Spite

I notice Mensa signed no NAP, and coincidentally we're approaching maximum readiness for war again... Just joking of course. OR AM I?

He'd have a hard job rolling anything with zero score.

I don't need to prove anything because I didn't come here to argue with the uninformed. The USA has an unacceptably high homicide rate for a developed country, and a high proportion of those are gun deaths. In the words of Mao Tse Tung, the gun is the great leveller. Whether you're a 40kg lightweight or a 180kg pro wrestler, the gun levels the playing field. It makes killing as easy as pulling a trigger. It opens it up to the masses instead of a few thugs practiced in the art of violence. In any case, I'm not American so I personally don't really care about the orgy of violence over there or the fact so many people seem blind to causation.

Russia is a shithole overrun by gang violence, whereas Finland and Switzerland have next to no social issues. Also, both those countries have extremely strict gun control laws, despite having high gun ownership.

Now take out all the countries with incomparable political and economic situations and just focus on the wealthy developed countries, and compare again.

as

sa

whenwillstevelearn.com should be the spiritual successor.

Implying all these trolls don't have more than one account

I agree with what you said Kemal and if I wasn't clear, I was just saying that finding a couple of siblings with no "baggage" would be quite difficult. If you have siblings you know that the older siblings inevitably form a parental role with younger siblings, and sometimes that can also be abusive (bullying) because the older sibling has the desire to care for the younger but not the patience or emotional maturity. I'd imagine that in most cases where a relationship emerged between siblings that had a sexual nature, it would emerge when they are in close proximity (as children) and would be a perversion of the existing brother sister relationship rather than an entirely separate relationship like you would have with a stranger. That overlap would probably be exploitative, ie an older sibling egging on a younger one. However in your hypothetical situation where two fully mature adults of approximately the same age and no history of exploitation suddenly decided to go like rabbits I can agree there would be no ethical concerns. I think it's unlikely (and this is the social element) because of the taboo. By this I don't mean peer pressure-as best I know (may need to consult our Mensa peers with psychology backgrounds) there is a strong aversion to sex with siblings which forms within family units. They've tested it with foster children and it still applies if enough time is spent with the host family. It is instinctive and strong. I'd argue few balanced healthy adults would overcome that aversion. On the other hand, in a "comedy of errors" style situation where siblings were separated at a very young age and then met up later, that aversion wouldn't exist and there would be no moral objections based on exploitation. If I remember correctly people find those of close genetic background but not of their family unit especially attractive, hence the cousins thing.

It's not about consent, we've already discussed age of consent. I'm not sure you're getting this, and I'm not a fan of repeating myself, so this will be my last try to engage with you on this. 1. Why is this not just about consent? The age of consent is the age at which people are considered rational enough to consent to a sexual relationship with another person. In some countries it is as young as 14/15/16. You use an example of a psychologically healthy 25 year old who enters a relationship with a parent. That would be a very rare example of incest. In most cases legalising incest would lead to a legotimisation of abusive relationships and grooming. 2. Power balance isn't implying lack of consent People raised in an abusive relationship (i.e. They are groomed) often go for years before they inform the police, if they ever do. They may or may not consent, but because they have been groomed they can't be considered to be giving informed consent. The same could be argued for example about child soldiers, who are raised in an environment where certain behaviours are the norm and this decides their future behaviour to a certain extent. Ps in most education/work environments a relationship between teacher and students or boss and workers is frowned upon and can result in disciplinary action.

The power dynamic is only applicable when it becomes exploitative. For example if a white plantation owner forces himself on a slave in the knowledge they wouldn't be able to object. Or a rich businessman (in the past) on his secretary. Or a father on his teenage daughter. I shouldn't need to explain this further, I'm sure you're smart enough to identify when a relationship becomes exploitative and the risks of it doing so. With regards to differences in hetero/!@#$ relationships, I think we do use them interchangeably. We usually refer to our partner as a partner. I don't call gay couples gay couples, just couples. Most of the time there is no need to differentiate in modern society. The obvious difference is that both have the same set of genitals, but other than that gay relationships span the same set of experiences as heterosexual ones. Any outstanding differences in experience are a result of residual prejudices rather than anything inherent.

What is the difference then? And don't give me nonsense about children unless you want to breed with every boy you ever slept with.

