Well the property prices in Alabama are actually pretty amazing, and low property taxes as well. I know people who get very high paying jobs in places like Massachusetts and save almost every penny of it, and go back and live in a place like Alabama and live like millionaires.

I sense some intense passive-aggression from daddy dearest

Samkyo said:
I sense some intense passive-aggression from daddy dearest

He just wants a good hotdogging.

I think he is just joking around, poking at them for fun rather than trying to guilt them or make them feel bad.

So like, the argument she made is like, really bad cuz two gay guys can fuck and not result in a baby, or in their case babies, with inbred problems. Sure them loving each other is perfectly fine, but like, don't have kids if you're diddling your relatives?

squigglybigglybingbo said:
she has 2 retard babies with fucked chromosomes in her belly and shes going WHY IS INCEST BAD HMM!?

Actually, it would take about 5-6 generations of inbreeding for any abnormalities in the DNA line to actually begin to show. Which is why royal lines would marry off to cousins or neighboring kingdoms.

Besides - if we're all decended from Adam and Eve, we're all related anyway.

Deya said:
Well the property prices in Alabama are actually pretty amazing, and low property taxes as well. I know people who get very high paying jobs in places like Massachusetts and save almost every penny of it, and go back and live in a place like Alabama and live like millionaires.

The prices have to be low. can't charge more than the people can count.

Bad joke aside, i may actually look into it assuming the general population isn't too nosy or irritating.

sorenxoras said:
The prices have to be low. can't charge more than the people can count.

Bad joke aside, i may actually look into it assuming the general population isn't too nosy or irritating.

Well considering you can shoot guns in your yard without having the cops called on you I’d say they leave you alone pretty well.

Wow that was a garbage argument on her side lol

Don't connect this to gay marriage as similar issues thanks

He's her dad, he gets to give them shit for fucking your brother. Should be glad they aren't disowning them and leaving them to fend for themselves in the campground.

Oooh...ala-fucking-bama! I saw what he did there!

I suppose asking when is he starting to take banjo lessons would have been a little too obvious....

ggdk said:
Oooh...ala-fucking-bama! I saw what he did there!

I suppose asking when is he starting to take banjo lessons would have been a little too obvious....

For some reason, I didn't connect the dots until I read your post.

Kasmira3 said:
I think he is just joking around, poking at them for fun rather than trying to guilt them or make them feel bad.

Poking at them for poking each other

Kasmira3 said:
I think he is just joking around, poking at them for fun rather than trying to guilt them or make them feel bad.

Makes sense.

Senmitsuya said:
Why not? The whole issue rests on the same premise.

No the fuck it is not

Gladendor said:
So like, the argument she made is like, really bad cuz two gay guys can fuck and not result in a baby, or in their case babies, with inbred problems. Sure them loving each other is perfectly fine, but like, don't have kids if you're diddling your relatives?

CamKitty said:
Wow that was a garbage argument on her side lol

Don't connect this to gay marriage as similar issues thanks

Pibblepunk said:
No the fuck it is not

I have seen a LOT of people who are into incest irl try to associate themselves with the LGBT+ community on different social medias. Never ceases to make cracks in my veneer of tranquility.

Gladendor said:
So like, the argument she made is like, really bad cuz two gay guys can fuck and not result in a baby, or in their case babies, with inbred problems. Sure them loving each other is perfectly fine, but like, don't have kids if you're diddling your relatives?

I don't get the hypocrisy towards incest... but people keep bringing up babies with congenital defects and what have you, and as such are against it.

AND YET, they are perfectly fine with people with such defects of non-incestuous relations having off-spring... which have a far higher risk of the child having it, because of "human rights". More so if both parents have it, such as midget parents having a midget child.

It's rather bizarre.

Pibblepunk said:
No the fuck it is not

It is, but as I said, I'm not going to discuss politics in detail here. If you want to argue, you know where to find me.

Just saying, she has no nose in the 4th panel

Gladendor said:
So like, the argument she made is like, really bad cuz two gay guys can fuck and not result in a baby, or in their case babies, with inbred problems. Sure them loving each other is perfectly fine, but like, don't have kids if you're diddling your relatives?

Except that, like Incuboi said, it takes several consecutive generations of inbreeding for "inbred problems" to show up. As there's literally nothing to suggest these two's is just the latest in a long line of incestuous relationships (and dad's attitude seems like evidence to the contrary, to me), the likelihood of these two specific characters having babies that come out wrong because of incest, are practically nothing.

Jacob said:
Except that, like Incuboi said, it takes several consecutive generations of inbreeding for "inbred problems" to show up. As there's literally nothing to suggest these two's is just the latest in a long line of incestuous relationships (and dad's attitude seems like evidence to the contrary, to me), the likelihood of these two specific characters having babies that come out wrong because of incest, are practically nothing.

I'm sure they'll grow up just fine when anyone around them knows their parents are brother and sister.

It's all victimless until you involve a child in your nonsense. Then you've involved someone else that did not deserve it

CamKitty said:
I'm sure they'll grow up just fine when anyone around them knows their parents are brother and sister.

It's all victimless until you involve a child in your nonsense. Then you've involved someone else that did not deserve it

That has literally nothing to do with the question of genetics and mutations, which was all we were talking about. Also, there are places on this planet where incest is tolerated, in a world as much kinkier than ours as the furry world would be, I have to imagine there are a lot more. So, either way, your point is rather moot.

CamKitty said:
I'm sure they'll grow up just fine when anyone around them knows their parents are brother and sister.

It's all victimless until you involve a child in your nonsense. Then you've involved someone else that did not deserve it

And this is why monogammic exogammy is a thing. + Human are not just made of genes but memes, criminalisation of incest push culture to evolve. it is a conquest od feudal time, because family was blood it was endogammic, but with monogammic exogammy familly is love.

