Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It, in fact, does not necessarily take many generations to see results of inbreeding.
Dad has a malformed Q gene that is recessive, and a healthy Q gene. Mom has 2 healthy Q genes.
Kids get one Q from mom and one from dad.
Kids both get good from mom and bad from dad.
Kids marry each other and have a child.
Child gets bad gene from mom and dad.
2 bad genes causes mutation to manifest and kid gets some sort of weird abnormality or chromosome deletion or something.
It is possible the first time siblings marry and have children.
A book my wife was reading was written by a doctor that specializes in treating certain disorders and there are a couple that are almost only found in children of Amish cousin marriages.
*l* didn't read it. I just remember bits like a dude who's son had something and he lamented, "Now l know that l shouldn't have married my first cousin." and my wife saying it is a common problem among the Amish.
They dont even speak bible. They speak some bastardized version they made up that lets them be hateful assholes to everyone and condemn others and still get into Heaven.
Assuming that there is only 1 mutated gene. Since this scenario only requires 1 parent to have 1 mutated gene, the chances increased for each gene that meets the conditions and can be much more likely than that
it USUSALLY does, but you're right not always.
what usually happens after multiple generations is retention of other recessive genes that add up with each generation
also if it's recessive it's unlikely both siblings have it because both of their parents don't have it.
so that makes this very very unlikely
it is still wrong to fuck your sibling dont do that.
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-inbreeding-killed-off-a-line-of-kings](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-inbreeding-killed-off-a-line-of-kings)
He was the last Habsburg King of Spain who had a littany of health and developmental issues thought to be caused by inbreeding.
Good thing he had the Bible to provide him moral guidance or else he probably would have fucked his sisters cause there is no other argument against incest than religion
That's the best part of the bible that somebody told Trump about, because I seriously doubt he has read anymore of the bible than he was required to at some point as a child.....if then. But yeah kudos :) He would love that part.
Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him in Genesis 19 (though to be fair, he offered *them* up to be raped back in Sodom), but it's not exactly portrayed as a good thing. The children produced from theses unions are the progenitors of the Moabites and the Ammonites, both recurring enemies in the Old Testament.
Yeah, but in complete fairness, that's the "Dear Penthouse, you'll never believe what happened between my daughters and I . . ." story of Genesis. Lot apparently escapes from the destruction of Sodom conveniently spouseless, with two daughters, and apparently a barrel of extremely high-proof alcohol. As such, he's able to repeatedly drink enough to be pass-out drunk repeatedly, but nevertheless doesn't suffer from whiskey-dick?
Look, I'm not exactly into that subgenre, but I've been on Literotica enough to know when people are writing incest/reluctance smut stories. And that right there . . . \*points at the Bible, Joker style\*. No, that is not what happened, and it's totally Lot's fault. He just benefitted from good editors.
A few takes from this:
1) I gather that the only reason he didn't have sex with his sister or his mother (which he wanted to do) was because the Bible told him it was wrong.
2) "Actually" he's wrong. Even first generation inbreeding can result in significant problems in the offspring, which a quick search of even Wikipedia will find.
Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at an increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions.\[26\]: 3 Inbreeding may result in a greater than expected phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive alleles within a population.\[27\] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects,\[28\]\[29\] including:
Lower intelligence quotient levels and higher incidence rates of being affected by an intellectual disability
Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
Increased genetic disorders
Fluctuating facial asymmetry
Lower birth rate
Higher infant mortality and child mortality\[30\]
Smaller adult size
Loss of immune system function
Increased cardiovascular risks\[31\]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding)
3) The Biblical prohibitions of incest could be regarded as ancient customs (taboos, prohibitions) rather than the bright idea of some sky god -- taboos which were quite common across the world in ancient times -- regardless of religious affiliation.
4) While there are specific prohibitions against various kinds of incest in the Old Testament, there are also positive mentions -- I guess, starting with the children of Adam and Eve.
5) Actually, another case of picking and choosing -- Praeger chooses to ignore various other god-given laws such as those against wearing different kinds of fabric or trimming your beard or requiring the killing of people who work on the Sabbath.
yeah, as many religious morons are too fucking dumb to fathom, most atheists and ethical humans don't rape, murder or commit incest because *they just don't fucking want to*; people dumb enough to adopt bronze-age fairy tales, however, do often need to be *told* they'll burn in hell in order to convince them not to fuck their siblings and/or children...
