Christian Apologist Points Out Huge Flaw In Destiny's Position ft. LonerBox
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ต.ค. 2024
- Last night on Destiny ft. LonerBox
LonerBox
► / @lonerbox
Destiny channel ► / destiny
Bestiny channel ► / bestiny
Twitter ► / theomniliberal
DGG ►www.destiny.gg...
#Destiny
#Politics
#Debate
Check out birthday boy
►www.youtube.com/@lonerbox
Saying that pregnancy does not significantly disadvantage or affects negatively the woman is... certainly a take.
And Destiny us completely list what a neoliberal is 😮
I was really impressed, Destiny. You're growing up to be a man we can be proud of. o7
Finally, sister destiny will join us
I'm going to dip if he starts going down the religious apologetics route...thinking unfalsifiable claims have any validity would show he has become an ideologue.
@@WolvesHart79 who cares
Sister fister that mister has a blister and giving his sister a titty twister.
@@grey46 Wanting to believe true things and how that plots onto ideas and actions...I know some people just want the drool to drip from the side of their mouth as they watch drama streams but anyone with a brain would care if the people they watch are attached to reality.
@@WolvesHart79 Bro, everyone believes in unfalsifiable claims. Just look at 'the multiverse hypothesis' or time travel. Be honest, you just hate religion.
Just a bit of info on the "all roads lead to road" thing: this is actually the exact reason why we use the "Falsifiability" standard in science. The scientific philosophy who came up with the idea ran into the same issue when it came to Marxists theory or Freudian theory. These types of theories make you think you've unlocked some kind of hidden truth that shows up everywhere you look. That's why for us to be able to accept a theory in science it must be possible to prove it false
It was "all roads lead to Rome fallacy".
So is their an official name for this?
@@powerbottom4971 I would have to go back and look at the paper the guy wrote. I actually think he's still alive which is cool considering most philosophers people talk about are dead
In logic or mathematics, it's called the principle of explosion. It usually comes from creating an argument with contradictions but in everyday language things get a little more complex and you're not necessarily looking for it all the time like you are in a logic or math proof, so instead in this context it works as a red flag if you find your argument starts proving anything you want from it.
@@monadic_monastic69 Yeah. The reason contradictions are to be avoided at all cost is the fact that in logic you only need one contradiction to be able to come to any conclusions you want.
The Sub seems like it could have been a hypothetical for a moral dilemma or something. You have an entirely innocent person, an entirely to blame CEO, and 3 people somewhere in the middle depending on what they knew before going in. And its a sub a mile under the ocean with no chance of escape which eliminates any argument for out smarting the situation. AND it was an implosion that happened so fast that it was an instant death with no pain.
The thing is that the dangers of the sub were well documented long before the implosion finally took place. The CEO was a maniac with no regard for safety or respect for the ocean. Multiple professionals that he worked with who actually gave a damn about any of that attempted to blow the whistle over the years and the CEO himself admitted in interviews to bypassing several regulations (in a bragging manner no less), and these billionaires had all the resources in the world to access to that information before choosing board the death can. The kid deserves nothing but compassion. The others? Darwin award gold-medalists.
@@iPac29 just wanted to respond that the darwin award requires you to not procreate, but I guess if you take your children with you in your stupid act that still qualifies...?
@@Ironypencil morbid lmao
@@iPac29a person who speaks with confidence and has no apparent issues so far can convince people that it is safe enough. It's easy to say in hindsight well of course it was a stupid unsafe thing, and I completely agree, but it has dived successfully at least 5 times before and the CEO was confident in what he was doing. I can easily imagine him talking down the safety concerns and waving away the waiver as just a standard legal disclaimer.
@@madmonkeys88
I actually went back and read the comments on some of ocean gates old videos about the sub.
The majority of people were saying they wanted to do it and were complaining that it wasnt fair only rich people could do it. Some said they wouldnt do it, but none of them said they wouldnt because the sub wasnt as safe as other subs..
LonerBox rare tier A orbiter, respect man
the only socialist destiny likes
Could shorten it to All Roads Fallacy as well to make it faster and catchier
I know from tvtropes 'Xanatos gambit', where even a 'defeat' is considered part of the plan.
Yeah that works. I might use that on my worthless time wasting twitter debates =).
@@runelt99 yeah, except in this he is the ultimate loser and has excuses for both sides. So.... pulling a "Retarded Xanatos"?
It's interesting Destiny speak about laws and what would happen with a kid. Here in Finland we have a something called "Heitteillepano/jättö" where you will be guilty of a crime if you do not help a person who is in need. For example if you would find a baby from a ditch and leave it there, you would be guilty of a crime if they were to need help and you would leave them to die or suffer
What are the levels to the “need” like do they need to be in immediate danger or who determines if that need is enough of a need. 😂 sorry just interesting to think about like do ppl charged with that crime then have to try to convince a court that a kid wasn’t actually in need? 😂 wild
@@TheJordanK I'm also Finnish, don't know the exact spesifics, but I would guess the burden of proof would be on the accuser not the defendant, to prove firstly that the person in need, was reasonably noticeably in need AND that the defendant who ignored said person, did so knowing said person was in need, but couldn't be bothered to help.
in Canada: "A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party who could face potential injury or death without being rescued."
"Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or whom they believe to be injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated.[1] The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. An example of such a law in common-law areas of Canada: a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment.[2] By contrast, a duty to rescue law requires people to offer assistance and holds those who fail to do so liable."
If you decide to help you good even if death of victim, if you don't you can be held liable..
@@TheJordanK and they wouldn't try to convince that the baby wasn't in need (obviously he was since he died) but that the person wasn't who left him there, didn't know he was in need or didn't even notice said baby. Just like everything else in justice, you have to prove intent
Like most things, the legal and moral question becomes profoundly subjective.
If a baby fell in 3 feet of water, of course you should help them. If a baby fell in water a mile from the shore, are you required to swim out that far?
Here's a question I don't have an answer to. Should a conjoined twin be able to demand a separation surgery if their other twin doesn't agree? What if it is definite or highly likely the other twin will die?
*"bOdIlY aUtOnOmY"*
Well the difference here is that one twin didn’t own their body first and actually sometimes doctors have separated twins based on who has a better Chance of survival. Sometimes 1 conjoined twin has no head and the other can certainly demand being detached from a headless/brainless “twin”. Would that be immoral?
@@haza123b4yes, it is bodily autonomy IF one twin existed first and had another attach themselves to it. Look up fetus in fetu teratomas. Those are removed all the time. Well the difference here is that one twin didn’t own their body first and actually sometimes doctors have separated twins based on who has a better Chance of survival. Sometimes 1 conjoined twin has no head and the other can certainly demand being detached from a headless/brainless “twin”. Would that be immoral? I don’t think so
Enjoyed this discussion.
