Incest.

[Thaius]

In a society like ours, where sex generally is given no value whatsoever, I imagine the popular answer will be in favor of it.

For those of us who believe that sex has significance (say what you will about our country being overrun with Christians, but you know this viewpoint is in the minority), it's a perversion of what it's supposed to be.

 

[BGH122]

I believe I've shown above why morality, since shared amongst humanity, is not mere subjective opinion. He's making a moral statement which, in the eyes of moral realists, is a factual one. Countering a factual statement with "I disagree! Respect my opinions!" isn't valid.

In the eyes of a moral realist, yes. And no, not all morality is subjective opinion. But frankly, quite a fair bit of personal moral decision making is. I'm not forcing my opinion of morality on this particular subject upon anyone else, am I? Also, I made a brief edit you would have missed.

Okay, okay. You're right, saying 'in the eyes of moral realists' was a lame cop-out, I may as well have just said 'in the eyes of those who disagree with you, you're wrong!' However, I have made an argument above for moral realism by citing Hauser and the differences between superficial implementations of moral axioms and genuine differences in underlying moral axioms. I do understand, however, that saying "prove X moral attitude is evidence of an underlying difference in moral axioms and not superficial ordering of unanimous moral axioms" is an unfalsifiable argument and hence (in my eyes, as a logical positivist) a useless point. I'll need to think a little more on this in order to come up with a proper qualifier for falsification of my stance.

Forgive me my tardiness, I've had too much vodka.

 

[MONSTERheart]

Incest is the best

Put your grandma to the test

I lol'd.

OT: I suppose I have to agree with the OP on this one. Seeing as I don't have any opposite gender siblings and I am heterosexual, I don't really have any strong opinions on this one. For that matter, I can objectively say that none of my relatives are very 'appealing' to me in any way, if that impacts my standpoint at all.

EDIT: Oh yeah, as for the whole "incest is immoral' thing, I'd like to point towards one of the main references for 'morality' in modern society: the Bible. From a scientific standpoint, no, incest is not the best thing to be doing. From a moral standpoint, well, let's just say there is no true moral standpoint.

 

[s0denone]

Double post.

 

[s0denone]

isn't this basically like trolling? introducing a highly controversial subject that everyone has an opinion on(and often the same opinion)?

Given that the morally twisted Escapist is apparently for and not against, I think your argument would fall flat. I expected everyone to go "Of course incest isn't okay" when I came in here. It's nearly the opposite.
Maybe your argument still works then, in a backwards sort of sense.

Snip

EDIT: s0denone, your an idiot. The reason its against the law is because most people (the general idiotic public such as yourself) are appalled by it. But then again it's not your f*cking business whether or not it happens which is why this is a controversial issue. If you're so offended by it, then DON'T DO IT. But other people can have complicated lives and if incest is an issue, then its their problem, not yours.

That's very nice of you. Thanks. I'm part of the idiotic general public. Thankfully most people have intact moral compasses.

I guess I have to give you some sort of reply, then...
Would you participate in incest? Yes/No?
In either case: Why?

Everyone is saying "Oh lol sure if there are no children lol". Fucking idiots*, pardon my French.

*Insult not directed at anyone in particular... Except those saying "Oh lol sure if there are no children lol".

Why thank you for only being insulting towards anyone else with an opinion differing from you. Such a clear and positive role-model for debating, you are!

Not everyone shares the same moral stance as you. Feel free to get off your high chair, now.

Except, you know, that I am right and you are wrong.
Don't claim that morals are universal. You're a fool. Punishment may be different (Some idiot is making the claim that middle eastern countries are different because they are stuck in the past) like one country chopping off your hands if you steal, and the other merely (more humanely) imprisoning you.
This has nothing to do with moral.
"Stealing is wrong" has to do with morals. It's a very "light" crime, if you will. Find me one country in the world where stealing isn't punishable by law. Just one.

Why not let them have children? They are two consenting adults who may want to reproduce. Will you not allow midgets to have children, because there is a chance that their children will be midgets also?
Not let people with hereditary disorders or diseases have offspring because of their disorder/disease?

Your post is very contradictory. Your basic argument is flawed, and so is everyone else here. Everyone is saying "Oh lol sure if there are no children lol". Fucking idiots*, pardon my French.

*Insult not directed at anyone in particular... Except those saying "Oh lol sure if there are no children lol".

