Dude who cares if humans have language or society or similar chit you say? How in the fuk is that relevant to having permission to harm sentient life? Humans are animals. When you harm animals your harming animals and when you harm a human your harming an animal as well. How exactly can you go from "humans have human language and human society whereas animals have animal language and animal society therefore human society and language is better because I said so and ergo it means I have the right to abuse other aninals because I a human decided humans one of which I am is better than other animals in the same branch of life we are". Seriously it's arbitrary as fuk and makes no sense. Only and insecure selfish idiot would say that to big up himself and feel better about being human. It's arbitrary as fuk
Wow, it's clear the reason you can't reach any understanding is that he is unwilling to concede that you don't have to agree on the fundamentals that make up his argument. Whereas you admit from the start there is no possible way to agree for that very same reason.
28:00 -- just watched your debate from like 3 years ago and he did not say that! previously he said he wouldn't have a problem killing bugs... he said he would exterminate his house :P
@@boryf7463 false. It’s good every time. Now, I don’t laugh out loud every time. But, it’s that nice person you see in class every morning, and always greets you with smile and asks how you’re doing and always offers you extra pen and paper and candies. And she’s a girl and her name is Destiny.
@@boryf7463 There was a time where it was funny. Then there was a long, long time where it was unfunny. Now it's slowly getting funny in a post-ironic way again.
Dude who cares if humans have language or society or similar chit you say? How in the fuk is that relevant to having permission to harm sentient life? Humans are animals. When you harm animals your harming animals and when you harm a human your harming an animal as well. How exactly can you go from "humans have human language and human society whereas animals have animal language and animal society therefore human society and language is better because I said so and ergo it means I have the right to abuse other aninals because I a human decided humans one of which I am is better than other animals in the same branch of life we are". Seriously it's arbitrary as fuk and makes no sense. Only and insecure selfish idiot would say that to big up himself and feel better about being human. It's arbitrary as fuk
Vegan gains makes the same argument every time he tries to open his mouth but all that comes out is basically Holocaust Nazi WW2 comparison and than proceed with predominate personal attacks. I’m pretty sure anyone 15 years or older can beat vegan gains in a debate. Because vegan gains is by definition morally bankrupt when it comes to actual human beings. But he over exaggerate any and all forms of moral discussion about any animal that doesn’t get in the way of the vegan life style. Millions of species of animals get exterminated every year from pesticides on farms that kill all animals that eat the crops that farmers harvest… He is by definition dumb as bricks. And honestly it’s sad.
@@WarningBFG-isHiring you seem to think that just because you have a rationalization of a concept or event it won't affect you emotionally? The brain doesn't work that way unless you've had something in the way of brain damage or an active conditioning against empathy. Are you really looking at animals suffering and feeling absolutely nothing? Or are you feeling something, realizing that you don't rationally believe in it, and then actively suppressing it?
@@WarningBFG-isHiring the reason you don't care has nothing to do with you having some sort of value for consistency, it's because you're a POS that wouldn't care about the suffering of a human either other than for practical reasons. Suffering is suffering
There are a couple points where Vegan Gains does ask some good questions and it seems like we might get an interesting convo, but then he immediately throws it away either by going back to being ultra condescending or saying "you want to genocide all disabled people" for the 20th time.
The part I found interesting is what gives humans value over other sentient beings.. Destiny argues that it’s due to his axiomatic claim that he values the life of humans over other animals, but vegan gains says “what if you did a genome test and it turned out you weren’t human. Could I kill you?” Destiny argues it’s an impossibility for him to have the phenotypes he does without being “human”, but an argument vegan didn’t counter with is that Neanderthals looked similar to humans and there are non human genetics in all of us. The boundary of what makes someone human is interesting. I want to debate Destiny on this. I’ve debated many big names before.
@@drdavinsky the thing about genetics that people don’t tend to understand is that protein coding genes are what make everything tick and they’re incredibly well conserved across life. The only way we differentiate species is identifying unique clusters of genes that are unique to that organism and not present in others. Neanderthals likely had nearly identical genetics and the only “Neanderthal” genes we describe todag are that ones that aren’t conserved between us and them. In a way, the genetic argument does make sense in that you need an unknown discreet number of functional genes and epigenetic mechanisms to make an organism and any hypothetical that circumvents that is internally inconsistent. A better argument would be to describe a highly genetically distinct non-human species with comparable social, linguistic and concious experiences to us and ask about its rights. Then destiny will have to parce whether or not it’s ONLY humans he cares about rather that if he can sufficiently define humans, which is a huge difference in a discussion this far in the weeds
The part I found interesting is what gives humans value over other sentient beings.. Destiny argues that it’s due to his axiomatic claim that he values the life of humans over other animals, but vegan gains says “what if you did a genome test and it turned out you weren’t human. Could I kill you?” Destiny argues it’s an impossibility for him to have the phenotypes he does without being “human”, but an argument vegan didn’t counter with is that Neanderthals looked similar to humans and there are non human genetics in all of us. The boundary of what makes someone human is interesting. I want to debate Destiny on this. I’ve debated many big names before.
@@drdavinsky Unfortunate for your second Neanderthal argument is this: A german speaking researcher just got the Nobel price for discovering that the Neanderthal genome is also found in homo sapiens. Meaning the two appropriate taxonomies mixed themselves as well. Wouldn't this essentially resolve the "looking familiar but actually isn't." argument, making Destiny's in turn more sound?
@@PuddingXXL but it's clear. Say there would be Neanderthals now, Destiny would be ok with torturing them and/or gaschambering them. In a fantasy Tolkien setting, humans would morally be cool with killing dwarfs, elves... Destiny doesn't seem to get the point.
Dude who cares if humans have language or society or similar chit you say? How in the fuk is that relevant to having permission to harm sentient life? Humans are animals. When you harm animals your harming animals and when you harm a human your harming an animal as well. How exactly can you go from "humans have human language and human society whereas animals have animal language and animal society therefore human society and language is better because I said so and ergo it means I have the right to abuse other aninals because I a human decided humans one of which I am is better than other animals in the same branch of life we are". Seriously it's arbitrary as fuk and makes no sense. Only and insecure selfish idiot would say that to big up himself and feel better about being human. It's arbitrary as fuk
Yep. Vegan gains is 100% presenting an absurd hypothetical and destiny is 100% correct to reject it. Basic logic and these 'philosophy bro vegans' usually don't mix.
@@chronographer What makes it logically impossible for two distinct genotypes to create the same phenotype? Destiny chose genotype as the morally significant trait, so the question is whether he'd be okay with holocausting a being with an identical phenotype despite having a different genotype. There's nothing logically impossible about that, and it's therefore a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to use.
@@mmhmm9271 "the question is whether he'd be okay with holocausting a being with an identical phenotype" - No the question was 'Would you be okay holocaust-ing a being with the same genotype and also with a different genotype?'
I think the thing with him engaging in drama is that because he is methodical and honest it allows people that watch his analysis become interested in his more serious political/philosophical debates/discussion. It makes him seem more than just a debate lord.
@@PlanetJeroen I would rather listen to him debate dipshits like vegan gains for 20 videos straight then be subject to one drama stream. The content on his main channel is complete dogshit 70% of the time.
@@BornInsane0 So he could go to Yulin Dog Meat festival or a slaughterhouse and he would bat an eye? I doubt he would care. He doesn’t give animals moral consideration so why would he.
@@BornInsane0 no he wouldn’t just like I wouldn’t. I’ve seen some much slaughterhouse footage (which includes Yulin) and I didn’t bat an eye. I don’t bat an eye because that would make me a hypocrite.
@@ibosnfs1997 What is sad to see here? Destiny is right. When someone in ancient Greece said "water" (or the equivalent word in their language at the time) they didn't mean H2O, because they didnt know thats what it was made of, they meant that liquid that I can drink to quench thirst, that helps plants grow, falls out of the sky as rain,.... but it was probably a small dig at Vaush too
@@stevanmilovanovic9128 Destiny is right in the explanation on why water and h2o are actually different when given a historical context; however, destiny is trying to needlessly complicate answers to double speak over VGs arguments. That's what is sad to see. You never see destiny trying to argue semantics and complicated an answer with almost nobody else other than vegan gains. It's so obvious destiny just values and likes the taste of meat over the autonomy of the animal he is implicitly treating like an object of pleasure in exchange for their autonomy. Destiny would have somewhat of a point if we actually need(ed) meat to survive, but we don't and that's why he cant give straightforward answers.
@@digipoke12345 i can understand how someone could see that, only if their understanding of philsophy is at the same level as VG. He was way out of his depth and kept dodging a ton of thibgs destiny said your brain just couldnt see it.
@@deeky1239 loooool Destiny suggested that the hypothetical wasn't viable (not verbatim, I watched this a day or two ago), but then conceded that it wasn't a logical contradiction. He kept using the 'dialogue tree' defence to try and discredit VG. VG absolutely made mistakes, but Destiny showed a masterclass in obfuscation.
Nah, Vegan Gains fails on the premise. If you "Equalize the Traits" of two things then we are no longer comparing those two things. A pig can't be made equal to a human AND BE A PIG at the same time. The pig wouldn't think twice before eating YOU.
Well if you answer with something surface level and fail to actually engage any deeper when questioned further was it really worth giving the answer. Or did your answer actually achieve anything other than watching your 5 seconds of w deteriorate into an LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
@@SporkyMcFly question about caring about a rock with consciousness, destiny tried to dodge and distract by confronting him with that question but VG answered without hesitation
No. It always ends with Destiny snickering and checking out of the conversation when Vegan Gains continues to push him. I’m not even vegan but it hurts to watch
- I care about triangles, - So, what gives the trait of triangles? - I guess, that they have 3 sides. - so lets imagine a triangle with 4 sides, and tell me if you care about that triangles, if not, you don't care about triangles, you just care about 3 sides figures.
I agree with destiny (obviously) but this isn't quite the same, as both of them acknowledged something that has the same phenotype as a human but a completely different genotype is still "logically possible", not quite the same as a bright light that's dark or a square shape that's round
@@merc5604 Yep, you are right, I made my comment before I listen to Destiny accepting that as a logical possibility. But if you catalog things based on genotype, then it is the same as the triangle. It was my impression that if Destiny was talking about caring of genotype defined as human, that the triangle thing applied. If they are cataloging phenotypes, then yeah, it is a different thing.
Not exactly. A being that has different internal organs could be genetically different enough to not be genetically considered human, and yet appear human outwardly.
@@goedel. Ok, so this is interesting, do you have any example of such? This just out of pure curiosity, I mean, I am not even sure if different genotype could give rise to human like species (I mean very human like, not like monkeys and us). Anyway, as I mentioned before, I wrote the analogy before Destiny accepted the idea of non-genetic humans (per say). Because I thought that the idea behind selecting moral consideration was genotype driven, so regardless of that thing being a human phenotype (at least in appearance), you wouldn't have moral consideration towards them.
I still have permanent mental damage from the debate where they went over some vegan health study and VG refused to admit he did not understand the study whatsoever, to the point of him claiming he knows better than the authors of the study he himself cited.
@@ThunderLetPlays i remember that 😂😂 and at the time destiny was not at all into health studies and whatnot but just read it once and it proved him right.
Imagine if vaush or hasan acted this way in a debate, destiny would call that behavior out and ridicule them for it to no end, he’s such a dishonest garbage human
Infrared everytime he does a vegan debate I lose so much respect for him. The funny part is he’s known he knows how to argue vegan positions and understands them but he just uses crazy bad faith in actual vegan debates.
@@huntertobey6965 what is dishonest about acknowledging that while you can have reasons for caring about the suffering of animals, that doesn’t mean you agree that its a moral imperative in the same way that caring about human suffering is. youre more than willing to try and make the case for why it is, but VGs argument didnt get anywhere near that.
@@francothesucc9701 holy shit you didn’t even listen to the debate LOL destiny doesn’t posit any reasons to care about animals AT ALL they didn’t talk about “moral imperatives” he just doesn’t give animals ANY moral value, are you okay?
@@huntertobey6965 I never said he did? Im simply illustrating the fact that your claim of dishonesty makes zero sense, since assigning moral worth to animals isn’t the only way one can justify caring about reducing the suffering of animals. And EVEN IF Destiny wouldn’t agree with said justifications, it still doesn’t prove dishonesty on his part.
Should've included the part after where Destiny goes on his subreddit and bans everyone criticising him, including one poor guy who only said "I'm gonna post my thoughts on this debate later" lol
Destiny sounded so much like Vaush in the "aqua" debate here, holy shit. Falling back on how all moral axioms are arbitrary, you can't get an ought from an is, etc. is such a weak move and it seems like he's using it here mostly as a way to derail the possibility of the conversation moving anywhere because "I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe" and therefore neither of us can be moved. The genetics argument is ridiculous if you want to dive deeper into it because then Destiny has to come up with some arbitrary level of genetic similarity that makes humans suddenly worthy of moral consideration. Most humans share 99.9% of the same DNA, Neanderthals were 99.7%, a chimp is 98.8%. So at some point his ethical view boils down to some arbitrary (by his own admission) percentage of genetic similarity and because there's no real qualitative measure there he doesn't have a knockdown for why a white supremacist couldn't just say that people of different races have different enough DNA that they can be considered unworthy of moral consideration just because they decided (arbitrarily) that they didn't meet the correct threshold. VG using terms like well-being and suffering are clearly him talking through a Utilitarian framework and it's absolutely bad-faith for Destiny to pretend that he doesn't know what those things refer to since he semi-frequently refers to himself as a rule utilitarian. If he wants to defer to Rawls' Theory of Justice (which I think he's done in past debates) then he has to come up with a strong argument for why the Veil of Ignorance wouldn't also apply to non-human animals since no one gets to choose the species that they're born as. Key issue is that Destiny is a secular egoist who only believes in maximizing his own well-being so VG should be spending more time focusing on the negative impact to human being caused by factory-farming (namely Global Warming, increased spread of disease, health issues caused by fast food, etc.) to convince him that eliminating factory-farming actually aligns with his interests. At some point Destiny needs to grow the fuck up and realize that secular egoism is essentially the unregulated capitalism of ethics. It works well enough at some things, you can convince people not to kill others because then they're more likely to be killed, but if at bottom you only believe in maximizing your own well-being and then you die and nothing matters then you have no incentive not to burn fossil fuels and chop down the rain forests to get rich NOW because you don't have a social contract with the future beings that will be born into the hellish world you've left behind for them. It's a totally unsustainable moral framework. If I only value life because it's sentient and human then why should I care about the potential lives of humans 200 years from now who (at present) are neither sentient nor human?
completely agree. destiny failed hard on this. He dodged many times and dishonestly brought out straight up vaush tactics. The most frustrating thing about his silly "human" argument is that alot of people are just parroting it. Just think that if neanderthals had evolved alongside humans. and happen to have the same intellect that these people would say they dont care if we tortured, raped, and enslaved them.
I'm no vegan but the muting part was pretty cringe by destiny tbh. It did genuinely seem like he couldn't come up with a good argument so he stopped taking it seriously at that point. Started rambling about random stuff too
He muted him? I guess I don't need to watch Destiny anymore if he mutes people... ...no reason to ever mute a person unless they are gonna get you in trouble with Twitch. If they are wrong then you just let them dig their own grave...
@@evanstowers8529 no no he muted himself a couple of times to tell chat what he predicts VG is about to say while talking over him to seem smart, and also to laugh at him. He didn't mute VG, I just thought it seemed childish and cheap and a lot in the chat pointed it out
09:45 Destiny L. He's being so far from charitable here which is incredible to see after months of kiddy gloves and arguing that charitability is key when debating right-wingers like Sneako or Nick.
He’s become increasingly slippery. Used to feel like he was attempting to reach truth with people he talked with, now he just tries to dunk. Sucks. I want old destiny back
What are wellbeing and suffering? Its a debate so there is a pressing reason to be thorough. Additionally nobody is perfectly consistent all the time. You may have problem with that.
There is no reason to value the wellbeing of anything other than humans. For humans there is a clear pragmatic reason, it makes our lives better to value the wellbeing of other humans because they can reciprocate that respect, animals cannot.