In all these hypotheticals, probably the most important point that wasn't mentioned as much as it should have been was the "kid in the woods" etc is literally your child that you put in the woods. Frame the example as "you bring a kid into the woods, and then they are starving and says 'I need your food or I'll die,'" and it becomes very apparent who's responsibility it is if that kid dies by neglect. It's not like you're just stumbling across the kid. You made the choice to bring the kid with you.
In France, i feel most people would answer you have a duty to help the baby even if you didn't put him therein the first place.
You don’t put an embryo inside yourself except via Ivf. Someone ejaculated irresponsibly inside you and by chance it fertilized your egg, which then latched itself onto you. The baby wandered into the cabin after you. But a better analogy would be like if two people put the baby in the cabin but only one of them has to use their body to care for it…
@@Kamfrenchiea duty to help the baby doesn’t mean making yourself sick over them or letting them eat you alive
@@vvieites001
Sure, but they were discussing the abandonned baby n the woods hat would need to suck on the woman's breast. It didn't imply making someone sick or letting him eat someone alive
How? The entity didn’t exist at the time sex took place. If I stop a rape which could have led to a person being born did I commit murder? Your entire argument relies on the potentiality of something existing.
5:15 honestly to me it just sounds like ad hoc reasoning, just used in a “preventive” way. My understanding is that ad hoc reasoning is when you have an initial theory that gets proven false in some aspects, so you keep coming up with new additions that justify the failures of the theory without ever needing to acknowledge that the theory has been disproven, in a way making it un-disprovable. What Destiny is talking about sounds like using ad hoc reasoning to make a theory un-disprovable
Exactly.
I think the difference is that ad-hoc reasoning occurs in response to an objection, this is more like doing it ahead of time. Definitely seems related though. It reminds me of something like a tautology too.
I am going to find that paper where you talk about the de-facto guardianship. I've actually been making a sort of similar argument for a while now and it's really interesting somebody else has a very similar argument. I often frame it around a woman being on an or lost in the woods. In that context, she is in full control of the situation and society within the the moment does not have the ability to intervene. In situations where society has the ability to intervene and subsequently care for the child, her share of the guardianship alters. It's been something I've been working on for probably a few years now. This is an oversimplified explanation but it's always fascinating to find out that there are other people working within a similar framework. Don't know if this will end up being the strongest, but it's definitely an interesting one.
itsa called a unfalsifiable claim.
no matter what you do its not false. there already is a word.
statement cannot be meaningfully tested =/= two contradicting outcomes will both actively support a statement
@@vido2744 well i im not a native eng speaker and was just going by the top of my head. but yea urs is most likely the right one
@@vido2744 an unfalsifiable claim is simply a claim that cannot be proven false. A statement that cannot be meaningfully tested is an example of an unfalsifiable claim, another one is a statement that is too imprecise, like andrew tate's matrix. if you have an imprecise statement multiple contradicting outcomes will not falsify it.
No. That's wrong. An unfalsifiable claim is something like "the sky is blue." No one can prove that claim to be false. Whereas they are talking something along the lines of preconceived notions of the world and everything that occurs, has some sort of reasoning, no matter how ridiculous it is, that is tied to that preconceived notion of the world. Perhaps the conclusion they come up with is unfalsifiable, but this is not what they are talking about.
@@heyitsrichie27 ur wrong.what they r talking about is god doing the good when he saves and also not doing bad when he does the opposite.becouse "he does always good" so when a sick person gets healed "thanks to god" if a sick person dies " god hat greater plans with him" the unfalsifiable claim is " god is always moraly righteous with every act he does"
The problem with the 1$ example is that it completely ignores the complexities of real life. When someone is robbing you, it is completely unknown whether they have a weapon, or if they intend to harm you. I’m genuinely wondering how such a scenario can even happen in real life.
The 1$ example or hypothetical. Whole point of hypothetical is to isolate the variables you want to analyze.
@@greekgodx6560do you have any formal philosophy background or do you just read Wikipedia?
@@greekgodx6560 I know, but how would that even happen? I mean, how is someone going to rob you of your 1$ without physically threatening you in some way? Like if your 1$ bill was on a bench and someone stole it without threatening you, obviously you can’t shoot them in the back. But if the 1$ bill is on you, it’s not possible for someone to rob you without physically threatening you, unless they pickpocket you, but then you wouldn’t even notice. Hypotheticals still have to make sense lol.
@@neverbackdown1918 i think he said he leans closer to you kinda can just shoot them in the back if you give them notice that you will if they dont give it back, no?
@@neverbackdown1918 The dollar hypothetical is to get to: if the thief knows full well what the consequences of his actions are does the amount of theft even matter. It’s not about the threat of violence.
If you want to have it on a bench without you around, to keep the hypo as stated, you could make it like this: Dollar bill on a bench, with a note on top of it “you will be shot if you pick this up”
Destiny, you should read Philosopher David Boonin’s book, Beyond Roe: Why abortion should be legal even if the fetus is a person. He address the objections to it being your child that you brought up. If it’s your child, well the question is in what sense is it your child? If someone took your sperm from you without you knowing and used it to conceive a child that was biologically (but not socially) related to you and then years later you found yourself hooked up to them…does that change your obligation to them? The reason you might think you should remain hooked up to your own Child is because you’re thinking of child in the social/custodial sense where you agree to raise a child and have formed a loving relationship/bond with them. Genetics alone doesn’t make a parent/child relationship. And as for the cabin in the woods thing, you could argue the person who left you with the baby alone is responsible for whatever happened to them, not you, since you were essentially kidnapped too. But if you do have a moral obligation to said baby then you could argue you have a moral obligation to a stranger who needs your organ or blood to survive, which most people would reject.
Something i like to do is compare abortions to lying...its immoral without any reasoning, but there are so many caveats that change the morality (such as your own life on the line, etc.) That it becomes permissible. But just as we would NEVER legally restrict speech because of the implication, abortion cannot be made illegal for the same reasons...this only works in the bodily autonomy argument though. Viability arguments have to be separate of corse
Lying out of self preservation would be like abortion to avoid death during delivery?
@@LtDeadeyeThat's reasonable, and I'd say most pro-lifers agree with making that choice. The point of the whole debate is to not miss the forest for the trees and suddenly declare lying or aborting neutral or good by nature when you need extenuating circumstances to justify that.
