't see you complaining about that.

A: But the children have a higher chance of genetic deformities.

Me: What if they don't have children?

A: Accidents happen.

Me: Not if they were careful. Condoms alone have about a 98pc effectiveness rate. The pill has a 99+pc. Personally, I'd take those odds (were I so inclined). And they could have a vasectomy or hysterectomy.

A: What if they split up and want children with other partners?

Me: Well, they could either adopt or have their respective gametes frozen. The male could have the vasectomy reversed.

A: It still shouldn't be allowed.

Me: You just want it proscribed because it repulses you.

A: It's good to be open-minded, but not so much so that your brain falls out.

What? WTF? In what magickal land does that constitute an actual argument? It's like, I'll tell you what it's like, in fact, it's like arguing the existence of God and the non-atheist just falls back on the stock response 'God did it', or variations on a theme. Faith being tested etc.

Grah.

edit, sometime later: And bitching about 'political correctness' isn't a damn argument, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist

I used to be strongly anti-incest before I actually bothered to consider the situation.

It is highly rare that incestuous couples (and I am obviously referring to relationships between consenting adults -- people abusing there children and suchlike is a totally different and unrelated issue) deliberately produce children. Historically, noble families have been a notable exception to this, but that seems to have changed in recent times. However, even in the unlikely event that an incestuous couple has children... so what?

The risk of genetic complications is greatly exaggerated. In fact, the risk of a child having a complication is 1 in 8 for every recessive lethal a parent has if they are full siblings (50% chance that their partner shares the recessive allele, and 25% that the child would inherit both copies if both parents have it). This chance is 1 in 16 for half-siblings and 1 in 32 for first cousins. The amount of lethal recessives we have is quite variable, but it's safe to assume a couple per person (discounting things that result in very early miscarriage, which happens all the time anyway and isn't an issue).

Now, let's say a couple have a child who has cystic fibrosis. In this situation, it is almost certain that both parents are carriers of the same CF gene. The chance that the fetus develops such a thing on its own is so small as to be discounted completely. Thus, there is a 25% chance that any child this couple has in the future will have cystic fibrosis, a very horrible and debilitating condition.

Should such people be forbidden from having a relationship, on the off-chance that they concieve again? Hell, I've known such people to actually try for another child!

Let us be clear here -- we are discussing eugenics. The entire anti-incest argument is based on the concept that it is okay for us to forbid couples from forming based on the genetic potential of their offspring. The only reason that this is considered acceptable in society is that we have been taught this particular bias from birth, and many are personally revolted by the idea.

Preventing incestuous coupling is eugenics. There are no other remotely justifiable arguments for it.

(Sorry, I think I skipped the main point of your post there...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I love that part. It's almost like they've admitted defeat outright!

"And with that last comment, I have officially run out of things to say."

As soon as someone resorts to that, there you go, you won the argument. I say go reward yourself with tea :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having an incestuous relationship certainly takes care of the awful in-law problem. -_-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats how I've always looked at Prode. Once they wheel out an "argument" that can't be countered in anyway because the counter-counter is the first argument (often got did it) then you've won, the problem is that when you walk away in disgust they think they've won. Trying to explain to them that what they've done is basically admitting defeat doesn't work either unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are so disgusted by incest that they won't have a relationship with someone who's too much like family. That sends me off my rocker, personally, because of how illogical it is.

As for the whole cliche slogan thing, I totally get that. It's like when arguing with a Christian about homosexuality, and how the Bible says all these horrible things, yet they are not followed (ie things about women and slaves). Then, once they realize they have nothing else to say, they pull out "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

That makes me want to become physical with fists to faces, honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats how I've always looked at Prode. Once they wheel out an "argument" that can't be countered in anyway because the counter-counter is the first argument (often got did it) then you've won, the problem is that when you walk away in disgust they think they've won. Trying to explain to them that what they've done is basically admitting defeat doesn't work either unfortunately.

Well glad I'm not alone in that! Even though yes, they rarely see how they've lost, but I know it, so it makes me happy ;)

As for the 'keep it in the family' thing, well certainly not something I'd consider but hell, if everyone is an adult and on board with the idea who am I to say? I've got enough sins I need to worry about answering for without worrying about everyone else's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If people didn;t have skulls their brains would fall out.

Therefore bones support your POV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry
Thats how I've always looked at Prode. Once they wheel out an "argument" that can't be countered in anyway because the counter-counter is the first argument (often got did it) then you've won, the problem is that when you walk away in disgust they think they've won. Trying to explain to them that what they've done is basically admitting defeat doesn't work either unfortunately.

