Highlights from the Whatever Abortion Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- In this episode, Trent shares highlights from his recent abortion dialogue with prominent UA-camr Destiny on the Whatever podcast.
Support this podcast: trenthornpodcast.com
00:00 Intro
00:53 Equal Dignity for Unborn Humans
01:46 Crazy Consequences
05:57 "Intuition Pumping"
11:23 No Objective Reality?
17:11 Symmetry Argument
23:24 Difference Between Sperm/Ovum vs Zygote
27:32 Reliability of Moral Intuitions 🔥🔥🔥
35:04 Which Positions Leads to More Exploitation?
37:57 Why is Human Consciousness Special?
43:57 Disabled Life Worth Living?
51:20 Value is Not Dependent Upon Appearance
52:17 Artificial Wombs
53:54 Conclusion - Розваги
Gotta love that YT disclaimer "an abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy". Guess i was aborted since im a C-section baby
You are a great example of an abortee.
Lol right? The wording on the article doesn't even make sense. "Remove the pregnancy from the uterus." No you're removing the *fetus* from the uterus. Pregnancy is the state of growing a fetus inside of you lol.
we’re all products of abortion according to that terminology. we are the results of ended pregnancies lol
I was aborted cause I was born
Wait no my mom is still pregnant since 26 years ago
"an abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy" is a very different statement from "all procedures that end a pregnancy are abortions". Dang, now I gotta go research to see if there's a connection between c-sections and poor reading comprehension.
I had a stillborn ...I don't mourn a missed opportunity. I mourn my son that would be 14 this year. Everyday I wish my SON was with us. Same with my miscarried daughter who would be 13.
Amen 🙏
I thought similarly at that point because we had a baby who passed to heaven in the womb this past year.
My condolences and prayers are with you ✝️
@@JonOchoa thank you so much. Prayers for you, too
I'm so sorry for your loss :(
@@Onniesprairiegarden Thank you for your prayers and thoughts! May the peace of Christ and Mother Mary be with you during times of grief and sorrow 🙏
But destiny didn’t say you didn’t. He’s speaking on people who have abortion which majority of the time are in the first trimester. Which also is when majority of miscarriages occur as well.
@WarmSun_MGM my point is that my son and daughter was not a nurse opportunity. They were a life! And yes, my daughter was a miscarriage. It doesn't matter what trimester you're in. It's always a human life.
As a 4th year medical student who has studied the biological sciences for over 10 years, I absolutely cringe when people suggest a sperm and a fetus are “arbitrarily” considered different in kind.
Destiny did so in an articulative manner here; but his position was essentially the “if abortion is murder, masturbation is mass genocide” nonsense.
Sperm are terminally differentiated cells of the father; an embryo is the developing body of a unique organism.
A sperm cell will never develop further; this is what is meant by “terminally differentiated”.
Destiny “satisfies” this dilemma by suggesting a sperm cell can further develop *if it interacts with an ovum*.
But that’s the crux of it; a sperm cell only “develops further” if it fertilizes an egg. However, this isn’t a sperm cell further developing; it’s the creation of a new human being.
It is not an arbitrary distinction; it is crystal clear, biologically. **The earliest stage of the human life cycle is the zygotic stage**.
Destiny does a lot of mental gymnastics and, from my perspective, lets his layman’s ignorance of actual biology taint his worldview.
That being said, I’m not critiquing him for not being an expert in embryogenesis; I’m just stating his faulty understanding of embryogenesis leads to faulty conclusions in his moral framework.
This is basic high school biology or introductory university biology.
You're doing that thing Destiny called Trent out on called "intuition pumping" when you say the phrase "creation of a new HUMAN BEING" when it is still not a human being yet. Yes it is in the stages of becoming one, but so is sperm on it's way to the ovum. Sperm on it's way to the ovum would also be considered "the creation of a new human being" and you would have to agree to this because all stages of the reproductive life cycle are a part of the "creation of a new human being"
It's the other way around, Destiny has a faulty understanding of embryogenesis BECAUSE it supports his moral framework.
The crux of it was objective truth vs. moral relativism. And I think Trent could have and should have come down much harder on Destiny's very faulty underlying position.
@@cryptochange No because no matter how much sustenance you might give a sperm, it never becomes a human being unless it envounters an ovum and fertilizes it. A sperm and a fertilized ovum are fundamentally different beings. As long as you give it the sustenance and the proper surroundings, a fertilzed ovum will become a human being on it's own.
Destiny is the only person i have ever listened to who makes me feel empty on the inside... soul sucking even.
I was just telling someone the same thing lol.
What i like to do is watching Destiny to empty my soul and Vaush right after to fill it with rage. It's therapeutic.
Destiny is what non-Catholics believe in. Catholics call it Gods Plan
Feelings are ur primary form of operation
I agree, his outlook on life is so artificial, but at the end of the day it’s his opinion so it is what it is.
Hey Trent, Confirmed Catholic and viewer of Destiny since 2016. I've seen Destiny use his argument about the conscious experience many times successfully and my thought has always been "It plays out well logically, but I would NEVER use this with people". The optics of it just seem horrible, and you did a great job highlighting the issues with it in a way that I couldn't articulate. I look forward to seeing your perspective in other topics.
If I understand the “consciousness” argument correctly, that would imply that nobody is a person (since most if not all of us are unconscious when we’re asleep); we just “have personhood” while we’re conscious.
You're getting at the more substantial crux of the argument which is objective truth - which all human persons can and should assent to vs. moral relativism that leads to asinine positions such as rape and abortion can not be considered objectively moral evils. Review 1:48 - how can you watch this guy for 7 years? And the yawn at the end while he's asserting that he agrees it's ok to kill a fetus (baby) at 18 weeks right in front of you - says it all for what his position is really all about - whether he is "conscious" of it or not. Lord, have mercy - get a sharper mind so you're not drawn into such "intellectual" disguise from someone who actually takes an effeminate (the one that's easier when you're up against a culture that would otherwise put you in the minority) position instead of calling a spade a spade. Abortion and rape are evil. Period.
@@danielz.7346 A sleeping person would still have moral considerations in Destiny's argument because they are a person there who has had conscious experiences. If that person were to cease to have consciousness indefinitely (brain death or some indefinite coma) then they lose those considerations. This is pretty consistent with how people are handled medically on the death side. He's just extending it to fetal development.
Again the logic behind it is very sound, however if you're going to debate someone that believes that life begins at conception, this is going to be a very unsatisfactory argument for a lot of the reasons that Trent brought up.
@@Matt2299the has had consciousness extension to destiny's argument seems somewhat arbitrary or rather a convenient way to include those that are sleeping/not permanently comatose. I think for the argument to be consistent, it would have to include all those temporarily unconscious. This would mean it would have the take into account the potential of consciousness (don't have consciousness now but will 99% likely have consciousness in ~20 weeks).
@@patrickharristhis distinction is not arbitrary. Affording rights to the continuation of something that already exists, is fundamentally different from affording rights to something that does not exist, but will in the future. The difference there being the absence of a referent.
A subject, is that which experiences. Without capacity to experience, there is no “one” to speak of to preserve the rights of.
When you kill someone who is a sleep, you are taking away future existence, peace and rights from that subject who already has experience and thus personhood. They exist, and can experience said rights.
The argument here is that prior to the thalamo-cortical circuitry that is required for said subjective experience, there is no target, thing, person to speak of. The lights are off and the switch has not been installed yet.
Awesome job in this debate Trent. God bless you.
I agree Mr. Pants
@@cornwallacemontgomery Mistical no-pants actually
Trent did an excellent job in this debate. I know you cannot answer every tangent and side argument but a few I would love to see more discussion on in the future are:
1:The Petri dish scenario
2. The criminal investigation miscarriage scenario
3. The Punishment for a person using plan B vs murdering their 1 mo old, 3 yr old, or 16 yr old do Catholic really think they are the same thing.
4. The arbitrary line of who gets to decide when a person can be murdered through suicide or
infanticide/ fetuscide
Again thanks Trent for all you do! I pray for you.
