|
I have relatives that are married cousins, they're fine & their kids are fine. They grew up in different parts of the world though, so only met a couple times before they were adults. What a snype lol
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
hard counter posted:a "fun" genetics exercise sometimes done in university courses was calculating the inbreeding coefficient for old charles 2.0 there- the inbreeding coefficient, btw, is a kind of numerical estimate for the % of genes pairs expected to be completely identical in a person as a consequence of their parents sharing a common ancestor, given that a person receives one gene pair from their mother and another from their father... it's a simple calculation that only uses a person's pedigree and typically gives a low end estimate of the actual % of identical gene pairs, assuming the pedigree is accurate Also there was some syphillis in the mix.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 12:15
|
|
|
RagnarokZ posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#/media/File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg Yeah the whole "freaked out about kissing cousins" thing is more of an American thing. We're the weird ones going "Ewww! Cousin Cooties!" while everyone else looks at us and goes "What are you freaking out about? It's not like she's your sister." From what I understand a lot of it has its roots in the eugenics movement, as well as a way to look down upon the more rural and isolated communities that grew up in Appalachia and the American South where it was hard to travel before modern transportation technology came into play.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
It's also a Leviticus thing. In Denmark you couldn't even marry 3rd cousins without a royal writ until sometime in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
It depends pretty wildly based on countries and culture. Typically it's associated either with poor rural people who don't move far enough to meet someone they're not related to and/or are tribal and xenophobic, and with wealthy old money who don't move in enough circles to meet someone they're not related to and are openly tribal and xenophobic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
some old woman born in 1868 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4FZkXvAY94
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It depends pretty wildly based on countries and culture. Typically it's associated either with poor rural people who don't move far enough to meet someone they're not related to and/or are tribal and xenophobic, and with wealthy old money who don't move in enough circles to meet someone they're not related to and are openly tribal and xenophobic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
hard counter posted:charles 1.0, also known as don carlos, isn't on the tree but he was the offspring of philip ii, who is on the tree, and his first wife, mary of portugal, who was also his double-first cousin - don carlos was also just ~4% less inbred than charles ii Don Carlos himself was a hell of a guy. Even at his best, he was a mercurial and sadistic child in addition to his physical deformities who enjoyed killing and maiming animals. It all got worse when he tripped and fell down the stairs chasing after a servant girl. The resulting brain damage made him a violent maniac who slashed at people with knives, tried to throw them out windows, and would even try to kill other members of the nobility in broad daylight when they angered him. When someone threw water from a window and accidentally splashed him, he tried to order the house set on fire. The only person who had the authority to stop him was his own father. He finally did this after Carlos asked his uncle, John of Austria, to take him to Italy so he could join rebels in the Netherlands and lead a revolt against his father to declare himself King of the Netherlands. John went and asked Philip who told him "gently caress no!" When John told Carlos he couldn't take him on the trip, he got so mad that he tried to shoot him. He only failed because one of his servants saw what he was doing and unloaded his gun when he was gone. The king finally had enough reason to have his son arrested and locked away, where he died 5 months later.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Yeah the whole "freaked out about kissing cousins" thing is more of an American thing. We're the weird ones going "Ewww! Cousin Cooties!" while everyone else looks at us and goes "What are you freaking out about? It's not like she's your sister." Its kinda funny how americans believe that Europe is a completely hedonistic place where anything goes. If you decided to marry your cousin In Norway it would freak a lot of people of
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
the internet is nothing but americans making absurd theorycrafted generalizations of europeans and vice versa, all sourced from half-remembered pop culture depictions
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
What an Australian thing to say
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Jokes on you bitch I'm American!!!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Alaois posted:the internet is nothing but americans making absurd theorycrafted generalizations of europeans and vice versa, all sourced from half-remembered pop culture depictions No one knows what the hell they're talking about? Here, of all places? I find that very difficult to believe.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Its kinda funny how americans believe that Europe is a completely hedonistic place where anything goes. If you decided to marry your cousin In Norway it would freak a lot of people of Counterpoint: Edvard Grieg, one of the chief figures of the Norwegian national identity, married his cousin.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