@@LtDeadeye kinda, not 100% analogous but yeah. Its simply the best way ive been able to compare it to something more conservative people can understand, as any honest conservative would say there are SOME valid reasons to lie but NEVER a good reason for the government to prevent lying (except certain cases of fraud of course, hence not 100% analogous) bc free speech.
@@9OutOfBen agreed
That fallacy should be ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ fallacy
I like this. I'll let him know. Then I'll take credit...
@@rambo3rd471 please do!
I’m happy to just get ye good ideas out there, I’m not big on IP or ownership of concepts 😂
@@geoffduke1356 Haha! It's all jokes, but I'll def try to relay it to him. I like the name.
IDK about changing the violinist for his child makes a difference.
Let's say the person wakes up, sees his child, and still disconnects and his child dies.
Would be better if he choose to stay connected? sure, but is he morally wrong for not doing so? I would say no.
The violinist argument is bad because it makes the assumption that somebody else is hooking the violinist up to you. A true analogy would be that you hook the violinist up to yourself without the violinists concent and now the violinist will die if you don't maintain that connection for a period of time. In that case it's pretty easy to see the argument for being required to keep them attached until they can survive on their own.
the issue is that it's usually an argument in the case of rape. if i remember correctly it isn't an argument for abortion in every circumstance. the other thing is that it is only a pro choice argument, not a pro death argument. so if you have a way of unhooking the violinist without killing them, you're obligated to do that.
The biggest flaw of the violinist argument to me is that in many cases, the so-called violinist is actively killed, not just detached.
yep. that argument is literally so dumb if you are arguing in favor of abortion.
@@shollyboster9115 the problem is that even in "grape" situations the baby isn't the one responsible for his own creation. So both had no agency. Also people use the grape argument but usually people argue for abortion across the board and not just in those situations. The state could easily make it illegal and only legal in those situations but that's not what pro choice people want.
The problem with the violinist argument is that you endangered the violinists life, who you loved through the delusion of what you think they are and will die if you unplug, but due to discomfort you never imagined, and only now do they spaz out in ways that give you anxiety and this puts your life at risk too, all the while, you were sick and going through hallucinations, can you even compare the two. But this isn't what the argument is at all and you still did it to yourself 98% of the time with 40% of it, you doing over again.
The original is absurd, and my example is even moreso but more accurate also
always love this type of convos
Destiny should debate Trent Horn, the guy that made a good video response to his abortion debate.
Jimmy Akin is by far the best in that realm.
@@deekay1014No, (insert name) is better to debate this topic
@@steveng6704no, i am
Good for who? I mean arguably it's not even good for pro-lifers(birthers) since his arguments are basically dressing up a pig and rely on hypothetical way more extreme than anything Destiny has brought up or just the same old time travel nonsense.
But sure, it might be a funny chat to be had, since he will squirm harder than a fetus moving on instinct as a reaction to stimuli (pick any animal, they all do it).
YES.
The Fallacy you're looking for Destiny, is the Unfalsifiable Fallacy.
19:04 I actually have the opposite opinion than Destiny on the "woods vs abortion" scenarios. I think it would be more reasonable to legally compel a woman to take care of a child she found in the woods until she can bring it to safety than it would be to legally compel her to give birth.
There are two reasons for this. The first one is one that I give far less consideration for, so I'll touch on it first, and that's the comparative agency between a fetus and a 2 year old (or however old the kid is). Not to make it sound like a 2 year old has the agency of an adult, but a 2 year old has far more awareness of the situation and can understand and fear incoming harm or death. A fetus in the womb can't understand that an abortion is coming and feel the anguish of fear.
The real reason for my reasoning, though, is that the ask on the two women. The woman who is hiking in the woods when she stumbles on a starving 2 year old only has to provide breastmilk and then bring the child to the nearest police station or whatever. Compared to the ramifications of her not helping, that is not a very large ask. But the woman who is pregnant? Compelling her to carry the fetus to term, give birth to it, and then raise the child for 18 or more years is a MONUMENTAL task, and one that I don't think we can compel someone to engage in, even if the woman had voluntary unprotected sex and wasn't raped or something.
I like that argument but for i think it can be improved, like the end for example, she technically doesnt have to take care of the child till 18 she can just set it up for adoption and I'd say u could talk abt the health risks of carrying a fetus, and over possible negative outcomes, like what if she's single and cant work while pregnant and gets in a bad financial situation putting her at risk
@@curve_stomped1508 Honestly, I think just pregnancy and childbirth alone are monumental asks that would be unethical to legally compel a woman to endure. I have it on good word that giving birth is painful.
@@angryretailbanker5103 This. None of the heckin' analogies ever convey this and it irks me to no end. Caring for a child potentially for the rest of your life. Tearing your vagina, shitting yourself in front of everyone, losing your job or putting stop to your career indefinitely.
"is just like sharin' food innit"
@@angryretailbanker5103 if the fetus is beyond a certain developmental point, it also would feel the pain of abortion. So depending how late into the pregnancy it is, you can't use pain as a valid reason anymore, since you would be giving essentially a conscious experience, a painful death in exchange for comfort of the woman. literally nothing in the abortion debate about raising a child, or the health effects of childbirth matter at all to be honest, they are just nice optics to try and prove an opinion you might already have. The only thing that really matters, is the line when you say that fetus has moral consideration as a person, because once it reaches that point, it would be morally wrong to kill them regardless of the financial situations, or painful experiences etc, that wouldn't justify killing a person who did nothing to cause that. I'd be curious to know when you think that is, I personally am not too hard set on a time due to lack of concrete reasoning all around, but destiny's opinion of 20-24 weeks seems fairly reasonable with me. So I will go with around then.
Haven't watched the whole video, not sure if it ever comes up, but the formal name for the "all roads lead to rome" would be an unfalsifiable hypothesis. For example, if I say "There is an invisible, untouchable, unsmellable, silent unicorn behind you". There is no metric by which I could demonstrate your claim to be false, therefore your hypothesis is unscientific because it cannot be falsified.
Whereas something like "mass curves spacetime" is falsifiable, because experiments could be done and certain results *could* show the claim false
8:14 That's basically one of the hardest things to argue someone is morally obligated to ever do, is like sacrifice themselves... Like, it's VERY hard to argue that someone ought to ever make the choice to do that and like get them to agree and follow through... You can demand a lot morally, but that one is rough...
Yeah that's why your judged by God's perfection both wrathful and loving.
The only people who can obligate you is law enforcement
@@nathandennis8078 In a moral sense, not rlly... In a legal sense most definitely...
@@RealmRabbit I'd say matters more pragmatically would be the legal sense
I find the "Violinist argument" to be a horrible, awful "argument". Solid thought experience but way too removed from real life to be a actually applicable argument.
