Why did Andrew put TWO fingers into Ashley's belt loop? That is really weird.

Are you an unironic virgin, anon? How does it work? How do you even manage to not have sex ever? We are programed to sex out the opposite sex.
I was a massive loser in school, but even I got a GF at 16, and had sex at 19 (late bloomer I know)

Anon I am also autistic, have an odd gait, tons of traits and overall a certified weirdo. No of that matters. Women don't give a frick, unless you do.

I think I am ugly, most men are, according to women. My hair line isn't the best. But anon, I doubt you were bald in your late teens.

I don't know what to tell you, homie, im 21 and a khv

just be like me and plan all conversations in advance hours before, ez

make dialogue trees
it helps

I'd still count that as something you should blame the parents for

That's not even remotely true unless it's pre or early pubescent children.
Pubescent children engaging in incestual experimentation is pretty common and normal. It also usually results in them deciding they don't like it, even when not told that it's morally wrong.

I don't get why people just pull numbers out their ass
I mean, I do, but still

>"universally reviled" is just whatever current society dislikes
No, then it wouldn't be universal. Incest being taboo is not Western or modern, you can find it all over the world all throughout history.

>If it were normal, it wouldn't be universally reviled.
A lot of things are "normal" which are reviled. Normal =/= good. A lot of people express negative behaviors or have negative impulses, all of that is normal. Feelings of violence or being attracted to someone you shouldn't etc. it's all normal

Technically taboos on incest depend on culture , a lot of cultures don't even count cousin shit.

>A lot of things are "normal" which are reviled. Normal =/= good. A lot of people express negative behaviors or have negative impulses
Well, no. Different groups of people have different degrees of acceptability or thresholds for criminality when it comes to various things, but if something deleterious becomes normal, the civilization is going to disappear. Even in the shittiest civilizations in the world, murdering your neighbor or raping babies is not considered normal. It might happen, but that doesn't mean the average person condones it. Same with homosexuality. It has never been normal, even in places that are famous for being progressive or open-minded.

Many people are not so defensive/insecure
There's nothing wrong in admitting your family member to be attractive

You're projecting.

>Incest being taboo is not Western or modern, you can find it all over the world all throughout history.
LOL is that why pretty much all islander cultures had common incest? Is that why it was commonplace in Egypt and Persia, both powerful civilizations?

>N-NOOOOO IT WAS NOT COMMON AT ALL!!!!!
Source?

>your wife turned to ash cause the stupid b***h didn't listen
When big G tells you do not do something or else, YOU DO NOT DO THE THING.
HOW HARD CAN IT BE, WOMAN?!

b***h Black person she turned around because she desired the degeneracy that was getting the city glassed in the first place. She wasn't curious she was wistful, a corruption that had to be burned out or else she'd take it with her

Nah that was allowed to happen because God has excellent taste

if there was no free will god wouldn't ask, free will means freedom of choice not freedom of consequences, once you accept consequences you can do anything

you are choosing the punishment, it is self inflictedm it's a terrible choice but still a choice you made, god grants forgiveness to all therefore those who go to hell are those who refused to be forgiven, not those who were't forgiven

>leave and don't come back, wander the empty wastes forver while I destroy the last piece of civilization on the planet
>Ok
>leaves immediately
>glances back once
>YOU VIOLATED THE NAP PREPARE TO BE INFINITELY TORTURE FOREVER WITHOUT ANY CHANCE OF EVER HAVING ANY POSITIVE FEELINGS EVER AGAIN
What a loving and benevolent diety

god is very obviously evil and created us solely so we can suffer for his amusement
like a young kid squashing ants

Okay.

>only the highest social class was permitted to do it.
huh almost like there's nothing wrong with it and they just don't want the plebs doing it.
You know like how in the modern day it's only illegal because israelites don't want whites doing it instead of racemixing.

>huh almost like there's nothing wrong with it
Science and history prove you wrong as the nobles gradually became fricking moronic and hobbling zombies after several generations of it. What they didn't want was dirty commoners getting access to their money through marriage. And that ended up being a mistake.
>You know like how in the modern day it's only illegal because israelites don't want whites doing it
It is a well-known fact that israelites also forbid their own people from inbreeding. Because they have such a small population, they keep written records to make sure cousins don't marry. Iceland does the same thing.
>instead of racemixing
I'm against racemixing, too. That doesn't make fricking your sister a smart idea.

>only the highest social class was permitted to do it.
huh almost like there's nothing wrong with it and they just don't want the plebs doing it.
You know like how in the modern day it's only illegal because israelites don't want whites doing it instead of racemixing.

They are simply the goy cattle doing it for the money. Treacherous scum.