Agreed with almost all of the points here and would love more elaboration on them. Trent was absolutely dominating the debate but I was really confused when he didn't give what I felt would be a straightforward yes to some of the things that you mention Halley. For example the petri dish thing, of course the embryo should be kept alive as long as feasibly possible. It is essentially the same as caring for an elder grandparent who might be on life support. There are varying factors that might make doing something like that untenable or unsustainable over the long term but that's really a separate discussion on whether or not the embryo should attempt to be kept alive.
Please address these points when you can trent in a really clear way because they were all points that I felt you unnecessarily stumbled on in a very confusing manner. Thank you!
4. From conception to natural death. No one can decide to do so without sin.
Murder is murder regardless of age, however how it should be handled by law and especially for contraceptives which aren’t primary abortifacients, sentencing firstly shouldn’t be primarily focused upon the woman but the abortionists and doctors, but also we ought to investigate the motives (desperation, coercion, fear, callousness, maliciousness, etc.
As Catholics we believe no one gets to decide when to die and suicide isn’t something we have a right to. It’s not our bodies but a gift we have on loan from God designed in his image we have to use our bodies to glorify him. Murder/suicide is always wrong, culpability can be reduced but there’s never a time it is okay.
I like Trent don’t think a criminal investigation into miscarriages is warranted unless prompted by a doctor or someone has inside knowledge of intent to kill and therefore informs. It’s very common, and would be an undue burden.
3. I am no expert, but I will try to answer it and ask others to correct or amend my thoughts on this. I think the difference is not on the value of the human being but the amount of effort and premeditation it takes along with the amount being stolen. It is not the same to kill a 90 year old versus a 30 year old parent of 5. Both killings would be terrible egregious, but more was taken away probably from the 30 year old parent. Same would apply to the 15 week fetus, 1 mo old, 3 yr old, or 16 yr old. All of these would be truly evil especially since it is being done by the parent. You are just talking about one being a 99.9999998 on the evil scale and the other being a 99.9999997.
Petri dish seems obvious from a bio-ethical standpoint: there is never an obligation to undergo extraordinary measures in a foreseeably futile attempt to preserve life (even if it may be laudable to do so given the particulars of some cases.) This is why DNR orders, for example, aren't considered inherently immoral. We regularly face analogous problems in end of life issues which inform us that we don't need to futilely attempt to preserve the life of a 64 cell organism which will not foreseeably recover and return to growth. This is radically different from a moral standpoint than directly killing that 64 cell organism, much less a healthy developing baby. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
I would add to this (since Destiny brought it up again in his recap):
5. Really explain what an organism is so that it is clear that a zygote is more like an adult than like a sperm cell.
Giving good answers to this is as old as Aristotle, but I think that has been lost today. I think we need to show how "potentiality" is a very real thing, and this is something Destiny consistently pushes back on. For instance, he says that an embryo before 20 weeks doesn't have the machinery to deploy a conscious experience. However, the embryo DOES have "the machinery to deploy the machinery to deploy a conscious experience." Indeed, everything about what an adult human is is explained by the nature of a zygote: you have two arms BECAUSE of what a zygote is; you have consciousness BECAUSE of what a zygote is, etc.
The potentiality of a thing and what it is can REALLY be identified with each other. To see this, consider an acorn. When you really understand what an acorn is, you understand that they grow into oak trees. Now also consider a counterfeit "acorn" that is identical to a normal acorn in absolutely every way, except that these counterfeit "acorns" grow into pine trees. Well, that just isn't possible. An acorn becomes an oak tree in a particular way, by a particular mechanism, and the acorn has to be what it is for that to work out. Indeed, we have a sort of biconditional here: An acorn grows into an oak tree because of what it is, and because an acorn grows into an oak tree, it has to be what it is. So some particular potentiality isn't something that is super-added to a being, rather, having that potentiality is just part and parcel of being that thing. And this is why, in offering a definition of "nature," Aristotle proposes "a principle of motion and of rest, in respect of place, or of growth and decrease, or by way of alteration" (physics, book 2). Also, you may here Aristotelians say "all potentiality is reducible to some actuality." In the case of the acorns and counterfeit "acorns," what would happen is you would investigate the counterfeit "acorns" (look at their genetics for instance) and then realize those counterfeit "acorns" really do have a substantive difference in being, not just in potentiality.
So why is a zygote the same kind of thing as an adult? Because it literally builds itself into an adult over time through the use of nutrients. It literally makes itself conscious over time through the use of nutrients. Now, this is definitely a point that Destiny would push back on. He might say that it is equally valid to say that food makes itself conscious through the use of an embryo. Indeed, he said something pretty similar when Trent said "time, nutrients, and proper environment" are what it takes for a zygote to become an adult, and that's why it's an organism. Destiny then asked why you can call an egg part of the "proper environment" for a sperm to become an adult.
However, raw nutrients aren't oriented either way to consciousness or non-consciousness. They are related equally to consciousness and non-consciousness. When applied to a developing plant, nutrients don't induce consciousness. When applied to a developing animal, they do, and when applied to a developing human, they induce rational consciousness. So you see that it is the nature of the developing organism that is determinative towards consciousness or not (and what kind), and not the nutrients.
If you think like this, you can then look at a zygote, just one cell, and see that it really is the kind of thing that can be conscious. That alone I think is worth protecting.
See, an adult who is awake is conscious. If he's asleep, he isn't conscious, but he has the proximate power to be conscious. If he's a zygote, he doesn't have the proximate power to be conscious, but he does have the natural power to be conscious. Indeed, you could go further back still and say a sperm cell could be conscious if it united with an egg cell, formed a zygote, and so on.
Now, like I said, I think that having the natural power to have rational consciousness gives that being the right to life. I think that's the right place to draw the line. Destiny thinks you draw the line at proximate power to have rational consciousness instead (at least for issues near the beginning of life). However, what is his basis for doing that? I think he says it is this symmetry argument about life ending when consciousness becomes impossible. But Trent gave a different version of that symmetry argument: Life worth protecting ends when rational consciousness becomes impossible, so why not say life worth protecting begins when rational consciousness becomes possible (which is at conception)? Seems good, and you don't really have any other test cases to try to distinguish the two symmetry arguments since the only beings we know of for whom rational consciousness is possible are humans beings starting from conception and onward. (And I already explained why it is improper to say that food for instance is possibly rationally conscious).
Just to emphasize the reality of natures and teloi further, this is a good spot to further emphasize that an adult is what it is because of what a zygote is, the zygote is what it is because of what the sperm and egg are, and the sperm and egg are what they are because of what the contributing father and mother are, etc.
Maybe someone could be convinced by this to not just be pro-life, but also to protect the "non organismal lives" of sperm and eggs. No skin off my back in that case I guess, but I don't think that's necessary. See, if you have 100 sperm cells and 100 egg cells, you have 10,000 potential human individuals there. So, just based on numbers, a sperm cell is not determinative of an individual the way a zygote really is determinative of one single individual.
A zygote has the telos to develop into "this" individual. It does that through its use of nutrients, time, and a proper environment. The particular nutrients and environment don't determine what individual develops though (though they do qualify the individual in various ways). The individual that develops just is the one individual that the zygote already is.
A sperm cell has the telos to develop into "some" individual. It does this by uniting with an egg, and this designates the individual. Once that happens, the new being has a new telos (it changed from "develop some undesignated individual" to "develop this designated individual"), and it keeps that same telos all the way into adulthood.
Had to check like five times to see if Trent really said “they can kiss my ass” 😂
What I might have missed that can you give a timestamp?
@@szelgorcsI didn’t mark down the time stamp but I think it’s somewhere soon after the 30 minute mark, where they’re arguing about the people who leave the disabled behind to die
@@szelgorcs33:47 😂
I'm so glad to read this - maintaining composure is important in order to stay focused in an argument, but I stopped watching after Destiny actually attempted to make an argument that rape must be considered a morally neutral thing. I don't think maintaining composure is so important when someone tries to make such an asinine argument. I would have interjected at that point in the discussion, that Destiny can kiss my ass.
... and Destiny responds with "that's fine".
You did great Trent. You may not have convinced Destiny but you for sure shook the foundation of his argument enough that I think enough people will think more deeply about this issue.
I’m always impressed by how quick your responses are and your deep knowledge on this topic. Thank you.
There is almost no chance to convince Destiny. One is because of the subjective morality of destiny, and second is his admission that even if there was to be a demonstration that infant consciousness is no different from dogs all it would do would push his argument to be just like that of Peter Singer and infanticide.
