452
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
452 points (98.1% liked)
News
23296 readers
3579 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
if both are consenting adults it shouldn't be illegal. maybe there's benefit to genetic counseling if there's intent or possibility to have children, but it shouldn't be illegal with or without that.
There are 8 billion people on this planet now. Surely you can find someone other than your cousin.
It really shouldn't need to be illegal, but I guess residents of the volunteer state require a little more incentive to find dates before the holidays, rather than during them.
wasn't talking about myself, which shouldn't need to be pointed out, but here we are.
It's shouldn't be the role of government to regulate who you want to marry.
But also don't do that
Most on Lemmy and other lefty spaces are of the "two consenting adults can do what they want" mind but take an inconsistent turn on this, seemingly because it's "icky" to them.
How is that any different than conservatives being anti-gay because it's "icky" to them?
It's not because it's "icky", it's because if you both have the same grandma then you only have one snickerdoodle recipe for Christmas cookies, genetically speaking.
As stated several times in this thread, the risk of genetic issues is akin to that of a 40+ year old woman having kids.
It would seem consistent to also ban that if that is your actual issue, right? So, is that what you’re suggesting?
I never called for a ban. I said maybe go out and explore the forest before climbing up the family tree. And it's my understanding that most women understand the risk of procreating after 40 and typically avoid it.
But I'm not your daddy. You don't need my approval to fuck your uncle's kids.
You said,
I took this to mean that those who don't voluntarily choose to not marry/have sex with their cousins need to be forced not to by law (a ban). Did I misread that?
Not really.
Speaking from a virgin, and not a cousinfucker, perspective.
'There's someone for everyone' is such a fucking bullshit platitude.
It's absolutely true though
Sure buddy. Ever heard of 'Just World Fallacy'?
The just world fallacy is about people getting what they deserve.
That doesn't seem to really apply to the statistical argument that there are enough people out there, the chance for any given individual to not have any shot is effectively (if perhaps not precisely) zero. Small enough to not be worth considering.
Relationships are subject to much more than just statistics.
Sure. But I don't think anyone else is suggesting everyone deserves a relationship.
Really? Then why the fuck everyone keeps saying you'll find someone?
Fuck it. I'm not going to argue with ingenious morons anymore, who are either pretending to be dumb or are actually dumb to understand what I am saying. Bye.
I don't see how that fallacy is relevant here though
...You serious?
...?
do you have anything actually to say?
Yes I do. I just don't know how to dumb it down enough for you to understand.
I mean you're just crying about the world being unfair because you're a virgin. I'd calm the pretentiousness here. I'll give you a hint: that behavior is a cause as to why you feel that way. Does this need to be dumbed down more? Or do you need to ask a few more wastefully empty replies that add absolutely nothing?
Absolute reddit tier reply. Have some empathy jackass.
The irony here is astounding. You started off insulting me, and in multiple comments now. The original statement of there being someone for everyone still remains true.
Same line of reasoning, just 50 years ago.
We shouldn't ban consenting adult relationships solely because they are icky.
are you seriously comparing marrying a black person with marrying your first cousin
Yes. Explain the difference, if you can.
No, I want you to explain your reasoning, you're the one who made it. please explain how marrying a black person is just like marrying your first cousin.
There's nothing objectively wrong with either one. Both have been banned because they gross people out for purely social (bigoted) reasons.
Incorrect. One results in higher than normal birth defects that exacerbate over time, and one is perfectly healthy. We, as a society, should try to limit birth defects, no? Are you also in favor of bringing back thalidomide?
Out of curiosity, are you chill with incest if the couple is incapable of biological reproduction? (They're the same sex, one or both has been sterilized, ect.)
incest is not something I'd call myself "chill" with.
And why not?
The birth defects are on par with a woman over 30 giving birth. Want to ban that too?
that's not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You're gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.
Sorry, it was women over 34: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-cousin-marriage-older-mothers-birth.html
Facts. You just don't like it because of the ick, and the cognitive dissonance is making you angry. No one likes when it's pointed out that they're acting irrationally.
look at you moving goalposts. go back to disappointing your family.
I just misremembered. But my point still stands. You want to ban women over 34 having children?
no, I don't. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn't lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you're using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn't apply.
It's not a slippery slope, it's the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.
no it wouldn't and that's your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You're wrong.
Why do you want to ban consanguineous marriage?
wanting to ban first cousin marriages does not equate to banning pregnancies from woman aged 34 and older. How many times do you need this repeated to you?
Answer the question.
It increases the risk of birth defects slightly but not as much as people seem to think.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/there-s-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html
continued procreation within the family destroys the viability of the offspring eventually. This is not something to be encouraged.
Are you for any law preventing people more likely than average to produce offspring with defects from reproducing, or just cousins?
Genetically, first cousins are fine. It does slightly increase some risks, I think doubles at most for some very low likelihood cases. I don't know that it's any more irresponsible than reproducing with someone that has a family history of genetically passed diseases.
Humans were tribal until very recently, and reproducing with non-immediate relatives was normal. If it were that detrimental, we would not have survived as a species.
And no, my wife is not remotely related to me.
Not even remotely implied or relevant