Imagine there was a button that would make every israelite in the world disappear.
You press it. What happens?
Absolutely nothing, because most people in leadership positions aren't fricking israeli and will hire people based on their existing beliefs, you moron.
>inb4 l-look at this image from 2004! most media company ceo's are j-israeli!

OR I could choose to eat the bullet and stay virtuous

And then I would be innocent because you chose to die, therefore, I didn't kill you. I'm glad to know you stick with your principles at least, even when they're childish and mentally moronic ones.

>I choose to not kill another fellow human being at the cost of my own life
Yep, which means I am innocent as it was your choice.
>you choose to shoot me as the cost of that choice, you CHOOSED to kill me
Ok, so God chose to kill her, and thus is guilty.

I'm not guilty, because you chose to die. I didn't just shoot you without letting you exercise """"""free""""""" will first. Therefore, there is literally no situation where god is benevolent and I am guilty for shooting you when you refuse to commit murder at gunpoint.
Either coercion removes free will, or it doesn't. There is no in between.

>it's like the paradox of making god create a stone so heavy not even he could lift, in the same way no matter what god did in the example he would still be guilty of something according to you
Well yes, he would.
Because forcing someone to obey you under penalty of infinite superdeath is objectively NOT allowing them free will.
Sorry anon, but I was explaining an objective fact to you, not trying to have an argument.

Coercion removes free will, full stop.
You can't just say "it's only not free will if you're literally mind controlled by a wizard," that's moronic goalpost moving and redefining of words that have specific meanings.

Non sequitur.

>Because forcing someone to obey you under penalty of infinite superdeath is objectively NOT allowing them free will.
Wrong. You're still free to commit whatever hellish atrocities your little heart desires. What you don't understand is that there's consequences for doing so. Technically nothing is stopping you from raping babies, snorting cocaine off your neighbor's corpse, and shitposting on the internet as a contrarian. Just remember that ALL choices have consequences.

>Wrong. You're still free to commit whatever hellish atrocities your little heart desires.
Sure, and according to you, as long as the victims of those atrocities can choose to die instead of suffer the atrocities, I'm innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Nah, I'm completely innocent because I force everyone I do any wrong to, to do it at gunpoint. That way they're the ones doing the wrong instead of me and I'm absolved of all responsibility for it.

>Not sure who told you that
You did
>The only actions you can control are your own. Putting a gun to someone's head and demanding they do something they don't want to ends up putting the blood on YOUR hands if you decided to kill them because they refused your request.
Oh okay, glad we agree that God is a murderer and doesn't value free will then!

By claiming that God isn't removing free will by threatening anyone who disobeys him with instantaneous infinite-superdeath, you are stating that forcing someone to do something at gunpoint absolves you of responsibility and passes it to them, because "they can choose to die instead."

Wow, no wonder Christianity is dying out if "sacrifice the self before anything else" is one of your core beliefs.

I don't get it, he got crucifixed because he claimed to be the son of god, which pissed off so many people that the judge residing over his case had no choice but to sentence him to death in order to prevent a riot from breaking out.

there's no such thing as having "no choice" we've been over this cmon
absolute, complete freedom of choice

yes but theres still a choice there, no matter how many excuses you come up with

I think he's saying that he could've allowed the riot to happen, which is technically still a valid "choice" (an extremely moronic one)

>I choose to die and go to eternal heaven an innocent or choose to kill another guy to selfishly save my ass?
>even if you kill under gunpoint, it's your own choice to do so, it's not something that youcan justify or remove your guilt about, it's a sin that'll mark you for eternity and no matter how many good deeds you commit after it will not be erased
that's not how it works? Killing is literally not sinful on its own. Murder is. There is a difference. Self-defense is biblically supported. War is biblically supported. Execution is biblically supported. Go sell the clothes off your back to buy a gun, dude. Also beyond that "good deeds" have nothing to do with it. Are you sure we read the same bible?

>i dont read the bible im not christian i already told you stupid fricking moron
I'm a different guy than whoever you were arguing with, I hopped in at that comment without reading the rest. Not reading the rest of your post because it's not for me.

thought I saw something outwardly moronic and jumped in before doing due diligence and checking the full discussion. I think it's a natural enough inclination even if something that ought to be discouraged.

>God tells you there are consequences for wrongdoing
>"REEEEEEEEEE MUH FREEWILL"
You once again miss the point. You HAVE the freewill to do whatever you want. But there will be consequences for doing the wrong things. Smack a bear in the face? That fricker's mauling you to death. Build a house underwater with no air pockets? You're drowing. Refuse to eat food ever again because food is homophobic? Looks like you're dying of starvation.