"We're not going to participate in your inbreeding orgies."

Well that dream just died.

When siblings mate, the offspring can develop crippling mutations and mental instability...

That is why it's considered wrong!

Don't make your child suffer because of your sexual deviancy!

A child is a victim of being taunted and teased no matter what their origins. We can quit pretending school is a place where everyone is nice to each other, and no one gets mocked over things that as adults we realize were silly to get upset about.

And who's going to find out about it? What are they going to go around advertising it to everyone and their cousin? I seriously doubt it.

Children can also be born with defects due to numerous environmental conditions you may not even realize you're being exposed, to, also by alcohol and/or drug use. Exposure to some pesticides while pregnant can cause defects. Some of the artificial sweeteners and preservatives in food ARE causing genetic defects.

Most of those are chosen risks. There's no guarantee that a singular pairing of siblings in a bloodline will produce genetic defects, in fact the odds are about the same as for any other child born into any industrialized modern country on Earth, where most if not all of their mother's diet has SOME kind of additive in the foods for which there is already conclusive evidence that it causes genetic defects.

If the risk of a child having a defect or deficiency were to be a valid reason to outlaw it, then all reproduction by sex needs to be illegal.

Life involves risks, no matter what you do, or don't do. In the end, this isn't really at all about science. It's about weak science, and weak arguments trying to distract from the fact that the law was written because a certain religion forbids it.

NegaMajora said:
When siblings mate, the offspring can develop crippling mutations and mental instability...

Again, that's not really likely from just one set of siblings mating out of a long line of more normal family relations. It takes several generations of consistent inbreeding before that sort of thing becomes at all likely.

CamKitty said:
I'm sure they'll grow up just fine when anyone around them knows their parents are brother and sister.

And who's fault is that? The people who stigmatize incest, perhaps? You may as well "brother and sister" with "the same sex" or "interracial" or literally anything else.

milkbrew said:
And who's fault is that? The people who stigmatize incest, perhaps? You may as well "brother and sister" with "the same sex" or "interracial" or literally anything else.

Yeah, one of these things in not like the other

milkbrew said:
And who's fault is that? The people who stigmatize incest, perhaps? You may as well "brother and sister" with "the same sex" or "interracial" or literally anything else.

… you actually went there unironically... I am without words.

Jacob said:
Again, that's not really likely from just one set of siblings mating out of a long line of more normal family relations. It takes several generations of consistent inbreeding before that sort of thing becomes at all likely.

You seem to be missing the point. You say that it requires multiple generations? Well, what if multiple, consecutive generations decide to follow in the line of their parents?

Unlikely to happen? Sure, but it's still feasibly possible. Actually, it might become more common if the kids are aware of their parents' relationship, since kids are supposed to learn most of their behavior from imitating their parents.

So are they gonna chastise their children, or grandchildren about why loving each other is wrong? Because that would be ironic at best, and hypocritical at worst!

Incest being a taboo is literally just a socially acceptable form of eugenics. Not a single one of you would say tell a couple with a known family history of heart disease, cancer, or some other kind of inheritable mental or physical condition/disability to not have a child, and rightfully so, but the blood relation makes it different for some reason.

milkbrew said:
Incest being a taboo is literally just a socially acceptable form of eugenics. Not a single one of you would say tell a couple with a known family history of heart disease, cancer, or some other kind of inheritable mental or physical condition/disability to not have a child, and rightfully so, but the blood relation makes it different for some reason.

You'd be wrong. If disease and health problems run in the family, it would be completely understandable to be concerned for the child's well being. Parents might even be encouraged to keep track of their kid's development in order to spot the problems as early as possible.

NegaMajora said:
You'd be wrong. If disease and health problems run in the family, it would be completely understandable to be concerned for the child's well being. Parents might even be encouraged to keep track of their kid's development in order to spot the problems as early as possible.

Right, but the key thing is that nobody would stop them nor would they have any legal issues. That hypothetical couple looked at what might happen, and decided that the risks were acceptable and probably planned around it. But if they were siblings in the exact same circumstances, everybody would jump on them.

NegaMajora said:
You seem to be missing the point. You say that it requires multiple generations? Well, what if multiple, consecutive generations decide to follow in the line of their parents?

Unlikely to happen? Sure, but it's still feasibly possible. Actually, it might become more common if the kids are aware of their parents' relationship, since kids are supposed to learn most of their behavior from imitating their parents.

So are they gonna chastise their children, or grandchildren about why loving each other is wrong? Because that would be ironic at best, and hypocritical at worst!

Are we seriously gonna play the 'What If' game while disregarding how ironically your own comment disproves your point?

If children are such mindless beings as that they're incapable of doing anything except emulate their parents example, then children of parents who have no blood relation should be incapable of incest, and likewise, vice versa. Children DO learn a lot from their parents, but with the exception of an extremely rare few typically have free will, to the extent at which they're not carbon copies of their parents, but individuals who will make their own choices in life. Some of those choices may be bad choices. EVERYONE makes bad choices at some point in their lives. Some more than others, but supposedly, such free will is their God given right. Making something a taboo, is fine. Informing someone of the risks involved in a potentially bad choice is fine. Making it illegal to make a bad choice, fully aware of the risks involved, because it offends a personal world-view, is fascistic.

But just as possible as it in reality is, that a "normal" couple of the sort you approve of, may have children that become incestuous, it is JUST as likely, their children may also not feel that way toward each other. Or might be all the same sex, therefore either they take no interest in each other, or it's inconsequential homosexuality. There's also a chance they only ever have one child, negating the possibility of sibling incest. There's also the possibility they have more than one, with at least one of either sex, and they think their parents' choice is weird and gross, and choose to have "normal relationships". Children are not carbon copies of their parents, learning from parents isn't the same as being them.