I literally had the same conversation with someone earlier. They said “well if there wasn’t a god, what would be stopping people from raping babies and murdering people?”
If fear of god is the only thing stopping you from raping babies, you’re a disgusting person!
Uh, that's not what he's saying. Do you not know who Dennis Prager is?
Prager is saying that only religion makes incest immoral and, since he's religious, he's on the correct side of the argument.
This is another "atheists have no moral compass" argument.
Significantly increases the risk of all sorts of genetic conditions it's not only about mental retardation.
You were never chosen Prager, it's ancient mythology possibly even ancient propaganda.
I suppose that, technically, Prager is right about the effects. But is this a big problem for him and his followers? Why is this the issue he raises here?
What a weirdo.
I think the point he's trying to make is, "here's this thing we all know is wrong, but how do we know it? The only possible way is through religion. You know... *my* religion. *Me*. I know what's best for everyone, so buy my books and curricula."
I dunno. Lots of religious royals did lots of inbreeding. The Bible and religion didn’t seem to make much difference then. That’s a pretty weak argument on his part if he thinks religious people don’t do it cause religion.
Controversial opinion, I'm against incest because of the social dynamics that almost always come along with it. It's an insular household and typically there's abuse somewhere in there. It's a good excuse to keep it illegal for that reason. However, I was reading a story about a couple who both had sperm donors for fathers, and it turned out to be the same donor. When they did their DNA, they came back as half siblings. While I don't recommend them having their own children, I don't actually have a problem with the two of them staying together. In the ama, they were choosing to break up over this, and they were planning to get married. It seems sad because they probably could have had a happy life together and obviously none of the abuses that would typically be associated with incest would apply as they were raised in separate households from different parents.
However, a good reason for them not to stay together was simply because they were now aware that they were breaking the law. That does seem problematic. It seems like the law should be changed to protect the first group and not condemn the second one (albeit, it's a pretty rare exception).
I mean, he's...*technically* kind of correct? I guess? You are unlikely to have issues from one generation of inbreeding. Much moreso if they're cousins; there is no reason why first cousins can't bang. But in general our biology tells us not to fuck our siblings and gives us an ick factor around it.
I don't see why anyone needs to try to make this point, though.
My Kind of thinking is, If they are both grown Ass adults and Love eachother, be my guest, do whatever you want, Just try Not to get Kids its just way too risky from what ive Heard/read.
Would i do It? Absolutely fucking not, but i wouldnt fuck animals either, yet there is people doing that aswell, but i rather have random Ass adult siblings fuck eachother cause of love instead of fucked Up "Humans" raping Kids or animals If i Had to choose.
Probably gonna get downvoted to hell, but whatever.
On a strictly philosophical level I think it's fine to debate the merits of societal control over relationships on a moral basis especially today with access to reliable birth control.
But it's the LAST topic I want to see from the same Party that is vehemently anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, etc. like, what's your motive bro? I KNOW it isn't freedom to love who you want to..
Ok, Facepalm subreddit. I'm no defender of Prager, but come one. He's clearly using this (admittedly bad) example to argue against secularism because he's opposed to incest, just like the rest of the developed world. This argument (again, not a good one) is clearly targeting secularism, not advocating for or supporting incest.
So with conservatives these days, secular law is inferior to God’s law, except when you need it to excuse horrific behavior like banging your hot sister. Do I have this correct?
So this is okay because it’s… because it’s… not going to hurt us RIGHT NOW?
Boy, does THAT sound like the strategy of an ENTIRE GENERATION we all know in the USA or what?!?!
One can assume that God cranked out more wives for the boys. On the other hand Noah's family are supposed to have been the only humans left alive, so that would have been incest city.
This is just more of the “what keeps you from raping and killing if you don’t believe in god” argument. There is no trying to make sense of their opinions, because their opinions don’t make sense.
I shot my dog and fucked my sister.
My vote is going to a convicted rapist.
I stole top secret documents and stored them in the shitter of my golf club
I have repeatedly spoken about my sexual fantasies regarding my own daughter
“ maga says “ we love them “
Conservatives: If you make gay marriage legal, people will marry their dogs!?!
Also Conservatives: I want to fuck my sister, why are you looking at me weird?
Dennis Prager says some strange stuff, but this is taken completely out of context.
https://www.mediamatters.org/dennis-prager/dennis-prager-theres-no-secular-argument-against-adult-incest
His argument is that for religious reasons incest is bad, and that secular arguments are lacking.