Can you start adding timestamps to each clip in the intro? Sometimes I only have time to watch short videos and it would help a lot. Thanks.
what game is this
No one in society would agree to killing people for a dollar. People agreed to a somewhat proportionate reaction. So the consequences of a crime have to be slightly worse than the crime itself, otherwise they will continue to commit the crime.
I think that's why people get confused when Destiny says we should use deadly force for any damage.
Punishment being worse is certainty a valid option, however I do not think that killing is just “slightly worse” than damage
I 100% do and would, if you upped a gun on me and said give me what’s in your pockets and I got a dollar I would shoot u in the back the second u turned around, if I had a dollar in my hand and you ran up and took it I MOST LIKELY wouldn’t shoot you ONLY because of the legal ramifications that I may face and that inconvenience is not worth a dollar but if somebody else killed you because you did that I would I have no problem with it and a good chunk of society would have no problem if you killed somebody over robbing you for just one dollar. I don’t know where you get the idea that no one would agree with that lol
@@C.low_you know the courts wouldn’t agree with you right?
@@GAPIntoTheGamekilling is not slightly worse than a dollar being stollen dawg.
@@Letsfuckingoooooooo not at all lmao if you were to rob me for pencil whether that’s strong arm or with a gun i could legally kill you in. Cali or NY your gonna have to deal with the court a little bit more and you’ll probably loose some money in legal fees but you’ll get off in FL TX anywhere that’s not some crazy Libtard state all you gotta do is snatch it out of my hand you can chase a mf down and kill him for it and I don’t think it’s problem one bit. Even if it’s for a dollar
I always thought it was weird to say you're attached to a violinist and not your child or something
The point of making them a famous violinist is to bring in the politics of abortion. Randos care about the celebrity of the violinist, and use that care to constrain the hypothetical woman's autonomy.
Because if you use your own child or even a child who's not yours the response from the general public would be very different and likley scew in the direction the creator of the analogy wouldn't like, that's just my theory anyway
4:29 Call it the Earl Warren fallacy after this historical anecdote: "When California governor Earl Warren testified before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on February 21, 1942, a questioner pointed out that there had been no sabotage or any other type of espionage by the Japanese-Americans up to that time. Warren responded, “I take the view that this lack [of subversive activity] is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor was timed . . . I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security.”"
Rationally it's a fundamental violation of logic for both A and ~A to be evidence for a position. If your hypothesis/position can be made to post-hoc explain anything then it explains nothing, which is why science requires its hypotheses to make rigorous empirical predictions.
It’s interesting that the game is an upside down cross while they’re talking about this.
Anyone know the name of that Tower Defense game shown at the very, very start of the video? I'd like to play it.
Rogue Tower
If you cannot legally compel someone to take care of a child then how is it that courts have ruled that a man who is not a child's father, confirmed by dna test, still has to pay child support for that child? That has absolutely happened.
People notice this but aren't willing to call it misandry because of how embarrassing it is for feminists, anti-racists, and traditionalists
source?
26:45 - The significant difference is that the person defending their property is enforcing a _right,_ not just a law against theft.
I've discussed this very type of fallacious thinking with friends years back. I like calling it the "all roads fallacy." When any consequence or result from anything is traveling on one of an infinite number of roads that all lead to a city that symbolizes the validation of an ideology. The expression "all roads lead to Rome" comes to mind.
I don't think Destiny understands why people end up shooting trespassers. It has nothing to with trespassing, but everything to do with possible intentions, like kill or harm you or your family. I would never kill someone who broke into my home if I was 100 percent sure they would not harm me or my family.
Not always, some people are just gun totting nutjobs looking for any legal excuse they can get to be able to kill someone without punishment, just so happens that trespassing is the perfect clear cut excuse to "defend" yourself and they're just itching for a story to brag about in their wacko gun club...
22:42 - Maybe "Your answer is fully based on science, but your question isn't, and neither is anyone else's"
More should be said about the difference between a thing being easy to define vs it being the thing we want to define. There's some validity to conception as a boundary just from it being pragmatically easy to define, it's just ease of judging isn't sufficient to prove you're judging correctly. Especially if dis-ease is coming from more facts being illuminated.
There's something similar in a gender vs genitals discussion. The ease of defining gender by genitals isn't good enough, but it's hard to completely ignore.
I agree with a 90% marginal tax rate.
Billionaires can make democracy obsolete.
Deep Thoughts by Destiny
"It's wild....it's not really all that wild....but it's wild!"
This felt like the Destiny pro-life arc at the beginning
I honestly believe he's on the way to accepting the truth that is the pro-life position.
@@xravenx24fe I think if anything he is stronger in his pro-choice convictions than ever after the abortion debates he's had recently. There's no stronger evidence of that fact than how charitable he can be towards pro-life argument while still fundamentally disagreeing with the position. You're mistaking charitability and understanding the concerns of a position with agreeing with it.
@@akyra231 He's obviously gotten way closer and way more respecting of a pro-life position nowadays. Idc how charitable he acts on camera for clout or how that makes you feel or how you think you understand our parasocial best friend better than I do, I just made a basic comment sharing my thoughts. I didn't ask for your opinion, why are you insinuating I'm wrong out of nowhere? You didn't even quote or cite any examples, you just opened your mouth to dismiss me, sorry I pressed your buttons I guess.
@@akyra231 the thing is even if he was pro-life he'd never take that position publicly and sink his platform as that would also sink his editorial staff, he's a small business owner with employees and doing something mindlessly self destructive is just not on the table.
It's like when John Cena apologized to the ccp for recognizing Taiwan although destinys to smart to even publicly go against his business interests on a issue he views as a minor one
@@nick4754 This is probably a lot more true for the two pro-life ladies whose entire jobs depend on this one position than for Destiny, who's just a twitch streamer. It wouldn't be the first subject where he disagreed with the typical liberal position. It's not like being pro-gun "sunk his platform." I don't think there's a reason to believe he's not sincere in being pro-choice.
Destiny has to get exhausted walking the centrist tightrope all the time.
Is it not possible that there are consistently valid points on both sides that can be acknowledged?
No one should be taxed on certain property. Your home should not be taxed, your car should not be taxed, all this does is allow the state to take what you rightfully paid for if you don't pay.
25:00
Adversarial systems generally produce the best results. That why we use them in court.
Having a state and federal government each act in what they believe is their best interest, without infringing on the right of the other to do, seems to be the answer.
The states dont have to help the feds enforce immigration law, but they cant impede them from doing so. The feds also cant make the states help them.
Here’s a modified version of the violinist that I’m curious to see how people respond… what if you had a cabin in the woods with your family in the middle of a snowstorm and then you hear a knock and a stranger that doesn’t speak English is at the door and you can tell that if he stays out there a little bit longer he’s definitely going to die so you invite him in … soon after he’s in he starts been really annoying (nothing violent) just stuff like shitting in the middle of the living room, yelling uncontrollably until you give him food which he tends to waste most of it and barf all over the floor, etc… Do you have the legal right to kick him out of your house (by force if necessary) and if after the storm ends and he’s found dead should you be legally prosecuted?
You're conflating the fuck out of moral and legal responsibility. You seem to only be asking about legal repercussions, which is virtually a tossup until it actually goes to court and a jury reaches a decision on whatever charges the prosecution thinks are possible, or a plea deal is taken, etc.
Bro I'm sorry but this is the dumbest argument. If you know that sending him out will absolutely guarantee 100% with a seal of approval by God himself that the man will die then regardless if you have the right to kick him out doesn't change the fact that you choose to end his life because you were made uncomfortable. Also there is a huge difference between a dynamic situation like the one you described, and bearing a child....your pro choicers need better arguments to justify your barbaric lifestyles
@@anthonyfpvminiquad1728 Wtf do you mean pro choicers this hypothetical was clearly written by a delusional pro-birth💀💀💀
@@bradlasalle2888 I’m not conflating the two, im specifically asking about legal responsibility since the question at hand is if abortion should be legal … Destiny clearly states that if the fetus is a person then it should be illegal … hence im posing the question to be as clear as possible
@@anthonyfpvminiquad1728 I’m not making an argument, I’m asking a question but if you are too triggered to engage with the question then feel free to ignore my comment … if you choose to engage, please what is different between this hypothetical and a pregnant person and what I can add to make it more analogous
Read Carl Schmitt and Agamben, 'ethics' (in the vein of Thomson) is just deduction from premises with no truth value.
Heard the cabin argument before, and it doesn't do anything in terms of abortion, as a fetus is not as developed as a 1 month old infant. That's the viability divide, and I'm more in favor of the, what best equates to 'property rights' kind of autonomy, and that's that your body should never be violated against your will. Forcing you to be pregnant is violating your body as it restricts certain things (by law as well, to prevent fetal damage), and you are not by law demanded to provide any life-saving treatment to a born child other than food and shelter, although there is some grey area.
Taking the cabin argument to its conclusion, yeah, it'd be like forced labor tbh, with significant moral condemnation should she fail. What of the infant gets sick, is that her fault? If she doesn't know how to care for it properly and the baby suffers damage, is that also her fault? What if the baby has an underlying condition that requires medication? This is a better analogy to discourage rosy dream baby arguments and not abortion.
A child is a HUGE responsibility, and it should absolutely be a woman's right to her own body's integrity to deny a fetus right to her body at any stage, BUT, if the fetus is viable it should absolutely be saved.
You can morally condemn someone for following the law, but that doesn't mean the law should change. A fetus is not the same as a baby due to development and it's in no way capable of sustaining itself by being outside the woman's womb, and it's the woman's right by autonomy to not be willing to do that. Plenty of people have kids by early induction of birth if they for some reason can't continue normal pregnancy...it's same principle as abortion except the baby lives, so when people moan about a woman being 7 months pregnant and just doesn't want to be anymore, they can't get an aboriton, but they can and do get induced and can ditch the baby for adoption as much as they please.
In terms of morals I find it a lot more cruel to have a kid and just give it up to adoption when the adoption system is garbage and vastly favors white female kids over anything else, and aging out of foster care is extremely detrimental to a lot of those kids. Kids that never had that choice, a choice some adult made against their future prospect and interest just to moral grandstand sanctity of life on a planet we're destroying rather expediently.
I always thought of “you” simply being your mind in your brain.
I think the “all roads lead to Rome” fallacy is similar to hindsight bias. The idea that after the fact whatever happened seemed to have been inevitable for some stock reason that fits your narrative
What game is he playing?
The violinist argument hasn't been the end-all-be-all argument used by pro-choice philosophers for a bit- not even by Judith Thomson. She has developed more arguments more recently, and her arguments are also mainly a big part of a wider deontological view she holds. Ezra Klein has a podcast episode about this called the The Ethics of Abortion, I really recommend it!
"They don't have a right to use your body".. Babies don't just appear in your body. You cause that to happen.
Women can still get pregnant in spite of both parties taking preventative measures. Just because you're having sex does not mean that you're consenting to become pregnant.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor naw, it does in fact mean exactly that as it is the only way it can happen.
I can't shoot a gun in your direction then say "it was not my intent to shoot you" even if I purport to take preventative measures.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor Yes you are though. This is like saying just cause I'm jogging around, I didn't consent to being tired. I knew going in that jogging would make me tired, it's the natural consequence of it. I can jog in a way that I don't get tired, but if it happens it's not like I didn't know that could happen. You absolutely know the natural consequences of sex. You don't have to engage in it.
@@ihaveachihuahau If you consent to have *protected* sex under the assumption that pregnancy will be _prevented_ then you are quite literally NOT consenting to become pregnant.
@@circaen Not really analogous; both parties consent to have sex under the presumption that the protective measures will *work* in preventing pregnancy.
It's called the sharpshooter fallacy but it's not applicable to worldviews because your worldview is your necessary starting point for evaluating everything else and it's impossible to evaluate anything without starting with some worldview.
Bodily autonomy and bodily integrity is different though. Even with de facto guardianship you would have the right to defend your body against radical harm.
Good discussion
I feel like a good term for the logical fallacy LonerBox talks about in 4:31 would be the "catch-22 fallacy"
it’s called an unfalsifiable belief
Texas Sharpshooter fallacy = Matrix?
This ^
Can anyone tell me what game he is playing with the tower?
The violinist example but it's your family member actually does happen with a type of like anemia iirc... I pointed this out in an email to Destiny before ages ago kinda... It's the 'savior siblings'... Imagine you have a kid and they are born with a super rare condition, it'll kill them, BUT they can be spared if they happen to have a sibling who can provide them with certain cells they need from time to time... Now, 1. This is also kinda morally complicated since like, do you get pregnant and bring another kid into the world specifically to harvest cells from them to save another kid? Not for the sake of this new child? But also 2. This other child now basically has no bodily autonomy... Unless you are okay allowing them to stop donating cells to their sibling, resulting in them dying... So you've basically imposed this obligation on them and disregarded their bodily autonomy... And especially if you only had that child just to save their older sibling like... That's kinda fucked up... Not as fucked up as allowing their older sibling to die perhaps, but y'know, still that is fucked up...
That's why I like the ordinary vs. extraordinary care defense. The uterus exists almost solely to naturally and involuntarily facilitate a pregnancy, which is normal.
As far as i can see substituting your child for the violinist doesn't seem to significantly change the situation. It more turns it into the situation where a parent would be in the position to save their child's life by donating a kidney. We can even think of a scenario where the parent is directly responsible for their child requiring the kidney in the first place. Think even in the situation the parent would still have a right to refuse to be a donor.
Also, the right to self-defense whether of oneself or one's property is not based on the "agency" of the threat. As far as use of force against a kid trespassing on one's property it would probably fail the proportionality component of self-defense, as well as as being objectively reasonable degree of force necessary to thwart the threat.
In terms of states standing in opposition to Federal Order and how it relates to immigration, knowing that it may negatively affect other states, what about the opposite?
If Sanctuary Cities are a boon to a state, why should they stand idly by and let other states encourage their dissolution? Knowing it may damage something?
Does it all just rest on the shoulders of the Federal Government's position?
I’d love to hear you talk about MMT
Theft is not a justification for use of lethal force in a self defense situation. The only justification for use of lethal force in self defense is fear of imminent great bodily harm or death to self, or another person. If you shoot someone who has broken into your home, and it is proven that did not intend to harm you, you will be tried for murder. Even in castle doctrine states.
incorrect, as long as you have reasonable fear you are free to remove them from this life and the next regardless of their intent
But there is significant harm and disadvantage to a pregnancy, why does this hypothetical apply?
I know it isn't popular to say, but it's the truth. Destiny is NOT a woman's name. I'm not going to stand by while people act like this is normal. He was always a MAN and never a woman.
There’s a pretty big difference between doing a voluntary act WITH your body and having something done TO your body. One involves agency and the other doesn’t. I will never understand the popularity of the argument that just because you may have some bodily obligations to born children that pregnancy must be an obligation to unborn children when the government doesn’t mandate that parents give blood or organs to their born children. There’s a very big difference between spoon feeding, bottle feeding, and even breastfeeding a child (the latter being the most taxing), and letting them suck nutrients from your blood, take calcium from your bones, and rip your vagina apart. And if one does have an obligation to let a random infant suck on their nipple for sustenance then you could argue one would have an obligation to stay connected to a random violinist, donate blood to a stranger, or even give a kidney to a stranger, which most people would reject outright. And even if you believe you have a moral obligation to help people like that you probably don’t want the state mandating it, do you? The objection that it’s your child does little to reinforce your obligation unless you believe egg and sperm donors alone are parents or that surrogates are parents, which most people would agree are not since it takes more than genetics to BE a parent. If you believe you have an obligation to stay connected to your child, it’s probably because you believe it’s your child in the social/custodial sense, not just the biological sense. This doesn’t apply to an unintended/unwanted pregnancy. Saying it’s your child means nothing when we’re merely talking about biology. There’s more to parenting than genetics. It’s an active role. A verb, not just a noun.
I think when they say life begins at conception it’s to prove it’s a unique individual and also it exhibits all the characteristics of a living thing.. a unique human + alive… that’s the point.. a dead person even if unique is not living..
Check out birthday boy's channel
►www.youtube.com/@lonerbox
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that in the US "neoliberalism" is a social and economic philosophy that is embraced by both sides of the political spectrum. Whereas "liberal" generally signifies a democrat.
The value of the property being stolen doesn't matter for self defense, the proximity to the owner required to do the stealing matters. If someone breaks into your house or bedroom at night to steal $1 you do have the right for self defense but if you have left $1M in cash out in a box in the corner of your yard by the street, then self defense wouldn't be justified for a passerby grabbing it. The proximity thing does a few things pragmatically and philosophically 1. It requires that people place their most valuable property closest to them and behind some amount of security(walls, doors, locks etc) 2. Therefore this gives the thief notice(ensuring there's no confusion of ownership at play) 3. This practically makes it so the theft that is self defensible is tied to the potential for harm to you EVEN in situations where the thief intends to only steal, the defender can't be sure what will happen if someone is in close proximity stealing their things, and so there's always an element of fear of bodily harm and this makes it so we don't need to split hairs about the thief's intentions 4. It makes it so this defense only applies to currently occuring theft + concrete property(so no revenge tracking people down and no killing over copyright property or nfts).
So to give some more real examples:
1. If someone runs up on you on the street and starts grabbing at your bag or coat violent self defense would be justified no matter the value you have on you.
2. Someone breaks into your home while you are 15 minutes away and you can see on security cameras, rushing home and killing the person would not be justified(especially as the police should be called).
3. Teens run through your yard at night and grab a yard gnome while you are in your kitchen, you can't rush out and shoot them in the back
4. Teens kick in your door while you are home, you can shoot them as they enter
5. You get into a dispute regarding the ownership of a business property with a partner, the partner goes to the business in the night and removes some property and the next day you see each other, you can't kill them
6. Same as 5, but now to retrieve the stolen item you break into his house while he sleeps to get that property back, and even though there may be some legal argument that the property is yours he has the right to kill you as you rummage through his house.
Regarding the selfdefence - I think that if the agressor knows he will get killed if he takes 1 dollar then i think its ok to kill him. However I dont think people believe they will get killed/know they will get killed, and we cant truelly know if the aggressor knows... not the best formulation.
Why does the aggressor's knowledge matter? Isn't self-defense used for protection? Does the need to protect oneself or one's property disappears based on what the attacker knows?
If you are thinking it's based on some form of consensual agreement between the attacker and defender then you are simply saying that it's ok to kill someone if they agreed to being killed regardless of self-defense claim. I don't know where you stand ethically on that, but pretty sure legally one cannot consent to something like that. I suppose it depends on if there should be limits to what one can consent to.
Shooting someone over 1 dollar is a very extreme stance unless that is your last dollar. Killing over defending property would have to be at an amount where if you lost something you couldn't survive.
Suffering is an ambiguous term, I could technically suffer if someone stole my KitKat bar because I really wanted to eat it, but it doesn't mean I should kill someone over it.
So what do you do if someone trys to car jack you? Or break into your home while you're there?
I think a human life is worth whatever that human says it’s worth. If you’re willing to mug someone or invade their home for an item you should be willing to die over that item and expect no sympathy if you do. Most thieves arnt born from neccessity they’re able bodied but decide to be parasites to society.
Mugging someone or invading a home to steal the dollar adds more layers and a violent aspect where killing in self defense may be justified. I guess his point had those aspects implied, but we need more context than just a mere theft of one dollar.
