The Veganism Debate with 'Vegan Gains' - Destiny Debates
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มิ.ย. 2017
- Destiny debates Vegan Gains on veganism.
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / omnidestiny
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
Get the chair Destiny has, the SL5000, from www.destiny.gg/chair Put "destiny" as your checkout code to get a 10% discount!
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Edited By:
► CONTACT - garyukov@gmail.com
► TWITTER - / garyukov
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
57:08 "I would rather be a sociopath than a hypocrite, I really would."
Destiny's argument in a nutshell
And that is admirable.
Dice of Fate Lol no it’s not-a sociopath is incompatible with society.
Well, that's debatable.
Apollo GJB Umm no... Sociopaths can actually function quite well in soceity. Sociopaths still have basic survival instincts. It's not like they'll go around doing things to jeopardize their Survival. Hence why they wouldn't actively trying and break the law.
Chad Boris Sociopath- a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. Yes, definitely sounds like someone who functions well in society-sociopaths are the perfect example of a misfit.
*Cow* : [chilling, eating grass]
*Destiny* : _IM GONNA ASK YOU ONE LAST TIME... CAN YOU MAKE A SOCIAL CONTRACT... YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON ANSWERING THIS CORRECTLY_
*So, you have chosen... DEATH!*
so, you have choosen........ BURGER
I'm dead🤣🤣
@@Mageblood then we will still eat plants, because we kill more plants by feeding livestock than by only eating it ourselves. So less living beings being harmed.
@@Mageblood plants to suffer, and if i recall correctly, some plants are actually "alive" as you cut them. For some things, like grass for example, iirc the smell is a signal, and the smell is essentially the grass screaming. Maybe it wasnt grass but i did hear it about some form of plant(s?)
Did Destiny do this as a roundabout way to convince people to become vegan? His argument made me feel worse about eating meat than any vegan ever has..
I would rather be a hypocrite than be like Destiny lol.
That's quite interesting since it made me feel less guilty about meat eating
Well yeah, if you want to be morally and logically consistent in your meat eating then you are going to end up looking like a sociopath.
I don't think you're required to be ideologically consistent for issues like this tbh... Humans AREN'T logically consistent with anything, and this is no different. I'll protect pets and eat meat. I may even be nice to a chicken. For me it's what the animal is being "used" for that matters.
@@RoseEyed If you want to defend the morality of you eating your meat then yeah you have to be consistent. If you acknowledge that it isn't morally right then you're absolutely right.
You cant win debating against veganism nor for the morality of eating meat.
VG: "So by your argument, you support X "
Destiny: "Shit man I guess I do"
Destiny realizes the dangers of the social contract in this debate
I love it, this is pure logic, you can never argue like this in real life, but I am glad they did it in such a civil manner.
Destiny's desire to stay consistent with his moral foundation overrides his desire to seem like a sane and 'normal' person.
@@zincminer U cannot argue like this in real life? excuse me, i set the standard that THIS IS THE MINIMUM benchmark, if someone pivots when they should be consistent, they are not a principled person, they are not worth having an intellectual exchange with because they refuse to play by the rules. i have a 3 strikes rule on pivoting in a debate, cross that threshhold and you're out by DQ.
@@rinneganofrage7206 “I respect your rights to exist because I want you to respect my rights to live and exist.” That’s what destiny said about 6 minutes into the video. Animals, especially wild ones aren’t cognizant enough to respect our rights, they go purely based on survival instinct, which is why some animals are passive or aggressive.
That's the thing about ethics. You create axioms which lead to what you believe is an acceptable state of the world. The bad way to approach ethics, however, is by coming up with a ethical system that justifies a set of behaviors, and then accepting all conclusions of that system, regardless of if it disagrees with some other unspoken emotional value. The good way of doing ethics is by observing the consequences of validating that value, and upon realizing that the world could be better by way of its validation, creating a new set of axioms with both justifies the prior set of behaviors and validates that underlying emotional principle. If there is a contradiction, then it is clear that the axioms themselves are wrong.
I never thought I would see a debate with Vegan Gains were his opponent came off as more sociopathic then he is.
TheMaximumBreak
LOL Thanks for proving normal people's claim that vegans are angry assholes that do nothing but verbally attack people who don't share the same pathetic, ridiculous, idiotic opinions that they do.
Humorous LOL
Well a fully plant based diet is more "efficient" dude.
Nutrients per x amount of resources plants win over animal products anyday and since we don't need animal products to thrive a vegan diet truely is more efficient for us as a species :)
jeffy Crew LOL Meatard? But I am the uneducated one? For your information, dumb ass, meatard isn't a word. You're not clever. Bye bitch. =)
yes you are very un-educated on farming :)
I know it isn't, its a vegan made classification to describe people like yourself.
Well per square ft plants result in more overall nutrition then animal products so it is more efficient for resource usage and land usage that was my point of the first comment.
You said vegan diets are less efficient than the standard diet and I was simply pointing out that you are wrong.
Tl;dr
Vegans: but what about the animals?
Destiny: what about them.
Whoa HAHA LOL SO TRUE 😂 GOOD ONE
@unknowning unknown negative sir
unknowning unknown No he isn’t. He said that because he was playing devil’s advocate, and was forced to agree to kill people to stay logically consistent
unknowning unknown No he isn’t. He isn’t holding these feeling these genuinely. Bad faith is when you genuinely hold a position, yet contradict yourself in friendly discussion, or everyday life. That is not the purpose of this debate. That’s also how formal debates are. They are given an opinion that they are forced to defend. It’s not because they are genuinely contradictory.
unknowning unknown so nah bruh, youre the god damn idiot here. Learn these concepts before you attribute traits to people.
How to win any debate on morality: "why should I care?"
Elparmeny Shh don’t use that too many times, it’ll become a fallacy
@@ipancham9980 ad nauseum
Except he doesn't really ask why should he care, but he explains why he doesn't following his moral thought logic
thats not exactly right. In a moral debate you need to ask the question "why would it be immoral". Because the default state of every action is moral unless there is a compelling reason something is immoral.
Whenever you make something immoral just because of feelings like disgust or empathy you make yourself prone of being hipocritical(like "being gay is immoral" "having a lot of sex with strangers is immoral"). That does not mean that you will be hipocritical but when you are not you will always also have an objective argument to argue for why this case is immoral.
Sad thing his usual answer about ethics would work against him. "because it's better". For the same reason than giving rights to people and alleviating their suffering improves society... animals are members of society. Animals that are NOT tortured or abused and instead are taken care of and educated are... way better members of society lol. Just be nice it's not that difficult.
Destiny thank you for showing us how an AI would make a debate if the AI is good in logic but doesn't know empathy.
AI does not have to understand empathy to recognize the value of a being
@@jamesbarkes3262 destiny has said multiple times in his streams that he has major trouble empathizing with other human beings. It only makss sense that hs gives no fucks about animals. Doesnt means hes a shitty person.
Morals have nothing to do with emotion. Only logic. Of course when debating morality you wouldn't bring emotion into the conversation as it is completely irrelevant?
Edit: I no longer agree with my 17 year old self, who made this comment.
@@qwerty1233787 if they dont come frkm emotion or feelings where do they come from?
@@AnarchoBearBear logic. Deriving morals from emotion is ridiculous. Just because we feel a certain emotion towards something doesn't dictate its morality. For example, in the past, there was universal aversion and disgust towards homosexuals in western society. Of course, being homosexual is in no way immoral. All morals can be derived from logic. Morality is what we ought to do, so there must be an explanation as to why we ought to do so apart from just because we feel like we should.
Dear Destiny, I have some good news and some bad news...
The Good News: 9/10 people believe you were completely and totally logically consistent throughout the entire debate.
The Bad News: 10/10 people now firmly believe you're a raging psychopath.
Phiip Christians having empathy is a requirement to be good though
not really you can still lack empathy and not be a shitty person
I feel the same way Destiny did, why is it so important to feel empathy to something non-human, there are plenty of rural chinese who beat dogs while alive and eat them, and are still functioning adults.
Dice of Fate there are plenty of serial killers that are functioning adults.......
Dice of Fate why have empathy for anything?? why have empathy for humans using that sociopathic logic
By articulating such a disgusting viewpoint, Destiny advocated for Veganism better than Vegan Gains himself.
lmaoo
I don't understand how?
@@alexramos6244 If the only 2 true axioms is to disregard all animal life, or to embrace all animal life, it seems more moral to embrace all animal life
@@Cryolyptic that's not what destiny is arguing for though, he's arguing against veganism
@Filip Pettersson what's the point of taking that standpoint if he doesn't actually genuinely believe in it, just admit empathy plays a role in morality
this video probably turned more people into vegans than sociopathic serial killers.
