Marrying cousins.

You speak as if you knew how all other animals think. I doubt you do.

Yes, we are technologically advanced, and communicate better, but does that mean we have a better moral standing?

 

Morality comes with intelligence, communication, understanding, etc. The fact of the matter is, many animals are not even aware of their own existence. They just think; do this, do that.

 

What do you base this assumption on? Why wouldn't an animal be aware of it's own existence?

 

Because the animal does not know what it means to exist. Or what existence is to be quite honest.

 

I think you just underestimate what you don't understand.

 

How would I know if something is true, if I don't know what, to be true is?

 

We do. Therefore, you are wrong.

Do you realize what you're debating?
In such a topic, there are two columns. Subjective right and wrong, and NATURAL.

This is where we split our debate. Unless you would agree that what is natural is wrong, your logic is illogical, irrational, and therefore, invalid.

 

Are you following some sort of online debate guide or something? It's really hilarious. I enjoy how you completely left out the next part of my response. Purely biologically speaking, we are animals; however, in the philosophy of biology, or philosophy of science; we are not animals. If that's not self-explanatory, then I really don't know what to say.

Edit: Oh, and, cutting off a quote at the middle of an idea is very misleading and people really won't take you seriously if you do it.

Hmm, maybe you don't realize what I just said. Subjective right and wrong, (i.e. correct and invalid) animals have some sense of. If by natural right and wrong you mean moral and ethical issues, then yes, like I said before, animals do not have that. What was the point of this little segment?

Gtfo the online debate guide. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

The problem is that even if the chance of deformity in the first generation is only 0.1%, in future generations the risk is cumulative. This eventually leads to recessive genetic defects occurring more and more frequently.

 

First of all, it says 80%, not 95%.

Secondly, when a website called cousincouples.com uses the word "estimated" in relation to cousin marriage statistics, it means "in our unsubstantiated opinion". You need to consider the source.

Thirdly, even if 95% of our ancestors *did* mate with cousins, this does not mean the risk is not cumulative. When you get to the 10th grade you will cover this in biology.

And finally, it is always quite amusing when someone calls someone else an idiot and in the same sentence makes grammar mistakes that a 5 year old wouldn't make.

 

THIS IS SO STUPID.
--
If two people WANT to get married REGARDLESS of ANYTHING, then let them be. Plus fuck off their backs none of your bizzness so why do you care?

 

Do you have ANY idea what we're debating? Purely biologically speaking is EXACTLY how you should approach a topic such as marrying cousins.

Different societies have made their own rules throughout time, and people have conformed to them. That makes such rules plausible. Plausible = Right ?

No. Read below.

You debate just like Finn; and no, I'm not following an online debate guide.

Of course you have no idea what I'm trying to say. The thing is, you keep counter-arguing with the same "facts", that have already been concluded as invalid.

Read below.

No. I'm talking about the rules of nature that haven't been written. The ones that don't need to be thought about and edited. The rules that nature instilled into all animals in the beginning, and have been followed since the beginning. The ones that can't change. Nature allowed animals to mate with one another, regardless of family tree. We are no different.

--

So, regardless of your failed attempts to not debate against my points, but shun them away as ignorance, it still comes down to one thing.

Mating with members of the family tree is natural. So, unless you would agree that what is NATURAL (–adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. ), your points are illogical, irrational, and therefore, invalid.

 

If you noticed I said "probably" 95%. Also if you look around into todays society, your going to see the word "estimated" a lot. When it comes to statistics, nothing is usually ever certain. Also I agree/disagree with you. I don't even know why I said that, it was stupid. Yes, the risks can be cumulative. But the way I see it, if this is the result after mating with cousins for generations its not so bad. The point is even though the risk is cumulative, it is still very small. If two people love each other and want to have children I see no reason that they can't. Also I don't think we do vouch threads anymore, Im pretty sure your supposed to put them in your profile. I also saw problems with your grammar.

Edit: I also deleted my previous response because it was stupid.

 

It is also natural to kill someone else for the fun of it, yet this is not allowed in our society. You can't justify an action by stating that it happens in the wild.

 

Killing someone for the fun of it is not natural, what makes you think it is?

What society in this day in age justifies killing for fun allowed/natural?

Animals don't kill for fun.. they kill for survival?

 

It happens. I agree that most of the time it's related to food and mating rights, but that is also illegal, is it not? If your neighbor has a steak, you can't kill him to eat his steak and rape his wife.

Come to think of it, rape might be a better example. This is very natural.

 

We are talking of humans and not animals correct? I do not see animals determining what is illegal or legal haha. So we must be talking of humans.

This is true, so this would go against "killing for fun is natural" right?

This would be a better example appose to killing for fun is natural, however I can't fully see it as natural.

 

In response to this whole thing, I was going dreadfully off topic and merely debating the clear distinction between humans and animals. I really wasn't paying attention to the debate set out by the thread. I just saw a post by you that I didn't agree with it; it got a bit out of proportion.

 

Killing someone for fun is not natural. Sorry.

Right. I do it, too.

 

Are you denying that this happens in nature? How about my rape example, which you conveniently ignored, do you deny that this happens?

Stating that natural = right, or even natural = good idea, is very wrong in many cases.