The consequences of a reasoning is good reasons to force us to change our minds about them.
But I guess that falls back to the problem of subjective morality and "Good and Bad" consequences.
oh yeah destiny fumbled real quick
They won't think about it.
If you're pro abortion you're a religious zealot who yells bumper sticker slogans that mean nothing
"My body my choice" well can I drink and drive?
"Reproductive rights" can you name even one reproductive right afforded to men? Oh yeah because killing someone isn't a right. You will never think outside your cult/religion because the belief isn't built on facts.
But if you're pro life you have to look at the facts so you already know. Hense your stance to not kill unborn humans.
This will change no ones mind but it will make me and you feel good that were not the only sane ones left.
People have been sacrificing other people since the dawn of time. I wish we could evolve to the point of personal responsibility.
Trent, I don't agree with your position, but my goodness, I think you did an amazing job at defending it and articulating it. I would say you won the debate
If u dont mind me asking, there was a time when destiny says trent is not answering the question (during the euthanasia cross examination), do u agree that trent did this?
Furthermore another question, do u think trent in the majority of the debate, seems to commit many dodges in destiny’s cross examination? (I.e doesnt give a yes or no answer for a yes or no question)
@@probaskinnyman4960 correct
@@pajamaninja2157 would u agree trent and the pro life team won?
@probaskinnyman4960 can you get me a timestamp on the euthanasia question, and I'll rewatch.
He did not win. He pointed out one weakly developed point in destiny's argument. Otherwise Trent had multiple stumbles and came off looking weaker.
I liked hearing the discussion regarding infertility and miscarriage.
My husband and I dealt with infertility and when I finally became pregnant, I found out that I had miscarried when I went in for my first ultrasound at 8 weeks. Sometimes a woman’s body recognizes it right away and sometimes it doesn’t.
The bout of infertility was difficult because we didn’t know whether or not we were able to conceive. That was the loss of the opportunity to be biological parents at all.
When I became pregnant, and even though they were lost, we felt some relief that we were able to be biological parents to another.
The loss was devastating and it was the loss of a life we hadn’t come to known well yet.
Although this is just a personal experience, I would say that Destiny is right that a big part of the grief was the loss of the opportunity to meet and raise my child, but I also grieved losing the child that we were finally able to conceive.
My wife miscarried twice. We used naprotechnology. We learnt that they use science to determine the likelihood of miscarriage and they use science (blood tests) to give the woman the best chance to maintain pregnancy. It worked for us. They provided such a simple solution. Might be worth looking into.
Dear @addieolson1978, I understand your sense that "a big part of the grief was the loss of the opportunity to meet and raise [your] child." But "a big part" is not all of the loss. I had 2 miscarriages. Yes, I grieved not meeting my children. But fundamental -- at the basic level of existence -- my grief was for *each* of those *children* -- unique, never-to-be-repeated human beings. The grief of losing a child at any stage is going to be involved with "I will never see my child graduate. I will never see my child get married. I will never hold my child's children." But how much more is it, "I will never see my child for the rest of my life."
Loss of a child at any stage is so real, so deep that I thought Destiny's casual re-definition of and dismissal of that grief as merely loss of opportunity (like losing a job? or a house? or a pet?) is degrading, even though he tries to limit his insensitivity to mothers of children who died unborn.
In the end, dehumanizing the preborn humans ends with the dehumanization of mothers and motherhood, of fathers and fatherhood.
@@susand3668 I hope my comment didn’t come off as me disregarding the fact that children lost through miscarriage are not grieved or should not be be grieved the same as any other child or that I agreed with Destiny in his disregard. I was trying to make my comment brief but I do agree with you.
What I was trying to say (although maybe not so clearly) is that losing a child through miscarriage is a loss of opportunity for my future with and that child’s future, sure, but also the loss of that child. Whereas dealing with infertility, at least to me, was the loss of opportunity but not the same as losing my child through miscarriage.
Like what you said, I think it’s easy to dismiss the loss of the unborn as simply the loss of opportunity (as Destiny states) but like you and I have experienced, “pregnancy loss” is not a great term for a miscarriage. I didn’t grieve losing the pregnancy itself or the opportunity that can come from pregnancy but I grieved losing the child I was finally able to conceive.
I appreciate your response and hope that clears up what I meant to say!
Dear@@addieolson1978, thank you for your sweet response! I, too, was trying not to come across as anything other than respectful of what you were saying. You and I are definitely sisters in the Lord! Let us pray for one another.
I had an abortion at 5 weeks which is really 3 weeks. I didn’t feel grief or anything. The abortion felt like having a period.
This was such a huge win for the pro-life cause. Trent you're spearheading the masterclass in pro-life dialogue
You are just saying you agree with Trent. Others still agree with destiny. Trent did an ok job of attacking destiny's argument but I don't think he convinced anyone so probably can't call it a win.
@@awsomeoawsomeo2103And that’s ok, Trent planted the seed and that’s really all one can do.
@@awsomeoawsomeo2103point of the comment is?
You're just saying you agree with destiny
@@whatever1068 He is responding to the guy saying that it was win for pro life, based on what ?
@@awsomeoawsomeo2103 Yes your vague description might be true just like it probably also isnt true.
Listening to Destiny turn grief and mourning into nothing more than missed opportunity or loss of potential is beyond infuriating. Human beings aren't just "what could be", but they're important because they exist at all. On a planet with finite resources and very little instances of life (let alone intelligent life) occurring, in a vast and potentially limitless Universe, how a person can say we don't matter and shouldn't be protected other than because it makes him feel good is insanity.
I think you misunderstood, Destiny is pointing out that a fetus that dies before it attains consciousness can be likened to a missed opportunity, because nothing was ever consciously aware and so nothing of value was lost. Its like if you thought about having a baby, but then decided against it. Technically the baby's potential also disappeared at that point, but no one thinks of it as harming a living being, because it was just a thought in your head and had no consciousness. Both the fetus and the thought have the potential to turn into babies, but it doesn't matter if you cause either to cease to be, because they don't actually exist yet as thinking beings and so nothing is harmed. The only thing that's different between a fetus and a thought is one has cells/matter the other doesn't, but the cells are as non-aware as blades of grass, they don't experience pain if you run them over with a lawnmower (as far as I know lol). Its kind of like stabbing a dead body, no one cares, including the body.
Destiny has repeatedly pointed out during the debate that it is conscious life that matters to him, and that is why once a fetus enters the 20-30 week period abortion should be illegal.
@@radscorpion8 The ethical argument exists when it is someone holding authority over human life, let alone life in general. Choosing what is worthy to develop and what isn't, simply due to what level of development they have. There's nothing wrong with eugenics, human cloning, treating non-humans as less than, or designer babies under that worldview, besides inconsistent arbitrary complexities. Which technically makes sense: those without God want to be God. Taking life's natural development into their own hands as they see fit.
Exactly, I don't know which is more disgusting his very poor arguments that commenters are lauding - not because he's made good arguments, but simply because there were no emotions attached to the poor arguments. As if at the end of the day it's most important not to convey any sort of emotion or disdain for your opponent's arguments. The frog in the boiling pot in American culture was just depicted in this video.
@@radscorpion8 "I think you misunderstood, Destiny is pointing out that a fetus that dies before it attains consciousness can be likened to a missed opportunity"
No, he's not. The fact you think that shows me you have no idea what moral relativism is.
@@radscorpion8and you're, like Destiny, misunderstanding the pro-life perspective. Consciousness is too arbitrary of a limit to make the difference. Being human is what's important. The fetus is valuable because of the kind it belongs to: humankind.
Honestly, the more I listen to these highlights and the overall debate, the more Destiny's position proves itself to be *seemingly* coherent without being actually coherent.
He accuses Trent's position of drawing arbitrary lines, but Destiny himself doesn't (from what I recall) give an operational definition of what differentiates a human conscious experience from, say, a chimpanzee or a goat. Later on, he even admits that what makes a conscious experience human is if it is experienced by a *genetic human being*, but then he denies that genetic human beings earlier than 20 weeks could have conscious experiences *despite the lack of scientific consensus on the matter*. He accuses Trent of begging the question, but later says that we are depriving a person "the right to kill themselves" given a certain prognosis; what makes you say that it's even a right? Furthermore, Destiny strongly sticks to a naturalistic worldview (e.g., one must be able to measure it, study it, taste it, see it, etc.) throughout his argumentation, but then fails to provide a naturalistic proof for why such a worldview should even be adopted. He references scientific studies to support his position, but fails to recognise that there are no scientific studies that prove scientism.