Not doing what he said is wrong though

Children are by definition innocent, you moron.
Only once they have matured mentally do they become responsible for their own actions.

Children are old enough to: lie, steal, bear false witness against their neighbors, commit adultery, and treat their peers like shit. They're guilty.

>peer pressure
>personal curiosity
>apathy
>etc.
They do these things for the same reason adults do them.

>Because forcing someone to obey you under penalty of infinite superdeath is objectively NOT allowing them free will.
Wrong. You're still free to commit whatever hellish atrocities your little heart desires. What you don't understand is that there's consequences for doing so. Technically nothing is stopping you from raping babies, snorting cocaine off your neighbor's corpse, and shitposting on the internet as a contrarian. Just remember that ALL choices have consequences.

You only thought you were a slave because that's how society groomed you.

>could you say that love towards god is true if you had no option but to love god?
Well the options are to love god or be tortured in hell for eternity so it's not really free will is it? At best it's stockholm syndrome

>you can leave hell anytime you want,
Headcanon, directly contradicts the Bible.
>, everyone there is willingly staying because of their own choice because of their pride
Headcanon, directly contradicts the Bible.

>i dont give a frick about the bible
Clearly not.
Regardless of your headcanon, the bible clearly says hell is infinite and eternal torture. There objectively is no such thing as "leaving hell," that's literally fanfiction created by Dante.

>i wouldnt know, i didnt read either book,
Then you don't believe in Hell.

Sure you do, lots of people do, but you don't believe in the Christian Hell and your beliefs are irrelevant to any conversation about it.

The conversation was specifically about Christian Hell.
You spouting your irrelevant opinions about an unrelated afterlife are not relevant to that conversation in any way.
You might as well say "Christian Hell isn't permanent because you reincarnate as a bug according to Buddha." It's not relevant or sensical in any way.

He forced her under the literal worst possible outcome imaginable for disobeying him even slightly.
Or in other words, deprived her of free will.

We weren't talking about Eve moron.

god put it there expecting man toe at from the tree
it was the free will test run, to prove that they had choice and to teach them that their actions had consequences
he would not have put the tree in the garden if it would not be used, it proved humanity's ability to choose it's own fate

no amount of good deeds can erase the mark of sin for it's not good deeds which allows us to enter heaven but our own admision to guilt of our own sins, it's not through acts of charity and kindness but through the confession of our sins, fully acknowledging that we were at fault then and that there's no such thing as an "end that justifies the means", to bear the feeling of guilt, that is the punishment for the crime, only then can one be saved and can truly work towards redemption, not by erasing the past and denying resposability but by acknowleging it and moving foward towards trying to become a better person

Then slaves are free because they can kill themselves and I am innocent for forcing you to murder at gunpoint.

>Then slaves are free because they can kill themselves
yes
>I am innocent for forcing you to murder at gunpoint.
you choose to force me to murder under gunpoint, it is your choice to pull the trigger or no

>90% of its business and political leadership vanishes from existence
Anon, be honest with me here. How much time do you spend on /misc/ versus outside with friends?
How many Telegram channels are you a part of?
Do you get your news from "redpilled" media channels that no one ever heard of?
It sounds like you're suffering from a massive delusion. This ain't healthy, man.
And before you even start, let me shatter your strawman by stating that I agree with you that:
>mass voting fraud made biden president
>january 9 was generally peaceful
>transgender people are mentally ill
>most of the media has been taken over by left-leaning folk

>because most people in leadership positions aren't fricking israeli
Peak delusion.

I don't know what telegram is, my phone has nothing on it besides emulators, and about 2 hours ago.
Also, you are a moron that blindly believes that the election was rigged despite literally everyone who has done any actual investigation into the issue on either side finding nothing other than some evidence that Trump got a half dozen more votes than he was supposed to in one county simply because a bunch of morons yelled about it enough.
Biden won because the israeli media pushed him to win because it would create more division, thus driving more people to political extremes and driving extremists to become even louder to drown out reason even more, as they've been doing for years.

man you are one seething moron

I’m not even the same guy you just suck at what youre trying to do and it’s extremely obvious israelite

Actually, a lot would happen, since half of DNC donations come from them. I agree with what you're saying. Most of the people causing problems in society today are not israelites. However, they are the most negatively influential outsider. Modern society has an sickness or this new religion, and they have the highest attendance. So it's no surprise people point fingers at them.

>after several generations of it.
Seems like we know where the problem lies...

1. You never proved one generation was insignificant. You should have that study on hand since you were so quick to throw that claim out as if you knew what you were talking about.

