this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
453 points (98.1% liked)

News

23296 readers
3382 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, I want you to explain your reasoning, you're the one who made it. please explain how marrying a black person is just like marrying your first cousin.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's nothing objectively wrong with either one. Both have been banned because they gross people out for purely social (bigoted) reasons.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Incorrect. One results in higher than normal birth defects that exacerbate over time, and one is perfectly healthy. We, as a society, should try to limit birth defects, no? Are you also in favor of bringing back thalidomide?

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, are you chill with incest if the couple is incapable of biological reproduction? (They're the same sex, one or both has been sterilized, ect.)

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

incest is not something I'd call myself "chill" with.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago
[–] kinttach@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It increases the risk of birth defects slightly but not as much as people seem to think.

a single first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/there-s-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

continued procreation within the family destroys the viability of the offspring eventually. This is not something to be encouraged.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The birth defects are on par with a woman over 30 giving birth. Want to ban that too?

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

that's not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You're gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, it was women over 34: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-cousin-marriage-older-mothers-birth.html

Facts. You just don't like it because of the ick, and the cognitive dissonance is making you angry. No one likes when it's pointed out that they're acting irrationally.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

look at you moving goalposts. go back to disappointing your family.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I just misremembered. But my point still stands. You want to ban women over 34 having children?

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

no, I don't. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn't lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you're using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn't apply.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not a slippery slope, it's the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

no it wouldn't and that's your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You're wrong.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why do you want to ban consanguineous marriage?

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

wanting to ban first cousin marriages does not equate to banning pregnancies from woman aged 34 and older. How many times do you need this repeated to you?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Answer the question.

[–] capital@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

One results in higher than normal birth defects that exacerbate over time, and one is perfectly healthy.

Are you for any law preventing people more likely than average to produce offspring with defects from reproducing, or just cousins?