@Viridis same. I have thought that someone like ‘The Friendly Antinatalist’ is cruel to not take Veganism seriously, but I’ve also thought about how a non-vegan childfree antinatalist saves more animal lives than a vegan breeder because they create no non-vegan descendants, while the vegan breeder does create non-vegan descendants. I don’t think this gives her [TFA] a pass to continue not being vegan. It’s just a point.
@Ken Great video but I don't think Avi convinced the other person of natalism. He convinced them that procreating is justified because it will result in a reduction of births and suffering, if that's not AN i don't know what is. That's an argument for procreation as a pragmatic approach to AN from a NU framework, not an argument against AN itself.
@Ken I think we could feel satisfied if we killed all other animals with a consciousness on Earth as painless as possible and then made us selves go extinct by not procreating.
1:22:24 That's insane Destiny followed her line of thought and correctly identified, that it leads into an Antinatalist argument (specifically the consent argument). that's "pretty hard to argue against" LMAO. The cognitive dissonance is real. BTW Destiny is a parent.
Why not debate Avi on this topic? Should be easy if his position is contradictory. I'm sure he is perfectly willing to have a conversation or a debate.
He'll run away on the pretext that it's a waste of time, or trot out a similarly lame-brained excuse to avoid direct interaction. Cowards like to strike and move immediately out of reaching distance.
At about 58 minutes in, he total strawmans avis arguement. Hes not saying making someone dependent on you is wrong thus making childbirth wrong as said by life sucks. He says making someone dependent on you and then killing them for being dependent on you is wrong. Thus making the argument about childbirth a complete strawman
She says " progress has been made," while literally endorsing an archaic argument from the Inquisition 🤣🤣🤣 ...yeah I unsubbed from Avi a while back and was never subbed to the other two ...anyway beautiful drawing and great video as always 👍
Dr. Avi isn't really pro-life, he's in favour of abortion so long as the fetus hasn't gained sentience, that hardly covers the majority of abortions (which take place in the first trimester). It's a little strange to call yourself pro-life when the only abortions you're opposed to hardly ever take place, while the vast majority you have no problem with. He's even argued in favour of abortion in a recent debate on "Politically Provoked" so no, he's definitely not pro-life.
@@jbates725 What do you mean? Virtually everyone is against some forms of abortion, such as those done for frivolous reasons in the third trimester. In that sense no one is really pro-choice, because they wouldn't support those particular abortions, but of course that's not how we use these terms. Of course you can still call yourself pro-choice while being against abortions moments before birth for no good reason. Avi essentially holds this position.
He literally said at the beginning of his discussion with VG that he is not in favor of most abortions and does not think they should be legal. That's nearly word for word.
7.05 "..I dont understand the threshold idea" Prehaps having an understanding might be a priority? Im not a TD but I at least set out to understand it before feeling it didnt fit best with my moral intuitions.
Thanks for the air-time :P I'm happy to discuss/debate any/all of these particulars with you, please contact me on insta or FB if interested. I will also do a response to you when I have some time over the break! I'm certainly not a conservative (note that I don't take any issue with conservativism per se) as many of the things I support cannot be said to be conservative values or philosophies (atheism, gay rights, and many more). Outside AN and abortion, I would also be interested in discussing classical liberalism, specifically why I am more accurately a classical liberal and not a conservative.
only a couple of minutes in and this is so annoying how you assume your position as correct and assert your personal opinion as fact. IE you don't say "i believe" etc you say "X believes its ok to abuse women" etc... if you asked this person if they supported abusing women they would aay no. basically just slander. so far very poor quality video, unsurprising for a neg util guy.
Antinatalism is logically a fact. Your side has no objective argument as to why life and humans ought to exist. AND IF you think its neutral whether anyone should exist or not, then follow suit with that and be indifferent to both antinatalists and natalists arguments.