This is valid moral reasoning, the rest of your post wasn't (I can post rebuttals if you'd like; it's not very good form to just declare something wrong, but I'm trying to cut to the heart of your great point).

I'm sorry. Honestly. I wasn't expecting to be arguing with someone with more than a monkey slipping in a banana functioning inside their minds. I can see how the rest of my post would distract from the general point. I'm glad you caught it regardless.

However, I actually do support preventing those who are most likely to birth severely maladapted children from giving birth. If one finds in a prenatal scan that one's child is going to have a debilitating mental illness I would fully support aborting said child. Whilst the maladapted have a right to life, simply in virtue of being human (we can debate that too, if you'd wish, though I'll fall back on Posner vs Singer), the prenatal do not and parents ought to take responsibility for what they do to humanity as a whole by contaminating the gene pool (yes, yes I know we've all got recessive 'contaminations', but until we find a way to make 'gene therapy' or 'eugenics' more than just science fiction we'll need to delineate between those in whom the contamination is dominant and those in whom its recessive).

I would myself be inclined to go with your reasoning here. I am not sure, however, how it is relevant to the argument at hand. I used the example merely to make a point in the discussion.

On one hand we say it is alright to set aside morals, if two siblings(Only one being referenced here. I guess people realise that a father fucking his daughter may not be the most "right" thing in the world.) want to have sexual relations with one another.
Yet they return to said morals when they say "The child doesn't deserve to be born retarded because of idiotic parents." I'm paraphrasing, but they're calling the parents "selfish". Well, here's a newsflash: Condoms aren't bulletproof. We would, quite factually, completely eliminate the risk of anyone being born because of "selfish" parents if we simply made incest illegal.
Wait... We already did that

I guess people here are so busy being "open-minded" about everything, and always the opposite of "ignorant", not to mention never be a "bigot", that everyone have turned into faceless yay-sayers. It's pathetic, I think.

We can want everything to be grey, if we want, but in cases of the law(and incest is very much against the law) it is most certainly black and white.

We cannot be against the morals of society on one hand, and support them on the other.

Either incest is legal, and we get an enormous amount of handicapped babies, or incest is illegal and we don't.

SNIP

I would direct you at my reply to BG122 just above. There is no grey. This is the law. The "Because it's illegal" is the best fucking option anyone has ever had, ever. It's against society as a whole. It is accepted as being morally repulsive. There is no better argument.

 

[Wedlock49]

snip

I don't try hard to be open minded, I am. I take time to think about things to make sure that I agree with them and that they deserve my support or not.

It is the law in your country, I'm sure there are countries out there that do not have the same laws. The illegal arguement is a terrible justification it shows that you're not willing to think about your own opinion and have let someone else decide it for you. Again you don't show anything that has real reasoning.

I understand what you're trying to do and black and white does make it easier to accept something, but it nothing is ever black and white there's always shades of grey.

An example, two children are seperated at birth and see each other again years later and fall in love, later discovering that they have the same parents. This would be incest and by your black and white ruling would be wrong legally and morally...

I see it is being amoral to keep two people who care about each other apart. My stance of pregnancy comes from my own thoughts on how parents should be responsable for their children. I don't think it's right if two people who have the genes for cystic fibrosis reproduce, I think it's selfish.

I would also like to point out that that is my opinion and not one expressed by everyone in this thread as you quoted when you replied to BG241.

 

[manaman]

After all your brain is wired not to be attracted to siblings or offspring for very good reasons.

Is it? Where's the proof for this, where's the proof it's not behaviourally or cognitively learnt?

Actually there is proof, it's not necessarily biological family members, so much as the people you are raised with. Studies turn up people who where adopted who where not attracted to their siblings in their family who met their real siblings and admitted to some form of attraction to them.

It's not learned behavior either, most people are not attracted to people they where raised with.

You just provided proof that it's behaviourally learnt, if in fact those studies exist.

If we were biologically averse to sleeping with relatives then the adoptees would have found the concept of sleeping with their biological siblings repugnant, not their non-biological siblings.

First off all thanks for implying I am liar.

You where implying that this was learned behavior, in that it was a social pressures teaching children. It is simple learned behavior, but I didn't want to confuse you with that title, seeing how you where making the comparison to learned behavior being parental, or socially taught. Which is not the case here. The simple forms of learned behavior are:

Habituation, sensitization, conditioned response, instrumental conditioning, and concepts.