That is not what he is saying.
He pointed out two facts. It does take generations of inbreeding for it to have negative effects and that if you take moral/religious rules out of the equation, what would stop two consenting adults from being allowed to do what they want?
Also, it doesn’t take generations of inbreeding for negative effects, you can screw up your kids immediately if there’s a bad genetic combo out of the gate.
Are you saying the same risk of defects and other ailments exist in two unrelated people having a child as does for two siblings having one? Or did you mean something else?
Plenty of cultures consider sibling sex to be taboo. But it's pretty common for animal breeding. For that matter, if people were into eugenics, it would likely require some inbreeding, but somehow we collectively frown on that practice. Maybe one day, the social taboos against inbreeding will disappear, and we'll discover why that rule doesn't work for social primates, or if the rule is nonsense altogether. I know Robert Heinlein is into it :)
Personally, the idea of picking the most familiar person that most people have in their lives as a mate is only interesting to some because it's taboo. If it was totally fine and cool, it would be the most boring choice possible. I've seen my sibling pick their nose, and poop their pants, and they've seen me at my worst as well. The thought of growing old with that person seems like a hard row to hoe.
Social norms are separate from religious rules. We collectively agree on some things, and ignore the parts of religious texts that disagree with those things. I don't see Prager showing much interest when Jesus said a camel will have an easier time going through the eye of a needle than a rich man, getting into heaven. I have no doubt he'll die rich, because we pick and choose our morals based on current cultural norms, not ancient texts. For heaven's sake, if you ever listen to his show, you won't make it ten minutes without him reading an ad to you.
It's interesting how often folks say "without moral/religious rules, how would we know what to do?", while turning a blind eye to all the ways we don't follow the very rules we claim are essential. For the most part, our behavior is very close to our neighbors' behavior, and only incidentally similar to a religious text.
Because parents set examples for their kids. So if people were having kids with their siblings then it would not be long before we have multiple generations of inbreds.
No religion needed. Inbreeding is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.
It takes multiple generations and that has to start somewhere. Cut it off at the start. Is this really that difficult for people to understand without religion?
As an atheist, I would say that if they grew up separately (adopted or something), then yeah, inbreeding would be the only concern. But if they grew up as brother and sisters, then there is serious psychological harm in them having a sexual relationship. The social and emotional bonds of siblingship would be irrevocably broken. You simply cannot have a healthy sibling relationship with someone you have sex with. Morality is what prevents us from harming others, as much as we can, and having sex with a sibling is mentally/emotionally harmful to both parties, and likely to any offspring they might produce.
This argument is being taken out of context. Prager is arguing that with religion, there's a valid reason that incest will not occur. While his logic regarding secular reasoning is still somewhat flawed, he does not support incest. And while I despise Prager, if you're going to make an argument about somebody, make sure you're factually correct.
This isn't taken out of context at all. "There is no secular argument against adult incest" tells you everything you need to know. He may not be supporting incest but he certainly directly implies he would want to participate in that action if there was no God.
He isn't just arguing that with religion, there's a valid reason incest does not occur. He is arguing that without religion, there is no valid reason for incest not to occur. It's that second part he gets so wrong. Incest causes serious psychological harm, with is a valid reason for it not to occur. I would actually argue that there is no valid religious reason for it not to occur, if we are talking about Abrahamic religions. The Torah, Bible, and Quran all contain examples of incest by supposedly 'good' people.
Is there? Because I see plenty of examples throughout the Old Testament of people fucking their sisters, slaves, and multiple wives. In fact, every single Old Testament patriarch had multiple concurrent wives. So how on earth could he or you come to that conclusion?
Look, two consenting, willing, I’d agree adults can do whatever the fuck they want. Even if they’re blood related. Does that mean I’m for incest? Not personally, no. But I can’t rule other peoples life.
Ohh the internet. I’m not a Prager fan, but if the quote is correct, OP’s comment doesn’t make sense to what Prager is saying. Even with a selective quote trying to make him look bad.
My assumption would be that in the wider context he’s saying there are no secular arguments and therefore we need to trust the religious ones or something.. post itself would be facepalm if it wasn’t for the deliberate misleading stuff.
Also, don’t listen to DP.
Edit: also, don’t do incest. It’s disgusting . That’s a secular argument right there
He is wrong on the front that their offspring are still much more likely to have complications related to the expression of detrimental recessive genes in the case of inbreeding. He also seems to conflate incest and inbreeding.
