West Virginia man and step daughter face 15 years in prison for ? (With Pictures)

2»

Comments

  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    rip.dilla wrote: »
    Decriminalize ? .
    ? 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.
  • rip.dilla
    rip.dilla Members Posts: 17,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    rip.dilla wrote: »
    Decriminalize ? .
    ? 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
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    rip.dilla wrote: »
    Decriminalize ? .
    ? 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.
    Weak argument b.

    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.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well I am pro-eugenics sooo....
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    rip.dilla wrote: »
    Decriminalize ? .
    ? 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.
    Weak argument b.

    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.
    Yeh. Tay-Sachs babies stay losing.

    Just look at these pieces of ? :
    Ss1Gmtw.png
    AbmHcDU.png
    6n65UyQ.gif
    N71DWPq.png
    3E0duYF.png
    lovxcpP.png
    GVvqpKn.png
    bHierfe.png


    LOL. They're mad:
    U1KVbgY.png
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    Well I am pro-eugenics sooo....
    Then criminalizing the mating of those with genetic traits highly-likely to produce a defective offspring will remove the need to criminalize ? .

    Even between siblings, ? won't produce ? children if neither parent carries a ? genetic trait.

    And as you branch out further, genetic similarity drops drastically:
    KTMfUJS.png
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    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.
    That just goes back to both parents carrying a ? genetic trait bruh:
    8nlQA2b.jpg

    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".
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    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.
    Then your eugenics would be ineffective as ? .

    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.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2013
    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.
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    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.
    That's still based on the assumptions that ? automatically means negative recessive traits are present and that all ? results in offspring.

    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.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2013
    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
    damobb2deep Members Posts: 19,972 ✭✭✭✭✭
    4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    I'm under the assumption that the genetically defective are likely too stupid to use birth control so the probability for offspring is high.
    There's nothing ? -specific about this assumption.
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
    I'm a male and I'm pro-abortion. I also don't do drugs, but I think drugs usage should be decriminalized.

    This ? is no different.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I thought you were anti-homosexual though?
  • damobb2deep
    damobb2deep Members Posts: 19,972 ✭✭✭✭✭
    4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
    I'm a male and I'm pro-abortion. I also don't do drugs, but I think drugs usage should be decriminalized.

    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..
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
    I'm a male and I'm pro-abortion. I also don't do drugs, but I think drugs usage should be decriminalized.

    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..
    Nah. I don't think anything is "immoral", because "morals" are a myth. However, my views on "morality" and "criminality" are different.

    I only argue for decriminalization if the law is inconsistent with other laws.
  • damobb2deep
    damobb2deep Members Posts: 19,972 ✭✭✭✭✭
    4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
    I'm a male and I'm pro-abortion. I also don't do drugs, but I think drugs usage should be decriminalized.

    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..
    Nah. I don't think anything is "immoral", because "morals" are a myth. However, my views on "morality" and "criminality" are different.

    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?
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
    I'm a male and I'm pro-abortion. I also don't do drugs, but I think drugs usage should be decriminalized.

    This ? is no different.

    ? dead people should be decriminalized too..

    In the words of Louis CK:
    "Who am I really hurting? They're dead"

  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    4 a bunch of dudes that ? alot of chicks yall really be pro ? in these types of threads..
    I'm a male and I'm pro-abortion. I also don't do drugs, but I think drugs usage should be decriminalized.

    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..
    Nah. I don't think anything is "immoral", because "morals" are a myth. However, my views on "morality" and "criminality" are different.

    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?
    I'm not arguing to legalize ? , but to treat it the same as other crimes:
    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 ? ).
  • airspeeze23
    airspeeze23 Members Posts: 170 ✭✭✭
  • Rozetta5tone
    Rozetta5tone Members Posts: 4,506 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • afro thunder
    afro thunder Members Posts: 2,479 ✭✭✭✭✭
    We need a yuck or ewww reaction.