Destiny is my favourite vegan activist. His view is so psychopathic that flesheaters become uncomfortable hearing him express it and go vegan. I literally consider Destiny expressing his view to be effective vegan activism. Good chat tho.
This comment section makes me embarrassed about being a vegan. I miss the days when Vegan Gains low key encouraged his fanbase to meme on ask yourself. ;-;
Why should he? Consciousness and sentience don't exist. Don't you know? It's all about syntax not semantics. His son and himself are a philosophical zombies, therefore it's not bad if they die or get tortured, it's just a biological mechanism, right??
GIFT1FROM1THE1GODZ oh it’s from when he’s streaming Starcraft all achievement, Nathan came up to him and ask for food in the morning and he tell him to fuck off. (Well, not really the word fuck off but you get the gist of it)
@@loluser124 It's not that bad. I'm vegetarian right now, but honestly, it's amazing how much time you can spend eating as a vegan because of vegan food often having fewer nutrients per unit of volume. I'd still be vegan now, if I had more time to prepare meals. Putting in more time is honestly the only downside.
Destiny is my favorite example of the fact that just because you're logically consistent, doesn't mean you're right. Single lines of reasoning are often too weak to defeat an entire structure of beliefs, and that's why debates are often unresolved.
@@cogitoergosum9069 I used the word "right" in a loose way (I could've said "good" instead). Anyways, this applies to anything. Let's assume there is such a thing as true and false beliefs. When you hold x beliefs, you can be logically consistent even if they're not true, because logic is simply the natural consequence of a certain conditions (if you drop an object, it falls to the ground, because there is gravity). In this case, Destiny believes that any consciousness except his own has no intrinsic value, and thus his arguments regarding social contract are logical. Ethics is not concerned necessarily whether something is true or false, rather if something can benefit and include the needs and wants of the most amount of people or not. Then you can ask "doesn't Destiny's social contract address this?". Even though almost nobody actually hold his position, yes it does address it, but it does it in an overtly indirect and roundabout way in order to accomodate its main value, which is egocentricity, and in doing so, it leaves out key ethical concerns.
@@raz0rcarich99 Well reasoned, I would argue a very similar point myself. The main reason I asked my original question was because I wanted to know whether you were arguing from a morally prescriptive standpoint or not. I do, however, very much like your reasoning and I appreciate that fact that you put in time to answer my question, thanks!
Sane people: "Torture is bad." Destiny: "Does the torturer have a masochism fetish?" Trying to base everything on reciprocity doesn't get you out of ultimately having emotion-based values as axioms. It means those axioms are based on what you think most people wouldn't want to happen to themselves or what you wouldn't want to happen to yourself, depending on just how sociopathic you want to sound.
Reciprocity doesn't work litteraly like that. It's "I don't don't to things to people that they don't like so they won't do to me what I don't want them to do."
@Nuance Is Good we fight for life and try to survive when forced into a corner, we may be doomed but we're being pushed into the corner and vegansism is our way of fighting to survive, it's all we got
Nuance Is Good imagine condemning you’re grandchildren to mass extinction because you’re too fat, lazy, and unmotivated to make small changes in your life for the well being of this planet, sucks I have to share the same oxygen as you.
@LouderWithCrowder Two its not about doing everything in your power to maximize anything. Its about not stabbing animals because eating plants are just better in these regards
@LouderWithCrowder Two you arnt being forced to maximise what can be done for the environment, however i think the bare minimum can be done which would just mean walking down a different aisle in the supermarket, and in doing so would mean reducing your carbon footprint substantially more then anything else you could do in your life. You're just using an appeal to futility fallacy.
@LouderWithCrowder Two no those ways do not displace nearly as much as you do being vegan. According to the United Nations 2019 IPCC report being vegan is the single most impactful thing a person can do for the environment. All those things you mentioned are all good however they dont involve killing animals. Changing to solar is exspensive, taking the bus might not be an option for some. Making a TVP spaghetti bolognese instead making it from a dead unenvironmentally friendly animals body isnt a hassle comparably. Nobody is obligated to do anything. Nobody is obligated to not be a serial killer or kill peoples dogs. You can do what ever you want if you dont want to consider anyone else but yourself, it's about what is right and if you want to be a moral hypocrit or not.
When Destiny is attempting to describe how he feels for other beings, I think the succinct way of phrasing is that he does not feel affective empathy. But he is capable of cognitive empathy
Typical narcissistic sociopath/psychopath, they can do that, if it's in their interest..., not very emphatic or authentic ethical. Can not respect that 💚🌿
Claiming the battle should be fought on environmental grounds rather than on morality is a bit weird, I wonder how Destiny would go about establish that the environment is worth protecting without heading to morality anyway?
The negative environmental effects of animal agriculture could eventually negatively impact him in significant ways. So for people who buy into Destiny's hedonistic morality, it is a more convincing argument than the arguments for extending moral consideration to animals.
It’s logically intuitive that if the environment is damaged it could affect your everyday tasks such as pollution and being forced to wear a mask to protect you from pollution, I do wonder if you listened to destiny’s argument in the beginning of the debate because he layed out an argument that clearly didn’t deal with morality.
I dont get it why people have so much problem understanding ur morality. I dont mean agreeing with it, they keep asking the same questions cause of lack of understaing of ur stance.
It's just interesting that, in the developed world at least, there is quite an overwhelming percentage of people who eat meat regularly that would be uncomfortable with the concept of them personally inflicting pain/death onto an animal. Most people for example would not want to kill a chicken but it's hypocritical to be against the concept of personally killing a chicken but continuing to consume what the death of a chicken directly provides.
Because it is fucken weird, almost psychotic for other people to understand. It defies the very social contract and moral consistency he seems to purport. To use his own words, he is ''fucked up" in the brain. THAT is what we can't understand and maybe his public admission of it!
you need to become a vegan eating monster which assimilates every vegan in one person to become the new vegan saviour Destiny. Gain the vegan, become the vegan.
if destiny's heuristic is; "if i accept doing an action to another i'm permitting that action to be done to me" but also does NOT hold the position that "might makes right" then he's is inconsistent. because none of us chose to be a human and an animal didn't choose to be an animal so if he is only accepting that its okay to treat animals that way because they are incapable of reciprocating or intellectualize that action back at us (or to show us mercy) then he is really saying it is okay to do that to animals because they are incapable of being cruel (or being kind) back to us. he's only accepting that humans deserve moral consideration because if they aren't then there's nothing stopping them from doing the same to him because they are capable of doing so and conceptualizing this intellectually. there isnt any need to appeal to emotion when coming to the conclusion that vegan is more moral. i think the same logic you use to conclude morality that leads to a propsering and functioning civilisation like we have today can be used to come to the conclusion that veganism is morally right. most morality lies on two foundational tracks that run paralell to each other and are different according to which track youre on. when a society or person is on the track of progressing more things are morally permissible than when youre on a track of an already established society thats full of abundance. same reason why in a survival situation the things that are morally neutral or right are different than if you are in a well functioning society.
Dayvie nah, they talked about one Argument (empathy) for a long time to clarify the exact position destiny has and why. Thats not the same as repeating an argument.
Pigs can manipulate switches to turn fans and lights on/off. If I'm sweating and have a fan pointed at me and the pig can turn on the fan in order to help me out, is that pig therefore capable of taking part in the social contract?
can you please explain why its all about meat, i appear to be missing something why not care about the use of cars, they cause suffering for pleasure also is the pleasure they give too great to give up?
I drive an electric car and have green energy. So you're out of the blue attack trying to drag me into a content that I didn't mentioned is just a reflection of your inner guilt , but If I would have mentioned anything why going vegan is the biggest impact , it's because the numbers stand and the meat industry is the biggest contributor to climate change and us dying because earth will survive so it's racial suicide , a suicidal society , No 1 in destroying the ozone layer , no .1 of water waste , No 1 in food waste as we grow 80 pourcent of food or more for the animals to use and get a minimal outcome , and then it takes up so much land that even for me as a vegan it was first hard to believe so there would be many reasons why this would be the quickest and best change not even to mention the worsed is paying dor the inuman suffering of this beings , which have their own personality so it 's a person but then again I didn't said nothing about that and you dragged me into that topic because of inner guilt which makes you angry because you have a lot maturing to do
@@jedex4645 also I am bot the smartest nor the dumbest so I go with facts from very smart people and with my heart what feels right while allways trying to understand more and find new things out on my own . An trying to protect my soul while protecting other souls
@@jedex4645 just try for a month not even for the planete or the animals , but for you , you deserve it and if you take it serious for a month I can give you all the dope brands even for cheese that actually taste like cheese many kinds they have even hard parmegianno style cheese , why should we evolve but stay with an old mindset or farmers fucking their cows , most of em are fucking retarded incest heros anyway or descendant of it , wow what a cultrure to defend
@@KevIn-ej3gm i honestly am not attacking you, but i cannot give up meat to reduce suffering and then still be doing other stuff for my pleasure that causes suffering. its a total contradiction either i take on the vegan philosophy to the fullest extent or not at all. (your electric car and green energy 100% cause suffering) taking it to the fullest extent either means living only with just enough food, water, warmth and oxygen, or not living at all. you have gave no reason to start and stop at meat, i understand it has the biggest impact on suffering, but this is not a reason. it would be like thinking rape is bad, therefore not doing it, and punching people is bad, but you still actually go and punch people
How is it that the best discussion of veganism that Destiny had is also the one that seemingly had the lowest views. This honestly should have been copy/pasted onto any of the others, because there is nothing left to hash out with him afterwards, regardless of whether you're for or againat any of hia statements
If only matt had this much honesty You did so well ask yourself I am sorry i don't know your name Based on how you did here against destiny You would butcher Matt
Regarding the example of pushing a button to kill every1 and accumulate wealth You could defend that position by saying that You would not want to be killed if someone else was presented with the same option. It's basically the same example as previous one with brain damaged people not capable of forming social contract just pushed to extreme.
@@rinneganofrage7206 i don't think it works that way cause animals cannot form social contract with you. If they could understand rules of our society maybe it would work, but currently there are no such animals.
@@rinneganofrage7206 Most of what you described is just conditioning (primates example might be somewhat different), which would not count as social contract. If it would you could have said the same even about computers and cars (i think there's more to social contract than just behaving a certain way and animals in your examples were just living tools). To form real social contract you need to have some form of abstract thinking to understand 'human' values and consequences of your actions. Primates example seems better and I could see the case for protecting them.
Make me a shopping list that is similar to my current weekly spending that will be tasty, as well as convenient and I will do it. Legit. Make me a shopping list and I'll give it a go. I need you to use the english store Tesco, Morrison's, Aldi, etc. Any of those is fine.
BobbyRice2 you should honestly just try buying some new food and see how it goes. If you like it. You can continue buying those foods and get rid of the meat at a certain pace. Here's some cheap foods that you might wanna try buying. Lentils, potatoes, beans, rice, pasta, bananas and tofu. You should try to make cheap foods the staple of your diet because that should save a lot of money. Aside from that you can buy vegan milk and meat and fruits. And that should be good. Keep in mind the cheap foods I listed are reaaaaaally cheap. I go with lentils as a staple because it's like 3 dollars for a weeks worth and I eat a shit ton
40:30 also around this era apparently the reductio for every veganism argument is you agree with me or you're stupid or your psychopath and I don't think you're stupid or a psychopath so you should just be instantly agreeing with me on every one of my premises
dude I thought that at some point Destiny would buckle and admit that he's not actually a sociopath and is just adopting the position that isn't contradictory but he has actually convinced me that he might be kind of a sociopath tbh
@Onni Yeah I saw that video and I don't think Destiny is a literal sociopath or anything but I really can't wrap my mind around his take on animals it just seems so insane to me
Just go vegan dude, quit making convoluted excuses to keep eating corpses even through there are plant based options that are just as good. Still love you though ☺️
@@zacharywoodford8530 I'm so confused as to how people like you make it into these kinds of videos. Your thought processes are so illogical that your arguments collapse on themselves at the slightest of pokes
@@brunosanchez3427 how so? All you did was stretch out your response to seem intelligent while not actually making any points. My points make perfect sense. Meat substitutes suck, that's objectively true. People have always eaten animals and we are in fact the best animal at getting meat. Humans are above other animals. I know you soy boys get emotional about this subject but this is how it is.