NegaMajora said:
You'd be wrong. If disease and health problems run in the family, it would be completely understandable to be concerned for the child's well being. Parents might even be encouraged to keep track of their kid's development in order to spot the problems as early as possible.

You're failing to address the argument, and addressing one you've twisted it into. Standard Strawman. The issue isn't being concerned about a certain family having a history of hereditary health issues, like being prone to diabetes, for example. The issue is if you'd tell a couple who are completely unrelated, that because there's a risk that their child may inherit a hereditary disease from one of their parents, that they are not allowed to be a couple. There's a HUGE difference between, informing a couple that there's a risk of genetic defect, yet allowing them to make that choice for themselves, and forcing them apart in an attempt to prevent them from facing the consequences of their choices, because you find the risks of which there are no guarantees will even become manifest, displeases you.

So, no, milkbrew is correct, it is a socially accepted form of eugenics. Not to mention your justifications about what MIGHT happen, being grounds for stopping it before it can happen, seriously has Minority Report reasoning written all over it.

Senmitsuya said:
Are we seriously gonna play the 'What If' game

Yes, we are, because it's a perfect valid question!

What If subsequent generations decide to partake in incest? However unlikely it may be, it is still technically feasible. And the parents do not have the luxury of arguing against it from a position of moral high ground, since they were the ones who initiated the cycle.

NegaMajora said:
Yes, we are, because it's a perfect valid question!

Only for people who want a fascistic police state in which free will is only exercised in a specifically prescribed manner, in order to prevent every "what if" bad scenario their imagination can conceive.

Here's one for you. What if you're still setting at your computer, trying to justify eugenics, because of what ifs, and a meteorite happens to hit your house? Versus, what if you were outside when it happens, living your own life instead of arguoing for controlling others' lives?

"What if" is a game of making up any possibility, however probable or improbable it might be, treating it as an irrefutable prediction of the future, then demanding it be treated as such, disregarding the mental gymnastics that's required to turn MIGHT happen into WILL happen. It is not a valid question.

NegaMajora said:
Yes, we are, because it's a perfect valid question!

What If subsequent generations decide to partake in incest? However unlikely it may be, it is still technically feasible. And the parents do not have the luxury of arguing against it from a position of moral high ground, since they were the ones who initiated the cycle.

Parents don't have to have a moral high ground to argue anything, first of all. They can impose any rules in THEIR house they fucking well want to without having to justify it to their kids. Now, assuming those rules are of course, nothing actually illegal, their children have a few choices, STFU and obey, run away and try to make it on their own, or try to get emancipated before reaching the legal age of adulthood, mamking them legally able to make their own decisions as adults.

And what if everything you said does happen? What if it doesn't? How is it any of your business to dictate the lives of others?

And well, shit, now I'm breaking my word and discussing politics on here with a self-righteous advocate of violating basic liberties for an "ideal" world.

I love this comic, and I'm glad to know I'm not alone in my position, but it seems to me there's a lot of trolls here, just to kink-bash. Maybe time a moderator steps in and declares the issue closed for discussion? I'd hate it to go there, but I can see this will get nowhere, but a discussion without end, that belongs on a social media platform, not an image-sharing site for Furry-related media.

My apologies to Ratcha if this ... discussion has been upsetting you any.

Senmitsuya said:
"And well, shit, now I'm breaking my word and discussing politics on here with a self-righteous advocate of violating basic liberties for an "ideal" world."

"it seems to me there's a lot of trolls here, just to kink-bash."

Quite the way of reducing anyone else's arguments to "He is a troll who hates people having rights". Showing your hand in such a way tells a lot about you and the thought process you have about opinions besides your own.

KiraCaroso said:
Quite the way of reducing anyone else's arguments to "He is a troll who hates people having rights". Showing your hand in such a way tells a lot about you and the thought process you have about opinions besides your own.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and everyone thinks all the others stink. What I'm dealing in is facts reflected by observable evidence. I'm not sorry if my inclination to objectivism offends you. The only feeling I have vested in the above discourse is a hatred for liars, and liars who get away with perpetrating or perpetuating lies. I DID try to take it elsewhere, as a courtesy. Evidently no one has the cojones to debate me one-on-one in an appropriate forum for political discourse, but couldn't leave it alone here. He/she was trolling, and so are you. his/her comments clearly reflect a dislike of the content of the comic, which begs the question, WTF is that person even doing viewing it, unless it's to kink-bash? Anything else would make their feigned moral high ground hypocritical at best, voicing opinions they don't actually hold, just to start an argument. Also their professed positions reflect a preference to freedom of choice as long as you choose the prescribed choice.

All it says about me to reduce all that to trolling and fascistic views, is I've an ability to cut through the crap and succinctly reduce a person to what they're about. What offends you is not that I said it, but that I didn't pull any punches. There's a place for this discussion. It's not here. I entertained TRYING to resolve it here, but I've dealt with enough people whose arguments are all the same, that it has became painfully obvious that I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the first rule of debate, is being willing to accept the possibility that you're wrong.

I called this situation for what it is, suggested a moderator should probably put a foot down so I can finally drop it as well, and you want the last word to call me a shitty person before that can happen, because Ad Hominems are the favorite last line of defense of so many who lose a debate, expecting to win it, because a long habit of thinking a thing not wrong gives the false impression that it's right.

