How did Futurama get away with it?

A challenger appears

Attached: 401px-Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg.png (401x301, 26.09K)

yeah but what if I travel really fast around the world and spin it the other way?
checkmate atheists

Spinning's a good trick, but not that good

Sneed

You just need to travel so far in the future that the universe collapsed and restarted, then just keep going until you get to the point you wanted to go that was the relative past to where you started in the previous iteration.
The queen of England is going to die right before Hillary Clinton is inaugurated as president.

Relative to who? How can you possibly gauge that?

You know Superman didn't actually reverse time by spinning the planet backwards right? They just used that to show he was reversing time.

stfu nerd!!

Attached: pepe-the-frog-kek-4chan-internet-meme-punch-punch-pepe-54287633.png (500x634, 83.11K)

Not really incest though... He's related to her, but she's not related to him.
>Time travel, don't have to explain shit.

The second law of thermodynamics is a meme, deleuze says so

Because there was this song which was older, so they explained how fry was his own grandpa.

youtube.com/watch?v=lnsS6EDRX5A

if scientists 100 years ago didn't know jack shit compared to what we know now then its reasonable to think scientists now don't know jack shit compared to what we will know 100 years from now, and so on. its naive and way too optimistic to assume that at any point we humans know for certain how reality works at its core or that our brains can even perceive all the clues we'd need to have that kind of knowledge

Why is incest wrong? As long as they're not having babies there's literally nothing wrong with it, go on, explain why it's bad I'll wait.

Having sex for reasons outside of procreation is wrong; therefore incest, regardless, of it's intention, is also wrong.

>Having sex for reasons outside of procreation is wrong
Lol ok

Much of the foundation of modern science was built 100 or more years ago. We know a lot more now, but it's building on things like quantum physics. Sure not everything works and there are a lot more questions to answer, but it's ridiculous to think that we're no closer to the truth just because we were far away from it before. There may be a revolution that throws out everything about the current model of physics, or there could just be continued refinements until we reach the limit of what instruments can tell us.

It's a built-in instinct. People who fucked close relatives had offspring who were less fit due to the potential for harmful recessive traits. So the ones who didn't do it would have more successful offspring.

>Having sex for reasons outside of procreation is wrong
No it's not, why would it be?

Which is why I specifically said "as long as they're not having babies", so don't give me that shit. Now explain to me without talking about babies why is it bad to fuck your milf mother on birth control and cum inside her pussy or anus?

>OMG i love futurama!

Attached: wojak soy face.png (214x300, 31.29K)

Reliable birth control didn't exist until long after the instincts were ingrained in humans; since chimps and other great apes have the same inbreeding avoidance, it's likely it was in place before humans existed as a species.

If you want a modern reason, then the fact that humans are (serially) monogamous animals and if a male human is fucking a female human, it's unlikely that either of them will have a partner with which they procreate as well.

t. Rick and morty fanboy

The moment when Fry's gran opened her top is one of the hottest moments in cartoon history.

Uh, in ENGLISH Doc?

Actually the consensus (read, the opinion of someone who has done more than watched What the Bleep do we Know?) is that the DCQE doesn't show retrocausality

Nobody was watching to care.

That's a whole lot of words that mean a whole lot of nothing. You're basically saying that incest is bad because if they have incest sex it's unlikely they'll have another partner to have babies with. First of all, why can't they have sex with more than one women? Because humans are serially monogamous? Lmao, you honestly believe people only have sex with one person in their entire life? Maybe people are monogamous in the sense that they have only 1 relationship partner, but nobody has incest sex uses their relative as a relationship partner, and fucking your mom doesn't prevent people from looking for a girlfriend.

Also, that is all assuming that not having a baby is a bad thing, which is obviously not the case. Your argument against incest is retarded.

If time travel was possible, you should also be also to reverse the flow of energy.
How much work would it take to reverse the energy one star releases? All the stars?