But I like the taste of meat so I became a serial killer.
Also, humans don't taste as good as you'd imagine.
@@CriminalApes Hahahah. You should try to eat 1 less meat meal per day instead
@@jackrutledgegoembel5896 Sounds just like what my next victim would say
@@CriminalApes shit you got me
No it didn't
I actually feel bad for eating meat after this debate. This guy did a good job. First time i really disagree with Destiny and I’m not even vegan
yea lol
give veganism / vegetarianism a shot! it's easier than you'd think
@@wmichelin93 not if you are poor
@@jldriver02 you know how much a bag of lentils costs?
@@jldriver02 If you stay away from expensive plant-based meat, eating vegan is actually pretty cheap
So this is the power... of logical consistency....
I really appreciate consistency and not cognitive dissonance.
"I don't think you should kill animals for food if you don't have to" Literally buys a dog he feeds meat too, that he didn't have to own. Want to talk about consistency? How does he think the food cycle works exactly? What's next? It's ok to kill all predatory animals because they kill their prey and cause "harm"? If you say their sentient, and you say we don't know how much they understand, you must also have to agree, the animal could know that they are causing harm and killing another animal, so in turn the Vegans should want that to stop as well, No? A cat plays with it's prey after all. Is that not torture?
These debates have boiled down to these games of semantics, which are unnecessary. I have no problems with Vegan lifestyle. The leaps are to the most potent degree of examples, and never any examples for a healthy food chain. and yes, I will give the clarification that any human is a few meals away from kill or be killed, and you won't be looking for vegetables to feed your hungry offspring, you will find anything. There is a reason animals have been bred for food for thousands of years along with crops, because it's the easiest self sustaining consistent foods available.
Who bought a dog? Destiny? He hasn't ever bought a pet lul.
Beardshire a historic necessity does not justify murder anthropocentrically so why would you accept it when discussing animals. We don’t advocate for killing carnivores because they do not have moral agency, humans do. Animals also do it out of a necessity to survive whereas humans do it for taste pleasure.
"We don't need meat from animals now because we can just eat vegetables" is a dumb argument.
The day Vegan Gain's meets an actual sociopath.
you mean one of his own or? vegan gains is craycray
Oh please fuck off and make the effort to watch some of Richard's videos. His "crazy videos" were merely him trolling you fucking moron. @@twanozzo
@@MrTripsJ holy shit Donald Trump calm down
@Paul Denino
You know what, fuck it. Your probably right and I will.
@@sadhawk7324 Well, he used his grandfather's death to make vegan propaganda so... yeah, i think it's appropriate to call him a sociopath
I have a feeling Destiny is lying to himself, because he places a premium on being consistent.
Exactly. He is doing a bad faith argument.
Nope. He legit is logically consistent and makes it a point to be. This isn't new, watch videos other than this and you can see it's not done in bad faith.
I've watched many videos of destiny. It is a bad faith argument.
@@kingmu1 how? Are you arguing that he doesnt believe what he is saying? Can you prove this?
I'm saying that by listen to his Vulcan like argument. He seems to be trying to hard to stay logically consistent in his argument to the point that it sounds like a bad faith argument. That or like thexdude said hes a sociopath.
Destiny just demonstrated the only way to be logically consistent as a non vegan. Ironically, I feel like a lot of people turned vegan after watching this lol
Logical consistency isn’t even logically consistent. Destiny is a moron.
Destiny's pro meat eating stance: You can either be a loving, compassionate human being, or you can eat meat.
You're endorsing the suffering and thousands of animals on the daily by eating meat. The distinction you're drawing is completely retarded. Just because you don't see the suffering doesn't mean you're not directly contributing to it.
I don't even agree with Destiny in this, but you cannot draw these asinine lines in the sand on the subject.
Lol, funny how people get different things from the exact same video. Those people are hypocritical, nothing more, nothing less.
Lmfao
You're endorsing suffering an thousands of animals by living in society. Where do you think we get the land and the resources to build modern society?
GameFuMaster You can somewhat argue that eating meat is something you choose to dk, while living in society is completely necessary for day to day life. I doubt anyone wants to pack their bags and live in the woods or something.
If you take Destiny's stance in animals lives, however, animal lives don't matter period so why should he care about what it takes to advance society?
Damn destiny destroyed himself in this debate
Yea, even if he won and stayed logical consistent he made his position look horrible so much so even meat eaters might take a look at themselves. You win, you still lose.
Boffano Olano he didn't stay logically consisten considerening that around 43:30 mark he claimed he doesnt like to fuck up the environment yet meat consumption contributes a whole deal to global warming.
mario mendoza it is the biggest contributor.
I don't think he destroyed himself at all. I agree with everything he argued and I think he easily won his point. His won logical and rational at every point.
@@harima1 which is
5 minutes in and destiny is already advocating for genocide.
Wew lad
To be fair he did say that it was the north sentinel island people (search them up sick shit) and only if the people on North sentinel island could never like never respect our right to live. Right now we don't know if they can or cannot grow to respect that so right now it would be immoral to genocide them however if we 100 percent knew that they could never respect the social contract then Destiny is saying it would be okay to kill them.
@@SamI-bs5mm I think these people are like that because an english colon basically sexualy harrassed them and 2 of their kids died because of him and that's the only contact they've ever had with the extern world. Also these people have litteraly never hurt us so I don't see the reason to exterminate them. And death penalty is barbaric. And there's no such thing as "a moral genocide"
@@alois9206 Yeah of course it is unnecessary Destiny is saying it is morally neutral and only under the circumstance that they can literally NEVER grow to respect us and will kill us on site. He is not advocating for it he is saying it is not immoral or moral either way.
@@SamI-bs5mm He's kinda advocating for it tho
@@alois9206 I don't know I saw it he thought it was an unnecessary but morally neutral thing.
Disagreeing with Destiny in a debate feels really weird.
Yeah the social contract just seems like a really weird place to be coming from.
you must have loved his abortion debate :)
Destiny was so desperate to be logically consistent that he had to agree to genociding socially incapable people.
@@toddharig8142 What's the difference between that and genociding animals? I hope you're a vegan or else what you just said is very hypocritical.
@@qwerty1233787 I think it should ready pretty obviously that im not siding with destiny on this one.
So this is what happens when you are more concerned with moral consistency over what the actual morals are themselves
rollinge perhaps, but you still need a reason as to why its immoral
Morals aren't based on reason. They are preferences, like your taste in food or music.
rollinge You cannot argue about eating meat without admitting that you're either a hypocrite or that you agree with Destiny on this subject. Me personally, I'd rather be a hypocrite than take Destiny's position, but if you look at the fact that eating meat, whether you accept it or not, is directly contributing to the suffering of thousands of animals a day and trying to say "I eat meat but I also love animals" is completely retarded considering the consequences of eating meat.
Angel Flores If only there were a secret option where you don't have to be a hypocrite or be forced to be complicit in genocide and all number of horrific things
rollinge You mean becoming a vegan?
Vegan Gains did a really good job here imho. Like yeah, he definitely has the easier argument, but he did really good job staying cool, making his points, responding to where Destiny's points would lead. Good shit
Plants respond to being eaten. Vegan gains destroyed. Welp that was easy.
@Jakob S not organically like plants plants have awareness when you eat them spinach and other veg will release toxins while being eaten. So basically you're a murderer but let me guess waaaaaaaah veganism in a nutshell. Now if this offends you I'll expect a real argument.
@@Spencerwalker21 plants don't have a central nervous system, I can't believe you're really making the bro rogan argument of "but plants have feelings too!!!"
@Don't Eat Animals www.nathab.com/blog/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly/ now don't cry
@@thedtfarm4920 I'm sorry you're offended but that's not a argument.
Oh my god I needed this after watching the Tonka debate. I can’t believe I went to Vegan Gains to find a calm moderate person. What a world.
Tbh if you follow his stuff and not just the hype he is a very calm and collected person
I very strongly disagree with destiny here, but I have to give him props. He’s a big reason as to why I became a vegan.
