most likely, yes. The Lore incest tag would probably be best, since it would then be incest if this is true

No.

Incest doesn't cover cousins. First cousins, maybe, but that varies legally. If they're related closer than that, yes, it's regarded as incest. If they're second cousins or further, then, no, it's not incest.

Of the characters in question, they're first cousins once removed, so, no, there's no incest involved. Their genes might be too closely related for comfort, but they're not close enough relations for it to count as incest. Any child of Scrooge's would be Donald Duck's cousin. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are the sons of Donald's sister, Della. Donald and Della are the children of Hortense, the younger of Scrooge's two sisters. Thus, the closest relations between the relevant characters would be Fergus and Downy McDuck, Huey, Dewey, and Louie's maternal great grandparents and the spoiler character's paternal grandparents.

The family tree:

• Fergus McDuck & Downy McDuck née O'Drake
• Scrooge McDuck
• Webby Vanderquack
• Matilda Von Drake née McDuck
• Hortense Duck née McDuck — married to Quackmore Duck
• Donald Duck
• Della Duck
• Huey Duck
• Dewey Duck
• Louie Duck

Edit: Corrected the characters' familial relationship from second cousins to first cousins once removed.

clawstripe said:
Incest doesn't cover cousins.

incest cousins

strikerman said:
incest cousins

How closely related?

I will admit you have a point, but I'd think these are either first cousins or mistagged as incest. As I said above, the incestuality of first cousins varies legally. A third-degree relative, such as a stepsibling or first cousin, is right on the line. However, the triplets and the spoilered individual are first cousins once removed†, thus are fourth-degree relatives. This isn't considered incest, at least in a legal sense, either secular or religious. Furthermore, marriages, and thus sex, between relations more distantly related than first cousins have been and are still considered non-incestual.
_______________

† And not second cousins as I originally posted. If Webby ever has a child not sired by any of the triplets – or Donald, Scrooge, or Quackmore, because we know how furries can be – that child would be Huey's, Dewey's, and Louie's second cousin.

clawstripe said:
How closely related?

I will admit you have a point, but I'd think these are either first cousins or mistagged as incest. As I said above, the incestuality of first cousins varies legally. A third-degree relative, such as a stepsibling or first cousin, is right on the line. However, the triplets and the spoilered individual are first cousins once removed†, thus are fourth-degree relatives. This isn't considered incest, at least in a legal sense, either secular or religious. Furthermore, marriages, and thus sex, between relations more distantly related than first cousins have been and are still considered non-incestual.
_______________

† And not second cousins as I originally posted. If Webby ever has a child not sired by any of the triplets – or Donald, Scrooge, or Quackmore, because we know how furries can be – that child would be Huey's, Dewey's, and Louie's second cousin.

I'd rather Occam's razor this, tbh. If they're family, they're family. Maybe I'll recant if there turns out to be a lot of 8th-cousins-thrice-removed out there.

strikerman said:
I'd rather Occam's razor this, tbh. If they're family, they're family. Maybe I'll recant if there turns out to be a lot of 8th-cousins-thrice-removed out there.

Occam's Razor could also put it that sex with anyone related closer than cousins is incest, and that a cousin of any sort isn't. Family might be family, but not all family relations would result in incest. The question is where the dividing line is.

clawstripe said:
Occam's Razor could also put it that sex with anyone related closer than cousins is incest, and that a cousin of any sort isn't. Family might be family, but not all family relations would result in incest. The question is where the dividing line is.

just because it's legal to marry your cousin in some places doesn't make it less incest. Blood is blood, the wiki doesn't state anywhere that cousins don't count for the tag either so I don't know where your argument on that is coming from.

versperus said:
Blood is blood, the wiki doesn't state anywhere that cousins don't count for the tag either so I don't know where your argument on that is coming from.

Go back far enough, and we're all related. What arbitrary cut-off point do you want to set to where it no longer counts as incest?

watsit said:
Go back far enough, and we're all related. What arbitrary cut-off point do you want to set to where it no longer counts as incest?

modern humans originate in Africa, so that makes everyone a black guy

im gonna say the n word

_{for real though, probably when genetic issues due to inbreeding stop being a problem}

versperus said:
Blood is blood, the wiki doesn't state anywhere that cousins don't count for the tag either so I don't know where your argument on that is coming from.