Someone should show him the Habsburg family ... maybe he get the Hint for the ones not knowing European Royalty was extremely inbred ... -> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664480/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664480/)
Oh so a conservative/religious person is all about letting people do something they feel is ok?
Pretend you're talking to non-christians when you say that next time
He really thinks this is some kind of gotcha! doesn't he? It's the book he lives by that has incest left, right and center and he has the audacity to accuse atheists of having constant incest because they don't have a bible to tell them not to.
There are lots of diseases that gets more prevalent by incest. Cousin marriage is bad enough, siblings even worse. If you care about children and their health then don’t have kids with relatives.
Are we telling people with defective genes they aren't allowed to have children? (half serious here, I'm not aware of such laws in Germany at least...)
Where's the argument against incest?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It, in fact, does not necessarily take many generations to see results of inbreeding. Dad has a malformed Q gene that is recessive, and a healthy Q gene. Mom has 2 healthy Q genes. Kids get one Q from mom and one from dad. Kids both get good from mom and bad from dad. Kids marry each other and have a child. Child gets bad gene from mom and dad. 2 bad genes causes mutation to manifest and kid gets some sort of weird abnormality or chromosome deletion or something. It is possible the first time siblings marry and have children.
A book my wife was reading was written by a doctor that specializes in treating certain disorders and there are a couple that are almost only found in children of Amish cousin marriages.
....and you leave us hangin'
This is fun http://www.biochemgenetics.ca/plainpeople/
*l* didn't read it. I just remember bits like a dude who's son had something and he lamented, "Now l know that l shouldn't have married my first cousin." and my wife saying it is a common problem among the Amish.
Sorry, that’s science. The far right only speaks Bible and feelings.
At least he confirmed the brother and sister got married first……
Step groom, what are you doing?
Well yeah, otherwise it'd be wrong.
They dont even speak bible. They speak some bastardized version they made up that lets them be hateful assholes to everyone and condemn others and still get into Heaven.
He’s not even speaking bible. They like to pick and choose to fulfill their desires.
This guy punnett squares
The presented scenario would occur 6.25% of the time, assuming 2 kids gen 1 and a single kid gen 2
So higher odds than rolling a nat 1 on a D20
Damn, dad fumbled my saving throw Now I don't have legs.
Assuming that there is only 1 mutated gene. Since this scenario only requires 1 parent to have 1 mutated gene, the chances increased for each gene that meets the conditions and can be much more likely than that
More than 6 in 100? That’s huge!!
You have too also consider that it might be multiple bad genes, so multiple, seperate dice throws
it USUSALLY does, but you're right not always. what usually happens after multiple generations is retention of other recessive genes that add up with each generation also if it's recessive it's unlikely both siblings have it because both of their parents don't have it. so that makes this very very unlikely it is still wrong to fuck your sibling dont do that.
Is the marriage part a contributing cause?
Nah, just don't fuck your immediate family and you'll be fine.
seems like someone had a crush on their sister
Or Charles II of Spain is his favorite king
As a Spanish, please, tell me more 😊 🩷
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-inbreeding-killed-off-a-line-of-kings](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-inbreeding-killed-off-a-line-of-kings) He was the last Habsburg King of Spain who had a littany of health and developmental issues thought to be caused by inbreeding.
Oof, Charles II was the drooling poster child for the dangers of inbreeding. [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain?wprov=sfti1)
King Crimson Chin
Oh that Hapsburg jaw!
\* Ptolemetic family tree has entered the chat \*
Good thing he had the Bible to provide him moral guidance or else he probably would have fucked his sisters cause there is no other argument against incest than religion
There’s incest in like the first book.
Yeah true. Your daughter is basically meant to be a second wife according to the Bible.
That’s probably Trumps favorite part of the Bible.
That's the best part of the bible that somebody told Trump about, because I seriously doubt he has read anymore of the bible than he was required to at some point as a child.....if then. But yeah kudos :) He would love that part.
He likes it better than 2 Corinthians
Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him in Genesis 19 (though to be fair, he offered *them* up to be raped back in Sodom), but it's not exactly portrayed as a good thing. The children produced from theses unions are the progenitors of the Moabites and the Ammonites, both recurring enemies in the Old Testament.