You are really winning me over with the policy of “well it’s not illegal but we’ll judge you for it”. I sure love judgemental communities. I’m sure they have never done something reactionary like judge interracial or same-sex marriages.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
I mean if they are gonna judge that, they are gonna do it. I don’t think cousin loving is a slippery slope. Because slippery slopes aren’t real.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:In both cases it's also influenced by trying to keep any inheritances within the family. That was more of a rich person thing. Isolated rural people probably didn't have much inheritance to worry about but like you gotta gently caress somebody, you know?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
It is well known that contractors often promise projects to be completed more quickly and cheaply than what is borne out in reality. This is not a new development in history. In 1174, the choir of Canterbury Cathedral burned down. The monks hired William of Sens to take charge of the reconstruction. A celebrated French architect, some of the English monks found his ego distasteful. He had ambitions to introduce an experimental and radical style of architecture, the first Gothic building in England. To win the contract, he had claimed that competing architects were overestimating the amount of work required to demolish part of the remaining structure and build the new construction. However, even as the monks-turned-construction workers set to the task, he "for some time concealed what he found necessary to be done, less the work should kill them". Five years into the project, he slipped from the scaffolding and fell 50 feet. One of his detractors, the monk Gervase of Canterbury, speculated that this event was "the work of God or the spite of the Devil". Now paralyzed, he found himself unable to direct the work and the role was passed on to William the Englishman. He finished the work in 1184, four years after the French William's death.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Reminds me of Jacques François Joseph Saly who was commissioned to create a statue of Frederik V of Denmark on horseback in 1752; it took him 5 years to even create a sketch of the statue which was only finished in 1768, two years after Frederick V's death. Also, while sketching, Saly would have horses walk around while looking up at them through a hole in the floor (to get perspective right — the statue is on a pedestal).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Kevin DuBrow posted:It is well known that contractors often promise projects to be completed more quickly and cheaply than what is borne out in reality. This is not a new development in history. That's nothing compared to the watch Axel von Fersen commissioned by Abraham-Louis Breguet. Fersen wanted to give the watch to Marie Antoinette. It was finished 34 years after shee was executed and four years after Breguet's death.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:Reminds me of Jacques François Joseph Saly who was commissioned to create a statue of Frederik V of Denmark on horseback in 1752; it took him 5 years to even create a sketch of the statue which was only finished in 1768, two years after Frederick V's death. This reminds me: there is a theory in art history that "Old Master" painters like Rembrandt used tools like the camera obscura to achieve the level of detail that their paintings show. Some other art historians are very offended at the idea that this wasn't just the artist's genius, but a technical trick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockney%E2%80%93Falco_thesis It seems pretty plausible though
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
When the first proposal for the building of the new St Peter's church in Vienna (its medieval predecessor was too small for its growing congregation and in horrendous shape anyway) was put on the Emperor's desk in 1679, the confraternity behind the proposal calculated that it should take only a few years and would cost a maximum of 15,000 guilder. When building actually started more than two decades later in 1701, the confraternity already expected the whole thing to cost at least 40,000 guilder. When the church was finally completed in 1754 after more than half a century of intermittent building because the money would come in too slowly, the confraternity had pumped more than 475,000 guilder into the project - more than 31 times the amount of the initial proposal. To be fair though, it *is* a really beautiful church 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean if they are gonna judge that, they are gonna do it. I don’t think cousin loving is a slippery slope. Never heard of California? They have plenty of mudslides! 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
