Exactly. He'll only follow his "logic" to the point that his debauchery is "justified", then he stops. But if you take his views to the conclusion, then it's just obviously stupid.
If gender is a social construct so is the concept of species . Destiny valuing human consciousness is subjective because humans are animals . Humans are just his favorite animals.
3:12 Destiny’s argument is not that you have the future ability to be conscious, it is that you currently possess the physical requirements to be able to have a conscious experience
So, hypothetically if human beings suddenly or gradually lost the natural capacity to read or speak, etc. would they no longer be persons? Or even better…if dogs suddenly or gradually obtained the natural capacity to read and speak would they gain person status?
@@WizardofGargalondese my question is WHY do we value a human baby (who is barely sentient) over a dog, pig, or dolphin (beings who are arguably more cognitively developed)? Is there something special about the human species beyond their ability to read and speak? In other words, how do you know that we don’t just value humans over other non human animals because we are humans ourselves (speciesism)? And I am unconvinced of “The Future Like Ours” argument…but we can go there if you’d like.
@@kimmyswan A fetus at 20 weeks possesses the capacity for sapience. No other animal will ever in its life possess the capacity for sapience. So no, no animal is more cognitively developed than any fetus at 20 weeks. Youre confusing pavlovian response for sapience Also keep in mind when i say “possess the capacity for” it just means it has the biological parts necessary, not that it demonstrates sapient behavior. Before 20 weeks, a fetus does not possess the appropriate biological parts to have a sapient experience. After 20 weeks, this is not the case. No animal will ever possess these parts
I had my perception of Destiny shattered during a recent debate he had with Adam & Sitch. He came out and blatantly stated that he now interacts with his political opponents from a place of "empathy" not because he has become more understanding of their views and moral foundations but instead because of a twisted sense of cynical pragmatism. Because he believes his opponents are mentally challenged (nicer than how he put it), he has to treat them like they are 5 years old in conversations. I completely lost all interest in his perspective when he admitted this.
I have seen this kind of thinking from a lot of people including myself, regrettably, I can say wholeheartedly that that is one of the early signs of a fast track towards narcissism and loss and f intellectual integrity
Well he was saying that when it comes to dealing with those who can’t engage with the opposite side’s argument unless every little thing is super qualified with things they agree with, not just for conversation with people he disagrees with in general.
Destiny did not say this about “anyone he disagrees with” he was specifically talking about hardcore Trump supporters The fact you left this out is a pretty clear showing of your misrepresenting of him
What is consciousness? It seems increasingly clear to me that "consciousness" is not understood merely as "the state of being awake or aware of one's surroundings" by those who most often appeal to its importance. I heard Russell Brand, in a recent podcast, describe consciousness as the part of a person that is bound to the external and transcendent. This makes "consciousness" sound like a new age way of saying "a soul." I have taken this as evidence toward my suspension that the consciousness argument in the abortion debate is a religious stance rather than a scientific one. It makes much more sense (though still false) that the claim being made is actually that, though the body does come into existence upon conception, the soul doesn't enter the body until 20 weeks gestational age. I think this is what Destiny wants to say but doesn't want to utter the language of Christians or come too close to acknowledging God.
That's obviously what he wants to say, but that position is a variation on Aristotle's (and Aquinas's). It's called delayed hominization in the literature. It is not specifically Christian or religious and has nothing directly to do with God.
Right off the bat I am skeptical because I am not convinced we know enough about "consciousness" to even begin to make these distinctions. Are animals conscious? I mean it seems like some of them probably are, but I am not aware of a way of knowing for sure.
3:42 Its the crux of pro life vs pro choice. Life applies capability. I see consciousness as an important part of one's life, some see life as an important part of consciousness.
4:30 Based on Trent Horn’s characterization of Singer’s definition of humanity/personhood, it seems just as incoherent as Destiny’s because one could easily argue the future capability for human-specific behavior would qualify as a person.
I think you misunderstand what 'incoherent' means. The fact that an argument has disputable premises does not make that argument incoherent. It makes it disputable. And pretty much all arguments are disputable. Certainly Trent's are. But arguments that confuse 'disputable' with 'incoherent' are just wrong.