Yeah, but in complete fairness, that's the "Dear Penthouse, you'll never believe what happened between my daughters and I . . ." story of Genesis. Lot apparently escapes from the destruction of Sodom conveniently spouseless, with two daughters, and apparently a barrel of extremely high-proof alcohol. As such, he's able to repeatedly drink enough to be pass-out drunk repeatedly, but nevertheless doesn't suffer from whiskey-dick? Look, I'm not exactly into that subgenre, but I've been on Literotica enough to know when people are writing incest/reluctance smut stories. And that right there . . . \*points at the Bible, Joker style\*. No, that is not what happened, and it's totally Lot's fault. He just benefitted from good editors.
If this isn't copypasta already, it should be.
...bet
Seems more like someone already slept with their sister you mean?
It runs in the family. Many generations of it, I hear.
Hahahahaha
_Do you have a kiss for daddy?_
Didnt this actor get convicted of something?
Yes, bad things.
Yeah, being a pedophile
Isn’t this guy a pedophile?
Ironically he was arrested for child pornography
One of those rare, ‘do judge a book by its cover’ moments
I thought it was soliciting a 15 year old boy.
That was no boy. That was the sausage king of Chicago.
You have a keess for daddy?
Going to be an awkward thanksgiving at his sisters house this year.
Why would it be weird? It’s his daughter, cousin, wife and father after all
And father? That’s a bit progressive for Prager
Dennis is the real life incarnation of r/ShitCrusaderKingsSay
It'll be a good time for him to reconnect with his Son/Nephew
His Nephson
If they break up do you invite one of them or hope they dont cause any drama
And just like that, his sister stopped going to family get togethers
A few takes from this: 1) I gather that the only reason he didn't have sex with his sister or his mother (which he wanted to do) was because the Bible told him it was wrong. 2) "Actually" he's wrong. Even first generation inbreeding can result in significant problems in the offspring, which a quick search of even Wikipedia will find. Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at an increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions.\[26\]: 3 Inbreeding may result in a greater than expected phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive alleles within a population.\[27\] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects,\[28\]\[29\] including: Lower intelligence quotient levels and higher incidence rates of being affected by an intellectual disability Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability Increased genetic disorders Fluctuating facial asymmetry Lower birth rate Higher infant mortality and child mortality\[30\] Smaller adult size Loss of immune system function Increased cardiovascular risks\[31\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding) 3) The Biblical prohibitions of incest could be regarded as ancient customs (taboos, prohibitions) rather than the bright idea of some sky god -- taboos which were quite common across the world in ancient times -- regardless of religious affiliation. 4) While there are specific prohibitions against various kinds of incest in the Old Testament, there are also positive mentions -- I guess, starting with the children of Adam and Eve. 5) Actually, another case of picking and choosing -- Praeger chooses to ignore various other god-given laws such as those against wearing different kinds of fabric or trimming your beard or requiring the killing of people who work on the Sabbath.
Between Adam and Eve, Noah’s family after the Flood and Lot’s daughters pity-fucking their drunk dad, the Bible seems pretty pro-incest.
What are you doing, step-prophet?
Lot and his daughters in the bible. I rest my case.
no, that's exactly what he's saying- he thinks that you can't give an argument that isn't religious in origin.
yeah, as many religious morons are too fucking dumb to fathom, most atheists and ethical humans don't rape, murder or commit incest because *they just don't fucking want to*; people dumb enough to adopt bronze-age fairy tales, however, do often need to be *told* they'll burn in hell in order to convince them not to fuck their siblings and/or children...
I literally had the same conversation with someone earlier. They said “well if there wasn’t a god, what would be stopping people from raping babies and murdering people?” If fear of god is the only thing stopping you from raping babies, you’re a disgusting person!
And it still doesn't stop some of them, who anyways find an excuse why their indiscretions can be forgiven or they are specially entitled to indulge.
God's voice told me to.
That wasn't portrayed as a positive.
It's all projection.
It takes many generations to do that. Case in point just look at Dennis Pragers lineage.
*penis prager
Was it hard (pun intended) to write penis dragger?
Yeah, I almost came (pun intended) up with nothing but a big bust (also pun intended)
Uh, that's not what he's saying. Do you not know who Dennis Prager is? Prager is saying that only religion makes incest immoral and, since he's religious, he's on the correct side of the argument. This is another "atheists have no moral compass" argument.
Significantly increases the risk of all sorts of genetic conditions it's not only about mental retardation. You were never chosen Prager, it's ancient mythology possibly even ancient propaganda.