@@CrestOfArtorias social contract, which leads to might means right. Everyone disagrees with might means right ethically. This discussion with destiny has been had before. He’s just being dishonest or using motivated reasoning to arrive at the non vegan position. The vegan position being the correct one is overwhelmingly obvious to a majority of reasonable ethicists
No because he’s asking if nothing changes besides one gene that makes no practical difference to somebody’s thoughts, emotions , personhood or physical however your girlfriend turning into a worm drastically changes all of that
Well no, I think it’s more like your girlfriend asking if you’d think it’s okay for someone to stab her, rape her and subject her to an existence of suffering if you found out she didn’t have human DNA, but still looked, acted and thought in the same way.
Everytime Destiny does a vegan debate I lose massive respect for him. He’s clearly so bad faith and dishonest. FYI I’m not vegan and I’m a Destiny fan so I’m not biased for vegan gains at all.
There's a good video by Soup Emporium about how Koko the gorilla (probably) couldn't talk. It's definitely worth a watch if you find this stuff interesting
The proper hypothetical would be if you have an alien that can integrate within human society (exp: The alien race displayed in Mass Effect), what moral consideration would you extend to these type of creature, instead of the gene demon human... Because then you get around the human issue and you can adresse moral consideration for the capacity to participate in human society at the human level. Unless destiny would refuse to address the hypothetical since said alien doesn't exist.
@@hypovisor He said in one of their previous debates that if an alien was intelligent enough to reciprocate a social contract of non-aggression and respect for individual rights, etc, he'd grant them the same consideration in return. So, yes, he would and has.
@ForeverMasterless , I guess that it wouldn't give anything to vegan gain since destiny could easily point out that no animal can display this level of social interaction with humans. So even if some animals are integrated in human society, they are integrated as animals, with no mean to fully agree/participate to the "human" social contract.
The entire hypothetical was a retarded waste of time because this hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with animals lol. There is no walking up to Tigers being like "Ayo bro so we were thinking you were pretty chill, and we were pretty chill, so if y'all were down and all we could like, let you into human civilization if you just don't eat us n shit" and they'd respond "Well god bless to you my friend! It would be a great honor to partake in such a life style with you humans, I truly truly appreciate the offer!".
I just watched an episode of Good Doctor and a quote there explains very well why debating vegans is pointless. "If I could explain to you why im correct than you will see that I do not need to apologize" vegans think their point is just the correct one and no matter what they just want you to see their correct point without having a chance to have their opinion changed.
@@deebo429__ are you using dialogue in a show. To make a point. All that means nothing. “Never talk to a vegan, cause they’d want you to change how you conduct yourself” yeah I mean. If change or personal responsibility is spooky to you sure. Steer away from those vegans. Everyone can be famous, or an artist. Not everyone can be a vegan. That much is true. It takes a lot of work
@@deebo429__ I’ve noticed that anti-rapists have exactly that perspective as well. “Rape is just wrong since there’s a perpetrator and a victim” and whatnot . No reasoning with those people…
@@thefailedartist6344 did you even read my.comment or just see that I was using a quote and sperged out? Try to engage with what I said and then come back to me bud
"If something that existed outside of all of our current scientific understanding of biology and neuroscience regarding genetics was brought to light, would you still care about genetics?" Destiny: Well, if the entire field is being destroyed by this new, incredibly unlikely discovery, then yeah, obviously, I'd restructure my worldview. "Got it, so you don't care about genetics".
Why Do People have a hard time understanding the Question, Vegan Gains just asked Destiny if he Would Kill Superman and Destiny said NO so Destiny Lost
@@rinneganofrage7206the problem is that as far as we know Superman doesn’t exist. If he did exist obviously destiny would need to change his definition. But that doesn’t make destiny’s definition inconsistent or stupid
Destiny got demolished in this debate as usual. Whenever he tries to double-down on his weird "human sentience tho" argument it's just begging the question. The only way to solve NTT is to just acknowledge that sentience has intrinsic value. It's way more intuitive and logically consistent than trying to draw a line somewhere in evolution. Props to at least some of his community for admitting that his ethics on animals is terrible.
So, while I disagree with Vegan Gains' arguments, for different and more substantive reasons than Destiny, I want to first point out how Destiny made some bad debate choices in this discussion. First, he should not have said that a human is defined by anything genetic. While what is represented phenotypically derives typically from genetics, Destiny does not require a DNA test from every person he meets to determine if they are human, and from there give them human moral consideration. He's used an argument like this before, if I remember correctly, for trans people. If you meet a passing trans woman, you don't need a DNA test to know whether or not to think of her as a woman. His understanding of someone being a human isn't genetic in the actual process. Secondly, he really did seem to be dodging on the suffering question. I'm convinced he knows exactly what VG was talking about, and the response about the "quarterly numbers of the business suffering" was just silliness. Third, when he says that his rule of thumb is that when people start pulling out names of fallacies he considers them to be unhinged, that's just a bad look on him. He has been on this thing for a while now, where he tries to demean people who call out logical fallacies, yet he will do so himself, he just doesn't do it by name because he thinks it gives a "debate bro" type look. There is nothing wrong with calling out logical fallacies. If something is logically fallacious, it's not a good argument. We should be calling these things out, and Destiny is one of the big reasons why people have been using this as an insult lately. Try to make fun of somebody for pointing out that your argument is logically fallacious. Go ahead. It just makes you look like an idiot. That's just an ad hominem. You can't use that as a substantive argument against someone. That's irrelevant. On to VG: Vegans will typically ask "how do you justify treating X being Y way?" This question contains a loaded assumption that people tend to miss: why is a justification necessary? I only need to explain my actions as part of a social game in which my actions might be responded to in a way that effects me. There is no justification for valuing the experience of sentient beings. Destiny was right in pointing out the arbitrariness of valuing sentience. You can't justify this axiomatic value. VG tried to say that sentience is the thing that makes certain groups of beings different from others, and while that's true, that is a mere descriptive claim; that is an _is_ statement. This does not get us to a prescription or an _ought_ requirement. This does not require a justification for action. However, _other people_ require justifications for actions based on their preferences. If you lived in a world in which people sent others to jail for treating non-human animals a certain way, you would need to justify your actions to them to avoid punishment, but that would not be a fundamental ontic moral justification. Also, ask any vegan how they can justify valuing their own continued existence over the suffering of the countless sentient beings they cause the death and suffering of throughout their own lives. Vegans, while they seek to live in a way that reduces their impact on other sentient beings, cause the suffering and death of countless beings through crop deaths, traveling in vehicles which kill insects and animals occasionally, and excessive calorie consumption (which VG can definitely be accused of). VG likes to work out and build muscle. He doesn't need all that muscle. It takes a lot of extra calories to put on all that muscle. That means he has to eat more food. Vegan food still causes the death and suffering of sentient beings. It doesn't cause as much death and suffering as many omnivorous foods, but it still causes death and suffering. And, the more you eat of it the more death and suffering you cause. So he values his hobby of packing on muscle more than he values the suffering of sentient beings. And back on what I was originally saying in this paragraph, he's just one being who exists. In order to maintain his own existence, he has to travel and consume products which results in the death and suffering of countless sentient beings. Why is his existence superior to theirs? Just because he feels it is? Just because that's his preference? What makes his mere subjective preference a justification for causing the death and suffering of all these other beings? If his preference is the only thing he's using to support his actions that result in the death and suffering of sentient beings, what does he have to support the assertion that somebody else's preferences are inferior to his own? This is the argument that demonstrates the arbitrariness of this concept clearly. VG has admitted that he is a subjectivist. He has no position here. The fact that he is still attempting to use NTT shows his lack of philosophical growth, especially as a subjectivist. As humans, we don't hold moral positions with consistency based solely on physical traits, we base them on our relationships. For example, take a trolley experiment where two random humans are on Track 1 and one other random human is on Track 2. The trolley is headed for the two randoms but you can switch to only kill the one. So, you switch it and save a life. Now, take the same example but instead of a random on Track 2, it's your mother who you love dearly. Do you still switch the track so that it kills your mother to save an extra random? No. Will there be some outliers to this? Yes, but I think if we're being honest we can see the issue here. We make moral decisions based on our relationships, associations, and extensions from that. We give greater moral value to our close loved ones than we do to our casual friends; we give greater moral value to our casual friends than to other community members; we give greater moral value to our community members than to members of distant and strange communities; we give greater moral value to our species than we do to other species. Generally. This is how our morality actually functions. It is not a logical consistency game, it is based on our subjective preferences and the pressures of the social systems we construct and which are constructed for us.
@@johkupohkuxd1697 he's probably white, going to college on parents money and taking courses that aren't pushing him. Bc holy fuck who else has the amount of time to type all this out
But VG would say young children and mentally disabled people would not listen to this debate. Their self awareness is comparable or less than some animals and yet we don't allow them to be killed
I think what makes us care about other organism's lives including other humans, is the ability to invoque our feelings of empathy. So some form of communication with us is key as well as having some similar traits to ours to make us anthropomorphize and empathize. Sentience is just an effective tool to invoke someone else's feeling of empathy.
@@lampad4549 I cant speak for Destiny but most people value sentience whether they know it or not. The biggest animal lover of all time probably doesn't cry when a mosquito runs into their car windshield. Just about every person would be a little messed up if they ran over and killed a dog, and people are generally messed up for life or for years if they run over and kill a human. the reason why is we believe humans have a very wide range of pain and pleasure, dogs have some but not as much as humans, and mosquitos are the least out of the 3. Unless Destiny is equally unperturbed about hitting a mosquito as he is a dog, then he does value sentience to some degree.
I don't think he got rekt debate wise, I just think it's impossible for him to win. You can't argue against veganism without blatantly stating you don't care if animals suffer. Which also makes you lose the debate. It's a lose-lose for destiny, all he can do is argue health aspects
I don't get why Desinty can't concede the point that suffering itself should be avoided - Destiny argues that human suffering alone deserves moral consideration: he said so himself - that implies animal abuse is completely acceptable. As soon as you concede that animal suffering should be limited then you have to actually start caring where your meat comes from. I value hunters and grass-fed meat even as someone who doesn't eat meat unless I have to. These types of debates are completely worthless to people who actually think much about these topics - these two are arguing semantics, not practical ways to adapt one's thinking to modern choices.
How does valuing human suffering more than animal suffering advocating or accepting of animal abuse...? We should limit or change practices that induces alot of suffering to animals for sure I don't think anyone would disagree. That doesn't mean we'd stop livestock practices because some practice induces pain. Does that mean you would want carnivores to stop eating other animals because the prey is definitely suffering worse than how we slaughter livestock. Seemingly the predator doesn't care about how they hunt. What stops you from upholding those standards with every other animals if their sentience is as valuable as ours. Why do you have the moral high ground over others to dictate that aswell IF everything I said is true.
@@Dinofrogg Because most animals can't have moral discussions about suffering and what they inflict on other people. They just do things based on instinct mainly. We on the other hand can talk about these things and make decisions based on our morals. Yes there is suffering but guess who suffers if you were to try to save all animals that are being hunted? Nature is a cycle that is in itsself complete and that is fine. And if you actually cared about human suffering you would advocate for going vegan and be vegan yourself because animal agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to climate change which is going to cause and unfathomable amount of humans suffering.
Gains: 10:10 "You don't know what suffering is? Have you ever skinned your knee on a rock?" I genuinely hope folks nowadays don't equate a skinned knee with "suffering"
Its also not really the same. Skinnning your knee is pain, a dumb reflexic reaction. Suffering goes much deeper. Suffering leads to trauma, pain leaves once the receptors register the danger is over. Suffering rarely leaves you without scars.
@@whenthedustfallsaway suffering is an extreme emotional response to pain, or a pain on a greater level then scraping your knee on a rock. That is why his example of using the skinned knee is totally ridiculous.
Destiny's worst showing is always with Vegan Gains. And I'm not even vegan lol. VG was just asking at what level Destiny would consider an experience worth protecting and valuing. And I lost my mind at the part where Destiny said plants have a sentient experience. Just absolute a-scientific nonsense. 1st year botany explains why and how plants move. It has nothing to do with sentience at all.
@@Jkobe915 I'm very happy that you asked. One element of sentience is the ability to feel pain, fear, and to react to external stimuli in that sense. Something that people do not understand about plants is that they do not feel pain. No plant on this Earth feels pain. Plants do not move and respond to external stimuli out of sentience, but it is a purely chemical reaction. When a plant moves towards the sun the chemical of auxin is produced on the shady side which causes growth in the cells on that side which makes it move towards the sun. Claiming a plant moving towards the sun is a sign of sentience is like claiming that when you cut down grass on your lawn and it grows back is a sign of sentience. In my opinion, sentience means the ability to perceive things, to have one's own thoughts and ideas, to have self awareness at the basis of it. Plants don't have thoughts. They don't feel pain. Basic biology will tell you that the basis for pain is nerves. Plants do not have nerves. Their main makeup is xylem and phloem. A human being who is born with no nerves will not feel pain. There are cases of this. And beyond that, what evolutionarily advantage would a plant have to develop nerves given that they are stationary? The reason that moving creatures evolved pain was to escape from predators and negative external stimuli. Plants are stationary, what evolutionary benefit would it have for them to develop nerves, for them to develop a brain process the impulses from those nerves, and to feel pain, and to understand the world around them? The world of a plant is one of chemical processes. And like I said I'm not even vegan. I just hate the "plants have feelings" line of logic. Because it's simply untrue.
@@daisy291 Formulate your thoughts and post it for peer review in a journal, because holy fuck you just solved the hard problem of consciousness!! Scientists still do not even know where sentience, the ability to have qualia, comes from within humans - let alone whether or not animals have it as well.
@@ccie7489 idk if you're being facetious or not, but I don't claim to know the mechanisms of sentience. I'm not a neurobioloist, I'm an environmental biologist. I'm not claiming to know the answers to everything regarding conscious experience. I'm only aiming to say that the line of thinking that plants feel pain, therefore they think, therefore they are sentient is one that I've heard many times and that infuriates me because a basic understanding of botany will tell you that's just not true.
How did neither of them mention anything about self realization? The fact that what separates humans and animals is the fact that humans know theyre alive, know they will eventually die and recognize all the things that comes with that realization. Scientists sometimes try to teach animals of their own mortality, that one day they will inevitably die. When they're successful, the animal usually gets depressed and sometimes suicidal. I think thats the line in the sand when it comes to sentience, when one can process the meaning and inevitability of mortality
Do you think people with severe mental disability have self realization? A human being can exist without these things you described and you’d most likely not be okay with killing them. This is one of the most basic counters vegans use.
Why does this matter? A baby doesn't know what death is but you'd care if someone tortured a baby? When it comes to the vegan debate I feel like people purposefully create the criteria for what is valued life and what isn't such that humans will arrive on top, when in reality these criteria have nothing to do with anything important.
"How do you define Human" ... "Genetic make-up" ... "So if a human with an entirely different genetic make-up...." What a minute.. What? So... not a human by the standard that was literally defined 10 seconds prior. Destiny, I don't know how you even made it through this debate... I would have lost my damn mind on this guy.
Yeah but he meant superficially human. So if you looked like a human but you had different DNA. I don't know why you people think this is incoherent btw. It's possible for you to have different DNA that alters your insides but on the surface level you still look human. The whole point of the hypothetical is to get across that you don't just value a specific type of DNA. That's ridiculous. You obviously have some intuitive value of things like pain and pleasure. You don't look at a human and go "I value them because they have the same DNA as me" and even if you said you value them because "they look like me" that would be extra sketchy because then you'd basically be admitting you value humans with deformities less and people of different ethnicity.
@@TheAleBecker I would have said ''single-handedly'' if that's what I meant but I didn't say that. You have a really bad grasp of the English language.