Kemal, I was agreeing with you in principle whilst pointing out that theory does not support practical reality. There is no objective difference between a hetero and homosexual relationship other than some biblical nonsense. However there is an objective difference between a relationship between two individuals unrelated and two individuals related, and that is, as you correctly identify, the power dynamic and social pressures involved. As you said in a situation where two siblings, with presumably no grooming, decided to have sex, there would be no power issues. However sibling relationships (note: relationships and not experimentation) are the rarest form of incest. Most incestuous relationships are abusive and unhealthy. We do allow incest legally in most cases where power relationships can be definitively ruled out, for example between cousins (in most countries). This is despite the fact that this is more likely to create unhealthy offspring than non related partners. In fact, cousin marriage is legal almost everywhere and is very common in the middle east. Over half of Pakistanis marry a first or second cousin. With this in mind, it's clear that there are two major factors that mean incest is banned between first degree blood relatives (historical reasons aside): 1. Potential for abuse. It is clear that relationships between an elder and younger family member are often abusive and this applies to siblings as well. Even a two year gap between children can represent a big enough gap for an older child to abuse a younger. I'd imagine most relationships between siblings would emerge when they lived together: ie as children rather than as adults. There are enough potential partners out there to mean that this prohibition isn't harmful. 2. Social reasons/taboo. Society frowns on incest but also people are programmed not to find the people they were raised with attractive (even if they are objectively attractive). Again I'm referring to emotionally mature adults not adolescents. The reason you can't compare this to homosexual marriage should be obvious, but if not: if you are gay this is a sexuality and you are only attracted to men. "want to bang my sister" is not a sexuality. There are plenty of other women in the world.

The reason why incest is banned is because unless the two partners were raised in different locations by different people and are effectively not "social" family there are a big pile of ethical and social reasons against it. Parental relationships with children are ones of responsibility and nurture. Forming a sexual relationship with someone you have raised is always exploitative (see: grooming). It's for this same reason teachers/lecturers can't have sex with their students even if they're adults, except obviously with parents the relationship is much more intense. In any case there is no slippery slope here. The case against incest was never the same as the case against homosexuality. The case against homosexuality was basically religious. The case against incest is about child protection and exploitation. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16. Imagine dad's screwing their 16 year old sons/daughters with their "consent". In some places it's even lower. You need protective measures in place to prevent exploitation. In a theoretical situation of power balance which kemal describes there wouldn't be such concerns: in practice proving this would be very difficult and so a blanket ban exists.

Praise Dio every day

It could be a transatlantic thing, thug isn't used for black people here in Britain, in fact it brings to mind the kind of skinhead far right types who share Roz's views rather than the people they have views about (black and asian people)

You don't want all the erep shitlords trust me. Why do you think we left?

As much as I enjoy our current radiation bath (reminds me of home), I disagree with the facile position that those who disagree with the current mechanics should bugger off and find another game. This game is quite reliant on the community, and Alex has always said that he is willing to be guided or at least listen to the opinions of the playerbase. If a mechanic is broken then it should be fixed. The idea is to make a balanced game where players can be strategic. That kind of balance is hard to find and some have argued that relying on players being smart enough not to kill the world food supply is a bit optimistic. I can't say I disagree with that position based on observations of some of Orbis' more intellectually challenged citizens.

Nukes are for !@#$ anyway

This is stupid.

>complaining because you attacked and got countered >actually in government and don't expect that. Seriously, this is why Mensa win wars. Because we don't give a shit about what you or anyone else thinks. Doing stupid stuff because it fits with your bizarro idea of honour in a browser game is what leads alliances to get beaten.

I worked both for and against these people many times, and I can tell you that though some of them did multi (not many though, and no more than certain eAmericans) it was to manipulate elections and they used their primary accounts for warfare. I've seen a thousand Serbs in an IRC channel before. They didn't need multis to swarm the enemy.

Indeed, Mensa is the eUS elite plus me and talon from the eUK. Any of the elite erep crews would probably break the game if they joined, but we don't want to share Nobody wants ePolish or eSerbian elite units showing up here. Imagine GROM arriving. Or POG. Or Myrmidons

Indeed, Mensa is the eUS elite plus me and talon from the eUK. Any of the elite erep crews would probably break the game if they joined, but we don't want to share Nobody wants ePolish or eSerbian elite units showing up here. Imagine GROM arriving. Or POG. Or Myrmidons