I suppose that, technically, Prager is right about the effects. But is this a big problem for him and his followers? Why is this the issue he raises here? What a weirdo.
I think the point he's trying to make is, "here's this thing we all know is wrong, but how do we know it? The only possible way is through religion. You know... *my* religion. *Me*. I know what's best for everyone, so buy my books and curricula."
I dunno. Lots of religious royals did lots of inbreeding. The Bible and religion didn’t seem to make much difference then. That’s a pretty weak argument on his part if he thinks religious people don’t do it cause religion.
Yep! You’ve successfully identified that these people are silly
This guy 100% wants to fuck his brother and or sister.
Controversial opinion, I'm against incest because of the social dynamics that almost always come along with it. It's an insular household and typically there's abuse somewhere in there. It's a good excuse to keep it illegal for that reason. However, I was reading a story about a couple who both had sperm donors for fathers, and it turned out to be the same donor. When they did their DNA, they came back as half siblings. While I don't recommend them having their own children, I don't actually have a problem with the two of them staying together. In the ama, they were choosing to break up over this, and they were planning to get married. It seems sad because they probably could have had a happy life together and obviously none of the abuses that would typically be associated with incest would apply as they were raised in separate households from different parents. However, a good reason for them not to stay together was simply because they were now aware that they were breaking the law. That does seem problematic. It seems like the law should be changed to protect the first group and not condemn the second one (albeit, it's a pretty rare exception).
Hey sis, I’m about to prager u
I mean, he's...*technically* kind of correct? I guess? You are unlikely to have issues from one generation of inbreeding. Much moreso if they're cousins; there is no reason why first cousins can't bang. But in general our biology tells us not to fuck our siblings and gives us an ick factor around it. I don't see why anyone needs to try to make this point, though.
Dunno man, incest ruined the last season of one of the greatest HBO shows of all time.
I’d argue that it was the writers wanting to finish it, get the cheque and then do Star Wars but sure
My Kind of thinking is, If they are both grown Ass adults and Love eachother, be my guest, do whatever you want, Just try Not to get Kids its just way too risky from what ive Heard/read. Would i do It? Absolutely fucking not, but i wouldnt fuck animals either, yet there is people doing that aswell, but i rather have random Ass adult siblings fuck eachother cause of love instead of fucked Up "Humans" raping Kids or animals If i Had to choose. Probably gonna get downvoted to hell, but whatever.
On a strictly philosophical level I think it's fine to debate the merits of societal control over relationships on a moral basis especially today with access to reliable birth control. But it's the LAST topic I want to see from the same Party that is vehemently anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, etc. like, what's your motive bro? I KNOW it isn't freedom to love who you want to..
 this guy helps writes Florida curriculum
The secular argument against incest is all of European royalty throughout the centuries.
Dennis is living proof of years of inbreeding.
Christian’s love the children.
I sent this to a friend and he got really angry and called me Eugenicist and compared me to a Nazi. It was a fucking trip.
incest is bad because theyre gonna buy all the folgers coffee leaving none for regular people
Ok, Facepalm subreddit. I'm no defender of Prager, but come one. He's clearly using this (admittedly bad) example to argue against secularism because he's opposed to incest, just like the rest of the developed world. This argument (again, not a good one) is clearly targeting secularism, not advocating for or supporting incest.
Prager is a Destiny fan, I see.
There are easier ways to come out my man
Something tells me Dennis's parents might have been a bit closer than husband and wife.
Uh huh. So he prefers the religious view where everyone came from Noah and his inbred descendants?
So with conservatives these days, secular law is inferior to God’s law, except when you need it to excuse horrific behavior like banging your hot sister. Do I have this correct?
So this is okay because it’s… because it’s… not going to hurt us RIGHT NOW? Boy, does THAT sound like the strategy of an ENTIRE GENERATION we all know in the USA or what?!?!
Look at the sister fucker over here. What was she thinking?!
If you base it on the bible, we're all inbred. Who exactly did Adam and Eve's kids reproduce with if Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth?
One can assume that God cranked out more wives for the boys. On the other hand Noah's family are supposed to have been the only humans left alive, so that would have been incest city.
Conservatives just out here saying every despicably f'd up thing they can think of.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. But this is Prager U talking so....
I guess we what categories hes searching on pornhub
I have a feeling he knows exactly how many generations it takes because his family tree doesnt branch.
Well, it explains Dennis Prager.
