|
 https://medialibrary.climatecentral.org/resources/power-outages  https://www.frsafety.com/blog/Blackout-Risk-Tool-Puts-Price-Tag-Power-Reliability
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
The first is interesting, but the second almost exactly corresponds to state population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
Isn't the second one roughly "States colored by GDP"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
yeah, would greatly prefer a version of that showing % of GDP lost. or business losses vs. investment in electrical infrastructure : V
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:There was a fine for premarital sex in Denmark (and Norway) until 1813, and if you couldn't pay the fine, you'd go to jail. For extramarital sex, the punishment could include death. Out of curiosity, when did the fine for premarital sex start? I'm betting 15th or 16th century at the earliest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Out of curiosity, when did the fine for premarital sex start? I'm betting 15th or 16th century at the earliest. It's actually mentioned a few times in the medieval codes, such as Gutalagen (1220) and Jyske Lov (1241). These codes were kind of a confusing list of quite specific examples, that I believe were examples of prior judgments at the things (assemblies), so-called causistic law based in customary law. I'm unsure exactly how they worked for lejermål (as premarital sex was called) in practice, but it appears to have been more of a civil matter of paying restitution to the family/guardian of the woman, not a fine to the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Scandinavian_law Jyske Lov mentions lejermål all of three times. It specifies that a woman 18 years of age can demand at the thing that their guardian allow them to be married, and if he refuses and she sleeps with a man, she is not to lose her inheritance, but the guardian may sue the man for lejermål at the thing. Also, women can only become pregnant if they enjoyed the sex and then it won't count as rape and also it was not possible to sue for lejermål. http://ribewiki.dk/da/En_broder_kan_ikke_beholde_en_s%F8ster_ugift_hos_sig,_s%E5_l%E6nge_han_vil http://ribewiki.dk/da/Hvis_en_kvinde_bliver_voldtaget Christian V's Danish Law of 1683 is more detailed and lists several types of extenuating and aggravating circumstances, and the fines were now paid to the authorities. There was also the public confession at the local church, which was abolished in 1767. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Code
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Early modern Iceland had really strict incest laws (I Know right?) For example s woman having children with two brothers she herself wasn't related to was considered incest and punishable by death as was having sex with your sibling's spouse. And of course if a father or stepfather raped his daughter they'd both be executed for incest. He'd be decapitated and she'd be drowned. Regular adultery or pre-marital sex was only punished by a fine or at worst a whipping so a lot of people had a whole bunch of bastards. To this day the standard operating procedure for relationships in Iceland is: -Meet shitfaced in a nightclub or bar -Have sex -Move in -Have a few kids -Maybe get married I dunno. Probably in a church even if no one under 60 is actually religious. -Split up -Meet someone new -Have more kids Repeat as needed FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Yeah I think most of those in-law-incest-laws are in the 1683 code. Any sexual relationship within three generations whether by blood or by marriage were considered blodskam (incest). W-what are you doing, son of my father's brother's wife's sister? Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
And the population then was under 50,000, so it'd be easier to produce an approved list of who you could have sex with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Early modern Iceland had really strict incest laws (I Know right?) For example s woman having children with two brothers she herself wasn't related to was considered incest and punishable by death as was having sex with your sibling's spouse. And of course if a father or stepfather raped his daughter they'd both be executed for incest. He'd be decapitated and she'd be drowned. I think you forgot two steps: -agree on acceptable levels of being cousins -check your level of being cousins* I believe these can be either before or after sex. *Based on who was officially the father
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Might as well trundle this out. There's a lot of states with exceptions in there, and it turns out that the laws about cousin marriage get really granular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States#Summary It seems like the most common exceptions are for old, infertile cousin couples, so either it's just concerned with genetic defects, or it's some kind of weird legal hack for elderly people trying to look after their extended family? There's also this map of when cousin marriage was outlawed in various states. I don't know how useful that data is.  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-the-United-States-Showing-States-with-Laws-Forbidding-First-Cousin-Marriage_fig1_23698689
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Was there some particular reason for outlawing it? For the ones after 1900 I imagine it was eugenics-y genetic health stuff but before that was it just people thinking "this is gross"? Was there a big scandal or something related to it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
In some cases, it goes back to the old testament (Leviticus 18:6-18). The three generations of Danish code of 1683 (which goes out to 2nd cousins) was for sure an attempt at generalizing Leviticus. You can marry your 1st cousin now if you want, tho. The map of when it was outlawed in various states would be more useful it it also showed when they became territories/states. Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