@@zacharywoodford8530 let's think with our big boy brains for a little bit, okay? Your argument is that, bcause animals do it, we should also be allowed to eat other animals. Well you know what else animals do? Rape. Should we be allowed to rape other animals, or each other for that matter? Animals do it after all. And gtfo of here with that bullshit objective claim. Taste is far from objective and can be dramatically changed based on your diet. Like if you stopped eating meat for a couple of months, you probably wouldn't have a preference for meat anymore.
Whos this Ask Yourself guy, and why does he sound completely rational. When do i find something out about him that makes me think he's totally bonkers. Is he the next JF or Bunty? Do we start the redemption arc early?
The social contract argument defends meat eating pretty well, and it is easy to make. And it isn't nihilistic. We accept the social contract in society for security. That includes not trampling on the rights of others, for they then would be justified to trample on yours. So you don't stab someone's braindead son, their pet, etc. because it violates the social contract. Harvesting farm animals for meat does not violate the social contract. Sentience is not relevant.
most people do not claim to believe murdering humans is wrong only on the grounds of self-protection. The only people who do are those who want to defend killing animals but be able to say that killing humans is still wrong. Seems like finding the conclusions first and looking for the premises that lead to them instead of figuring out which premises you truly believe in.
this debate makes so much more sense to me after seeing destiny talk to Dr. Alok Kanojia. it´s like he has to go through some extra steps to feel the empathy most of us feel immediatly with no control, because he is repressing his emotions, which he taught himself as a child as a coping mechanism. and you can trust my opinion on this, i am sitting in an armchair.
The way I see it is we intuitively see harming animals especially pets as bad but it’s simply but we are empathetic creatures that personify animals and these feelings don’t mean a thing is good or bad, they just simply feel bad. Our bodies are far from perfect and our feelings/intuition is probably never “morally” consistent on any issues.
@@f4r6u5180 By that rationale; you would be saying it’s morally justified to unalive humans that aren’t sapient; whether they are mentally disabled or not. Which is a horrifying take on the matter; just as horrifying as unaliving animals that are sentient and feel pain.
@@YourConscience1Do you understand that morality is subjective? Unless youre going to assert that you're the arbiter of morality then you dont get to call anything immoral, rather it conflicts with your personal morality.
@@HaveAHuff Yes; it is subjective. Anyone who prefers that their bodily autonomy not be violated; already understands that harming any beings bodily autonomy is cruel and should be avoided.
@@YourConscience1 Nope. That's just an assertion, an argument from feelings. You can't speak for what anyone knows. How can you agree that morality is subjective and then assert what others should find cruel? Pick one, is morality subjective or are you the arbiter? That's a direct contradiction only sentences apart. You're just speaking for yourself and projecting your feelings as facts onto other people, that's not how arguments work, try again.
I'm so happy for this debate, the one with vegan gains was so frustrating because, to put it bluntly, he wasn't smart enough to attack the right areas in destiny's argument. He just didn't get it
Yeah to be fair ask yourself had some good hypotheticals, sure adding infinite well-being into a hypothetical of a utilitarian sort of just defeats the point of the hypothetical, but he does have to accept it as morally correct. I see that creature in the hypothetical as a Cthulhu type lovecraftian being, who’s existence and being is so far beyond us we cannot even comprehend it, and it cannot even notice us, like us killing bacteria. In that situation, a being with existence and wellbeing on a level so far above our wildest conceptions, it may be morally neutral for it to kill us, and we just cannot comprehend why, Idk sounds a bit silly but I think it’s kinda cool. Being a meat eater logically is obviously an up hill battle, most people do not realize just how much more sense vegan logic is, mostly due to stereotypes and willful ignorance. I’m just hoping for that lab grown meat so I can start acting indignant and better than other people!
Destiny, what if you were invincible? What if absolutely no harm could be done to you and you are 100% sure about this. Would you still care about the suffering of other beings?
I don't think this really works as an attack, because Destiny is always putting himself in the shoes of other people when he makes these reciprocation arguments. He would say as part of his argument "if I were not invincible and susceptible to suffering like this person, I wouldn't want that harm caused against me"
Chandler You made it sound as if destiny genuinely cares about the other, without any self-interest. This is not the case (at least if he's being genuine). Destiny has stated that he doesn't want to harm others in a society, because those people might try to harm him as well or he might get into legal trouble. This is out of self-interest, not out of compassion, which is how a psychopath thinks. I still don't believe he's a psychopath, though :).
I guess that makes sense. I just don't know how you can be 100% sure you will be invincible for a remainder of your life. I feel like some kind of god figure would probably have to confer that ability, and at that point we might be at objective morality anyway.
Chandler I don't know how you could be invincible in the first place :p. But that's not of any significant importance, because it's a hypothetical situation.
I think there is utilitarian value for Destiny to try to change his personality. In other words, I think it would be of interest to Destiny to seek therapy/help developing his empathic skills/preferences.
@@mannnnel But if destiny grew up in those times he would have a complete different knowledge base. How is it probable at all. "if you were black in the us back in the day you would be a slave". Like what? So i would adopt the views of my times? What an interesting discovery.
@@K_Shawn_Webb I get your point, he would be a completely different person and there's no way of knowing how he would be. When people say this type of statement they try to ilustrate what someone with a specific set of values would do if they were exactly the same in that time.
Nice discussion. It doesn't have the same entertaining factor as debating complete idiots but it's nice hearing reasonable, smart people engaging in a discussion. Also, destiny got veganed in this debate.
The biggest cop out that destiny uses in these debates is pivoting on the foundational nature of his social contract. He is a bit unclear whether it's conceptual or practical. He will say that it is ABSOLUTELY in self interest and that his only concern is a practical protection of his well being, but yet he uses the social contract argument against abortion stating "he would not have liked to have been aborted". If he is only concerned about himself in a practical sense that shouldn't matter... since he will never be at risk of being aborted and any slippery slope argument as to how it puts him at risk later is patently absurd.
I think the main problem with Destinys position here is that he portrays himself as purely pragmatic to the point of seeming sociopathic in order to avoid what he sees as moral hypocrisy. Yes its true that many people care about their cats and dogs but don't care about cows and chickens that live in terrible conditions. Is that hypocritical? Yes in a sense it is, but as far as I can tell there are very very few people who live without any kind of moral hypocrisy. Destiny claims he doesn't care about animals because they don't engage in the social contract that humans share, but what about humans that live in terrible conditions and suffer every day? Does he care for all people, including people he will never meet or see just as much as he cares for his son? I doubt it. Is that not the same moral hypocrisy that people commit when they care about their pets more than their food? In my opinion holding any person to these standards either makes them seem inconsistent or hypocritical. People naturally care more for people and animals that are directly engaged in their own lives, maybe you could portray that as selfish but in my eyes its almost completely unavoidable. In an ideal world maybe I would care for the people suffering in other countries with the same intensity I would care about my own family, but I don't really believe people are capable of that.
Yeah this is more the truth of it...but he would still agree it is morally wrong , even if he would care more personally about his family being killed than a stranger. just like you can agree the meat industry is morally wrong, but still not do anything about it, or think your dietary needs / pleasure are more important than the animal's life.
Basically, sort of like how some can agree that war is a moral evil, but still think it has a benefit in a given situation that makes it worth risking that moral evil.
Thats a good point. It just seems like Destiny reduces down the argument to a point of absolutism where to admit that he cares for any animal means that he would have to care about all animals equally. From what I understand of Destiny's point of view, he would see it as hypocritical to be sad about your dog dying if you currently eat meat. And that position might be the most sound in a *purely* logical sense but it disregards the reality of human emotion.
I'm not saying its a good thing but people don't make decisions based purely off of hard logic all the time. Why doesn't the human race engage in eugenics? Logically if done right you could have a much healthier better version of humans but the world doesn't operate in an exclusively pragmatic way.
I have no issue with veganism, but god I hate vegans at times..... and I really fucking hate that veganism has become akin to a religion to so many. And, no, until we have developed specific scientific developments, we'll never have a truly healthy vegan diet that's entirely natural. Also, if we can't define sentience, why not extend all of that to all life and then you just are immoral for ever consuming ANY other life? And what about Animals that will kill you? Why would it be ok for another animal to kill humans but humans, that are animals, can't also kill animals for the need of consumption? If I get attacked and consumed by a cougar or whatever, I mean, I'll be dead and that sucks for me, but it's not "wrong". I don't see it wrong for humans to consume animals. Now, if you wanna talk about the conditions animals are treated at farms, that's a regulation problem more than anything. Also, I do think we all should consume LESS meat, but not entirely no meat.
Also, i disagree about the "health" side. The arguments vegan make tend to ignore that they need to take supplements to get nutrients that only come from meat. They tend to ignore that vegans are often deficient in other things like CoQ10, B12, Zinc, Iron, etc. It's not deathly deficient, but it is deficient. Some meat is necessary. And most of the health negatives of meat are overblown. Like the increase to cancer from bacon a few years ago was overblown. People giving the higher % which ignores it's a % on top of the 5% everyone NATURALLY has to chance of cancer (so it gets up to like 5.68% iirc). And that's only if you ate bacon for every day of every meal of your life. Excessive amounts no one does. Too much meat is bad, but no meat is also bad. We're omnivores for a reason.
I don't think omnivory will be seen in the same manner as slavery, because slavery is a means to generate surplus. If you are capable of capturing and mantaining a slave, you are already capable of sustaining yourself, and you are just a slave owner to have more/work less, while meat eating has been a necessity for humans before even acquiring a higher conciousness.
If Destiny only knew that the desire to be logically consistent or truthful is equivalent to the desire to express consideration or love to other sentient beings, this conversation wouldn't need to take place. No matter how new-agey this may sound, love and truth are the same thing.
I genuinely don't understand why the debate has to go into these insane levels of nihilistic utilitarianism just to justify a pro meat-eater stance. 1) I am an independant moral agent. 2) If I were to die tomorrow and thus end my consumption of meat for the rest of time, my reduced consumption would not save a single factory farmed animal from being bred to die. 3) Therefore, as a single moral agent purchasing and eating meat is a neutral moral act.
@@ThomasLG There's nothing self defeating because the argument is a moral one, not one pushing an agenda. Neither voting nor not voting has morality behind it because democracy(especially within a democratic republic) is not inherently morally good. If all you eat is factory farmed meat that is mass produced for the market, its just a simple fact that your singlar consumption of meat does not kill an animal. Blaming one person for a system is like saying that if you participate in democracy you are guilty of all the killing a government does, and as such a vegan stance would be that voting is murder.
@@ThomasLG Except the "consequences" of a smaller market of meat is simply that less animals are bred, not that more lives are saved. The system still exists and is perpetuated by the literal billions of people that perpetuate it. Unless you can make an argument that one person going vegan has a moral good to the world, you're not actually saying anything relevant to the discussion.
@@ThomasLG Cool non sequitur, but technically everything we do to animals has a poor analogy to humans. We cull populations for the eco system, we force breeding or force artificial insemination on them, we domesticate them just because we want to. So clearly the common issue is that we give ourselves special consideration that we don't give animals.
What exactly is the point of continuing to ask for Destiny’s emotional response to certain things? What does that matter to this argument? Regardless of whether or not Destiny has any emotional response to the pain of others, it is possible to both acknowledge that emotional response as a biological phenomenon, and also reject that response as a determinator of your actions.
Dominick Ferrara Okay so raping your own children isn't wrong because "emotions are biological phenomena". Trust me, you wouldn't want to live in a psychopathic society where nobody cares about the well-being of each other, but only work together to build a society like ants lol.
I mean, raping children ISN'T wrong because "emotions are biological phenomena". Raping children is wrong because as a society we've determined that: A) Personal bodily autonomy should be valued and respected B) Therefore, informed consent is a necessary component of sexual interaction C) Children tend to be underdeveloped cognitively such that they often do not understand the implications of their actions D) Therefore, it is impossible for a child to give informed consent to sexual activity E) Therefore, it is wrong to engage in sexual activity with a child. It's not "the thought of a child getting raped makes me feel upset, therefore raping children is wrong", its "raping children is wrong, therefore the thought of a child getting raped makes me feel upset". The emotional response follows from the rationalization, not the other way around. I'm not saying that I want people to be mindless ants and reject emotion entirely. In fact, I'm not entirely sure how this relates to my first comment. The point I was trying to make there is that a person may or may not feel an emotional response towards something, but that emotional response shouldn't matter when that person is trying to rationalize their actions.
