lol, respect, if this is a troll.
You just don't see style like this anymore, dude is thinking like 20 moves ahead.
Yeah so, humans separate themselves from animals, we don't use terminology like "sons and daughters" and "incest" when applied to animals.
The reason being we very often manipulate their reproduction to benefit ourselves.
In agriculture, human farmers will regulate breeding to achieve certain traits, ie "breeds".
You do often see negative results of unchecked inbreeding in animals, for example if you have ever seen a place with a lot of stray cats they often appear to have unusually small heads (a trait that can be observable in severely inbred humans also but let's not feed the flames you pinhead).
But humans regularly use selective inbreeding in domesticated animals to achieve certain traits, ie "breeds".
Culturally and ethically there is
no "incest" when it comes to animals as far as humans are concerned because animals are either apart from us (wild, one male will often breed with several generations of the same herd/pack, almost all herd/pack animals do, lions, wolves etc etc.,) or used as tools by us (domesticated, "selective breeding").
Or something like that, but I'm digressing and I'm no expert.
imo OP is using purposefully inflammatory language in the guise of naivete in order to set up the snare.
Now I've skipped a lot of stuff but the upshot is that eventually the subject of this thread
will turn to eugenics and an all out flame fest ensues.
Srsly, is this masterful trolling of the old skool variety?
Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody really can be that naive... anyways my coffee break is over.