Senmitsuya said:
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and everyone thinks all the others stink. What I'm dealing in is facts reflected by observable evidence. I'm not sorry if my inclination to objectivism offends you. The only feeling I have vested in the above discourse is a hatred for liars, and liars who get away with perpetrating or perpetuating lies. I DID try to take it elsewhere, as a courtesy. Evidently no one has the cojones to debate me one-on-one in an appropriate forum for political discourse, but couldn't leave it alone here. He/she was trolling, and so are you. his/her comments clearly reflect a dislike of the content of the comic, which begs the question, WTF is that person even doing viewing it, unless it's to kink-bash? Anything else would make their feigned moral high ground hypocritical at best, voicing opinions they don't actually hold, just to start an argument. Also their professed positions reflect a preference to freedom of choice as long as you choose the prescribed choice.

All it says about me to reduce all that to trolling and fascistic views, is I've an ability to cut through the crap and succinctly reduce a person to what they're about. What offends you is not that I said it, but that I didn't pull any punches. There's a place for this discussion. It's not here. I entertained TRYING to resolve it here, but I've dealt with enough people whose arguments are all the same, that it has became painfully obvious that I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the first rule of debate, is being willing to accept the possibility that you're wrong.

I called this situation for what it is, suggested a moderator should probably put a foot down so I can finally drop it as well, and you want the last word to call me a shitty person before that can happen, because Ad Hominems are the favorite last line of defense of so many who lose a debate, expecting to win it, because a long habit of thinking a thing not wrong gives the false impression that it's right.

I was using your exact words to come to that conclusion, thus using observable evidence, and this does indeed fall under and deal with the position you hold. It is one I have seen quite often as of late.

Senmitsuya said:
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and everyone thinks all the others stink. What I'm dealing in is facts reflected by observable evidence. I'm not sorry if my inclination to objectivism offends you. The only feeling I have vested in the above discourse is a hatred for liars, and liars who get away with perpetrating or perpetuating lies. I DID try to take it elsewhere, as a courtesy. Evidently no one has the cojones to debate me one-on-one in an appropriate forum for political discourse, but couldn't leave it alone here. He/she was trolling, and so are you. his/her comments clearly reflect a dislike of the content of the comic, which begs the question, WTF is that person even doing viewing it, unless it's to kink-bash? Anything else would make their feigned moral high ground hypocritical at best, voicing opinions they don't actually hold, just to start an argument. Also their professed positions reflect a preference to freedom of choice as long as you choose the prescribed choice.

All it says about me to reduce all that to trolling and fascistic views, is I've an ability to cut through the crap and succinctly reduce a person to what they're about. What offends you is not that I said it, but that I didn't pull any punches. There's a place for this discussion. It's not here. I entertained TRYING to resolve it here, but I've dealt with enough people whose arguments are all the same, that it has became painfully obvious that I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the first rule of debate, is being willing to accept the possibility that you're wrong.

I called this situation for what it is, suggested a moderator should probably put a foot down so I can finally drop it as well, and you want the last word to call me a shitty person before that can happen, because Ad Hominems are the favorite last line of defense of so many who lose a debate, expecting to win it, because a long habit of thinking a thing not wrong gives the false impression that it's right.

Also, as I stated in an earlier comment, I made the preface of "IRL". There is a reason why I have followed this artist, the reason is in fiction, this is a kink I do have. But irl, it can cause a number of issues. And on top of that, just because I enjoy something does not mean I forgo my right or ability to criticize it. Like many kinks that are portrayed on this site, it is perfect to have them in the context of keeping it fictional, but once you take a number of them to the real world issues arise, not just legal ones, but moral ones. What I (and many other commenters here at least SEEM) to have an issue with is Rina's equating incest with being LGBT.

KiraCaroso said:
Also, as I stated in an earlier comment, I made the preface of "IRL". There is a reason why I have followed this artist, the reason is in fiction, this is a kink I do have. But irl, it can cause a number of issues. And on top of that, just because I enjoy something does not mean I forgo my right or ability to criticize it. Like many kinks that are portrayed on this site, it is perfect to have them in the context of keeping it fictional, but once you take a number of them to the real world issues arise, not just legal ones, but moral ones. What I (and many other commenters here at least SEEM) to have an issue with is Rina's equating incest with being LGBT.

The source for the moral objection against incest is the same as thar of the moral objection against LGBT, that is, because a certain religious doctrine says it's immoral. I can respect that LGBT wants to avoid this issue, as it is many of the people they claim to be representing have already begun leaving their rainbow coalition because it doesn't ACTUALLY represent their interests, and attempting to embrace an alphabet soup of "sexualities" which are in no uncertain terms, one form of rape or another, has previously blown up in their faces.

It does not appear (to me) an attempt to justify that LGBT should absorb incest into their rainbow, but rather that those cousins, or even siblings who genuinely feel that way toward each other, and have weighed and chosen to accept the risks of it, face the exact same stigmas and religiously motivated moral objections, that used to make homosexuality illegal.

Let's see... yeah, 1986, Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that a state could criminalize sodomy. This was overturned in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, which legalized homosexual activity throughout the US.

Senmitsuya said:
Here's one for you. What if you're still setting at your computer, trying to justify eugenics, because of what ifs, and a meteorite happens to hit your house? Versus, what if you were outside when it happens, living your own life instead of arguoing for controlling others' lives?

Holy damn, you are just pulling things out of your ass, now.

What if a meteor hits my house? Well, chances are that I will be too dead to care about it at that point. In what way does that even support your argument?

And I'm not "making up" a possibility, it was stated multiple times in on this post that mutations can occur as a result of multiple generations of inbreeding. To which, I asked what the parents are supposed to do, if their descendants choose to follow in their footsteps. Something which is far more likely to happen, if they see their parents normalize it during their formative years.