Basically, he draws a lot of arbitrary lines and assumptions that he seems to be perfectly fine with, but then instantly jumps at Trent's definitions as being "arbitrary" even though these are the very definitions used in biology. He thinks himself coherent, when he's really fraying at the seams.
It's part of a liberal debate tactic. 1- non positionism and framing. Don't ever admit to a concrete position, don't ever let yourself be trapped in a frame. Hence his complaining about intuition pumping. He also pretends to not have an actual position.
2- why stacking and questioning. Ask why, make your opponent get to a point they can't answer I mediately. Ask questions. He who asks is controlling the discussion.
3- be accusatory, accuse the opposition of moral evil while supposedly not believing in morals.
4-
"seemingly coherent without being actually coherent."
This is the art of fighting without fighting...
Destiny's world view and Trents world view are built on incompatible first principles. Trent believes in a divine order outside and beyond himself. Destiny believes his perspective is the divine order.
The main issue i find is progressives hate to live in their utopia. They rather live in a Christian society lamenting how it isn't utopia.
Destiny can go live in any one of the more progressive utopian societies in the world. But he prefers to be here and complain.
Its a kind of falsehood that is hard to really reconcile in any debate. An intellectual fraud of every western progressive.
You're missing the first part of the debate where he said that there are no objective morals and that everything is simply opinion. He just maintained that his opinion was the correct one. It's very hard to debate with someone like that, I do wonder how he would answer the question of hard moral choice being different than a simple matter of taste
This is an example of an expert in a subject and a reasonably smart person. Destiny is smart but his thoughts aren’t structured and have holes in the logic. Respectively, he got schooled here
I watched the whole debate at Whatever youtube channel and at some point, Destiny started yawning while Trent was speaking and it’s because Trent can’t be fazed. Trent’s wide range of knowledge is truly amazing. Even when he was asked about the body with no head, Trent immediately knew that that body is no longer a person as that of a brain dead person. Learned so much!
Maybe he just felt tired
NPC take
I cannot believe Destiny's position on this; How is a person carrying out a pregnancy MORE exploitive than making child s*x dolls? Insane.
Your intuition is screaming that child sex dolls are more exploitive, but again, saying child smuggles in an understanding of a person with conscious experience.
It is not exploitive because there is no person you are exploiting. Imagine exploiting a corpse. You are not harming anyone.
Hope that helps.
That didn’t at all
@@Bladen1000 ok. What part of my reply do you have difficulties with?
@@g07densliceryou’re taking advantage of the fact that they’re dead or brain dead to perform heinous actions on their bodies. Would you say this is exploitative? If we recognize they are human beings, then shouldn’t they deserve some sort of humanity because they’re humans?
Also you realize this is the same justification for pedophilic necrophilliacs and zoophile necrophiliacs?
@@g07densliceryou looking for a excuses for your narcissistic fetish.
When Destiny was arguing about the difference in kind and calling it arbitrary that showed that he is just full on in debate lord mode with 0 intention to seek "truth".
Which is true because his moral catagories of human vs person are completely arbitrary. He drew a completely arbitrary distinctions between human person and person. There's no such a thing because it's uniquely pro abortion
What a debate Trent! Amazing work in minute 17 to 23. I'm definitely going to bring this to my debates. God bless you!
I didn't watch the debate but after Destiny said 'I cannot observe a moral fact' and so reduced morality to a subjective intuition or opinion, there wasn't really a reason to continue. If he doesn't believe rape is objectively morally wrong, then there's nothing wrong with someone else believing rape is perfectly acceptable.
Yup. I also only just begun to view this debate, but it strikes me (just as Trent noticed) that although this is a very civil exchange, it ultimately is pointless. Destiny's foundational principle is moral relativism based in personal feelings. There is no convincing anyone who can't acknowledge even the most basic axioms of existence.
How someone as intelligent and well read as Trent has fans this dumb will forever be a mystery to me.
destiny's entire position is arbitrary.
Is it not that he just thinks it is deeply wrong himself, but that he know there are others that wouls find nothing wrong with it, therefore this moral intuition or knowledge that rape is wrong, is nested inside a paricular type of psychology, just as its oppposite is inside anothers particular psychology.
@@connorgray2896With this line of thinking there is no such thing as right or wrong. The issue with Destiny is that he is inconsistent, he believes strongly in Feminist ideas, but feminism as a movement only works if there is an objective truth that all are equal and all deserve dignity. You don't have to agree with the feminist idea, but there is no feminism without universal truths, heck there is no civil rights movement without universal truths.
To destiny, its objective that he thinks there is no objective right or wrong.
Exactly!!! You can't claim everything is subjective if you just allow one objective truth.
@@HeHasRisen. He doesn't think that everything is subjective. He seems to think that objective reality exists
@@Qwerty-lp1fz But only when it's convenient to his way of thinking.
@@HeHasRisen. Why do you think so?
Thats not true, in destiny’s OPINION, there is no objective right or wrong, which is still consistent with his belief that there is no universal truths/objective right or wrong.
I find it chilling that one of the most logically consistent and honest pro-abortion advocates sounds like he could reasonably advocate for all manner of crimes against humanity if a good enough argument could be made for a subjects “lack of consciousness.”
Thank you for doing this, Trent!
Trent, you are seriously one of the best debaters I have ever witnessed and I think Destiny would agree with me 😂. Joking aside, I’m always impressed with the way you articulate and structure your responses, they are always razor sharp and composed with absolute decorum. Although I do not like Destiny as an individual, I was surprised to see he accepted debate and also handled himself quite well as opposed to other debates I have seen. Again, great job and as a younger follower I think it’s great that you are getting involved in these podcasts because you’re an important voice that we as humans need right now in these troubling times. Thank you.
Destiny matches the energy of who he's debating. You insult him, he'll insult you back you come with respect hell treat you with respect
Steven is unbelievably monstrous
@@rickymort135 Sounds like Destiny needs to grow up, then, and treat others with respect regardless of how they treat him. His tit-for-tat policy lends him to be disrespectful more often than not. Heck, even during his debate with Trent, he had flare ups of being disrespectful and it was only because of Trent's persistent calm and respectful demeanour that Destiny reigned himself in.
This is a personal opinion, but if the tone of a discussion strongly depends on the other person rather than how you as a person behave, then that's a sign that shows a weakness of character that is to be pitied.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 respect is earned. If someone isn't arguing in good faith, maybe as well engage them on their level
He lost the debate with Nick Fuentes as well.
Thank you trent for defending the catholic faith, christ church, and the unborn
God bless you! ❤
Shouldn’t the fetus or unborn be the first thing on the list, and not the last?
The Bible is actually pro abortion.
Numbers 5 11-39
Don't argue laws with religion. I'm sick of people saying only evangelical Christians are pro life.
No science is pro life. Pro abortion is the religious side.
@@KZSoze what
This debate was very interesting. The philosophical and ethical argument made of this dialogue superior. Thanks for sharing Trent!
I love this video. Firstly, thank you for truncating the debate to the highlights. Second, I love how candid and honest Destiny was. He didnt shy away from uncomfortable answers, he stuck with his beliefs, even if I disagree strongly with them. I wish every disagreement could go down like this one.
It's so sad to see how him trying not to be objective leads to so many evil consequences. Like the biologically human sex dolls. That's disgusting, to say the least.
If pro choice people think you should be allowed to kill them, then why are you surprised that they also believe they can be made into sex dolls.
yeah it's disgusting but so is using a super lifelike synthetic sex doll, because it betrays the desire of doing the same thing to a person. Doesn't make it a person though.
Okay, but in Trents world you can be charged with murder for taking plan b or for letting a human, 64 cell organism die in a petridish..
@@radreynolds8978they are gross for different reasons. And one is typically apparently worse than the other.
@@JonSnuhTrent does not believe abandoning a person in a petri dish is the same as abandoning a 1 month old.