What exactly do we mean by "blood" or "family"? Because Watsit is right. Ultimately, we're all cousins.

By "blood"/"family", do we mean the immediate family – parents, siblings, children, uncles and aunts, nieflings? Or do we mean the extended family? If so, then how extended? How far removed must the cousins be? First cousins? Second cousins? Eighth cousins thrice removed? How closely do we have to be related before it's considered incest?

E621's wiki doesn't define how close a family member has to be. Wikipedia does, with various cultures having various takes on first cousins. Some say that's still too close while others argue that first cousins are fair game. I would argue that this makes first cousins a suitable cut-off point. So, if you want cousin-on-cousin incest, then, okay, I don't mind that, but I'd argue they need to be first cousins. Sex between second cousins or first cousins once removed or farther don't count as incest. The wiki needs to be updated to reflect that.

I think a lot of us users of this site would be surprised at how closely related we are to each other. We all have literally hundreds, if not thousands, of eighth cousins thrice removed out there. There's a strong chance that I'm more closely related to most of you than eighth cousin thrice removed. If you look around at the people around you, a good many of those people are at least fifth cousins (at a guess) and closer, yet have sex or marry with nobody calling it incest.

binagon said:
modern humans originate in Africa, so that makes everyone a black guy

Not all native Africans are or were dark-skinned.

_{for real though, probably when genetic issues due to inbreeding stop being a problem}

Except that depends on how restricted the gene pool is. Given a small gene pool, such as that on a smaller island or European royalty in the past, issues from inbreeding can result even from second or third cousins (with anyone further apart admittedly unlikely getting born), whereas those living in areas with more genetic variety, such as on continents or lower social classes, first cousins could be suitably far enough apart genetically-speaking.

clawstripe said:
Not all native Africans are or were dark-skinned.

yeah, but my point was that generalizing like that isn't really considered an argument. There isn't just an arbitrary cut-off point, there are real potential issues with incest apart from the taboos given by many cultures.

Except that depends on how restricted the gene pool is. Given a small gene pool, such as that on a smaller island or European royalty in the past, issues from inbreeding can result even from second or third cousins (with anyone further apart admittedly unlikely getting born), whereas those living in areas with more genetic variety, such as on continents or lower social classes, first cousins could be suitably far enough apart genetically-speaking.

Well the issue remains that the closer two individuals of a certain species are genetically, the more likely their offspring may develop with potential genetic defects. Yeah, there's no guarantee, but the risk is higher, and to some that's an acceptable risk.

This is also why many animals developed mechanisms to reduce the chances of inbreeding, because from an evolutionary standpoint, it is less successful to choosing a mate with less genetic variation.

binagon said:
yeah, but my point was that generalizing like that isn't really considered an argument. There isn't just an arbitrary cut-off point, there are real potential issues with incest apart from the taboos given by many cultures.

Well the issue remains that the closer two individuals of a certain species are genetically, the more likely their offspring may develop with potential genetic defects. Yeah, there's no guarantee, but the risk is higher, and to some that's an acceptable risk.

Yet, "blood is blood" and "if they're family, they're family" are also generalizations of a similar nature. And while there are real potential issues caused by incest such as genetic damage, these are inbreeding issues and not incestual ones.

When do we say, "this is incest, but that is not"? You're right in that problems due to inbreeding can show up at a fairly wide range of relatives, so the chance of inbreeding is not a good indicator of determining a cut-off point for what makes something incest.

A brother having sex with his brother will not produce offspring (unless you're into m-preg). A brother having sex with his sister is no more of a guarantee of pregnancy as it would be if he had sex with an unrelated female. In both cases, incest happens, but none of the physical issues of inbreeding occur since there are no children. Even if that latter brother did sire a child with his sister, while there would be an increased chance of genetic damage due to inbreeding, the effects of the damage take more than one generation of incestual relations to appear, especially in larger populations.