pidan posted:This reminds me: there is a theory in art history that "Old Master" painters like Rembrandt used tools like the camera obscura to achieve the level of detail that their paintings show. Some other art historians are very offended at the idea that this wasn't just the artist's genius, but a technical trick. Even if they did use a camera obscura (there's no historical record on if anybody actually did or not) those master paintings were the result of obscene amounts of time and were often done on enormous canvases. Even then painting photorealistically pretty much always is a bunch of technical tricks. Any art historian worth their salt also understands that a lot of the master paintings weren't "art" the way we think of them now. A lot of them were status symbols. A lot of them also weren't painted by one person; often the master would have a team of assistants that often specialized in specific parts. Like they'd have the robe guy and the carpet guy and the wood guy and so forth. That being said anybody who criticizes an artist for using photography to help them make good art is a loving twit. If it helps make better art then it's a useful tool which means it should be used if the artist feels like it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Don Carlos himself was a hell of a guy. Even at his best, he was a mercurial and sadistic child in addition to his physical deformities who enjoyed killing and maiming animals. It all got worse when he tripped and fell down the stairs chasing after a servant girl. The resulting brain damage made him a violent maniac who slashed at people with knives, tried to throw them out windows, and would even try to kill other members of the nobility in broad daylight when they angered him. When someone threw water from a window and accidentally splashed him, he tried to order the house set on fire. If Don Carlos wasn't a straight up serial killer, he sure could have been. Mutilating animals, budding pyromania, head injury, clear disregard of human life and incalculable rage are a hell of a combination.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
OutOfPrint posted:If Don Carlos wasn't a straight up serial killer, he sure could have been. Mutilating animals, budding pyromania, head injury, clear disregard of human life and incalculable rage are a hell of a combination. Unless he really was and they covered it up because he was royalty, he was probably only stopped from being one because he had so many people around him at all times who could stop his worst impulses. He didn't give a poo poo about trying to stab noblemen in public in broad daylight. If he was let off the leash, he'd have doubtless just kept killing people until he was physically stopped.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
OutOfPrint posted:If Don Carlos wasn't a straight up serial killer, he sure could have been. Mutilating animals, budding pyromania, head injury, clear disregard of human life and incalculable rage are a hell of a combination. Also managed to cross off attempted regicide and high treason, at the same time, from his bucket list before being sent away. Laborious fella.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Unless he really was and they covered it up because he was royalty, he was probably only stopped from being one because he had so many people around him at all times who could stop his worst impulses. He didn't give a poo poo about trying to stab noblemen in public in broad daylight. If he was let off the leash, he'd have doubtless just kept killing people until he was physically stopped. Sounds like he would have been a spree killer rather than a serial killer. He definitely sounds like he wouldn't have the patience and sneakiness to be a proper serial killer and instead would have just blown up and starting killing whoever he saw one day until somebody finally killed him.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
He would have been a cop.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Sounds like he would have been a spree killer rather than a serial killer. He definitely sounds like he wouldn't have the patience and sneakiness to be a proper serial killer and instead would have just blown up and starting killing whoever he saw one day until somebody finally killed him. I don't think there's any rule that serial killers have to be patient or sneaky. They have to get gratification from it and do it over a long period of time (usually more than a month); I don't know of any solid evidence that his attempted murders were specifically about gratification rather than rage, but he was torturing and killing animals from childhood so there's a definite possibility that the drive existed. There's been serial killers who just pick people incidentally and may not even have a consistent method. I recall one who would just walk into people's houses and shoot them with a .22 pistol. Anatoly Onoprienko in Ukraine used a sawed-off shotgun and would just cause a commotion outside an isolated house to get attention, then gun down everyone inside.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:In both cases it's also influenced by trying to keep any inheritances within the family. I bet the ultra wealthy are gonna go this route just so they don't have to share their wealth with the filthy masses.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:I bet the ultra wealthy are gonna go this route just so they don't have to share their wealth with the filthy masses. The Rockefellers, Carnegies et al already did iirc
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I don't think there's any rule that serial killers have to be patient or sneaky. They have to get gratification from it and do it over a long period of time (usually more than a month); I don't know of any solid evidence that his attempted murders were specifically about gratification rather than rage, but he was torturing and killing animals from childhood so there's a definite possibility that the drive existed. They basically need to be to not get caught. That's part of what makes them so terrifying; some of them go over a decade without getting caught. Somebody too impatient and not clever enough to not get caught isn't going to get enough murders in to be a proper serial killer. Deliberately going for the isolated like that is still being sneaky enough to get away with it. Lashing out violently at whoever makes you unhappy with no thought in it probably doesn't lead to the serial killer life. That level of rage though could lead to a spree.