Right wing doesn’t = bigot. I watch Steven Crowder and other “right wing” voices because they’re the only ones talking any sense on the most pressing political issues, apart from abortion of course. Modern leftism is insane and has gone completely off the rails. As of now, Conservatives are living closer to reality than “progressives”. I fully admit I used to identify among them. Although I’ve been “red pilled” to an extent, it doesn’t contradict the ethical true north that is NU. I agree, this lady, like most humans, are walking contradictions. Thanks for sharing LS.
You make literally no attempt to understand the arguments that have been advanced. You can directly debate AY or Avi or if you're afraid of being stomped by them, you can still pop by the server and even a low tier debater there will be able to explain what a symmetry breaker is and how you grossly misunderstand threshold deontology.
@@ziharkeus7814 Sure. So when you have 2 situations that are similar, but your actions are different, you need to specify what is the factor that justifies doing x in one situation and y in another similar situation. That factor would be a symmetry breaker. It breaks the symmetry between two supposedly similar situations. For example: Vegans are faced with "plants feel pain tho" where they are accused of applying a double standard of killing plants but not killing animals. So in order to show that it's not a double standard, vegans provide "sentience" as the symmetry breaker. Plants aren't sentient, animals are. We shouldn't kill sentient beings. Therefore we shouldn't animals.
@@aravindvenkatasubramanian1501 I understand. So what is the symmetry situation when it comes to abortion? I assume it has to do with murder/killing? If that's the case I could for example provide a very similar argument to what you stated in regards to the ridiculous "plants feel pain" argument that we are faced with as vegans: Killing an organism is wrong given that the organism is sentient. Killing a (developing) organism that is not (yet) sentient is not wrong since there is no harm inflicted. So in this case the symmetry breaker in this killing situation would once again be sentience. But which symnetry breaker are you specifically talking about regarding abortion?
@@ziharkeus7814 So the symmetry breaking is being done between the Violinist Analogy and Abortion. There are 5 symmetry breakers from his latest view, and in conjunction they overdetermine the responsibility objection to Abortion. 1. There is some evidence for fetal sentience. 2. The dependence is already instantiated 3. The parents willingly partook in forcing the fetus into a state of dependence 4. The parents had the knowledge of the possibility of dependence happening 5. The disutility generated is approximate to the disutility generated by the average pregnancy. When these are true, it calls for a precautionary principle against abortion i.e. Chopping up fetuses.
You could argue that, yes, at least if death is almost instantaneous. If you shoot someone in the head with a rifle without the person knowing it, they will usually be dead within a second or at least unconscious and feeling no anxiety before. That's a much more lenient death than most people will experience. 65-70% of all people, even in Europe, North America and Japan, will feel a lot of pain before they die a "natural" death. But of course, it's against how most people think and feel intuitively. Even Schopenhauer saved a young boy from drowning himself, although he would have suffered less all in all if he had drowned.
![Medical School Interview - Medical Ethics - Abortion [DEBATE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/oLlhAcpWM3o/mqdefault.jpg)
life is suffering. if you are pro life than you are pro suffering.
Antinatalism and Veganism go very well together, logically.
@Viridis same. I have thought that someone like ‘The Friendly Antinatalist’ is cruel to not take Veganism seriously, but I’ve also thought about how a non-vegan childfree antinatalist saves more animal lives than a vegan breeder because they create no non-vegan descendants, while the vegan breeder does create non-vegan descendants. I don’t think this gives her [TFA] a pass to continue not being vegan. It’s just a point.
@Ken Great video but I don't think Avi convinced the other person of natalism.
He convinced them that procreating is justified because it will result in a reduction of births and suffering, if that's not AN i don't know what is.
That's an argument for procreation as a pragmatic approach to AN from a NU framework, not an argument against AN itself.
@Ken I think we could feel satisfied if we killed all other animals with a consciousness on Earth as painless as possible and then made us selves go extinct by not procreating.
@Ken Why do you think AN is solely about human births?