There are even situations in which it's considered incest, but the participants aren't genetically close. Also, as mentioned above, a small enough genetic population pool will increase the odds of noticable genetic damage via inbreeding without there being incest.

So, when is this incest, and that isn't? Society puts the dividing line around first cousins. Using Occam's razor, this is simpler than "family is family" because it's specific instead of vaguely defined.

This is also why many animals developed mechanisms to reduce the chances of inbreeding, because from an evolutionary standpoint, it is less successful to choosing a mate with less genetic variation.

Yes, I know. Inbreeding is also one means of forming a new species. But, as said above, inbreeding doesn't require incest. Furthermore, some of these mechanisms, such as the Westermarke effect, can kick in even between individuals that aren't closely related but have lived together since childhood. Again, using the potential effects of inbreeding isn't a good indicator of what makes this incest and that not.

clawstripe said:
What exactly do we mean by "blood" or "family"? Because Watsit is right. Ultimately, we're all cousins.

By "blood"/"family", do we mean the immediate family – parents, siblings, children, uncles and aunts, nieflings? Or do we mean the extended family? If so, then how extended? How far removed must the cousins be? First cousins? Second cousins? Eighth cousins thrice removed? How closely do we have to be related before it's considered incest?

E621's wiki doesn't define how close a family member has to be. Wikipedia does, with various cultures having various takes on first cousins. Some say that's still too close while others argue that first cousins are fair game. I would argue that this makes first cousins a suitable cut-off point. So, if you want cousin-on-cousin incest, then, okay, I don't mind that, but I'd argue they need to be first cousins. Sex between second cousins or first cousins once removed or farther don't count as incest. The wiki needs to be updated to reflect that.

I think a lot of us users of this site would be surprised at how closely related we are to each other. We all have literally hundreds, if not thousands, of eighth cousins thrice removed out there. There's a strong chance that I'm more closely related to most of you than eighth cousin thrice removed. If you look around at the people around you, a good many of those people are at least fifth cousins (at a guess) and closer, yet have sex or marry with nobody calling it incest.

If you know you're related to a traceable heritage to someone and you're doing the lewd with them it should count for the tag as far as I'm concerned, i.e. if hubert j farnsworth and philip j fry did the nasty I would consider that incest.

clawstripe said:
Yet, "blood is blood" and "if they're family, they're family" are also generalizations of a similar nature. And while there are real potential issues caused by incest such as genetic damage, these are inbreeding issues and not incestual ones.

When do we say, "this is incest, but that is not"? You're right in that problems due to inbreeding can show up at a fairly wide range of relatives, so the chance of inbreeding is not a good indicator of determining a cut-off point for what makes something incest.

A brother having sex with his brother will not produce offspring (unless you're into m-preg). A brother having sex with his sister is no more of a guarantee of pregnancy as it would be if he had sex with an unrelated female. In both cases, incest happens, but none of the physical issues of inbreeding occur since there are no children. Even if that latter brother did sire a child with his sister, while there would be an increased chance of genetic damage due to inbreeding, the effects of the damage take more than one generation of incestual relations to appear, especially in larger populations.

There are even situations in which it's considered incest, but the participants aren't genetically close. Also, as mentioned above, a small enough genetic population pool will increase the odds of noticable genetic damage via inbreeding without there being incest.

So, when is this incest, and that isn't? Society puts the dividing line around first cousins. Using Occam's razor, this is simpler than "family is family" because it's specific instead of vaguely defined.
Yes, I know. Inbreeding is also one means of forming a new species. But, as said above, inbreeding doesn't require incest. Furthermore, some of these mechanisms, such as the Westermarke effect, can kick in even between individuals that aren't closely related but have lived together since childhood. Again, using the potential effects of inbreeding isn't a good indicator of what makes this incest and that not.

fair enough, I hadn't considered the case where sex occurred without pregnancy. That being said, the definition of incest is "sex between close relatives or family members" so I'm gonna agree with Strikerman and Versperus here because at this point we would be debating semantics rather than cultural norms.