>how did Terminator get away with it

>one sentence is a whole lot of words
do you have a sub-70 IQ?
>Lmao, you honestly believe people only have sex with one person in their entire life?
Oh I see. Yes, you are retarded.
>nobody has incest sex uses their relative as a relationship partner, and fucking your mom doesn't prevent people from looking for a girlfriend.
Any girlfriend/prospective wife you might find will probably have an issue with you fucking another woman.
>Also, that is all assuming that not having a baby is a bad thing, which is obviously not the case.
It is a bad thing if you are talking about an evolutionary aspect. If a guy fucks his sister but uses 100% effective birth control with her AND is unable to get a wife/partner because of that, he will not procreate and that behavior will be selected out. Textbook natural selection.

Your whole argument is nonsensical and assumes people that have incest sex will never procreate with other women, which is just a load of bullshit and a massive leap. You can fuck your mother and still fuck other women.

It also assumes that not having children is a bad thing, and there's nothing wrong with not having kids. And your whole 'evolutionary aspect' thing is just more of your nonsensical bullshit, nobody cares about that. And if we're to use your logic then all sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation is bad, masturbation is bad, condoms are bad, birth control is bad, etc., Which are all retarded things to believe and nobody believes that except for retarded christcucks.

>Your whole argument is nonsensical and assumes people that have incest sex will never procreate with other women, which is just a load of bullshit and a massive leap. You can fuck your mother and still fuck other women.
How many women are okay with you fucking another woman, nevermind one of your family members? I'd wager it's an extremely small number.
>there's nothing wrong with not having kids
>evolution is nonsense
It's hilarious that you are too stupid to realize that this is how behaviors are selected against.
>all sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation is bad
Non-procreation sex serves a purpose (enhancing the bond between mates)
Masturbation serves a purpose (stress relief)

Neither prevents you from impregnating a partner. Having sex with a woman you are not going to impregnate WILL remove, or at least severely limit, your ability to impregnate another woman.

>How many women are okay with you fucking another woman, nevermind one of your family members? I'd wager it's an extremely small number.
Who cares? Why do they have to know in the first place?

>Non-procreation sex serves a purpose (enhancing the bond between mates)
Masturbation serves a purpose (stress relief)
Ok, so then using that logic what's wrong with incest sex? It's just sex. It doesn't prevent you from having a partner, and again, there's nothing wrong with not procreating or having a partner in the first place.

Most of what we currently accept has it's basis either on einsteins theories of relativity or quantum mechanics both of which were already fleshed out 100 years ago when those theories first came about. Before that physics was just classical mechanics for a long ass time since newton lived. Physics moves at a snails pace we technically know not that much more than they did 100 years ago.

>Who cares? Why do they have to know in the first place?
So you're advocating lying to/cheating on your partner. This is some weak bait.
>Ok, so then using that logic what's wrong with incest sex? It's just sex. It doesn't prevent you from having a partner, and again, there's nothing wrong with not procreating or having a partner in the first place.
You keep repeating yourself. I've already answered this multiple times.

>So you're advocating lying to/cheating on your partner. This is some weak bait.
No, you're just retarded and think that having incest sex with a woman means you do it for your entire life and never stop.

And you never gave a good answer for why not procreating is bad. You tried to argue it from a flawed evolutionary point of view that nobody forms their morals or lives their life by, it's just nonsense. And again, it assumes that having incest sex is all the sex somebody can have.

You can have incest sex and still procreate with other people, so even going by your retarded logic there's still nothing wrong with incest sex.

I read a paper refuting it that came out late last year but afaik it still shows causality (such as wave collapse in entangled particles) is FTL but desu I haven't done much reading on the subject

my thought on time travel/multiple realities was to think of it like a series of forks in the road. If you went right, you can go back and go left. But there will still be the person that went right so that still exists

>why do they have to know in the first place?
because you mong, stds are a thing and havent you ever heard of genetic chimera-ism?