Great video! I'm a Destiny fan because I love listening to calm and thought-provoking discussions about heated topics... even if i disagree with most of his takes.
You should bring him on more often!
Trent, amazing job in that debate. I used to be a big Destiny follower. I still agree with Destiny on other topics, but I think you had the edge in this debate. I believe you forced Destiny to take some really dark positions and exposed some inner darkness in the pro-choice side.
I disagree, Destiny willingest to quickly and consistently bite bullets that are structured to show his position in a bad light strengthens his position. On the other hand, Trent tried dodging pretty hard Destiny hypotheticals which was optically pretty bad
@@adaa1078 Not really. Destiny's position is actually quite circular and incoherent especially when he started flip flopping between conciousness and humanity. There's no grounding for his position. You can grant him all brownie points for answering Trent's hypotheticals, but at the end of the day he wasn't even able to define his position when pressed on it.
Trent however did address Destiny's hypotheticals. It just wasn't the type of answer Destiny was trying to get out of him.
@@Cklert oh cmon i counted like 3 times in this debate when Trent didnt have an answer and he would just say “ i think we are getting of the main point(something like that, im not quoting him)”
Example of that was when Trent tried attacking Destinys position on his non cognitivism and as soon as Destiny pressed him back on his believe on objecitve morality Trent used that to get out of that.
No one is saying Trent should answer his hypothetical with yes/no, but he was so obviously dodging the suicide question, Destiny had to bring him back until he answered like 5 times
There were no dark positions, it's all fine when you know how to compartmentalize hypotheticals
@@adaa1078 Perhaps. Though perhaps I'm also biased as a Trent viewer. Trent is a stickler for not wanting to go too off tangent in debates. Perhaps he should have practiced this more liberally. That's something I can concede on. At the same time, Trent has seen Destiny debate. He knows Destiny is someone who will consistently challenge every point he makes. Knowing how derailed the Kirsten and Lila debate was, he probably was too reserved in avoiding tangents.
It still doesn't change the fact that Destiny's attempt to seem consistent in those hypotheticals gets completely undermined by the fact that he couldn't support or define his position. You can pat him on the back for all the hypotheticals and 'bullets he bit,' but it ultimately amounts to nothing when you can't support the foundation onto why you hold that position.
I think Destiny's opening statement shows he's fallen into the same trap of skepticism that David Hume fell into except here Destiny swaps out Hume's rejection of causality due to causality's inscrutability via sense perception (i.e. taste, sight, touch, etc.) for a rejection of objective morality. This line of thinking leads to an endless line of questioning the validity of everything and is impractical, something Hume himself acknowledged in his own writing! The only solution, from Hume himself, is to live with the cognitive dissonance, ignore the inherent contradiction, and live as one pleases.
Yeah it's the problem of induction. We don't know it's a objective fact the sun is going to rise tomorrow according to Hume. yet we still act like it anyways.
Moral relativism is simply an untenable position and at the end of the day it's an admission of someone who has not really thought thru or reflected on the fact that they really shouldn't be entering into debate with anyone.
Hume isn't universally considered to be correct on everything, although I do somewhat agree.
The issue I have with this is that I feel like the opposite of the "trap of skepticism" is blind belief, which in my opinion is both less interesting and more dangerous.
@@thegreatfitzgerald2660 sure. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
@@thegreatfitzgerald2660
Thomas was a realist, but not a skeptic...
Truth & Life RSV-CE
25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe."
26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you."
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." †
28 Thomas answered him, " My Lord and my God!"
29 Jesus said to him, "You have believed because you have seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." †
John 20:25-29 RSV-CE
Thanks for your work Trent!
Trent’s emphasis on specific language was brilliant. It made his arguments so much stronger
Awesome job on this debate, Trent. Would love to see you talk to Desiny more.
Destiny started to lose me with his position on "human conscious experience". He never does any work to distinguish the moral significance of human consciousness as opposed to elephants or pigs. I think it is not really serious to suggest an infant is having a fuller or deeper experience than an elephant.
If I spoke with him, I would love to challenge him on this with the example of an African Grey Parrot.
Greys are incredibly intelligent and can not only mimic human language, but they can use language as we can to describe things. In certain tasks, they can demonstrate congnitive abilities equivalent to a 4-6 year old child.
Destiny's position is arbitrary. He doesn't actually care about conscious experience. He cares about the ability to have future cognitive experiences but only in humans. This leads him to an undesirable conclusion so he arbitrarily assigns values to the structures responsible for cognitive experience rather than the cognitive experience itself. It's a motte-and-bailey (the motte being consciousness the bailey being the structures responsible for it).
I don't think they get into it heavily but the position is that we deem human consciousness to be on a level of moral consideration beyond animals, even at different stages of development. It's not so much about the amount of consciousness/intelligence but more so the "level" in which this is.
Think about saving an older pig or a newborn from a fire, how many people would choose the human life even if it's less developed? Destiny also cares about protecting the future conscious experience, as long as that conscious experience has started to exist, which doesn't happen until 20 weeks.
Trent for me started to lose me when he refused to answer destiny's questions even tho destiny answerd every single one of em. I enjoyed the debate but the what won me was destiny's ability to answer tre ts questions while I can't say the same for trent
@@Ram-mu7kl What you're describing is an assertion without justification. Why is a human consciousness given higher moral consideration than that of an animal without regard to the stage of development? There are 9 documented species which can pass the "mirror test." Most human children cannot pass the mirror test until 20-24 months. There exist animals which have a sense of self, animals which can understand and even speak human language, etc.
What separates human toddlers from these animals is not their current ability to deploy a conscious experience. It is their probable ability to deploy a much more complex conscious experience in the future. I would not save a Eurasian Magpie over a one-year-old human child, even though the magpie has arguably higher levels of cognition, because of this major distinction among others.
In this way, your (Destiny's) position is not different than that of Trent's: moral consideration is resting on the unique (future) nature of the human being. The difference is that Destiny's position assigns arbitrary value to the structures which will one day be able to deploy a complex conscious experience. Asserting the importance of the primitive conscious experience of an underdeveloped fetus in comparison to that of animal species is just special pleading.
No one would choose to save a pig over a newborn. You need to explain why that is.
@@ragequit7151 But the ability to deploy a consciousness isn't arbitrary, it's the same we use to deem someone to be dead. Hence why we deem it morally acceptable to unplug someone braindead but not someone in a coma. If the structures of the brain aren't there, it's the same as having no brain, which makes it so you're not worthy of moral consideration.
And if you think that's arbitrary, how is it more arbitrary than the fertilized egg? Genetic code? Each sperm has a code as well, each sperm under the right circumstances can become a different human.
I said that the future conscious experience matters, as long as that conscious experience has started already. If you only care about the future experience and not the present one. Would you choose the magpie over a newborn that has a disease and one year left of life span? I wouldn't, in my opinion the human conscious experience is simply on a different level of moral consideration, by present and future standards.
I really like Mr. Trent opening statement comenting on the nuance of abortion to save the actual life of the mother not her lifestyle which are two totally different things that still people used as interchangable concepts. I met this collage teacher which got pregnant with a classmate, my classmate told me she aborted their baby because she could not deal with the responsability (even though she is pretty wealthy). Sex is not a thing one should do without concescuences, she and my classmate should have not had this irresponsable hook up. A life was lost that day
At least Destiny is willing to admit to the more terrible things he actually thinks. It's a refreshing debate simply because he's not constantly defending his character as being greater than it is.
Yes, I'm glad you picked up on the "terrible" nature of his arguments and position. But I found the conversation pretty disgusting - especially at 1:48 where Destiny actually has the audacity to claim that rape cannot be determined as an objectively moral evil. And then this comes full circle in the end when he literally yawns as he states his agreement in killing a baby right in front of him who is 18 weeks old.
@@MPFXT Well, it's simply because it isn't. You believe that it is objective moral evil, because that's simply your belief. Completely subjective. Rape is wrong because it is performing an intimate act with *someone without their consent*. This implies that this someone can provide consent. If it is an inanimate object, or an organism that has no consciousness and thus no ability to give or deny consent, then it is not actually rape we are speaking of.
@@Firstname_Surname Thank you for pointing out the radical absurdity of denying objective truth: "it's simply because it isn't." Yes, I am and so was Trent and so was Destiny talking about rape. Philosophy 101 - the law of non-contradition: truth cannot contradict itself. Rape is evil.