“Steroid Sausage”
I think that if you irrationally feel empathy, and it gives you happiness to feel empathy, it's ok to have that govern your life and if most people feel that way then even laws because almost everything that gives us happiness is irrational.
care for a little exchange on the matter? i know a year has passed. I've gone the other way, i've become more resolute in my meat eating; the conclusion i've come to is that Destiny is wrong, he's arguing on foundation of social contract, but there's something deeper, consciousness. u cannot have a social contract with something that is not conscious, and once something IS conscious, u can always have a social contract, to some degree with it. Ergo, destiny's argument needs to replace "social contract" with "conscious entity".... and this actually pulls Destiny into a position where he has to respect, to varying degrees, other animals... based on the sliding scale of cognitive complexity (which seems to produce consciousness strangely)... unintelligent conscious life does not exist, to be best of my knowledge. also, for things which u are not conscious for, we have no moral judgements about? that seems to imply that consciousness is a pre-requisite for suffering. Nobody cares about the emotional suffering u experience in your dreams, even if u remember it when u wake up "it was just a dream"... meanwhile when u are dreaming, you're sentient but unconscious. it seems to map that we should only consider the suffering of conscious life.
edit: i fucked up in explaining the "also, for things which u are not conscious for, we have no moral judgements about?" - a good reply to that point would be "what if u got raped while roofied? u were unconscious but you'd care" - that's because they consequences incurred in the unconscious state carry over to the conscious state so it becomes a problem for your conscious self. If the consequences stop or never arise during your unconscious state, then there is no moral worth attributed what so ever. that's why a dream is a good example; in your dream u cannot perceive that it is not real, and u have memories of "suffering" , which for all intents and purpose is REAL suffering at that point; it doesn't matter at all, at the point that u wake up. u still feel the emotional effects once u wake up, and i guess in a way u have a little carry over effects, but everyone just tries to get over it, it's utterly trivial.
I also disagree with Destiny's arguments here, but it needs to be pointed out that he's being as logically consistent as possible at the cost of actually believing some of what he's saying.
@@BlooCollaGal oh yeah for sure. this is what gets Destiny most of his hate, but this is the best thing about him! he's actually principled and has deep thought behind his positions. Woke morons describe that as a bad thing lol.
You can tell Destiny is trying to be the emotionless robot. He is not being genuine here.
He didnt even try to talk his best friend out of killing himself. I think Destiny simply has sociopathic tendencies.
Well I don't think he was genuine here, still. But if he was, this is textbook sociopath point of view. If he is so indifferent about animals, that he could kill his pet without any remorse, or have no feeling whatsoever about an animal dying in a brutal way that involved abuse, simply because the animal can't agree with some sort of "social contract", then that is a textbook sociopath. You can say it's all about being logically consistent, but to have no emotion...no emotion about an animal; it's just a thing to you, then that is not logical consistency, that is a mental disorder. I don't see too much wrong with hunting as long as the hunters eat what they kill, that being said, I do think there should be a point to respect the animal in terms of how you kill it and treat it with respect once it's dead. I do eat meat. I think how the animal is treated and killed is important regarding ethical treatment of animals; they aren't just things. This video with Destiny was pretty disturbing, and I think at the very least faulty logic or the disingenuous use of nihilistic-esque logic simply to prove a point.
There's a difference between what you find disgusting/emotionally disturbing and what you find immoral, at least in most peoples' senses of ethics. I very much find Two Girls One Cup to be a disgusting and disturbing video, but I don't judge the people in it or think that the action is immoral of them to do. The reverse works too, I find thievery to be immoral in most circumstances, but I don't have a strong negative reaction to it emotionally. So at least in my sense of morality I try to separate emotion from morality as much as possible because in some stances it can lead to bad conclusions. Not always, but in many.
I don't know how Destiny emotionally feels about it, I personally feel emotionally disturbed if I see animal cruelty, but this doesn't mean I inherently find it immoral because of that. At the same time, I share most of his positions he shared on this debate, so I don't find his position to be inherently emotionless or sociopathic. Maybe he is a sociopath who just doesn't give a fuck, but I agree with him for the most part and I still feel most of the negative emotions that the average person does when faced with animal cruelty.
All of that being said, Destiny himself admits that he's less emotional than most people. He's definitely less emotional than I am, so you could be totally right about him. I just don't think that has much to do with the positions he took up in the debate.
Well without going into a debate or really exploring morality, ethics, and human emotion through TH-cam comments, I just want to say that taking part in killing an animal like your own house cat and having no emotional reaction to that, is textbook sociopathic behavior. Seeing animal abuse and saying nothing is wrong with it, even if he was talking about ethically, he wasn't just arguing on the point of ethics, he was saying that he wouldn't feel anything for it and it wasn't ethically neutral, but it was actually irrelevant to ethics because animals are just simply things to be destroyed according to destiny. That is sociopathic behavior. Again, I don't really think he was genuine here, and that bothers me because he decided to ignore the emotional aspect and go hyper logical. The problem is that in this particular case, a mentally healthy person is going to have an emotional response to animal abuse. Where the dignity of the animal is destroyed. Even people who do not like animals would be disgusted to see an animal clubbed in the head with a tree branch. I think it would have been more productive to not argue by thinking in a sociopathic mindset, but to explore why we care for anything. It is, in another way, a metaphysical question. In philosophy, metaphysics must be established before exploring ethics.
MrJoking4fun sociopathic behavior may open doors for our true nature as human beings
It's like a Singer vs Kant argument by two freshmen that didn't do the reading.
TheDJEON with Nietzsche commenting XD
TheDJEON this should have more upvotes
I would have thought Singer and Hobbes would make more sense
Destiny sees someone setting fire to a guy in a coma: "You do you, man".
I think you may have missed his argument. Destiny would say he has a moral obligation to stop the person setting fire to a guy in a coma because he himself might become incapacitated and would want the same protection.
“Skinning a dog alive”
Theo Pana That might not be the case because when Destiny dies he has no bearing on what happens to him after he dies, so since he wouldn’t be able to experience it, he probably wouldn’t care, so therefore he wouldn’t really say the same for others. The only reason he would stop it is in the case of social contract - otherwise it wouldn’t matter to him.
Or me, since I wholly agree with everything Destiny is saying. I quite literally had this debate with myself (in my head) a couple weeks ago.
@@ipancham9980 he is talking about a coma. Comas are commonly induced by doctors and surgeons for medical reasons.
Actually, when you take "Vegan Gains" argument for why it's okay to eat plants, but not animals and apply it here you could justify hurting or killing someone in a coma since that person can't think or feel pain. They even call it _vegetative_ state.
Never have I been so disturbed and upset by an argument I 100% understand and see the reason behind
ITT: people who don't know the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath.
By this logic Destiny is surely ok with killing/doing whatever to a mentally disabled person? Destiny is turning me vegan.
Mentally disabled people don't randomly attack you or rob you or try to murder you though in most cases
Neither do cows lol
yes they can and do. Also, by his argument, what would you GAIN from killing an autist? We tangibly gain from killing cows.
My point wasn't that cows rob you my point is that disabled people follow the social contract by not murdering or robbing you or anything like that, cows will charge and try to kill people even baby cows will charge people and like the other dude said the only time they won't is if it's with the person that gives them food or spends a lot of time around them and even then they'll usually turn the moment they feel threatened or simply don't like what the person is doing, we gain a food source and easy source of protein and it's pretty hard to be vegan and not cook your own meals or go to more expensive restaurants meaning that a large majority of the population can't really be vegan without losing time they may not have or money that don't have, or both
Idk, he's arguing this from a logical standing, he probably would prefer the world go vegan if you've ever listened to him.
One of my favorite parts of Destiny's content is that he is willing to be honest about his opinion even when it makes him look bad.
I'd rather look bad then not say what I want to say
He's not honest. He's just consistent. In order to maintain his consistency, he has to lie and say he doesn't care about animals at all.
@@abstract5249 I don't know if that's true but it wouldn't surprise me.
Glad he started being more concerned about rhetoric in years after this debate. He'll still bite the bullet on tough hypotheticals, but he'll make sure to point it out when the hypothetical is unrealistic, or highly emotionally loaded.
@@LeidenPierce Examples? Genuinely asking.
As a vegan, I'm completely happy with the guys argument: "if you think animal suffering is bad at all, then you should be a vegan." I hope people listen to him and his viewpoint wins out. IT would be a hell of an improvement over the current situation. Imagine if everyone who agreed that animal suffering is bad would become vegan. I call that a win.
I'm not contributing much to animal suffering, we get fish and meat because of hunting and fishing.
@@darkwolf4434 thats still contributing to suffering, as if contributing to less suffering makes you more virtuous?
@@loke5551 Killing them using hunting/fishing is more likely going to lead to a less painful death than the way they would have died anyways. Hunting and fishing is also helpful to nature and keeps the amount of animals balanced. So yeah, hunting and fishing leads to better results in both natural diversity and less pain for animals.
@@darkwolf4434lmao, fish are only get killed because we create demand for it
@@loke5551 so your saying our ancestors were immoral for eating animals. If you hunt for your food there is literally nothing wrong with that
Destiny watching his neighbor's dog being skinned alive. "welp, sucks for u doggy"
Flying Turd Same way I would react. Only I'd call the cops cause I would be worried that I'm next.
how is that the logical response and not skinning your neighbor alive?