2. How are you going to tell siblings they can have sex, but only if their parents aren't siblings? If two steps take cause you to fall off a building, why even take the first step? If that first step was beneficial in some way, like drinking gross-tasting medicine to cure an illness, then you'd have an argument. But your only argument is, "It makes my peepee feel good."

Anon, a guy on a forum is not a primary source, and we're talking about intelligence in humans, not cow udders or whatever. It's well-known that humans have in fact bred many species of animals to a point where they are genetically sick, it just doesn't matter because we basically control their lives anyway.
>Why are you assuming that all siblings would be attracted to each other?
..? A law doesn't need to be a problem for every single person in order to be created. It only needs one. Actually, not even, laws get made based on hypotheticals all the time. So, I don't know what you're talking about?

Surely, some siblings wil- excuse me, MANY siblings will want to do it. It's common, according to you. :^)

>generational incest can lower the resulting IQ by 8 points, it's evil and wrong
>meanwhile the science says we must keep importing tens of millions of migrants with 30 or more less IQ points, and you should definitely miscegenate with them
OK.

The science doesn't say that. The scientists do, because it's part of their religious ideology.

How do you know that?

Okay, so one "celebrity" (not so anymore, who the frick is Madonna?) learned something about Judaism once in her life.
How does this correlate to israeli people being behind everythinf that's wrong with society?

>If it were normal, it wouldn't be universally reviled.
A lot of things are "normal" which are reviled. Normal =/= good. A lot of people express negative behaviors or have negative impulses, all of that is normal. Feelings of violence or being attracted to someone you shouldn't etc. it's all normal

Technically taboos on incest depend on culture , a lot of cultures don't even count cousin shit.

Many people are not so defensive/insecure
There's nothing wrong in admitting your family member to be attractive

it was classified as rape because the boy was older. technically they raped each-other though if we're speaking legally.

yes americ**ts unironically do really.

Is incest between siblings even illegal? I know some Southern states have extremely old laws but when's the last time a brother - sister got arrested for fooling around?

The state may forbid blood relatives from legally marrying, which is a public service. But they morally cannot forbid people from having sex with each other, because that would imply the state owns human's bodies by default.
Sex is a fundamental human instinct, it precedes man made institutions.

There's obviously a time and place for everything (like incest), but the thing is, all the people speaking openly about physical abuse being a good thing are people like your parents.
I will NEVER accept physical abuse as an answer, even if it means that a few cases will never be "fixed".

NTA, but I don't think you realize just how many normalgays came to Ganker since 2016.
/misc/ has become boomer-central now that their conspiracies are no longer allowed on Reddit.

Lol that header’s only on /b/ therefore everything on Ganker is 100% factual and true.

>projecting
Never assume things on the internet, moron-kun
I'm actually an asexual panda bear

Right, so that explains the incest epidemic going on in our society at this very moment, no?
He's the same as boomer moms crying about videogame related violence

if undesirables means being born mentally defficient, eith missing limbs or nonfunctioning organs then I'm all for the extermination of future generations of undesirables, people should learn there is such thing as objetively better and objetively worse genes, because who the fuvk would want to beborn a blind deaf mute quadriplegic mentally moronic skinless fricknugget?

how the frick you would genetically remove gays? they don't even breed???
even then it's not something that's inherited genetically
also if melanin does make you more resistant to radiation and the sun then I say we turn everyone into Black folk and solve racism while we're at it
also deaf people being proud for being deaf are fricking stupid, should be proud for their willpower to persevere DESPITE their disabilities, not be proud BEVAUSE of them, you should want to stop being deaf and if you don't I will absolutely think less of said person, what a moron

and those people are stupid and exactly why we need such things, plus no matter what it'll ultinateky be used for a greater good than whatever evils it allows to happen since the descendants themselves will also inherit the tech, it will have a positive tendency since objetively negative traits will be eliminated no matter what "agenda" or whatever they have since who would want their kids to be worse?
if we don't have the right people then we should start working on making that people instead

You are a moron. The problem is that if you give someone the power to decide who gets to reproduce based on genetics, they're going to quickly expand the definition of "objectively bad genes" to include harmless or even beneficial ones that happen to belong to groups they don't like. That's why eugenics is a bad idea.
If you somehow had a perfect machine that could decide for you without any human influence then yes, eugenics would be good. But that doesn't exist.

It would quickly devolve from there, getting rid of short men and gingers is obvoiusly objectively good but it would quickly become "get rid of people with eyebrows more than 1 inch long because there's a specific region I don't like and that's one of their traits"

>we can't possibly fix most genetic errors, cure cancer or invent biological immortality, think of all the evil that could be done with the technology!
I hate people like you

You're just dumber than a bag of hammers aren't you?