Holy shit you are a massive braincell depraved mega faggot
>And you never gave a good answer for why not procreating is bad. You tried to argue it from a flawed evolutionary point of view that nobody forms their morals or lives their life by, it's just nonsense. And again, it assumes that having incest sex is all the sex somebody can have.
Humans need to procreate to ensure the survival of not only their species but the survival of their ideas, philosophies and ways of life. The institution of marriage (to a godless ape such as yourself) came into existence in the first place to ensure safe and beneficial dynamics between relationships and the propagation of the species. Humans love to own things more than anything else and owning each other in a bond of higher loving sentience is one of the most pure and naturally occurrences in human history that is positively laughable that you have the audacity to come on to this Anti-Epicurean Action Board for the Criminally Handsome and spout such drivel with simian phage. If you're such a subjectiveist (which you obviously are) I subjectively suggest you but a bullet through your head and objectively become fertilizer.

>If you're such a subjectiveist (which you obviously are) I subjectively suggest you but a bullet through your head and objectively become fertilizer

Attached: file.png (351x512, 127.34K)

Yeah, but non-consensus papers come out every year. That doesn't make them true.
In all likelihood, it's an absolutely mundane experiment.
arxiv.org/abs/1908.03920

Why would you assume these different realities would be any different from your own?
10/3 (0.33333333333....) has an infinite number of digits, but never in that sequence do you find a 2. If there are an infinite number of crossroads, there is no reason to believe any of the forks are actually different.
Time is a flat circle.

This

Attached: Mildred Fry Futurama Season 03 - 019 - Roswell That Ends Well.jpg (960x720, 39.71K)

this

i got to figure out how that works.. lol

Based

Subjectivist/individualist fags btfo

>as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone
tier pleasure/pain principle utilitarianism and their proponents are cancer

Attached: 664C2661-5EBC-4EF1-94BC-E33057AB878C.png (480x266, 148.73K)

Can’t you say the same for a man putting his penis is another man’s intestines?

Futurama is a bit weird in the context of pop-culture. A ton of people know about it, a ton of people can spot the characters and some references, but in reality very few people have watched all or most of it, even if you count only the original run. I think it's the most glaring example you can abuse about posers in this day and age.

To answer the question. It got away with a ton of stuff because not a lot of people were actually watching it.

Yes, though there are theories about why it hasn't been completely selected out. Gay uncle theory is the one I'm most familiar with.

It's basically this:
>Couple A and Couple B both have 2 kids each
>Couple A has two straight sons; these sons have three sons each
>Couple B has a straight son and a gay son; the straight son has three sons
>Couple A's six grandsons get the resources/support of four adults, or 2/3 of an adult each
>Couple B's three grandsons get the resources/support of three adults (the two parents plus the gay uncle), or 1 adult each
Couple B will have less grandsons, but they will be higher quality. In times with low mortality, couple B will theoretically result in stronger children. In times with high mortality, couple A will have an advantage as more kids will actually make it to adulthood.

Natural selection seems to lean heavily towards Couple A, but not completely; hence why gays still exist and seem to become more prevalent as life gets easier.

How the fuck do you know?

Futurama had a very sexy artstyle

The Double Slit Experiment is an experiment in which you shoot light through two slits. Presumably there would be two lines on the other side, right? Incorrect. Instead you get an intereference pattern, pic related.
The reason for this is because of wave-particle duality. The particle exit the slits as waves, interact with each other, and cause the pattern
That's not what's interesting. What's interesting is when you reduce to one photon, the interference pattern still exists. How can this be? That would mean it's going through both slits.
So let's put some detectors in front of the slits and see what's happening, what slit is it going through.
The universe: Fuck you. The wave pattern disappears. The act of observing affects the results. Because we know which slit it goes through, a wave pattern does not form.
Now, throw in quantum entanglement. Suppose we have entangled particles, which always maintain the same rotation. Suppose we measure one of them. That means we know the rotation of the other.
TL:DR because I'm getting lazy, "information" APPEARS to be sent "back in time" to tell the other particle how to react when doing experiments

Attached: Figure_28_03_07a.jpg (875x260, 68.47K)

Psychological damage if they grew up with eachother, power imbalance between older and younger sibling because of imprinting.

If they didn't grow up with eachother though then incest should be fine as long as you don't have kids.

If you time travelled and stumbled upon your grandmother in her youth, would you bang her?