Here's my take on the whole "levels of sentience" thing. I do think there are "levels of sentience" but it's not exactly what it sounds like. If you suddenly out of nowhere cut off the lower body of a bee, and then immediately kill it, this is probably experientially very similar to doing the same thing to a human in quick succession. Having a higher level of sentience doesn't mean everything you experience is MORE of an experience, rather it has to do with the bounds of your awareness. As Humans we experience more things. We have long memories; we have rich thoughts about the past present and future; we spend time thinking about our circumstances and the circumstances of others; we compare ourselves; we belittle ourselves, we feel shame etc. and we can do all of that together in a short time span. It's having this broader theater of external awareness and self-awareness that means we have to be even more careful with humans, than insects. insects probably cannot sit around all day worrying that someone is going to kill them or their family. they probably don't know what death is. they probably don't remember each other very long or miss each other. everything is very raw and sensory for them, so a world where we feel free to step on bees whenever we feel like it, probably does not create nearly as much suffering as a world where we feel free to instantly eviscerate humans whenever we want. But we should still avoid stepping on bees. Edit: if you think of a single momentary conscious experience as a scene or shot, composed of meaningful items. (Mise en scene, if you will) a lowly sentient being like a bee may only be able to have a scene composed of a couple items, while humans are capable of scenes composed of thousands of meaningful items, weaving a very rich tapestry. I'm using this as a metaphorical explaination in line with Integrated Information Theory (IIT), a very popular theory of consciousness in neuroscience and philosophy of mind which defines a measure 'phi' which roughly gives us the degree to which information in a system is integrated. And they find this 'phi' (which we can estimate but not measure) seems to predict human states that we generally think of as conscious or unconscious, while offering an explanation as to what properties of our brain leads to consciousness; and explanation which does not limit consciousness to organisms with a brain, but extends the possibility to all sorts of densely connected and recurrent complex physical systems.
Hows that relevant exaxtly to harmjng animals (which we also are) needlessly, or to have no empathy or compassion for them? I mean the obvious answer is 99% of all humans are brainwashed idiots who don't have empathy or compassion for each other, so of course they'd have no room for other species. But seriously tell me what makes our qualities special whereas each species has unique abilities as well? Intelligence is one ability humans have the highest of sure, but humans live in a artificial society that only a small percentage less than 1% of all humans who have ever lived have constructed or invented becsuse they were the only ones wkth the so called "intelligence" that meattards always say humans have trying to somehow include themselves in the "intelligent invetors:scientists/philosophers club". The rest of the 99% of humans have none of the intellectual abilities that a non brainwashed idiot and or religious moron human SHOULD HAVE, whereas in other species 99% of them USE their top abilities PERFECTLY. Millions of birds can fly inches away from each other going multiple directions without crashing while humans can't keep themselves from bumping into each other whenever a dozen or so are around. Please stop including yourself and the majority of humans in the "intelligent" club. They aren't. They fkn accept working for slave wages while their ceo makes their retirement money every hour and abuses them yet they don't revolt, don't demand the MAX pay the Corp can handle if profit was only allowed to be 1% and salaries had a max cap, instead they're afraid to say anything because they fear being fired and no longer having money to buy chit they don't need to impress friends or family who hate them just so they can act all high and mighty. Fkn pathetic. The average 40 year old female Karen who eats meat could NEVER EVER eat meat if she was suddenly thrown in Siberia. She'd be food herself. She'd be desperately praying to an imaginary God to receive help from some stranger while picking fruits and nuts. She couldn't even hunt a fkn mouse. It's not even natural for them to eat meat which is why they die from heart disease or strokes. It's idiotic. We aren't special as a race, only a handful of humans made today's society possible because the intelligent are rich in mind heart and soul so they share their knowledge to the rest of the idiot masses, and help the defenseless and innocent and protect them. Only insecure selfish greedy ignorant idiot Savage humans who are either poor financially or poor in heart mind and or spirit or all of the above have no compassion or empathy for others including humans becsuse they're desperately trying to be in a higher position relevant to other humans so they get attention from more people or women/or men, or have the power to abuse others or the money to brag to others becsuse they're fkn insecure and poor and ugly on the inside. Get some real self confidence and knowledge and enrich your spirit and you will quickly see the ugly Ness and cancerousness of humabjty, but you won't want to exterminate them because you dislike them like the poor in spirit do, you'd feel bad for them and try to help them. Which is what vegans do for other species, help them against cruelty by selfish greedy idiots benefiting off the technology of a few brilliant humans who were Born and selflessly shared it with everyone.
bravo, i enjoyed your comment, as a neuro ophthalmologist scientist dr i agree with your statement, although im a vegan, because the level of sentience of mammals is sufficient for me to care about their well being, thanks.
Nobody cares about a neighbor's sentience. The only person that cares about their own sentience is themselves. Saying that you do is either virtue signalling or hoping there is reciprocity.
Crazy thing is there are things called viruses. That do things with intention like they are alive. Just like jellyfish which are animals but are like moving plants. Let think about plants for a second. They don't have a brain but have a system in place to perceive the world around them like us. A nervous system basically like a brain and spinal nerves. To say plants are not conscious is pretty naive. Especially considering sentience and consciousness are still mysterious things to us. No one can give you a straight up answer on why it was all black and then all of the sudden I remember things. Shit they don't understand why we need to sleep. Yet people act like they know what it is like to be a plant or a jellyfish. The thing is you shouldn't assume. Yet everyone does.
Why didn’t vegan gains ask destiny how he felt about killing or enslaving Neanderthals or Denisovans when they were talking about humans being defined by genetics…
im a long time fan of both of these guys and VG clearly won. Destiny was basically running in different parts of the debate. Destiny's argument fell apart when he said genetics and then went on to actually care about appearance or intelligence and not actually genetics. Which that is obviously a slippery slope to losing the argument. He was also disingenuous pulling the whole genetics things to "completely different". VG just said different. It could be slightly different and still not be human. Destiny changing his words to completely different is trying to make the resulting organism something unfathomable.
@@rickycaballero12 I mean I’m not sure how exactly I could change your mind but I don’t see how you think Destiny was all over the place and disengenuous
@@henryrodenburg9312 he literally doubted his own sentience and the existence of pain? He dodged every hypothetical, contradicted himself constantly, and mostly defaulted to personal attacks lol. are you a simp?
@@henryrodenburg9312 he was all over the place because he started jumping to different points because he couldnt address what it is about genetics he cared about other than they are human genetics. I say disingenuous because he knew he had no clear rebuttal so he deflected. He knew he couldnt elaborate on his answer of genetics because I'd he did it would essentially be its intelligence or physical appearance that would be different. And if he said that well then he diesnt care about genetics he cares about 1 or both of those. But if he says that then those arent traits that morally justify killing because humans and other animals have different appearances and intellect. Destint trapped himself saying genetics and then bailed.
I don't know that I agree with Destiny that Vegan Gains' valueing of sentience is arbitrary because he could pretty easily justify it and go "Well I value sentient life because I myself am sentient and would like to be valued." That frames the debate in a sort of golden rule "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" format where essentially we shouldn't kill animals for food because we wouldn't want to be killed for food.
And it also wouldn't be as arbitrary as using human life instead, even if you are a human, since you open the ability for people to further subdivide valuable life based on increasing narrower traits of only oneself, like race or nationality or the like. You can remove those things and still want to be valued, and you can likely even remove membership to humanity and still maintain that feeling, but once you take away sentience, you would cease to care if you yourself are valued. It's the simplest possible motivation for any ethical foundation.
Can an animal, say a pig, despite being a sentient being, rationalize the need to follow the Golden Rule and base their subsequent actions to follow said rule, like humans can? No? Then theres the fundamental difference between animals and humans, despite them both being sentient.
Vegan Gains: What makes something red? Destiny: The reflection of that wavelength of light. VG: Ok so what if reflected a totally different wavelength of light but was still red. D: That's not how light works VG: So you support the holocaust.... Or something dumb like that....
@@newyorkugly what position is be in to do anything at all in any political situation? Do you think I watch Destiny because he is an active force for political change? What a dumb question.
One thing I’ve noticed with vegan debates is that there isn’t really a moral reason to be “murdering” animals. No matter how a meat eater, like myself, will argue it will always come down to the whole “you’re comfortable with murdering children and disabled people”. Which obviously isn’t the case. There’s definitely more points that can be discussed when talking about the health and nutrition side of it in my opinion
other than the fact its perfectly healthy to be vegan? “It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate forall stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.”
@@King_Kenlee Forgive me, I wasn’t trying to say veganism isn’t healthy. Only that there’s more to argue over the subject of a plant based diet. Much like you’ve shown me with the how healthy a vegan diet can be there’s also pieces saying that it’s also “healthy” to try an all meat based diet. Basically Destiny can’t win if he follows a moral argument cuz individuals like vegan gains will combat that with the “killing disabled people argument”. But he can certainly pushback when looking at the other perspectives for veganism. I personally believe in sustainable eating and have tried to reduce my meat consumption but I also enjoy eating meat so still partake in it
Destiny really doesn't seem to understand the argument whatsoever. He's using this phrase "in the same way as humans" as if that's the point VG is trying to make. We're quite literally not saying that animals have consciousness in the same way as humans, but that they have consciousness in general. Not sure why he keeps saying "in the same way as humans", that's completely irrelevant, we care that they are sentient, period, whether or not their sentience is the same as humans doesn't matter. I really hope he stops using the term inductively reason if he can't see how he can inductively reason out why animals are sentient. Why has Destiny in the past asked if Mr.Muton's cat is okay? Why have you asked about the well being of any of your friend's pets if they can't experience well being? Does Destiny ask how his friend's rocks are doing as well? I'm feeling some dishonesty from past statements, if you truly believe this line of thinking then stop pretending to care about any of your friend's pets if they're no different than a bunch of rocks.
@@cramax4871 because they're intelligent, not sentient, much like a computer is intelligent, but not sentient. Do you believe computers have consciousness?
Caring about something does not mean it has INHERENT moral value Just because its okay to torture and kill animals, doesnt mean its required or you have to like ot
"what is a human?" "well, i would argue that a human is a being with a certain genome" "let's say that there's a being that has every human characteristic without having the thing that gives humans those characteristics, do you like the holocaust now?"
i just love that as Vegan Gains keeps trying to debate with destiny he slowly and steadily has been losing vigor and is just dissapointingly trying to push his argument while destiny is just dragging it through the mud. Its like a seeing sisyphus push the rock up the hill so determined and passionate about it but after time and time again hes just miserable and still going what a fucking CHAMP
This is the issue with arguing from personal morals. It’s impossible to make the case that your morals are better than another’s when you disagree on what deserves consideration
@@danpop1235 it does need explanation. His logic is circular. “I take human life into moral consideration because it’s human life”. That’s begging the question. It’s not the same as saying you take into moral consideration those who have the ability to suffer. Destiny can’t explain why his empathy ends at humans. His arguments are not sound. There’s a reason destiny ended the discussion by being sarcastic. He was realizing this too.
@@PM-vs3rh why do you take into consdration thouse who can suffer? because suffering is bad? why is suffering bad? becasue it is, all moral resoning evently reachs a stage where someone says because it is that is just the nature of morality.
@@danpop1235 You could argue suffering by definition is bad because it creates a negative conscious experience. But we could go back and forth and get nowhere. Sure all justifications come to an end but that doesn’t mean all moral theories are equally valid. Using that logic someone could justify racism. The point is to be consistent within your own moral framework. If someone agrees that suffering is bad then they would need to justify why it’s okay to make animals suffer unnecessarily. Destiny tries to do that but he can’t. Because it doesn’t make sense. Arbitrarily stopping it at humans is not sound.
Destiny should debate Cosmic Skeptic instead of this Vegan Gains. No disrespect to him but I think a debate/discsussion with Alex O'Connor would be very interesting to see.
It's not a good look to stop taking the debate seriously and then after your opponent quits because of that start making actual arguments. Should have made those arguments when your opponent was there
He tried, vegan gains wouldn't engage when he tried, he just kept accusing destiny of various fallacies in a attempt to move back to his dialogue tree.
@@thomasdwyer1690 then he should have told VG to shut up for a minute, laid out the argument he wanted to make and go from there. And if VG can't engage with that destiny has every right to tell him to f off. This was some underhanded sabotage which I don't agree with.
@@billystronk4251 he tried that too, VG was interrupting destiny constantly despite being asked multiple times not to, and he did tell him to fuck off, albeit in a indirect way, he did so by no longer participating in the discussion seriously as he did in the end, muting VG to explain to his chat VG's dialogue tree as he gave him rote answers to string him along til VG left.
@@deebo429__ or use your human intelligence to reach beyond living as a psychopath. the ontological answer to your question is your own suffering which you avoid etc likewise the suffering of others is greater and should be avoided more urgently. basic maths.
@@backwardthoughts1022 just because I avoid suffering onto myself doesn't mean I want all suffering to be avoided forever. I care not for the predatory eating the prey, and I see farming as an extension of that. I care about human suffering, as we can accurately convey our suffering and even ponder ways to avoid that suffering. Sure I could see an animal bleeting in pain and think it's suffering as I am, however that animal could never tell me in a way I could accurately understand exactly what it's going through like any human could to another.
@@deebo429__ language is irrelevant, most understanding is nonconceptual eg. sight, emotions its also far superior to conceptuality, which is why you prefer your inept concepts of the suffering ur generating rather than living there
@@backwardthoughts1022 see what I more mean is that humans can convey more than just "I hurt" or "ow" to each other. We have a deeper level of communication with each other than any other animal could possibly reach.
destiny knows he's wrong and doesn't want to change his habits. It would be more respectable to simply say "i just don't want to change" but that would also make him look bad. really, there is no win for him.
Destiny is internally inconsistent because he's an atheist. He has nothing to ground his beliefs on thus all his stamces on any issue really just become totally arbitrary
"What if a human didn't have the genetics of a human, is it ok to kill it?" Wow, riveting stuff. Destiny logically asked "how could a human not have the DNA of a human?" To which VG repeated "what if a human didn't have the genetics of a human". Brilliant!
Wouldnt really make a difference. Vegans rely on whether or not they can convince someone of the axiomatic position that we should care for the wellbeing of all sentient things. If thats not the case there is little in terms of argument they can do.
or CosmicSkeptic. but I don't think Destiny actually cares to have a serious debate about veganism, I think it's clear he doesn't want his mind changed. which is why he keeps opting to debate VeganGains
I don't think he really wants to change his mind. IIRC, he said in the past that everyone should go vegan, and that he isn't becoming one because he bit the bullet on speciesism. Then again, I don't fully remember so maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that veganism is the one topic that he doesn't want to change his mind on. I'm paraphrasing but I think he said something along the lines of "Not being able to eat whatever I want would cause me greater harm, than the animal lives I would have saved by not eating them" This is not an exact quote obviously but it's something along those lines. Either way, veganism is the only reason I don't view Destiny in high regards. It's very difficult for me to conciliate how much I like his general takes on policies and social issues and how much I dislike his take on veganism. It also irks me how he said in the past that everyone should go vegan because he has a different moral framework, and then invite vegan gains of all people to debate and completely undermine the moral good that veganism brings to the world.
"children earn their autonomy when they turn 18" children are already individuals who can and should be active participants in their own lives. it is not a binary and we should not exclude children from the freedom of their own individual autonomy.
No destiny the question was very simply man. It doesn’t matter if the other sentient being is of a different origin. Ultimately, morally we should treat ANY sentient being the way we treat humans or at least with humility and understanding. If another being, be it an animal, a human or an alien are able to experience suffering, joy or are self aware then it should be enough to qualify.
@@CancerousCosmic you don’t have to value anyone. Why should I value you? What have you done for me? For my family? It’s a dangerous ideology which lead millions of other humans to be exterminated. The idea that just because I consider your genetic makeup inferior to mine makes me the superior will eventually lead to a total extinction of the human race.
Because that is ironically what makes us human. As much as people like destiny want to argue that animals should be given no moral consideration, our empathy for humans is not that different from our empathy for dogs (and many people have more empathy for dogs). Without this empathy we would all be raging psychopaths with little hope of building a functional society for long-term cooperation.
@@yevgeniygrechka6431 very well said man. 100% agree with you. It’s a good argument and an obvious one. The fact that humans domesticate animals, that fact that animals do have right in civilized society, speaks volumes. Sure I am not a vegan and I still love my medium rare steak for dinner I am fully aware that ultimately what we do to this animals is wrong. I am sure if destiny wasn’t pressed so hard by vegan gains he would have admitted that animals should be treated more gracefully and that they don’t deserve to suffer. As long as you are not void of feelings (empathy), it’s easy to understand common sense. This BS talk about how complicated our language is and how our human definitions are have all loose ends is total nonsense and is not science, just 16th century philosophy.
