Thats right, I get my "creeps of Halforums" confused sometimes. I just lump them all into Icarus.Icarus liked underaged poon not related poon.
I feel dirty writing that.
Yeah, probably semantics. Thanks for the clarification.Eh, there's a difference to me between actively defending it ("yay, incest!") and defending their right to do what they want by saying it's not the government's place to tell them they can't. I'm not going to defend the Westboro Baptist Church for being a bunch of asshats, but I'm going to defend their right to asshattery.
Maybe it's just semantics.
Thats right, I get my "creeps of Halforums" confused sometimes. I just lump them all into Icarus.
I remember reading some journal articles when I was an undergrad in physical anthropology about incest taboo. Mathias would be able to speak more clearly on it, but it seems that it is present in many animal species. The evolutionary advantage of the "Ew" reaction is to increase the gene pool. Or if you look at it from a natural selection point of view, those who branched out were selected for.
So is it wrong? It depends on what your basis for morality is. If it is the bible, well, Espy could answer that better than I. I've always favored a morality based on survival of one's genetic group (a moral code which I won't go into great detail on).
Haha, you don't say!I expect there are psychological issues at play in most romantic relationships though.
Do I have to?? Basically, I think of morality as derived from evolutionary pressures. The implications of this are that moral choices (murder, theft, incest, etc.) are strongest (in terms of taboos, for example) for oneself and one's immediate relatives, but drop off as you get further from your immediate genetic relationships. Obviously these are predispositions and not absolutes, as fratricide and the like still exist, meaning these predispositions can be overcome by circumstances. So "protecting one's own" is the general rule of morality. However, humans are all 99.xxx% related, so in fact our moral code extends to much of the human race rather easily. After that, it is not difficult (though less typical) to extend the same principles to other species. It then becomes merely a matter of in-group/out-group differences. If you consider all humans to be related (and thus, "your own"), then you will treat them with the moral code that pressures us towards preserving immediate family. Alternatively, consider when Europeans considered Native Americans and Africans as another species, or the racist treatment of black Americans post-slavery (and pre-slavery, for that matter). If you extend your inclusiveness to other species (thus empathizing with non-human animals) then that basic moral code extends ever further. Many do not throw their net so wide, though, so morality remains localized to immediate family (and friends, and community, but often not much beyond that...thus, war, etc.) And there you have it.
Interesting. "My brother is my keeper" as a genetic characteristic using the "fear of The Other" baser instict to explain cultural animosity. Glad you expanded! (For several reasons, one of which is that the concept of morality based on genetics is....touchy)Do I have to?? Basically, I think of morality as derived from evolutionary pressures. The implications of this are that moral choices (murder, theft, incest, etc.) are strongest (in terms of taboos, for example) for oneself and one's immediate relatives, but drop off as you get further from your immediate genetic relationships. Obviously these are predispositions and not absolutes, as fratricide and the like still exist, meaning these predispositions can be overcome by circumstances. So "protecting one's own" is the general rule of morality. However, humans are all 99.xxx% related, so in fact our moral code extends to much of the human race rather easily. After that, it is not difficult (though less typical) to extend the same principles to other species. It then becomes merely a matter of in-group/out-group differences. If you consider all humans to be related (and thus, "your own"), then you will treat them with the moral code that pressures us towards preserving immediate family. Alternatively, consider when Europeans considered Native Americans and Africans as another species, or the racist treatment of black Americans post-slavery (and pre-slavery, for that matter). If you extend your inclusiveness to other species (thus empathizing with non-human animals) then that basic moral code extends ever further. Many do not throw their net so wide, though, so morality remains localized to immediate family (and friends, and community, but often not much beyond that...thus, war, etc.) And there you have it.
That's the truth!Interesting. "My brother is my keeper" as a genetic characteristic using the "fear of The Other" baser instict to explain cultural animosity. Glad you expanded! (For several reasons, one of which is that the concept of morality based on genetics is....touchy)
I think it's called the Westermarck Effect.I seem to remember reading that the "icky" feeling we get from the idea of sex with a relative has more to do with growing up around those people rather than sharing a genetic link. Many foster children will have a similar feeling of "ew" to the idea of having sex with a foster brother/sister, even though they don't share a genetic link. If that's true, it's not surprising that people who are related but never knew each other might feel an attraction.
Still, it seems gross to me. Blech.
That might be the most appropriate picture post this thread will ever see.
Geez. Do you think we're geeks or something?Has anybody made a Craster joke yet?