(Destiny) The Skeptic Community on YouTube are Just Fence-Sitting Cowards - General

[QUOTE=echo78;52494306]Like I agree that that side of YouTube is a cesspool, but isn't this guy the guy who had the shit fit over animators and refused to believe that it was a difficult job and all?[/QUOTE] And also defends communism and thinks that incest is acceptable

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52504234]And also defends communism and thinks that incest is acceptable[/QUOTE] He doesn't think incest is acceptable at all, if you actually bothered to watch the video that he was arguing about it you'd see that. He, from an objective standpoint couldn't find anything wrong with incest if there is 0 risk of a pregnancy and if both parties are consenting adults and are not using any power over one another to influence the relationship. He also did a similar thing talking about communism, talking that in a vacuum communism is something that would benefit the people, but in practice and socially it has and likely never will work, the fact he made videos refuting common arguments against communism doesn't mean he is pro-communist, it means those specific arugments against it were flawed I think Destiny is super wrong on a lot of things, but he always argues for or against things in an objective light. Objectively, incest is gross but I don't see an issue both people are consenting adults and there's no risk of a pregnancy, but in truth that's rarely the case.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52504234]And also defends communism and thinks that incest is acceptable[/QUOTE] i'm almost 100% sure destiny could put forward a better argument against incest than you could and yeah, the guy who doesn't believe in the concept of a minimum wage is totally a fucking communist sympathizer, you nailed it

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52504333]He doesn't think incest is acceptable at all, if you actually bothered to watch the video that he was arguing about it you'd see that. He, from an objective standpoint couldn't find anything wrong with incest if there is 0 risk of a pregnancy and if both parties are consenting adults and are not using any power over one another to influence the relationship.[/QUOTE] Oh i watched it, because i found it unreasonable to believe that that could be his opinion at first glance. Even with context, that's still saying incest is acceptable, and it simply isn't under any circumstances. For biological, cultural and psychological reasons. Oedipus isn't a jumping off point. Also in a vacuum, on it's own terms, communism is fundamentally broken, internally and axiomatically contradictive and is basically a thorough exersise in bad thinking. So defending it in any capacity i find to be a pretty solid tell of someone who hasn't thought their beliefs through. Also he's dead wrong on c-16 because the policies that C-16 inhabits specifically prescribes potentially infinite fines, or potential jailtime if you refuse the order (contempt of court, even though the human rights/social justice tribunal isn't technically a goverment/civil court), plus being expected to cover all legal fees for all parties, which is garunteed to be at least tens of thousands of dollars, potentially hundreds. And the official policy guidelines says that misgendering is "most likely" a punishable offense. And that the offending party could be taken to court regardless of if any offense was intended or if the 'victim' took offense, which is draconian as fuck. And the policy guideliens cover such inane matters as the way you dress, 'gendered' or otherwise. Which means that as long as you can claim a minority status, someone saying they don't like your clothes is now a hate crime, enjoying the power of a parallel legal system, unencumbered by the burden of proof, jury of peers, legal precedent or public accountability, with also self ascribed infinite punitive powers and arbitrary punishments, with no legal constraints on any of the terms put forward, ascribing them as "evolving from tribunal and court decisions, social science research as well as self identity and common everyday use.", which makes them functionally arbitrary, subject to the whim of the tribunal. And that's before you even get into the philosophical, metaphysical and basic objective realities about the claims that these policies make, which are all fundamentally wrong, and constantly internally contradictive. So 30 seconds into this video and he's already misrepresenting the truth, or even arguably lying through omission. As technically he's correct in that c-16 does what he claims it to, yet the OHRC policy in which the bill is to be interpreted in/grants power to is in fact everything the critics say it to be. And yet he claims that this is not the case, and uses this as his foundations to claim that people like sargon or Peterson are "Literally a bunch of fence sitting fucking cowards who are too stupid and too ignorant to take any position on any issues", even though he was just claiming that they came to the wrong conclusions in condemning this legislation. And i don't see how condemning that legislation for the points above as being fundimentally broken counts as "nitpicking the smallest inconsistencies, without really understanding what the inconsistencies really are" Why is anyone paying this guy any mind? Frankly, he's everything he claims everyone else is. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52504361] and yeah, the guy who doesn't believe in the concept of a minimum wage is totally a fucking communist sympathizer, you nailed it[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand what communism is. Marx's communism is all about the rejection of social hierarchies to erase the supposed tendency of inter-class oppression which he claims will inevitably manifest so long as you have a social hierarchy. And that the inevitable and ultimate state of humanity is a communist like condition with a flat social structure, and everyone left to do as they please, which is supposedly ideal conditions to manifest the ultimate fulfillment of the self, without any corrupting elements like power, currency and material wealth. Which sounds great until you realize that we're social animals with built in social feedback systems built into the lower parts of our brain, which directly respond/read your standing in any number of social hierarchies, despite marx claiming them to be "socially constructed tools of class oppression", and it only goes downhill from there. The communist manifesto is like what rousseau would write if he got high off the smell of his own farts and thought that industry is the work of the devil. That's why a lot of communists are hardcore social constructionists, by the way. Because the claim that human beings are infinitely socially/culturally/intellectually malleable with no underlying and consistent biological reality [I]must[/I] be true for their ideas to even have a hope of being reasonably possible. Because otherwise communism's #1 core claim of "social hierarchies are artificially constructed tools of class oppression" is directly antithetical to all substantiated observable evidence about human psychology, and then the whole house of cards just falls the fuck over. And we can't have that, no sir.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52504386]Oh i watched it, because i found it unreasonable to believe that that could be his opinion at first glance. Even with context, that's still saying incest is acceptable, and it simply isn't under any circumstances. For biological, cultural and psychological reasons. Oedipus isn't a jumping off point. [/QUOTE] In a situation in which some dude wants to have a relationship with his half sister, they constantly use protection and would never have a child, they're both consenting adults and did not grow up together. is this wrong? what reasons other than it being kinda gross should we stop these two people?