Because we skin cows alive all the time
@@davidfields5375 "welp, sucks for u cow"
We don't skin cows or dogs alive. We kill cows very quickly to minimize suffering in order to eat them. We would do the same to dogs if we ate then. No part of this is about needlessly causing pain. If you insist on framing "killing an animal for food" as "flaying terrified doggos for lulz", will then I insist that you are full of shit.
Feels like there are only 3 outcomes in a debate with Vegans:
1. Ure a sociopath
2. Ure being dishonest
3. You lost
McL White pretty much, veganism is irrefutable (and I'm not vegan)
That's what happens when you argue people who are wrong that don't change their position. It's the price you pay for being in the right
VG did prove him wrong he just didn't realize it. Destiny says animals can't form social contracts. VG points out pet dogs form social contracts with their owner. Destiny says that doesn't count just because they "do it because you give them food" and because they "don't really love you" 1) he doesn't know they do it for food 2) his contract system supposedly works for self interested psychopaths. who cares if they do it for food? I would ask destiny if he loves his neighbor. destiny confuted himself on this point. if dogs can form social contracts, then that means theoretically all animals can
+Medicine Man vegans are the ones with science and ethics on our side so how exactly are we as logical as flat Earthers? Flat Earthers preach about something that can scientifically be refuted, vegans preach about something that can't be scientifically refuted because the science is on our side.
For example, carnivorous and omnivorous animals are able to regulate their serum cholesterol levels, this ability allows them to avoid chronic disease such as atherosclerosis from consuming meat and meat byproducts. Herbivorous animals on the other hand are unable to regulate their serum cholesterol, and will indefinitely develop atherosclerosis from consuming meat and meat byproducts. Humans can NOT regulate their serum cholesterol, and we develop atherosclerosis from consuming excess cholesterol, we are herbivorous animals, and with heart disease being our number one killer, there is no refuting this.
So consuming meat is scientifically unhealthy for us, we care about animal well being, but somehow we're as logical as flat earthers?
I already said VG didn't realize he confuted destiny so the first 60% of your post is irrelevant. I can't tell if you're being facetious in your first point, but it doesn't matter because love doesn't enter into it as destiny himself stated otherwise his social contract system wouldn't work for self interested psychopaths. your second point is a shallow catching at words. replace "contract system" for "destiny's contradictory personal morality based on the golden rule". medicine man. what you need to do is explain how a dog forming a self-interested social contract with a human for food is different from a human forming a self-interested social contract with other humans to not get killed using destiny's reasoning. you can't say dog's wont be able to reciprocate "in the same way" as a human, since destiny himself in the girlfriend rape scenario said that he only expects people to "do what they're able to" if you can't do that then VG did make destiny contradict himself
There's another way to combat the hypocrisy of saying animal suffering is bad while eating meat, don't eat meat.
Never 🗿🗿🗿
Wow. Usually Destiny destroys debates, but I'm siding with VG on this one. If the creature can suffer, we have a moral obligation to try to avoid causing it suffering.
What makes it an obligation?
@@nateriver4951 Our moral
Repeatedly saying “well basically you’re a sociopath” because someone else doesn’t hold your morals isn’t winning a debate 😂 you fucking goof
@@-john2g3 Morals aren't obligations. I think stealing is immoral, however, I'm not obligated to fight crime.
@@nateriver4951 you are not fighting crime, and i'm not saying go save every animal in the world or human, just do what you can when you can.
Does anyone else see this debate in a similar way when he argued that guy about incest? Destiny himself realizes any other argument for meat is illogical, yet he eats meat, and thus must have this 100% or nothing argument. I don't know if it is the best way to argue for meat eating but it's the most consistent.
But still reaching for straws to avoid change.
Guard655 Agreed
I think this is very true and needs more attention.
People just dont want to stop eating meat, we've done it for thousands of years and hopefully we will continue eating meat.
I don't think the moral argument is good enough to stop eating meat. Almost all the other arguments are better (health reasons, impact on environment and resource management).
That's why I agree with Destiny. There's really no reason to value another animal's life.
There's no way he was being genuine 100 percent here. I think he knows the ethical side of veganism is morally superior
William Wheeles Why are vegans / vegetarians so emotional
@@emperortrump2551 soy
This soy meme needs to die
Nothing immoral about doing something natural. You can’t simultaneously say we shouldn’t kill animals because they’re so similar to us and we should empathize, while also saying we’re held to a higher standard morally. Vegans won’t acknowledge the clear difference between people and animals.
You took my first sentence and attempted to straw man me. Read the rest of the comment genius.
im vegan now
Then fuck you!
@@MichaelM28 Veganism is the way.
@@MichaelM28 *TRIGGERED*
I'm vegan tomorrow.
This actually did make me lean towards veganism more. Did I mishear? Did destiny say the only reason he wouldn’t be alright with his neighbor torturing dogs is because of the possibility of that neighbor hurting him? That’s.... insane...
I lost alot of respect for destiny here. He was clearly being disingenuous about his feelings towards animals, and would rather hide behind 'cold logic' than accept that he is a hypocrite.
@stalkad actually he wasnt being disingenuous at all. Destiny follows logical consistencies, not personal or societal ideals for debates. Like that or dont, but he seems logically consistent on that. I would think vegans would want that.
@@sudafedup Ah yes, there is nothing disingenuous or inconsistent about advocating for the genocide of indigenous peoples...
@@1ohtaf1 he isnt advocating it. His moral system is about what is best for the most amount of people. I dont agree with him completely, but he isnt saying "genocide these people."
@unknowning unknown per his argument? Of course.
@unknowning unknown moral objectivity doesn't exist though. I could claim killing a 12 year old is more or less just as immoral or moral as killing an elderly person.
vegan gains did a really good job not attacking destiny on the dumbshit he was spewing and instead was attacking the arguments he was making
To be fair destiny is probably the smartest person he has ever debated, im sure he he was very intrigued by this debate. Destiny really gave it a good go, so good that he had to become a sociopath in order to stay consistent.
I'm not entirely sure how intelligent VG is. I mean this is the guy who tried to force feed his dog a vegan diet.
@@MrFIRESEAL117 Dont remember the details but i distinctly remember it was not that simple :P
@@toddharig8142 but thats not a productive argument, literally no point to that stance if no one is willing to back it (including the person presenting it)
@@theanonymoustalkIm not saying he had a good point, im saying he's pretty much the only one who has been consistent in VG debates. It was a semi ironic comment on my part.
Think Destiny's logical consistency really shines through when VG says what if your neighbour was buying dogs just to torture them. To which Destiny says he would be more concerned with the mental stability of the neighbour more than anything else. It shows that being logically consistent on this point still means you can still object to the condiments being added to his burger.
The video should be called "How a sociopath evaluates life"
I agree vegan gains really had some weird points
@@holeefuk6719 They were talking about Destiny.
@@fishfrogdolphin2799 no shit
I don’t think Destiny is a sociopath at all. His philosophy identifies a fundamental way in which humans differ from animals (reciprocation of the social contract). And then proceeds from there. It makes perfect sense. All arguments based on emotions (like empathy) are slippery, will never lead to a consistent moral philosophy.
so whats the use of empathy?
Not all humans can reciprocate the social contract, such as the severally mental disabled, yet we don't deny those people moral consideration, so that isn't a consistent position.
@@jamesmate7716 People who violate the social contract are subjective to severe sanctions, like imprisonment or war. So the argument is consistent.
@@loke5551 Empathy likely evolved in mammals to motivate them to care for their offspring. So it’s important, but not necessarily ideal as a foundation for a moral philosophy.
@@Principles_of_Psychology Then what is?
Destiny come on. There's documented altruism in animals, even if there wasn't, they're pretty helpless compared to humans, i don't see why we have to get to these tangents, cause animal suffering from hedonistic reasons or not, we can choose not to so why not?
Aliisa Kalma yes for their offspring which benefits them in the long run they win life and get to pass on their genetics which is what their instincts tell them to do.
there are far more cases of animals killing other animals offspring to ensure their generics are the ones that are passed on.
yes they are helpless does that matter? no. and the reason is because it don't want to not do it. i like the taste of animals. i like the thrill of spearing a boar. give me a good reason not to. instead of emotional appeal.
Feels like a strong devil's advocate argument. He almost creates a straw man or parody character with his arguments, except the constructed person is logically consistent. This being the only way he can find to defend meat-eating, ie being a sociopath, suggests that meat eating is undefendable.
I'm not sure I completely agree, but I'm biased because I like eating bacon, yet I don't want to think of myself as logically inconsistent or as a bad person.
Rene Hohenhiem Nope. Animals can be altruistic to "strangers" that they never met before, even if being altruistic means not being rewarded (lab tests with rats, look it up) They actually sacrifice themselves to help a stranger in distress.
