West Virginia man and step daughter face 15 years in prison for ? (With Pictures)
Comments
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »Decriminalize ? .Gold_Certificate wrote: »? is an illegitimate "crime" with no logical basis.
It should be decriminalized.
Cs
Are you insane? They're gonnna ? up the gene pool if they decriminalize it. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »Decriminalize ? .Gold_Certificate wrote: »? is an illegitimate "crime" with no logical basis.
It should be decriminalized.
Cs
Are you insane? They're gonnna ? up the gene pool if they decriminalize it.
If 1st and 2nd cousins are involved I'm up for it ..
The Word of ? (The Holy Bible) is used extensively as a backdrop to legal proceedings in America and most Western countries and former colonies ..
And the Bible fully documents instances of full-on ? .. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »Decriminalize ? .Gold_Certificate wrote: »? is an illegitimate "crime" with no logical basis.
It should be decriminalized.
Cs
Are you insane? They're gonnna ? up the gene pool if they decriminalize it.
If "? up the gene pool" is grounds for criminalizing sex, there are many more pressing pairings that should be criminalized before ? .
Word to Tay-Sachs. -
Well I am pro-eugenics sooo....
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »Decriminalize ? .Gold_Certificate wrote: »? is an illegitimate "crime" with no logical basis.
It should be decriminalized.
Cs
Are you insane? They're gonnna ? up the gene pool if they decriminalize it.
If "? up the gene pool" is grounds for criminalizing sex, there are many more pressing pairings that should be criminalized before ? .
Word to Tay-Sachs.
Just look at these pieces of ? :
LOL. They're mad:
-
Well I am pro-eugenics sooo....
Even between siblings, ? won't produce ? children if neither parent carries a ? genetic trait.
And as you branch out further, genetic similarity drops drastically:
-
You run the risk of inbreeding depression if you allow people to reproduce with people too genetically similar to themselves though. Outbreeding has immunity advantages as opposed to inbreeding which can result in humans prone to illness.
-
You run the risk of inbreeding depression if you allow people to reproduce with people too genetically similar to themselves though. Outbreeding has immunity advantages as opposed to inbreeding which can result in humans prone to illness.
If you criminalize "the mating of those with genetic traits highly-likely to produce a defective offspring", then whether they are related or complete strangers; they won't be allowed to produce "aa". -
That's a lot more work. At least if you ensure heterozygosity then you can keep them under control for significantly less money and with less effort.
-
That's a lot more work. At least if you ensure heterozygosity then you can keep them under control for significantly less money and with less effort.
Outlaw ? to prevent incestuous offspring because it "might" have negative traits as result, but allow those with negative traits to produce non-incestuous offspring with negative traits simply because they aren't related.
? makes no sense, and barely differs from current policy. -
If you think ? should be decriminalized then no longer are ? traits going to be kept at bay by heterozygous advantage.
In an ideal eugenic society all negative traits would be eliminated, agreed. Decriminalizing ? just makes it worse until said traits are eliminated though. Too much red tape to start turning the defective into soylent green atm. -
If you think ? should be decriminalized then no longer are ? traits going to be kept at bay by heterozygous advantage.
In an ideal eugenic society all negative traits would be eliminated, agreed. Decriminalizing ? just makes it worse until said traits are eliminated though. Too much red tape to start turning the defective into soylent green atm.
Just because two people are related doesn't mean they are also both sickle cell carriers or some ? .
? takes generations of breeding to rear its ugly head. -
I'm under the assumption that the genetically defective are likely too stupid to use birth control so the probability for offspring is high.
-
4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
-
I'm under the assumption that the genetically defective are likely too stupid to use birth control so the probability for offspring is high.
-
damobb2deep wrote: »4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
This ? is no different. -
I thought you were anti-homosexual though?
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
This ? is no different.
bruh u think ? should be decriminalized.. yo moral compass has been on south west 4 years...
you get a "high" from knowing/watching unmoral and taboo things... i bet you think cannibalism or ? dead people should be decriminalized too.. -
damobb2deep wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
This ? is no different.
bruh u think ? should be decriminalized.. yo moral compass has been on south west 4 years...
you get a "high" from knowing/watching unmoral and taboo things... i bet you think cannibalism or ? dead people should be decriminalized too..
I only argue for decriminalization if the law is inconsistent with other laws. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
This ? is no different.
bruh u think ? should be decriminalized.. yo moral compass has been on south west 4 years...
you get a "high" from knowing/watching unmoral and taboo things... i bet you think cannibalism or ? dead people should be decriminalized too..
I only argue for decriminalization if the law is inconsistent with other laws.
with out morals the world would be in complete chaos.. even animals have morals...
so why should we decriminalize ? ? you always say this.. i understand if the victim is lying... but why should a true ? case be decriminalized? -
damobb2deep wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
This ? is no different.
? dead people should be decriminalized too..
In the words of Louis CK:
"Who am I really hurting? They're dead"
-
damobb2deep wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
This ? is no different.
bruh u think ? should be decriminalized.. yo moral compass has been on south west 4 years...
you get a "high" from knowing/watching unmoral and taboo things... i bet you think cannibalism or ? dead people should be decriminalized too..
I only argue for decriminalization if the law is inconsistent with other laws.
with out morals the world would be in complete chaos.. even animals have morals...
so why should we decriminalize ? ? you always say this.. i understand if the victim is lying... but why should a true ? case be decriminalized?Gold_Certificate wrote: »Word. The problem is ? has a special status as a crime; so that things like evidence, intent, victims, and witnesses aren't needed for someone to be found guilty.
Only way around it is to decriminalize it, and file it under battery or something similar; while requiring the same burden of proof that regular battery does.
It can be differentiated from other battery charges in its sentencing; it can also be elevated in the same manner that regular battery can.
Cases of "true ? " would still be illegal, this would just weed out ? ? (ie: "I was ? ", "statutory ? ", "regret ? ", and made-up ? ). -
Pass tho
-
Lmao
-
We need a yuck or ewww reaction.