I'm not sure I fully understand your phrasing. Just to clarify, you're saying that because meat eaters use the behavior of lions as a way to morally justify eating meat, it's hypocritical to not allow the moral justification of other actions via the same route? (e.g. In some circumstances a male lion will cannibalize it's own cubs in order to incentivize the female to mate, therefore by the meat-eater's logic it should be morally justifiable for a human to do the same to a human baby?)
Depends on what exactly you mean. If you mean in a grand, universal sense, then no, nothing is moral or immoral. If you mean in the moral system that our society today generally accepts, then yes, because we've decided that personal autonomy is important, and ending someone's life without their consent is the ultimate violation of that autonomy.
Well more specifically he's held this belief the entire time, and attempted to get destiny to bite on certain bullets (or possibly concede some) before restating his hypothesis.
Can't you link the environmental stuff to destiny's moral framework? -He believes that vegans win the environmental argument, which means he believes that their is an argument to be won there i.e. that individual choices are worthy of consideration wrt the environment. -environmental problems have the potential to effect him negatively, therefore he would want others to be vegan for his sake, therefore he should be vegan himself.
I've just recently found this channel and I've enjoyed the debates and he seemed like a really decent and smart guy, but this video left me extremely disappointed. I simply can't stand heartlessness and I'm amazed that he basically admitted that and I really struggle to understand how people can be heartless. Then again, I'm a strong empath myself so it's a completely different world.
I would consider myself an empath, and while I disagree with a lot of the more extreme statements Destiny makes. He also logically traces the paths I take towards empathizing with other people. Maybe I'm projecting, but I think he has(or had) resistance to the traditional ideas of empathy. Running a simulation of anothers potential experience in order to better understand them, and then relating that experience to yourself, is empathy. Especially when your conclusion is close to the potential reality of their experience. Destiny is just a little more logically/rationally overcharged in that respect.
Note to self, disregard anyone who tells other people they are an empath. This man had to watch his dementia ridden grandmother buy and then euthanize 10 dogs over the course of his adolescence because she forgot she kept peeing on her floor and blamed it on the dog.
Why would a meat eater lose on health every time? They can be healthy without giving up milk, eggs, meat and animal skin handbags. A meat eater can eat vegetables frequently and be equally healthy
@Jake S I disagree. There's no evidence that there is a statistically significant difference between the health of a vegan and a meat eater that eats mostly vegetables. I doubt if you took 2 people with identical lifestyles but one of them eats some candy once or twice a week that there'd be any difference in health. As a group vegans tend to be more health conscious than meat eaters, and are less likely to be smokers and many other factors. If you control for all of the lifestyle variables many studies have been unable to find a difference between the meat eaters and the vegetarians. The point I'm trying to make, is that lower consumption of meat (especially red meat) may be healthy, but the health benefits from this reduction have diminishing returns. You don't need to complete stop eating meat, dairy, and eggs to maximize health, so we can't claim veganism is healthier than meat eating, only that vegans tend to be healthier than meat eaters for a variety of reasons. No meat consumption is healthier than only meat consumption, but it isn't healthier than a mixed diet of mostly vegetables and fruits that sometimes includes meat.
Cosmic Lich Because, in his perspective, they are just as hyporcitic as most meat eaters because they claim to care about animals but still support the industry by buying animal products. Maybe he thinks they are worse because some of them think they don't contribute to the killing of farm animals
If you're a vegetarian for non-ethical reasons then it's fine but if you're an ethical vegetarian who still goes out and monetarily supports the killing of animals then you're being dumb and hypocritical. It's sort of like if someone in the past took a moral stance against slavery by owning only one or two slaves instead of a dozen like the average slave owner. If you're morally against owning slaves then you shouldn't own slaves period. If you're morally opposed to killing animals then you shouldn't be supporting the killing of animals period. Whether that's buying leather, or directly supporting the industries that do kill animals by still purchasing things like eggs and milk from them, or just straight up buying meat.
Cosmic Lich They aren't, since they are still better than meat eaters. Destiny just hates middle ground positions because he considers it logically inconsistent/hypocritical. And maybe it is but it doesn't matter since they're still causing less harm than meat eaters. So objectively speaking it's just a stupid thing to say vegetarians are worse than meat eaters because the only difference is they eat one less bad food group. So meat eaters do meat and dairy, that's two bad things, while vegetarians do not do meat, only dairy, that's only one bad thing. Which is worse, ONE OR TWO? Again, Saying ONE simply because it's not consistent is retarded as it's an appeal to hypocrisy.
Jordan D Now, I'm not a fan of dairy myself but the problem with your ideas is that MEAT EATERS ALSO EAT DAIRY. So, a vegetarian is just a lesser meat eater, vegetarian does not mean "DAIRY EATER", that's what the vegans made it into. It means "VEGETATION EATER". A vegetarian just still allows dairy. It doesn't mean he eats only dairy WTF... I mean, I was a vegetarian until last year. I didn't eat more cheese or eggs than the omnivores in the house, so how exactly was I causing more harm? Your arguments make no sense, because you first have to prove that the average vegetarian eats as much of these products as the average meat eater eats animal products combined, which is ofcourse bullshit... And btw, if I was a chicken, I'd rather be a chicken laying eggs than a fucking McNuggets, so to then tell me that eating a McNuggets is better than eating an egg, I'd say you are the one that's fucking crazy!
There's one thing that confuses me. It seems it's very important to people on the vegan side that action be taken when a person recognizes a way that they feel. I can kind of understand this, because I would hope the same happens when a person recognizes that their God belief is unjustifiable. But we're talking about real people and self-preservation measures, so at the same time it's not surprising that people still try to hold on to it if it motivates them to keep living. Even if a person could reasonably justify fighting in a war, for them to decide at the end that they are not going to do it and they choose to dodge the draft, for example, is not confusing nor unreasonable. So for people who decide to continue to nourish themselves properly, it's also not confusing nor is it unreasonable to continue to eat animals even though they have to die in order for them to do that and they don't like the idea of animals dying.
The novelty of any and all moral vegan arguments is gone after like 10 minutes. If you've heard one you've heard them all and it is just special pleading for "suffering" just like Christians special plead for their creator god.
@@AssailantLF You torturing squirrels for fun might be an indication of psychopathy or other non-desirable traits to have in society. This conclusion can be easily reached without appealing to an "all sentient life is sacred" type of axiom. So not sure what you thought you had here.
@@John-lw7bz Yeah, I guess as long as human society is running nice and smooth, we can torture and kill and use all the animals we want, and there's nothing morally questionable about that at all. I guess animals have 0 moral worth because they can't verbally tell us to not stab and eat them, and since they can't pay bills like us morally valuable humans can. Think for 2 seconds about what said in your original comment. You're arguing that animal suffering doesn't matter. Would you be cool with your pet dog getting shot in the prime of its life so that someone else could eat it? Would you be cool with the same thing happening to millions and billions of similarly sentient creatures *every year*? Being vegan is the minimal requirement for being a compassionate human being. It's about compassion and caring for others. Shockingly, most animals are averse to being killed against their will. But whatever, this is likely a pointless trying to explain any of this to you, since you seem to have no compassion or care for anything beyond your selfish desires.
@@AssailantLF how are you so daft as to equate a dog to my dog. There is a world of difference between a dog and my dog. Obviously I care about my dog. Just like I don’t care about strangers or people starving to death in North Korea. You’re obviously missing my point. Your moral positions are disgosten and your bland arbitrary care for meat machines does not make you worth anything or interesting. Live in the real world, jackass.
Destiny holds a Value Belief from what I can hear. He Values his child due to a paternal instinct and genuine love and thus cares about its well being. Destiny does not value 40 million cows feelings.
Destiny's reciprocation objection to the universe box thought experiment: "okay but if someone was outside _this_ universe box, I wouldn't want them to destroy me". This argument can be made exactly for the animal farming scenario. "If some species was more advanced than ours, I wouldn't want then farming and eating me."
Him not wanting himself to be destroyed isn't going to be a factor in whether or not someone outside the universe box destroys him, so it makes no sense to use it as a reason for changing his system.
@@franklance9167 I guess you need to distinguish between two types of reciprocation principles: One in which you cannot do an action that is likely to set an actual precedent where it can be done back to you, and one in which it's inherently wrong to do something that you wouldn't want done to you in principle, regardless of whether or not doing that action has any causal impact on the likelihood of it being done to you in the future. The former principle allows you to destroy the universe box, but the latter prevents you from doing so. Which one does Destiny follow? I don't think it was actually made clear.
@@siddhanthravichandran3245 He is mostly an egoist, so if if he is going to construct rules where the rules won't change the outcome on a hypothetical there then wouldn't be a rational reason to do it. Like if we have a thought experiment where aliens want to kill him because they don't value humans, it doesn't matter if Destiny changes his system, the aliens are still going to kill him. So it is an irrational basis to change his system.
@@franklance9167 the outcome dosent matter here. This is similar to how ..if a murderer is hellbent on killing you....ur never gonna convince him by arguing that "murder is morally wrong" Ur getting murdered anyway.....so does that mean ...having that moral is inherently useless?
At 39 min, why is being vegetarian worse than meat-eating? Demand for meat is the limiting factor in the animal industry afaik, so how is reducing the impact of the food you eat a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing in terms of the raw effect it has on the animal industry. From the perspective of a vegan who is solely focused on the end result of things, a vegetarian is much better than a meat-eater. The issue with (ethical) vegetarians is their moral hypocrisy and inconsistency. If you think the animal industry shouldn't be supported then vegetarians are better on that front alone, but that's about it. Vegetarians who are vegetarian for ethical reasons will refuse to eat a cheeseburger but will simultaneously pay for someone to kill and skin an animal so they can have a leather jacket, support male chicks being ground into nuggets when they buy eggs, or support veal industries less directly by buying dairy products. They think animals should be ethically considered while willingly supporting a ton of cruel things that contradict that. It's incredibly inconsistent, like someone in the past taking a moral stance against slavery by just owning 1 or 2 slaves instead of a dozen. No, if you don't support slavery you just shouldn't own them period. If you're a vegan then you think animals should be morally considered, and you live your life accordingly. If you're a meat eater who's actually intellectually honest with yourself then you think animals shouldn't be morally considered, and you live your life accordingly. If you're a vegetarian for ethical reasons, you still go out and support animal cruelty on a regular basis despite feeling it's morally abhorrent, and from that lens you're a lot worse than the other two.
Sure, but imo everyone compromises between being comfortable and being consistent with their moral system. Even in this example, most vegans I know do not try to cut fences to free animals and disrupt the animal industry in illegal ways, even when this would be relatively easy. About half the meat-eaters I know also acknowledge that eating meat is wrong but continue to do so anyways. (also true on r/destiny poll: www.strawpoll.me/15482262/r) Similarly I think lots of people consider it to be more morally consistent to give your money to someone who needs it for food or medicine than to buy stuff you like but do not need. I have yet to meet anyone who has a job but has literally no luxury items due to being consistent with their rules for charity though. (Maybe unnecessary){ For someone opposing slavery, reducing the number of slaves you own down to 0 is not really a hard line you can get to and then say you have no more responsibility wrt slaves. You live in a society constructed by slaves and have power and status based on being not a slave, which should compel you to take more steps to help end slavery. I wouldn't call someone who just did not own slaves exceptionally morally abhorrent though, and I would have a similar opinion of someone who just reduced the amount of slaves they owned as far as they felt they reasonably could, especially if loosing those slaves would just cause them to be enslaved by someone more cruel. }
For the first bit, you're absolutely right that everyone does to varying degrees, but inconsistency is still a bad thing that should be minimized despite that. Some are more guilty of it than others, and I'm not going to fault someone for having a small degree of inconsistency in areas they perhaps aren't passionate about. Sure, everyone may have tiny inconsistencies in their philosophies, but when you get to such a massive inconsistency where you're preaching about how animals deserve moral consideration, abstaining from eating meat for ethical reasons while you're simultaneously paying someone to kill and skin animals for your unnecessary leather jacket? It quickly gets to a point where high levels of inconsistency become pretty easy to criticize. I have a lot more respect for a meat-eater who thinks there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, or a vegan who actually follows their own morality. As for vegans not engaging in illegal activity to aid animal rights, I don't think this does anything to make them less consistent. It's reasonable for a person not to risk personal liberty, safety, and freedom to further their own moral goals. Some people may, and that's good for them, but I'm not going to fault a vegan who doesn't risk a criminal record or massive fines just to save some animals. They may consider it an injustice and be put in a position where combating it isn't worth the risk, but they're just as morally consistent. It's important to consider the difference between "What most of society considers morally good" and "What is morally consistent", too. Most people would consider giving to charity to be a good thing, but it's not inherently more CONSISTENT than buying luxury goods for yourself instead. Now, not giving to charity CAN be inconsistent depending on the specific morals hold, and I think if it is then it should equally be criticized. If you think animals deserve moral consideration and then you don't give them moral consideration, I think that's pretty shitty of you. Likewise if you think people have a moral obligation to spend the majority of their income on charity and you refuse to do so yourself, I think that makes you pretty shitty too. "Animals should be morally considered" and "You are only moral if you donate the majority of your income to charity" set very specific moral absolutes that a simple "Charity is nice to do if you have the means to do it" does not.