You say animal suffering and pain like it doesn't happen to plants on some level, there's studies showing plants have evolved between 15 and 20 distinct senses, for example they can distinguish different sounds and release toxins when they're in fear of being eaten. They have sight like destiny briefly mentioned as they will find there way to light to benefit themselves and grow better. They literally have all the main 5 senses(sight, smell, touch, taste, sound) which people don't kill animals for, these plants are even more helpless than animals, so going on your logic you shouldn't eat them either.
Vegan Gains even said he would kill termites if he had something to gain from it which would be getting them out of his house. Destiny is saying it is okay to kill animals if there is something to gain from it.
@@1988ryan1 plants dont suffer or have pain they simply notice it happening but they have no brain to come up with the feeling of pain just that they can tell something is happening
I don't get the point Destiny makes where being logical means that he should disregard emotion.
He disregarded the fact that these "emotions" are chemical reactions in face of bloodshed/suffering/confinement that are inherent to the human DNA. Since hurting animals hurt the executioner psychologically, it should be argued than the meat industry fosters more unstable citizens (their workers.)
A simple peer-reviewed paper on this matter would entirely dissolve his argument.
Diglettoss Toss moreso that emotions tend to lead you to make weighted and irrational decisions. For example, Gains said that if you could wave a magic wand to eliminate animal suffering, how would that work? Like a cheetah and an antelope all of a sudden start having a tea party because the cheetah wouldn't cause suffering to the antelope by eating it anymore? Or does the cheetah end up suffering because it's entire food supply doesn't exist anymore? If you apply such a broad statement, you have to define caveats to make the scenario not automatically contradictory to the point where the question is irrelevant.
BTW, I really was Destiny would have brought that up more. He let gains run the debate, which is his prerogative, but he never, outside of the last five minutes, questioned Gains on his possible moral inconsistencies.
The only way Destiny could hold a logically consistent position regarding eating animals was to be a complete sociopath in his position. If you care about animals and eat animals, you're a hypocrite so long as you're financially secure enough to read this comment.
Diglettoss Toss Because there's no logical argument for NOT disregarding emotions. It's just one of many biological mechanisms, it only has value if you believe it has value (which is fine if you build your moral system around it)
Diglettoss Toss Because facts don’t care about your animals feelings
I just wanna say it's nice to see two intelligent people represent their opinions in a calm, informative manner as opposed to screaming and jumping down each others throats. Much easier to digest all of the information.
I'm going to become a vegan thanks to this video
Hows it going for you? Thie video drove me there as well around 6 months ago and I'm really fucking glad I did
James Moody I only need to get rid of eggs and I will be vegan
Groven I only need to get rid of eggs an I will be vegan
Riptydez I only need to get rid of eggs an I will be vegan
Hello World good luck
Vegan gains: "You'd have to agree fundamentally that suffering and death is a bad thing for the most part."
Destiny: "FOR HUMANS!"
Yeah, death and suffering are great fun for animals.
He said for humans it would, but he did not specifically say that animal would enjoy them. He did not make an statement because he can not speak for all animals. If you believe animals are sentient then why don't you ask these smart fucks instead of eating plants that are also capable of living
Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenywevwe Ugwemubwem Ossas are you suggesting that if animals were able to talk that there's a possibility that they might say death and suffering is good? Wew lad
@@jejune3783 😘
@@onlineuser1990 That's not what he said either. His position is that he's unconcerned with whether or not animals like it, not that he doesn't know whether or not they like it.
Wait until you find out that plants feel pain too, but rather than a physical response ("ouch!") they use a chemical response. Any animal as smart as a plant can be eaten according to vegan logic.
Surprised at Destiny here. He's cemented in his Nirvana Fallacy - the false oppositioning of a perfect solution or no solution at all. Despite Destiny's stubbornness, yes, you can make incremental progress towards an ideal while trudging through the human experience's pool of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't an indictment against what's most actual - it's human. That's just like leftist purity test nonsense. You can think torturing bunnies is wrong and eat cows, because meat eaters find the social conditioning of eating meat hard to defeat in the face the ideal of not eating meat since it's food, and food helps us live. Eating meat is how many people have been programmed to live, so it's a reasonable thing to struggle with. Furthermore, a future of non-meat eating is entirely plausible given everything we know about scientific advancements and modern shifts in our culture. So the "All or Nothing" defense is completely nonsensical from any rational standpoint. Despite Destiny's insistence, I don't think he was being genuine.
There are very strong indications he is not being genuine throughout this debate. At many points during the debate he uses phrases like "I would have to believe blank" which is distinct from "I believe blank". He is debating in the fashion one would in a debate class, and distancing himself from his own arguments which don't appear to be genuinely held. This is the only debate of his where he uses that sort of language. This is a pretty clear instance of building an argument around not making a difficult change instead of building an argument in good faith.
@@gamesetcrash5312 How would you differentiate between doing what Destiny does as a result of bad faith and doing this because you're learning as you're debating or came across new perspectives you haven't considered?
He never said people are perfect or denied progression.
But if someone thinks it's fine to eat meat but it's wrong to torture animals they aren't being logically coherent.
It's fine if they admit they are illogical but lack the will or something else to drop meat.
I still support destiny's view though.
@unknowning unknown Try coming with evidence rather than making claims and calling names.
The chat was turning against Destiny as the debate went on.
This is the first Destiny debate in which I really cannot believe he is arguing in good faith. I feel like he’s trying so hard to be logically consistent that he answers these hypotheticals dishonestly
I disagree i feel its more so to be consistent with his belief hes saying if whats being asked is a side effect of his belief by nature of logic, then yeah, that must also be true for me to hold this belief. If he hasnt thought of these questions before and hadnt been asked them specifically, given they are on each others time, and because of how debates work, theyre responding with what they know at the time because to truly think on every facet, asked and unasked would take too much time, so he is going to say what he thinks is true at the time because he was asked then so hes gonna answer then. As opposed to concede he doesnt know, but then gains can say if you dont know then doesn't that indicate you dont actually believe what you believe. And i think he said that because of what you said. It seems dishonest when it feels like youre being shown something for the first time and you throw your shoulders up and say yeah i guess it would mean that, so yes. As opposed to yes, because of this, this is why. Its more of an afterthought that hes realizing is here, and at the moment, like with not respecting animals in the same way, he cant find or hasnt found any logical reasoning as to why he should do something, and vegan gains is there to convince why he shouldnt even THOUGH he may feel that way, from this perspective, blah blah blah, and so i wouldnt call it dishonest, i would call it not wholly confident that he can justify holding that belief upon further thought, or hes holding the belief until he has a reason not to
@@JerrySpringerl That's because there are no counterpoints to be made. Destiny claims to be callous and indifferent toward the suffering of all animals. It's that simple. To call him a sociopath would be true in a colloquial sense (not as someone that enjoys inflicting suffering, but that just doesn't care).
Don't get me wrong, it's fun to take things to the logical extreme in the name of consistency, but deep down I think we all know Destiny is lying about how he feels. There's literally a video of him playing with a cat.
@abstract5249 yeah bro but how is that any different that playing with videogame to him
@@JerrySpringerl You can't have counterpoints against a total lack of empathy for a living beings suffering, which is usually a universally existent trait among humans.
Revisiting this debate, I hated on Destiny at first but I realized he's not a bad guy. Destiny is actually 100% shitting on the average meat eaters logic. He called 99% of them hypocrites. I don't think he truly lacks empathy. All in all he proved that veganism does have the moral high ground.
If that's what he was trying to say, he's wrong. Theres also a very good utilitarian argument for eating some animals.
"The moral high ground" XD. No moral system can have the high ground because each person has their own.
@Thomas Rickarby You are kinda right and kinda wrong. We can make moral prescriptions about human behaviour as a whole, but it stays that, a prescription, not a description. It is nothing that can be observed other than in ourselves. You can only have any kind of "moral high ground" in respect to "what most people think" (which is also kinda vague) and in this case would definitely be meat eating, because most people think it is moral to eat meat.
@Thomas Rickarby Don´t worry, there is not much to debate.
This way the debate went around 1:08:39, is exactly what I have been saying on VG's channel for a long time. VG is used to people not having an objective standard for why they believe what they believe and being consistent on top of it. It's a huge part of the reason he is usually able to decimate the people he debates with because the minute you don't stay consistent or have a foundation for your argument, anything goes. You can tell throughout the conversation he is constantly fishing for things to catch Destiny off guard, but again, it's pretty hard to do when the person is very open and clear on where they stand, especially when it's a foundation routed in something that the person(in this case Vegan Gains) is unable to say is morally wrong or right. Yes the things Destiny said make him look crazy, but as far as the debate is concerned, he was consistent and pretty much takes the core of the argument. The problem with VG's stance once again is that he is implying his way of life is more 'morally correct', but then makes an argument that gives leeway for anyone to step in and say 'who decides what is morally correct or moral?' In any developed part of the world 'killing of animals' has been basically been deemed a non moral issue, which then means it's humans or groups that ultimately decide what is 'morally acceptable' or not based on the law of the land. Now if Vegan wants to say he doesn't conform to that belief that is fine, but he is going to have a very hard time convincing the majority eating animals is a moral issue unless people change their moral standard to something else.