And funny you should use meteors for your argument, since you are statistically more likely to die from a meteor strike, than from any other natural disaster. :D

KiraCaroso said:
Also, as I stated in an earlier comment, I made the preface of "IRL". There is a reason why I have followed this artist, the reason is in fiction, this is a kink I do have. But irl, it can cause a number of issues. And on top of that, just because I enjoy something does not mean I forgo my right or ability to criticize it. Like many kinks that are portrayed on this site, it is perfect to have them in the context of keeping it fictional, but once you take a number of them to the real world issues arise, not just legal ones, but moral ones. What I (and many other commenters here at least SEEM) to have an issue with is Rina's equating incest with being LGBT.

Exactly! Fetishes are fine as long as they stay within the realm of fantasy. But I highly doubt anybody here would actually be cool with fucking their relatives, or getting swallowed whole by a giant snake, or any of the other weird sex stuff we perverts are into these days.

NegaMajora said:
Holy damn, you are just pulling things out of your ass, now.

What if a meteor hits my house? Well, chances are that I will be too dead to care about it at that point. In what way does that even support your argument?

And I'm not "making up" a possibility, it was stated multiple times in on this post that mutations can occur as a result of multiple generations of inbreeding. To which, I asked what the parents are supposed to do, if their descendants choose to follow in their footsteps. Something which is far more likely to happen, if they see their parents normalize it during their formative years.

And funny you should use meteors for your argument, since you are statistically more likely to die from a meteor strike, than from any other natural disaster. :D

What are parents supposed to do? Well let's see, I suppose they could forbid it, and if their kids don't like it, tough shit. Problem solved, at least until they're living independently, as adults themselves, and then it's none of yours or anyone else's damned business.

Senmitsuya said:
What are parents supposed to do? Well let's see, I suppose they could forbid it, and if their kids don't like it, tough shit.

Ahhh, and now do you see how that contradicts the daughter of this comic? Or even your own stance on the issue?

And that still doesn't address the fact that if the kids chose to stay together after moving out, their offspring would still be at increased risk of defects.

You've already lost this debate. You don't even have any valid responses anymore, you're just saying whatever random thought comes to mind right now.

NegaMajora said:
Ahhh, and now do you see how that contradicts the daughter of this comic? Or even your own stance on the issue?

And that still doesn't address the fact that if the kids chose to stay together after moving out, their offspring would still be at increased risk of defects.

You've already lost this debate. You don't even have any valid responses anymore, you're just saying whatever random thought comes to mind right now.

No, I haven't contradicted myself. But you'd like it to be true, so you can declare yourself winning something. It's always curious to me how fascists declare arguments they can't beat as "irrelevant". You want to have your way and be right so bad that now you'll dismiss opposing facts and logic out of hand.

The status quo doesn't change regardless of this discussion. I seriously doubt e621 is going to spark a national debate leading to major changes in laws, so I don't really see why you're so vested in being right that you'd stoop as low as you don't like my arguments so now you're going to dismiss them out of hand, and declare your own hollow victory.

Oh, and then of course, there's the matter of all the passive aggressive downvotes, which go to show someone doesn't like what I have to say, but that's the best they have for a comeback..

Senmitsuya said:
No, I haven't contradicted myself. But you'd like it to be true, so you can declare yourself winning something. It's always curious to me how fascists declare arguments they can't beat as "irrelevant". You want to have your way and be right so bad that now you'll dismiss opposing facts and logic out of hand.

The status quo doesn't change regardless of this discussion. I seriously doubt e621 is going to spark a national debate leading to major changes in laws, so I don't really see why you're so vested in being right that you'd stoop as low as you don't like my arguments so now you're going to dismiss them out of hand, and declare your own hollow victory.

How in any way did NegaMajora say anything fascist? Using words with bite in ways that are not in line with the definition causes them to lose bite. Nothing he said at all resembles that of fascist talking points. At most a bit right leaning, but a far cry from Hitler or those who support him.

Senmitsuya said:

Oh, and then of course, there's the matter of all the passive aggressive downvotes, which go to show someone doesn't like what I have to say, but that's the best they have for a comeback..

I'm not the one who downvoted (most) of your comments. That was from other people around here, who likewise disagree with you.

KiraCaroso said:
How in any way did NegaMajora say anything fascist? Using words with bite in ways that are not in line with the definition causes them to lose bite. Nothing he said at all resembles that of fascist talking points. At most a bit right leaning, but a far cry from Hitler or those who support him.

Right leaning also has nothing to do with it. Political affiliation is irrelevant, this is about a law that was made for religious reasons, then reinforced with poorly slapped together cherry-picked "science". This is about forcing a specific ideology's puritanical ideals on others who do not share them.

And no, I didn't forget to explain the bit about fascism. I'm just not bothering explaining it to someone who doesn't understand it.

And I'm done discussing this any further. If you desire any further understanding, first of all prepare to dismiss everything you think you know courtesy of a particular bureaucracy, that controlled your education.

Samkyo said:
I sense some intense passive-aggression from daddy dearest

I think he's just trying to find a way to make dad jokes about incest without making incestuous dad jokes.

Senmitsuya said:

And no, I didn't forget to explain the bit about fascism. I'm just not bothering explaining it to someone who doesn't understand it.

That seems like exactly the kind of reason for why you SHOULD be explaining it...

NegaMajora said:
That seems like exactly the kind of reason for why you SHOULD be explaining it...

I think you need a life, or a hobby, something better to do than keep trying to drag this out.

Senmitsuya said:
I think you need a life, or a hobby, something better to do than keep trying to drag this out.

If anybody needs a life, it's you. Seriously, you were disturbingly adamant in regards to defending inbred offspring.

Dropping the argument doesn't automatically make you the bigger man in the situation. It also means you have run out of ideas for validating your side of the issue.