It isnt about just future, you also have to have had a past conscious experience. This is why coma victims are still people, as they have had an experience in the past and will in the future
0:56 That’s not an inconsistency at all or jumping back and forth between the body. What makes us special is our level of consciousness. It’s not necessarily about being human, specifically. If we identified other creatures operating with our level of consciousness, we’d treat them the same. Your entire argument here seems to hinge on this mischaracterization of the consciousness argument.
3:19 seems like another mischaracterization of the argument. Almost certain destiny would say you are a person if your future contains consciousness but only if you currently or in the past also have consciousness. Something that doesn’t fit an undeveloped fetus since it has never asserted a consciousness. Once again, you’re attacking a character of the argument, not sure if intentional.
3:47 “it doesn’t follow you come into existence at your first conscious experience” ummmmm. Yes it does. Just like you go out of existence with your last conscious experience. We know this intuitively because we collectively think it’s ok to pull the plug on people presumed to never be able to wake up again or someone who’s just a vegetable.
4:27 Seems like your criticism hinges on the idea that there is only 1 condition Destiny is asserting and that it is so specific and narrow as “does your future have consciousness” In reality, his determining value of consideration factor has multiple conditions: #1 you’ve ever had consciousness in the first place #2 you’re realistically sure to have it in the future Both must be met for you to be morally considered and assigned rights to life under the consciousness argument. So when you say you’re making a linear argument by saying “what about fetuses that are sure to have a future” it meets #2 but it doesn’t meet #1 condition and is not a linear comparison.
I think i may be considering going back to a gray position. I was pro life for about 3 years and lost 2 friends because of it. I thought they were in the wrong but then i changed my opinion in the future to being pro choice and could understand the frustration and blamed myself. Now im reconsidering. Rather then thinking of the extreme which alot of pro choicers and i was doing " how dare i / pro lifers have rape victims go through more trauma for a non sentient human" i asked myself what i actually value. I thought i value consciousness that makes you a person well no because then pigs would be people. Then i said well if you are a conscious human that doesnt work either if im truly pro choice the genetic code should do nothing for me. the pro choice opinion works off the practical fact of it being concious or not not the principal of species . if the principal of species ever effects the value the argument falls apart . Pro lifers value humans merely for being a part of the species and thats in principal while a pro choice person shouldnt care about the principals they should care about if its practically valuable consciousness ect . Thinking a infant who is factually not as smart as a pig is more valuable because of genetics would be impractical . id be working off a pro life statement that something is merely more valuable because of species and if im honestly pro choice i cant work with that if im honestly pro choice id have to look at you dead in the eye and say a infant is not as valuable as a gorilla. So then i said well im not comfortable with saying infants are less valuable then a pig or a gorilla and pigs and gorillas are factually more intelligent then a infant so what else can i say for the pro choice argument. Maybe a future like ours i value a infant more then a monkey because i know the infant one day will be smarter then the monkey but then what about mentally disabled people who are stuck at infant level . I cant say a gorilla has more value then a fellow human being even if the gorilla has more human like conciousness and more potential for human like conciousness . Destiny would say well a infant is smarter then a gorilla when no not at all . A human experiencing the concious experience should do nothing for him because no in fact a infant can not retain information as well as a dog or a gorilla or do videogames like a pig . A human experiencing the experience should not make it any more valuable to him thats mere genetic code just as a cat fetus isnt less valuable then a human fetus to him . If im pro choice and i have to be abliest to other humans then i cant be pro choice. If i'm not going to be also abliest to a fellow human being id have include all humans for simply being apart of the rational kind and be pro life .