I'd be interested in hearing Destiny explain why it's bad for a man to rape. Obviously there's not any real chance of reciprocation so under his framework, you'd have to go somewhere really gross like saying that rape is bad primarily because of the effect on the woman's male family members or you'd have to say "if the man was a woman then he would want to not be raped" to which the response would be "if the man was a cow then he would want to be treated humanely".
Men can be raped though? I don't think I get where youre coming from on this. Are you trying to imply the effects of women being raped are inherently different than the effects of men or am I missing something?
@@mutedknghtu could uld just say ...sodomy/oral sex etc are immoral and punishable by death...(this already exists in islamic countries)....and then make raping women legal..... from destinys point of view there is nothing wrong with this...u would have a system where raping a man is wrong but raping a woman is completely legal. Again this isnt even a complete hypothetical....this kind of system partially even exists in India where I am from....marital rape isn't considered a crime here , but until recently homosexuality was a crime worth 7 years of prison time.
I find it very strange that throughout all of these arguments there has never been a distiction made between morals and preferences. For example, I can ascribe no immorality to killing my dog but still prefer it not to die over a farm animal. Or with the car swerve argument - yes I would swerve, not because it's immoral to kill an animal and not because I don't wanna fuck my car, it's just that I'd prefer not to experience the suffering of an animal. I more or less take Destiny's whole argument on this, but that just seems like something that has been strangely left out. Furthermore, to argue about hypocrisy over prefrences gets into dangerous territory because of sexual preferences and so on being arguably hypocritical. I'd be interested to know if anyone has any arguments against this. If not, I may see if Destiny will talk with me about this.
"I'd prefer not to experience the suffering of an animal" - seems like you do believe causing unnecessary suffering is immoral compared to not causing unnecessary suffering.
@@ramasai1475 people have irrational responses to things all the time, and you can accept them without basing your logic on them. I would react emotionally to a video of someone being shot in self defense, but I would never claim an immoral action took place. Monogamy/polyamory is a good example of that, I don’t think most people have a justification for exclusivity other than “it makes me feel really really bad that my partner might love someone else at the same time”. And most people accept that, because it’s an emotion most people relate to. It’s an irrational reaction that shouldn’t dictate logic.
I know this video is old but people who advocate for ethnostate don't base it on phenotypes, its about the racial identity including common traits. The fact Destiny put forward such low cognitive taught just explains why he can't think for himself, and have trouble understanding deeper complexity to issues he resent because he feels "uncomfortable".
EnderGraff1 it's extremely morally inconsistent if you're an ovolacto vegetarian for ethical reasons. The dairy/egg industry and the meat industry are one and the same, and many meat products are actually byproducts of the dairy/egg industry. By drinking milk and eating cheese, you are still supporting forcibly impregnating cows, hooking them up to milking machine for hours a day, and veal. By eating eggs, you are still supporting grinding up male chicks for nuggets. It's just a half assed ethical stance to take.
It's sort of like if someone in the past took a moral stance against slavery by owning only one or two slaves instead of a dozen like the average slave owner. If you're morally against owning slaves then you shouldn't own slaves period. If you're morally opposed to killing animals then you shouldn't be buying leather or directly supporting the industries that do kill animals by still purchasing things like eggs and milk from them. If you're a vegetarian for non-ethical reasons then it's fine but if you're an ethical vegetarian who still goes out and monetarily supports the killing of animals then you're being dumb and hypocritical.
@@Aevalii but if you try to reach the better state of society (by going vegan/owning slave) then you could say as a society we should take a step toward our better future, but since it would be too inconvinient, then we will do it slowly. by first reducing the "harm" which leads to eliminating. And sure you are a hypocrite but owning 2 slaves is still better then owning 3 slaves and you still progressed in some way to the "ultimate" Goal of owning no slaves
I will cope till the end of time on meat being healthy or it being at least neutral. I am not convinced that a healthy vegan diet is healthier then a healthy meat diet especially for men (even more for older men, and men that lift weights/exercise), it might be cope but whatever.
I’m 100% with Destiny on this. Dear Vegans, 1) I don’t care about the Environment 2) I care about my health and am fully informed on the risks of eating meat, eating sugar, drinking alcohol, etc…. I’m not going to stop having birthday cake, a glass of bourbon or steak, every so often. 3) I extend compassion, empathy, and morals ONLY to humans as they are the only species (Currently) capable of reciprocating 4) I’m a Sociopath (According to Vegans)
You say you only extend compassion towards beings capable of reciprocating… but common sense says we feel more compassion than usual towards beings who can’t reciprocate, like very small children, pets, certain disabled people etc.
@@alphaomega7433 You are one, we will have to make some law for, maybe we'll get you "special narcissistic psychopaths" a fenced in town somewhere "special" 🤓🌿💚
"The philosophical use of intuition does not mean a mere hunch or a prereflective expression of, say, a moral attitude. Nor is it a way of playing it safe, as when one says, “My intuition tells me that P is true but I really don’t know, and if you chose to accept P, you do so at your own risk.” ...a common usage defines an intuition as an immediate, direct awareness or acquaintance with something. An intuition is a mode of awareness- sensory, intellectual or otherwise- in which something seems or appears to be directly present to one’s consciousness. For example, one can have a sensory intuition of a table or an intellectual intuition of a conceptual truth, for instance, that 2 + 2 = 4. Intuitions are not infallible, but they are prima facie justified. That is, if one carefully reflects on something, and a certain viewpoint intuitively seems to be true, then one is justified in believing that viewpoint in the absence of overriding counterarguments (which will ultimately rely on alternative intuitions). " -Moreland & Craig, Philosophical Foundations (p.422) We intuit that our cognitive faculties are reliable, that our 5 senses are reliable, that we aren’t dreaming, that we aren’t brains in a vat, etc. Oh, congratulations on solving the Chinese room experiment!
42:45 "I can't act on an unjustified thought." Well, you don't choose your thoughts; they just appear randomly. You also justify these thoughts using other lines of thought that you also had no choice in picking. In short, your disdain for intuition and emotional reasoning comes from your need in believing that you're fully in control, and that stems from egoic tendencies, which you are totally transparent about, but also a victim of. That's why people call you cold and overly rational. The truth is, you're not in control, and the intellect is merely a imperfect tool. Likewise, intuition is also a tool. Both are useful.
Destiny is my favourite vegan activist. His view is so psychopathic that flesheaters become uncomfortable hearing him express it and go vegan. I literally consider Destiny expressing his view to be effective vegan activism. Good chat tho.
He's amazing.
holy fuck this happened to me
flesheaters
This comment section makes me embarrassed about being a vegan. I miss the days when Vegan Gains low key encouraged his fanbase to meme on ask yourself. ;-;
rugpogjrn aug armchair psychology at its finest :/
veganism is your destiny, destiny
instead of talking about your vegan ideas, why not actually give food to your son.
#FeedNathan
#FeedNathan
LMAO i have no idea what this joke is referencing but it's still hilarious
Why should he? Consciousness and sentience don't exist. Don't you know? It's all about syntax not semantics. His son and himself are a philosophical zombies, therefore it's not bad if they die or get tortured, it's just a biological mechanism, right??
GIFT1FROM1THE1GODZ oh it’s from when he’s streaming Starcraft all achievement, Nathan came up to him and ask for food in the morning and he tell him to fuck off. (Well, not really the word fuck off but you get the gist of it)
Alex M "BUT IT'S MY SON" (Destiny abolishes all his own arguments when talking about his son)
Wow I can't believe Destiny actually admitted to being wrong and went vegan at the end of the debate! Good for you, Destiny.
@@abdullahx8118 Isn't that just because he drinks a Soylent for breakfast? lol
Vegan since 2015
@@KevIn-ej3gm who
Lol he's not vegan anymore is he
@@reallyshelthis debate definitely represents the highest point in destiny’s bell curve as a debater
I think I'm gonna give the vegan thing a go, seems like the best option.
How did it go? Do you need any help?
@@david522 He's already dead.
@@loluser124 It's not that bad. I'm vegetarian right now, but honestly, it's amazing how much time you can spend eating as a vegan because of vegan food often having fewer nutrients per unit of volume. I'd still be vegan now, if I had more time to prepare meals. Putting in more time is honestly the only downside.
@linus eisele No, I wouldn't. Luckily, I don't have to eat animal products to be healthy.
@linus eisele That's my name
Destiny got veganed in this debate.
biffeeen veganed got debate in this destiny
Fucking moron
destiny should hang out more with these people. seems like something more productive than the sceptic debacles
Destiny is my favorite example of the fact that just because you're logically consistent, doesn't mean you're right. Single lines of reasoning are often too weak to defeat an entire structure of beliefs, and that's why debates are often unresolved.
Right according to whom?
@@cogitoergosum9069 I used the word "right" in a loose way (I could've said "good" instead). Anyways, this applies to anything. Let's assume there is such a thing as true and false beliefs. When you hold x beliefs, you can be logically consistent even if they're not true, because logic is simply the natural consequence of a certain conditions (if you drop an object, it falls to the ground, because there is gravity). In this case, Destiny believes that any consciousness except his own has no intrinsic value, and thus his arguments regarding social contract are logical. Ethics is not concerned necessarily whether something is true or false, rather if something can benefit and include the needs and wants of the most amount of people or not. Then you can ask "doesn't Destiny's social contract address this?". Even though almost nobody actually hold his position, yes it does address it, but it does it in an overtly indirect and roundabout way in order to accomodate its main value, which is egocentricity, and in doing so, it leaves out key ethical concerns.
@@raz0rcarich99 Well reasoned, I would argue a very similar point myself.
The main reason I asked my original question was because I wanted to know whether you were arguing from a morally prescriptive standpoint or not. I do, however, very much like your reasoning and I appreciate that fact that you put in time to answer my question, thanks!
@@traplover6357 Sounds pretty much in line with my answer to the first guy.
@@raz0rcarich99 but Destiny said hes egocentruc and that all the People Who dont bedlive in all of what hes saying are hypocrites
Been vegan since 2016, feels great 👍🏼
37:40 'empathy is something that i inherently think is a bad trait' i mean that does sound like something a psychopath would say
lmao would humanity even be close to where it is today without it.
Being overly empathic will also destroy your life eventually. So from a rational viewpoint he is not wrong.
@@eddyhypnotizer2481 maybe, but conversely if people were empathetic enough to go vegan it would save literally billions of lives
Empathy for the 9/11 victims was the greatest motivator for supporting the bullshit Iraq War. Human empathy is irrational and very dangerous.
i mean whatever labe you use, Destiny has no empathy. Is there much more to say about this?
Sane people: "Torture is bad."
Destiny: "Does the torturer have a masochism fetish?"
Trying to base everything on reciprocity doesn't get you out of ultimately having emotion-based values as axioms. It means those axioms are based on what you think most people wouldn't want to happen to themselves or what you wouldn't want to happen to yourself, depending on just how sociopathic you want to sound.
Reciprocity doesn't work litteraly like that.