>we can't possibly fix most genetic errors, cure cancer or invent biological immortality, think of all the evil that could be done with the technology!
I hate people like you

I don't think you realize the absurdly complicity of genetics. We have no answers to the most basic import questions like how a proteins structure influences it's function and how a cell "chooses" which genes to transcribe. Determining the function of a gene is crude and basically comparing differences between two groups and hoping the gene you're studying has a higher frequency in the group with the expressed trait.

Seriously we know more about the formation of stars and black holes than we do about our own genome. We aren't close to solving jack shit.

And you also said government should be able to unilaterally decide who gets to reproduce, which is objectively a moron statement.

>of course this is assuming we're already in a fantasy land
Great! Glad we agree your statement was mentally moronic.

>b***h the whole thing was already hypotheticals from the beginning,
No it wasn't, it was always specifically about why eugenics programs are a bad idea in every single situation.

Proper eugenics would always lead to a dictatorship shithole because it is literally impossible to implement in an unbiased manner without a level of technology that renders eugenics irrelevant.

The issue is that more money isn't going to change the fact that the biggest stop hold in genetic research is one of the hardest proposed question in all of science (how does a proteins structure influence it's function?). A 5th grader and the leading world's geneticists are both equally close to the answer.

Man, sometimes you just encounter stuff on this site that makes you sit down and think
>how is it even possible to be this moronic?

You're right. And none of that matters.
I do not need to know how a jackhammer works in order to use it.
I do not need to know how my car works in order to modify internal components.
And I do not need to know how the inside of a cell works in order to genetically modify a being.

Maybe they should.
But in the interim, giving them unilateral power to decide who gets to reproduce is probably not a good idea. (PROTIP: they won't just tell people with genetic issues not to frick)

Wow, really? Please, post a few examples!

>they thought IQ was a static score back then
They absolutely did not, I've read Jensen's work from the 60s and he never calls it static. IQ even back then was considered a test score which attempts to measure general intelligence and all test scores are prone to noise or unpredictable environmental effects.

>generational incest
Thanks for proving the point

Was the sample of inbred children due to several generations of inbreeding or just 1 generation?

Excuse me, I don't know exactly to what degree they investigated the children's family history, but why do I need to? I never claimed there was a difference. You did. It's your job to prove one generation doesn't matter, not mine to prove it does. You made the claim.

>Incest being taboo is not Western or modern, you can find it all over the world all throughout history.
Except it wasn't, Ancient Egypt and a lot of Pacific Island people didn't think it was "taboo"

In those cultures it was only the highest social class which was allowed to do it. Normal people weren't. The elites did it to keep wealth in the family, which even happened in Europe. The fact only the elites were allowed to do it means it WAS taboo.

Yes they did. Across the Pacific Islands they have traditions such as separating brothers and sisters after they hit puberty or even separating them from their parents of the opposite sex. A lot of these tribal people also practice totemism, which includes laws forbidding people from having sex with those who possess the same totem. You can't just make shit up, but also, why would you want to? Nobody cares about Pacific Islanders.

>Excuse me, I don't know exactly to what degree they investigated the children's family history
So you didn't even read the study before posting it? moron
> but why do I need to?
Probably because you were arguing that first generation incest results in lower IQ. So a study which looks at a region that has been engaging in generational incest for an extended period of time is completely irrelevant.

>So you didn't even read the study before posting it
I perused it. I did not see a mention of first generation incest. That's not my job, it's yours. You're the one who came in here saying first generation incest was the same as mutational load from aging. YOU need to prove it. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
>Probably because you were arguing that first generation incest results in lower IQ
I did not say that. I'm not reposting what I said, you are fully capable of scrolling up and reading it.

Don't respond to my posts without reading them.

>Excuse me, I don't know exactly to what degree they investigated the children's family history
So you didn't even read the study before posting it? moron
> but why do I need to?
Probably because you were arguing that first generation incest results in lower IQ. So a study which looks at a region that has been engaging in generational incest for an extended period of time is completely irrelevant.

>incest is okay if we only allow it once
listen to yourself

Was the sample of inbred children due to several generations of inbreeding or just 1 generation?

It is not that bad now. It is nothing more than her trying to poke me and little too long hugs when we meet and go. The problem is more that i do not know what she even feels. Bringing it up might put us back where we started rather than letting it ease down in the state we are currently.

I am content with the situation. It is more a question why she cant keep a relationship when she litterally looks like a budget Ryza. And claims she asexual now when we both know what happend in the past. And i know she off edges herself on hentai. So its less about me but more about why she avoids other dudes.

Just sharing a story anon. But i thank you for the concern.