I dont think its that hard to see his position is one of Gnosticism, the human soul being paramount. Its not about humanity or consciousness, but of specifically human consciousness, such that humanity includes consciousness as a human soul, and without this soul we are just made of matter, or if we have animal consciousness we are merely animals. Which is an essential element as well with transgenderism, the idea that our soul is something mysterious that comes from beyond, but the body is just like a natural antenna and shell for that soul to have a dwelling place in this universe. Its actually very much consistent with California New Age hippie neopaganism. In this view it is okay to lop off the genitalia and "affirm the gender of the soul." Under this view it is okay to damage matter that is not yet a conscious human soul, a body that has not yet been ensouled, so to speak, and abort what has not yet become a human being in this view. Nothing matters except the human soul and the obstacles to its wish fulfillment. Even abortion can be called compassion in this view, because the soul has not yet arrived and the abortion spares it the pain of growing up in poor conditions -- which is really a dangerous perspective because it is an evil which seems like a good. So I don't think he's totally monstrous, but he is just fundamentally wrong, in that his definition of humanity is too narrow, his definition of a human is not limited to only include the consciousness that we call a human soul, but not the actual body of that human being as a whole unity of self. Likewise his definition of liberty in the pursuit of happiness is entirely based on what the soul wants it should be able to get, as long as it not harm another soul, without respect of material or bodily limitations -- is that not the modern Wiccan Rede? As well as the central religious dogma of modern secularism.
Trent's logic here is startlingly inept. Stephen (Destiny) clearly claims that what matters is human consciousness. Trent retorts that he's always inconsistently leapfrogging between consciousness and humanity. But he's not. It's both, dude!: Human consciousness. That's his view. Dead simple. Of course Trent adds, "but human consciousness is no different from animal consciousness (in the relevant cases." Stephen quite reasonably (and correctly, I would say) replies, "I think they are." You can debate about that issue, but Stephen is clearly not being inconsistent. The burden of Trent's argument then becomes the rather ugly one of showing that Peter Singer is right: a human baby's consciousness is indeed not significantly different from a rat's. Good luck with that one, Trent! (Maybe it's just me, but, yech! As a guy who's raised seven of his own babies and also spent lots of time around other species of mammals: What a dumb and repulsive view!)
It seems Horn has already dealt with Destiny’s claim, and he does so by stating human babies have the future potentiality of human consciousness, whereas animal consciousness completely lacks that potentiality. Therefore, they are quite different from the beginning.
@@no3339 Trent 'dealt with' that claim by denying it based on grounds that Stephen rejects as compelling. IOW, Trent's claim to have shown that Stephen's view is inconsistent still seems like idle question-begging boasting.
@@davidmcpike8359 He effectively said Destiny’s beliefs aren’t as consistent as others. Basically, he asks what would be so wrong about killing a 20 week that’s only had a few moments of a conscious experience? To destiny it’s that it has a human conscious experience. But we know that the fetus is human before the conscious experience, and the conscious experience is extremely limited, so it doesn’t really make sense to protect it. We don’t care about a 19 week old, but we do care about a 20 week that has a limited conscious experience that is probably akin to a frog’s. It’s totally arbitrary
Destiny’s entire world view is built around maintaining his degeneracy. Nothing more. It’s really sad.
Exactly 💯 every argument ever that he has done
Exactly. He'll only follow his "logic" to the point that his debauchery is "justified", then he stops. But if you take his views to the conclusion, then it's just obviously stupid.
This is the dumbest, most worthless argument ever
@@PhunkMaster-VivatChristusRex
How
@@WizardofGargalondese Yours is.
Thanks for sharing. I love following Trent's debates.
Destiny is a sophist
How so?
He confessed to being as much during his Sitch and Adam debate.
Question: would Destiny believe in fatalism? ; )
He has respect for the truth, he is just wrong on this issue
@@alpha4IVwhere
If gender is a social construct so is the concept of species .
Destiny valuing human consciousness is subjective because humans are animals . Humans are just his favorite animals.
Incorrect. Species refers to something that can be measured biologically
@@WizardofGargalondese gender also refers to something that can be measured biologically... 🤣
@@Rin22730
No it doesnt. Sex can, gender cannot as it literally a purely social characteristic.
@@WizardofGargalondeseit literally isn’t
@@mjh277
Species cant be measured biologically?
i’m just glad i’m not destiny’s child.
I see what you did there.