It's "I don't don't to things to people that they don't like so they won't do to me what I don't want them to do."
Vegan please go destiny
Veganism is our destiny, baby.
@ Ni Na Agreed ;)
@Nuance Is Good we fight for life and try to survive when forced into a corner, we may be doomed but we're being pushed into the corner and vegansism is our way of fighting to survive, it's all we got
Nuance Is Good imagine condemning you’re grandchildren to mass extinction because you’re too fat, lazy, and unmotivated to make small changes in your life for the well being of this planet, sucks I have to share the same oxygen as you.
Destiny pls go vegan
thatnonconformist is sorry I don’t speak Mexican
Destiny DESTROYED the farm animals in this debate.
Dominiquetric Collins destroyed DESTINY the debate in this farm animals
but, as he said, if vegans easily win the healthy and environmental argument, shouldn't he be one, and advocate for it, for his well being?
@linus eisele definitely. Much MUCH better
@Linus eisele Yeah because most soy is grown for cattle lol
@LouderWithCrowder Two its not about doing everything in your power to maximize anything. Its about not stabbing animals because eating plants are just better in these regards
@LouderWithCrowder Two you arnt being forced to maximise what can be done for the environment, however i think the bare minimum can be done which would just mean walking down a different aisle in the supermarket, and in doing so would mean reducing your carbon footprint substantially more then anything else you could do in your life. You're just using an appeal to futility fallacy.
@LouderWithCrowder Two no those ways do not displace nearly as much as you do being vegan. According to the United Nations 2019 IPCC report being vegan is the single most impactful thing a person can do for the environment. All those things you mentioned are all good however they dont involve killing animals.
Changing to solar is exspensive, taking the bus might not be an option for some. Making a TVP spaghetti bolognese instead making it from a dead unenvironmentally friendly animals body isnt a hassle comparably.
Nobody is obligated to do anything. Nobody is obligated to not be a serial killer or kill peoples dogs. You can do what ever you want if you dont want to consider anyone else but yourself, it's about what is right and if you want to be a moral hypocrit or not.
Vegan Thanks, go Destiny.
When Destiny is attempting to describe how he feels for other beings, I think the succinct way of phrasing is that he does not feel affective empathy. But he is capable of cognitive empathy
Typical narcissistic sociopath/psychopath, they can do that, if it's in their interest..., not very emphatic or authentic ethical.
Can not respect that 💚🌿
So basically the opposite as an autistic person may be. It would fit sociopathy
Yeah you need to go vegan buddy. It's alot easier to argue on that side if anything
You should go vegan, Destiny.
Thanks.
No, you should go vegan.
Claiming the battle should be fought on environmental grounds rather than on morality is a bit weird, I wonder how Destiny would go about establish that the environment is worth protecting without heading to morality anyway?
The negative environmental effects of animal agriculture could eventually negatively impact him in significant ways. So for people who buy into Destiny's hedonistic morality, it is a more convincing argument than the arguments for extending moral consideration to animals.
@@austin7761 If Destinity is an hedonistic utilitarist, he is supposed to care about global well being and not just his own.
BennDesmond who says that? That just sounds like moral grandstanding to me
@@sizzlingwall716 I don't understand, what is your question sir ?
It’s logically intuitive that if the environment is damaged it could affect your everyday tasks such as pollution and being forced to wear a mask to protect you from pollution, I do wonder if you listened to destiny’s argument in the beginning of the debate because he layed out an argument that clearly didn’t deal with morality.
I dont get it why people have so much problem understanding ur morality. I dont mean agreeing with it, they keep asking the same questions cause of lack of understaing of ur stance.
i would suggest u check out this to understand their lack of understanding: th-cam.com/video/V9O94UTDAJQ/w-d-xo.html
It's just interesting that, in the developed world at least, there is quite an overwhelming percentage of people who eat meat regularly that would be uncomfortable with the concept of them personally inflicting pain/death onto an animal. Most people for example would not want to kill a chicken but it's hypocritical to be against the concept of personally killing a chicken but continuing to consume what the death of a chicken directly provides.
@@VD-fc8dy How so? I don’t want to do a lot of things that I think are perfectly moral or amoral.
Because it is fucken weird, almost psychotic for other people to understand. It defies the very social contract and moral consistency he seems to purport. To use his own words, he is ''fucked up" in the brain. THAT is what we can't understand and maybe his public admission of it!
@@FastGardenGnome38 haha fr
Destiny discovers empathy
Destroy got destroyed in this destroy
Daniel Ivanov debate got destiny in this destroy
Destiny, pls go vegan 🌱
You go vegan. Stop bothering people
@Yeah Right. | literally is vegan lmfao
Fuck vegans
I smoke you
Damn, when your defense is "I only care about things that could potentially affect me" you know you're losing the debate
stupid vegan
enlightened nihilist
"Destiny I'll talk to you for a minute or two(or 1 hour 14 minutes and 8 seconds)about something"
destiny pls go vegan.
You should go vegan Destiny.
Thanks.
AdamKP_6 alecs fuck off
damn d00d
AdamKP_6 no u
you need to become a vegan eating monster which assimilates every vegan in one person to become the new vegan saviour Destiny. Gain the vegan, become the vegan.
*SLURP SLURP SLURP*
Destiny pls go vegan
Destiny please go vegan!
if destiny's heuristic is; "if i accept doing an action to another i'm permitting that action to be done to me" but also does NOT hold the position that "might makes right" then he's is inconsistent. because none of us chose to be a human and an animal didn't choose to be an animal so if he is only accepting that its okay to treat animals that way because they are incapable of reciprocating or intellectualize that action back at us (or to show us mercy) then he is really saying it is okay to do that to animals because they are incapable of being cruel (or being kind) back to us. he's only accepting that humans deserve moral consideration because if they aren't then there's nothing stopping them from doing the same to him because they are capable of doing so and conceptualizing this intellectually. there isnt any need to appeal to emotion when coming to the conclusion that vegan is more moral. i think the same logic you use to conclude morality that leads to a propsering and functioning civilisation like we have today can be used to come to the conclusion that veganism is morally right. most morality lies on two foundational tracks that run paralell to each other and are different according to which track youre on. when a society or person is on the track of progressing more things are morally permissible than when youre on a track of an already established society thats full of abundance. same reason why in a survival situation the things that are morally neutral or right are different than if you are in a well functioning society.
Debatestiny
Go vegan please destiny
Hey look a debate with an actual not stupid person!
idk, he is vegan.
The not stupid person repeated the same argument pretty long. I think Destiny is just used to people like that at this point.
+Keldrath
So?
Dayvie nah, they talked about one Argument (empathy) for a long time to clarify the exact position destiny has and why. Thats not the same as repeating an argument.
Pigs can manipulate switches to turn fans and lights on/off. If I'm sweating and have a fan pointed at me and the pig can turn on the fan in order to help me out, is that pig therefore capable of taking part in the social contract?
Vegan since 2015 , only 2 things I regret is not going Vegan earlier and being better at veganism.
can you please explain why its all about meat, i appear to be missing something
why not care about the use of cars, they cause suffering for pleasure also
is the pleasure they give too great to give up?
I drive an electric car and have green energy. So you're out of the blue attack trying to drag me into a content that I didn't mentioned is just a reflection of your inner guilt , but If I would have mentioned anything why going vegan is the biggest impact , it's because the numbers stand and the meat industry is the biggest contributor to climate change and us dying because earth will survive so it's racial suicide , a suicidal society , No 1 in destroying the ozone layer , no .1 of water waste , No 1 in food waste as we grow 80 pourcent of food or more for the animals to use and get a minimal outcome , and then it takes up so much land that even for me as a vegan it was first hard to believe so there would be many reasons why this would be the quickest and best change not even to mention the worsed is paying dor the inuman suffering of this beings , which have their own personality so it 's a person but then again I didn't said nothing about that and you dragged me into that topic because of inner guilt which makes you angry because you have a lot maturing to do
@@jedex4645 also I am bot the smartest nor the dumbest so I go with facts from very smart people and with my heart what feels right while allways trying to understand more and find new things out on my own . An trying to protect my soul while protecting other souls
@@jedex4645 just try for a month not even for the planete or the animals , but for you , you deserve it and if you take it serious for a month I can give you all the dope brands even for cheese that actually taste like cheese many kinds they have even hard parmegianno style cheese , why should we evolve but stay with an old mindset or farmers fucking their cows , most of em are fucking retarded incest heros anyway or descendant of it , wow what a cultrure to defend
@@KevIn-ej3gm i honestly am not attacking you, but i cannot give up meat to reduce suffering and then still be doing other stuff for my pleasure that causes suffering.
its a total contradiction
either i take on the vegan philosophy to the fullest extent or not at all. (your electric car and green energy 100% cause suffering)
taking it to the fullest extent either means living only with just enough food, water, warmth and oxygen, or not living at all.
you have gave no reason to start and stop at meat,
i understand it has the biggest impact on suffering, but this is not a reason.
it would be like thinking rape is bad, therefore not doing it, and punching people is bad, but you still actually go and punch people
Jesus bro Destiny is a literal sociopath after this
How is it that the best discussion of veganism that Destiny had is also the one that seemingly had the lowest views. This honestly should have been copy/pasted onto any of the others, because there is nothing left to hash out with him afterwards, regardless of whether you're for or againat any of hia statements
If only matt had this much honesty
You did so well ask yourself
I am sorry i don't know your name
Based on how you did here against destiny
You would butcher Matt
Regarding the example of pushing a button to kill every1 and accumulate wealth You could defend that position by saying that You would not want to be killed if someone else was presented with the same option. It's basically the same example as previous one with brain damaged people not capable of forming social contract just pushed to extreme.
I feel like this response it a bit lousy and ask yourself would have a way to combat it
@@rinneganofrage7206 i don't think it works that way cause animals cannot form social contract with you. If they could understand rules of our society maybe it would work, but currently there are no such animals.
@@rinneganofrage7206 Most of what you described is just conditioning (primates example might be somewhat different), which would not count as social contract. If it would you could have said the same even about computers and cars (i think there's more to social contract than just behaving a certain way and animals in your examples were just living tools). To form real social contract you need to have some form of abstract thinking to understand 'human' values and consequences of your actions.
Primates example seems better and I could see the case for protecting them.
Ill join the crowd of vegans here and tell u to plz go vegan. Lol
thx
Make me a shopping list that is similar to my current weekly spending that will be tasty, as well as convenient and I will do it.
Legit. Make me a shopping list and I'll give it a go.
I need you to use the english store Tesco, Morrison's, Aldi, etc. Any of those is fine.
BobbyRice2 chill. Just pm me. I got u
Write here ty
BobbyRice2 you should honestly just try buying some new food and see how it goes. If you like it. You can continue buying those foods and get rid of the meat at a certain pace. Here's some cheap foods that you might wanna try buying. Lentils, potatoes, beans, rice, pasta, bananas and tofu. You should try to make cheap foods the staple of your diet because that should save a lot of money. Aside from that you can buy vegan milk and meat and fruits. And that should be good. Keep in mind the cheap foods I listed are reaaaaaally cheap. I go with lentils as a staple because it's like 3 dollars for a weeks worth and I eat a shit ton
40:30 also around this era apparently the reductio for every veganism argument is you agree with me or you're stupid or your psychopath and I don't think you're stupid or a psychopath so you should just be instantly agreeing with me on every one of my premises
Wow Destiny, I knew you'd go vegan
Luca Wow vegan, i knew you’d go destiny
Might as well - Destiny, please go vegan.
54:00 'I believe this is what you human creatures refer to as, "empathizing"' lmaooooo
Destiny really bit the bullet in this debate
dude I thought that at some point Destiny would buckle and admit that he's not actually a sociopath and is just adopting the position that isn't contradictory but he has actually convinced me that he might be kind of a sociopath tbh
@@Thanosdidtherighthing shit you got me there
@Onni Yeah I saw that video and I don't think Destiny is a literal sociopath or anything but I really can't wrap my mind around his take on animals it just seems so insane to me
I would pay good money to have Seth and Destiny debate. o.o
Just go vegan dude, quit making convoluted excuses to keep eating corpses even through there are plant based options that are just as good. Still love you though ☺️
Just as good? Not even close. Animals eat other animals. Were just the best at it. Get over yourself
@@zacharywoodford8530 I'm so confused as to how people like you make it into these kinds of videos. Your thought processes are so illogical that your arguments collapse on themselves at the slightest of pokes
@@brunosanchez3427 how so? All you did was stretch out your response to seem intelligent while not actually making any points. My points make perfect sense. Meat substitutes suck, that's objectively true. People have always eaten animals and we are in fact the best animal at getting meat. Humans are above other animals. I know you soy boys get emotional about this subject but this is how it is.