Something somewhat similar on happens with male mice. They become imprinted with the odor of litter-mates during the first three weeks of life. When they reach sexual maturity, they avoid mating with close relatives. It doesn't quite work like that with people, but the same kind of response is there, they are not attracted sexually to those they where raised with.

I bring up the simple forms of learned behavior because it has been my experience that people only seem to understand conditioned response, instrumental conditioning and concepts as learned responses, and forget about sensitization, and habituation. You do pick up some habits, and the like based on your environment, but also how your brain is wired.

 

[Xojins]

I think it's wrong. I also think it's disgusting. Call me conservative, but I think it's completely wrong.

 

[BGH122]

I would myself be inclined to go with your reasoning here. I am not sure, however, how it is relevant to the argument at hand. I used the example merely to make a point in the discussion.

Indeed, but the very reason that it was valid moral reasoning was that it correctly extrapolated the position I, and others, have been arguing for (incest without procreation = morally permissible) and showed that our reasoning isn't supported in society where it is actually considered (i.e. the rights of the mentally debilitated). It's always best in moral debate to come up with a rule which best fits all possible instances because moral argument informs legislation.

But we've both already agreed that what is best for humanity overrides the rights of the individual, with regards to procreation and likelihood of genepool contamination, so there's no further argument to be had here.

 

[nuba km]

first other animals (if you don't remember humans are animals)and plants have incest all the time does it cause great genetic mutation not more then if they had it with something not related. all human are related anyway you only have to go back about 200 years. so if they have a babie it's not going to be mutated and if it has a mental disability MOST people these days have mental disabilities I'm dyslexic and have autism (asperger to be precise) it doesn't unlock genetic flaws if you have genetic flaws they were always there and if you babie has genetic flaws but you don't have these genetic flaw it is your sperm or egg that has the problem. the problem with incest is keeping the genes less unique not mutated meaning that one virus could kill everyone or that everyone would have asthma or be allergic to nuts.

No, it wouldn't be mutant, like fish people. However all potential genetic flaws are doubled.

If your family is prone to a hereditary disease then breeding with your brother or sister, who has a near identical genetic table, You have twice as much chance for that genetic illness to develop.

It doesn't 'unlock' certain negative traits but rather makes them more likely to develop. All genetic strains have faults. In a healthy child that fault simply does not show up.

For a more simpler way of thinking about it take a big white piece of paper. Now take four pieces of paper, two small(recessive) two mediumish(Dominate). Throw a dart at the white paper. Did it hit one of the red papers? If so then the child will be born with a genetic defect. Now. Double the pieces of red paper. Throw the dart again. It more then likely hit one this time didn't it?

Now for each illness in your family genetic line add 8 pieces of paper. Throw a dart.

Did it hit one?

I know that's a very simplistic explanation but its been four months since my classes on that and I am in a hurry to type this as i have to go.

I know how genetics work but I was reading this thread and some people just don't seem to get the fact that inbreeding doesn't make mutants or extremely ugly people (I knew someone that had a there that the elephants mum and dad were brother and sister I never saw the movie or read up on the real elephant man so he could be true but that wouldn't be the cause of that face) you also double the chance of your child having the same genetic flaws by having a child with someone from a different family that has those genetic flaws so this isn't something unique to inbreeding (is it just me or is inbreeding an ugly word).

 

[BGH122]

First off all thanks for implying I am liar.

You where implying that this was learned behavior, in that it was a social pressures teaching children. It is simple learned behavior, but I didn't want to confuse you with that title, seeing how you where making the comparison to learned behavior being parental, or socially taught. Which is not the case here. The simple forms of learned behavior are:

Habituation, sensitization, conditioned response, instrumental conditioning, and concepts.

Something somewhat similar on happens with male mice. They become imprinted with the odor of litter-mates during the first three weeks of life. When they reach sexual maturity, they avoid mating with close relatives. It doesn't quite work like that with people, but the same kind of response is there, they are not attracted sexually to those they where raised with.

I bring up the simple forms of learned behavior because it has been my experience that people only seem to understand conditioned response, instrumental conditioning and concepts as learned responses, and forget about sensitization, and habituation. You do pick up some habits, and the like based on your environment, but also how your brain is wired.