😂
@@AJKPenguinHe said he would have aborted his kid if he was not pro life at the time. Poor boy. 😢
Destiny is a silly fella
3:12 Destiny’s argument is not that you have the future ability to be conscious, it is that you currently possess the physical requirements to be able to have a conscious experience
They were playing different games. Trent was playing galactic 4D chess. Destiny was playing slap jack.
Haven’t watched the video but there is nothing less relatable than images that try to depict consciousness. 😆
So, hypothetically if human beings suddenly or gradually lost the natural capacity to read or speak, etc. would they no longer be persons? Or even better…if dogs suddenly or gradually obtained the natural capacity to read and speak would they gain person status?
That would be a Jimmy Akin question...
Correct, yes. If humans became savage beasts and lost the ability to think sapiently they would lose all moral value
And YES
If dogs learned to read and write they would be sapient yes
Not sure what fucking argument you were trying to make here
@@WizardofGargalondese my question is WHY do we value a human baby (who is barely sentient) over a dog, pig, or dolphin (beings who are arguably more cognitively developed)? Is there something special about the human species beyond their ability to read and speak? In other words, how do you know that we don’t just value humans over other non human animals because we are humans ourselves (speciesism)? And I am unconvinced of “The Future Like Ours” argument…but we can go there if you’d like.
@@kimmyswan
A fetus at 20 weeks possesses the capacity for sapience.
No other animal will ever in its life possess the capacity for sapience. So no, no animal is more cognitively developed than any fetus at 20 weeks. Youre confusing pavlovian response for sapience
Also keep in mind when i say “possess the capacity for” it just means it has the biological parts necessary, not that it demonstrates sapient behavior. Before 20 weeks, a fetus does not possess the appropriate biological parts to have a sapient experience. After 20 weeks, this is not the case. No animal will ever possess these parts
I had my perception of Destiny shattered during a recent debate he had with Adam & Sitch. He came out and blatantly stated that he now interacts with his political opponents from a place of "empathy" not because he has become more understanding of their views and moral foundations but instead because of a twisted sense of cynical pragmatism. Because he believes his opponents are mentally challenged (nicer than how he put it), he has to treat them like they are 5 years old in conversations. I completely lost all interest in his perspective when he admitted this.
I have seen this kind of thinking from a lot of people including myself, regrettably, I can say wholeheartedly that that is one of the early signs of a fast track towards narcissism and loss and f intellectual integrity
Well he was saying that when it comes to dealing with those who can’t engage with the opposite side’s argument unless every little thing is super qualified with things they agree with, not just for conversation with people he disagrees with in general.
Destiny did not say this about “anyone he disagrees with” he was specifically talking about hardcore Trump supporters
The fact you left this out is a pretty clear showing of your misrepresenting of him
How many non-Catholic/Christian, public figures have a proper view of the human person from conception to natural death?
Not a whole lot. Unfortunately, even a lot of Catholics don't respect people from conception to natural death...
What is consciousness?
It seems increasingly clear to me that "consciousness" is not understood merely as "the state of being awake or aware of one's surroundings" by those who most often appeal to its importance. I heard Russell Brand, in a recent podcast, describe consciousness as the part of a person that is bound to the external and transcendent. This makes "consciousness" sound like a new age way of saying "a soul." I have taken this as evidence toward my suspension that the consciousness argument in the abortion debate is a religious stance rather than a scientific one. It makes much more sense (though still false) that the claim being made is actually that, though the body does come into existence upon conception, the soul doesn't enter the body until 20 weeks gestational age. I think this is what Destiny wants to say but doesn't want to utter the language of Christians or come too close to acknowledging God.
That's obviously what he wants to say, but that position is a variation on Aristotle's (and Aquinas's). It's called delayed hominization in the literature. It is not specifically Christian or religious and has nothing directly to do with God.
@davidmcpike8359 That is interesting. Thank you for sharing this term. God bless you. I hope you have a really great day!
Right off the bat I am skeptical because I am not convinced we know enough about "consciousness" to even begin to make these distinctions. Are animals conscious? I mean it seems like some of them probably are, but I am not aware of a way of knowing for sure.
