about incest)
low-iq lemon would ban incest over its possible repercussions but not guns.
"the price of freedom (of incest( is exceptional kids" and the price of the 2nd amendment is mass shootings. low-iq ppl like Dick will say "it's different" without stating why
The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores any sort of cost-benefit analysis. For example, for some people, the benefits for the 2nd Amendment outweigh the costs. However, for that same person, the benefits for allowing (legally and socially) incest to take place do not outweigh the costs.
The problem with Destiny's style of argumentation, in which he extrapolates into other topics to test a person's logical consistency is that ignores this line of thinking. The people who debate him only come across as contradicting themselves because of the way he frames his arguments. If someone says they do not support incest because of its negative repercussions, Destiny then strawmans that as them being against anything that has negative repercussions, rather than the negative repercussions outweighing the positive ones. It also helps him avoid actually talking about incest directly - he admittedly uses it as a provocative tool to elicit discussion on moral systems, but I doubt he'd be able to defend his view on incest if he was forced to talk about it directly.
Destiny's line of thinking is that people should be able to do what they please so long as it does not harm others (such as drinking, for example). It's a standard line of libertarian thinking but it fails to acknowledge that actions do not exist in a vacuum, and how society treats certain actions has wide reaching repercussions. A society which permits "harmless" incest will still have higher amounts of "harmful" incest than a society which condemns incest outright. Likewise, a society which permits responsible drinking will still have a higher case of drunk driving incidents than a society that condemns it outright. How you reconcile these two points (which is something Destiny fails to do, as he seems to think only in absolutes) is that the cost of "harmful" incest can outweigh the benefits of "harmless" incest, whereas the cost of drunk driving accidents may not out weigh the benefits of responsible drinking.
His style of argumentation of just extrapolating a person's reasoning and applying it to other situations has been around since the ancient Greeks. It's really not anything special or high IQ, and it honestly baffles me how a lot of the people who debate him (like that Zoom guy on the Killstream) fail to pick up on it. If anything, it makes any incest debate Destiny has a painful slog because of how ill equipped so many people are. Like I can guarantee if you put him up against someone with an understanding of ethics and rhetoric that extends beyond just wikipedia articles, Destiny would be pummeled. But eh, I guess I shouldn't really expect much from autistic pissing matches on the Internet.