Not that your ideas were all that solid to begin with, other than tossing around the word "legal eugenics" and fascism.

NegaMajora said:
If anybody needs a life, it's you. Seriously, you were disturbingly adamant in regards to defending inbred offspring.

Dropping the argument doesn't automatically make you the bigger man in the situation. It also means you have run out of ideas for validating your side of the issue.

Not that your ideas were all that solid to begin with, other than tossing around the word "legal eugenics" and fascism.

I'm dropping the argument, because I'm tired of debating with willfully ignorant people. I'd rather debate with someone that has a clue.

i see neither of those two read the post earlier where I said that 'inbred' only really becomes an issue if it's like the 5th or 6th generation? Also, it becomes a genetics problem roughly around the 10th or 15th generation of brother-sister, or parent-child offspring (more so the parent-child mixing, since you're taking your own recessives and re-adding them to the same line) becomes so thin that the genetics actually begin to unzip and cause fatal birth defects. You'd never really get anything like from Wrong Turn - anything that deformed usually gets aborted by the body or by itself in the womb during develoopment --which is the final say from Nature that something went wrong, cannot be done, etc.

And, like I said, if ya'll wanna believe the Bible as law, then we're all related as cousins anyway since we all came from Adam and Eve so stick that up yer asses and dance to it.

It's odd that so many people are so worked up about the issue of inbreeding. While I won't judge anyone for their views, I do feel it's important to understand the facts and the basis of each side of the argument.

If you want the scientific answers, it's that inbreeding can result in weak immune systems in the short term and successive generations can result in increasing levels of complications. It's been a while since I looked at the numbers, but the risk of issue with incestuous relations is proportional to the degree of relation, with parent-child relations resulting in something like a 30% chance of harmful effects, sibling relations around 15%, half sibling is something like 8% or 9% and cousins (barring the presence of paternal twins for parents) being approximately 6% which is the same as if a woman waits past the age of 40 to have children. In short, science says that parent-child relations is a no-go for having kids, siblings should be avoided when reasonable, and everything else is actually not likely to have any sort of effect worth noting.

Having said all this, Western civilization has formed cultural taboos around incestuous relationships as a means of protecting the genetic health of the society. Not consciously, mind you, just as a result of what works. Families that married out of their limited pool of cousins and nuclear relations had a tendency to do well on the basis of not just genetics, but of consolidated resources, connections and access to services and goods as a result of nepotism/familial preference. This means that by expanding their families to include others, families could increase their odds of survival during hard times like plagues, famines, droughts and wars. Add in religious doctrines deliberately designed to encourage the development of families and increasing of populations, and you end up with a recipe for extra-familial positive bias in relationships.

Long story short, incest does not make mutant crotch goblins, but it's still historically more beneficial to have kids with someone who isn't directly related to you.

argetva said:
It's odd that so many people are so worked up about the issue of inbreeding. While I won't judge anyone for their views, I do feel it's important to understand the facts and the basis of each side of the argument.

If you want the scientific answers, it's that inbreeding can result in weak immune systems in the short term and successive generations can result in increasing levels of complications. It's been a while since I looked at the numbers, but the risk of issue with incestuous relations is proportional to the degree of relation, with parent-child relations resulting in something like a 30% chance of harmful effects, sibling relations around 15%, half sibling is something like 8% or 9% and cousins (barring the presence of paternal twins for parents) being approximately 6% which is the same as if a woman waits past the age of 40 to have children. In short, science says that parent-child relations is a no-go for having kids, siblings should be avoided when reasonable, and everything else is actually not likely to have any sort of effect worth noting.

Having said all this, Western civilization has formed cultural taboos around incestuous relationships as a means of protecting the genetic health of the society. Not consciously, mind you, just as a result of what works. Families that married out of their limited pool of cousins and nuclear relations had a tendency to do well on the basis of not just genetics, but of consolidated resources, connections and access to services and goods as a result of nepotism/familial preference. This means that by expanding their families to include others, families could increase their odds of survival during hard times like plagues, famines, droughts and wars. Add in religious doctrines deliberately designed to encourage the development of families and increasing of populations, and you end up with a recipe for extra-familial positive bias in relationships.

Long story short, incest does not make mutant crotch goblins, but it's still historically more beneficial to have kids with someone who isn't directly related to you.

Had awhile to stop letting the above argument get to me. I agree, it's important to know the reasons for both sides of this. I'll be frank, my sister and I, realized many years ago we feel that way about each other. We've tried relations with different people many times, trying to avoid it. Trying to convince ourselves that it would pass. You ever tried having a relationship with someone when every moment is a lie? A lie to yourself, and a lie to that other person? Relationships like that are doomed to failure and heartache in the end. Now we both separately condemn ourselves to lives of solitude, unless and until we can find some way to be together. We understand all the reasons and risks not to, but there is no way to rationalize away the most powerful an irrational emotion of the human experience, love. Especially not the kind so strong two people would rather die alone, than pretend to give it to anyone else but each other.

This is why the matter stings me so deeply. I try not to let it get to me. Societal and religious taboos? I can live with the whole world having a shitty opinion of me, as long as I can make her happy. Scientific evidence of risks of genetic degradation? It's not like we haven't had that discussion. We could live with a life of dirty looks and self-righteous scolds. I don't ask for pity, or even sympathy.

It's the making of laws to prevent it entirely, that galls me, especially when the phrasing of such laws that regardless of age, even two very mature adults mutually consenting, it's always rape regardless. Many people probably don't see a problem with it, but once you give forced Eugenics an inch, you better hope it never takes a mile. How easy would it be to take it as far as to make it illegal for anyone to marry and have children outside a state mandated selection of viable partners based on the likelihood of producing healthy, desirable offspring? We've already taken away the agency of a very small, select group of people for those very reasons, why not the rest?