3:42
Its the crux of pro life vs pro choice.
Life applies capability.
I see consciousness as an important part of one's life,
some see life as an important part of consciousness.
4:30 Based on Trent Horn’s characterization of Singer’s definition of humanity/personhood, it seems just as incoherent as Destiny’s because one could easily argue the future capability for human-specific behavior would qualify as a person.
I think you misunderstand what 'incoherent' means. The fact that an argument has disputable premises does not make that argument incoherent. It makes it disputable. And pretty much all arguments are disputable. Certainly Trent's are. But arguments that confuse 'disputable' with 'incoherent' are just wrong.
It isnt about just future, you also have to have had a past conscious experience. This is why coma victims are still people, as they have had an experience in the past and will in the future
@@WizardofGargalondese Trent addresses that objection at 3:31
0:56 That’s not an inconsistency at all or jumping back and forth between the body. What makes us special is our level of consciousness. It’s not necessarily about being human, specifically. If we identified other creatures operating with our level of consciousness, we’d treat them the same. Your entire argument here seems to hinge on this mischaracterization of the consciousness argument.
3:19 seems like another mischaracterization of the argument. Almost certain destiny would say you are a person if your future contains consciousness but only if you currently or in the past also have consciousness. Something that doesn’t fit an undeveloped fetus since it has never asserted a consciousness. Once again, you’re attacking a character of the argument, not sure if intentional.
3:47 “it doesn’t follow you come into existence at your first conscious experience” ummmmm. Yes it does. Just like you go out of existence with your last conscious experience. We know this intuitively because we collectively think it’s ok to pull the plug on people presumed to never be able to wake up again or someone who’s just a vegetable.
4:27 Seems like your criticism hinges on the idea that there is only 1 condition Destiny is asserting and that it is so specific and narrow as “does your future have consciousness”
In reality, his determining value of consideration factor has multiple conditions:
#1 you’ve ever had consciousness in the first place
#2 you’re realistically sure to have it in the future
Both must be met for you to be morally considered and assigned rights to life under the consciousness argument. So when you say you’re making a linear argument by saying “what about fetuses that are sure to have a future” it meets #2 but it doesn’t meet #1 condition and is not a linear comparison.
Destiny really has no transcendent reason to embrace anthropocentrism.
Would embracing something more like cosmicism be wrong?
@@WizardofGargalondese That depends on how "cosmicism" is defined.
@@galaxyn3214
Something like “humans are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and our lives dont matter”
I think i may be considering going back to a gray position. I was pro life for about 3 years and lost 2 friends because of it. I thought they were in the wrong but then i changed my opinion in the future to being pro choice and could understand the frustration and blamed myself. Now im reconsidering.
Rather then thinking of the extreme which alot of pro choicers and i was doing " how dare i / pro lifers have rape victims go through more trauma for a non sentient human" i asked myself what i actually value.
I thought i value consciousness that makes you a person well no because then pigs would be people. Then i said well if you are a conscious human that doesnt work either if im truly pro choice the genetic code should do nothing for me. the pro choice opinion works off the practical fact of it being concious or not not the principal of species . if the principal of species ever effects the value the argument falls apart . Pro lifers value humans merely for being a part of the species and thats in principal while a pro choice person shouldnt care about the principals they should care about if its practically valuable consciousness ect . Thinking a infant who is factually not as smart as a pig is more valuable because of genetics would be impractical . id be working off a pro life statement that something is merely more valuable because of species and if im honestly pro choice i cant work with that if im honestly pro choice id have to look at you dead in the eye and say a infant is not as valuable as a gorilla. So then i said well im not comfortable with saying infants are less valuable then a pig or a gorilla and pigs and gorillas are factually more intelligent then a infant so what else can i say for the pro choice argument.