I think vegan gains debates really well against destiny. I think destiny knows gains as a more morally consistent position but destiny is honest about his willingness to eat meat without valuing the life of the animals
on the language thing, some species such as some bees do have complex communication skills. they can communicate complex directions with distances and turns. but even that is just complex pattern recognition, i think humans have certain structures that consolidate those processes into language instead of just patterns. i think this was also proven in monkeys, for some reason vsauce comes to mind with the monkey example, i think he made a video on it
Destiny - if we met sentient intelligent aliens with similar internal mental states to humans - experience fear and love and hate and communicate with language etc - would you consider members of that alien race to be worthy of moral consideration? I feel like this is a much more plausible thought experiment than what Vegan Gains was saying with “a human with a non-human genome” and gets more clearly at what he was trying to get at
@@SeyidAr Yeah, but that alien would not be a human. Therefore his axiom that he values sentient human life would be proven to be an inaccurate summary of his ethical worldview, and requires revision.
@@Blate1 I don't see how that is a problem. Your ethical principles relate to the real world. As of now we don't have knowledge of such a species. So therefore any being that is worth of moral consideration is human. Once there is a such a new species we can redefine what it means to be human. Even so, instead of redifing his morals he would only have to extend the the human species by whatever other species that carries those human traits. You could say since he chose humanness as a baseline for morality and humanness requires you to be part of a certain species, his moral continuity fails as we approach a hypothetical in which another species carries those traits. So he should say "i care for beings that have the capacity to learn a language that fulfills certain requirements". But in reality only humans, as we know of, possess that abbility. I'd say his baseline humanness is a proxy for the actual baseline which is capability to learn language.
@@SeyidAr The problem is that the alien example shows that "Human" is not actually the trait he believes is necessary for a being to be granted moral worth. So now he needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out what trait or traits are the ones he really cares about. My suspicion is that he's not going to find a reasonable one that includes all humans and excludes all animals
@@Blate1 As i said, his baseline could be language. It's not about each individual being able to speak language though. It's about the nature of the species. The nature of the species human is that of a rational one that uses language to communicate. The nature of animals isn't. So a mentally handicapped person might not have the ability to actualize this trait but innately they are a rational species. The dog for example is a four-legged species. The existence of a two-legged dog does not negate the nature of its species. And its the nature of species' that counts. So the mentally handicapped person does not have the ability to use language or use higher reasoning but is part of a species that is by nature rational.
"The ability to experience egregious pain and suffering is an arbitrary metric when discussing whether we should abstain from exposing someone to egregious pain and suffering" - Destiny. Can a trait which is a prerequisite really be called arbitrary in this context? Somebody smarter than me needs to make an analogy.
Vegan gains is the perfect example of someone who is not an active listener and someone who is just having the conversation just for it to be exactly what they want and trying to force it into their view without hearing anything the other person is saying and when getting push back just results to insults and can’t actually back anything up and he just has like bullet points or quotas he has to hit to feel like he’s winning it’s hilarious but extremely frustrating and I commend destiny for his patience
Lol people really just hear what they want to hear. Destiny had literally no arguments and was being purposely obtuse because he knew he had no rebuttal to VG’s points. I’m not a vegan, but honestly VG makes some of the most solid arguments for it I’ve ever heard. People just pretend otherwise because they don’t like him.
@@violetblythe6912 VGs points are just the most commonly repeated points in history and he refuses to engage with anything destiny even says and just randomly insults him because he has no substance. It’s crazy how you can see this discussion in which destiny genuinely tries to engage with his points and answers these questions that are extremely bad faith and tries to engage them meanwhile if he asks a question VG refuses to engage and slimes away from it while just trying to railroad his stupid dialogue tree of “oh you want to kill all retards?” I’m not sure where you’re finding these “great points” from VG
@@violetblythe6912 part of the .1% of people that is delusional enough to think vegan gains isnt being embarrassed in every debate he has with destiny. The only people who agree with him r his tiny fanatic fanbase and people so far left, their brains r rainbow colored. VG is pretty much the definition of the word “woke” in any non-liberal’s mind
Damn that Destiny "becoming a better person and talk to people in a more reasonable and respectful way" arc didn't last long huh. Big L here, expected more.
@@skeej_ That's fair. I criticize him for acting this way for other topics. The thing with veganism is he's gone down this rabbit hole like a dozen times over the years. It's just so boring to me and evidently to him as well.
@@Yuvraj. it would be more interesting if he'd honestly engage with the conversation. His takes have never improved since that debate with woopboop in 2018
8:11 what on earth is Destiny saying, it's not even like well being is arbitrary. Is that why we evolved to revolve our values around it, because objectively speaking it "doesn't matter"?
You forgot the part where vegan gains showed a contradiction in destinys view: human genome is and is not necessary to grant moral worth, vg showed a contradiction, debate lost on destinys end.
@@PiecefulKaos you can see destinys true colors when he’s losing a debate. all the stuff he praises about on his channel goes straight out the window. A manchild who’ scared to admitting he’s wrong. How could anybody wanna have an discussion with someone who can’t admitt that they are wrong when they know they are. I feel like destinys only goals with learning debate tactics is to manipulate the conversation when he knows he’s wrong to sound right and not have to admit it. Also i really dislike vegan gainz after he went after penguinz0 and got obliterated for how much of a hupocrite he was.
@@huntertobey6965 yeah basing moral consideration on genomes is cringe, he could have won the debate by just appealing to a humans inherent capability for deliberate self-determination. Just by the sheer fact that humans can rationalize and construct our own moral system, and then self-impose certain limitations on our actions based on said morals, something animals cannot do, proves the distinction between humans and animals pretty clearly.
22:01 I believe if you asked most people, were AI to develop consciousness, would it be okay to torture and torment those robots, they would say no in a heartbeat.
9:41 Wait so wouldnt VeganGains,by his own "morals", should be the one to not respect people in vegetative state? Why was he implying its Destiny who wouldnt respect them?
19:15 Goddamn this is why I hate his Hypotheticals. He comes up with the most outlandish situations to occur, adds on other bs factors that he didn't mention before, then accuses you of being a hypocrite or acts like it's a gotcha moment when it's finally a scenario where you have no choice but side with him.
And agreed these moral vegans are so hypocritical it hurts. I debated a few on some discord servers and it usually went like this: I say I don't harm animals, I only buy meat. They argue that indirect harm still counts. I say I get pleasure that outweighs the suffering. They argue that no amount of pleasure ever outweights any unnecessary suffering. Then the trap, I argue 'you eating plants indirectly harms animals that could exist on that food, your own continued pleasure of life cannot everoutweight the indirect suffering you cause, therefore a consistent vegan must starve themselves to death'. Then I get banned for no reason...
The actual debate is essentially "can you own living things?" combined with "how cruel is a domesticated life and painless death?". It isn't really "can you kill and eat animals?" though...
Destiny chooses to value both Sentience and Human life equally. Not ranking one over the other allows him to stick with the societal status quo. He can value “sentience over human life when it comes to abortion. Then when he wants to eat meat he values human life over sentience.
I know I am 8 months late to this, but I have recently heard of several papers that suggest that plants actually have a level of sentience and can experience pain and even vocalize on frequencies that the human ear can't pick up on. Will try to look up some of the articles and add them here in an edit.
I wish someone would explain to Destiny that yes, it is completely feasible (in terms of logical consistency) for something to have a completely different set of genetics yet identical or near identical appearance ? Like has he never heard of convergent evolution ? Or is he unaware that our phenotype is basically just how our cells are arranged and what proteins are we made up of, so you could 100% imagine that a totally different set of genetic instructions would code for the same proteins acting in the same places etc, resulting in an apparently identical individual ? Granted that’s so unlikely to happen that it borders on the impossible but it’s merely a practical issue, not an ontological or logical one as he seems to think.
Nicely said, it's possible to have different genotypes but have the same phenotype. And it's not hard to imagine given that it already happens that different genes code for the same protein
@@justanotherhomosapian5101 Hhmm, not sure what you may be referring to I’m honestly unaware of that kind of circumstance. Obviously as I said there’s nothing logically wrong with it but I didn’t know of any real case of it happening, at least as far as a protein is concerned. The only example (kind of) that I know of, which is artificial but still proves the point, is when researchers managed to change a bacteria’s genetic code so that it’s genome wouldn’t be made up of ATCG but from some artificial DNA bases
@@nathanjora7627 yeah that happens with proteins too. There are multiple three base sequences in DNA (codon) that code for the same amino acid. Like TGT and TGC both code for Cysteine. And because of the phenomena already existing in real its indeed rational and a human being without a typical human genome is conceivable.
@@justanotherhomosapian5101 Well yeah obviously genetic degenerescence is a thing, I meant something more radical but I also forgot to mention that so good catch XD
Destiny Challenges Vegan Gains To Self Report Mid Debate ►ua-cam.com/video/4YK6-ZgKM6Q/v-deo.html
Dude who cares if humans have language or society or similar chit you say? How in the fuk is that relevant to having permission to harm sentient life? Humans are animals. When you harm animals your harming animals and when you harm a human your harming an animal as well. How exactly can you go from "humans have human language and human society whereas animals have animal language and animal society therefore human society and language is better because I said so and ergo it means I have the right to abuse other aninals because I a human decided humans one of which I am is better than other animals in the same branch of life we are". Seriously it's arbitrary as fuk and makes no sense. Only and insecure selfish idiot would say that to big up himself and feel better about being human. It's arbitrary as fuk
Wow, it's clear the reason you can't reach any understanding is that he is unwilling to concede that you don't have to agree on the fundamentals that make up his argument. Whereas you admit from the start there is no possible way to agree for that very same reason.
28:00 -- just watched your debate from like 3 years ago and he did not say that! previously he said he wouldn't have a problem killing bugs... he said he would exterminate his house :P
It's purely Vegan Gains' disgusted and insulted cadence that leads me to the conclusion that destiny is, ontologically, a girl's name.
I will need that in syllogistic form, sir....
Can't believe some of yall still are able to laugh at this joke every video. It's only funny when it's random now.
@@boryf7463 false. It’s good every time. Now, I don’t laugh out loud every time. But, it’s that nice person you see in class every morning, and always greets you with smile and asks how you’re doing and always offers you extra pen and paper and candies.
And she’s a girl and her name is Destiny.
@@boryf7463
There was a time where it was funny. Then there was a long, long time where it was unfunny. Now it's slowly getting funny in a post-ironic way again.
@@csbrooks well said...
ah yes, the yearly vegan gains debate
There already was a VeganGains video this year, we got two.
@@titanattackbee1985 joke?
@@loopymomy2532 No.
@@loopymomy2532 destiny simply cant debate skilled debaters. When was the last time he won a debate vs a strong opponent?
@@titanattackbee1985 vegangains is a strong opponent?
"you're not asking me questions."..."Yes I am." ..."you're bad at debating...no you're bad at debating."... Great debate boys.
"You're an idiot."... Great comment idiot.
👏
Dude who cares if humans have language or society or similar chit you say? How in the fuk is that relevant to having permission to harm sentient life? Humans are animals. When you harm animals your harming animals and when you harm a human your harming an animal as well. How exactly can you go from "humans have human language and human society whereas animals have animal language and animal society therefore human society and language is better because I said so and ergo it means I have the right to abuse other aninals because I a human decided humans one of which I am is better than other animals in the same branch of life we are". Seriously it's arbitrary as fuk and makes no sense. Only and insecure selfish idiot would say that to big up himself and feel better about being human. It's arbitrary as fuk
Boys and girls.
Vegan gains makes the same argument every time he tries to open his mouth but all that comes out is basically Holocaust Nazi WW2 comparison and than proceed with predominate personal attacks.
I’m pretty sure anyone 15 years or older can beat vegan gains in a debate. Because vegan gains is by definition morally bankrupt when it comes to actual human beings. But he over exaggerate any and all forms of moral discussion about any animal that doesn’t get in the way of the vegan life style.
Millions of species of animals get exterminated every year from pesticides on farms that kill all animals that eat the crops that farmers harvest…
He is by definition dumb as bricks. And honestly it’s sad.
Look. It's not a strawman.
It's a strawpig.
What's the difference?
@@noheartx9992 Your mom’s the pig
:tf:
Can we eat it though?
@@bustamoveorelse we can eat StrawBERRIES though 😂
It's very hard to make a good argument against a vegan without just saying to don't care about suffering of animals.
That’s the most consistent and strong argument for meat eaters btw. I’m a meat eater so I respect people a lot more that don’t care about animals.
@@WarningBFG-isHiring So you wouldn't mind if someone flayed a puppy alive or lit one on fire?
@@thek2despot426 I wouldn’t care. If I don’t care about a pig or a cow or chicken then why should I care about the dog or cat getting killed?
@@WarningBFG-isHiring you seem to think that just because you have a rationalization of a concept or event it won't affect you emotionally? The brain doesn't work that way unless you've had something in the way of brain damage or an active conditioning against empathy. Are you really looking at animals suffering and feeling absolutely nothing? Or are you feeling something, realizing that you don't rationally believe in it, and then actively suppressing it?
@@WarningBFG-isHiring the reason you don't care has nothing to do with you having some sort of value for consistency, it's because you're a POS that wouldn't care about the suffering of a human either other than for practical reasons. Suffering is suffering
There are a couple points where Vegan Gains does ask some good questions and it seems like we might get an interesting convo, but then he immediately throws it away either by going back to being ultra condescending or saying "you want to genocide all disabled people" for the 20th time.
I was waiting for the annual vegan debate
Like the Chinese New Year
The same way I’m waiting for the annual Christmas turkey
trueeeee
The part I found interesting is what gives humans value over other sentient beings..
Destiny argues that it’s due to his axiomatic claim that he values the life of humans over other animals, but vegan gains says “what if you did a genome test and it turned out you weren’t human. Could I kill you?”
Destiny argues it’s an impossibility for him to have the phenotypes he does without being “human”, but an argument vegan didn’t counter with is that Neanderthals looked similar to humans and there are non human genetics in all of us.
The boundary of what makes someone human is interesting.
I want to debate Destiny on this. I’ve debated many big names before.
@@drdavinsky the thing about genetics that people don’t tend to understand is that protein coding genes are what make everything tick and they’re incredibly well conserved across life. The only way we differentiate species is identifying unique clusters of genes that are unique to that organism and not present in others. Neanderthals likely had nearly identical genetics and the only “Neanderthal” genes we describe todag are that ones that aren’t conserved between us and them. In a way, the genetic argument does make sense in that you need an unknown discreet number of functional genes and epigenetic mechanisms to make an organism and any hypothetical that circumvents that is internally inconsistent. A better argument would be to describe a highly genetically distinct non-human species with comparable social, linguistic and concious experiences to us and ask about its rights. Then destiny will have to parce whether or not it’s ONLY humans he cares about rather that if he can sufficiently define humans, which is a huge difference in a discussion this far in the weeds
I feel blessed, we get 2 VeganGains debates this year.
The part I found interesting is what gives humans value over other sentient beings..
Destiny argues that it’s due to his axiomatic claim that he values the life of humans over other animals, but vegan gains says “what if you did a genome test and it turned out you weren’t human. Could I kill you?”
Destiny argues it’s an impossibility for him to have the phenotypes he does without being “human”, but an argument vegan didn’t counter with is that Neanderthals looked similar to humans and there are non human genetics in all of us.
The boundary of what makes someone human is interesting.
I want to debate Destiny on this. I’ve debated many big names before.
@@drdavinsky it's a limit of our imagination. Neanderthals may not have been homo sapiens but they were people
@@drdavinsky Unfortunate for your second Neanderthal argument is this:
A german speaking researcher just got the Nobel price for discovering that the Neanderthal genome is also found in homo sapiens. Meaning the two appropriate taxonomies mixed themselves as well.
Wouldn't this essentially resolve the "looking familiar but actually isn't." argument, making Destiny's in turn more sound?
@@PuddingXXL but it's clear. Say there would be Neanderthals now, Destiny would be ok with torturing them and/or gaschambering them.