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 10:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:They basically need to be to not get caught. That's part of what makes them so terrifying; some of them go over a decade without getting caught. Somebody too impatient and not clever enough to not get caught isn't going to get enough murders in to be a proper serial killer. Deliberately going for the isolated like that is still being sneaky enough to get away with it. Lashing out violently at whoever makes you unhappy with no thought in it probably doesn't lead to the serial killer life. That level of rage though could lead to a spree. Depends on the time period, I think. Getting caught is much easier in 2019 than in 1576. That's a time period with basically a complete lack of forensic science and technology that could be used to quickly get help, to the point where a sufficiently quiet murder with nobody immediately witnessing it would be trivially easy to get away with. It's just speculation since he never did it, but his childhood showed the clearly worrying signs of someone who could have started. As it is, his position and mental and physical deficiencies suggest that he was monitored practically round the clock and never would have been able to act out any urges he could have had and he died at the age of 23.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:They basically need to be to not get caught. That's part of what makes them so terrifying; some of them go over a decade without getting caught. Somebody too impatient and not clever enough to not get caught isn't going to get enough murders in to be a proper serial killer. Deliberately going for the isolated like that is still being sneaky enough to get away with it. Lashing out violently at whoever makes you unhappy with no thought in it probably doesn't lead to the serial killer life. That level of rage though could lead to a spree. This isn't necessarily true. Serial killers tend to be impulsive and, well, stupid. Most budding serial killers get caught after their first or second murders. The ones that get past that point tend to rack up a body count because they either go after victims that people in authority don't care about (called "the less dead" in true crime) or they did their dirty deeds in the wild, leaded gasoline filled 70's when there wasn't any kind of central database of crimes, just an actual folder in a file cabinet in a district that doesn't advertise the murder to the surrounding areas. Your average process killer would lash out like that raised in an environment in which anyone trying to discipline him or her was violently dealt with since birth, especially once they escalate to berserker mode when their murders come faster and more frequently. Incidentally, this is why the most "successful" violent male serial killers tend to be truckers. Hitchhikers and pit stop prostitutes make for easy victims and they operate in such a large area that it's near impossible to pick up on whether or not the murders are being committed by any one killer.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
often when serial killers never get caught its because they target marginalized people who cops dont give a poo poo about ACAB
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Kanine posted:often when serial killers never get caught its because they target marginalized people who cops dont give a poo poo about ACAB and sometimes they're just cops!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
Kanine posted:often when serial killers never get caught its because they target marginalized people who cops dont give a poo poo about ACAB Reminder that Robert Pickton was reported several times, once by a woman who literally ran away from his kill farm, and nothing was done. He killed probably hundreds of first nation women, many prostitutes, buried them on his farm, and mixed their meat in with his pigs when he made sausages to sell. The cops didn't care. The cops continued to not care until it was impossible for them to continue ignoring it because of overwhelming public evidence. I would not be surprised if this is hugely common and we have dozens of serial killers or multiple murderers just murdering everything they can but because they are minority sex workers it's considered either not a problem, or outright a service to society.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
Tashilicious posted:Reminder that Robert Pickton was reported several times, once by a woman who literally ran away from his kill farm, and nothing was done. Don’t forget the two cops who returned a physically beaten and drugged 14 year old Konerak Sinthasomphone To Jeffery Dahlmer’s apartment where he was promptly murdered. They even missed the decomposing body of a previous victim in the apartment . They punished one of the officers by making head of the police union for 5 years!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:Don’t forget the two cops who returned a physically beaten and drugged 14 year old Konerak Sinthasomphone To Jeffery Dahlmer’s apartment where he was promptly murdered. They even missed the decomposing body of a previous victim in the apartment . They punished one of the officers by making head of the police union for 5 years! Or the time the Toronto Police literally ignored a serial killer targeting gay men for years until they got shamed into it by the newspapers and caught him in no time, then got pissy when the pride parade refused to admit cops in uniforms to walk with it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 10:42
|
|