@@MPFXT what basis do you have for saying that it's evil beyond the assertions?
That’s a pretty unfair characterization when you consider that if destiny is “right”, Trent has some pretty archaic and horrific beliefs too. Sure, he’s not supporting abortion, but by virtue of not supporting abortion in ANY circumstance and his failure to engage with destiny’s harder hypotheticals, he’s pushing against a woman’s right over her body. He’s saying that a woman who might get an abortion at six weeks deserves the SAME punishment as a woman who murders her six year old son. To me, both of their arguments get into the philosophical weeds but neither are more inhumane than the other.
Say what you want about Destiny, but at least he can have a calm discussion about this controversial issue. His answers seem genuine and direct as well
Absolutely agree.
Actually I find that the most disturbing element. To have a total emotional disconnect from his neutral status regarding rape. The more comfortable people get in justifying grave evils is not something to applaud.
@@MPFXT Nothing wrong about trying to abstract from one's sense of disgust to try to look at the issue objectively.
I must agree. Unlike many on EITHER side of this debate, I have to give credit to Destiny for NOT interrupting Trent, allowing him to make his case completely, and then calmly defending his own position. I mean, for the most part, by and large, they was the case; there were a couple 2,3 instances of going off on a tangent and a bit of interruption, but NOTHING like I'd seen before, and nothing like you and I might experience at work or socially in a "casual" debate, which invariably degrades into shouting, screaming and interruptions. My only thing on Destiny (besides the fundamental incoherence of his whole argument) was his "rate" of speech: he talks SUPER FAST. WOW! The only person I can think of that talks that fast is Ben Shapiro 🤣.
@MPFXT cringe take. You'd rather people scream and whine instead of being able to have a calm level headed discussion?
If you were on destiny's side politically you'd say the same thing about Trent lol.
I can't imagine feeling good about yourself when you state you don't see anything wrong with using human bodies as sex toys...I imagine (and hope) that anyone who thought they agreed with Destiny's worldview before takes a good hard look at the consequences of that worldview and are disgusted
Exactly, thank you - same goes with rape which he denied as an objectively moral evil, and literally yawned at the end of the podcast while agreeing to the scenario of killing an 18 week old fetus right in front of him. Gross - disgusting and wrong!
@@MPFXT What makes it objectively evil? The bible?
@@MPFXTDenying something as objectively evil doesn't mean he views it as good/ok.
Your imagination does not determine morality / reality.
@@Eliza-rg4vw Thank you for pointing out the radical absurdity of such a position - which is the position of not taking a position... Rape is evil. Period.
Masterful, God bless you Trent, my inspiration!
Liked and subscribed. Keep up the good work!
I love how you always keep your cool and never lash out, it is very admirable. God bless you Trent.
Comment for traction. Well done Trent.
Amazing Job Trent!!! God bless
Delightful to listen to. Great job out there! It was also refreshing to hear some pro-choice arguments that are at least consistent even if I don't agree with them. At least more interesting than the usual stuff they throw at you.
Destiny has no morals
Glad to see you blowing up Trent you deserve it man. Love your stuff.
Thank you Trent.
God Bless you Trent. just admire your strength and knowledge. Life is precious and there is a beginning to each one of us and it starts at women's womb.
Fan of both you and Destiny. Was a great conversation and hope you guys have more in the future!
I'm wondering how is it someone becomes a fan of someone who can't say that rape is objectively evil?
Fan of someone that supports using baby Bodie for sex objects...
Thank you for being the more logical person in this debate. Destiny just seemed like he wanted to argue semantics and kept the arguments on a language level rather than actually trying to follow your logic.
Good job with the debate Trent!
Love how some think that they aren't "playing moral authority" when trying to save the whales, eagles or any other endangered species.
When human beings make a choice to end the life of another its ramifications are vast and not easily forgotten. That child is remembered even though it wasn't allowed breath.
Destiny doesn't care about animals lol
All of hell rejoices for every life aborted in the womb. 'Nuff said!
@@mello4399what does he care about? Certainly not his marriage either. At this point its about who is more worthy of listening?
@@signumcrucis4172he cares about human consciousness
@@signumcrucis4172 Yeah his marriage looks weird but that doesn't mean he's wrong
I would love a debate/discussion between Trent and Destiny on objective morality. The "you cannot prove a moral fact" mantra he kept spouting has SO much wrong with it. I would love a chat on epistemology between them
Give an example of a moral fact.
Slavery, rape, pedofilia those are inmoral act because they cause unnecesary pain in other just like abortion
@@awsomeoawsomeo2103 Sure. Drinking bleach is bad for you.
@@awsomeoawsomeo2103Thanos is evil
@@bookishbrendan8875 Not if you want to destroy your organs.
A fact would be something like light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. There's no other way to look at it, no other opinion to have on it, it's measurable, testable, and repeatable.
There is almost no point in debating Destiny other than to say his philosophy is meaningless. By his own admission, he has no basis for moral values, yet he has moral opinions. If I accepted his philosophy why I would care what he thinks, or anyone else thinks, I'll do whatever I want. I do appreciate his honesty, it just makes the whole debate void of any meaning. I hope he finds true meaning for his life at some point.
That's a very honest attempt at guessing what Destiny thinks of his own philosophy. I'm sure Destiny would put it in the same words as you did.
Praise God! Thank you for brillant work
Trent, you have so much more restraint than I do. The first time I ran into these absolute relativists (as they called themselves 15 years ago) was also the first time I left the debate floor. I was so aggravated by the position that I had to leave - and I was a full-on atheist at the time (now devout Catholic). The debate was about euthanasia and instead of arguing the issue at hand we spent an undue amount of time figuring out something of a hierarchy of good/evil. The attempt at some kind of stoicism just comes off as apathy and there comes a point in time where walking away is both healthy and necessary. Good on you for sticking through it, at least from the clips. Looking forward to the full version when I have time!
Destiny is not a relativist.
@@g07denslicer Like I said in my comment, that's the term from over a decade ago. I'm not sure what term people like Destiny use today.
@@DanParker89 away from the topic what is your thoughts on euthanasia?
Wow. Talk about casual evil.
Merriam Webster defines "person" as "human, individual". There we go, now we have an objective, factual definition of "person". If Destiny wants to talk specifically about persons who have conscious experiences, he'll need to use a more precise word.
The entire pro-life vs pro-choice debate is about how we define humans.
It's kinda funny that you just took the Merriam Webster definition and said "boom, I solved the equation"
@thegreatfitzgerald2660 Destiny's argument is over the definition of "person", not "human". The definition I gave, therefore, was of "person". My statement wasn't even in favor of pro-life or pro-choice: it was against Destiny's insistence on using a word to have a very specific meaning that it doesn't have. If he wants to argue that "human" doesn't refer to any specific member of the human species, but rather only those members who have had conscious experience, he can do that. I was making no argument against him; I was only stating that he used a word to have a specific definition, when the definition of that word is not as specific as he insists it has.
@@thegreatfitzgerald2660 The entire Anti-Life argument hinges on pretending that there is any debate about what a human is.
@@thegreatfitzgerald2660And the pro-choice position thinks unconscious humans should be allowed to be used as sex dolls.
Great debate, Trent!
Great job!
Who seriously walks around with a set of logic that has the inability to observe facts? This is madness. Philosophy 101 taken too far, for no good reason.
Another fruit of Godless liberalism
Moral fact. Give one example of one and you can prove you're not an idiot.
@@awsomeoawsomeo2103 The golden rule.
It is because of destiny’s emotional bias towards his religion of atheism , he will interpret every argument that fits within this frame work but the problem is much worse .
If he’s an atheist how can he assign objective value to even consciousness??
When he dies this he intellectually shoots himself in the foot .
When I was an atheist I eventually became a nihilist and is because western atheism can only logically lead to nihilism
@@awsomeoawsomeo2103I can scientifically prove moral facts exist.
i like that there's a guy like destiny that is willing to debate a controversial topic without saying any buzz words,
because of that both can learn and refine their arguments.
I have to congratulate Destiny for the consistency and clarity of his arguments.
I don't share them, but it's refreshing to see other points of view being elaborated so eloquently
Great job Trent!!!
I'm impressed with both of you .