In a fantasy Tolkien setting, humans would morally be cool with killing dwarfs, elves...
Destiny doesn't seem to get the point.
Dude who cares if humans have language or society or similar chit you say? How in the fuk is that relevant to having permission to harm sentient life? Humans are animals. When you harm animals your harming animals and when you harm a human your harming an animal as well. How exactly can you go from "humans have human language and human society whereas animals have animal language and animal society therefore human society and language is better because I said so and ergo it means I have the right to abuse other aninals because I a human decided humans one of which I am is better than other animals in the same branch of life we are". Seriously it's arbitrary as fuk and makes no sense. Only and insecure selfish idiot would say that to big up himself and feel better about being human. It's arbitrary as fuk
The problem with “would you value human life that didn’t have a human genotype” is that if it didn’t have a human genotype then it’s not human
Exactly, VG is so dumb and makes no sense 😫
Yep. Vegan gains is 100% presenting an absurd hypothetical and destiny is 100% correct to reject it. Basic logic and these 'philosophy bro vegans' usually don't mix.
@@chronographer What makes it logically impossible for two distinct genotypes to create the same phenotype?
Destiny chose genotype as the morally significant trait, so the question is whether he'd be okay with holocausting a being with an identical phenotype despite having a different genotype. There's nothing logically impossible about that, and it's therefore a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to use.
@@mmhmm9271 "the question is whether he'd be okay with holocausting a being with an identical phenotype" - No the question was 'Would you be okay holocaust-ing a being with the same genotype and also with a different genotype?'
@@chronographer answer the question.
Destiny needs to be posting more content like this on his channel. God I can't stand to watch anymore drama streams
for the love of god no. this had no content. at least invite people with at minimum half a brain. Functional.
@@PlanetJeroen He meant the debate, not the creator specifically
I think the thing with him engaging in drama is that because he is methodical and honest it allows people that watch his analysis become interested in his more serious political/philosophical debates/discussion. It makes him seem more than just a debate lord.
@@PlanetJeroen I would rather listen to him debate dipshits like vegan gains for 20 videos straight then be subject to one drama stream. The content on his main channel is complete dogshit 70% of the time.
Agreed 10000% so tired of hearing the word “manifesto”
There is no way destiny don't care if he see a animal getting tortured. I think he is dishonest lol
He probably doesn’t. He’s consistent.
@@WarningBFG-isHiring nah. He probably does. He just acting edgy to seem like he doesnt
@@BornInsane0 So he could go to Yulin Dog Meat festival or a slaughterhouse and he would bat an eye? I doubt he would care. He doesn’t give animals moral consideration so why would he.
@@WarningBFG-isHiring he'd probably feel kinda bad if a cute pet is suffering or something, yea.
@@BornInsane0 no he wouldn’t just like I wouldn’t. I’ve seen some much slaughterhouse footage (which includes Yulin) and I didn’t bat an eye. I don’t bat an eye because that would make me a hypocrite.
''what is a human'' documentary by vegan gains. out in 2023
I like how dest stealthed in the "aqua" argument
He learned something from Vaush as well. Idk if I misunderstood or he is just using it to avoid hypoteticals. Sad to see.
@@ibosnfs1997 What is sad to see here? Destiny is right. When someone in ancient Greece said "water" (or the equivalent word in their language at the time) they didn't mean H2O, because they didnt know thats what it was made of, they meant that liquid that I can drink to quench thirst, that helps plants grow, falls out of the sky as rain,.... but it was probably a small dig at Vaush too
@@stevanmilovanovic9128 Ok, I see. Thanks for clarification.
But can't we justify Vaush the same way too?
What was difference between two?
@@ibosnfs1997 because Vaush said something completely different and retarded in the context of his conversation.
@@stevanmilovanovic9128 Destiny is right in the explanation on why water and h2o are actually different when given a historical context; however, destiny is trying to needlessly complicate answers to double speak over VGs arguments. That's what is sad to see. You never see destiny trying to argue semantics and complicated an answer with almost nobody else other than vegan gains. It's so obvious destiny just values and likes the taste of meat over the autonomy of the animal he is implicitly treating like an object of pleasure in exchange for their autonomy. Destiny would have somewhat of a point if we actually need(ed) meat to survive, but we don't and that's why he cant give straightforward answers.
I would actually like to see Destiny debate Earthling Ed.
I love Ed, but he probably can't debate Destiny well. Destiny should debate Avi (Dr Avi on YT I believe).
Ed does well preaching to a crowd but he would get pinned down hard just like VG did when it comes to philosophical arguments.
@@deeky1239 VG definitely came out on top here.
@@digipoke12345 i can understand how someone could see that, only if their understanding of philsophy is at the same level as VG. He was way out of his depth and kept dodging a ton of thibgs destiny said your brain just couldnt see it.
@@deeky1239 loooool Destiny suggested that the hypothetical wasn't viable (not verbatim, I watched this a day or two ago), but then conceded that it wasn't a logical contradiction. He kept using the 'dialogue tree' defence to try and discredit VG. VG absolutely made mistakes, but Destiny showed a masterclass in obfuscation.
It makes you look kind of bad when you turn a question back to him that you didnt answer and then he answer it with no problem.
Nah, Vegan Gains fails on the premise. If you "Equalize the Traits" of two things then we are no longer comparing those two things. A pig can't be made equal to a human AND BE A PIG at the same time.
The pig wouldn't think twice before eating YOU.
Well if you answer with something surface level and fail to actually engage any deeper when questioned further was it really worth giving the answer. Or did your answer actually achieve anything other than watching your 5 seconds of w deteriorate into an LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
When did this happen?
@@SporkyMcFly question about caring about a rock with consciousness, destiny tried to dodge and distract by confronting him with that question but VG answered without hesitation
@@skeej_ Well his answer was silly because the question was stupid to begin with. How could a stone possibly be sentient?
Imagine anyone debating destiny the way destiny debates about veganism. The absolute meltdown he would have
True 😊
vegan gains is a boss
@@dergamingboy8690 Maybe the 1st boss of a raid where it falls over without knowing the fight and being undergeared lol.
@@deeky1239 maybe he is just a boss
the most dishonest person going on this topic ua-cam.com/video/YF_jynH9eVY/v-deo.html
I draw the line of sentience at this guy.
Do you love me? Im a sentient make love with me
This almost made me burst out laughing. Too fkn funny. Legendary comment.
Bump
Which? Vegan Gains?
@@seand.3085the guy who's most definitely less acute than vegan gains in literally every cognitive capacity. Sure.
when destiny says "human" he just means anyone with a girls name
omw to change my name to Destiny
This has got to be one of Destiny's worst and weakest positions
I’m not a vegan at all. But Vegan Gains destroys Destiny every time they argue
@@David-es4pi you're actually joking, right?
No. It always ends with Destiny snickering and checking out of the conversation when Vegan Gains continues to push him. I’m not even vegan but it hurts to watch
@@David-es4pihow is that possible when that person has no valid argument???
- I care about triangles,
- So, what gives the trait of triangles?
- I guess, that they have 3 sides.
- so lets imagine a triangle with 4 sides, and tell me if you care about that triangles, if not, you don't care about triangles, you just care about 3 sides figures.
I agree with destiny (obviously) but this isn't quite the same, as both of them acknowledged something that has the same phenotype as a human but a completely different genotype is still "logically possible", not quite the same as a bright light that's dark or a square shape that's round
@@merc5604 Yep, you are right, I made my comment before I listen to Destiny accepting that as a logical possibility.
But if you catalog things based on genotype, then it is the same as the triangle. It was my impression that if Destiny was talking about caring of genotype defined as human, that the triangle thing applied.
If they are cataloging phenotypes, then yeah, it is a different thing.
Not exactly. A being that has different internal organs could be genetically different enough to not be genetically considered human, and yet appear human outwardly.
@@goedel. Ok, so this is interesting, do you have any example of such? This just out of pure curiosity, I mean, I am not even sure if different genotype could give rise to human like species (I mean very human like, not like monkeys and us).
Anyway, as I mentioned before, I wrote the analogy before Destiny accepted the idea of non-genetic humans (per say). Because I thought that the idea behind selecting moral consideration was genotype driven, so regardless of that thing being a human phenotype (at least in appearance), you wouldn't have moral consideration towards them.
@@goedel.not just appearance but act exactly like a human too with completely different genes. Idk how tf that would even be possible
Not a huge vegan gains fan but usually i enjoy the debates between him and destiny.
I still have permanent mental damage from the debate where they went over some vegan health study and VG refused to admit he did not understand the study whatsoever, to the point of him claiming he knows better than the authors of the study he himself cited.
@@ThunderLetPlays i remember that 😂😂 and at the time destiny was not at all into health studies and whatnot but just read it once and it proved him right.
@@ThunderLetPlays also foobar 2000 all the way
@@ThunderLetPlays could you link to this debate?
@@fabbe0606 ua-cam.com/video/9yK-lO98scI/v-deo.html
I love hearing vegan gains when he's annoyed.
It's always hilarious
"You said you are okay with genociding mentally ill people"
"THATS A STRAWMAN"
how has the same person said both?
Destiny did so much of what he hates of people in this debate
Imagine if vaush or hasan acted this way in a debate, destiny would call that behavior out and ridicule them for it to no end, he’s such a dishonest garbage human
Infrared everytime he does a vegan debate I lose so much respect for him. The funny part is he’s known he knows how to argue vegan positions and understands them but he just uses crazy bad faith in actual vegan debates.
@@huntertobey6965 what is dishonest about acknowledging that while you can have reasons for caring about the suffering of animals, that doesn’t mean you agree that its a moral imperative in the same way that caring about human suffering is. youre more than willing to try and make the case for why it is, but VGs argument didnt get anywhere near that.
@@francothesucc9701 holy shit you didn’t even listen to the debate LOL destiny doesn’t posit any reasons to care about animals AT ALL they didn’t talk about “moral imperatives” he just doesn’t give animals ANY moral value, are you okay?
@@huntertobey6965 I never said he did? Im simply illustrating the fact that your claim of dishonesty makes zero sense, since assigning moral worth to animals isn’t the only way one can justify caring about reducing the suffering of animals. And EVEN IF Destiny wouldn’t agree with said justifications, it still doesn’t prove dishonesty on his part.
Should've included the part after where Destiny goes on his subreddit and bans everyone criticising him, including one poor guy who only said "I'm gonna post my thoughts on this debate later" lol
LOL. He's not much better than hasan, hey
@@James-wf8nu How fucking dishonest can you be, the guy who literaly doesnt even debate his ideas in comparative to Destiny?
He did what?
Based destiny
@@tankiebot704 Destiny is exactly like Vaush and Hasan in so many aspects but he has too much an ego to see it.
Destiny sounded so much like Vaush in the "aqua" debate here, holy shit. Falling back on how all moral axioms are arbitrary, you can't get an ought from an is, etc. is such a weak move and it seems like he's using it here mostly as a way to derail the possibility of the conversation moving anywhere because "I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe" and therefore neither of us can be moved.
The genetics argument is ridiculous if you want to dive deeper into it because then Destiny has to come up with some arbitrary level of genetic similarity that makes humans suddenly worthy of moral consideration. Most humans share 99.9% of the same DNA, Neanderthals were 99.7%, a chimp is 98.8%. So at some point his ethical view boils down to some arbitrary (by his own admission) percentage of genetic similarity and because there's no real qualitative measure there he doesn't have a knockdown for why a white supremacist couldn't just say that people of different races have different enough DNA that they can be considered unworthy of moral consideration just because they decided (arbitrarily) that they didn't meet the correct threshold.
VG using terms like well-being and suffering are clearly him talking through a Utilitarian framework and it's absolutely bad-faith for Destiny to pretend that he doesn't know what those things refer to since he semi-frequently refers to himself as a rule utilitarian. If he wants to defer to Rawls' Theory of Justice (which I think he's done in past debates) then he has to come up with a strong argument for why the Veil of Ignorance wouldn't also apply to non-human animals since no one gets to choose the species that they're born as.
Key issue is that Destiny is a secular egoist who only believes in maximizing his own well-being so VG should be spending more time focusing on the negative impact to human being caused by factory-farming (namely Global Warming, increased spread of disease, health issues caused by fast food, etc.) to convince him that eliminating factory-farming actually aligns with his interests.
At some point Destiny needs to grow the fuck up and realize that secular egoism is essentially the unregulated capitalism of ethics. It works well enough at some things, you can convince people not to kill others because then they're more likely to be killed, but if at bottom you only believe in maximizing your own well-being and then you die and nothing matters then you have no incentive not to burn fossil fuels and chop down the rain forests to get rich NOW because you don't have a social contract with the future beings that will be born into the hellish world you've left behind for them. It's a totally unsustainable moral framework. If I only value life because it's sentient and human then why should I care about the potential lives of humans 200 years from now who (at present) are neither sentient nor human?
completely agree. destiny failed hard on this. He dodged many times and dishonestly brought out straight up vaush tactics. The most frustrating thing about his silly "human" argument is that alot of people are just parroting it. Just think that if neanderthals had evolved alongside humans. and happen to have the same intellect that these people would say they dont care if we tortured, raped, and enslaved them.
Fucking preach, inject this sanity into my veins.
dear god destiny is stupid
It's literally all arbitrary. That's why debates like this are pointless.
@@halofornoobs93 ethics arent arbitrary. Destinys ethics are arbitrary bc they are stupid and made up to not embarass himself during the debate
I'm no vegan but the muting part was pretty cringe by destiny tbh. It did genuinely seem like he couldn't come up with a good argument so he stopped taking it seriously at that point. Started rambling about random stuff too
He muted him? I guess I don't need to watch Destiny anymore if he mutes people...
...no reason to ever mute a person unless they are gonna get you in trouble with Twitch. If they are wrong then you just let them dig their own grave...
Why don't you go vegan? Be the better person.
@@evanstowers8529 no, Destiny started muting himself at the end
@@evanstowers8529 no no he muted himself a couple of times to tell chat what he predicts VG is about to say while talking over him to seem smart, and also to laugh at him. He didn't mute VG, I just thought it seemed childish and cheap and a lot in the chat pointed it out
Starts around 36:00
09:45 Destiny L. He's being so far from charitable here which is incredible to see after months of kiddy gloves and arguing that charitability is key when debating right-wingers like Sneako or Nick.
Why is valuing wellbeing any less arbitrary than valuing humanity itself?
He’s become increasingly slippery. Used to feel like he was attempting to reach truth with people he talked with, now he just tries to dunk. Sucks. I want old destiny back
What are wellbeing and suffering? Its a debate so there is a pressing reason to be thorough. Additionally nobody is perfectly consistent all the time. You may have problem with that.
There is no reason to value the wellbeing of anything other than humans. For humans there is a clear pragmatic reason, it makes our lives better to value the wellbeing of other humans because they can reciprocate that respect, animals cannot.
@@CrestOfArtorias social contract, which leads to might means right. Everyone disagrees with might means right ethically. This discussion with destiny has been had before. He’s just being dishonest or using motivated reasoning to arrive at the non vegan position. The vegan position being the correct one is overwhelmingly obvious to a majority of reasonable ethicists
His argument is literally like your girlfriend asking you if you would still love her if she was a worm.
I think it's more like your girlfriend asking you if you'd still love her if she was a worm or an angel and demanding only one answer.
No because he’s asking if nothing changes besides one gene that makes no practical difference to somebody’s thoughts, emotions , personhood or physical however your girlfriend turning into a worm drastically changes all of that
Kinda, nice analogy;)
No, it’s more like your girlfriend asking you if you would needlessly kill and eat her if she was a worm, because you like the taste of worms.
Well no, I think it’s more like your girlfriend asking if you’d think it’s okay for someone to stab her, rape her and subject her to an existence of suffering if you found out she didn’t have human DNA, but still looked, acted and thought in the same way.
Everytime Destiny does a vegan debate I lose massive respect for him. He’s clearly so bad faith and dishonest. FYI I’m not vegan and I’m a Destiny fan so I’m not biased for vegan gains at all.
I lose respect for him for wasting time arguing with an intellectual child about anything.