My family is from places where there used to be a minimum 7 generation distance before it's not considered gross to date someone (also, spiritual kinship like godparents 4 generations away). It's generally seen that way in a much broader area, but in those specific places it was actually socially enforced. Makes sense if you live in a bunch of isolated mountain villages (and you have the Habsburgs as a consistent reminder of how things can go horribly, horribly wrong, some of my great...grands served as bodyguards for Austrian nobility and brought back the horror tales) One of my greatgreat*grandparent couples caused a huge scandal just by having the same surname before marriage, despite not having any ancestor in common within church records, and I know of a couple from that same general area who cancelled their wedding when they found out a single shared ancestor 6 generations away. The taboo has weakened since, but we've still generally got an intense revulsion towards it from our upbringing. edit: *miscounted greats my dad fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:In some cases, it goes back to the old testament (Leviticus 18:6-18). The three generations of Danish code of 1683 (which goes out to 2nd cousins) was for sure an attempt at generalizing Leviticus. You can marry your 1st cousin now if you want, tho. And a lot of the old testament stuff is actually just good ideas dressed up as god's ideas for authority. The Israelites probably knew about inbreeding (at least from the Pharaohs) and wanted to avoid that, so they turned out into a religious law. It's like not eating shellfish, it has a good chance of being spoiled if you live in a desert, so it's easiest to just completely avoid it. I'm also gonna argue that any opposition against adult incest is derived from essentially eugenics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I'm also gonna argue that any opposition against adult incest is derived from essentially eugenics. i'd prefer you not
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I'm also gonna argue that any opposition against adult incest is derived from essentially eugenics. There's a tweet that argues exactly this and it's one of my favourite posts on the birdsite because it's just… top-tier trolling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
yikes! posted:i'd prefer you not Eh, the only reason to actually think it's gross is because [Hapsburg] is the eventual outcome. And that's basically eugenics, avoiding undesirable offspring. Don't get me wrong though, I think incest is gross as hell and should be avoided. It's a tiny bit of eugenics in much the same way as getting an abortion if the fetus has down's is. I also think gay/geriatric/infertile incest is gross, but there's no real reason for it honestly. No harm done to anyone and it's all consenting adults. It's just culturally weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Can't believe I'm a eugenicist because I don't want to gently caress my sister.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
BonHair posted:Eh, the only reason to actually think it's gross is because [Hapsburg] is the eventual outcome. And that's basically eugenics, avoiding undesirable offspring. you really don't have to discuss everything you have an opinion on on the internet
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I also think gay/geriatric/infertile incest is gross, but there's no real reason for it honestly. No harm done to anyone and it's all consenting adults. It's just culturally weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You don’t really know that there’s no harm done, plus the consent issue is not at all clear. If there's no consent we're automatically into rape territory, which is pretty clearly bad. But yeah, this is probably the dumbest possible hill to die on. Incest is bad and wrong, I'm just being an edgelord. Do not have sex with your family.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
Let us all form an internet pact: we will not now, nor ever in the future, try to perform horny on our extended families. *spits into palm*
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
BonHair posted:If there's no consent we're automatically into rape territory, which is pretty clearly bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Posting a map in the map thread: population growth (vækst) in Denmark 2019 by county. Spot the cities: Source in Danish: https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/Publikationer/VisPub?cid=29444
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:
Very topical that whatever happened to Maine in that map is apparently a deformity brought on by inbreeding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Was there some particular reason for outlawing it? For the ones after 1900 I imagine it was eugenics-y genetic health stuff but before that was it just people thinking "this is gross"? Was there a big scandal or something related to it? one of those weird, pointless facts i have lodged in my brain is that apparently the rate of genetic defects in the offspring of first cousins is comparable to or even less than that of the offspring of (non-cousin) parents where the mother is over 40
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Was there some particular reason for outlawing it? For the ones after 1900 I imagine it was eugenics-y genetic health stuff but before that was it just people thinking "this is gross"? Was there a big scandal or something related to it? Curious myself so looked into it and apparently there where two prominent figures who started publishing some stuff against cousin-marriage in the mid 1850's, Dr Samuel Merrifield Bemiss of the AMA and Reverend Charles Brook of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that won over prominent scientists of the era to oppose it - sort of a pre-Darwin hereditary argument: "Dr S.Bemiss, Report on the Influence of Marriages of Consanguinity upon Offspring; 1858" posted:It will be perceived that parental infirmities are entailed with great certainty upon the offspring, and this, in the opinion of the reporter, constitutes the strongest argument against