It's all about feeling superior. Just ask Melvin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist
Thats how I've always looked at Prode. Once they wheel out an "argument" that can't be countered in anyway because the counter-counter is the first argument (often got did it) then you've won, the problem is that when you walk away in disgust they think they've won. Trying to explain to them that what they've done is basically admitting defeat doesn't work either unfortunately.

It's all about feeling superior. Just ask Melvin.

Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon -- they don't get the rules, knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and fly back to the flock to declare their victory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon -- they don't get the rules, knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and fly back to the flock to declare their victory.

:lol: I love this one! Did you come up with it yourself? Can I use it some time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampireseal
Preventing incestuous coupling is eugenics. There are no other remotely justifiable arguments for it.

(Sorry, I think I skipped the main point of your post there...)

I'm actually okay with forbidding adult incestuous couples from having children together, and I'm all for forbidding parents with cystic fibrosis from having children. It *is* eugenics, but I don't see why that is completely a bad thing. Frankly, I don't think eugenics is that bad a thing, considering that it is practiced all the frikkin' time. Most people don't think of themselves as supporters of eugenics, but anytime someone goes into a sperm bank to pick out a father with specific traits or posts an egg donor ad on Craigslist requesting extremely specific lifestyle details, they are practicing eugenics.

If society was truly as anti-eugenic as it believes itself to be, women requesting sperm for eggs would have to pick out the fathers in a completely random manner. Eugenics didn't get a bad rap until people began associating it with Nazi ideas of creating a perfect blond race and other nonsense. People forget they practice eugenics on a personal level without a single thought.

But back to the incest thing, if the people are adults and either siblings or a parent-child in which the parent did not raise the child, I don't see it as a serious issue. The main concern with incestuous relationships, particularly between parent-child is the issue of exploitation. If a father raises as girl as his own, then decides to pursue a sexual relationship with her, it can be uncertain from an outsider's point of view if this was her own wishes or something the father brain-washed her into.

I think the latter scenario is the real argument against incestuous relationships, particularly involving parent-child. Usually, no one makes this argument though, they fall back on the "Oh its gross!" or the "Genetic defects!".

Which is true, the incidence of genetic defects is higher, but serious issues only start happening if the incest is repeated generation after generation. A single incestuous breeding in a mostly variegated gene pool will not be too alarming. You are actually more likely to have a child with defects by having a child over 40 than by having sex with a sibling. Still, I'm not sure if its a good idea to have an incestuous couple raise their own child, what with society being what it is. Also, what if the children of the incestuous couple begin having incestuous relationships themselves? While the first inbreeding was probably not that deleterious to the genetic line, if the inbreeding kept on going it definitely would be.

The question is, should the first incestuous coupling be allowed, but not that of subsequent generations? Would this problem ever arise in the first place? Hmm....

It just seems safer to me to prevent the incestuous couple from having children. They can adopt if they wish, I just hope the adopted child would not have to put up with too much flack from society because of it.

Really, why can't more people just adopt anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist
Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon -- they don't get the rules, knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and fly back to the flock to declare their victory.

:lol: I love this one! Did you come up with it yourself? Can I use it some time?

It's not mine, I don't know where it comes from. The original (to my knowledge) is "arguing with a fundie is like..." but you can stick pretty much any group or stereotype that's famous for logic failure in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist
Preventing incestuous coupling is eugenics. There are no other remotely justifiable arguments for it.

(Sorry, I think I skipped the main point of your post there...)

I'm actually okay with forbidding adult incestuous couples from having children together, and I'm all for forbidding parents with cystic fibrosis from having children. It *is* eugenics, but I don't see why that is completely a bad thing. Frankly, I don't think eugenics is that bad a thing, considering that it is practiced all the frikkin' time. Most people don't think of themselves as supporters of eugenics, but anytime someone goes into a sperm bank to pick out a father with specific traits or posts an egg donor ad on Craigslist requesting extremely specific lifestyle details, they are practicing eugenics.

If society was truly as anti-eugenic as it believes itself to be, women requesting sperm for eggs would have to pick out the fathers in a completely random manner. Eugenics didn't get a bad rap until people began associating it with Nazi ideas of creating a perfect blond race and other nonsense. People forget they practice eugenics on a personal level without a single thought.

Fair enough. I'm not against eugenics in principle, I just don't think it works that well in modern Western societies -- we're not ready for it and it stinks of oppression when you try to apply it here, as well as the historical associations. I brought up eugenics because there are a lot of people who are against eugenics except in the specific case of incest, and never seem to think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that phrase has merit (and probably not for the reasons you might think), and here's why: Video.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampireseal
Fair enough. I'm not against eugenics in principle, I just don't think it works that well in modern Western societies -- we're not ready for it and it stinks of oppression when you try to apply it here, as well as the historical associations. I brought up eugenics because there are a lot of people who are against eugenics except in the specific case of incest, and never seem to think about it.