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52504386]Even with context, that's still saying incest is acceptable, and it simply isn't under any circumstances. For biological, cultural and psychological reasons.[/QUOTE] I mean yeah I think it's weird and gross as shit, but that doesn't somehow turn it into an objective wrong no matter what. [quote] For biological [/quote] If there's literally a 0% chance of a pregnancy happening, why does it matter? [quote] cultural [/quote] Irrelevant [quote] and psychological reasons [/quote] If all parties involved are adults who're 100% in on it, yet again, why does it matter? Yes, they're fucking weirdos, but still completely harmless weirdos. What conscenting adults do without any risk to anyone in their own home isn't any of mine, or anyone else's business but their own.

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52504864]I mean yeah I think it's weird and gross as shit, but that doesn't somehow turn it into an objective wrong no matter what. If there's literally a 0% chance of a pregnancy happening, why does it matter? Irrelevant If all parties involved are adults who're 100% in on it, yet again, why does it matter? Yes, they're fucking weirdos, but still completely harmless weirdos. What conscenting adults do without any risk to anyone in their own home isn't any of mine, or anyone else's business but their own.[/QUOTE] What if they just don't use contraception? There's no possible way to force a couple to use contraception all the time. And even if they do use it, there's always a chance of it failing. How did this thread even become about a thread about incest

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52504881]What if they just don't use contraception? There's no possible way to force a couple to use contraception all the time. And even if they do use it, there's always a chance of it failing. How did this thread even become about a thread about incest[/QUOTE] Because "Destiny supports incest!" is a strawman people love to use, and that trillby brought up. There is more than just the pregnancy that matters too. The main argument he often raises against incest is that the power balance between the two individuals will usually be pretty even when you're talking about a family, which is something that will usually render a relationship condemnable. Parent-child will near ALWAYS fall under this, and even brother-sister usually will because of age differences. There's plenty of types of intercourse with zero risk of pregnancy, and there are perfectly effective contraceptives.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52505073]Because "Destiny supports incest!" is a strawman people love to use. Also there is more than just the pregnancy that matters. The main argument he often raises against incest is that the power balance between the two individuals will usually be pretty even when you're talking about a family, which is something that will usually render a relationship condemnable. Parent-child will near ALWAYS fall under this, and even brother-sister usually will because of age differences. Also there's types of intercourse with zero risk of pregnancy, and there are perfectly effective contraceptives.[/QUOTE] What if they just choose not to have intercourse that has zero risk of pregnancy, or still choose not to use this "perfectly effective" birth control? You can't police the way people have sex and you can't force people to take birth control pills or wear condoms or whatever. It is literally impossible and would be a huge violation of privacy if it were possible.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52505108]What if they just choose not to have intercourse that has zero risk of pregnancy, or still choose not to use this "perfectly effective" birth control? You can't police the way people have sex and you can't force people to take birth control pills or wear condoms or whatever. It is literally impossible and would be a huge violation of privacy if it were possible.[/QUOTE] So, like preventing people from having incestual sex in the first place? This is kind of a moot point.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52505108]What if they just choose not to have intercourse that has zero risk of pregnancy, or still choose not to use this "perfectly effective" birth control? You can't police the way people have sex and you can't force people to take birth control pills or wear condoms or whatever. It is literally impossible and would be a huge violation of privacy if it were possible.[/QUOTE]I don't think anyone said we have to literally police what people do. Not every moral/ethical argument is a legal argument. If it was a legal argument to make incest straight-up illegal because the pregnancy carried a heightened risk of adverse affects then hoo-boy the eugenics gate has flung wide-open.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52505118]I don't think anyone said we have to literally police what people do. Not every moral/ethical argument is a legal argument. If it was a legal argument to make incest straight-up illegal because the pregnancy carried a heightened risk of adverse affects then hoo-boy the eugenics gate has flung wide-open.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=_Axel;52505116]So, like preventing people from having incestual sex in the first place? This is kind of a moot point.[/QUOTE] Making incestuous sex illegal is also impossible to enforce, and it is in fact, borderline eugenics. But incest is still completely fucked up. Just saying that "what if they don't have children" is a stupid argument, because what if they do have children? There's no possible way to be sure. Sure, people can do whatever the fuck they want, but I don't have to like or respect their bad decisions