@@zacharywoodford8530 let's think with our big boy brains for a little bit, okay? Your argument is that, bcause animals do it, we should also be allowed to eat other animals. Well you know what else animals do? Rape. Should we be allowed to rape other animals, or each other for that matter? Animals do it after all. And gtfo of here with that bullshit objective claim. Taste is far from objective and can be dramatically changed based on your diet. Like if you stopped eating meat for a couple of months, you probably wouldn't have a preference for meat anymore.
Zachary Woodford “soy boys” the other guy was right, how did you manage to get on this channel lol
39:25, how is vegetarianism worse than meat eating if you care about animals?
Whos this Ask Yourself guy, and why does he sound completely rational. When do i find something out about him that makes me think he's totally bonkers. Is he the next JF or Bunty? Do we start the redemption arc early?
the person doing all the talking was actually SethTheProgrammer
Have a look at his video with Zychron LOL
Yeah, she was joking dude. Christ.
The social contract argument defends meat eating pretty well, and it is easy to make. And it isn't nihilistic.
We accept the social contract in society for security. That includes not trampling on the rights of others, for they then would be justified to trample on yours.
So you don't stab someone's braindead son, their pet, etc. because it violates the social contract. Harvesting farm animals for meat does not violate the social contract.
Sentience is not relevant.
It is totally nihilistic
@@pierrolunar8561 how?
most people do not claim to believe murdering humans is wrong only on the grounds of self-protection. The only people who do are those who want to defend killing animals but be able to say that killing humans is still wrong. Seems like finding the conclusions first and looking for the premises that lead to them instead of figuring out which premises you truly believe in.
Why is Destiny on SethTheProgrammers Videos page
Destiny VS Seth on veganism was brought up, and it may happen in the future.
Phoenix Wright why wouldn’t he be?
this debate makes so much more sense to me after seeing destiny talk to Dr. Alok Kanojia. it´s like he has to go through some extra steps to feel the empathy most of us feel immediatly with no control, because he is repressing his emotions, which he taught himself as a child as a coping mechanism.
and you can trust my opinion on this, i am sitting in an armchair.
@@Thanosdidtherighthing Might does not make right
1:08:50 Dude called it! He's a vegan fortune teller! I guess Scott Pilgrim was right.
The way I see it is we intuitively see harming animals especially pets as bad but it’s simply but we are empathetic creatures that personify animals and these feelings don’t mean a thing is good or bad, they just simply feel bad. Our bodies are far from perfect and our feelings/intuition is probably never “morally” consistent on any issues.
I want to see a discussion with seth about dragon ball lol
Yeah same
Seth would body
I feel like destiny would get bodied in the power scaling department
Destiny would body on irl topics unless Seth does what he did against Jordy.
Destiny doesn't do fiction so he'd just auto concede
All these vegan debates are unnecessary. There’s no justifying *not being vegan based on a consistent moral argument.
I only value sapient conscious beings by nature. No animal meets that and abnormalities aren’t the norm so aren’t key to the nature of the entity.
@@f4r6u5180
By that rationale; you would be saying it’s morally justified to unalive humans that aren’t sapient; whether they are mentally disabled or not. Which is a horrifying take on the matter; just as horrifying as unaliving animals that are sentient and feel pain.
@@YourConscience1Do you understand that morality is subjective? Unless youre going to assert that you're the arbiter of morality then you dont get to call anything immoral, rather it conflicts with your personal morality.
@@HaveAHuff
Yes; it is subjective.
Anyone who prefers that their bodily autonomy not be violated; already understands that harming any beings bodily autonomy is cruel and should be avoided.
@@YourConscience1 Nope. That's just an assertion, an argument from feelings. You can't speak for what anyone knows. How can you agree that morality is subjective and then assert what others should find cruel? Pick one, is morality subjective or are you the arbiter? That's a direct contradiction only sentences apart. You're just speaking for yourself and projecting your feelings as facts onto other people, that's not how arguments work, try again.
I'm so happy for this debate, the one with vegan gains was so frustrating because, to put it bluntly, he wasn't smart enough to attack the right areas in destiny's argument. He just didn't get it
Yeah to be fair ask yourself had some good hypotheticals, sure adding infinite well-being into a hypothetical of a utilitarian sort of just defeats the point of the hypothetical, but he does have to accept it as morally correct.
I see that creature in the hypothetical as a Cthulhu type lovecraftian being, who’s existence and being is so far beyond us we cannot even comprehend it, and it cannot even notice us, like us killing bacteria.
In that situation, a being with existence and wellbeing on a level so far above our wildest conceptions, it may be morally neutral for it to kill us, and we just cannot comprehend why,
Idk sounds a bit silly but I think it’s kinda cool.
Being a meat eater logically is obviously an up hill battle, most people do not realize just how much more sense vegan logic is, mostly due to stereotypes and willful ignorance.
I’m just hoping for that lab grown meat so I can start acting indignant and better than other people!
Destiny, what if you were invincible? What if absolutely no harm could be done to you and you are 100% sure about this. Would you still care about the suffering of other beings?
I don't think this really works as an attack, because Destiny is always putting himself in the shoes of other people when he makes these reciprocation arguments. He would say as part of his argument "if I were not invincible and susceptible to suffering like this person, I wouldn't want that harm caused against me"
Chandler You made it sound as if destiny genuinely cares about the other, without any self-interest. This is not the case (at least if he's being genuine). Destiny has stated that he doesn't want to harm others in a society, because those people might try to harm him as well or he might get into legal trouble. This is out of self-interest, not out of compassion, which is how a psychopath thinks. I still don't believe he's a psychopath, though :).
I guess that makes sense. I just don't know how you can be 100% sure you will be invincible for a remainder of your life. I feel like some kind of god figure would probably have to confer that ability, and at that point we might be at objective morality anyway.
Chandler I don't know how you could be invincible in the first place :p. But that's not of any significant importance, because it's a hypothetical situation.
I think there is utilitarian value for Destiny to try to change his personality. In other words, I think it would be of interest to Destiny to seek therapy/help developing his empathic skills/preferences.
I dont know if you've seen the video, but destiny talked to a Harvard psychiatrist on stream and he basically recommended what you just said
Groven he didn’t recommend him, he actually asked him if he would want to, and that there is no right or wrong answer.
@@grovenndude is not a Harvard psychiatrist
@@lampad4549 I know that now
I think Destiny means to invoke the categorical imperative instead of a "reciprocated system."
Destiny would have been an anti-abolitionist back in slavery days.
What a dumb argument
@@K_Shawn_Webb it's not an argument. it's just a probable position given destiny's arguments
@@mannnnel But if destiny grew up in those times he would have a complete different knowledge base. How is it probable at all. "if you were black in the us back in the day you would be a slave". Like what? So i would adopt the views of my times? What an interesting discovery.
@@K_Shawn_Webb I get your point, he would be a completely different person and there's no way of knowing how he would be. When people say this type of statement they try to ilustrate what someone with a specific set of values would do if they were exactly the same in that time.
Based
So destiny has no arguments against veganism?
Nice discussion. It doesn't have the same entertaining factor as debating complete idiots but it's nice hearing reasonable, smart people engaging in a discussion.
Also, destiny got veganed in this debate.
What was reasonable about the guy asking Destiny the same question again and again and pretending that he can empathize with animals?
+Dayvie
How do you know that he was pretending?
The biggest cop out that destiny uses in these debates is pivoting on the foundational nature of his social contract. He is a bit unclear whether it's conceptual or practical. He will say that it is ABSOLUTELY in self interest and that his only concern is a practical protection of his well being, but yet he uses the social contract argument against abortion stating "he would not have liked to have been aborted". If he is only concerned about himself in a practical sense that shouldn't matter... since he will never be at risk of being aborted and any slippery slope argument as to how it puts him at risk later is patently absurd.
I think the main problem with Destinys position here is that he portrays himself as purely pragmatic to the point of seeming sociopathic in order to avoid what he sees as moral hypocrisy. Yes its true that many people care about their cats and dogs but don't care about cows and chickens that live in terrible conditions. Is that hypocritical? Yes in a sense it is, but as far as I can tell there are very very few people who live without any kind of moral hypocrisy. Destiny claims he doesn't care about animals because they don't engage in the social contract that humans share, but what about humans that live in terrible conditions and suffer every day? Does he care for all people, including people he will never meet or see just as much as he cares for his son? I doubt it. Is that not the same moral hypocrisy that people commit when they care about their pets more than their food? In my opinion holding any person to these standards either makes them seem inconsistent or hypocritical. People naturally care more for people and animals that are directly engaged in their own lives, maybe you could portray that as selfish but in my eyes its almost completely unavoidable. In an ideal world maybe I would care for the people suffering in other countries with the same intensity I would care about my own family, but I don't really believe people are capable of that.
Yeah this is more the truth of it...but he would still agree it is morally wrong , even if he would care more personally about his family being killed than a stranger. just like you can agree the meat industry is morally wrong, but still not do anything about it, or think your dietary needs / pleasure are more important than the animal's life.
Basically, sort of like how some can agree that war is a moral evil, but still think it has a benefit in a given situation that makes it worth risking that moral evil.
Thats a good point. It just seems like Destiny reduces down the argument to a point of absolutism where to admit that he cares for any animal means that he would have to care about all animals equally. From what I understand of Destiny's point of view, he would see it as hypocritical to be sad about your dog dying if you currently eat meat. And that position might be the most sound in a *purely* logical sense but it disregards the reality of human emotion.
I'm not saying its a good thing but people don't make decisions based purely off of hard logic all the time. Why doesn't the human race engage in eugenics? Logically if done right you could have a much healthier better version of humans but the world doesn't operate in an exclusively pragmatic way.
Bonsey Bones pragmatism and logical consistency are two different pairs of shoes for me.
oh shit. is Destiny finally going vegan?
I have no issue with veganism, but god I hate vegans at times..... and I really fucking hate that veganism has become akin to a religion to so many.
And, no, until we have developed specific scientific developments, we'll never have a truly healthy vegan diet that's entirely natural.
Also, if we can't define sentience, why not extend all of that to all life and then you just are immoral for ever consuming ANY other life?
And what about Animals that will kill you? Why would it be ok for another animal to kill humans but humans, that are animals, can't also kill animals for the need of consumption? If I get attacked and consumed by a cougar or whatever, I mean, I'll be dead and that sucks for me, but it's not "wrong". I don't see it wrong for humans to consume animals.
Now, if you wanna talk about the conditions animals are treated at farms, that's a regulation problem more than anything.
Also, I do think we all should consume LESS meat, but not entirely no meat.
Also, i disagree about the "health" side. The arguments vegan make tend to ignore that they need to take supplements to get nutrients that only come from meat. They tend to ignore that vegans are often deficient in other things like CoQ10, B12, Zinc, Iron, etc. It's not deathly deficient, but it is deficient. Some meat is necessary. And most of the health negatives of meat are overblown. Like the increase to cancer from bacon a few years ago was overblown. People giving the higher % which ignores it's a % on top of the 5% everyone NATURALLY has to chance of cancer (so it gets up to like 5.68% iirc). And that's only if you ate bacon for every day of every meal of your life. Excessive amounts no one does.
Too much meat is bad, but no meat is also bad. We're omnivores for a reason.
Also, I'm amused at the guy trying to play the appeal to emotion fallacy to justify being vegan lol
I don't think omnivory will be seen in the same manner as slavery, because slavery is a means to generate surplus. If you are capable of capturing and mantaining a slave, you are already capable of sustaining yourself, and you are just a slave owner to have more/work less, while meat eating has been a necessity for humans before even acquiring a higher conciousness.
If Destiny only knew that the desire to be logically consistent or truthful is equivalent to the desire to express consideration or love to other sentient beings, this conversation wouldn't need to take place. No matter how new-agey this may sound, love and truth are the same thing.