the intermarriage of relatives; the fact that family peculiarities, tendencies, and infirmities, either of mind or body, which may be so slight on the part of parents as to remain latent, become so exaggerated by this ‘intensifying’ of the same blood, that they are in the child prominent and ruinous defects. Brook, who was a passionate abolitionist, while in line with the above seemed to specifically be a bit more concerned with the development of "caste" and cited examples of "where blood relations have intermarried much, in order to keep the property in the family" which seems like a quasi-republican distaste for a degenerate aristocratic practice. He wrapped up a 1856 article on the subject with this which reads simultaneously like proto-eugenics and a patriotic pamphlet: quote:Will not our country furnish the most wonderful example of the effects of intermarriages with different castes of the Caucasian race? When the people of these United States become a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, Germans, and French, will they exhibit a strength of body and an intelligence of mind, a true inborn energy and moral power, which do not equally signalize either of the nations from whom they sprang? Under the fostering care of a truly republican and Christian government, will they advance in science, arts, agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, and all the blessings of a religious civilization and political equality, as no one of their parent nations has? Let us hope that it is the appointed destiny of our free and prosperous land, to exhibit a higher development of human attributes than has yet blessed or astonished mankind. Meanwhile in Britain there where fiery debates in parliament about whether marrying your dead wife's sister should be legal - kind of demonstrating how the moral/biblical argument against incest was still setting policy kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Meanwhile in Britain there where fiery debates in parliament about whether marrying your dead wife's sister should be legal - kind of demonstrating how the moral/biblical argument against incest was still setting policy That's interesting, wasn't the story of Onan that he was basically forced to marry his dead brothers wife? I get that the gender difference is probably significant, but it seems like the wrong way round in terms of power structure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
He jizzed on the floor and god killed him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
He shoulda jizzed in his brother's wife
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
 e: Eh, that one's not politically loaded. This one, howerever, is: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
my dad posted:One of my greatgreat*grandparent couples caused a huge scandal just by having the same surname before marriage, despite not having any ancestor in common within church records Until like the 1990s this was illegal in Korea too, which is extra fun when most of your population has one of three surnames. Pretty sure it’s one of those things that came from Confucian influence, so I imagine the same is true in China. In Silla in antiquity, the highest social caste required both parents to be born of it too, so incest was kind of a necessity; that caste eventually wound up extinct because of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
My last common ancestor with Björk (the singer) is Guðmundur Stefánsson (1706-1782) farmer on the farm Strönd in the Landeyjar region of southern Iceland. Which makes us 9th cousins I think?. Am I allowed to gently caress Björk or is it incest?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
BonHair posted:That's interesting, wasn't the story of Onan that he was basically forced to marry his dead brothers wife? I get that the gender difference is probably significant, but it seems like the wrong way round in terms of power structure. I'm not sure of the scriptural foundation but the church of england considered it incest for a long time and would annul any marriages found to be between a man and his deceased wife's sister - The government decided this was just inefficient so they straight up banned marriage that met the Anglican definition of incest (which excluded marrying your cousin) in 1835. This led to decades of campaigning with people saying where in the bible does it say i can't gently caress my dead wife's sister and very moral upright Victorians saying it was morally repugnant. They eventually legalized it in 1907
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:My last common ancestor with Björk (the singer) is Guðmundur Stefánsson (1706-1782) farmer on the farm Strönd in the Landeyjar region of southern Iceland. Which makes us 9th cousins I think?. Man I work here and they won’t even let me gently caress the Björk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
BonHair posted:And a lot of the old testament stuff is actually just good ideas dressed up as god's ideas for authority. idk arguing that rape isn't really rape if it happens outside of the city walls is p hosed up I mean in a preliterate desert civilization a lot of the ideas in the Old Testament make some sense but people who use the OT today as a moral guideline are universally bonkers, it's like you'd try to live a 21st century life based on the ethics of the Iliad or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
BonHair posted:It's a tiny bit of eugenics in much the same way as getting an abortion if the fetus has down's is. People don’t abort for the good of the race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:My last common ancestor with Björk (the singer) is Guðmundur Stefánsson (1706-1782) farmer on the farm Strönd in the Landeyjar region of southern Iceland. Which makes us 9th cousins I think?. You have my permission to gently caress Bjork, with her consent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Eww that goon wants to gently caress their cousin, and that other goon wants them to gently caress their cousin too!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:21
|
|