I'm not implying you're a liar, in reasoned debate one should disagree with another until evidence is shown that the other is correct. That's not the same as saying "You've made it all up!"

I have a feeling I've offended you and for that I apologise (and that English isn't your first language, it's 'were' you're looking for, not 'where'; 'where' is used to point out a place e.g. "Where is the mouse?" whereas 'were' is used to predicate something of a person in second person tense and in collective third e.g. "You were saying", "They were saying").

I'm a psychology grad, so I know what I'm talking about here. You note the 'simple forms of learned behaviour', what are the more complex forms that you infer the existence of? What proof have you of the biological nature of imprinting?

 

[manaman]

snip

I would actually buy psychology undergrad. Not psychology grad through. Don't point out small flaws in another's post when your posts are riddled with incorrect spellings and poor grammar.

I actually labor often enough when I type because I am dyslexic and I do have a a bit of trouble with it. I am forced to reread everything I write, even then I still miss quite a bit. I also rarely point out grammar, as the rules are and should be more relaxed, like talking rather then writing. In other words I know I am not perfect, and I don't expect everyone else to be either. Still even without that I fail to see how addition of a simple 'h' to a word means that English is my second language, which leads me back to why I said I would buy undergrad. I get what you are doing. You want to rile me up and figure that since the implication of lying seems to do so in the first place you wish to continue along those lines. So that means you trolling a bit, great.

 

[s0denone]

snip

I don't try hard to be open minded, I am. I take time to think about things to make sure that I agree with them and that they deserve my support or not.

It is the law in your country, I'm sure there are countries out there that do not have the same laws. The illegal arguement is a terrible justification it shows that you're not willing to think about your own opinion and have let someone else decide it for you. Again you don't show anything that has real reasoning.

I understand what you're trying to do and black and white does make it easier to accept something, but it nothing is ever black and white there's always shades of grey.

An example, two children are seperated at birth and see each other again years later and fall in love, later discovering that they have the same parents. This would be incest and by your black and white ruling would be wrong legally and morally...

I see it is being amoral to keep two people who care about each other apart. My stance of pregnancy comes from my own thoughts on how parents should be responsable for their children. I don't think it's right if two people who have the genes for cystic fibrosis reproduce, I think it's selfish.

I would also like to point out that that is my opinion and not one expressed by everyone in this thread as you quoted when you replied to BG241.

You are wrong.
You asked a moral question: "Is incest wrong?". Moral questions can be interpreted differently. Some people will believe in something the majority will not. But there is always a majority. The majority is always right. While one could argue that there are, by definition, no "wrong" answers - there is certainly always a "correct" one.

I answer "Yes. Incest is wrong because it is against the law".

The law is the collection of values, morals and ethics that the majority believes in. Saying that "Illegal doesn't equal morally wrong" is simply false. If there were laws that we did not want, as a majority, these laws would be changed.

After I had then answered your question, I proceeded to point out a significant flaw in your own answer to the topic:
You ask "Is incest wrong?" and answer "No. Incest is not wrong, as long as the two parties have reached the age of consent and do not reproduce".

That is simply contradictory.

On one hand you say natural, sexual attraction is alright. You say it is harmless and people should not be bothered. That would be fine by itself, but then you continue. You wish to regulate who are and are not deemed worthy of being parents. It is discrimination.

Both of your viewpoints go against the morality of the majority... Curiously enough, the second point (We want no retarded babies) is what caused the majority, and therefor the law, to have the stance that they have(Incest is illegal).

You support both sets of the moral spectrum. It is very odd when you think about it, and very contradictory. You support humanity, and that "fate" may not let you select who you fall in love with yourself (It could be your sister), and then proceed to say "As long as you follow these guidelines(No children), you can be together".

There is the popular expression "You can't have the cake, and eat it too". It applies here. You cannot make argument possible (Make everything grey) in cases of morals, and the proceed to provide black and white regulations afterwards. Either something is right, or it is wrong.

Also, after having read it, it believe BGH122 phrases what I'm trying to say quite perfectly. If I'm being incoherent, please refer to his post below.

I would myself be inclined to go with your reasoning here. I am not sure, however, how it is relevant to the argument at hand. I used the example merely to make a point in the discussion.