Man that Destiny guy is so deep into the philosophical framework of Descartes and Kant, every thought he has is built on uncertifiable opinion based on subjective sensation, all the way down to a micro level of skepticism over every fact statement. I can't imagine going through life that way. You should have just asked him if he was happy, if things and ideas and relationships bring real happiness, and if so, how does he know whether he is really happy, or whether his experience of happiness is just an illusion of what he believes happiness might be? Would have caused a short circuit. Or how does he know as he goes through life whether his opinions are valuable to preserve and/or in need of correction or disposal? Or does he just feel sensations and let them pass immediately and suppress any fact judgments his mind might try to make. I mean really his whole mantra is that nothing is true, truth does not really exist. But how can he prove that his experience of life is real? Even Descartes was able to establish certainty on the point of reason, aka "I think, therefore I exist." But he seems to dwell in a place that is not quite certain of any rational conclusion whatsoever, its all up for grabs, 100% malleable, having a feeling but always with the caveat that it might be unreliable.
"every thought he has is built on uncertifiable opinion based on subjective sensation"
the entire argument for objective morality is based on a subjective sensation and a subjective but dogmatic interpretation of that sensation
@@Greyz174 Sure, if you are Immanuel Kant and believe that objective morality is simply that which is built on human consensus alone. It must thereby be a collective subjectivity, built on the negative principle that we collectively have not doubted everyone else to be correct today.
But I have never seen anyone who seems to have regulated his entire human experience by that principle at such a granular level. Usually these are just quasi-hippies who like to talk philosophy and then go drink and smoke a bunch of shit and ignore everything that they claimed to profess only a few minutes before that, because really their morality is a libertarian hedonism that has been polished to look sophisticated, and their "philosophy" is a work of vanity attempting to gain ego dominance over other "philosophers".
But Destiny is a "true believer," the kind of guy from the journalist's proverb "if your mother says she loves you, check it out." The kind of guy who cant answer a simple question because he is trying to decide if you exist or not and if so, whether he has any moral obligation to answer you. The kind of guy where you wonder how he manages to buy groceries and get gas for his car without having a philosophical crisis.
@@MrColinwith1L everyone who believes in this thing called objective morality is just pointing at a subjective feeling of "no nope nonononono" when we see things we vehemently dont like and dont want, and there is nothing more to it that actually grounds it as a real moral fact. Its just pretend objectivism based off of strong subjective aversions to things
@@Greyz174 no, objective morality its built on the idea that when we sense certain sensations and apply our experience of reason to what we have sensed, that we can rely this knowledge to ascertain truth, and that we can form moral judgments on what would be fitting and/or responsible in relation to that truth. Such that for example murder is wrong not just because I feel that its wrong, but because it is wrong regardless of how I might feel about it. Most people in society no matter how much they profess "subjective morality" usually bridge that gap between subjective and objective morality in how they actually go about their day and live their lives. They like to talk the big talk on UA-cam but when someone steals from them they want their stuff back and get mad that someone would do such an unjust thing. They don't simply say "well that person must have thought what they were doing was morally good based on his or her subjective truth, and who am I to judge?" Because that would be stupid. But this would be stupid because it would be a denial of objective truth that stealing is a violation of personal property rights, and that personal property rights are an objective good, and not simply good because "I feel good when I hold objects in my hand".
@@Alon3InTh3Dark13 how do you rationally demonstrate that murder is wrong without a dogmatic reference to the intuitions everyone allegedly feels about it?
I haven't watched a lot of Destiny, but I only watched a few minutes in and I'm going to have to leave this video. Trent, keep up the good work, stay strong. I'm going to proceed to have a mental breakdown because I wasn't aware of the ideas mentioned in the beginning.
Great job Trent! ❤
Wonderful arguments Trent, it's great to have you here to help; I'd like it no other way.
You absolutely killed it, it seemed like both audiences enjoyed the conversation. Praying your channel grows and your voice reaches more people
You are slowly reaching legendary status Brother.
You have such a deep intellect and a warm Soul. It is an honor to be able to follow your logic against the athiest ideologues.
That symmetry argument is sooo good.
It was heart breaking to hear this man Destiny speak like that. He is in my prayers. Thanks for the video. You aren’t only humane but very intelligent and articulate. 🙏🙏🙏
Well done Trent! Destiny was not prepared for your level of expertise . God bless you.
Apparently not enough expertise to directly answer any of his hypotheticals
I don't think it's about a lack of preparation so much as a lack of substantive argument. Moral relativism is simply not a tenable position.
Very interesting points
Met you in stubenville! Thanks for all of your work it was an honor to shake your hand!
Trent you have a brilliant way of kindly pointing out the absurdity of your opponents position!
Destiny's complaints about "intuition pumping" are not valid. There's nothing wrong with Trent relying on people's intuitions because part of Trent's worldview is that people's intuitions are relevant. In reality Destiny's tactics are "intuition blocking" because he inherently benefits from stopping people making these intuitive connections. This reminds me of how secular people think a non-religious society is the fair or neutral form of society, when in reality a secular society is a positive vision that is unjustified.
I think it becomes valid depending on the context.
For example, when Destiny says it's "intuition pumping", he specifically means that he doesn't want the audience to misunderstand his position for something that is a lot worse than it actually is.
@@thegreatfitzgerald2660 Well no he said it was intuition pumping to use the word "newborn" in an example where Trent explicitly lays out the medical situation the child is in.
@@thegreatfitzgerald2660 Destiny thinks corpses of fetuses, toddlers, and adults should be sex dolls.
Good work Trent
So at 52 minutes (the full debate, not your highlights), you made the exact argument I have thought up on my own after listening to Destiny debate this topic and it filled me with a pride that moves forward my desire to want to do public debate.... little old me thought up an argument that some well seasoned and studied expert also used.
Now your set up and delivery was 100X better and I was just looking to debunk Destiny's argument, I am also pro choice for different reasons... the lesser of two evils argument based around viability. When two peoples rights conflict, what is the best way to handle that with the least amount of harm.
I need to really watch this because you are fantastic at argument forming, delivery, and public speaking where I lack very very much.
Fantastic job.
Also it is fun to see this smug dude have circles run around him... but it also does speak to his self taught ability to hold his own that this wasnt a complete thrashing. Props to Steven for keeping up even if he was completely out of his league.
1 hour in... the conclusion is a kill shot to his entire argument.
Man I wish I was half as good at debate.
According to his stance, before 20 weeks that fetus has no rights, so it would be perfectly fine to go in an cause brain damage to ensure personhood is not capable, then raise that being as a sex slave or for some other gross purposes. That would be 100% fine under Stevens theory.... and you made sure to set this up with questions leading up to it.
Beautifully done.
You say that you have 3 arguments that are pro legal abortion that are morally justifiable but Destiny wants to respond to other things first... do you ever get back to that? I really want to know what they are. See if my own needs some work or amending.
Not a huge fan of imaginary scenarios in debates, which can lead to a brake down in understanding and confusion. It is worrying that few seem to use the factual violence perpetrated on the unborn baby, which seems to be a severe and grave consequence of a poor decision.
Verbal gymnastics in trying to reduce the value of an unborn child goes along way in explaining the character of that person. The fact some refuse to acknowledge objective truth and God, is why we have these distortions in society.
Keep up the good work Trent.......God is watching!
It’s funny that some people in the live chat accused you of clip harvesting by asking such wild questions of destiny… patently they don’t understand that part of debate is to test your opponents position against different scenarios.
You did a great job trent and a appreciated that you were not seeking a slam dunk moment to trump Destiny, instead you methodically walked him through the moral quandaries presented by his position.
Yes, but at some point when you're opponent is taking a position that is soundly based on moral relativism - a slam dunk is in order, especially when you're up against a culture that can't decide whether or not a man is a man. I would have offered the slam dunk at 1:48 when Destiny was actually trying to make a case that rape cannot be considered an objectively moral evil. Call a spade a spade - abortion and rape are evil. Period.
Destiny even accused him of click harvesting in his summary video. At least that is what he thought he was doing.
Debates like this remind me of the Scripture that says “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.”
Proverbs 26:4.
