Started By
Message

re: WTF Kentucky you sick freaks

Posted on 1/18/24 at 9:50 am to
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96006 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 9:50 am to
What’s the weather like, Karen?
Posted by LSUfanNkaty
LC, Louisiana
Member since Jan 2015
11110 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 9:54 am to
quote:

What’s the weather like, Karen?



Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112530 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 10:00 am to
quote:

They were both adopted right after birth to different pairs of adoptive parents good point, what if you don't know you are related?


I really fall on the side of freedom of choice here. If they knew each other as children the love affair would never have happened.
And the risk of deformed children has two considerations:
a. They may choose not to have kids.
b. The actual cases of such afflictions is overblown by scientific studies on inbreeding.

The weirdos you see in history like the Hapsbergs came from many consecutive generations of inbreeding.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
56396 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 10:15 am to
quote:

1st cousins arent blood related any more than 167th cousins
Is this the dipshit post of the year?

No, dude. My mom's sister's kids are definitely more blood related than a 167th cousin.
Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
79757 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 10:18 am to
quote:

Of course it begs the question of why it was necessary to make it illegal in the other 9.


Kids born with 3rd eyes in the middle of their foreheads and blowholes in the back of their necks.
Posted by TigerAxeOK
Where I lay my head is home.
Member since Dec 2016
24843 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 10:28 am to
quote:




Umm, yeah, I'm sure.

I was adopted and my pullout game is skrong. Besides, it's just the top, I totally promise.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89574 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:50 pm to
quote:

its a slippery slope, but 1st cousins arent blood related any more than 167th cousins



It's been covered, but this is blatantly not true. First cousins, by definition, share a set of grandparents. "167th cousins" share an ancestral couple from before the founding of the Roman Republic.

quote:

i could see a point in taking 1st cousins off the incest list, but its still on the "thats creepy as shite, dont do it", list


This is where I always get into trouble trying to explain "the real world" on this board.

To reiterate:

1. I am NOT advocating cousin marriage. It IS creepy.

2. If you cannot process and accept point #1, DO NOT READ FURTHER


Now - real talk - before the industrial revolution (i.e. railroads, steamships and ultimately aircraft), the vast majority of human beings never traveled more that 50 miles from where they were born. If they did so, it was usually on a military campaign, a disastrous migration, they were explorers or otherwise part of a nomadic society.

Combine not traveling very far in one's lifetime with lower population densities and, outside of very dense cities, most agrarian folks (which still constituted about 80 to 90 percent of the population in most places, well into the 19th Century, even in the West) were marrying their cousins. It was not even criminal for much of the United States until after the Civil War.

#Facts

Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
23744 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:56 pm to
quote:

its a slippery slope, but 1st cousins arent blood related any more than 167th cousins

Do you have webbed toes?
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89574 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:57 pm to
quote:

Kids born with 3rd eyes in the middle of their foreheads and blowholes in the back of their necks.


This is another point. If you breed good genetics into good genetics, that is how all purebred dogs come about. Likewise, breeds with bad hips or other congenital problems also arise from these breeding practices.

Humans are the same way. As I've suggested, cousin marriage, by necessity, was very common until the Industrial Revolution. It is most prominently (and infamously) known among royal families back to the beginning of recorded history. Recent examples include the "Hapsburg Jaw" (typified by Charles II whose family tree largely did not, for the lack of a better term, "fork") and hemophilia throughout many royal bloodlines of Europe just in the past couple of centuries (primarily 2 of Queen Victoria's daughters carrying the mutated gene).
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15748 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:59 pm to
quote:

1st cousins arent blood related any more than 167th cousins


Math disagrees with you.
Posted by PuntBamaPunt
Member since Nov 2010
10070 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 1:05 pm to
Two dudes fricking, gross.
Two cousins fricking, cool.

This place never ceases to amaze me.
Posted by tigerterrace
Mobile, Alabama
Member since Sep 2016
3398 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 1:46 pm to
Just remember that really Hot women are probably somebody's cousin....LOL
Posted by Tesla
the Laurentian Abyss
Member since Dec 2011
7975 posts
Posted on 1/18/24 at 1:48 pm to
Anyone remember what Eleanor Roosevelt’s maiden name was?
Posted by JasonDBlaha
Woodlands, Texas
Member since Apr 2023
2374 posts
Posted on 1/23/24 at 2:27 pm to
quote:

Still not as demented as gay sex.


Or transsexuals
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram