Destiny vs Vegan Gains Abortion Debate - Language Development in Infants
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ม.ค. 2023
- In this Debate Destiny attempts to defend his position that the ability to understand language is what grants a creature the right to life. I demonstrate that this belief would lead to the conclusion that it is morally acceptable to abort infant children after they are born.
Get Vegan pet food: vgrrr.com/?ref=iamxbmwfwigx
Coupon Code: VEGANBEASTS10438
Patreon: / vegangains
Become a member! Join the Leguminati here: / vegangains - บันเทิง
“The burden of proof isn’t on the person making the claim, it’s on the person who initiated the debate”-Destiny, imagine if vaush did that he would call it out so fast
Shameless
He’s saying if you come in disagreeing you should have a reason. He doesn’t deny that he has no definitive evidence but the reverse could be argued
@@KurokamiNajimi seems like you're just twisting his words to make what he said sound less embarrassing. He said none of what you're talking about in this video.
@@KurokamiNajimi the entire premise of destinys argument relies on baby’s having the capability of language, he made the claim they do have that capability. The burden is on him, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, which is why when someone says “prove to me god doesn’t exist” you don’t have to if they claim he does, the burden of proof is on him. Do you actually not understand that or are you just that much of a destiny dck rider?
That quote needs to get printed on t-shirts and distributed lol
If somebody initiates a debate and the person who didn’t initiate the debate makes a claim, the BoP can’t be on the person making the claim because they didn’t initiate the debate. Makes sense.
Keep up the great work man! “No one understands your sarcasm bro” 😂
get a job broke boi
Today I ate a burger while thinking of vegan gains, he encourages me to eat more meat because I dislike him so much. Cheers.
@@raoulmoat6762 I’m not a fan of him either personally. But I don’t take it out on innocent beings. I’m against animal abuse regardless of my feelings towards him.
@@raoulmoat6762 the best part about this is that you're killing yourself in the process 😂
Guy at the end was pretty cool. I can’t imagine coming in there speaking my second language.
According to Destiny the burden of proof for any claim is on the person who initiates the debate.
What a clown…
He’s saying if you come in disagreeing you should have a reason. He doesn’t deny that he has no definitive evidence but the reverse could be argued
@@KurokamiNajimi So if you claim that the moon is made of cheese and I ask you why you think that and if you have any evidence for it, the burden of proof is on ME? 😂
@@BornGam3r You need a reason to believe something of course but in this context the route Destiny went doesn’t revolve around studies but observations. He doesn’t have a hard stance on it and doesn’t care that much to debate on it. Remember he hates this community and sees the rhetoric and how serious people take these discussions as cancer. I think he’s wrong btw I’m just explaining his thought process
@@KurokamiNajimi Problem is that he’s not being honest about it. He’s still trying to debate VG on a stance that he himself knows he can’t defend, instead of just saying “alright I haven’t thought my position through enough, I’ll need more time to think about it” or “I really don’t care” and hang up.
@@BornGam3r pride. Thats it
Imma keep it real, once youve got a valid argument against destiny he just turns it into "well what does that mean" or "well I don't know if that's possible" etc, but keep it up. Good debate.
I know what's possible, and that's how good meat tastes
klknl
Eh, not necessarily. Depends on the context. If it's an honest dialogue, I don't think Destiny responds that way.
I think what he was getting at is that a newborn baby has the genetic structure that will enable them to understand language in the future, which renders their future intellectual capability superior to other animals. Apart from that, there’s plenty of examples of animals that have the intellectual capacity of a toddler.
“A very small amount of animals have intelligence comparable to a retard”
Wow who cares?
I feel like all Destiny needs to say is 'I dont know' or 'I heard this, but I need to research more' it would be so much better
❤Brother may I have access to the recipes list/videos? I don’t have my recipe journal with me anymore, and I cannot see the videos anymore. Please bro 🙏🤙
Destiny gets more disappointing, every single damn day. How can he say that the BoP is on the person coming in to ask for evidence of a claim that someone made?
He got riled up really quickly in this video, too. Not even 7 minutes in
Botty wipe on ward 7...oh ....you couldn't even keep that job. As you were you googly eyed layabout...
Unicorns exist, anyone who challenges me to a debate on on this statement need to provide prof that they don't exist.
If unicorns exist you'd see them at gay pride parades and shit like that.
Well they actually did exist a long time ago. They just didn’t look the way cartoons make them look. In prehistoric times they were called Siberian Unicorns.
Do you think you could ever debate Frank Tufano again?
Destiny can never admit defeat 😒
i agree he was being lazy and bad in many ways. if i try to understand him i think he does not care about vegan debates and being frustrated with VG pushing him to debate these topics while not caring about subject he makes lazy points.
Because he’s not been defeated
@@PvzLovesMinecraft lol Rich owned him right here :) cope
@@ofensatul luckily I don’t give a shit
destiny admitting defeat would hurt his profits.
What happened to your oldest vids? You started in 2014/2015 if I remember correctly. I'm not seeing them on your channel anywhere.
I always find it strange when people talk about humans as if they are separate from animals. We are in fact just another animal that happened to have very large complex brains, relative to other species. But just like other animals we are a carbon based life form that live poop breathe procreate and then die.
You underestimate yourself highly, humans are on another level completely to other animals
A lot of animals are smarter than 1 year old children.
Almost everyone would still kill the animal instead of the 1 year old human.
@@WeirdSmellyManAs anyone should.
@@NorthSon Should they if they were baby Hitler?
@@WeirdSmellyMan Ah yes, I often have the dilemma of having to choose between killing human babies and animals.
@@80slimshadys no
this is quality content
Let us put Destiny into a hypothetical world, in which a device exists that is capable of establishing truth with absolute reliability. The absolute reliability of the device is known and epistemically justified by Destiny.
Before Destiny lies in new born infant. He asks the device whether or not the infant has the necessary capacity for semantic understanding that Destiny deems as the fundamental differentiator between animal and human, and therefore what he truly values. The device tells him that the infant lacks said capacity, and that the brain will continue to develope until structures emerge which give rise to that capacity.
At that point, Destiny should have no ethical qualm with eradicating the infant, if his description of his values was honest and accurate. If Destiny truly values the proposed capacity, then lacking that capacity is the determining factor of care. If his moral concern for the being still remains, his proposed value is a lie.
If at that point he would attempt to find another thing that he claims he actually values, it means that his entire philosophical system is a bad faith attempt at avoiding certain moral conclusions. He is attempting to find a differentiating factor, not because he genuinely cares about that factor, but because he wants to uphold a certain moral conclusion.
His values are not actually his values, they are a stand in philosophical facade to protect his inconsistency. And that inconsistency is that he does not care about logical consistency in moral values, he cares about perceived logical consistency. He does not attempt to genuinely discover and describe his values, and then find a way to resolve the necessary inconsistencies (like for one being against the arbitrary discrimination of individuals, while at the same time arbitrarily discriminating against individuals). He instead attempts to veil his internal moral contradictions by creating a system which appears consistent, but which proposed values he does not actually hold.
Do you think Destiny would say aborting a fetus without the capacity he values is bad? His abortion position is 20 weeks, I don't think he would care about aborting a fetus without that capacity.
Also, a baby without that capacity I think we would call that "braindead" or in a "vegatative state". Like I dont know the exact biology and cases, but i would assume most "fetus/babies" withouth brain capacity are aborted.
@@daviddavidson6278 The whole point is that if that was his value, and we found that born children do not have that trait, he should have no problem killing born children.
@@temkox There is no evidence that the capacity destiny talks about is present in new borns, so no, they wouldn't necessarily be brain dead. Animals don't have such a capacity and are not brain dead, but nice try.
@@EpFiDude yes, he always says, that a baby of X months has developed the brain requirements (capacity) for a conscious experience. He is not talking about future capacity.
Richard you don't need to argue with him about wtf language is or when semantic understanding occurs.
Just take whatever his position is, and give him a hypothetical in which there is a peer reviewed study that came out which proved without a doubt that infants do not have whatever he claims he cares about. Make it so that the capacity develops over time, and is not actually present at the beginning, and then ask him what he thinks about that.
The thing is, it should be really easy to demonstrate that Destiny is a bad faith actor, he has admitted so in the past. He is not choosing these traits because that's an honest description of his subjectivity, where he actually genuinely cares about the capacity to have semantic understanding. What he cares about is finding a way to not need to care about animals, that's all he is doing.
So just focus on demonstrating that he keeps moving his "values", for which there should be no reason for if he is in good faith describing his actual values.
If he actually does value semantic understanding, whatever he even means by that, he would not change his position once you change the hypothetical around, or once evidence exists that this semantic understanding is not present in the individuals he cares about. When he says "for human conscious experiences..." bla bla pseudoscience, just pose the hypothetical in which that is actually not the case, in which the science shows that none of that is necessary of human conscious experience etc.
He already is incredibly triggered as soon as the topic comes but because he knows he is doing these moves, you just have to showcase his weasely nature.
Damn, you beat me to it 🤣
That would do absolutely nothing considering his whole appeal is that he is logical and values the scientific consensus over anything else. In a hypothetical where the science supports VG side im pretty sure he would just concede on that point and move on to another. Wouldn't need a hypothetical if they could get past the burden of proof thing.
@@Ahrbok Morality isn’t about facts, science, or logic.
@@accelerationquanta5816 It absolutely does
@@Ahrbok Nope. Read Hume.
Good talk, a little too heated for me, but I was glad to hear it. Both topics are very important to me.
Can someone please help explain to me why Vegangain subscribers keep decreasing last few months it was 320k then 319k now 318k what is going on he did go live occasionally
Vegan Gains is still trying to make up for getting destroyed by Destiny a year ago.
That’s cope, they’ve had like 6 debates and Richards gotten destiny to bite bullets like infinitely Holocausting retards, babies, tribesman, has shown contradictions, and more, name a single reductio destiny has got on Richard, you can’t because it never happened. Richard misread one study and everyone acts like he lost that debate lmao, Richard literally forced him into a corner where he had to bite the bullet on infinitely Holocausting retards, to say destiny won that is the most insane cope I’ve ever seen lolololol
Is that the story you’re going with?
What?
I cannot believe vegan gains turned me vegan, 7 years ago, I actually thought he was smart, he’s an actual dogmatist, took me 5 years to get out of the internet cult
did u stop being vegan?
@@GAMA830 yeah was vegan from '16 to '21
@@Adnan-lt5rn what ultimately led to you getting out of it?
Positions of destiny are so inconsistent, that you could make video montage in which, without going out of context he literally debates himself.
It would be hilarious if someone put a video montage of all the vegan debates destiny had in which his reasoning for not being vegan has changed (literally every single debate)
Can you bring en exact inconsistency and proof of that?
@@temkox that’s easy, in this debate: th-cam.com/users/livehN0xs4lbsfE?feature=share destiny said the morally relevant difference between humans and animals such that it’s okay to slit ones throat for cheeseburgers but not the other, is having human DNA. When proposed the hypothetical “if your neighbor took a dna test and it turned out they didn’t have human DNA, is it now okay to slit their throat and turn them into a cheeseburger?” Destiny said no, that wouldn’t be okay. This is a direct contradiction: the morally relevant difference between humans and animals such that it’s okay to slit one’s throat but not the other is and is not having human DNA. (P and not P) this is just one inconsistency among many, the way I believe this person means it is that destiny literally changes his position on why he participates in the animal Holocaust in every single vegan debate because he continually gets embarrassed
@@huntertobey6965 Timestamp? I will not listen to a whole hour of them debating again.
@@huntertobey6965 The only reasoning anyone needs to not be vegan is “I don’t feel like being vegan”.
Did he actually just say "I dont know if sentience is a real word" 🤣
yes bro 😂
It's a common tactic of deceit and manipulation to get further and further into technical terminology or specificity with people who seemingly may not understand the terminology
It's really interesting because he goes off on tangents about the lack of moral worth of animals because they don't have a advanced semantic understanding of where things are, or things are not. For example where squirrels hide nuts, or where to migrate he believes are very basic concepts of understanding locations. However this advanced level of understanding that he's specifically referring to he cannot apply to 6 month old babies so it's almost like a Jekyll and Hyde conversation within himself here.
"I could never tell a dog that Grandpa is not here because he will not understand" .... Oh....Kay, but a 6 month old baby doesn't understand either....
Animals don’t have moral worth in the minds of people because they’re not humans. Being human makes you have moral worth, which is to be expected because we’re humans, we’re the ones making the subjective value judgment.
Have you tried red/blue/infrared light for your skin and muscle repair?
W Richard
Around 18:00, if computer programming a squirrel-like or dog-like robotic creature were as simple as describing many if...then statements, we would have a way easier time coding artificial intelligence and robots.
My other comment is along the line's of occam's razor, if young mammals have similar brains on x-ray, and demonstrate similar abilities, including appearing to develop further understanding of concepts of the world as they age, it stands to reason that their conscious experiences at that time should be on comparable levels.
Vegan Gains: Kindly and respectfully, you know nothing about infants and language and you are grossly underestimating language skills during infancy. Everything that you believe is wrong. Please spend some time with informed parents and their own infants/toddlers.
Insane that he thinks pigs can't be as smart as a 3 yr old because they don't speak a human language 🤦♀️
Yo gains can I get a shout out next live ?
Why?
What date was this?
Last night
@@VeganGains ty
What you have to ask Destiny is whether we have our moral worth in virtue of what we are or with respect to the degree with which we can deploy this capacity for language. Destiny seems to be saying that by virtue of being human we have this capacity for language that no other animal has and that is how we get our moral worth. If this is the case a fetus is a human and by virtue of being human should have the same moral worth that we do from the moment of conception. On the other hand, if it is the degree to which we can deploy this capacity for language then obviously a newborn shouldn't have moral worth. And from this position you would probably have to bite the bullet on weird stuff like 60 year-olds are more morally worthy than 10 year-olds because they would be able to deploy this capacity to a greater degree.
Once again, Destiny gets annihilated. No surprise there
I love how when you told Destiny he manipulates quite often he just tried to manipulate some more. What a miserable little child
I am fine eating meat not because the animal doesn't have some kind of feelings or consciousness. but because i need to eat meat to survive. The reason i don't then eat my dog is because my dog is an honorary member of my family. I don't eat other humans because, outside of the many medical issues involved in cannibalism, but they are apart of my social group as well. Even my enemies are worthy of that respect to me, more so than a cow or fish.
My brain doesn't have the structure to get me past min10 in that debate!
I don't know why Destiny does this. He has an understanding of the arguments for veganism at this point, struggles to refute them, and yet he just refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He comes at other topics from an angle of rationality/virtue and yet with veganism he becomes so intellectually dishonest and closed off. It's very disappointing, honestly. I agree with him most of the time, but I just wish he would treat this topic with the same openness and honesty he affords other discussions. I mean, how is a so-called intellectual this obsessed with eating animals, that they would abandon all their principles?
An issue with Destiny’s debate: he kept going back to “capacity” as the component of importance. Like he said that well even if a newborn can’t talk or understand language they have the brain capacity to eventually get there. Well doesn’t this contradict his abortion debate claim that a pre-conscious fetus is not worth protecting yet? I’d say these fetuses still have the capacity to eventually develop consciousness even if they aren’t there yet, so using Destiny’s framework shouldn’t pre-conscious fetuses be worthy of protecting too?
Thats incorrect, He is talking about the capacity in that moment, not in the future. You can have legs, but that doesnt mean you can ride a bike. But you have the capacity to ride a bike.
A baby hasnt develop all the capacity to live on its own, he has the expected capacity, or the expected development of that capacity. But not in that moment
@@temkox But even in the case of a newborn who will die in 3 months, and we are sure of that. Is it really that intuitive that we would save a rat, over that newborn at month 1? After all, rats seem to be as conscious as infants, they can even navigate mazes!
@@barbarioushardwell5616 Rats aren’t people. Therefore, they don’t matter.
@@accelerationquanta5816 Why aren’t rats persons? If the answer is they aren’t human, then wouldn’t a fetus be a person if it’s biologically human?
@@temkoxWell thats wrong. You still dont know how to ride a bike, you have the capacity to ride it in the future. You have to learn first. The same way a baby has the capacity to grow in the future. And the baby will always grow, there is nothing stopping it unless you get an abortion.
A big L for veganism, sad.
Can you try and debate Hamza from Hamzas den on how a vegan diet is superior?
Let's see what Braintiny's been up to now; he's always fun to laugh at.
MY BODY MY CHOICE!
24:05 was amazing xD 10/10 easy clap this debate
Imagine your idol making a video where you have a part. Damn...
good for the homie 👍🏽
Dude, what happened to all your old videos? And why aren't you making actual content anymore? I mean, debates and livestreams have their place, but...
Another Destiny debate LETS GOOOOOOO
I’ve always favored destiny in most debates done between the two, this debate makes it hard, to be morally coherent, or to have the right answer fundamentally, it doesn’t seem like he is really concerned about that. Sure he engages in this intellectual jibber jabber often but someone that is really interested in seeking truth, would never act the way destiny did for this debate, which is a shame cause he unlike a lot of people has the capacity to do things like that, and he’s throwing it away when he acts like this, what a waste.
You are literally proving his point. He has the capacity of doing xxxx, but he cant do xxx. Like a child has the capacity to develop a conscious experience
@@temkox they weren’t talking about having the capacity of taking a shit where they? I’m not sure why you put xxx there, it’s not a variable, they were talking about the parts of the brain associated to using and learning complex language, and if those prerequisite structures exist it then could give a 6 month old baby moral consideration, assuming those structures are present (I have no idea) hope that clears things up for you, also might want to read my comment again, I’m not sure you got my message.
The "capacity" argument is very lame.
Nice
This guy "vegan pain" has a genius complex. Ive never seen anyone this needy.
Did Vegan gains honestly say babys start talking their first words when they are 1-2 years old? I was 9 months old, when I was able to say "Mother, father, ball, car". Wtf is wrong with this dude?
Isn’t Destiny talking about Noam Chomsky Theory of language acquisition here?
Wichard
Hahaha that’s bullshit, animals know where and when things will be present, mice even know.
Hyperbolic time chamber Richard lol very good showing Rich
i was having conversations about simple things like toys at 8 months. thats pretty normal.
2 year olds can speak fluently, guy is right saying youve never interacted wtih a baby lol
Sheesh Destiny was on the ropes
I love your debates.
You could use the argument we have no idea what happens after lift even living a entire 75yr + life. What does a fetus that has 0 concept of life etc would even if aware would not understand whatsoever imo I may be wrong
Raged at a pillow after this 🤣
25:55 that's fucking hilarious
i really hope vegan gains doesn't ever procreate
Funny how he hides from the camera as soon as you start the debating. Right before he slides the dis off window in his smirking smug face. He never took it serious for a second
That was Richard, he covered up Destiny's stream with the discord window, Destiny's camera was on the whole time.
@@daviddavidson6278 This Vegan Gains fans are delusional, xd
"you literally just explained that part of language is things like grammar, and syntax", No he didn't, the only one who had used those words in the conversation previously was you VG. Rewatch the VOD.
All the claims you make after the conversation just show how utterly lost you were and how you are not paying attention. Nobody said that babies have those language abilities at five months into the pregnancy, when born or six months from birth. Destiny's claim is that they have necessary brain structures in place, and that's it. You are free to disagree with that, but since you are the person initiating the conversation, trying to convince him of something you should be ready to face this claim with sources. Your inability to understand the argument, and therefore not being prepared is on you. As he said you are free to send him whatever studies back up your claim.
Do you not understand how infuriating it is after so many conversations where you try to attack his argument that you still don't understand the basic differentiation between semantics and grammar/syntax? which are fundamental to this and previous arguments? At least read the damn wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Semantics
Here's a study suggesting that white matter is most rapidly produced prenatally and one can therefore from this determine language outcomes from infancy www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929321000645?via%3Dihub
Here is a study on how babies cry differently in different languages based on stimuli in the last trimester of pregnancy:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209018247
"A maturational primacy of the ventral connection in the language network associating the temporal areas to the inferior frontal gyrus during early development, which is already in place at birth."
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093934X13000709
I'm not sure what study destiny is referencing specifically, but I'm sure if you sent him a message asking for that he would send it to you, instead of showing up on stream and demanding it then and there.
Again nobody is saying that babies are able to understand or speak a language when born, only that those structures are in place. If you are familiar with AI/machine learning development you could say that the "model" and therefore structures are there, but it is not yet trained/fitted with enough data.
If destiny cares about potentiality over actuality then he can’t resist the equivocation between animals and developmentally disabled humans lol
Destiny got mogged so bad you felt like you had to do a second debate in his defense lol
I value right of bodily autonomy over sentient fetus so abort at any stage of development as desire is my ethical stance. It’s logically consistent with veganism because fetuses can’t experience substantive sentience enough to care about over the substantive sentience of the mothers right to bodily autonomy. I would define substantive as the will to live. I would say once fetus is born and thus becomes a human baby, then the baby deserves equal right to life as the mother and no longer violates bodily autonomy rights. Simple.
If your making the bodily rights argument for abortion, this also seems to imply you believe women have complete bodily autonomy over what happens to their body. Would there be anything wrong if a woman named Mary decided to drink some alcohol in hope of an abortion, but ended up just giving her fetus fetal alcohol syndrome, or FAS? Would that be wrong if Mary to do? If it would be, and there is a morally significant reason(R) that accounts for the wrongness of these 2 acts present in FAS, and abortion, indeed, it seems like abortion would just be a greater impairment than FAS. Thus, abortion would be morally impermissible since it’s a greater impairment. But is there a morally significant property that FAS, and abortion have in common? Yes. Both FAS and abortion make the fetuses future experiences worse off. FAS makes the fetus have a worse future, and abortion deprives the fetus of a future, aka a future like ours (FLO.) since this reason is present in both cases, and is arguably amplified in abortion, it seems reasonable to say abortion is nothing more but impairing organism X to the nth degree. Abortion deprives ALL future experiences the fetus will have, while FAS just makes them worse.
You might say what Mary does is wrong because FAS harms a future person, but abortion doesn’t. Abortion prevents a person from coming into existence. But imagine Mary gives her fetus FAS via drinking. It seems her actions were immoral correct? Now what if I told you 2 weeks later she got hit by a car and her pre sentient fetus died. According to this objection of my argument, Mary’s actions go from morally impermissible, to morally permissible. But this is absurd since Mary is not morally Fortunate her fetus died.
Additionally, imagine your hooked up to bob a born person. Imagine you want to unplug from him but you can’t because your not strong enough.So instead, you see a bunch of pills on the counter and give like 100 of them to bob while he’s sleeping. You both wake up the next morning and it turns out you failed to kill bob, but now it turns out he has something that mimics the side effects of FAS. And he will start experiencing them in 1 hour. Prior to 1 hour however, the evil nurse kills him. Are your actions of giving him impairment A wrong? Surely we can all agree you’ve done something wrong, but he never experienced the harm of FAS. Thus, the objection fails because it leads to absurd conclusions.
We can also imagine if Mary gave her child a shot of A(hiv) and her child will experience the side effects in 1 hour. However, the child suddenly dies. Are Mary’s actions suddenly justified? Wasn’t her actions of giving her fetus a shot of A morally impermissible? Is she morally fortunate her child dies?
@@barbarioushardwell5616 getting rid of a fetus vs permanently impairing it are two VERY different things and can not be used interchangeably. One means the child will no longer exist and the other means it will but have a low quality of life. You can not compare FAS to abrton as there is no comparison. Try again.
@@prettykitty5416 I already addressed this concern
you're amazing richard. thanks.
"You do it quite often", that hit different, great job in the debate VG.
Babies don't even have object permanence, much less a capacity for complex understanding of a term like "gone" or "away" or of language in general.
You should debate Seth the programmer
imo the burden of proof should be with the person who proposes to kill, because it is unwise to shoot first and ask question later. If the consequences of getting it wrong are morally disastrous, we should err on the side of caution.
We must weigh up the potential disaster if it turned out the baby/fetus had nontrivial moral status, vs the disaster of denying women's bodily autonomy. I would stress that placing ANY term limit on abortion is a violation of their bodily autonomy - it's just a matter of whether this violation occurs now or in n months time.
I am not sure exactly when the unborn baby/fetus gains nontrivial moral status, but I also don't know the exact week when a person gains the ability to consent to sex. I choose to err on the side of caution by setting the age of consent a bit lower, since in my view it is better to let a rapist go free than to convict an innocent person of rape.
Anecdote: I couldn't even cut down a tree without getting approval from the city council, in case it's wildlife habitat or simply if they want to preserve the flora in that area. The burden of proof was on me in this case.
For weighing up potential disaster. Couldn’t we also say even if the fetus wasn’t a person, the fetus in the case of abortion is deprived of ALL its valuable future experiences it could have enjoyed and valued? However, at BEST the woman has to undergo an unwanted pregnancy.
@@barbarioushardwell5616
It's a tricky one and I don't know what the right answer is.
There is that analogy with the coma patient who will wake up in 9 months time - most people would agree it's wrong to pull the plug.
I was trying to think of a counterexample to this the other day actually. I thought of a scenario where a couple has decided in their minds that they will definitely have a child, but they haven't done the physical deed yet. Now suppose they both fall victim to "unfair dismissal" at work, and can no longer afford to have a child.
@@Animal_lives_matter Can you elaborate on the counter example more?
suppose we did a ultrasound and discovered that this particular baby will never have the capacity to understand/learn language
under destinys morals does that baby not have human rights or moral worth? can you do whatever you want to the baby then? why didnt you go down this route
i would love to debate someone i have the innate capacity to use my imagination and have fun
In what way does Destiny think human brains work in a different way to other animals? It makes zero sense. Its all the same series of processes.
Re: 19:00 there are probably some of those button-pushing dogs and cats that are fake, but I read How Stella Learned to Talk and I'm pretty sure it's legit. The woman who taught her dog, Stella, to talk was speech pathologist and using the same techniques with her dog that she used with her clients. Would really be putting her career on the line if it was made up. It could be an elaborate fraud, but should would of had to fool and awful lot of people.
I don't understand the point of this debate. Just pointing out the fact animals can experience suffering as opposed to plants is enough to go vegan regardless of whether or not animals can comprehend language. It's completely irrelevant and just another excuse to be a meatflake. It's like asking "Could you name the trait?" and getting a response "Uhh, it's okay to eat animals and not humans because humans can make TH-cam videos."
So what?
You should probably have started by asking if he would be OK with abortions if a fetus couldn't understand "language". If he would be OK with it you could continue the conversation like you did. If not then it isn't the capacity to understand language that makes it not OK to abort fetuses.
I don't know why Destiny can't just say that he arbitrarily values human life over animals. I personally care more about the suffering of humans even if there's no real argument for why.
@@WeirdSmellyMan That's irrational tho. If you have no reason to believe such a thing it's like presupposing a god exists without any reason to believe it. If you don't have reason, don't hold the opinion. Be impartial.
@@80slimshadys it's an emotional response. It has nothing to do with logic or reason.
@Grifftxr accepting that there's no real argument that human life matters more than animals is something I could accept on a philosophical level, but in practice it just doesn't pan out that way. I will never be traumatized by accidentally running over a dog with my car as much as I would if it was a person.
@@WeirdSmellyMan Yea I understand that because I'm the same but I understand it's an irrational response. It's arbitrarily prejudiced and unfair to those that irrational belief would affect. Emotional response means nothing, facts don't care about feelings. Feelings don't make good criteria, facts and logic do. Feelings help guide logic but if decisions rely solely upon feelings then that's irrational. It's called moral dumbfounding.
Dude can’t even understand his own definition
Your subs are declining.
Your life is declining
yeah because he keeps making extremely rude below the belt comments for no reason whatsoever. He literally killed his own channel.
Debate as long as you want,its wrong.
Even though veganism is the morally superior position, I don't know if these discussions lead us anywhere honestly.
No it isn’t. Moral superiority doesn’t exist.
@@accelerationquanta5816 i didnt say morally perfect or something
@@joediditde Nothing is morally better than anything else. Raping people and petting puppies are morally identical.
@@accelerationquanta5816 you need help
@@joediditde You are emotional, not logical. Very effeminate.
am i the only one hearing audible moaning in the background?, go to 10:40
Sounds like a cat to me.
Facts and logic destroy carnist nonsense every time.
is destiny pro life or pro choice?
I feel Destiny argued better here.
I'm ngl it's kinda insane seeing these dudes loop years later like move on with your life holy shit do something else
ability and capacity are different things
Destiny digging himself into a hole with that specifying the trait stuff
There’s no “trait” that anyone actually cares about except for the fact animals aren’t humans. Being human is what makes humans valuable and animals not,
Why does destiny consistently suck so bad at arguing this. Like in other debates he does pretty good. I know that the vegan argument is pretty much bomb proof, but he always ends up looking so bad faith.
The guy is a psychopath saying that babies don’t have consciousness until 20 weeks.
Which one said that
Common destiny L
object permanence... babies don't understand that something they can't see is still there. that alone disproves his position. plenty of research on this.
I just ate a 🐔 It was delicious 😋
Destiny XD
You’re losing subs
No uploads = losing subs
Hey Vegans gains, today I ate a nice juicy steak, and the butcher assured me the animal suffered, you mad bro?
vegan gains started out smarting destiny and he walked away from his computer. Haha I'm not a vegan but damn vegan gains is smart and entertaining.
This is so boring
Even if destiny is correct about babies having this intelligence that animals lack, his position still states it's okay to mass torture animals because they don't have it (as he's admitted in the past). pretty sure majority of his chat wouldn't bite that bullet if they're being honest lol
Just because beings lack a right to life, does not mean it’s morally permissible to harm them without good reason
@@barbarioushardwell5616 I don't disagree. I'm just talking about destiny's position: animals lack moral value because they lack this trait.
Unless he's changed his view and now thinks they DO have moral value, but not a right to life?
@@OptimisticSeal I think destiny might say something like even if x is not a person, that doesn’t mean we should treat x in the worst way possible. For instance, if we had a non human animal like a rat, it seems like torturing it without good reasons is bad because it causes unnecessary pain, and causing pain is bad. However, it is not what grounds something’s right to life.
I would avoid all of this completely in a sense, by saying what we are is a rational FORM. Our soul, or FORM, the thing that tells our matter(by matter I mean pure potentiality), how to develop. The type of form we have is going to determine the type of thing we are, and the type of form we have. This is also known as Hylomorphic dualism, by Aristotle. If what we are is a rational form, or we can even simply this a little bit and step away from philosophy of mind, and say I have a rational nature. I am the type of being that ought act a particular way, it seems like fetuses have this, zygotes have this, disabled people have this, every human has this, but chickens do not. This gets away from justifying infanticide, and granting chickens the same moral status as us.
However, I will say the wrongness of killing, stems from depriving another individual of a future like ours. And since chickens lack a FLO, it seems like it wouldn’t be wrong it kill them. Maybe we are depriving them of a future like a chicken, and so killing them may be wrong to some extent, but it does not seem intuitively speaking, to be as wrong as killing an ape, or infant. I think the wrongness of the killing of the animal, is going to turn on how rational the animal is. How well can it understand certain moral conceptions and a theory of philosophical justice? Although I must admit, this isn’t something I’ve thought about much, and it seems like some parts of my position are arbitrary, but in essence, I think vegans have arbitrary problems with their position. Like why value a newborn human that’s going to die in 6 months over a rat? Why do we donate tons of money to make newborns who are dying of cancer comfortable, but we don’t do the same with pigs?
@@barbarioushardwell5616 I don't think destiny agrees with the position that unnecessary pain (or suffering since pain isn't necessarily suffering) is bad. I'm just going off of his previous conversations where he bit the bullet on a few things that definitely would cause unnecessary pain without anything to counterbalance. He changes his arguments vs vegans every convo I listen to though, so maybe he went back on this. I do agree he wouldn't say we ought to cause pain. He would just say it's morally neutral, otherwise he'd be against factory farming.
I agree most vegans have a lot of arbitrary or not as well thought out positions.
I don't agree with the rationality argument. For example I don't really care if something can understand philosophical justice, or what it ought to do. That weighs very little on their moral value to me. Same thing with rationality. Unless say, their rationality is what allowed them to get a better experience of the world? i.e. they can experience greater well-being but also experience greater suffering. In that case, rationality would be important an important trait. But let's say animals have no sense of justice, moral agency, etc. I don't really care at the end of the day, still wrong to harm them imo as long as they are beings capable of suffering
@@OptimisticSeal Your right that destiny’s position seems to be very elusive. I mean, in previous abortion debates I’ve heard him say conscious experience is what matters in determining if x is a person. But aren’t rats conscious too? The reply destiny gives is to say, “well they don’t have human conscious experience.” But why should being human matter here? He might say because we do more unique things, and can just do more than a pig. However, a newborn who is going to die in 4 months seems to be on par with a pig, however it’s not clear why the newborn is more valuable than the pig. Even if the newborn cannot and will never do more unique things, and won’t have a conscious experience like a mature human will.
In other debates he’s said language is what determines moral status, but imagine if we genetically modified a fetus so it will never develop a concept of language, or it’s concept of language will be on par with a rat or snake. Does this organism now lose the right to life if it lacks this property?
So you are right in the sense destiny switches up a lot.
However, it is possible in regards to torturing mass animals, that this is wrong, but killing the animal is ok. For instance, in the literature of abortion there is a pro life argument called the impairment argument, and one of the principles is if it’s immoral to impair organism O, to the nth degree for reason R, provided reason R holds or is present, impairing an organism to the nth+1 degree is worse. So we can apply this reasoning here. It’s wrong to torture animals because it causes them pain. However, reason R(pain), is not present when killing the animal. So killing the animal lacks an essential property of the wrongness of torturing an animal. From this, we can conclude killing an animal for mostly any reason is probably ok, killing an animal in a way which inflicts pain and suffering is probably bad.
We can also make an argument from hylomorphism. Animals lack a rational soul, but they still have a soul. By soul I just mean form, or the thing that tells the matter(elements that make up the substance), how to develop. Because animals lack a rational soul, they do not have a right to life(assuming this form of dualism is correct), however, since we have a rational soul we have a right to life. But animals still have a soul, and we shouldn’t cause this soul unnecessary pain without a good reason. Is food a sufficient condition for causing the animal pain? Perhaps, but this is we’re my position might become a little arbitrary.
You said you rejected the idea rationality has any moral significance, but this explanation of personhood is an inference to the best conclusion. It avoids a lot of counter examples. And frankly, seems like the most inclusive view of personhood, while saying other animals like rats and pigeons are not persons.
By being able to understand moral conceptions and justice, you also seem to be able to have a better understanding of the world. So in essence, what we are is a rational soul or form. Because of this, it is in my nature to become rational. I was always developing to become the rational and mature version of myself because of the type of being I am, or the type of soul or form I have. So i don’t know if your pro choice or pro life, but even if your pro life, can you find any serious problems with this account of personhood?