He may have a hard time but that doesn't make it right
Every single point destiny makes is 100% valid and sound. This is a level of logic and depth I’ve rarely ever seen. There’s a lot to learn from that approach.
Destiny was also being extremely good faith by acknowledging the hypocrisy of normal meat-eaters, or by giving vegan arguments like “If there was a button to switch the American diet to an all-vegan diet, he’d press the button.” or that if lab grown meat tasted better or was cheaper, he’d start switching out.
It is a shame the comments are this biased to something so logically sound.
This has to be the calmest debate I've ever seen destiny do
destiny, i loved your discussion with vegan gains. i love watching both of you. please be open to debate him again on another different topic!
ly steg black
+NotInTheAMbro what do you mean?^^
This is an awesome debate. I think that when the emotional arguments came up, Destiny would've personally emotionally conceded - but because he's taken the absolute stance - the most rational and consistent stance - he's bound to and is capable of countering the argument.
I really love this debate; it's one of the debates that really showcases the foundations of both stances and how they're both honestly valid. It all depends on how you personally constrain the idea of social constructs and your own personal values (morality). I've never seen someone seriously try to uphold the hardcore 'sociopath than hypocrite' route in any of these kinds of debates. It really is rare and Destiny identifies that too - he knows most meat eaters are just asshole hypocrites.
Bra-vo. To both. The only thing I particularly didn't like was that VG tried to use the Nazi argument without respecting context and trying to argue from some sort of absolutist pre-existing almost religously-sourced moral background. I don't think anyone won because they gave arguments for and against from different foundational perspectives; the viewers won for an honest to goodness intellectual debate - with no fucking "ZOMG GET RED-PILL Y U SO STOOPID BROSKI".
*Also Destiny being a sociopath isn't honestly that surprising. After dealing with all the idiots he's had to 'debate'? Hell, I'd have no empathy for any life besides how I can use them as tools either. And sociopaths get damn far in life - IIRC, lots of people in the higher ups of businesses (middle to top management) are typically sociopaths or psychopaths. To get to the top, you often can't give two flying fucks about anybody that stands in your way.
*Destiny* “I don’t place some groups of humans over other groups of humans”
_A few moments later_
*Destiny* “I’d genocide an entire tribe of indigenous people.”
*Very intelligent TH-cam commentators* "I really love Destiny's rational and consistent stance."
You can't make this shit up hahahahaha.
@@1ohtaf1 he doesnt place groups of humans that are capable of making social contracts with others above other groups of humans with the same trait.
His example specified that this tribe cannot form social contracts anymore.
@@1ohtaf1 After the debate, Destiny clarified that the tribe of people used in that analogy aren’t people
Sociopaths getting further in life doesnt mean its good. You are a fcking idiot both stances are definetely not equally valid.
Destiny tried to double down but it wasn't genuinely what he believed and it showed.
The point wasn’t that he believed the argument. You guys are so thick skulled
@@princesr He mentioned multiple times throughout the video that this was his genuine position. Not sure what you're talking about.
r a He said he believed it so that he wouldn’t be a hypocrite.
Criss Kitchn If you actually watched the entire video you’d get to the point where he says these are his genuine beliefs. 2:09:23 is the time stamp
It does though? The original comment this is in reply to is saying he didn't.
Don't be dense.
Thanks to this debate I have massacred so many Vegans in debates. I simply state
1) I’m a sociopath
2) The only species I have any empathy for is Humans
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
I don't think a true sociopath would have any empathy for humans. They would likely view humans and other animals in the same lens, i.e. meaningless to them unless they can take advantage of them in some way
@@Zeppelin616well, destiny bases his respect for a social contract on his own self-preservation and benefit, not from empathy for other human beings. I’m not claiming he’s definitely a sociopath, but at least his ethics isn’t based on empathy for humans.
I really like this debate. Both parties respect each other and use logic. No screaming or corsing. Nice
Both parties except for Destiny use logic you meant to say.
@@janhradecky3141 He bases his argument from a standpoint of not caring for animals and preferring eating meat to caring for animals. His internal logic is sound because he argues animals are not worth having empathy for. I don't see your point
This was good, but I also enjoy a sperg session too
Destiny was using logic and Vegan was basing his arguments off of emotion.
@@hotsloleu Prove it
17 minutes in and we're talking flaying animals alive
This is what happens when you attempt to base morality on reason alone.
Allahpilled vegan
Lol Destiny is such an edgelord it's hilarious
I love destiny most of the time and usually agree with him but... yikes. This debate is... not it, chief.
@@cozycr8485 vegan gains is literally doing feels over reals he can't justify his beliefs it's just faith and special pleading that doesn't mean veganism is wrong I just don't think he did a good job
@@oxitocin7718 Empathy is something inherently embedded into our genetic code as humans, so yeah. Making the feels over reals in this conversation may be understandable
@@cozycr8485 welp people have different levels of empathy and diffrent genes.
ultimately vegan gains just axiomaticly belives in minimising suffering for all life
and destiny has different axioms I don't think I wanna know what they are XD and I think he has an extreme stand on burden of proof and he's a extremly disagreeable person (hey that's genetic too)
@@oxitocin7718 I'd rather live in a society of occasionally hypocritical illogical empaths than the fucking borg.
Destiny said that a person who skins their dogs or cat alive should be locked up, but only because the kind of person who derives joy from harming animals would probably also harm humans. He believes the act itself is okay, but not the person doing it. Well, why would that person do it if they didn't derive pleasure from it? How would you prove that they derive pleasure from it to warrant arrest? So he wants to outlaw something that he finds morally neutral yet people find enjoyment from it? How is that different from weed or masturbation? The mental gymnastics that carnists have to jump through.
consuming meat is a net moral good.
VeganViet Ⓥ
I think destiny was arguing that this person should be institutionalized, not imprisoned. If they are clinically insane, then they probably don't get the same right to liberty as other people. Generally speaking moral agency and rights tend to be proportional to one another. Insane people don't have sufficient moral agency to be considered complete persons capable of adhering to the social contract and thus it is not immoral to institutionalize them.
Yeah no, intent is important in almost any situation and often not incredibly hard to prove. We are ALREADY going by that. You aren't allowed to just kill animals, yet vets and animal shelters can do it under various circumstances, farm animals for consumption are no problem under the law.
You aren't allowed to kill humans, except under various circumstances, you know.
Someone who regularly takes in animals simply to skin them for no apparent reason probably has something wrong with them and should get a psychological evaluation.
If there was a link between doing weed and doing serious crime, the same would go for that.
I disagree with Destiny on several points, but he is logically consistent and i see no mental gymnastics.
Because enjoying those things don't correlate with a threat to other humans, which would include him. Whereas the enjoying the suffering of others and killing things could very well apply to you. There is nothing about those things that exclusively target animals, thus not making it a concern for a human.
Not gonna lie, if this is what Destiny actually believes, he's an actual sociopath. You should be able to beat your pet, skin animals alive, basically do whatever you want to them as long as you get some enjoyment out of it? For the record, I don't think he actually believes this, but I think he chose to argue it because it's the most simplistic and consistent avocation for eating meat. But it is very obviously morally reprehensible. I don't think anyone would argue animal rights laws that prevent dog fighting or serving dogs as food are stupid or unnecessary. He's literally just doing it to oversimplify the argument and entirely avoid any emotional arguments.
And dogs can 100% form primitive social contracts. Not only do dogs and their owners mutually agree to share the same space and not kill one another, but you can even teach dogs to afford rights to strangers. When you take your dog for a walk, at first it may be aggressive or cynical of other people, but over time you train your dog to form social contracts with even people it doesn't know. Otherwise your dog would be foaming at the mouth trying to kill every other person for lack of any social contract.
