Ordering a burger is more civilized than killing your meat on the spot. I relly don't care tho.Squidward117

What makes it more civilized? The fact that "you" don't have to do it? Considering the way that animals are treated at slaughter houses here in the US, I'm not exactly convinced that we are more civilized. 

It would be a movie about a guy so fed up with his life that he decides to kill himself. Because of how horrible his luck is, he just can't seem to get it done. For instance, he tries to shoot himself, but the bullet is a dud. He runs a bath and tries to electricute himself by dropping in a hair dryer, but just before he does, the power goes out. Then, he stands on a bridge waiting for a car to run him over, but the car blows a tire and swerves off the bridge. Suddenly, he realizes there's a life in need of rescue, so he runs down to the riverside and pulls the man out of the car. He then gets a realization: a calling. He was put on the planet to save people, so he joins the coast guard. On his first day on the beach, a child is screaming, so he jumps into the water, swims out to save him, only to get eaten by a shark. Yeah, it's a Shakespearean tragedy.

JustPlainLucas

That actually sounds a lot like a short story I wrote. It was about this knight who, like the vikings, believes that the only way for him to get into heaven is by dying in battle. Unfortunately for him, he is one of the best sword-fighters ever. He is getting old. He hates himself for everything that he has done in life, but he can't bring himself to end it. He has turned to alcohol in the hope that maybe some young knight will be able to kill him when he's drunk, but he's still unstoppable. He eventually finds purpose in defending this village from a horrible tyrant, but he drinks himself to death the night before the final battle.

I have written 3 feature length screenplays, but none of them are ready to be made into films.

The first was sort of a cross between Gladiator, High Noon, and the Count of Monte Cristo.

The second was a cross between Goonies, Big Fish, and Stand By Me.

The last is fairly unique film, sort of a mesh between Miracle on 34th St. and It's A Wonderful Life, which takes place in Florida retirement home.

incest is mostly taboo, but most of the things you hear about it are highly exaggerated. First off depending on the genes of the two siblings and the gene history of the family having a child out of incest doesn't really have that high of risk of birht defects (I think it's like a 5% increase with direct siblings, and goes down the further apart the genetic tie is but I'll have to look it up). The problem is when incest becomes a regular tradition from generation to generation then the risks increase with each generation.

Incest is really more of a taboo than a moral issue, like scat, S&M, and probably beastiality it's seen as something sexual devients enjoy. Not that I'm defending any of these actions

jrhawk42

When any one person has a recessive allele, and he or she mates with an average, healthy individual, there is a .1% chance that the child will receive two recessive alleles, and therefore display the recessive trait. If siblings mate, it is extremely likely that both will have the same recessive allele, and therefore the chance of the child receiving two recessive alleles increases to 6.25%. That is a significant increase, and if the siblings share multiple recessive alleles, which is extremely likely, the chance of deformity increases drastically.

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Incestial births have a higher than normal rate of deformities. It's not just religion that shows that it's wrong.Kid-Icarus-

And also is that a sound or rational reason to consider it immoral. Do we consider it immoral for people suffering from dwarfism to procreate for example?

Yes but the point is they are at a much higher risk of having children with dwarfism. Not all siblings who procreate have children with genetic defects either.

Yes, but dwarfism is just one genetic mutation. There are many recessive traits, and a child born of incest has an abnormally high chance of genetic mutation, because the genes match too closesly. If one parent has a recessive trait, a normal child will receive that trait 1 out of 1000 times. A child born of incest will receive that trait 1 out of 16 times. And that chance is increased for every single recessive trait that the relatives share.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]It's wrong becouse it produces children with genetic problems.Kid-Icarus-

Proof? This is something which is still debated

Nobody worth their salt debates that. It's like saying that the Earth being round is debatable, because some people still believe the Earth is flat.

"Genetically, unfavorable recessive mutations are always entering into the
population, every generation.  These are not immediately selected out because,
being recessive, they do not express themselves unless the bearer receives the
same deleterious recessive from each parent.  If the recessive is matched with a
healthy dominant, the individual bearer is fine.  If the recessive is matched
with the same recessive from the other parent, the offspring expresses the
unfavorable trait, and hence may die, or be functionally impaired.  So, whether
a child is injured by being homozygous for a given deleterious recessive is a
function of the probability that both parents have the same recessive gene.

The probability that both parents will have the same rare harmful recessive is
low (e.g., 1 in 1000 x 1 in 1000) unless they are related to each other.  To be
related means they share genes in common from a recent common ancestor.  When
close relatives mate, the probability that the resulting children will get
paired sets of deleterious recessives jumps enormously.  For example, if a
lethal recessive exists in the population with a frequency of 1 in 1000, the
probability an individual who gets this gene from one parent will also get it
from the other is 1 in 1000.  If, on the other hand, a father has the recessive,
there is a 1 in 4 chance that it will pass to both his son and his daughter.  If
the son and daughter then mate and produce a child, the probability that they
will then both pass this gene to the child is again 1 in 4 (or a total
probability of being homozygous for this recessive of 1 in 16)."

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/tooby/****s/anth7/incest.htm

That's what I can't understand. I'm sure if PS3's price were around the same as the 360's then lots of people would be buying PS3's instead, don't you think?garland51

The fact still remains that the PS3 does not have enough games to justify a purchase, and it is a currently at its most expensive. What kind of idiot would buy a PS3 right now? Not me.