@@steveng6704 there arnt many cases where you arnt going to be a perceived threat to take something from someone . However morally I’d still say if youre a guest in someones home and steal 1 dollar. You’ve violated that persons trust and the sanctity of their home and if you get killed or brutally beaten it’s your fault. You wagered those possibilities against a dollar meaning your life is worth a dollar to you the victim just agreed in your assessment. I don’t think the degree matters at all really assuming you are a grown adult because at that point it’s on principal. I think that For the same reason I think pedos should be shot. idc how violent or non invasive you were it was just the fact you did it at all is enough.
But Judith Thompson's argument was never that abortion was morally 'good'; it is based on the intuition that bodily autonomy trumps all other considerations. In fact, she considers an example in which expelling an unwanted intruder from your home and thereby killing him may be morally wrong, but concludes that it is nevertheless still one's right to do so. Appealing to emotion, or arguing that abortion is somehow unfair or unkind to the fetus, is therefore of no use against Thompson's argument.
The refusing breast milk example is wild
If a kid walks up to you in the forest, you have absolutely no moral obligation to make sure that kid survives
No one knows better, if a pregnancy should come to term or not, than the carrier. Not you. Not me. Not the government. That's why the carrier has the right to choice. Not you. Not me. Not the government.
I think its called post hoc rationalisation; u already reached your conclusion abt the issue and u try to reason any argument presented to fit ur conclusion.
These click bait titles are so cringe august
The idea of any bit of evidence being supportive of a theory would just be unfalsifiablity, wouldn't it?
4:17 well the shit CEO is getting is deserved. the man risked other peoples lives, i have no sympathy for him, he deserved it. the rest not so much, they were victims. I can sympathise with the rest, because all of us can get into situation when wealthy arrogant businessmen disregard others safety and lives for their personal profits or agendas.
To me, the consciousness argument makes the most sense because I just figure that the difference between killing an animal and mowing the lawn is different because even though grass and animals are both alive, grass and plants aren't conscious.
Viability makes more sense to me. Why do we care about consciousnes when we don’t prove this du diligence for other things.
All that matters if it can function independently from you and taken cared of by others
@@inteallsviktigt you'd have to butcher the definition of viability for this to work which itself defeats the argument.
@@anthonyponafala7973 not at all. The limit would be where the fetus can survive outside the womb. So that would put the limit at around week 22 with modern day medicine.
Conciseness is nebulous and meaningless distinction.
If the child have a conscious but won’t survive after birth because it doesn’t have organs properly developed then it doesn’t really matter
And what’s the difference in mowing the lawn and squashing a bug? Would our actions even change if animals wasn’t conscious?
@@inteallsviktigt yes. The issue with "viable" comes from your very definition.
"The limit would be where the fetus can SURVIVE outside the womb".
It can't survive outside the womb on its own.
Which means you have to qualify your argument. If you have to qualify or place limits on the term then it means the argument is weak.
A 2 year old isn't viable. It cannot survive outside the womb UNLESS someone provides for it.
The fact that an "unless" is required means the argument is junk
It means you MUST alter your logic. Which requires one to admit the argument isn't logically consistent
I don't think the violinist being your child makes a difference to be honest. I'm sure if you ask a parent of a mass shooter the violinist question then they wouldn't hesitate to let their mass shooter child die.
Extreme example i know but we shouldn't base the right to bodily autonomy on whether you have a strong emotional attachment on the person using your body against your will.
If your child is using your body against your will and you allow it because you love your child, then you consent to your child using your body. Society shouldn't force you to let your child use your body like that.
I'd argue you did consent when you had the sex. Society is simply making you uphold the responsibilities of your actions. You yourself did the action that led to it.
@@ihaveachihuahau Having sex does not mean you consent to pregnancy in the same way driving down the highway does not mean you consent getting into a car wreck.
Condoms, birth control, and contraception are not 100% effective so even if people did everything right they still have the chance of getting an unwanted pregnancy (just like how defensive driving is not 100% effective at preventing a car wreck).
@@Dsworddance22
Driving down the road does mean you consent to getting injured due to accidents..
Even if someone drives perfectly, there are still accidents. And you gave implicit consent to that by getting on the road.
@@falseprophet1024 By that logic, you have to accept everything that happens to you. Owning a house means you consent to a home intruder stealing your TV. Walking down the street means you consent to someone robbing you. So on and so forth.
Even if you grant all of this, people still have the right to address or alleviate the consequences of their actions. We shouldn't stop people from owning guns in their home to protect their property even though a consequence of owning a house is worrying about home intruders. By extension, we shouldn't restrict abortion as a way to address the consequence of having sex.
@@Dsworddance22
Breaking in would be equivalent to insurance fraud. Nobody consented to that. You consent to ACCIDENTS happening on the road. Not fraud, recklessness, or negligence.
Im not really following your logic.
Because you can defend your home if someone breaks in and puts your life at risk, that means you should be able to kill an innocent baby that is there because of your actions and isnt a threat to your life?
Can you explain why the second would necessarily follow from the first?
I would call it operating from a false premise
Worst take about wealth inequality. It's like saying you don't care about voting as long as people are well off.
Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert
“When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
Literally science: “life begins at conception”
How much does your editor get paid, where he doesn't cut out awkward silent parts?
The de facto guardianship argument is excessively ignoring a lot of real world factors cause pregnancy is still risky and has so much other factors.
16:59 is it just me or is destiny mixing what’s morally repugnant from what should be legally allowed … just because it would feel icky to shoot a kid trespassing vs an adult, why should the state legally treat it differently if all other circumstances are the same
What game is he playing
29:50 - TBH thats how pretty much everyone does it. If you can enforce it, you can keep it. This goes for rights as well, you only have the ones you can enforce. At some point a bunch of the best political minds of the day got together and made a gov't that would help enforce those for us so that we don't keep fighting each other for anything. Fighting's _expensive,_ takes a pile of energy and work, and the risk is enormous. Systems that enforce a modicum of order help the good men deal better with the _oher_ men. The guys that only foment trouble or are otherwise agents of chaos.
What's funny about the sub isn't just that they're billionares, that's a smooth brain take, it's mainly because they were touristing the most well known sea accidents of all time and ended up being one themselves. Then there is the fact that touristing in a giant grave is seen by almost everyone as very icky. The billionare part is probably distant third factor.
The truth doesn't belong to the left or right. It just is.
De dacto guardianship would still need to be agreed upon. You can’t just force someone to take care of a baby because no one else is. And you also can’t say that it wouldn’t inconvenience/inhibit them either. Being pregnant takes away your ability to care for yourself…how many days off work for appointments alone?
If you do something with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what the consequences will be, you have the responsibility of taking care of those consequences. Pretty obvious and simple, put peen in vagene, here comes a baby. You make the baby, you accept the responsibility of what making the baby entails.
inequality destabilizes society.