Excellent work on that intro. The music and visuals were great 👍
21:47 Actually, if someone could demonstrate that a Rock has/can have a conscious experience, i would respect the fuck out that rock.
Obvoulsy we should respect it if we are not sociopaths or hypocrites
Vegan Gains voice has the tone and cadence of Elliot Rodgers.
The Supreme Vegan. Lol that’s very funny.
I bet that if played backwards there is a "How can you be this dumb??" hidden in every sentence, thats how VG sounds to me.
That’s an insult to Elliot and I say this unironically. The Perfect Gentleman was at least interesting to watch.
Yet destiny is the one funding the murder.
why you would still remember that name? lmao
There's a good video by Soup Emporium about how Koko the gorilla (probably) couldn't talk. It's definitely worth a watch if you find this stuff interesting
They're refusing to release any uncut footage of Koko talking, so I'd say it's more than probable she couldn't talk
How can someone's default voice be the absolute embodiment of condescension.
The proper hypothetical would be if you have an alien that can integrate within human society (exp: The alien race displayed in Mass Effect), what moral consideration would you extend to these type of creature, instead of the gene demon human...
Because then you get around the human issue and you can adresse moral consideration for the capacity to participate in human society at the human level. Unless destiny would refuse to address the hypothetical since said alien doesn't exist.
Yeah I also kept thinking about aliens. Curious if destiny would indulge that hypothetical
Thank you!!! So much stupid waste of time on is a human a human if it has altered genetics, when he could have just switched to aliens.
@@hypovisor He said in one of their previous debates that if an alien was intelligent enough to reciprocate a social contract of non-aggression and respect for individual rights, etc, he'd grant them the same consideration in return. So, yes, he would and has.
@ForeverMasterless , I guess that it wouldn't give anything to vegan gain since destiny could easily point out that no animal can display this level of social interaction with humans. So even if some animals are integrated in human society, they are integrated as animals, with no mean to fully agree/participate to the "human" social contract.
The entire hypothetical was a retarded waste of time because this hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with animals lol. There is no walking up to Tigers being like "Ayo bro so we were thinking you were pretty chill, and we were pretty chill, so if y'all were down and all we could like, let you into human civilization if you just don't eat us n shit" and they'd respond "Well god bless to you my friend! It would be a great honor to partake in such a life style with you humans, I truly truly appreciate the offer!".
I understand why destiny doesnt like having these talks they make him look terrible lmao
I just watched an episode of Good Doctor and a quote there explains very well why debating vegans is pointless. "If I could explain to you why im correct than you will see that I do not need to apologize" vegans think their point is just the correct one and no matter what they just want you to see their correct point without having a chance to have their opinion changed.
@@deebo429__ are you using dialogue in a show. To make a point. All that means nothing. “Never talk to a vegan, cause they’d want you to change how you conduct yourself” yeah I mean. If change or personal responsibility is spooky to you sure. Steer away from those vegans. Everyone can be famous, or an artist. Not everyone can be a vegan. That much is true. It takes a lot of work
@@deebo429__ I’ve noticed that anti-rapists have exactly that perspective as well. “Rape is just wrong since there’s a perpetrator and a victim” and whatnot . No reasoning with those people…
@@rudeboyjim2684 would you prefer pro rapists? What are you even talking about. Why are you debating anti rapists. What is this comment.
@@thefailedartist6344 did you even read my.comment or just see that I was using a quote and sperged out? Try to engage with what I said and then come back to me bud
"If something that existed outside of all of our current scientific understanding of biology and neuroscience regarding genetics was brought to light, would you still care about genetics?"
Destiny: Well, if the entire field is being destroyed by this new, incredibly unlikely discovery, then yeah, obviously, I'd restructure my worldview.
"Got it, so you don't care about genetics".
Protein deprivation is a MFer...
Why Do People have a hard time understanding the Question, Vegan Gains just asked Destiny if he Would Kill Superman and Destiny said NO so Destiny Lost
@@rinneganofrage7206the problem is that as far as we know Superman doesn’t exist. If he did exist obviously destiny would need to change his definition. But that doesn’t make destiny’s definition inconsistent or stupid
Destiny got demolished in this debate as usual. Whenever he tries to double-down on his weird "human sentience tho" argument it's just begging the question. The only way to solve NTT is to just acknowledge that sentience has intrinsic value. It's way more intuitive and logically consistent than trying to draw a line somewhere in evolution. Props to at least some of his community for admitting that his ethics on animals is terrible.
So, while I disagree with Vegan Gains' arguments, for different and more substantive reasons than Destiny, I want to first point out how Destiny made some bad debate choices in this discussion.
First, he should not have said that a human is defined by anything genetic. While what is represented phenotypically derives typically from genetics, Destiny does not require a DNA test from every person he meets to determine if they are human, and from there give them human moral consideration. He's used an argument like this before, if I remember correctly, for trans people. If you meet a passing trans woman, you don't need a DNA test to know whether or not to think of her as a woman. His understanding of someone being a human isn't genetic in the actual process.
Secondly, he really did seem to be dodging on the suffering question. I'm convinced he knows exactly what VG was talking about, and the response about the "quarterly numbers of the business suffering" was just silliness.
Third, when he says that his rule of thumb is that when people start pulling out names of fallacies he considers them to be unhinged, that's just a bad look on him. He has been on this thing for a while now, where he tries to demean people who call out logical fallacies, yet he will do so himself, he just doesn't do it by name because he thinks it gives a "debate bro" type look. There is nothing wrong with calling out logical fallacies. If something is logically fallacious, it's not a good argument. We should be calling these things out, and Destiny is one of the big reasons why people have been using this as an insult lately. Try to make fun of somebody for pointing out that your argument is logically fallacious. Go ahead. It just makes you look like an idiot. That's just an ad hominem. You can't use that as a substantive argument against someone. That's irrelevant.
On to VG:
Vegans will typically ask "how do you justify treating X being Y way?" This question contains a loaded assumption that people tend to miss: why is a justification necessary? I only need to explain my actions as part of a social game in which my actions might be responded to in a way that effects me. There is no justification for valuing the experience of sentient beings. Destiny was right in pointing out the arbitrariness of valuing sentience. You can't justify this axiomatic value. VG tried to say that sentience is the thing that makes certain groups of beings different from others, and while that's true, that is a mere descriptive claim; that is an _is_ statement. This does not get us to a prescription or an _ought_ requirement. This does not require a justification for action. However, _other people_ require justifications for actions based on their preferences. If you lived in a world in which people sent others to jail for treating non-human animals a certain way, you would need to justify your actions to them to avoid punishment, but that would not be a fundamental ontic moral justification.
Also, ask any vegan how they can justify valuing their own continued existence over the suffering of the countless sentient beings they cause the death and suffering of throughout their own lives. Vegans, while they seek to live in a way that reduces their impact on other sentient beings, cause the suffering and death of countless beings through crop deaths, traveling in vehicles which kill insects and animals occasionally, and excessive calorie consumption (which VG can definitely be accused of). VG likes to work out and build muscle. He doesn't need all that muscle. It takes a lot of extra calories to put on all that muscle. That means he has to eat more food. Vegan food still causes the death and suffering of sentient beings. It doesn't cause as much death and suffering as many omnivorous foods, but it still causes death and suffering. And, the more you eat of it the more death and suffering you cause. So he values his hobby of packing on muscle more than he values the suffering of sentient beings. And back on what I was originally saying in this paragraph, he's just one being who exists. In order to maintain his own existence, he has to travel and consume products which results in the death and suffering of countless sentient beings. Why is his existence superior to theirs? Just because he feels it is? Just because that's his preference? What makes his mere subjective preference a justification for causing the death and suffering of all these other beings? If his preference is the only thing he's using to support his actions that result in the death and suffering of sentient beings, what does he have to support the assertion that somebody else's preferences are inferior to his own? This is the argument that demonstrates the arbitrariness of this concept clearly.
VG has admitted that he is a subjectivist. He has no position here. The fact that he is still attempting to use NTT shows his lack of philosophical growth, especially as a subjectivist. As humans, we don't hold moral positions with consistency based solely on physical traits, we base them on our relationships. For example, take a trolley experiment where two random humans are on Track 1 and one other random human is on Track 2. The trolley is headed for the two randoms but you can switch to only kill the one. So, you switch it and save a life.
Now, take the same example but instead of a random on Track 2, it's your mother who you love dearly. Do you still switch the track so that it kills your mother to save an extra random? No.
Will there be some outliers to this? Yes, but I think if we're being honest we can see the issue here. We make moral decisions based on our relationships, associations, and extensions from that. We give greater moral value to our close loved ones than we do to our casual friends; we give greater moral value to our casual friends than to other community members; we give greater moral value to our community members than to members of distant and strange communities; we give greater moral value to our species than we do to other species. Generally. This is how our morality actually functions. It is not a logical consistency game, it is based on our subjective preferences and the pressures of the social systems we construct and which are constructed for us.
That was incredibly insightful.
Find something else to do with your time
@@johkupohkuxd1697 Why?
@@johkupohkuxd1697 Nah he obviously knows what he is doing.
@@johkupohkuxd1697 he's probably white, going to college on parents money and taking courses that aren't pushing him. Bc holy fuck who else has the amount of time to type all this out
Humans are self aware. That's what makes us different than animals. The fact that we are listening to this debate is what makes us human.
But VG would say young children and mentally disabled people would not listen to this debate. Their self awareness is comparable or less than some animals and yet we don't allow them to be killed
I think what makes us care about other organism's lives including other humans, is the ability to invoque our feelings of empathy.
So some form of communication with us is key as well as having some similar traits to ours to make us anthropomorphize and empathize.
Sentience is just an effective tool to invoke someone else's feeling of empathy.
I want to see Sneako vs Vegan Gains for the LOL 😂
That would be funny. Vg has tried to reach out to Sneako for a debate but Sneako didn’t accept
would be so awesome but why would sneako do it? he would only get negative effects from it since VG would embarrass him
@@dergamingboy8690 and that exactly why Sneako won’t engage in a debate with him. He actually rejected Richard proposal for a debate live on stream
@@axelfuzz2703 isn’t Sneako the guy who constantly yelled at liberals for how afraid and unwilling they were to debate. How ironic.
@@terencebc yup lol. He’s a joke
Vegan Gains kinda won this debate pretty hard.
How so
Yea, I'm generally always side with Destiny, but his argument wasn't as coherent imo.
@@aaronpannell6401how so?
@@lampad4549 I cant speak for Destiny but most people value sentience whether they know it or not. The biggest animal lover of all time probably doesn't cry when a mosquito runs into their car windshield. Just about every person would be a little messed up if they ran over and killed a dog, and people are generally messed up for life or for years if they run over and kill a human. the reason why is we believe humans have a very wide range of pain and pleasure, dogs have some but not as much as humans, and mosquitos are the least out of the 3. Unless Destiny is equally unperturbed about hitting a mosquito as he is a dog, then he does value sentience to some degree.
There were several moments where destiny could have pulled a "gotcha" on vegan gains but he didnt tbh
Destiny got absolutely rekt
Suffering is when I skin my knee on a rock
@@HamburgerHat1 my suffering is greater, just got fired
@@HamburgerHat1 Suffering is when my ass itches.
I don't think he got rekt debate wise, I just think it's impossible for him to win. You can't argue against veganism without blatantly stating you don't care if animals suffer. Which also makes you lose the debate. It's a lose-lose for destiny, all he can do is argue health aspects
I don't get why Desinty can't concede the point that suffering itself should be avoided - Destiny argues that human suffering alone deserves moral consideration: he said so himself - that implies animal abuse is completely acceptable. As soon as you concede that animal suffering should be limited then you have to actually start caring where your meat comes from. I value hunters and grass-fed meat even as someone who doesn't eat meat unless I have to. These types of debates are completely worthless to people who actually think much about these topics - these two are arguing semantics, not practical ways to adapt one's thinking to modern choices.
I mean... Even with that... The choking example Vegan Gains used was bad.
Some people are into that shit.
Why can't you just explain *why* suffering itself should be avoided, rather than human suffering specifically?
i mean, to even assume someone with vegan in his name not think much of the topic is absurd.
How does valuing human suffering more than animal suffering advocating or accepting of animal abuse...? We should limit or change practices that induces alot of suffering to animals for sure I don't think anyone would disagree. That doesn't mean we'd stop livestock practices because some practice induces pain. Does that mean you would want carnivores to stop eating other animals because the prey is definitely suffering worse than how we slaughter livestock. Seemingly the predator doesn't care about how they hunt. What stops you from upholding those standards with every other animals if their sentience is as valuable as ours. Why do you have the moral high ground over others to dictate that aswell IF everything I said is true.
@@Dinofrogg Because most animals can't have moral discussions about suffering and what they inflict on other people. They just do things based on instinct mainly.
We on the other hand can talk about these things and make decisions based on our morals. Yes there is suffering but guess who suffers if you were to try to save all animals that are being hunted? Nature is a cycle that is in itsself complete and that is fine.
And if you actually cared about human suffering you would advocate for going vegan and be vegan yourself because animal agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to climate change which is going to cause and unfathomable amount of humans suffering.
Gains: 10:10 "You don't know what suffering is? Have you ever skinned your knee on a rock?"
I genuinely hope folks nowadays don't equate a skinned knee with "suffering"
Its also not really the same. Skinnning your knee is pain, a dumb reflexic reaction. Suffering goes much deeper. Suffering leads to trauma, pain leaves once the receptors register the danger is over. Suffering rarely leaves you without scars.
@@CrestOfArtorias Suffering is an emotional response to pain, yes. Not all animals suffer. Insects do not. Lobsters & Crustaceans do not.
@@whenthedustfallsaway suffering is an extreme emotional response to pain, or a pain on a greater level then scraping your knee on a rock. That is why his example of using the skinned knee is totally ridiculous.
the definition of suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
@@whenthedustfallsawayhow do u know that? if I hit you with repeated blows of a baseball bat you'd feel pain just like them.
I feel like I learn so much in destiny v vegan debates.
Destiny's worst showing is always with Vegan Gains. And I'm not even vegan lol. VG was just asking at what level Destiny would consider an experience worth protecting and valuing. And I lost my mind at the part where Destiny said plants have a sentient experience. Just absolute a-scientific nonsense. 1st year botany explains why and how plants move. It has nothing to do with sentience at all.
So explain what sentience is and where it comes from…
@@Jkobe915 I'm very happy that you asked. One element of sentience is the ability to feel pain, fear, and to react to external stimuli in that sense. Something that people do not understand about plants is that they do not feel pain. No plant on this Earth feels pain. Plants do not move and respond to external stimuli out of sentience, but it is a purely chemical reaction. When a plant moves towards the sun the chemical of auxin is produced on the shady side which causes growth in the cells on that side which makes it move towards the sun. Claiming a plant moving towards the sun is a sign of sentience is like claiming that when you cut down grass on your lawn and it grows back is a sign of sentience. In my opinion, sentience means the ability to perceive things, to have one's own thoughts and ideas, to have self awareness at the basis of it. Plants don't have thoughts. They don't feel pain. Basic biology will tell you that the basis for pain is nerves. Plants do not have nerves. Their main makeup is xylem and phloem. A human being who is born with no nerves will not feel pain. There are cases of this. And beyond that, what evolutionarily advantage would a plant have to develop nerves given that they are stationary? The reason that moving creatures evolved pain was to escape from predators and negative external stimuli. Plants are stationary, what evolutionary benefit would it have for them to develop nerves, for them to develop a brain process the impulses from those nerves, and to feel pain, and to understand the world around them? The world of a plant is one of chemical processes. And like I said I'm not even vegan. I just hate the "plants have feelings" line of logic. Because it's simply untrue.
@@daisy291 Formulate your thoughts and post it for peer review in a journal, because holy fuck you just solved the hard problem of consciousness!!
Scientists still do not even know where sentience, the ability to have qualia, comes from within humans - let alone whether or not animals have it as well.
@@ccie7489 idk if you're being facetious or not, but I don't claim to know the mechanisms of sentience. I'm not a neurobioloist, I'm an environmental biologist. I'm not claiming to know the answers to everything regarding conscious experience. I'm only aiming to say that the line of thinking that plants feel pain, therefore they think, therefore they are sentient is one that I've heard many times and that infuriates me because a basic understanding of botany will tell you that's just not true.
