[SHELVED]Repeal GA Resolution #16

[Araraukar]

That's why it's called wank and should be avoided at all costs (by serious players).

OOC: When done properly, non-human RP is just as valid as human RP. Hakio's trying to wank without having something to wank with.

[The Dark Star Republic]

That's why it's called wank and should be avoided at all costs (by serious players).

OOC: When done properly, non-human RP is just as valid as human RP.

No one has ever suggested otherwise.

[JohnnyandtheContusions]

Of course I'm not saying all extra-human RP is wank, but Hakio's posts sure are (especially bad) examples of it, yes.

edit: wrong nation. ~Kenny

[Araraukar]

Of course I'm not saying all extra-human RP is wank, but Hakio's posts sure are (especially bad) examples of it, yes.

Very true.

OOC: When done properly, non-human RP is just as valid as human RP.

No one has ever suggested otherwise.

...do you really want me to find all the times you've put down RP'd concerns just because they didn't fit your own RP?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I'm beginning to think we need a "Guide to Reasonable Nation Theory," on top of the approximately 5,679 guides that have already been posted in the past couple years.

Not having to do with anything Arrararrararrararaukar has suggested -- just in general.

(Sorry, Ara. Kennynites dont spel gud.)

[Araraukar]

on top of the approximately 5,679 guides that have already been posted in the past couple years.

Most of them by you.

(Sorry, Ara. Kennynites dont spel gud.)

"Ara" works well.

[Ardchoille]

Side discussions like this are how the RP community sorts out its conventions, so I don't want to put a complete lid on it, but it's a bit unfair to Bears to have his repeal turned into a What Is Specieswank? discussion. A new thread specifically about RPing in the GA would be better if you want to continue.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Side discussions like this are how the RP community sorts out its conventions, so I don't want to put a complete lid on it, but it's a bit unfair to Bears to have his repeal turned into a What Is Specieswank? discussion. A new thread specifically about RPing in the GA would be better if you want to continue.

Thank you.

___________________________________________________________

Right, now.
I recognise that several of you regard people’s “right” to rut with whomsoever they want as sufficient to over-ride any concerns that the societies within which they live might have about the potential consequences of too much inbreeding, but does anybody here have any constructive suggestions to make about the proposal’s actual wording or do you all consider that (if one does consider a repeal along these lines acceptable…) that aspect of the proposal is okay?
Oh, and somebody asked how serious the risk actually was: The answer is “Not too bad if this is just an isolated case and if harmful alleles aren’t already known to be present, but higher if either of those two factors does not apply”.
Some RL examples where inbreeding did lead to health problems _

1/ The Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg (which took less than two centuries for its male line to die out…)

2/ The American island of Martha’s Vinyard was originally settled by a fairly small number of people most of whom came from one relatively small area in England and so were probably mostly already related to each other to varying extents. From the effective end of immigration in 1710 AD until the end of the 19th century most islanders married other islanders, who were often their second or third cousins, rather than outsiders… and by the end of that period the level of congenital deafness — which admittedly isn’t the most severe of handicaps, but I think does serve as an example of how inbreeding can amplify levels of recessive [and in some cases harmful] alleles anyhow — amongst the islanders had risen to 35 times the USA’s national average.

3/ Similarly, the membership of the Mennonite community in North America — who also descend from a relatively small pool of ancestors, although in their case the main factor limiting marriage to outsiders has been cultural rather than geographical — apparently has a significantly higher frequency of congenital night-blindness than is the case for the overall North American population in general.

[Bears Armed Mission]

(bump)

I might send this on a test run, to see whether it gets any approvals apart from mine, in a week or so's time...

[Mesogiria]

(bump)

I might send this on a test run, to see whether it gets any approvals apart from mine, in a week or so's time...

Well, you'll get at least two, since you've convinced me, Mister Bear.

[Burleson]

You have my full support.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Right, now.
I recognise that several of you regard people’s “right” to rut with whomsoever they want as sufficient to over-ride any concerns that the societies within which they live might have about the potential consequences of too much inbreeding, but does anybody here have any constructive suggestions to make about the proposal’s actual wording or do you all consider that (if one does consider a repeal along these lines acceptable…) that aspect of the proposal is okay?
Oh, and somebody asked how serious the risk actually was: The answer is “Not too bad if this is just an isolated case and if harmful alleles aren’t already known to be present, but higher if either of those two factors does not apply”.
Some RL examples where inbreeding did lead to health problems _

1/ The Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg (which took less than two centuries for its male line to die out…)

2/ The American island of Martha’s Vinyard was originally settled by a fairly small number of people most of whom came from one relatively small area in England and so were probably mostly already related to each other to varying extents. From the effective end of immigration in 1710 AD until the end of the 19th century most islanders married other islanders, who were often their second or third cousins, rather than outsiders… and by the end of that period the level of congenital deafness — which admittedly isn’t the most severe of handicaps, but I think does serve as an example of how inbreeding can amplify levels of recessive [and in some cases harmful] alleles anyhow — amongst the islanders had risen to 35 times the USA’s national average.

3/ Similarly, the membership of the Mennonite community in North America — who also descend from a relatively small pool of ancestors, although in their case the main factor limiting marriage to outsiders has been cultural rather than geographical — apparently has a significantly higher frequency of congenital night-blindness than is the case for the overall North American population in general.

OOC: Not to mention the Appalachian family with blue skin spread in part due to inbreeding and isolation.

I'm going to comb through your text again later and make some suggestions.