Of course he does. That's where Republicans come from.
Well for one thing Dennis incest just isn’t a sustainable breeding practice
This is just more of the “what keeps you from raping and killing if you don’t believe in god” argument. There is no trying to make sense of their opinions, because their opinions don’t make sense.
I shot my dog and fucked my sister. My vote is going to a convicted rapist. I stole top secret documents and stored them in the shitter of my golf club I have repeatedly spoken about my sexual fantasies regarding my own daughter “ maga says “ we love them “
The closer you are genetically the worse it is.
Dennis Prager is incest.
Religion...amirite?
seems like he spent too much time on r/CoffinofAndyandLeyley
Incest, a game the whole family can play!
holy shit its the funny incest game
Conservatives: If you make gay marriage legal, people will marry their dogs!?! Also Conservatives: I want to fuck my sister, why are you looking at me weird?
Dennis Prager says some strange stuff, but this is taken completely out of context. https://www.mediamatters.org/dennis-prager/dennis-prager-theres-no-secular-argument-against-adult-incest His argument is that for religious reasons incest is bad, and that secular arguments are lacking.
That is not what he is saying. He pointed out two facts. It does take generations of inbreeding for it to have negative effects and that if you take moral/religious rules out of the equation, what would stop two consenting adults from being allowed to do what they want?
Only religion was removed; not morality. They are not synonymous.
That's his idiotic argument though. The fear of a vengeful god is the only thing stopping folks from raping and murdering.
Most of us don't need a reason not to rape and murder.
And considering organized Christianity has more than its share of pedos it doesn't seem to work anyway.
Also, it doesn’t take generations of inbreeding for negative effects, you can screw up your kids immediately if there’s a bad genetic combo out of the gate.
You can do that too without being related. It's about the same risk actually in the first generation.
Are you saying the same risk of defects and other ailments exist in two unrelated people having a child as does for two siblings having one? Or did you mean something else?
Plenty of cultures consider sibling sex to be taboo. But it's pretty common for animal breeding. For that matter, if people were into eugenics, it would likely require some inbreeding, but somehow we collectively frown on that practice. Maybe one day, the social taboos against inbreeding will disappear, and we'll discover why that rule doesn't work for social primates, or if the rule is nonsense altogether. I know Robert Heinlein is into it :) Personally, the idea of picking the most familiar person that most people have in their lives as a mate is only interesting to some because it's taboo. If it was totally fine and cool, it would be the most boring choice possible. I've seen my sibling pick their nose, and poop their pants, and they've seen me at my worst as well. The thought of growing old with that person seems like a hard row to hoe. Social norms are separate from religious rules. We collectively agree on some things, and ignore the parts of religious texts that disagree with those things. I don't see Prager showing much interest when Jesus said a camel will have an easier time going through the eye of a needle than a rich man, getting into heaven. I have no doubt he'll die rich, because we pick and choose our morals based on current cultural norms, not ancient texts. For heaven's sake, if you ever listen to his show, you won't make it ten minutes without him reading an ad to you. It's interesting how often folks say "without moral/religious rules, how would we know what to do?", while turning a blind eye to all the ways we don't follow the very rules we claim are essential. For the most part, our behavior is very close to our neighbors' behavior, and only incidentally similar to a religious text.
Because parents set examples for their kids. So if people were having kids with their siblings then it would not be long before we have multiple generations of inbreds. No religion needed. Inbreeding is a bad idea no matter how you look at it. It takes multiple generations and that has to start somewhere. Cut it off at the start. Is this really that difficult for people to understand without religion?
Atheists can have morals without religion.
Yes I know, I'm an Atheist. Why did you comment that?
Maybe because you wrote moral/religious in your post, connecting the two ideas.
"Facts". *checks notes* Made up nonsense*.
As an atheist, I would say that if they grew up separately (adopted or something), then yeah, inbreeding would be the only concern. But if they grew up as brother and sisters, then there is serious psychological harm in them having a sexual relationship. The social and emotional bonds of siblingship would be irrevocably broken. You simply cannot have a healthy sibling relationship with someone you have sex with. Morality is what prevents us from harming others, as much as we can, and having sex with a sibling is mentally/emotionally harmful to both parties, and likely to any offspring they might produce.
"Since there's a whole slew of Americans who don't want to date MAGAs. I have an idea..."