This is the first Debate that truly made me think destiny might be a little bit of a psychopath. Lots of things in the world are morally gray areas, many animals around the world are much more than pets to humans, we've seen it in many cultures and
tribes and it's strange to me but maybe I am living in the feels about the issue.
majinrahl do you actually think destiny holds these views? He's just trying to be consistent for the sake of argument.
he's just trying to be consistent to the argument, he even said openly that he cannot go half way because that makes the meat argument flawed, you can't say animals hold any values or that you care about them at all because then you openly acknowledge that animals can think or deserve some amount of rights which then allows the vegan argument to then say they can't be genocided, you can't go half way with the meat eater argument because morally eating meat (or killing animals) is considered bad in many scenarios you can't have a moral argument on how eating meat is morally neutral and then keep losing ground by saying "it's okay for cats and dogs and birds to have rights but even though pigs are smarter they deserve to die because they provide a net benefit in meat"
he aint a psychopath, he just has a very cold and logic perspective on things and simply has not thought about this enough yet. at minute 49:00 he pretty much killed his own argument. You cant draw a hard line in the sand when you are being strictly logical. What he is saying is all or nothing right, but if he was truly logical and for all, then that would include humans as well no matter what. or else you are just not logical period. And that is why you either simply dont care, ary a psychopath or a hypocrite if you consume any animal producs meaning being vegan period.
@@josephagnetti8921 You don't even need to go to that extreme. Moral grey exists. Also, it is ok to value the life of humans over animals and some animals over other animals. You'd have to be a moron to value the life of a flatworm the same way you would a crow, or a chimp, or a dolphin.
Looking back on this debate I think it could be argued that if a disabled person can’t agree to a social contract but at the same time won’t ever violate your social contract that is a justifiable reason to maintain a contract.. So if the animal is not capable or very unlikely to ever violate your social contract then you could agree to respect its existence.
Such a classic and iconic video, wish they’d do another
I have fantastic news
th-cam.com/video/9yK-lO98scI/w-d-xo.html
@@Dooms-Daisy Yeah I saw it when it first released didn’t disappoint 👍🏻
So basically, if you want to justify eating meat and be logically consistent; you have to say it's morally acceptable to rape and murder indigenous peoples who have no understanding of social contracts.
Yes.
who can never have understanding of* but yeah i think destiny would agree
No one matters except yourself. Welcome to life
This example isn't even a good example. According to Destiny, that's only true if for some reason they don't have the capacity to form a social contract. Which, if they live as a society (like, as a tribe), they do logically speaking. And beyond that, all humans have evolved the faculties to uphold a social contract, so a tribe of humans who haven't would need to be an entirely different species.
@@cthulhu8976 Ok but what are the chances that a tribe that already has a social contract will throw that one away and follow yours? Both you and that tribe want the other to change contracts and what would that lead to? Cows, pigs, etc can potentially become infinitely more intelligent that what they are right now but that chances of that are incredibly low just like its incredibly low for some random tribe to start following out social contract.
Lol destiny won but he also probably gave the best arguement for why one should be vegan.
Basically he's saying if your not vegan you're:
A) Ignorant
B) Don't care about animals
And he admits that he's B
Damn Destiny out here making me consider becoming vegan lol
Except he also said:
a) He owns a cat and has owned dogs, and loves them
b) He slows down for squirrels and rabbits
c) He likes shooting but would never shoot an animal
Destiny wasn't being genuine here.
He was completely logical in this debate but he also admitted to acting illogically in regards to treating animals with respect, which is possibly only human.
ArtKrishnamurti yep that totally proves it 👍🏽🤣 you fucking idiot
I’m a pretty big destiny fan but this is the the debate that convinced me to go vegan
No joking when I watched this debate a few years ago as a Destiny debate, at the end it made me really interested in veganism, and the way vegan gains defended his arguments with a steel calm demeanour showed how valid it really is.
Yesss! I'm happy to read these both comments.
Props to the fella that went through the entire video to put captions. The real mvp
I have never heard the phrase "social contract" more than in the last 2 hours. Holy shit.
"...Yeah sure it's ok, I would find it morally I guess acceptable to genocide that group of people"
Destiny 2K17
I mean if you kill insects that enter and live in your house that means you care more about your convenience than the lives of others. Than it's the same thing with people that eat meat they eat meat out of convenience at the cost of their lives.
Vegan gains made destiny look ridiculous here lmfao
Not really
Destiny makes himself look ridiculous here.
Lava Tasche I mean technically on a logical level he’s right but his argument is just rhetorically awful and makes him sound like a complete sociopath
I'm currently only 20 minutes into the video, but i wanted to note something destiny said. Destiny says he would need some sort of reason why animals have the right to exist. I'd like to provide one. We exist in an ecosystem. We as human beings can not exist purely on our own on this planet. Every animal plays a role in how populations exist and coexist. Take for example bees, without bees a large portion of our crops, and plants in general do not get pollinated. That has a direct effect on our ability to maintain our own population. Or how woodland creatures dung and even carcasses can nourish soil and provide nourishment to decomposing species. There are many different ways in which animals, baceteria, even fungi play their roles to ensure this planet is habitable by us. Now yes, someone could argue that we could come up with the technology to pollinate our own crops more efficiently, or use chemical fertilizers. But as im aware currently, chemical fertilizers have serious issues and aren't ready to be used en masse, and pollination in non controlled areas is still a monumental task. We as a sentient species on this planet should be doing everything we can to preserve every species of life on this planet as best we can. Sorry for the wall of text, as i said i haven't finished the vid, so perhaps my concern is covered in the latter parts of the video. Thanks for reading ^^
Ok but why then should we allow bees to sting innocent animals to death when we can do something about it?
« Animals right don’t matter because they can’t reciprocate, Are you actually a sociopath or something ? Yes actually I am but I don’t think it’s relevant to the current discussion. » XD
Empathy is not a good base for moral arguments because it's entirely arbitrary. Racists didn't feel empathy when they hung black people so were they morally justified doing so? People are painting destiny as a psychopath but people do some fucked up shit based on how they feel about something. Like yeah I'm disgusted by the idea of having to skin an animal but that's not an argument why it's wrong anymore than someone being disgusted by gay people is an argument why they shouldn't exist and have rights. Reals over feels all fucking day.
Destiny's argument is about empathy for humans.
Oversimplified:
Vegan gains: So you would be okay with killing whole tribes and torturing sentient animals to justify your burger
Destiny: Yes. aslong as they can't make a social contract.
lol
All or nothing. Nothing. Abusing your dogs and cats are okay. - Destiny. Defend that carnists.
VeganViet Ⓥ
Destiny's position is not that it's "okay" it's that it's morally neutral. Or to be more accurate, morally incalculable. Under his moral framework morality just doesn't apply. It doesn't mean that you should or shouldn't do it. There are potentially other factors to take into consideration when engaging in any action subject to some form of evaluation.
The one question that was not asked in this debate was that if there was a house on fire and a person in one room and your favorite animal or your pet in another and you could only save one, which one would you choose? Under the framework vegan gains is proposing it is not clear that one choice would be considered to be preferable to the other yet it's pretty clear yet it's arguably pretty clear that universally saving the person is preferable to saving the non-human. It might even be suggested that if someone who is vegan chooses to save the animal over the person then they may have implicitly accepted the moral imperative to kill as many meat eaters and animal abusers as possible as that would ultimately serve the objective end goal of decreasing as much suffering as possible given less animals get eaten by these people.
Post modernist word salad.
unUSEFUL idiot4 Hmmm no, like Vegan Gains clearly said that he values sentience, and values a Human life more cause It has a more sentience than an animal. That doesn't mean the animal life is worthless tho, just that the human life is more valuable.
Destiny on the other hand is not morally neutral but rather intellectually dishonest. He values social contract over everything and when confronted with animals can do social contracts (so far as they can live peacefully with humans) he dismisses them cause they do It for food? (he doesn't know that, nor It is really true for all animals). Also It doesn't matter why they get into the social contract cause destiny just said that you could enter a social contract for selfish reasons and that doesn't matter in the end
Just a shit argument m8.
"animals" aren't just dog and cats btw i hate when people say animals and then just mention dogs only you get my point.
fuck household pets i would be more worried about wildlife and nature
the unUSEFULidiot if something is morally neutral, it is saying that it is permissible.
Destiny's argument for eating meat is psychotic. I never thought I would be siding with Vegan Gains lol.
Wow only 6 minutes into a 2 hour video and destiny's argument has already fallen apart so bad that he has defended genocide in order to remain logically consistent
"Destiny desperately trying to hold in the fact that hes wrong for 2 hours."
Samiam even though he won. Ok buddy
@@SIRAJPRODUCTIONS He got fucking demolished
@@JasonWilliams89 How? What argument did Vegan Gains have that Desinty could not answer. Can you give me an example? All I saw was Vegan Gains using emotion to fight an arugment.
@@sudafedup His whole argument was literally "morality does not exist."
@@sudafedup Alright, enjoy your sociopathic life. Must be nice.
A calm, thorough, provocative, and fascinating discussion with a hyper-novel approach. Everyone wins and we're all enriched by the discussion. Thanks!