I think he does know that. Which doesnt mean his position is wrong, does it? Just means veganism and Destinys view are equivalent.
@@Thanosdidtherighthing That's an assumption you're making.
@@raz0rcarich99what of I love Hitler???
I’m half joking
I genuinely don't understand why the debate has to go into these insane levels of nihilistic utilitarianism just to justify a pro meat-eater stance.
1) I am an independant moral agent.
2) If I were to die tomorrow and thus end my consumption of meat for the rest of time, my reduced consumption would not save a single factory farmed animal from being bred to die.
3) Therefore, as a single moral agent purchasing and eating meat is a neutral moral act.
@@ThomasLG There's nothing self defeating because the argument is a moral one, not one pushing an agenda. Neither voting nor not voting has morality behind it because democracy(especially within a democratic republic) is not inherently morally good.
If all you eat is factory farmed meat that is mass produced for the market, its just a simple fact that your singlar consumption of meat does not kill an animal. Blaming one person for a system is like saying that if you participate in democracy you are guilty of all the killing a government does, and as such a vegan stance would be that voting is murder.
@@ThomasLG Except the "consequences" of a smaller market of meat is simply that less animals are bred, not that more lives are saved. The system still exists and is perpetuated by the literal billions of people that perpetuate it.
Unless you can make an argument that one person going vegan has a moral good to the world, you're not actually saying anything relevant to the discussion.
@@ThomasLG Cool non sequitur, but technically everything we do to animals has a poor analogy to humans. We cull populations for the eco system, we force breeding or force artificial insemination on them, we domesticate them just because we want to.
So clearly the common issue is that we give ourselves special consideration that we don't give animals.
@@note4note804that last one is an empirical claim which is wrong read against inefficacy objections paper by steven mcmullen
What exactly is the point of continuing to ask for Destiny’s emotional response to certain things? What does that matter to this argument? Regardless of whether or not Destiny has any emotional response to the pain of others, it is possible to both acknowledge that emotional response as a biological phenomenon, and also reject that response as a determinator of your actions.
Thank you ! Totally true.
Dominick Ferrara Okay so raping your own children isn't wrong because "emotions are biological phenomena". Trust me, you wouldn't want to live in a psychopathic society where nobody cares about the well-being of each other, but only work together to build a society like ants lol.
I mean, raping children ISN'T wrong because "emotions are biological phenomena". Raping children is wrong because as a society we've determined that:
A) Personal bodily autonomy should be valued and respected
B) Therefore, informed consent is a necessary component of sexual interaction
C) Children tend to be underdeveloped cognitively such that they often do not understand the implications of their actions
D) Therefore, it is impossible for a child to give informed consent to sexual activity
E) Therefore, it is wrong to engage in sexual activity with a child.
It's not "the thought of a child getting raped makes me feel upset, therefore raping children is wrong", its "raping children is wrong, therefore the thought of a child getting raped makes me feel upset". The emotional response follows from the rationalization, not the other way around.
I'm not saying that I want people to be mindless ants and reject emotion entirely. In fact, I'm not entirely sure how this relates to my first comment. The point I was trying to make there is that a person may or may not feel an emotional response towards something, but that emotional response shouldn't matter when that person is trying to rationalize their actions.
I'm not sure I fully understand your phrasing. Just to clarify, you're saying that because meat eaters use the behavior of lions as a way to morally justify eating meat, it's hypocritical to not allow the moral justification of other actions via the same route? (e.g. In some circumstances a male lion will cannibalize it's own cubs in order to incentivize the female to mate, therefore by the meat-eater's logic it should be morally justifiable for a human to do the same to a human baby?)
Depends on what exactly you mean. If you mean in a grand, universal sense, then no, nothing is moral or immoral. If you mean in the moral system that our society today generally accepts, then yes, because we've decided that personal autonomy is important, and ending someone's life without their consent is the ultimate violation of that autonomy.
Debate got destined under this vegan.
This guy basically figures out what Destiny has been doing in these Vegan debates at 25:40. Smart dude.
Well more specifically he's held this belief the entire time, and attempted to get destiny to bite on certain bullets (or possibly concede some) before restating his hypothesis.
Can't you link the environmental stuff to destiny's moral framework?
-He believes that vegans win the environmental argument, which means he believes that their is an argument to be won there i.e. that individual choices are worthy of consideration wrt the environment.
-environmental problems have the potential to effect him negatively, therefore he would want others to be vegan for his sake, therefore he should be vegan himself.
I've just recently found this channel and I've enjoyed the debates and he seemed like a really decent and smart guy, but this video left me extremely disappointed. I simply can't stand heartlessness and I'm amazed that he basically admitted that and I really struggle to understand how people can be heartless. Then again, I'm a strong empath myself so it's a completely different world.
I would consider myself an empath, and while I disagree with a lot of the more extreme statements Destiny makes. He also logically traces the paths I take towards empathizing with other people. Maybe I'm projecting, but I think he has(or had) resistance to the traditional ideas of empathy. Running a simulation of anothers potential experience in order to better understand them, and then relating that experience to yourself, is empathy. Especially when your conclusion is close to the potential reality of their experience. Destiny is just a little more logically/rationally overcharged in that respect.
Im an empath.
Towards other humans
Gotta be careful when listening to vegan debates because those arguing against it will almost always sound incredibly psychopathic.
Note to self, disregard anyone who tells other people they are an empath.
This man had to watch his dementia ridden grandmother buy and then euthanize 10 dogs over the course of his adolescence because she forgot she kept peeing on her floor and blamed it on the dog.
"I don't draw a distinction between a cows throat being slit and a chairs leg being slit" This isn't sociopathy, this is bad faith lying lol.
Why would a meat eater lose on health every time? They can be healthy without giving up milk, eggs, meat and animal skin handbags. A meat eater can eat vegetables frequently and be equally healthy
@Jake S I disagree. There's no evidence that there is a statistically significant difference between the health of a vegan and a meat eater that eats mostly vegetables. I doubt if you took 2 people with identical lifestyles but one of them eats some candy once or twice a week that there'd be any difference in health. As a group vegans tend to be more health conscious than meat eaters, and are less likely to be smokers and many other factors. If you control for all of the lifestyle variables many studies have been unable to find a difference between the meat eaters and the vegetarians. The point I'm trying to make, is that lower consumption of meat (especially red meat) may be healthy, but the health benefits from this reduction have diminishing returns. You don't need to complete stop eating meat, dairy, and eggs to maximize health, so we can't claim veganism is healthier than meat eating, only that vegans tend to be healthier than meat eaters for a variety of reasons. No meat consumption is healthier than only meat consumption, but it isn't healthier than a mixed diet of mostly vegetables and fruits that sometimes includes meat.
Wait, why are vegetarians worse than vegans and meat eaters? Or, rather, why does Destiny think so?
Cosmic Lich Because, in his perspective, they are just as hyporcitic as most meat eaters because they claim to care about animals but still support the industry by buying animal products.
Maybe he thinks they are worse because some of them think they don't contribute to the killing of farm animals
If you're a vegetarian for non-ethical reasons then it's fine but if you're an ethical vegetarian who still goes out and monetarily supports the killing of animals then you're being dumb and hypocritical. It's sort of like if someone in the past took a moral stance against slavery by owning only one or two slaves instead of a dozen like the average slave owner.
If you're morally against owning slaves then you shouldn't own slaves period. If you're morally opposed to killing animals then you shouldn't be supporting the killing of animals period. Whether that's buying leather, or directly supporting the industries that do kill animals by still purchasing things like eggs and milk from them, or just straight up buying meat.
Cosmic Lich They aren't, since they are still better than meat eaters. Destiny just hates middle ground positions because he considers it logically inconsistent/hypocritical. And maybe it is but it doesn't matter since they're still causing less harm than meat eaters. So objectively speaking it's just a stupid thing to say vegetarians are worse than meat eaters because the only difference is they eat one less bad food group. So meat eaters do meat and dairy, that's two bad things, while vegetarians do not do meat, only dairy, that's only one bad thing. Which is worse, ONE OR TWO? Again, Saying ONE simply because it's not consistent is retarded as it's an appeal to hypocrisy.
dairy and egg industry kills more than the meat industry as male calfs and chicks are seen as useless byproducts.
Jordan D Now, I'm not a fan of dairy myself but the problem with your ideas is that MEAT EATERS ALSO EAT DAIRY. So, a vegetarian is just a lesser meat eater, vegetarian does not mean "DAIRY EATER", that's what the vegans made it into. It means "VEGETATION EATER". A vegetarian just still allows dairy. It doesn't mean he eats only dairy WTF... I mean, I was a vegetarian until last year. I didn't eat more cheese or eggs than the omnivores in the house, so how exactly was I causing more harm? Your arguments make no sense, because you first have to prove that the average vegetarian eats as much of these products as the average meat eater eats animal products combined, which is ofcourse bullshit... And btw, if I was a chicken, I'd rather be a chicken laying eggs than a fucking McNuggets, so to then tell me that eating a McNuggets is better than eating an egg, I'd say you are the one that's fucking crazy!
There's one thing that confuses me. It seems it's very important to people on the vegan side that action be taken when a person recognizes a way that they feel.
I can kind of understand this, because I would hope the same happens when a person recognizes that their God belief is unjustifiable. But we're talking about real people and self-preservation measures, so at the same time it's not surprising that people still try to hold on to it if it motivates them to keep living. Even if a person could reasonably justify fighting in a war, for them to decide at the end that they are not going to do it and they choose to dodge the draft, for example, is not confusing nor unreasonable. So for people who decide to continue to nourish themselves properly, it's also not confusing nor is it unreasonable to continue to eat animals even though they have to die in order for them to do that and they don't like the idea of animals dying.
The novelty of any and all moral vegan arguments is gone after like 10 minutes. If you've heard one you've heard them all and it is just special pleading for "suffering" just like Christians special plead for their creator god.
Those wacky vegans caring about sentient creatures suffering. Excuse me while I go torture squirrels for fun
@@AssailantLF You torturing squirrels for fun might be an indication of psychopathy or other non-desirable traits to have in society. This conclusion can be easily reached without appealing to an "all sentient life is sacred" type of axiom. So not sure what you thought you had here.
@@John-lw7bz Yeah, I guess as long as human society is running nice and smooth, we can torture and kill and use all the animals we want, and there's nothing morally questionable about that at all. I guess animals have 0 moral worth because they can't verbally tell us to not stab and eat them, and since they can't pay bills like us morally valuable humans can.
Think for 2 seconds about what said in your original comment. You're arguing that animal suffering doesn't matter. Would you be cool with your pet dog getting shot in the prime of its life so that someone else could eat it? Would you be cool with the same thing happening to millions and billions of similarly sentient creatures *every year*?
Being vegan is the minimal requirement for being a compassionate human being. It's about compassion and caring for others. Shockingly, most animals are averse to being killed against their will.
But whatever, this is likely a pointless trying to explain any of this to you, since you seem to have no compassion or care for anything beyond your selfish desires.
@@AssailantLF how are you so daft as to equate a dog to my dog. There is a world of difference between a dog and my dog. Obviously I care about my dog. Just like I don’t care about strangers or people starving to death in North Korea. You’re obviously missing my point. Your moral positions are disgosten and your bland arbitrary care for meat machines does not make you worth anything or interesting. Live in the real world, jackass.
Destiny holds a Value Belief from what I can hear. He Values his child due to a paternal instinct and genuine love and thus cares about its well being. Destiny does not value 40 million cows feelings.
Doomsday that’s not true. You take a cow’s calf away you can see its distressed
Destiny's reciprocation objection to the universe box thought experiment: "okay but if someone was outside _this_ universe box, I wouldn't want them to destroy me". This argument can be made exactly for the animal farming scenario. "If some species was more advanced than ours, I wouldn't want then farming and eating me."
Him not wanting himself to be destroyed isn't going to be a factor in whether or not someone outside the universe box destroys him, so it makes no sense to use it as a reason for changing his system.
@@franklance9167 I guess you need to distinguish between two types of reciprocation principles: One in which you cannot do an action that is likely to set an actual precedent where it can be done back to you, and one in which it's inherently wrong to do something that you wouldn't want done to you in principle, regardless of whether or not doing that action has any causal impact on the likelihood of it being done to you in the future. The former principle allows you to destroy the universe box, but the latter prevents you from doing so. Which one does Destiny follow? I don't think it was actually made clear.