IC: Just in case we weren't sufficiently clear before, the Federal Republic supports this repeal, in that we have always seen the incest and inbreeding angle of Sexual Privacy Act to be a serious concern. It is simply outrageous that, whether intentionally or not, a resolution author would push through legislation forcing member states to legalize incest.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Test run begun.
Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act"

[Rapallo]

I love how this repeal is basically just propoganda. GAR 16 has nothing to do with pregnancy or offspring. Saying that it bars the ability to regulate imbred offspring is false, GAR 16 is about the act of sexual intercourse and nothing more, it basically just says you can't bar them from having sex not that you can't bar them from having children.

Also this repeal gets way to close to Eugenics for my comfort so I cannot support it.

[Defwa]

I love how this repeal is basically just propoganda. GAR 16 has nothing to do with pregnancy or offspring. Saying that it bars the ability to regulate imbred offspring is false, GAR 16 is about the act of sexual intercourse and nothing more, it basically just says you can't bar them from having sex not that you can't bar them from having children.

Also this repeal gets way to close to Eugenics for my comfort so I cannot support it.

I'm curious how you plan to 'regulate' inbred offspring without being able to prevent those individuals from mating the first place. You can't force an abortion on them. You can't punish the child. What is your alternative?

[Rapallo]

I love how this repeal is basically just propoganda. GAR 16 has nothing to do with pregnancy or offspring. Saying that it bars the ability to regulate imbred offspring is false, GAR 16 is about the act of sexual intercourse and nothing more, it basically just says you can't bar them from having sex not that you can't bar them from having children.

Also this repeal gets way to close to Eugenics for my comfort so I cannot support it.

I'm curious how you plan to 'regulate' inbred offspring without being able to prevent those individuals from mating the first place. You can't force an abortion on them. You can't punish the child. What is your alternative?

Technically you can make the pregnancy a crime for the parents and send the child into fostercare or orphanage system. But the thing is banning sex based upon genetics is an extremely problematic subject especially when you get into the fact that not all sex is actually for the creation of offspring. That is basically using eugenics ideology to regulate relationships.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And what do you call employing demagogic tactics by amounting a simple call to allow nations to outlaw incest with "eugenics"? Oh, that's right. Demagoguery.

[Defwa]

I'm curious how you plan to 'regulate' inbred offspring without being able to prevent those individuals from mating the first place. You can't force an abortion on them. You can't punish the child. What is your alternative?

Technically you can make the pregnancy a crime for the parents and send the child into fostercare or orphanage system. But the thing is banning sex based upon genetics is an extremely problematic subject especially when you get into the fact that not all sex is actually for the creation of offspring. That is basically using eugenics ideology to regulate relationships.

I'll have to do some double checking but I don't think its legal to ban a biological process.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Then there's no basis for this repeal, if incestuous unions can't be banned anyway.

Or Reproductive Freedoms, for that matter -- if patients aren't allowed to terminate an ongoing biological process.

[Three Weasels]

We are not convinced of the necessity of this repeal. It's a minor point that regards only the tiniest fraction of a population. GAR#16 serves the greater good. As we do not foresee this ending well, we're against this repeal. The reasons provided by the Bears delegation are too weak to justify any support of this repeal. The logic behind it is a flimsy shack built on stilts.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh, so you're in favor of letting stand international protections for brothers and sisters who want to do each other? Not simply allowing nations to allow it -- but forcing all nations to?

[The Dark Star Republic]

It's a minor point that regards only the tiniest fraction of a population.

OOC: Isn't that exactly the logic that opponents of the Sexual Privacy Act would also use? Supporting minority rights because minority rights are irrelevant is certainly a daring rhetorical gambit.

[Three Weasels]

It's a minor point that regards only the tiniest fraction of a population.

OOC: Isn't that exactly the logic that opponents of the Sexual Privacy Act would also use? Supporting minority rights because minority rights are irrelevant is certainly a daring rhetorical gambit.

We can't disagree on that. To an extent. We do not believe a repeal is necessary because there is a minute chance that a tiny segment of any population could engage in incestuous relations, and an even slighter chance of reproduction resulting in offspring. Why should the sexual privacy rights of consenting individuals (including those in incestuous unions/relationships) be compromised because a infinitesimal segment of the population wants to engage in incestuous relation that may (or may not) produce genetically compromised offspring. It seems there's an equal or greater chance that non-related individuals could produce genetically compromised offspring. To us, there is no difference the cause of the disability. In the end, it's still the same disability.

[Rapallo]

And what do you call employing demagogic tactics by amounting a simple call to allow nations to outlaw incest with "eugenics"? Oh, that's right. Demagoguery.

You do realize that you are guilty of said Demagogic Tactics because you gave no rational argument to why I was wrong and just called what I said Demagoguery?

I actually gave a rational argument. Basically what the repeal wants to achieve is the ability to ban the act of sex based upon nothing but genetics.

[Bears Armed Mission]

It seems there's an equal or greater chance that non-related individuals could produce genetically compromised offspring.

OOC: Not as genetics works in RL... and probably not as it works for the peoples in most of NS, neither.
Related people are more likely than unrelated ones to have alleles (gene variants) in common, due to inheritance of these from mutual ancestors, which means that children being born with two copies of a recessive [and harmful] allele -- rather than just with one copy, whose effects could be supressed by a dominant alternative allele -- is also more likely in such cases. The only obvious ways around these facts would be_
1/ Somehow "cleaning" the genome of harmful alleles, and then "locking" it against further mutation, which requires rather advanced technology (or maybeso magic);
2/ Producing all embryos in vitro, and checking their genomes for problems (or maybeso even "building" their genomes) -- and discarding any "faulty" ones -- before transferring them to [natural or artifical] wombs, which also requires rather advanced technology (or maybeso magic);
3/ having such a high mutation rate that the genomes of close relatives differ as much from each other as they do from the genomes of everybody else, in which case harmful mutations (which are far more likely than helpful ones) would almost certainly result in very high rates of infant mortality.