Dr.Franklin

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.

ok.

I dont think you can ban sexual acts.

It is morally wrong though, not neutral

and it sucks

Who said anything about being legal?

So incest doesnt have to be sexual??

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

Men aren'tthe ones in nature who should be nice to his partner, the women is, the man is there to provide and protect and nothing more

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

lol

Omar is a way better name

Nope, I know how it works bud

I know your games omar, I aint playing it

LOL salixes

I guess? But I thought Genesis was a lie, until I did some resaerch and leanred the truth

Also, when he takes on 4chan meme legends, it is really funny and is embarrassing

The only reason why i used to be an atheist was because of evolution, but I learned it was combatible and the universe is a simulation run by God

He think it is morally correct to have sex with animals

Journalists report on the news, that is it, they don't have times to dive deep into objections or large scale debates, they make money by writing their opinion based on common knowledge facts. Debate language is something journalists would not know

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/-Debaters know all this and call people out on it

Right, but do you notice that they always debate on HIS SHOW or while he is live streaming, he isnt dumb, he is a good debater when it comes to language and getting what you want out of a debater

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erp28ES6sHQ-He is smart and knows how to use language and debating  to win against non-debaters

The digital physics argument and the cosmological arguments makes sense that God is real

I used to be an atheist, but I reconverted to being a Christian because I analyzed both sides. Same with is real, I used to be very Pro-Israel, now I am on the fence of it and believe both sides have committed crimes and that peace is not achievable.

through analyzing both sides

I thought Red Sox meant the red "house" on the uniforms?

Oh well

you subscribe to a political ideology because of a streamer

Your not a free thinker

The conservatives you mentioned are journalists not debaters, they are pretty different as journalists dont know logical fallacies,etc

So he can us those logical fallacies to win and he does so very well

 

He is a debater, the debates where he wins or his famous ones are against non-debaters, his opponents dont know basic debating etiquette, thats why he invited THEM on his show any debator would get an outside source to moderate the debate.

When he faces real debaters, he usually ties and people agree they have a good conversation, Be careful though, he has openly advocated for incest and bestiality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrUUBNgoroM-an example of when he takes on a debater, go to 34:00

how are the red sox the fake sox, I am not debating, Im just wondering why?

ok boomer

I cote bostonian

you are going to take over the world and make humans exticnt.

No it does not

who are you

This is a good post, thank you

AI is and has to be always programmed to self-learn at fast rates, your iq or intelligence has not increased at the rates it should have by now.

obviously bostonion isnt a race, 

Where do you get they implication, probably because it is their fault. They have lied, covered up and has blamed other countries for this mess, look at Supas post about this, Chinese disease is called because it originated there and if it gives off the implication that it is their fault, then it partly is.

Both sides are using this incorrectly

One side is using it for economic reasons, to scare investors and try to take the blame on Trump, even though up until now they have claimed it was Obama's economy.

Another side is the minority in their side but the people who say it's not a big deal, with the amount of research on it increasing, the flu comparison is not seen as much anymore but some people still say it.

I am not an always-Trumper

I have been critical of his foreign policy before

and...........hes back

I have iPhone because it is simple, If you want a complicated good device, get an laptop, I HATE windows 10 because it looks LIKE AN IPAD.

How dare they name a tragedy over China, the racism!!

So the Boston Bombing is racist???

Good post

because the Roman empire created WW2

seriously, God created the world but not the coronavirus, this was a chanh of happening

AOC will get gerrymandered out in 2022, dont fear

Above

languages like mandarin,english,spanish, italian etc are here to stay, globalization has brought back Latin and Gaelic

Yup, glad the spam is gone

my "conspiracy theory" is correct, the liberal voters are everywhere, it's not a secret society

damm, the corona sucks

oro is good

1.He picks lower debators

2.He took a language class so he is a God at semantics