The twitch streamer Destiny/Steven Bonnel

Lol

Guess Franklin is what he always will be.

Omar is a way better name

Wow I can't believe you keep dragging that up. Maybe the Christian in you just can't himself but complain about a name? I never knew my name offended you so much. 

I'm really glad that you cherished my former name as if it mattered and now I know you have useless Christian and conservative propaganda plus fan-girling over my name in your mind. At least there is some part of you that isn't filled with propaganda.

This will be my last comment and I will leave with my early prediction being true.

" knowing you I don't think this would be anything rational more uneventful like the person you are and probably always will be."

the questions you have laid out is exactly why he wins against non-debaters, he picks a small minute theoretical thing that could happen and claims that incest isn't bad in that sense, and then using fallacies, claims that incest is good in all times

No. Establishing reasons why some arguments against incest aren't logically consistent is not the same as declaring incest is good at all times. I doubt he's ever said this.

For example, if your primary reason against incest is genetic deformities, why not an incestual relationship without any reproduction? Does that then mean you are in favour of incest where there is no reproduction?

See, you are using specific situations and what ifs. That is not good debating and he knows it, but Destiny can get away with it

I mean.. it's a very general situation. The fact is, no reproduction is required for all incestual relationships. And if this is the case, then the possibilities of genetic deformities is not a logically consistent argument against incest.

So incest doesnt have to be sexual??

Also if someone already has a mental disability, they can pass that to their children genetically, so should we ban those people from reproducing?

Who said anything about being legal?

and it sucks

Destiny has never stated that incest was an affirmative good, he said that it is morally neutral and shouldn't be made illegal, I presumed you wanted incest to be illegal.

I dont think you can ban sexual acts.

It is morally wrong though, not neutral

Okay, I guess that's a fine position to have, thought you were a little more extreme on this issue. I don't think there is a strong disagreement then.

ok.

There are certain questions now pressed upon us that previous generations would never believe could be asked. One of these is thrust upon us by events in New York City, where a well-known Ivy League professor has been arrested for the crime of incest. What makes the question urgent is not so much the arrest, but the controversy surrounding it.
David Epstein is a professor of political science at Columbia University, where his wife also teaches. He previously taught on the faculties of Harvard and Stanford. Last week, he was arraigned before a judge in Manhattan, charged with a single count of felony incest. According to authorities, Professor Epstein was for several years involved in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter, now age 24.
Though the story was ignored by much of the mainstream media, it quickly found its way into the cultural conversation. William Saletan of Slate.com, who remains one of today's most relevant writers working on the issues of bioethics and human nature, jumped on the story with a very interesting essay that openly asked the question many others were more quietly asking: "If homosexuality is OK, why is incest wrong?"
After reviewing the various legal arguments used to justify criminalizing incest, Saletan comes to the conclusion that genetics cannot be the fundamental basis, since incestuous sex could be non-reproductive. Similarly, the basic issue cannot be consent, since no one is arguing in this case that the sex was non-consensual.
He gets the liberal response just about right: "At this point, liberals tend to throw up their hands. If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that's what people said about homosexuality, too. It's all private conduct."
Saletan comes to the conclusion that the basic reason for the wrongfulness of incest is damage to the family unit. As an Ohio court ruled, "A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit."
Now, remember that Saletan raised the issue of the morality of incest as related to the question of homosexuality. He argues that the family-damage argument against incest does not apply to homosexuality. In his words: "When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed."
Saletan's argument is easy to follow, and if you accept his fundamental premise, it can even make sense. But his fundamental premise assumes that there is no damage to a particular family unit if a homosexual relationship exists. That argument can be made only by ignoring the impact upon a family of origin. Beyond this, it limits the family-damage argument to an individual family, when the argument must be more broadly applied to the family as an institution.
This article is a very interesting window into the sexual confusions that lie at the heart of our age. To his credit, Saletan gets the conservative argument basically right:
The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.
That's a pretty fair summary. Of course, the Christian argument goes much deeper than the merely conservative argument, affirming the fact that, with exacting precision, God has spoken to the sinfulness of such behaviors -- specifically condemning both homosexuality and incest. In other words, Christians move the question from mere wrongfulness to sinfulness and place all issues of sin within the biblical account of sin and redemption.
It is extremely revealing that, for many of our fellow citizens, incest may merely "seem icky." And yet, all around us are folks who, with a straight face, deny the inevitability of this slippery slope.

Not an unreasonable answer if answering strictly from a religious perspective. I believe Destiny's own reasoning against it revolves around power dynamics which is good enough from a non-religious perspective although this still leaves it morally neutral.

Though of course it's infinitely more entertaining when you don't have the opportunity to copy and paste and instead fiddle around with birth defects all day.

ok 

Peace is always achievable if you just belie- NULE! NUKE THEM ALL! NUKE ALL THE, NUKE EVERYONE! BURN 'EM DEAD AND GO FOR, JUST DO IT NUKE 'EM ALL DEAD!

See? All dead now. No more fighting.

Peace.

sure

Nope. Destiny is an idiot. Shaming people based on wealth. Instant loss of respect. He’s nothing but a fraud who can’t keep his temper in line. He’s toxic and is the thing he sought to destroy. Pathetic idiot

Idiot idiot idiot

His intelligence is yelling that he’s gonna kill someone over a video game. Lunatic