Inequality is a natural product of the Division of Labor, Specialized Labor and Urbanization -- the things that allow modern societies to exist in the first place.
Without inequality, we'd all be subsistence farmers.
Nah, polygamy destabilizes societies. There have always been rich and poor people in the world - that is a fact of life.
The violinist argument falls flat because getting pregnant is not just some random occurrence. You can only get pregnant if you have sex. You are essentially, in regards to the fallacy of the argument, "signing an agreement with the violinist" that if you do X then he is guaranteed Y. The violinist argument relies entirely on the assumption that pregnancy is just something that "happens" to you, when it is the direct result of one's actions.
Sounds like actions have consequences fallacy.
Even if you "signed an agreement with the violinist", which isn't even possible since the violinist doesn't exist in any shape or form, it still wouldn't guarantee anything to the violinist. There's no guarantee that one has to follow a signed agreement.
You don't sign any agreement when you have sex, lmao. Even people who use protection get pregnant.
name of game?
If you’re stuck in a cabin in end woods with an infant and you’re malnourished yourself, then what obligation could you possibly have to breastfeed when you’re not producing enough or any milk? You can’t be compelled to feed the infant in an environment without any alternatives because you can’t force a biological process and guarantee a healthy outcome in that situation and then punish the person for not providing for the infant. Arguably, the government has no right to punish you for not feeding your child when they’ve provided no support or alternatives to parenting in a dire situation like that. And interestingly, while abortion is being outlawed in many places in the US, breastfeeding is not legally required…perhaps because like destiny said you can’t legally compel someone to parent? If it’s because you can’t legally enforce a biological process then that could apply to pregnancy and childbirth too. And breastfeeding is far less taxing and harmful than pregnancy and childbirth, yet there are no US laws mandating it. Yet gestation mandates are allowed.
13:42 The refutation to the Violinist Scenario is interesting, but I don't think it's as strong as Destiny gives it credit for specifically for the reasons he does.
When it's your child (and I don't mean the Lila and Kristan definition of a child which means "The sperm cell is still burrowing into that egg and has the tail sticking out, but instead something like a 7 year old in elementary school), there's already a guardianship role in place, and unlike a fetus in the womb, this is one that is not morally or legally in dispute. You are a legal guardian, you have a legal requirement to provide things like food and shelter, and absent dads are required to provide financial support.
While bodily autonomy is still an issue, I feel like the unambiguous responsibility you have over the child commands a greater expectation for you to provide your bodily resources to keep them alive in this scenario than it does for the violinist, or any adult stranger you have no attachment to. I'm not sure I'd be 100% willing to support the loss of your bodily autonomy even in a situation like this, but I do believe that the changing of the relationship fundamentally changes the situation.
Even if it were legally and morally in dispute whether you are obligated to care for your 7 year old child, your position on that would be completely unchanged, no?
It may be more clear cut that you should provide for your 7 year old child, but whether the question is being debated or whether it's the law should be completely irrelevant to your position.
@@TheRedHaze3
It's not equivalent because it's not clear you have an obligation of guardianship over a fetus. Sure, if you had that obligation, then the debate wouldn't matter. But the whole problem is that it's up for debate. People disagree whether that obligation even exists.
And then it's an entirely different question whether we should give the state the power to enforce that obligation.
@@APaleDot The question is whether the fetus is a person.
Destiny's point with his refutation to the violinist scenario is that it doesn't work if you accept the fetus is a person, because you obviously have guardianship over that fetus, since it is your child.
There is no meaningful difference between one that is born and one that isn't, so why would we say you have an obligation to one and not to the other?
@@TheRedHaze3
The fetus starts out as a single cell. There's an obvious difference between that and a child with a fully formed brain.
Also, the point of the violinist scenario is to show that even fully grown people don't have the right to use someone's body against their will, even if they are going to die.
We certainly don't mandate that parents must give up their kidneys for their children, even if they need them to survive. Imagine if the government could force you to undergo surgery for a child you've never met, because you got a girl pregnant at some point. Imagine the government mandating life-threatening surgery on a 14 year old because they got raped.
@@APaleDot "Also, the point of the violinist scenario is to show that even fully grown people don't have the right to use someone's body against their will, even if they are going to die.
We certainly don't mandate that parents must give up their kidneys for their children, even if they need them to survive. Imagine if the government could force you to undergo surgery for a child you've never met, because you got a girl pregnant at some point. Imagine the government mandating life-threatening surgery on a 14 year old because they got raped."
So, let's discard the idea that a fetus isn't a human being deserving of rights for the purposes of this discussion (which you hinted at in your first paragraph).
We're talking about the violinist scenario, so the question is whether there are any circumstances where a human being has a right to your body.
I would say it's unethical enough that it should be illegal, to create a human being because you enjoy the creation process, without being willing to carry that human being until they're able to at least survive without you (i.e. when the fetus can survive a c-section).
Obviously this doesn't apply to rape.
To make the violinist scenario more applicable, let's say you went drunk driving. You are aware that your cognition is impaired when drunk, and this significantly increases the risk of hitting someone with your car.
You do in fact hit someone with your car. When you wake up, you're fine, but you're connected to the person you hit (as per the violinist scenario). They *will not survive* without you.
Is it unethical to disconnect? If so, what should the government do about that, if anything?
Taxes are actually necessary for paying for courts and cops. This pays for property protection and legitimizes assets. Who benefits from this service, the people who own property and assets.
For this argument to work, you need there to be absolutely no voluntary alternatives and for these alternatives to be completely and forever impossible
@@spacepan Outside of a theoretical libertarian imaginary world I’ve never seen this done on a large scale. In addition paying taxes is just as ‘voluntary’ as paying rent. You are free to move about to different jurisdictions that offer various tax rates and if you don’t want to pay taxes you can walk away with no harm done to you. Moving out of a country requires less capital than starting a small business or building your own home. As libertarians love to say poverty is the natural state of man and wealth is created by individuals so all of this is very attainable.
whats the game?
I genuinely would love to discuss bodily autonomy with a pro choicer who doesn’t think it’s valid
Option one you can pick has a poverty stricken family with multiple kids barely able to scrape by for multiple generations being kept in a cycle, option 2 has some dead fetuses that you may or may not see as people but 2 perfectly capable potential parents that can gather their nest and then have babies that have a fighting shot.
Let's say it's a bird analogy now that I think of it.
Would it be better to force the bird to have birth in the air at an unexpected time for the egg to crash wherever it may be at whatever time or would it be best to let the bird make its nest and then decide to put eggs in it.