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52505149]Making incestuous sex illegal is also impossible to enforce, and it is in fact, borderline eugenics. But incest is still completely fucked up. Just saying that "what if they don't have children" is a stupid argument, because what if they do have children? There's no possible way to be sure. Sure, people can do whatever the fuck they want, but I don't have to like or respect their bad decisions[/QUOTE] But by saying "what if they don't have children" people are specifically referring to those who don't have children. So : [Quote]what if they do have children?[/quote] Is irrelevant to that discussion. People are already agreeing that having incestuous children is fucked up. What they're talking about is incestuous couples who take precautions not to have them.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52505149]Making incestuous sex illegal is also impossible to enforce, and it is in fact, borderline eugenics. But incest is still completely fucked up. Just saying that "what if they don't have children" is a stupid argument, because what if they do have children? There's no possible way to be sure. Sure, people can do whatever the fuck they want, but I don't have to like or respect their bad decisions[/QUOTE] That's one of the reasons why pregnancy is only partly a strong argument against incest. But you can't just condemn other people for doing something merely because you find it gross. Also yeah there is. If there's an incestuous lesbian/gay relationship, no ones getting pregnant. I think you can be pretty sure about that.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52505160]That's one of the reasons why pregnancy is only partly a strong argument against incest.[/QUOTE] I'd say it's a pretty damn strong argument. If your child is born with disabilities because of your actions, then you're a horrible person. Pregnant women can smoke and drink alcohol, but that still makes them fucked up people, how is this any different? [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52505160]Also yeah there is. If there's an incestuous lesbian/gay relationship, no ones getting pregnant. I think you can be pretty sure about that.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I have no problem with that. [QUOTE=_Axel;52505155]But by saying "what if they don't have children" people are specifically referring to those who don't have children. So : Is irrelevant to that discussion. People are already agreeing that having incestuous children is fucked up. What they're talking about is incestuous couples who take precautions not to have them.[/QUOTE] Do they agree, though?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52505188]I'd say it's a pretty damn strong argument. If your child is born with disabilities because of your actions, then you're a horrible person.[/QUOTE] Would you say someone with a genetic disability knowingly having children would be a horrible person though?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52505194]Would you say someone with a genetic disability knowingly having children would be a horrible person though?[/QUOTE] Depends on the disability.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52505198]Depends on the disability.[/QUOTE] I don't have the fucking foggiest how you even got back to this point as it has been pointed out several times that if you're using this as a means to attack Destiny, he's not for child bearing incestuous relationships either. I would personally go as far to say his beliefs are such that trying to prevent perfectly safe, totally consenting incestuous relationships is a waste of time as they aren't actively harming anyone but each other at worst (and maybe their familial relationships), instead focus on education and the actual problem relationships that bear children. You can't go changing what you're arguing against just to suit your arguments. Outside of maybe one or two fuck ups on this forum, I'm pretty sure everyone is against inbreeding, because it does pose quite a risk (even more so if you have a family history of any genetic disorders). But nobody is actively arguing that we should allow inbreeding relationships. (annndd now my internet history is full of research into incest and inbreeding specifics, just to confirm my thoughts)

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52505254]I don't have the fucking foggiest how you even got back to this point as it has been pointed out several times that if you're using this as a means to attack Destiny, he's not for child bearing incestuous relationships either. I would personally go as far to say his beliefs are such that trying to prevent perfectly safe, totally consenting incestuous relationships is a waste of time as they aren't actively harming anyone but each other at worst (and maybe their familial relationships), instead focus on education and the actual problem relationships that bear children. You can't go changing what you're arguing against just to suit your arguments. Outside of maybe one or two fuck ups on this forum, I'm pretty sure everyone is against inbreeding, because it does pose quite a risk (even more so if you have a family history of any genetic disorders). But nobody is actively arguing that we should allow inbreeding relationships. (annndd now my internet history is full of research into incest and inbreeding specifics, just to confirm my thoughts)[/QUOTE] I am answering a question asked to me, not making a point against Destiny. The reasons why I think Destiny is a fucking idiot have nothing to do with incest, I'm just here for the ride.

I remember watching sargon and destiny battle it out over jontron and it was just painful talking past each other and violently disagreeing on things they agreed on. They need arguing lessons.