@@daisy291 Do pigs have thoughts and ideas? Do they have self-awareness? How could you know? If they don't have those things, are pigs sentient?
How did neither of them mention anything about self realization? The fact that what separates humans and animals is the fact that humans know theyre alive, know they will eventually die and recognize all the things that comes with that realization. Scientists sometimes try to teach animals of their own mortality, that one day they will inevitably die. When they're successful, the animal usually gets depressed and sometimes suicidal. I think thats the line in the sand when it comes to sentience, when one can process the meaning and inevitability of mortality
Wait, I kind of wanna know more about these attempts to teach animals.
Do you think people with severe mental disability have self realization? A human being can exist without these things you described and you’d most likely not be okay with killing them. This is one of the most basic counters vegans use.
Why does this matter? A baby doesn't know what death is but you'd care if someone tortured a baby? When it comes to the vegan debate I feel like people purposefully create the criteria for what is valued life and what isn't such that humans will arrive on top, when in reality these criteria have nothing to do with anything important.
@@OOKIEDOKIEa baby has all the tool necessary to understand what death is
@@lampad4549no it doesn't u mong 😂
"How do you define Human" ... "Genetic make-up" ... "So if a human with an entirely different genetic make-up...."
What a minute.. What? So... not a human by the standard that was literally defined 10 seconds prior. Destiny, I don't know how you even made it through this debate... I would have lost my damn mind on this guy.
Yeah but he meant superficially human. So if you looked like a human but you had different DNA. I don't know why you people think this is incoherent btw. It's possible for you to have different DNA that alters your insides but on the surface level you still look human. The whole point of the hypothetical is to get across that you don't just value a specific type of DNA. That's ridiculous. You obviously have some intuitive value of things like pain and pleasure. You don't look at a human and go "I value them because they have the same DNA as me" and even if you said you value them because "they look like me" that would be extra sketchy because then you'd basically be admitting you value humans with deformities less and people of different ethnicity.
Destiny sounded like a debate bro in this debate
If he did and not Vegan gains then the term has as little meaning as the word transphobic. Thanks for killing language.
@@deeky1239 Man, I single-handedly killed language. That must be a world record or something
@@TheAleBecker I would have said ''single-handedly'' if that's what I meant but I didn't say that. You have a really bad grasp of the English language.
@@deeky1239 you give me reddit mod energy
@@TheAleBecker You give me low IQ energy.
Here's my take on the whole "levels of sentience" thing. I do think there are "levels of sentience" but it's not exactly what it sounds like. If you suddenly out of nowhere cut off the lower body of a bee, and then immediately kill it, this is probably experientially very similar to doing the same thing to a human in quick succession. Having a higher level of sentience doesn't mean everything you experience is MORE of an experience, rather it has to do with the bounds of your awareness. As Humans we experience more things. We have long memories; we have rich thoughts about the past present and future; we spend time thinking about our circumstances and the circumstances of others; we compare ourselves; we belittle ourselves, we feel shame etc. and we can do all of that together in a short time span. It's having this broader theater of external awareness and self-awareness that means we have to be even more careful with humans, than insects. insects probably cannot sit around all day worrying that someone is going to kill them or their family. they probably don't know what death is. they probably don't remember each other very long or miss each other. everything is very raw and sensory for them, so a world where we feel free to step on bees whenever we feel like it, probably does not create nearly as much suffering as a world where we feel free to instantly eviscerate humans whenever we want. But we should still avoid stepping on bees.
Edit: if you think of a single momentary conscious experience as a scene or shot, composed of meaningful items. (Mise en scene, if you will) a lowly sentient being like a bee may only be able to have a scene composed of a couple items, while humans are capable of scenes composed of thousands of meaningful items, weaving a very rich tapestry. I'm using this as a metaphorical explaination in line with Integrated Information Theory (IIT), a very popular theory of consciousness in neuroscience and philosophy of mind which defines a measure 'phi' which roughly gives us the degree to which information in a system is integrated. And they find this 'phi' (which we can estimate but not measure) seems to predict human states that we generally think of as conscious or unconscious, while offering an explanation as to what properties of our brain leads to consciousness; and explanation which does not limit consciousness to organisms with a brain, but extends the possibility to all sorts of densely connected and recurrent complex physical systems.
Hows that relevant exaxtly to harmjng animals (which we also are) needlessly, or to have no empathy or compassion for them? I mean the obvious answer is 99% of all humans are brainwashed idiots who don't have empathy or compassion for each other, so of course they'd have no room for other species. But seriously tell me what makes our qualities special whereas each species has unique abilities as well? Intelligence is one ability humans have the highest of sure, but humans live in a artificial society that only a small percentage less than 1% of all humans who have ever lived have constructed or invented becsuse they were the only ones wkth the so called "intelligence" that meattards always say humans have trying to somehow include themselves in the "intelligent invetors:scientists/philosophers club". The rest of the 99% of humans have none of the intellectual abilities that a non brainwashed idiot and or religious moron human SHOULD HAVE, whereas in other species 99% of them USE their top abilities PERFECTLY. Millions of birds can fly inches away from each other going multiple directions without crashing while humans can't keep themselves from bumping into each other whenever a dozen or so are around. Please stop including yourself and the majority of humans in the "intelligent" club. They aren't. They fkn accept working for slave wages while their ceo makes their retirement money every hour and abuses them yet they don't revolt, don't demand the MAX pay the Corp can handle if profit was only allowed to be 1% and salaries had a max cap, instead they're afraid to say anything because they fear being fired and no longer having money to buy chit they don't need to impress friends or family who hate them just so they can act all high and mighty. Fkn pathetic. The average 40 year old female Karen who eats meat could NEVER EVER eat meat if she was suddenly thrown in Siberia. She'd be food herself. She'd be desperately praying to an imaginary God to receive help from some stranger while picking fruits and nuts. She couldn't even hunt a fkn mouse. It's not even natural for them to eat meat which is why they die from heart disease or strokes. It's idiotic. We aren't special as a race, only a handful of humans made today's society possible because the intelligent are rich in mind heart and soul so they share their knowledge to the rest of the idiot masses, and help the defenseless and innocent and protect them. Only insecure selfish greedy ignorant idiot Savage humans who are either poor financially or poor in heart mind and or spirit or all of the above have no compassion or empathy for others including humans becsuse they're desperately trying to be in a higher position relevant to other humans so they get attention from more people or women/or men, or have the power to abuse others or the money to brag to others becsuse they're fkn insecure and poor and ugly on the inside. Get some real self confidence and knowledge and enrich your spirit and you will quickly see the ugly Ness and cancerousness of humabjty, but you won't want to exterminate them because you dislike them like the poor in spirit do, you'd feel bad for them and try to help them. Which is what vegans do for other species, help them against cruelty by selfish greedy idiots benefiting off the technology of a few brilliant humans who were Born and selflessly shared it with everyone.
bravo, i enjoyed your comment, as a neuro ophthalmologist scientist dr i agree with your statement, although im a vegan, because the level of sentience of mammals is sufficient for me to care about their well being, thanks.
Nobody cares about a neighbor's sentience. The only person that cares about their own sentience is themselves. Saying that you do is either virtue signalling or hoping there is reciprocity.
Crazy thing is there are things called viruses. That do things with intention like they are alive. Just like jellyfish which are animals but are like moving plants. Let think about plants for a second. They don't have a brain but have a system in place to perceive the world around them like us. A nervous system basically like a brain and spinal nerves. To say plants are not conscious is pretty naive. Especially considering sentience and consciousness are still mysterious things to us. No one can give you a straight up answer on why it was all black and then all of the sudden I remember things. Shit they don't understand why we need to sleep. Yet people act like they know what it is like to be a plant or a jellyfish. The thing is you shouldn't assume. Yet everyone does.
Why didn’t vegan gains ask destiny how he felt about killing or enslaving Neanderthals or Denisovans when they were talking about humans being defined by genetics…
im a long time fan of both of these guys and VG clearly won. Destiny was basically running in different parts of the debate. Destiny's argument fell apart when he said genetics and then went on to actually care about appearance or intelligence and not actually genetics. Which that is obviously a slippery slope to losing the argument.
He was also disingenuous pulling the whole genetics things to "completely different". VG just said different. It could be slightly different and still not be human. Destiny changing his words to completely different is trying to make the resulting organism something unfathomable.
You think he won? Yikes
@@henryrodenburg9312 want to offer a reason you disagree? Or just gonna stick to yikes?
@@rickycaballero12 I mean I’m not sure how exactly I could change your mind but I don’t see how you think Destiny was all over the place and disengenuous
@@henryrodenburg9312 he literally doubted his own sentience and the existence of pain? He dodged every hypothetical, contradicted himself constantly, and mostly defaulted to personal attacks lol. are you a simp?
@@henryrodenburg9312 he was all over the place because he started jumping to different points because he couldnt address what it is about genetics he cared about other than they are human genetics. I say disingenuous because he knew he had no clear rebuttal so he deflected.
He knew he couldnt elaborate on his answer of genetics because I'd he did it would essentially be its intelligence or physical appearance that would be different. And if he said that well then he diesnt care about genetics he cares about 1 or both of those. But if he says that then those arent traits that morally justify killing because humans and other animals have different appearances and intellect.
Destint trapped himself saying genetics and then bailed.
I don't know that I agree with Destiny that Vegan Gains' valueing of sentience is arbitrary because he could pretty easily justify it and go "Well I value sentient life because I myself am sentient and would like to be valued."
That frames the debate in a sort of golden rule "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" format where essentially we shouldn't kill animals for food because we wouldn't want to be killed for food.
And it also wouldn't be as arbitrary as using human life instead, even if you are a human, since you open the ability for people to further subdivide valuable life based on increasing narrower traits of only oneself, like race or nationality or the like. You can remove those things and still want to be valued, and you can likely even remove membership to humanity and still maintain that feeling, but once you take away sentience, you would cease to care if you yourself are valued. It's the simplest possible motivation for any ethical foundation.
Can an animal, say a pig, despite being a sentient being, rationalize the need to follow the Golden Rule and base their subsequent actions to follow said rule, like humans can? No? Then theres the fundamental difference between animals and humans, despite them both being sentient.
@@francothesucc9701 agreed
unfortunately, animals arent capable of following this rule so carte blanche
Animals cannot reciprocate the Golden Rule nor conceptualize it.
Vegan Gains: What makes something red?
Destiny: The reflection of that wavelength of light.
VG: Ok so what if reflected a totally different wavelength of light but was still red.
D: That's not how light works
VG: So you support the holocaust....
Or something dumb like that....
yo that intro beat was kinda hot.
Mr Girl type beat
On god I need the song
Anyone know the name ?
Shazam will save you my friends.
Song: Slide on me - Baby Blue
Can't seem to find a version without lyrics though.
Sometimes I worry about what Destiny would do if we found tribal aliens on another planet.
What position do you think he's in to do anything at all in that situation?
Humanity above all. That is what we were designed to do; to survive.
Humanity above all of course. Our survival stands above all else.
@@newyorkugly what position is be in to do anything at all in any political situation? Do you think I watch Destiny because he is an active force for political change? What a dumb question.
@@johkupohkuxd1697 massive LARP
One thing I’ve noticed with vegan debates is that there isn’t really a moral reason to be “murdering” animals. No matter how a meat eater, like myself, will argue it will always come down to the whole “you’re comfortable with murdering children and disabled people”. Which obviously isn’t the case. There’s definitely more points that can be discussed when talking about the health and nutrition side of it in my opinion
other than the fact its perfectly healthy to be vegan?
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate forall stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.”
@@King_Kenlee Forgive me, I wasn’t trying to say veganism isn’t healthy. Only that there’s more to argue over the subject of a plant based diet. Much like you’ve shown me with the how healthy a vegan diet can be there’s also pieces saying that it’s also “healthy” to try an all meat based diet.
Basically Destiny can’t win if he follows a moral argument cuz individuals like vegan gains will combat that with the “killing disabled people argument”. But he can certainly pushback when looking at the other perspectives for veganism.
I personally believe in sustainable eating and have tried to reduce my meat consumption but I also enjoy eating meat so still partake in it
Destiny really doesn't seem to understand the argument whatsoever. He's using this phrase "in the same way as humans" as if that's the point VG is trying to make. We're quite literally not saying that animals have consciousness in the same way as humans, but that they have consciousness in general. Not sure why he keeps saying "in the same way as humans", that's completely irrelevant, we care that they are sentient, period, whether or not their sentience is the same as humans doesn't matter. I really hope he stops using the term inductively reason if he can't see how he can inductively reason out why animals are sentient.
Why has Destiny in the past asked if Mr.Muton's cat is okay? Why have you asked about the well being of any of your friend's pets if they can't experience well being? Does Destiny ask how his friend's rocks are doing as well? I'm feeling some dishonesty from past statements, if you truly believe this line of thinking then stop pretending to care about any of your friend's pets if they're no different than a bunch of rocks.
By that logic, why dont plants have conciousness?
@@cramax4871 because they're intelligent, not sentient, much like a computer is intelligent, but not sentient. Do you believe computers have consciousness?
Caring about something does not mean it has INHERENT moral value
Just because its okay to torture and kill animals, doesnt mean its required or you have to like ot
Destiny answering a question with a question. Taking big L's
"what is a human?"
"well, i would argue that a human is a being with a certain genome"
"let's say that there's a being that has every human characteristic without having the thing that gives humans those characteristics, do you like the holocaust now?"
i just love that as Vegan Gains keeps trying to debate with destiny he slowly and steadily has been losing vigor and is just dissapointingly trying to push his argument while destiny is just dragging it through the mud.
Its like a seeing sisyphus push the rock up the hill so determined and passionate about it but after time and time again hes just miserable and still going what a fucking CHAMP
@Rifle Eyez I have a lot more respect for people who can be honest with themselves like you
@Rifle Eyez veganism harms animals more than meat eating. Anyone who states otherwise has never met a farmer
@Rifle Eyez no the problem is that it is right for you but not for Destiny yet he is trying to make destiny like you
@RifleEyez I care about plants. I still eat them. It's not hypocritical to give things different moral weight.
@RifleEyezyou can like animals and not give them moral consideration
This is the issue with arguing from personal morals. It’s impossible to make the case that your morals are better than another’s when you disagree on what deserves consideration
Destiny isn’t consistent within his own moral framework. He can’t explain why the suffering of animals should not be a moral consideration.
@@PM-vs3rh no he was consitant, it is a prostional postion of his it dose not need explnation.
@@danpop1235 it does need explanation. His logic is circular. “I take human life into moral consideration because it’s human life”. That’s begging the question. It’s not the same as saying you take into moral consideration those who have the ability to suffer. Destiny can’t explain why his empathy ends at humans. His arguments are not sound. There’s a reason destiny ended the discussion by being sarcastic. He was realizing this too.
@@PM-vs3rh why do you take into consdration thouse who can suffer? because suffering is bad? why is suffering bad? becasue it is, all moral resoning evently reachs a stage where someone says because it is that is just the nature of morality.
@@danpop1235 You could argue suffering by definition is bad because it creates a negative conscious experience. But we could go back and forth and get nowhere. Sure all justifications come to an end but that doesn’t mean all moral theories are equally valid. Using that logic someone could justify racism. The point is to be consistent within your own moral framework. If someone agrees that suffering is bad then they would need to justify why it’s okay to make animals suffer unnecessarily. Destiny tries to do that but he can’t. Because it doesn’t make sense. Arbitrarily stopping it at humans is not sound.
Destiny should debate Cosmic Skeptic instead of this Vegan Gains. No disrespect to him but I think a debate/discsussion with Alex O'Connor would be very interesting to see.
It's not a good look to stop taking the debate seriously and then after your opponent quits because of that start making actual arguments. Should have made those arguments when your opponent was there
He tried, vegan gains wouldn't engage when he tried, he just kept accusing destiny of various fallacies in a attempt to move back to his dialogue tree.
@@thomasdwyer1690 then he should have told VG to shut up for a minute, laid out the argument he wanted to make and go from there. And if VG can't engage with that destiny has every right to tell him to f off. This was some underhanded sabotage which I don't agree with.