Thought I get that conversation is important, there is a limit. Let me put it this way: for there to be a productive or fruitful conversation, a common goal or basis must exist. Neither of these are the case with Destiny. Because of this, any point can almost always be refuted with illogical statements. It’s like playing tennis in a world with no gravity. Before talking about morality, at least the basis of “good and evil exist” must be there. So I get that Trent sees this as potentially helping someone out there, but the reality is that there is no point in arguing with someone who’s world view is based upon a lack of objective morality, moral anchors, logical structures of reasoning, and plain evil.
I find his thoughts (Destiny) very disturbing and scary even. If likeminded people should decide our future, we’ll be in big trouble. I hope, maybe when reviewing this interview, he will be able to see how evil this kind of arguing is.
The amount of times Destiny has said "intuition pumping" within mere minutes.
Well, because Trent was smuggling in words like child that evoke a certain misleading intuition in the listener.
@SloroIa "necrophiliac"? O...kay...?
Using words like child to describe a fetus is intuition pumping, because when you hear the word child, your mind evokes a certain idea of what a child is. Chubby cheeks, smooth skin, small tufts of hair. _Sentient._
What your mind evokes is very different from what is discussed, which is a fetus. The more important feature that is missing from a fetus vs what is evoked by our minds when we hear the word "child" is the ability to deploy conscience.
Thanks Trent, you were so close to getting to the root of his argument. All you have to do is explain to him why a "clump of cells" is still a human worth defending, even if it has never experienced consciousness! I don't know why he's so set on that arbitrary timeline, is he sitting there with a stopwatch before he gives a red light?
To be fair to Destiny's position, he spells it out a little more in the previous 'debate' that Trent responded to. He doesn't use a 'stopwatch' method of 20 weeks as a matter of when personhood happens but as a matter of what he thinks law/public policy should be.
He thinks it varies between 20-24 weeks before someone achieves the consciousness that qualifies as personhood for him, so he thinks 20 weeks is the 'safe' point to make abortion illegal without harming any 'person' that he considers to not exist yet.
@@John_FisherTrent also shows why that 20 week conscience is considered worth protecting instead of say a lower life form with a similar level, and Destiny says that it is because it is a human conscience. So Destiny’s main argument is that it is a human which a fetus less than 20 weeks or embryo or zygote are.
Nice job. What a reasonable talk too.
Really important to notice that he's essentially making up a definition of a "person", so he is the person forcing his views on others to restrict their rights, not the pro-lifer.
Thanks for pointing this out I've been saying it since forever
God bless you Trent. You did wonderfully and made a great case for the Pro-life position. Also one of the best parts is when you called out Destiny, to his face, about misusing "Intuition Pumping" lol. Great moment.
Imagine thinking terms can’t be used in different ways
@samweiss1516 Imagine thinking using terms wrong is justifable just because you dont understand the term. Even Destiny stopped saying it after being corrected. Your comment has a hint of cope in.
Words have meaning and if you're using them wrong at a fundamental level you deserve to be corrected. Otherwise why teach language at all if anything can mean everything. Especially when you're using it to dismiss an arguement when the term is not at all meant to do that in 99% of cases as Trent pointed out to Destiny.
I was really impressed with Trent for that. I was getting so frustrated when Destiny kept using “intuition pumping” anytime Trent used terms no one has issues with.
To me, it was a way for Destiny to muddy the waters, try to through Trent off kilter, and act like Trent was trying to be manipulative.
Instead, Trent was just using terms he knows and understands that the audience also knows and understands.
Intuition pumping was used correctly by Destiny.
@@saraarlavi4217 No lol
that was awesome
Trent killed it 👍👍
Destiny isn't willing to bite the bullet on animal consciousness because he doesn't want to be vegan lol. Alex O'Connor exposed this pretty badly.
Its ironic saying Desiny is not willing to bite the bullet when Trent was doing everytime Destiny gave him a hypothetical
there's no bullet to bite, he's just not a Vegan, like you or Trent
Destiny refusing to use the term "suicidal" for his example of the lung cancer patient was both frustrating and indicative of the fact that he knows his argument is inconsistent. He's only willing to allow suicidal people with reasons he deems good to kill themselves.
Furthermore, how does he decide what is and is not a good enough reason? If the long-term prognosis is 99% satisfaction like he said, well and good, but what about 90%? 80%? 50%? 30%?
Good Point, He will probably ask mathematical analysis to decide the rightful amount of percentage that is needed. But then that will be the entire subjective analysis of the mathematical community.
His counterpoint, given his statements that I've heard, might run something like this:
"I believe that all moral or ethical considerations are the results of a person's subjective processes. You can't give any sort of 'objective evidence' for your suggested 'moral sense,' so you aren't really taking a different stance than I am, while also suggesting that you are. That's inconsistent.
Now, if we accept that morality is the result of subjective beliefs, then having an ethical debate is playing the same sort of 'ethical game' that has certain rules that we agree on. Examples of these rules are logical rules for consistent argumentation and what is proper evidence for a claim.
Given all of that, you can't say that my decision to give a certain percentage of likelihood of a person recovering and living a happy and healthy life, let's say I mark it at 70% just as an example, is simply wrong. If there aren't any objective standards that you can give evidence for, then our evidence is going to be subjectively interpreted and probabilistic. All you can bring forward at this point is another probabilistic argument that is stronger than mine or show some sort of an inconsistency within my argument. I invite you to do so."
@@bebopbountyheadWhat is even the point of having morals at all if your appeal to subjective intuition trumps what should be considered moral. I mean, the point is to achieve some sort of higher purpose and not to do what convinient to us. If there's a objective way to determine whether something is bad like killing or any crime then it goes against what we like or feel is convinient but appeal to the objective purpose we striving for as a society.
@@luxolontamo4440 Well, I was taking Trent's position as being that our moral intuitions are things that we can have faith in despite not being able to prove them, similar to the belief that there are people other than myself. That's basically a direct quote from Trent, so I don't think that he believes that morals can be objectively proven, but he does think that our moral intuitions should generally be trusted.
I would assume that Trent is using "moral intuitions" as a stand-in for conscience. If so, I'd guess that he meant moral intuitions to be the basis for morals. As we have a visual sense and we judge visual senses on how people generally perceive things, Trent seems to be saying that we should do the same with our moral senses: judge based on how people generally perceive morality.
Destiny backing with "we know the 6-month prognosis." Yeah sure.. we also know that people will 100% die someday. So is his distinction the known short time interval, or the pain involved? I'm sure there are high-pain conditions that aren't terminal that destiny would argue aren't warranting of suicide. He seems to just be proving that moral relativism is tyrannical. "Whatever I think, despite inconsistencies when applied to comparable circumstances, is righteous." Such shifting morality cannot base any good society.
Trent, thank you for going on the Whatever podcast. If you or Kyle are reading this I have a question I'd like answered. I left it on Pints with Aquinas.
Destiny rejects objective morality, but many watching the debate don't. Since the goal of a public debate is to convince the audience I think you can make logical arguments against abortion, but ultimately we need people to see what underlies those logical arguments.
Eventually, someone asks why do you believe in objective morality? And what is our answer?
We appeal to God.
Destiny said he didn't believe you could believe in objective morality without appealing to the Bible. I think at the very least that helps the audience see the benefit of Christian morality.
I think we should admit this and not shy away from it because ultimately Destiny is right.
In my comment on Pints I appealed to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and what it says about a well-formed conscience.
Do you think we can and should concede that to have objective morality we must adopt a moral system that gives us this standard? And should we concede our objective moral standard is the divine law of the Bible?
TRENT FOR THE WIN!!!!!
I haven't heard the whole thing yet, but so far, I'm impressed with how this conversation is going. I wish I could have civil conversations like this with people on the other side without them blowing up.
46:34 Destiny shared that “there is plenty of evidence to show that quadraplegics live healthy” which he considers good reason to not permit killing them. An appropriate counter in that moment would have been, there is plenty of evidence to show that an embryo freshly conceived will have consciousness in 20 weeks, therefore we have good reason not to permit killing them.
Wow, that was quite the gymnastics of a debate. Though I am a total believer that human life is precious from the moment of conception, the natural death. I have anyone being human can think otherwise it’s beyond my comprehension..
Holy shit amazing job trent
I'm so happy Trent was on the whatever podcast but I'm so sad it wasn't wholesome power couple Trent and Laura on thot patrol 😂