Indeed, but the very reason that it was valid moral reasoning was that it correctly extrapolated the position I, and others, have been arguing for (incest without procreation = morally permissible) and showed that our reasoning isn't supported in society where it is actually considered (i.e. the rights of the mentally debilitated). It's always best in moral debate to come up with a rule which best fits all possible instances because moral argument informs legislation.

But we've both already agreed that what is best for humanity overrides the rights of the individual, with regards to procreation and likelihood of genepool contamination, so there's no further argument to be had here.

I'm proud of you, however odd that may seem. Truly.

We do indeed appear to have reached agreement, yes. Let us leave it at that. Lovely

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Either incest is legal, and we get an enormous amount of handicapped babies, or incest is illegal and we don't.

I'm sorry, but your credibility goes out the window there. Opposers of gay marriage attempt to make the same fucking illogical argument that if you allow gay marriage to be legal, then everyone is suddenly going to start becoming homosexual. You would be surprised there is a very little minority of individuals whom do actually engage in incestuous relations with another, and hence "or else we would get an enormous amount of handicapped babies" is an utter bullshit argument.

Just because something is illegal, does not make it inherently morally wrong. Or do you find homosexual relations morally wrong as well? Stealing for the sake of survival? Of course there are reasons why some obviously morally repulsive acts are illegal (Murder).

Like I said, I only find incest that borders to pedophilia (aka: child/parent) to be morally and ethically wrong. Incest between brother and sister whom are near or the same age, consent with one another, and know the risks (and hopefully adhere to not engaging) of any reproduction between them.. I could give less of a fuck what they do in private. Society doesn't much share the same opinion as me, I don't attempt to force my opinion upon any of it. My opinion is of no harm to others.

 

[Wedlock49]

You are wrong.
You asked a moral question: "Is incest wrong?". Moral questions can be interpreted differently. Some people will believe in something the majority will not. But there is always a majority. The majority is always right. While one could argue that there are, by definition, no "wrong" answers - there are certainly always one "correct" one.

I answer "Yes. Incest is wrong because it is against the law".

The law is the collection of values, morals and ethics that the majority believes in. Saying that "Illegal doesn't equal morally wrong" is simply false. If there were laws that we did not want, as a majority, these laws would be changed.

After I had then answered your question, I proceeded to point out a significant flaw in your own answer to the topic:
You ask "Is incest wrong?" and answer "No. Incest is not wrong, as long as the two parties have reached the age of consent and do not reproduce".

That is simply contradictory.

On one hand you say natural, sexual attraction is alright. You say it is harmless and people should not be bothered. That would be fine by itself, but then you continue. You wish to regulate who are and are not deemed worthy of being parents. It is discrimination.

Both of your viewpoints go against the morality of the majority... Curiously enough, the second point (We want no retarded babies) is what caused the majority, and therefor the law, to have the stance that they have(Incest is illegal).

You support both sets of the moral spectrum. It is very odd when you think about it, and very contradictory. You support humanity, and that "fate" may not let you select who you fall in love with yourself (It could be your sister), and then proceed to say "As long as you follow these guidelines(No children), you can be together".

There is the popular expression "You can't have the cake, and eat it too". It applies here. You cannot make argument possible (Make everything grey) in cases of morals. Either something is right, or it is wrong.

Also, after having read it, it believe BGH122 phrases what I'm trying to say quite perfectly. If I'm being incoherent, please refer to his post below.

Personally I don't see how my take on the situation contradicts itself.

I believe that it is ok so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, making the decision to have a child would be putting someone at risk of deformaty. I think it irresponsable for parents to risk their future childs health when there is a high chance of it being born with deabilitating deformaties. That is a different discussion though.

You do say that it's wrong because of a moral majority... but here it's been shown that there are a large amount of people who don't see much wrong with it.

For the sake of saying, I don't believe in the fate stuff, I just believe that two people can fall in love, love is an emotion that happens and so long as you're attracted to someone you can fall in love. What would happen to the couple I described by your standing?

EDIT: fixing some fucked up quotes

 

[Elephant Walker19]

I don't see a problem after your 5th cousin

but that might be close enough for the baby to have problems

 

[BGH122]

Don't point out small flaws in another's post when your posts are riddled with incorrect spellings and poor grammar.

Really? I sincerely doubt that. I'm entirely consistent with British grammar and spelling. Please, as I've asked before, don't just state things, rather, show that your arguments are correct.