Maybe a future like ours i value a infant more then a monkey because i know the infant one day will be smarter then the monkey but then what about mentally disabled people who are stuck at infant level . I cant say a gorilla has more value then a fellow human being even if the gorilla has more human like conciousness and more potential for human like conciousness . Destiny would say well a infant is smarter then a gorilla when no not at all . A human experiencing the concious experience should do nothing for him because no in fact a infant can not retain information as well as a dog or a gorilla or do videogames like a pig . A human experiencing the experience should not make it any more valuable to him thats mere genetic code just as a cat fetus isnt less valuable then a human fetus to him . If im pro choice and i have to be abliest to other humans then i cant be pro choice. If i'm not going to be also abliest to a fellow human being id have include all humans for simply being apart of the rational kind and be pro life .
Animal experiences lack sapience, that is why they matter less
Destiny is one bad hombre
I dont think its that hard to see his position is one of Gnosticism, the human soul being paramount. Its not about humanity or consciousness, but of specifically human consciousness, such that humanity includes consciousness as a human soul, and without this soul we are just made of matter, or if we have animal consciousness we are merely animals.
Which is an essential element as well with transgenderism, the idea that our soul is something mysterious that comes from beyond, but the body is just like a natural antenna and shell for that soul to have a dwelling place in this universe. Its actually very much consistent with California New Age hippie neopaganism. In this view it is okay to lop off the genitalia and "affirm the gender of the soul." Under this view it is okay to damage matter that is not yet a conscious human soul, a body that has not yet been ensouled, so to speak, and abort what has not yet become a human being in this view. Nothing matters except the human soul and the obstacles to its wish fulfillment. Even abortion can be called compassion in this view, because the soul has not yet arrived and the abortion spares it the pain of growing up in poor conditions -- which is really a dangerous perspective because it is an evil which seems like a good.
So I don't think he's totally monstrous, but he is just fundamentally wrong, in that his definition of humanity is too narrow, his definition of a human is not limited to only include the consciousness that we call a human soul, but not the actual body of that human being as a whole unity of self. Likewise his definition of liberty in the pursuit of happiness is entirely based on what the soul wants it should be able to get, as long as it not harm another soul, without respect of material or bodily limitations -- is that not the modern Wiccan Rede? As well as the central religious dogma of modern secularism.
An interesting comment for sure
If he is inclined for liberty, then it's lost when life is denied.
Destiny 😂
Trent's logic here is startlingly inept. Stephen (Destiny) clearly claims that what matters is human consciousness. Trent retorts that he's always inconsistently leapfrogging between consciousness and humanity. But he's not. It's both, dude!: Human consciousness. That's his view. Dead simple.
Of course Trent adds, "but human consciousness is no different from animal consciousness (in the relevant cases." Stephen quite reasonably (and correctly, I would say) replies, "I think they are." You can debate about that issue, but Stephen is clearly not being inconsistent.
The burden of Trent's argument then becomes the rather ugly one of showing that Peter Singer is right: a human baby's consciousness is indeed not significantly different from a rat's. Good luck with that one, Trent! (Maybe it's just me, but, yech! As a guy who's raised seven of his own babies and also spent lots of time around other species of mammals: What a dumb and repulsive view!)
It seems Horn has already dealt with Destiny’s claim, and he does so by stating human babies have the future potentiality of human consciousness, whereas animal consciousness completely lacks that potentiality. Therefore, they are quite different from the beginning.
@@k3y155 "Destiny's claim"? Which one?
@@davidmcpike8359Destiny’s claim that there isn’t a person until they have a human conscious experience
@@no3339 Trent 'dealt with' that claim by denying it based on grounds that Stephen rejects as compelling. IOW, Trent's claim to have shown that Stephen's view is inconsistent still seems like idle question-begging boasting.
@@davidmcpike8359 He effectively said Destiny’s beliefs aren’t as consistent as others. Basically, he asks what would be so wrong about killing a 20 week that’s only had a few moments of a conscious experience? To destiny it’s that it has a human conscious experience. But we know that the fetus is human before the conscious experience, and the conscious experience is extremely limited, so it doesn’t really make sense to protect it. We don’t care about a 19 week old, but we do care about a 20 week that has a limited conscious experience that is probably akin to a frog’s. It’s totally arbitrary