It's a very slippery slope, giving government the power to limit your marital choices based on fears of genetic defects. I wonder, how many people think that far ahead, or consider the possibilities of their well-intentioned arguments being used to take their ideas several steps further.

Nice Dad joke lol

senmitsuya said:
Had awhile to stop letting the above argument get to me. I agree, it's important to know the reasons for both sides of this. I'll be frank, my sister and I, realized many years ago we feel that way about each other. We've tried relations with different people many times, trying to avoid it. Trying to convince ourselves that it would pass. You ever tried having a relationship with someone when every moment is a lie? A lie to yourself, and a lie to that other person? Relationships like that are doomed to failure and heartache in the end. Now we both separately condemn ourselves to lives of solitude, unless and until we can find some way to be together. We understand all the reasons and risks not to, but there is no way to rationalize away the most powerful an irrational emotion of the human experience, love. Especially not the kind so strong two people would rather die alone, than pretend to give it to anyone else but each other.

This is why the matter stings me so deeply. I try not to let it get to me. Societal and religious taboos? I can live with the whole world having a shitty opinion of me, as long as I can make her happy. Scientific evidence of risks of genetic degradation? It's not like we haven't had that discussion. We could live with a life of dirty looks and self-righteous scolds. I don't ask for pity, or even sympathy.

It's the making of laws to prevent it entirely, that galls me, especially when the phrasing of such laws that regardless of age, even two very mature adults mutually consenting, it's always rape regardless. Many people probably don't see a problem with it, but once you give forced Eugenics an inch, you better hope it never takes a mile. How easy would it be to take it as far as to make it illegal for anyone to marry and have children outside a state mandated selection of viable partners based on the likelihood of producing healthy, desirable offspring? We've already taken away the agency of a very small, select group of people for those very reasons, why not the rest?

It's a very slippery slope, giving government the power to limit your marital choices based on fears of genetic defects. I wonder, how many people think that far ahead, or consider the possibilities of their well-intentioned arguments being used to take their ideas several steps further.

I personally believe that a person can live however they want, so long as it doesnt directly affect the rest of Society. Isnt that kinda Libertarianism? Anyway, i have absolutely no issue with you and your sister loving one another. Love, real love, is fuckin hard to find, and if you two found it in each other then everyone else is fucked up for trying to take it away from you. But because of the kind of world we live in, and your relation, there is extra hardships and hurddles you must face. Moving away from home and keeping your relation secret, abandoning the idea of a legal marriage, possibly just getting a vasectomy so theres no chance at an accidental pregnancy. Your sister could go In Vitro with a donor, or you can adopt, or relent to a life without a child and just spend it together. Whatever the case you two choose, two siblings being roomates in a house or apartment isnt suspicious in the slightest, and what happens behind closed doors, what the world doesnt know wont hurt them.

senmitsuya said:
Had awhile to stop letting the above argument get to me. I agree, it's important to know the reasons for both sides of this. I'll be frank, my sister and I, realized many years ago we feel that way about each other. We've tried relations with different people many times, trying to avoid it. Trying to convince ourselves that it would pass. You ever tried having a relationship with someone when every moment is a lie? A lie to yourself, and a lie to that other person? Relationships like that are doomed to failure and heartache in the end. Now we both separately condemn ourselves to lives of solitude, unless and until we can find some way to be together. We understand all the reasons and risks not to, but there is no way to rationalize away the most powerful an irrational emotion of the human experience, love. Especially not the kind so strong two people would rather die alone, than pretend to give it to anyone else but each other.

This is why the matter stings me so deeply. I try not to let it get to me. Societal and religious taboos? I can live with the whole world having a shitty opinion of me, as long as I can make her happy. Scientific evidence of risks of genetic degradation? It's not like we haven't had that discussion. We could live with a life of dirty looks and self-righteous scolds. I don't ask for pity, or even sympathy.

It's the making of laws to prevent it entirely, that galls me, especially when the phrasing of such laws that regardless of age, even two very mature adults mutually consenting, it's always rape regardless. Many people probably don't see a problem with it, but once you give forced Eugenics an inch, you better hope it never takes a mile. How easy would it be to take it as far as to make it illegal for anyone to marry and have children outside a state mandated selection of viable partners based on the likelihood of producing healthy, desirable offspring? We've already taken away the agency of a very small, select group of people for those very reasons, why not the rest?

It's a very slippery slope, giving government the power to limit your marital choices based on fears of genetic defects. I wonder, how many people think that far ahead, or consider the possibilities of their well-intentioned arguments being used to take their ideas several steps further.

All the more power to you my friend, love between consenting adults is love to me.

People who reach this point. Please don't quote someone else anymore. It took me a full minute to scroll this far.

I knew I'd missed the end of this story line a few months back.

I hope Ratcha has a continuation.

Would've been funnier if she wasn't a complete dimwit.

And today on politics on a furry porn site:

I wonder, is dad testing them to see if they are willing to slog through the hard stuff to stay together no matter what?

in reference to the last panel, its wrong because you're making children with genetic susceptibilities to conditions and diseases that will take a few generations to set back into normal. you want an extreme example of this, look at the laundry list of medical problems dogs have when they're kept within a breed, some are pretty okay and short, others are very long and very distinct. a good chunk of beagle breeds are extremely susceptible to what to humans would be calling psychotic violence.

deya said:
Well considering you can shoot guns in your yard without having the cops called on you I’d say they leave you alone pretty well.

