Topic: Flowers in the Attic
Anonymous A started this discussion 4 hours ago #135,515
We're just a really close family.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 13 minutes later[^] [v] #1,439,975
There's no evidence that incestuous breeding is inherently harmful.
It promotes recessive genes, which can be good, bad, or neutral.
This myth originated from the Catholic church, known for their widespread gay child molestation and institutional coverup, who convinced Europe incest was bad to break up clans that could challenge their power.
It promotes recessive genes, which can be good, bad, or neutral.
This myth originated from the Catholic church, known for their widespread gay child molestation and institutional coverup, who convinced Europe incest was bad to break up clans that could challenge their power.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,978
Anonymous B replied with this 3 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,979
@previous (A)
Grover was a child molester, and like I said that's bad.
Consentual incestuous breeding between adults is fine, but Romanist propaganda has fooled people.
Grover was a child molester, and like I said that's bad.
Consentual incestuous breeding between adults is fine, but Romanist propaganda has fooled people.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 19 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,989
FYI female chimpanzees leave their birth groups to avoid inbreeding. If you study the mating systems of various ape species, they all avoid inbreeding. It’s not something the Catholic Church made up, there’s an evolutionary reason for this, it is bad for genetic reasons to reproduce with your family members.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,996
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,042
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,044
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,045
@previous (A)
Sample size of 29, which is low, and a quarter of them were picked for the study "because of signs or symptoms in the child."
So you linked to just the short abstract, and they disclose their selection bias. You can't guage how common genetic disorders occur if you are finding your participants based on preexisting disorders.
There's no study itself from that link, either.
This is like making a study of the lifestyles of the rich, and specifically went around looking for people in flashy cars. "Our study determined rich people are rarely inconspicuous"- yeah, no shit.
And 29 would be a small sample size even if they had selected the participants randomly from a pool of people born of incest.
Did you just search for one and share the first link without reading?
Sample size of 29, which is low, and a quarter of them were picked for the study "because of signs or symptoms in the child."
So you linked to just the short abstract, and they disclose their selection bias. You can't guage how common genetic disorders occur if you are finding your participants based on preexisting disorders.
There's no study itself from that link, either.
This is like making a study of the lifestyles of the rich, and specifically went around looking for people in flashy cars. "Our study determined rich people are rarely inconspicuous"- yeah, no shit.
And 29 would be a small sample size even if they had selected the participants randomly from a pool of people born of incest.
Did you just search for one and share the first link without reading?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,046
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,047
@previous (A)
Correct, because finding one family that has genetic disorders from incest doesn't prove that incest is necessarily leading to genetic disorders.
An anecdote is not a study.
Correct, because finding one family that has genetic disorders from incest doesn't prove that incest is necessarily leading to genetic disorders.
An anecdote is not a study.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,049
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,050
@1,440,047 (B)> Correct, because finding one family that has genetic disorders from incest doesn't prove that incest is necessarily leading to genetic disorders.
>
> An anecdote is not a study.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,051
@1,440,049 (A)
Half the participants were pakis. Ethnic groups tend to have variances across metrics if you were to only look at that, so this could all be the result of cultural norms about seeing a doctor or about diet or risk factors.
I also don't see where they compare the rates to non-incest offspring, which would be the critical way of measuring this.
Half the participants were pakis. Ethnic groups tend to have variances across metrics if you were to only look at that, so this could all be the result of cultural norms about seeing a doctor or about diet or risk factors.
I also don't see where they compare the rates to non-incest offspring, which would be the critical way of measuring this.