Yeah, I've noticed the word "eugenics" gets thrown about in the same manner that "socialism" does. Namely, I'm referring to the way that many people get whenever a Democrat/Liberal/etc announces some kind of plan, someone inevitably yells "But that's socialism!", as if socialism is the most evil thing in the world. Never mind the fact that most countries practice some form of socialism, including the US. Of course extreme socialism is not a good thing, but neither is extreme capitalism.

Eugenics is treated the same way. Extreme forms of eugenics is not a pleasant thing, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to live in a society that took the extreme forms of anti-eugenics as well, eg. banning all forms of birth control, banning sperm donor selection,etc. You'll notice that Pro-life forms often mention how abortion is a form of eugenics. They are right of course, but just because its a form of eugenics does not mean its a bad thing entirely. They just hope that hearing the word "eugenics" alone is enough to convince other it is wrong.

Sorry to derail everything again.

At anyrate, I think the primary reason people are against incest is the simple fact that they can't envision someone doing what they themselves would never do. And the reason most people can't contemplate incest is because of the Westermark effect.

If you ever see that documentary "Brothers and Sisters in Love", which focuses on sexual genetic attraction, you'll notice that all of them were not raised together. In fact, 50% of people meeting long-lost relatives often experience sexual attraction to their relative. It's a fairly common phenomenon. In the absence of the Westermark effect, not only are people not averse to sleeping with their close relatives, they are drawn to their relatives more than anyone else. It's almost as if the whole purpose of the Westermark effect (which has been observed in Bonobos as well as humans), is that it keeps us from perceiving our live-in kin as sexual objects of desire. Even when unrelated people are raised together, its difficult for them to perceive of themselves as anything more than siblings or parent/child.

So the incest taboo is also a biological phenomenon not just a social one. So it makes perfectly good sense for people to freak out over incest. It just means those people have a hard time seeing outside of their own preferences or biological biases. Still, since most people are unaware of the dual biological conflicts of genetic sexual attraction vs. Westermark effect, most people have a hard time understanding the real conflict that most consenting incestuous couples go through. If it were'nt for the Westermark effect, we'd being chasing after our kin all the time. These people didn't have that natural barrier that being raised with a sibling creates, so I'm more inclined to feel sympathy for these individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the absence of the Westermark effect, not only are people not averse to sleeping with their close relatives, they are drawn to their relatives more than anyone else. It's almost as if the whole purpose of the Westermark effect (which has been observed in Bonobos as well as humans), is that it keeps us from perceiving our live-in kin as sexual objects of desire. Even when unrelated people are raised together, its difficult for them to perceive of themselves as anything more than siblings or parent/child.

That was the case with children raised on kibbutzim during the early days of Israel. By the time they were teens, boys and girls could sleep in the same room and not feel each other was a suitable sex object, because they'd been raised together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. I'm not against eugenics in principle, I just don't think it works that well in modern Western societies -- we're not ready for it and it stinks of oppression when you try to apply it here, as well as the historical associations. I brought up eugenics because there are a lot of people who are against eugenics except in the specific case of incest, and never seem to think about it.

Yeah, I've noticed the word "eugenics" gets thrown about in the same manner that "socialism" does. Namely, I'm referring to the way that many people get whenever a Democrat/Liberal/etc announces some kind of plan, someone inevitably yells "But that's socialism!", as if socialism is the most evil thing in the world. Never mind the fact that most countries practice some form of socialism, including the US. Of course extreme socialism is not a good thing, but neither is extreme capitalism.

But doesn't eugenics eventually lead to a 'shallowing' of the gene pool, which means that there's less abilty to adapt if the environment changes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone minds voluntary eugenics. People do that naturally by selecting mates they are attracted to in some way (physically or mentally). It's enforced eugenics that's problematic. Whether you think that might be acceptable depends on whether you're collectivist or individualist...

Collectivist: people shouldn't be allowed to deliberately take actions that are more likely to result in disabled kids (incest, alcohol while pregnant, etc) because it's better for society when children are born as healthy as possible.

Individualist: people should be allowed to do whatever they want. If they mess up their kids, they fail at Darwinism. All the more room for my genes, mwahahaha!

...that sounds a bit biased. Let's try it the other way around...

Collectivist: society should enforce standards of human perfection. We only want blond blue eyed Aryan kids, not untermenschen. Everyone else must be eliminated!

Individualist: the government shouldn't interfere with individual liberties. I should decide what's best for me and my kids.

Pick your poison.

I think that phrase has merit (and probably not for the reasons you might think), and here's why: Video.