I'm about halfway through the debate, and I don't know if this gets addressed later on. But I keep coming to a question for Destiny that is: If social contract is the only thing that matters, and animals cannot form a social contract, then what about humans such as the severe mentally disabled or even coma patients? They aren't able to form a social contract, so would he treat them as a farm animal is treated? And if not, then why is that? They don't have the potential to form a social contract. He might argue that he wouldn't cause harm to them if it wasn't necessary for him, but that's the same with eating animals, it isn't necessary. The only way it could be necessary is for enjoyment (taste). But would he really argue that it's okay to harm mentally disabled people for enjoyment or to eat them for the enjoyment of taste? The only way he could defend eating animals in this case is if he said that it is okay to harm or even eat mentally disabled people or coma patients. I don't think anyone would take that position.... it'd be easier and even more moral to be a hypocrite than to throw out all basic "emotional" morals and values.
Makenzie Harvey
He stated in the video that he didn't care about people that can't reciprocate the social contract, they're held to the same standard as animals. He obviously wouldn't treat them like a farm animal is treated, not because it's "not necessary" like you said, but simply because it's not in his interest because of other reasons (it could make him feel bad emotionally, it'd be negative socially if found out, it's pointless...etc).
Eating meat however, is easily in his self-interest. He could think it tastes good, it's the path of less resistance (being vegan is a conscious effort). It was never about being "necessary", it was just about acting in his own self-interest. Yes, he would argue that it's not morally wrong to harm mentally disabled people for enjoyment or to eat them. That doesn't mean it'd be "okay" to do in real life, because enjoying or committing such an act would suggest someone has mental problems and are more likely prone to breaching the social contract.
"it'd be easier and even more moral to be a hypocrite than to throw out all basic "emotional" morals and values."
If you think ruining your moral system with inconsistencies is easier than just switching to a different one or leaving it intact, all power to you. As to it being more moral, obviously not. If you're a hypocrite and have moral inconsistencies, you're by definiton a less moral person than someone with complete moral consistency (based on the value you start out with). Being more or less "moral" has absolutely nothing to do with what morals you choose, only how good you are at defining right or wrong. If you have moral inconsistencies, you're clearly worse at defining right or wrong than someone without any inconsistencies in their moral system.
he already addressed that. He said it's okay to kill any mentally disable person that is unable to form a social contract. I agree with him.
@@user-tn5be2uh6t Can you explain to me why you choose to live by this principle? Destiny made these social contracts up to live a selfish life while being save from other people. I don't understand how that works though since the people that think like him are presumably a minority. Humans don't function logically nor does life itself. That is my thesis at least. A contract that most people wouldn't agree on is useless and the one he is talking about does certainly not exist.
@DEDSEC R13 okay :)
On that note you could also use "Vegan Gains" arguments to justify killing coma patients since they can't think or feel pain - just like plants. It's literally called a _vegetative_ state.
Welp. Destiny is a legit sociopath.
@@toddharig8142 right. He is a psychopath because he is incapable of empathy. Get the term right
@@joelpeterson4263 wooosh
@@toddharig8142 From now on instead of murder or kill someone ill say rape to death. to make people look bad.
@JoelPeterson So now if you feel empathy for something, it means hurting that thing is wrong, and if you don’t feel empathy, then doing that thing is right? You’re heading down a dangerous road, guy. We should be able to objectively determine which life is valuable and which isn’t apart from what we ‘feel’ whilst hurting it.
@@toddharig8142 Tell us more about the logical and moral consistency of committing genocide.
I know this video is old but I was just feeling like leaving a comment:
Animals have a simple social contract: don't fuck with them and they will leave you alone unless they are hungry in this case they can eat you (and here we're only talking for large carnivores). So you could just reciprocate that. But when do you eat an animal because you're hungry? Most of the time you eat it because it's convenient (by that I mean you could easily eat something else), I don't think convenience should be placed above suffering.
If you want to go about this on the egotistic side - I like to live in an excellent healthy environment - eating animals fucks up the environment.
About babies, you say "that can grow up to learn to reciprocate social contracts" but when is a possible future argument for morality right now? By that logic you should be against all abortion (but you're not ^^) the potential of something is not the thing.
Note: I'm probably biased because I grew up with a lot of pets spending most of my time in nature.
Cant believe i watched the whole thing with my attention span.
This was some real dank debate ggwp.
Remembering VG in his prime where he was absolutely unhinged, this is by far the calmest I’ve seen him in a debate, even after hearing how crazy (although understandable) destinys stance was. Props to these two 👏
Evidence that the only way you can logically justify being a meat eater is to be a sociopath or by pretending to be one
I feel like Destiny’s chat is the living embodiment of “so what you’re saying is,”
Lmao their just meming they always do this.
if the tribespeople were living together in a society, clearly they were capable of recognizing some kind of social contract
Very good argument!
Animals often have social contracts with each other too
The thing is, that the problem with the aliens also goes with the plant argument: "Plans are ok to eat, because they are not sentient." (We can not define what sentience is, or rather, we make it up).
"Yeah, but you humans don't have Xylandraka, so its okay."
Sentience has a definition and humans didn't invent sentience. We just created a word for a thing that exists. Saying humans "made up" sentience is like saying we made up taste. We just named it for the sake of communication.
Whether or not sentience is a good standard for when life deserves compassion is up for debate though. I happen think it is and I think any non-sociopath would have a hard time arguing otherwise.
I'm a hypocrite.
I eat meat and yet I love many animals.
Destiny's ruthless here. This is in his top 10 debates ever., interesting and civil.
1:58:05 destiny's answer to this is the creepiest take of the entire debate
yeah wtf
lol there is no real way to argue morality against a Vegan. How are you even trying to dispute this shit?
there has never been a proper demonstration of how veganism is morally superior.
wrong. look up sam harris + veganism on youtube
A lot of people seem to miss the point Destiny was trying to make imo. You can either A: Eat meat and not care for the suffering of all animals. Or B: Eat meat and care for some animals while being a hypocrite at which point its immoral for you to not be a vegan. The people resorting in ad hominem attacks are falling to see that. Its ridiculous to just call him a psychopath especially when you're using the term incorrectly...
Or you can not not eat meat, be a Vegan, drive around in a car consuming fossil fuels destroying the environment, buy and wear clothing made in sweatshops in third world countries, consume plants grown on fields that impede an animal's natural environment, and exterminate bugs in your house while contending you somehow contribute to no suffering in the world.
But hurr durr only a meat eater can be a hypocrite apparently.
Some times being a hypocrite is not the worst choice.
And the point others are making is that not caring for the suffering of any/all animals is something Destiny himself does not adhere to. Only genuine sociopaths hold no empathy like that, which Steven Bonnel II certainly isn't. He wasn't arguing in good faith and shifted his world view to refrain from being a hypocrite, despite clearly not believing in that world view.
I can eat meat and still care for some animals, e.g. a pet. I have a special connection to it and I care about it, similar to how I care about my car but don't care about anybody else's
Hypocrisy is a terrible measurement in defining ones moral status. I'm certain that 99.9% of neurotypical people have engaged in acts directly or indirectly not in line with their moral code. If you care about animals, you must survive in the wild on primitive technology or you're a hypocrite. If you care about the environment, you're a hypocrite if you don't stop breathing. If you view things on a spectrum and less black and white it's much more reasonable, but attempting to be logically consistent and giving a fuck about yourself or anybody else being a hypocrite is a futile endeavor. At that point you can't exist without being a hypocrite unless you adhere to some sociopathic code like Destiny is attempting to do to avoid being logically inconsistent. All he needs to say is that he values his own convenience and indulgences over the miniscule impact he would have on animal cruelty via becoming a vegan.
So Destiny isn't a Sociopath. Vegan Gains just didn't present a logical science based set of evidence for the preservation of non-human life. The primary point is the preservation and stabilization of Earth's ecosystems. Big Agra has massively contributed to Climate change. Additionally, a pet is able to enter into a social contract with a human, however it is unable to understand the greater complexities of inter-human social contracts. The protection of animal life also retains the psychological health of humanity: Hence why we white-wash big Agra. Deonotologically, the preservation of life speaks to the responsibility that the highest functioning species has to maintain and preserve the ecological balance between species.
That's some really nice points. I completely agree and I think the way you are arguing will also easily deal with the argument of an advanced alien civilization (or AI).
I would say another point destiny should have done is maybe that every action should be done when it is benefiting the society the most (especially killing other beings outside of a social contract). This way you could say I will take care of my cat because it is making me happy and doesn't have any downside for the society.
Ok, fair enough. So raping and torturing stray dogs should still be ok then?
lol holy crap I can't believe someone made a subtitle for the whole debate