Even as a gun owner, the concept of that reality is really sketch for me when hearing about stray bullet deaths

Texas prices are better. New Mexico too

vulpeslaslunes said:
in reference to the last panel, its wrong because you're making children with genetic susceptibilities to conditions and diseases that will take a few generations to set back into normal. you want an extreme example of this, look at the laundry list of medical problems dogs have when they're kept within a breed, some are pretty okay and short, others are very long and very distinct. a good chunk of beagle breeds are extremely susceptible to what to humans would be calling psychotic violence.

I would like to point out this also stems from other factors other than incest breeding, like trying to keep some dumb breed standard going. Is that closely tied with incest? Sure, but the breed standards itself is a huge motivating factor on top of that.
What I'm trying to say is that humans are not dogs and comparing humans to breeds is retarded, we don't hold human breed standards.

Wall of comments ✓
Stale Alabama jokes that were never funny or accurate ✓
People not from Alabama unironically defending incest ✓
People defending far-left cults ✓

It’s e621 time.

While everyone's arguing, I'm just looking "hey the hotdog is talking" :P

But you are degenerates, why even try acting like it isn’t true? You two screw and masturbate in public (hell you did one and possibly the other before you even got here) and are actual criminals with the things you’ve done.

Here’s the crimes you have committed outside of incest
Multiple counts of public indecency (both of you Rina more that Rick)
Multiple accounts of Theft (Rina & Rick) (it might be a actual felony theft at that on Rina’s second account)
Prostitution (Rick)
Multiple accounts of Pimping (Rina)(yes pimping someone out is also a crime)
Resisting arrest (Rina)
Reckless driving (Rina) (also likely a speeding charge)
Possible destruction of private property

Those are just the the ones I could think of I’m fairly certain someone that knows more about the law could bring even more up (and possibly some depending on their state). In addition Rina appears to be a hyper sexual with the way her sex drive is (seems like she initiated it way more than Rick). Hell you couldn’t even hold off on it for one damn night with your parents nearby. And you’re false equivalence to gays is laughable at best.

Y’all in the comments arguing over incest are forgetting one key thing, this is a comic. It isn’t real. Calm your tits lol.

killmenow67 said:
[Long message...]

I agree. Sure, legalization of incest is one hell of a discussion, but Rina is lashing out at her dad for simply making fun at their incestuous relationship (and offspring), which is kinda completly expected...?

Hell even as an homosexual you get made fun of sometimes, and it's just what we people do, make fun of others.

incuboi said:
Actually, it would take about 5-6 generations of inbreeding for any abnormalities in the DNA line to actually begin to show. Which is why royal lines would marry off to cousins or neighboring kingdoms.

Besides - if we're all decended from Adam and Eve, we're all related anyway.

This is horrendously inaccurate, and the fact that seemingly nobody in this comment section has pointed out how wrong you are is disappointing. First off, how closely the two are related matters, because there are more shared genes in some pairs than others. You mentioned royals marrying to first cousins, which is the safest form of incest is the one where visible deformities take about five generations. However hereditary diseases regardless of the type of incest can occur in just one generation. But these are siblings, unless they were incredibly lucky they share about 25% of their dna with eachother. That means that physical deformities will occur within 2-3 generations and near guarantees inherited illnesses. The only way to be worse is parent-child incest, as there's a 50% genetic overlap with a high chance of deformity in even the first generation.

Tl;dr that's not how genetics works.

igsa101 said:
This is horrendously inaccurate, and the fact that seemingly nobody in this comment section has pointed out how wrong you are is disappointing. First off, how closely the two are related matters, because there are more shared genes in some pairs than others. You mentioned royals marrying to first cousins, which is the safest form of incest is the one where visible deformities take about five generations. However hereditary diseases regardless of the type of incest can occur in just one generation. But these are siblings, unless they were incredibly lucky they share about 25% of their dna with eachother. That means that physical deformities will occur within 2-3 generations and near guarantees inherited illnesses. The only way to be worse is parent-child incest, as there's a 50% genetic overlap with a high chance of deformity in even the first generation.

Tl;dr that's not how genetics works.

All that said, acceptable risks to people in love, and willing to take them. All I've ever been advocating is the choice shouldn't be illegal in and of itself. Socially unacceptable, perhaps, but I'd rather have the freedom to exercise my own sentient human agency however my heart and mind directs me and have people who don't know me give me dirty looks, than be forced to adhere to their ideals.

senmitsuya said:
All that said, acceptable risks to people in love, and willing to take them. All I've ever been advocating is the choice shouldn't be illegal in and of itself. Socially unacceptable, perhaps, but I'd rather have the freedom to exercise my own sentient human agency however my heart and mind directs me and have people who don't know me give me dirty looks, than be forced to adhere to their ideals.

I can agree that legally the government should have no say in what two consenting adults do (with some extreme exceptions). And birth defects nowadays aren't exactly life threatening, we have enough medical knowledge to actually let children with even serious birth defects live good mostly normal lives. It's also hypocritical to make incest illegal for those reasons, it's not like we make it illegal for people with hiv to reproduce.

Now even if all incest were legal, (even as far as first cousins is legal in many places) it would not be common. Most species have a mental marker that marks those we grow up with as not viable mates. In other words, by the time you're ten your brain has decided that your family is unfuckable. This has resulted in twins who were separated young actually falling in love later in life, because they lacked that marker. But all this really means is incest would still be uncommon, and still be 80%rape even if it were legalized. By the way, yeah in real life most incest is also forced, it's just that unlikely that two people both lack the family is unfuckable marker, and also find eachother attractive.

incuboi said:
Actually, it would take about 5-6 generations of inbreeding for any abnormalities in the DNA line to actually begin to show. Which is why royal lines would marry off to cousins or neighboring kingdoms.

Besides - if we're all decended from Adam and Eve, we're all related anyway.

No? Incest increases chances of genetic disorders in general, even in first generation.