Brilliant!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. I'm not against eugenics in principle, I just don't think it works that well in modern Western societies -- we're not ready for it and it stinks of oppression when you try to apply it here, as well as the historical associations. I brought up eugenics because there are a lot of people who are against eugenics except in the specific case of incest, and never seem to think about it.

Yeah, I've noticed the word "eugenics" gets thrown about in the same manner that "socialism" does. Namely, I'm referring to the way that many people get whenever a Democrat/Liberal/etc announces some kind of plan, someone inevitably yells "But that's socialism!", as if socialism is the most evil thing in the world. Never mind the fact that most countries practice some form of socialism, including the US. Of course extreme socialism is not a good thing, but neither is extreme capitalism.

But doesn't eugenics eventually lead to a 'shallowing' of the gene pool, which means that there's less abilty to adapt if the environment changes?

I t5hought eugenics led tp warlike madmen taking over the planet, being defeated and blasted into space and ending up being revived hundreds of years int he future to battle agianst captain Kirk...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. I'm not against eugenics in principle, I just don't think it works that well in modern Western societies -- we're not ready for it and it stinks of oppression when you try to apply it here, as well as the historical associations. I brought up eugenics because there are a lot of people who are against eugenics except in the specific case of incest, and never seem to think about it.

Yeah, I've noticed the word "eugenics" gets thrown about in the same manner that "socialism" does. Namely, I'm referring to the way that many people get whenever a Democrat/Liberal/etc announces some kind of plan, someone inevitably yells "But that's socialism!", as if socialism is the most evil thing in the world. Never mind the fact that most countries practice some form of socialism, including the US. Of course extreme socialism is not a good thing, but neither is extreme capitalism.

But doesn't eugenics eventually lead to a 'shallowing' of the gene pool, which means that there's less abilty to adapt if the environment changes?

I t5hought eugenics led tp warlike madmen taking over the planet, being defeated and blasted into space and ending up being revived hundreds of years int he future to battle agianst captain Kirk...

All trekkers together now...

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist
Fair enough. I'm not against eugenics in principle, I just don't think it works that well in modern Western societies -- we're not ready for it and it stinks of oppression when you try to apply it here, as well as the historical associations. I brought up eugenics because there are a lot of people who are against eugenics except in the specific case of incest, and never seem to think about it.

Yeah, I've noticed the word "eugenics" gets thrown about in the same manner that "socialism" does. Namely, I'm referring to the way that many people get whenever a Democrat/Liberal/etc announces some kind of plan, someone inevitably yells "But that's socialism!", as if socialism is the most evil thing in the world. Never mind the fact that most countries practice some form of socialism, including the US. Of course extreme socialism is not a good thing, but neither is extreme capitalism.

But doesn't eugenics eventually lead to a 'shallowing' of the gene pool, which means that there's less abilty to adapt if the environment changes?

Um... not necessarily. Properly applied eugenics would weed out obviously bad mutations (like cystic fibrosis) and ignore everything else. Frankly, if we're ever in a situation where having CF makes you fitter and we're relying on our DNA to save us, the species is doomed. Eugenics that deliberately aims for a narrow, "ideal" gene pool by cutting down on otherwise completely benign or neutral variation is a stupid thing to do, though, and this is what a lot of people think of when they think of eugenics because this is what idiots have tried in the recent past.

I'm not against the mild eugenics we employ now (such as sperm donor screening or IVF embryo screening) in any way whatsoever; people get up in arms when it starts to infringe too much on their personal choice. For example, the hypothetical CF-carrying couple not being allowed to reproduce. Currently, they are allowed to reproduce AND they have the option of using IVF, which allows them to screem embryos for the disease -- the best of both worlds. I'm not sure our society would take too well to more intrusive eugenics programs, though, which makes the incest ban quite hypocritical, especially since its long-term effects are to weed out lethal mutations even if reproduction was common.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Min Farshaw
All trekkers together now...

There really needs to be a "KHAAAAAAN!!!" emoticon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The percentage of screwed-up babies due to incestuous unions is, I'm sure (without any data to prove it, of course) miniscule compared to the screwed-up babies born to alcohol- and drug-addicted parents. (I say parents because apparently fathers' sperm can affect the fetus also.) Unless we're going to test everyone in society for addiction and if they're found to be addicted, prospectively spay/neuter them, we shouldn't get excited about a few stray incentuous situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist
The percentage of screwed-up babies due to incestuous unions is, I'm sure (without any data to prove it, of course) miniscule compared to the screwed-up babies born to alcohol- and drug-addicted parents. (I say parents because apparently fathers' sperm can affect the fetus also.) Unless we're going to test everyone in society for addiction and if they're found to be addicted, prospectively spay/neuter them, we shouldn't get excited about a few stray incentuous situations.

To be fair, it's much easier to keep an eye on incestuous couples. Their relationship is usually on record.

But I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...