@@billystronk4251 he tried that too, VG was interrupting destiny constantly despite being asked multiple times not to, and he did tell him to fuck off, albeit in a indirect way, he did so by no longer participating in the discussion seriously as he did in the end, muting VG to explain to his chat VG's dialogue tree as he gave him rote answers to string him along til VG left.
Yeah, it was incredibly childish.
Destiny looked like an absolute fool in this debate, I got second hand embarrassment watching him.
I felt that for the vegan.
I’ve seen a lot of Vegans who talk about caring for animals but treat other humans like Absolute garbage.
Some people treat pedo’s and racist as garbage. Vegans are against all oppression. U r an oppressor to hone Victims the animals
I am not fan of VG but Destiny you took L in this debate.
Man values AI lives, I gotta agree with that.
you don't need advanced language to experience profound suffering
To experience it no. But if you're trying to convince me that suffering should matter you need a decent vocabulary.
@@deebo429__ or use your human intelligence to reach beyond living as a psychopath.
the ontological answer to your question is your own suffering which you avoid etc likewise the suffering of others is greater and should be avoided more urgently. basic maths.
@@backwardthoughts1022 just because I avoid suffering onto myself doesn't mean I want all suffering to be avoided forever. I care not for the predatory eating the prey, and I see farming as an extension of that. I care about human suffering, as we can accurately convey our suffering and even ponder ways to avoid that suffering. Sure I could see an animal bleeting in pain and think it's suffering as I am, however that animal could never tell me in a way I could accurately understand exactly what it's going through like any human could to another.
@@deebo429__ language is irrelevant, most understanding is nonconceptual eg. sight, emotions
its also far superior to conceptuality, which is why you prefer your inept concepts of the suffering ur generating rather than living there
@@backwardthoughts1022 see what I more mean is that humans can convey more than just "I hurt" or "ow" to each other. We have a deeper level of communication with each other than any other animal could possibly reach.
Destiny got destroyed in this debate
Unironically this time, yes.
destiny knows he's wrong and doesn't want to change his habits. It would be more respectable to simply say "i just don't want to change" but that would also make him look bad. really, there is no win for him.
Neither of them can be wrong since they both admitted that their stances were based on arbitrary determinations.
@@halofornoobs93lol 🤣
VeganGains really the only person that can stump Destiny huh
Destiny is internally inconsistent because he's an atheist. He has nothing to ground his beliefs on thus all his stamces on any issue really just become totally arbitrary
@@knottedtwig3289 Isn't he more agnostic? I don't think I've heard him say he's either outright
@@skoomaenjoyer9582 he holds all the positions of an atheist, it really doesn't matter when he calls himself atheist or agnostic
"What if a human didn't have the genetics of a human, is it ok to kill it?" Wow, riveting stuff. Destiny logically asked "how could a human not have the DNA of a human?" To which VG repeated "what if a human didn't have the genetics of a human". Brilliant!
Destiny should debate Earthling Ed.
I think Dr Avi would be better. Ed tends to let ppl ramble
I think it would go the same tbh
Wouldnt really make a difference. Vegans rely on whether or not they can convince someone of the axiomatic position that we should care for the wellbeing of all sentient things. If thats not the case there is little in terms of argument they can do.
or CosmicSkeptic. but I don't think Destiny actually cares to have a serious debate about veganism, I think it's clear he doesn't want his mind changed. which is why he keeps opting to debate VeganGains
I don't think he really wants to change his mind. IIRC, he said in the past that everyone should go vegan, and that he isn't becoming one because he bit the bullet on speciesism. Then again, I don't fully remember so maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that veganism is the one topic that he doesn't want to change his mind on. I'm paraphrasing but I think he said something along the lines of "Not being able to eat whatever I want would cause me greater harm, than the animal lives I would have saved by not eating them" This is not an exact quote obviously but it's something along those lines.
Either way, veganism is the only reason I don't view Destiny in high regards. It's very difficult for me to conciliate how much I like his general takes on policies and social issues and how much I dislike his take on veganism. It also irks me how he said in the past that everyone should go vegan because he has a different moral framework, and then invite vegan gains of all people to debate and completely undermine the moral good that veganism brings to the world.
"children earn their autonomy when they turn 18" children are already individuals who can and should be active participants in their own lives. it is not a binary and we should not exclude children from the freedom of their own individual autonomy.
"You're bad at it. Who do you think sounds more reasonable in this debate"... I- Is he serious?
Vegan gains sounded reasonable
whats the intro song?
Destiny - Girl's Name (off of the album The Rude Sandstorm)
No destiny the question was very simply man. It doesn’t matter if the other sentient being is of a different origin. Ultimately, morally we should treat ANY sentient being the way we treat humans or at least with humility and understanding. If another being, be it an animal, a human or an alien are able to experience suffering, joy or are self aware then it should be enough to qualify.
but why? why should we value the sentience of these creatures.
@@CancerousCosmic you don’t have to value anyone. Why should I value you? What have you done for me? For my family? It’s a dangerous ideology which lead millions of other humans to be exterminated. The idea that just because I consider your genetic makeup inferior to mine makes me the superior will eventually lead to a total extinction of the human race.
Because that is ironically what makes us human. As much as people like destiny want to argue that animals should be given no moral consideration, our empathy for humans is not that different from our empathy for dogs (and many people have more empathy for dogs). Without this empathy we would all be raging psychopaths with little hope of building a functional society for long-term cooperation.
@@yevgeniygrechka6431 very well said man. 100% agree with you. It’s a good argument and an obvious one. The fact that humans domesticate animals, that fact that animals do have right in civilized society, speaks volumes. Sure I am not a vegan and I still love my medium rare steak for dinner I am fully aware that ultimately what we do to this animals is wrong. I am sure if destiny wasn’t pressed so hard by vegan gains he would have admitted that animals should be treated more gracefully and that they don’t deserve to suffer. As long as you are not void of feelings (empathy), it’s easy to understand common sense. This BS talk about how complicated our language is and how our human definitions are have all loose ends is total nonsense and is not science, just 16th century philosophy.
@@yevgeniygrechka6431 *your empathy
Did I hear an “Agua” Easter egg in there?!?!
I think vegan gains debates really well against destiny. I think destiny knows gains as a more morally consistent position but destiny is honest about his willingness to eat meat without valuing the life of the animals
on the language thing, some species such as some bees do have complex communication skills. they can communicate complex directions with distances and turns. but even that is just complex pattern recognition, i think humans have certain structures that consolidate those processes into language instead of just patterns. i think this was also proven in monkeys, for some reason vsauce comes to mind with the monkey example, i think he made a video on it
Its all cap
@@elka-bs8590 insightful
@@tgree8695 ye
Name that trait argument over here. So what if they can do that it's not a human experience so why should give moral consideration?
@@lampad4549 yeah thats what im saying, the human experience thing is the thing beyond complex pattern recognition.
Destiny - if we met sentient intelligent aliens with similar internal mental states to humans - experience fear and love and hate and communicate with language etc - would you consider members of that alien race to be worthy of moral consideration?
I feel like this is a much more plausible thought experiment than what Vegan Gains was saying with “a human with a non-human genome” and gets more clearly at what he was trying to get at
He absolutely would have to. And no animal fits that description.
@@SeyidAr Yeah, but that alien would not be a human. Therefore his axiom that he values sentient human life would be proven to be an inaccurate summary of his ethical worldview, and requires revision.
@@Blate1 I don't see how that is a problem. Your ethical principles relate to the real world. As of now we don't have knowledge of such a species. So therefore any being that is worth of moral consideration is human. Once there is a such a new species we can redefine what it means to be human. Even so, instead of redifing his morals he would only have to extend the the human species by whatever other species that carries those human traits.
You could say since he chose humanness as a baseline for morality and humanness requires you to be part of a certain species, his moral continuity fails as we approach a hypothetical in which another species carries those traits. So he should say "i care for beings that have the capacity to learn a language that fulfills certain requirements". But in reality only humans, as we know of, possess that abbility. I'd say his baseline humanness is a proxy for the actual baseline which is capability to learn language.
@@SeyidAr The problem is that the alien example shows that "Human" is not actually the trait he believes is necessary for a being to be granted moral worth. So now he needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out what trait or traits are the ones he really cares about. My suspicion is that he's not going to find a reasonable one that includes all humans and excludes all animals
@@Blate1 As i said, his baseline could be language. It's not about each individual being able to speak language though. It's about the nature of the species. The nature of the species human is that of a rational one that uses language to communicate. The nature of animals isn't. So a mentally handicapped person might not have the ability to actualize this trait but innately they are a rational species.
The dog for example is a four-legged species. The existence of a two-legged dog does not negate the nature of its species. And its the nature of species' that counts. So the mentally handicapped person does not have the ability to use language or use higher reasoning but is part of a species that is by nature rational.
"The ability to experience egregious pain and suffering is an arbitrary metric when discussing whether we should abstain from exposing someone to egregious pain and suffering" - Destiny. Can a trait which is a prerequisite really be called arbitrary in this context? Somebody smarter than me needs to make an analogy.
Vegan gains is the perfect example of someone who is not an active listener and someone who is just having the conversation just for it to be exactly what they want and trying to force it into their view without hearing anything the other person is saying and when getting push back just results to insults and can’t actually back anything up and he just has like bullet points or quotas he has to hit to feel like he’s winning it’s hilarious but extremely frustrating and I commend destiny for his patience
Not really
Lol people really just hear what they want to hear. Destiny had literally no arguments and was being purposely obtuse because he knew he had no rebuttal to VG’s points.
I’m not a vegan, but honestly VG makes some of the most solid arguments for it I’ve ever heard. People just pretend otherwise because they don’t like him.
@@violetblythe6912 VGs points are just the most commonly repeated points in history and he refuses to engage with anything destiny even says and just randomly insults him because he has no substance. It’s crazy how you can see this discussion in which destiny genuinely tries to engage with his points and answers these questions that are extremely bad faith and tries to engage them meanwhile if he asks a question VG refuses to engage and slimes away from it while just trying to railroad his stupid dialogue tree of “oh you want to kill all retards?” I’m not sure where you’re finding these “great points” from VG
@@violetblythe6912 part of the .1% of people that is delusional enough to think vegan gains isnt being embarrassed in every debate he has with destiny. The only people who agree with him r his tiny fanatic fanbase and people so far left, their brains r rainbow colored. VG is pretty much the definition of the word “woke” in any non-liberal’s mind
Damn that Destiny "becoming a better person and talk to people in a more reasonable and respectful way" arc didn't last long huh. Big L here, expected more.
There are some topics he defaults to being like this on. Vegan debates are one of them, and I don’t blame him
@@Yuvraj. i do
@@skeej_ That's fair. I criticize him for acting this way for other topics. The thing with veganism is he's gone down this rabbit hole like a dozen times over the years. It's just so boring to me and evidently to him as well.
@@Yuvraj. it would be more interesting if he'd honestly engage with the conversation. His takes have never improved since that debate with woopboop in 2018
Vaush fan spotted.
8:11 what on earth is Destiny saying, it's not even like well being is arbitrary. Is that why we evolved to revolve our values around it, because objectively speaking it "doesn't matter"?
The debate in a nutshell:
"I believe x because i just do."
" Cringe but also same."
You forgot the part where vegan gains showed a contradiction in destinys view: human genome is and is not necessary to grant moral worth, vg showed a contradiction, debate lost on destinys end.
And then Destiny just tried to attack VG's definition of sentience and accuse him of going down a "dialogue tree" to avoid his own contradiction.
@@PiecefulKaos you can see destinys true colors when he’s losing a debate. all the stuff he praises about on his channel goes straight out the window. A manchild who’ scared to admitting he’s wrong. How could anybody wanna have an discussion with someone who can’t admitt that they are wrong when they know they are. I feel like destinys only goals with learning debate tactics is to manipulate the conversation when he knows he’s wrong to sound right and not have to admit it. Also i really dislike vegan gainz after he went after penguinz0 and got obliterated for how much of a hupocrite he was.
@@huntertobey6965 yeah basing moral consideration on genomes is cringe, he could have won the debate by just appealing to a humans inherent capability for deliberate self-determination. Just by the sheer fact that humans can rationalize and construct our own moral system, and then self-impose certain limitations on our actions based on said morals, something animals cannot do, proves the distinction between humans and animals pretty clearly.
@@francothesucc9701 “could have this, could have that” none of this changes the fact destiny contradicted himself, cope animal abuser
oh god a vegan debate
as a vegan i choose to sit these ones out, makes me rage too hard
22:01 I believe if you asked most people, were AI to develop consciousness, would it be okay to torture and torment those robots, they would say no in a heartbeat.
9:41 Wait so wouldnt VeganGains,by his own "morals", should be the one to not respect people in vegetative state? Why was he implying its Destiny who wouldnt respect them?
19:15 Goddamn this is why I hate his Hypotheticals. He comes up with the most outlandish situations to occur, adds on other bs factors that he didn't mention before, then accuses you of being a hypocrite or acts like it's a gotcha moment when it's finally a scenario where you have no choice but side with him.
His hypothetical was 'consider a being with human genes without human genes'. It's 100% absurd and destiny is right to reject it.
And agreed these moral vegans are so hypocritical it hurts. I debated a few on some discord servers and it usually went like this:
I say I don't harm animals, I only buy meat. They argue that indirect harm still counts.
I say I get pleasure that outweighs the suffering. They argue that no amount of pleasure ever outweights any unnecessary suffering.
Then the trap, I argue 'you eating plants indirectly harms animals that could exist on that food, your own continued pleasure of life cannot everoutweight the indirect suffering you cause, therefore a consistent vegan must starve themselves to death'. Then I get banned for no reason...
The actual debate is essentially "can you own living things?" combined with "how cruel is a domesticated life and painless death?".
It isn't really "can you kill and eat animals?" though...
10:43 - 11:08 basically the whole debate summed up in 25 seconds
That’s was the dagger for vegan gains 😂
Destiny chooses to value both Sentience and Human life equally. Not ranking one over the other allows him to stick with the societal status quo. He can value “sentience over human life when it comes to abortion. Then when he wants to eat meat he values human life over sentience.
Animal sentience isnt the same as human sentience
@@bboywolfit is they feel pain just like us and have nervous systems but keep eating that meat like a 🤡 😂
8:45 till 9:09 is all you need to hear to know how this conversation is going to go.
thanks, saved me a lot of headache
I know I am 8 months late to this, but I have recently heard of several papers that suggest that plants actually have a level of sentience and can experience pain and even vocalize on frequencies that the human ear can't pick up on.
Will try to look up some of the articles and add them here in an edit.
I wish someone would explain to Destiny that yes, it is completely feasible (in terms of logical consistency) for something to have a completely different set of genetics yet identical or near identical appearance ? Like has he never heard of convergent evolution ? Or is he unaware that our phenotype is basically just how our cells are arranged and what proteins are we made up of, so you could 100% imagine that a totally different set of genetic instructions would code for the same proteins acting in the same places etc, resulting in an apparently identical individual ? Granted that’s so unlikely to happen that it borders on the impossible but it’s merely a practical issue, not an ontological or logical one as he seems to think.
Good response.
Nicely said, it's possible to have different genotypes but have the same phenotype. And it's not hard to imagine given that it already happens that different genes code for the same protein
@@justanotherhomosapian5101 Hhmm, not sure what you may be referring to I’m honestly unaware of that kind of circumstance. Obviously as I said there’s nothing logically wrong with it but I didn’t know of any real case of it happening, at least as far as a protein is concerned.
The only example (kind of) that I know of, which is artificial but still proves the point, is when researchers managed to change a bacteria’s genetic code so that it’s genome wouldn’t be made up of ATCG but from some artificial DNA bases
@@nathanjora7627 yeah that happens with proteins too. There are multiple three base sequences in DNA (codon) that code for the same amino acid. Like TGT and TGC both code for Cysteine. And because of the phenomena already existing in real its indeed rational and a human being without a typical human genome is conceivable.
@@justanotherhomosapian5101 Well yeah obviously genetic degenerescence is a thing, I meant something more radical but I also forgot to mention that so good catch XD