I actually labor often enough when I type because I am dyslexic and I do have a a bit of trouble with it. I am forced to reread everything I write, even then I still miss quite a bit. I also rarely point out grammar, as the rules are and should be more relaxed, like talking rather then writing. In other words I know I am not perfect, and I don't expect everyone else to be either. Still even without that I fail to see how addition of a simple 'h' to a word means that English is my second language, which leads me back to why I said I would buy undergrad. I get what you are doing. You want to rile me up and figure that since the implication of lying seems to do so in the first place you wish to continue along those lines. So that means you trolling a bit, great.

Ah, apologies. I didn't realise you are dyslexic. Where vs Were confusion is a pretty obvious demarcation for non-dyslexics that the other conversant is from another country and hence doesn't understand English grammar, although that's rendered void by your dyslexia.

You seem to be a pretty paranoid person. I very clearly apologised for offending you before and I'm not trying to push your buttons, frankly I don't see what is gained by 'winning' a debate by annoying the other person into giving up; the purpose of debates is to ascertain a truth and share knowledge, not to win. We should relish every time we're proven wrong in a debate because it shows we've learnt new knowledge, whereas being proven right only proves what we already knew.

I'm proud of you, however odd that may seem. Truly.

We do indeed appear to have reached agreement, yes. Let us leave it at that. Lovely

Sounds good to me!

 

[ShadowsofHope]

The majority is always right.

That is called the "Tyranny of the Majority", something any proper democratic society attempts to deal with by laws in which prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. The majority is not always right, the majority can sometimes be utterly wrong. The majority of Germans in Nazi Germany thought the Jews were the source of all of their problems. Were they? Fuck no. A good majority of people opposes gay marriage in the United States, does that mean gay marriage is inherently immoral because they are a majority in that opinion? Fuck no.

 

[nuba km]

OK guys simple biologie for people most genetic flaws are recessive (r) genes meaning if you have a dominant(D) gene you aren't affect by it but carry this is why something "skips" a generation they get a (D) gene from the other side of the family. so if you are were (r)(D) blue eyes (presuming blue eyes are recessive) are concerned and your sister/brother is the same (r)(D) your child gets one of the two genes there are four outcomes (D)(D) your child doesn't get it at all (r)(D) there are two ways to get this outcome or(r)(r) meaning your child has blue eyes. this is the same for genetic flaws it doesn't matter whether you sister/brother has it or some stranger has it your child has the same chance of getting it either way.
NOTHING SPECIAL HAPPENS WITH INBREEDING IT'S JUST THE CHURCH SAID SO THEN SOME EARLY SCIENCE THAT DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND GENES DID SOME EXPERIMENTS THAT AT THE TIMED PROOFED IT AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC LIKE IN MOST CASES HASN'T BOTHERED TO CORRECT THIS FLAWS BELIEVE.

edit: I'm saying just because someone is inbreed doesn't mean they while be handicapped it's the same chance with strangers as it is with brother/sister (given details above)

 

[BGH122]

OK guys simple biologie for people most genetic flaws are recessive (r) genes meaning if you have a dominant(D) gene you aren't affect by it but carry this is why something "skips" a generation they get a (D) gene from the other side of the family. so if you are were (r)(D) blue eyes (presuming blue eyes are recessive) are concerned and your sister/brother is the same (r)(D) your child gets one of the two genes there are four outcomes (D)(D) your child doesn't get it at all (r)(D) there are two ways to get this outcome or(r)(r) meaning your child has blue eyes. this is the same for genetic flaws it doesn't matter whether you sister/brother has it or some stranger has it your child has the same chance of getting it either way.
NOTHING SPECIAL HAPPENS WITH INBREEDING IT'S JUST THE CHURCH SAID SO THEN SOME EARLY SCIENCE THAT DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND GENES DID SOME EXPERIMENTS THAT AT THE TIMED PROOFED IT AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC LIKE IN MOST CASES HASN'T BOTHERED TO CORRECT THIS FLAWS BELIEVE.

This is incorrect because only half of the genetic information is included in each sex cell to be used in meiosis. So it's much likelier that, in a family with a recessive negative trait, two siblings, both of whom potentially have the recessive trait, could have the recessive trait packaged in their sex cells. With the general population the likelihood of meeting someone with the same recessive trait and having it end up in the sex cell which is used to create your zygote is far lower than with siblings.