@@franklance9167him not wanting something done to himself....is the basis of his morality...what are u talking about?
@@siddhanthravichandran3245 He is mostly an egoist, so if if he is going to construct rules where the rules won't change the outcome on a hypothetical there then wouldn't be a rational reason to do it.
Like if we have a thought experiment where aliens want to kill him because they don't value humans, it doesn't matter if Destiny changes his system, the aliens are still going to kill him. So it is an irrational basis to change his system.
@@franklance9167 the outcome dosent matter here. This is similar to how ..if a murderer is hellbent on killing you....ur never gonna convince him by arguing that "murder is morally wrong"
Ur getting murdered anyway.....so does that mean ...having that moral is inherently useless?
At 39 min, why is being vegetarian worse than meat-eating? Demand for meat is the limiting factor in the animal industry afaik, so how is reducing the impact of the food you eat a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing in terms of the raw effect it has on the animal industry. From the perspective of a vegan who is solely focused on the end result of things, a vegetarian is much better than a meat-eater.
The issue with (ethical) vegetarians is their moral hypocrisy and inconsistency. If you think the animal industry shouldn't be supported then vegetarians are better on that front alone, but that's about it. Vegetarians who are vegetarian for ethical reasons will refuse to eat a cheeseburger but will simultaneously pay for someone to kill and skin an animal so they can have a leather jacket, support male chicks being ground into nuggets when they buy eggs, or support veal industries less directly by buying dairy products. They think animals should be ethically considered while willingly supporting a ton of cruel things that contradict that. It's incredibly inconsistent, like someone in the past taking a moral stance against slavery by just owning 1 or 2 slaves instead of a dozen. No, if you don't support slavery you just shouldn't own them period.
If you're a vegan then you think animals should be morally considered, and you live your life accordingly. If you're a meat eater who's actually intellectually honest with yourself then you think animals shouldn't be morally considered, and you live your life accordingly. If you're a vegetarian for ethical reasons, you still go out and support animal cruelty on a regular basis despite feeling it's morally abhorrent, and from that lens you're a lot worse than the other two.
Sure, but imo everyone compromises between being comfortable and being consistent with their moral system. Even in this example, most vegans I know do not try to cut fences to free animals and disrupt the animal industry in illegal ways, even when this would be relatively easy. About half the meat-eaters I know also acknowledge that eating meat is wrong but continue to do so anyways. (also true on r/destiny poll: www.strawpoll.me/15482262/r)
Similarly I think lots of people consider it to be more morally consistent to give your money to someone who needs it for food or medicine than to buy stuff you like but do not need. I have yet to meet anyone who has a job but has literally no luxury items due to being consistent with their rules for charity though.
(Maybe unnecessary){
For someone opposing slavery, reducing the number of slaves you own down to 0 is not really a hard line you can get to and then say you have no more responsibility wrt slaves. You live in a society constructed by slaves and have power and status based on being not a slave, which should compel you to take more steps to help end slavery. I wouldn't call someone who just did not own slaves exceptionally morally abhorrent though, and I would have a similar opinion of someone who just reduced the amount of slaves they owned as far as they felt they reasonably could, especially if loosing those slaves would just cause them to be enslaved by someone more cruel.
}
For the first bit, you're absolutely right that everyone does to varying degrees, but inconsistency is still a bad thing that should be minimized despite that. Some are more guilty of it than others, and I'm not going to fault someone for having a small degree of inconsistency in areas they perhaps aren't passionate about. Sure, everyone may have tiny inconsistencies in their philosophies, but when you get to such a massive inconsistency where you're preaching about how animals deserve moral consideration, abstaining from eating meat for ethical reasons while you're simultaneously paying someone to kill and skin animals for your unnecessary leather jacket? It quickly gets to a point where high levels of inconsistency become pretty easy to criticize. I have a lot more respect for a meat-eater who thinks there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, or a vegan who actually follows their own morality.
As for vegans not engaging in illegal activity to aid animal rights, I don't think this does anything to make them less consistent. It's reasonable for a person not to risk personal liberty, safety, and freedom to further their own moral goals. Some people may, and that's good for them, but I'm not going to fault a vegan who doesn't risk a criminal record or massive fines just to save some animals. They may consider it an injustice and be put in a position where combating it isn't worth the risk, but they're just as morally consistent.
It's important to consider the difference between "What most of society considers morally good" and "What is morally consistent", too. Most people would consider giving to charity to be a good thing, but it's not inherently more CONSISTENT than buying luxury goods for yourself instead. Now, not giving to charity CAN be inconsistent depending on the specific morals hold, and I think if it is then it should equally be criticized. If you think animals deserve moral consideration and then you don't give them moral consideration, I think that's pretty shitty of you. Likewise if you think people have a moral obligation to spend the majority of their income on charity and you refuse to do so yourself, I think that makes you pretty shitty too. "Animals should be morally considered" and "You are only moral if you donate the majority of your income to charity" set very specific moral absolutes that a simple "Charity is nice to do if you have the means to do it" does not.
Next time if you know you're gonna do a long discussion PLEASE mute discord notifs
I'm okay with being an inconsistent meat eater, since it's pragmatically all the same. I am a T. rex after all
I'd be interested in hearing Destiny explain why it's bad for a man to rape. Obviously there's not any real chance of reciprocation so under his framework, you'd have to go somewhere really gross like saying that rape is bad primarily because of the effect on the woman's male family members or you'd have to say "if the man was a woman then he would want to not be raped" to which the response would be "if the man was a cow then he would want to be treated humanely".
Men can be raped though? I don't think I get where youre coming from on this. Are you trying to imply the effects of women being raped are inherently different than the effects of men or am I missing something?
@@mutedknghtu could uld just say ...sodomy/oral sex etc are immoral and punishable by death...(this already exists in islamic countries)....and then make raping women legal..... from destinys point of view there is nothing wrong with this...u would have a system where raping a man is wrong but raping a woman is completely legal.
Again this isnt even a complete hypothetical....this kind of system partially even exists in India where I am from....marital rape isn't considered a crime here , but until recently homosexuality was a crime worth 7 years of prison time.
This is a great argument....I wish someone used this against him
Destiny is the worst best vegan activist.
I find it very strange that throughout all of these arguments there has never been a distiction made between morals and preferences. For example, I can ascribe no immorality to killing my dog but still prefer it not to die over a farm animal. Or with the car swerve argument - yes I would swerve, not because it's immoral to kill an animal and not because I don't wanna fuck my car, it's just that I'd prefer not to experience the suffering of an animal.
I more or less take Destiny's whole argument on this, but that just seems like something that has been strangely left out. Furthermore, to argue about hypocrisy over prefrences gets into dangerous territory because of sexual preferences and so on being arguably hypocritical.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has any arguments against this. If not, I may see if Destiny will talk with me about this.
"I'd prefer not to experience the suffering of an animal" - seems like you do believe causing unnecessary suffering is immoral compared to not causing unnecessary suffering.
holy shit is this the Misanthropic from AY discord? no wonder this take is so bad
@@ramasai1475 people have irrational responses to things all the time, and you can accept them without basing your logic on them. I would react emotionally to a video of someone being shot in self defense, but I would never claim an immoral action took place. Monogamy/polyamory is a good example of that, I don’t think most people have a justification for exclusivity other than “it makes me feel really really bad that my partner might love someone else at the same time”. And most people accept that, because it’s an emotion most people relate to. It’s an irrational reaction that shouldn’t dictate logic.
"There is a reason to fuck with animals" - Destiny (44:46)
vegan please go Destiny
I know this video is old but people who advocate for ethnostate don't base it on phenotypes, its about the racial identity including common traits. The fact Destiny put forward such low cognitive taught just explains why he can't think for himself, and have trouble understanding deeper complexity to issues he resent because he feels "uncomfortable".
Vegans come educate me!
I'm really interested in what makes destiny say vegetarianism is worse than both meat eating and veganism.
EnderGraff1 it's extremely morally inconsistent if you're an ovolacto vegetarian for ethical reasons. The dairy/egg industry and the meat industry are one and the same, and many meat products are actually byproducts of the dairy/egg industry. By drinking milk and eating cheese, you are still supporting forcibly impregnating cows, hooking them up to milking machine for hours a day, and veal. By eating eggs, you are still supporting grinding up male chicks for nuggets. It's just a half assed ethical stance to take.
It's sort of like if someone in the past took a moral stance against slavery by owning only one or two slaves instead of a dozen like the average slave owner.
If you're morally against owning slaves then you shouldn't own slaves period. If you're morally opposed to killing animals then you shouldn't be buying leather or directly supporting the industries that do kill animals by still purchasing things like eggs and milk from them. If you're a vegetarian for non-ethical reasons then it's fine but if you're an ethical vegetarian who still goes out and monetarily supports the killing of animals then you're being dumb and hypocritical.
@@Aevalii but if you try to reach the better state of society (by going vegan/owning slave) then you could say as a society we should take a step toward our better future, but since it would be too inconvinient, then we will do it slowly. by first reducing the "harm" which leads to eliminating. And sure you are a hypocrite but owning 2 slaves is still better then owning 3 slaves and you still progressed in some way to the "ultimate" Goal of owning no slaves
I will cope till the end of time on meat being healthy or it being at least neutral. I am not convinced that a healthy vegan diet is healthier then a healthy meat diet especially for men (even more for older men, and men that lift weights/exercise), it might be cope but whatever.
I’m 100% with Destiny on this. Dear Vegans,
1) I don’t care about the Environment
2) I care about my health and am fully informed on the risks of eating meat, eating sugar, drinking alcohol, etc…. I’m not going to stop having birthday cake, a glass of bourbon or steak, every so often.
3) I extend compassion, empathy, and morals ONLY to humans as they are the only species (Currently) capable of reciprocating
4) I’m a Sociopath (According to Vegans)
You say you only extend compassion towards beings capable of reciprocating… but common sense says we feel more compassion than usual towards beings who can’t reciprocate, like very small children, pets, certain disabled people etc.
@@Celestina0 I disagree and don’t feel that way
@@alphaomega7433
You are one, we will have to make some law for, maybe we'll get you "special narcissistic psychopaths" a fenced in town somewhere "special" 🤓🌿💚
@@Charlotte.4C Good Luck✌️
But there are large groups of humans who are not capable of reciprocating, such as infants, is it justified to infinitely genocide infants?
I'm indifferent on slavery and the holocaust because I watched faces of death and checked liveleak every day. Sounds twisted, I know.
You should definitely get into touch with Seth if you can, Destiny.
"The philosophical use of intuition does not mean a mere hunch or a prereflective expression of, say, a moral attitude. Nor is it a way of playing it safe, as when one says, “My intuition tells me that P is true but I really don’t know, and if you chose to accept P, you do so at your own risk.”
...a common usage defines an intuition as an immediate, direct awareness or acquaintance with something. An intuition is a mode of awareness- sensory, intellectual or otherwise- in which something seems or appears to be directly present to one’s consciousness.
For example, one can have a sensory intuition of a table or an intellectual intuition of a conceptual truth, for instance, that 2 + 2 = 4.
Intuitions are not infallible, but they are prima facie justified. That is, if one carefully reflects on something, and a certain viewpoint intuitively seems to be true, then one is justified in believing that viewpoint in the absence of overriding counterarguments (which will ultimately rely on alternative intuitions). "
-Moreland & Craig, Philosophical Foundations (p.422)
We intuit that our cognitive faculties are reliable, that our 5 senses are reliable, that we aren’t dreaming, that we aren’t brains in a vat, etc.
Oh, congratulations on solving the Chinese room experiment!
42:45
"I can't act on an unjustified thought." Well, you don't choose your thoughts; they just appear randomly. You also justify these thoughts using other lines of thought that you also had no choice in picking. In short, your disdain for intuition and emotional reasoning comes from your need in believing that you're fully in control, and that stems from egoic tendencies, which you are totally transparent about, but also a victim of. That's why people call you cold and overly rational. The truth is, you're not in control, and the intellect is merely a imperfect tool. Likewise, intuition is also a tool. Both are useful.
Racism is also an intuition for some people. Intuition is a good tool not to create moral systems though