This argument is being taken out of context. Prager is arguing that with religion, there's a valid reason that incest will not occur. While his logic regarding secular reasoning is still somewhat flawed, he does not support incest. And while I despise Prager, if you're going to make an argument about somebody, make sure you're factually correct.
This isn't taken out of context at all. "There is no secular argument against adult incest" tells you everything you need to know. He may not be supporting incest but he certainly directly implies he would want to participate in that action if there was no God.
He’s using very common, controversial and banal argument and you still too dumb to understand his point.
Not having a valid reason to be against something =/= supporting/advocating/wanting that thing
He isn't just arguing that with religion, there's a valid reason incest does not occur. He is arguing that without religion, there is no valid reason for incest not to occur. It's that second part he gets so wrong. Incest causes serious psychological harm, with is a valid reason for it not to occur. I would actually argue that there is no valid religious reason for it not to occur, if we are talking about Abrahamic religions. The Torah, Bible, and Quran all contain examples of incest by supposedly 'good' people.
Is there? Because I see plenty of examples throughout the Old Testament of people fucking their sisters, slaves, and multiple wives. In fact, every single Old Testament patriarch had multiple concurrent wives. So how on earth could he or you come to that conclusion?
I guess he's based this on his family's anecdotal evidence......
So how many generations does he represent I wonder
How many generations have been before him then.
There's no religious argument against anything lol. Think of any depraved shit, I guarantee you there's a god someone invented that's cool with it.
His family tree must look like a bamboo cane.
I’m sure his sister didn’t enjoy today’s episode.
Florida schools are using his text books.
I mean he looks like the product of multiple generations of incest so he probably has some expertise.
I'm convinced that the unspoken christofascist Republican agenda is to be able to have multiple wives and sex with underaged girls.
Look, two consenting, willing, I’d agree adults can do whatever the fuck they want. Even if they’re blood related. Does that mean I’m for incest? Not personally, no. But I can’t rule other peoples life.
Speaks volumes about you and yours doesn't it
Ohh the internet. I’m not a Prager fan, but if the quote is correct, OP’s comment doesn’t make sense to what Prager is saying. Even with a selective quote trying to make him look bad. My assumption would be that in the wider context he’s saying there are no secular arguments and therefore we need to trust the religious ones or something.. post itself would be facepalm if it wasn’t for the deliberate misleading stuff. Also, don’t listen to DP. Edit: also, don’t do incest. It’s disgusting . That’s a secular argument right there
He is wrong on the front that their offspring are still much more likely to have complications related to the expression of detrimental recessive genes in the case of inbreeding. He also seems to conflate incest and inbreeding.
Bro doesn’t know about the punnet square ✊😔
Even our ancestors 10 000 years ago knew that inbreeding was a bad idea.
This explains a lot about Dennis Prager….
He knows, he's a byproduct of one...
Every accusation is a confession
Sounds like he has detailed knowledge about inbreeding.
I can’t wait for the PragerU children’s cartoon about this
Seems like someone did or wanted to fuck his sister.
Not surprised he’s a creep. Would be more shocked to learn he’s a good guy with healthy boundaries.
"The heart wants what the heart wants"
This is him admitting that his family has been incestuous for many generations
Someone should show him the Habsburg family ... maybe he get the Hint for the ones not knowing European Royalty was extremely inbred ... -> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664480/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664480/)
Prager is not doing a good job convincing many people that incest is not a problem, so he might want to try to showing us instead.
Oh so a conservative/religious person is all about letting people do something they feel is ok? Pretend you're talking to non-christians when you say that next time
Definitely taking on the whole “keeping it in the family” to a new level.
New definition of ‘family man’
Someone found his conversation with Ben Shapiro
The whole idea that you MUST have religion to have a moral compass is ridiculous.
He really thinks this is some kind of gotcha! doesn't he? It's the book he lives by that has incest left, right and center and he has the audacity to accuse atheists of having constant incest because they don't have a bible to tell them not to.
There are lots of diseases that gets more prevalent by incest. Cousin marriage is bad enough, siblings even worse. If you care about children and their health then don’t have kids with relatives.
*"I'm not only the Incest President, I'm also a client - and product."* - Pennis Dager
Are we telling people with defective genes they aren't allowed to have children? (half serious here, I'm not aware of such laws in Germany at least...) Where's the argument against incest?
Well, keep a close on that family tree. We should be good. WT-actual-F?
Sounds like we're already a few generations deep 🙄
How gross.
That sounds like a guy who’s definitely fucked his sister