@Ken The definition i see being used the most is: Antinatalism is the ethical view that assigns negative value to birth.
Vegan footsoldier is VERY annoying
1:22:24 That's insane Destiny followed her line of thought and correctly identified, that it leads into an Antinatalist argument (specifically the consent argument). that's "pretty hard to argue against" LMAO.
The cognitive dissonance is real. BTW Destiny is a parent.
Word. Antinatalism and veganism are both obvious solution and choice in 2021. it was a good choice years before..
Prevention of pregnancy by all means possible is the best choice ,including abortion . I agree with your stance .Great drawing also .
Why not debate Avi on this topic? Should be easy if his position is contradictory. I'm sure he is perfectly willing to have a conversation or a debate.
He'll run away on the pretext that it's a waste of time, or trot out a similarly lame-brained excuse to avoid direct interaction. Cowards like to strike and move immediately out of reaching distance.
@@magnumopus3000 avi is not like that
@@magnumopus3000 Not Avi.
I really dislike that Nonis woman. She was an antinatalist but then became a natalist, probably for career reasons.
At about 58 minutes in, he total strawmans avis arguement. Hes not saying making someone dependent on you is wrong thus making childbirth wrong as said by life sucks. He says making someone dependent on you and then killing them for being dependent on you is wrong. Thus making the argument about childbirth a complete strawman
She says " progress has been made," while literally endorsing an archaic argument from the Inquisition 🤣🤣🤣 ...yeah I unsubbed from Avi a while back and was never subbed to the other two ...anyway beautiful drawing and great video as always 👍
She's a lawyer. She's morally perverted from the beginning.
Thanks for commenting on the drawing! No one else did.
Dr. Avi isn't really pro-life, he's in favour of abortion so long as the fetus hasn't gained sentience, that hardly covers the majority of abortions (which take place in the first trimester). It's a little strange to call yourself pro-life when the only abortions you're opposed to hardly ever take place, while the vast majority you have no problem with. He's even argued in favour of abortion in a recent debate on "Politically Provoked" so no, he's definitely not pro-life.
Well he's certainly not pro-choice either.
@@jbates725 What do you mean? Virtually everyone is against some forms of abortion, such as those done for frivolous reasons in the third trimester. In that sense no one is really pro-choice, because they wouldn't support those particular abortions, but of course that's not how we use these terms. Of course you can still call yourself pro-choice while being against abortions moments before birth for no good reason. Avi essentially holds this position.
He literally said at the beginning of his discussion with VG that he is not in favor of most abortions and does not think they should be legal. That's nearly word for word.
The end goal is “thriving”......... 😑
7.05 "..I dont understand the threshold idea" Prehaps having an understanding might be a priority? Im not a TD but I at least set out to understand it before feeling it didnt fit best with my moral intuitions.
What do you think of Farhan and Tanvir Towhid?
Thanks for the air-time :P I'm happy to discuss/debate any/all of these particulars with you, please contact me on insta or FB if interested. I will also do a response to you when I have some time over the break! I'm certainly not a conservative (note that I don't take any issue with conservativism per se) as many of the things I support cannot be said to be conservative values or philosophies (atheism, gay rights, and many more). Outside AN and abortion, I would also be interested in discussing classical liberalism, specifically why I am more accurately a classical liberal and not a conservative.
Don't you block people if they call you out?
only a couple of minutes in and this is so annoying how you assume your position as correct and assert your personal opinion as fact. IE you don't say "i believe" etc you say "X believes its ok to abuse women" etc... if you asked this person if they supported abusing women they would aay no. basically just slander. so far very poor quality video, unsurprising for a neg util guy.
Antinatalism is logically a fact. Your side has no objective argument as to why life and humans ought to exist. AND IF you think its neutral whether anyone should exist or not, then follow suit with that and be indifferent to both antinatalists and natalists arguments.
Right wing doesn’t = bigot. I watch Steven Crowder and other “right wing” voices because they’re the only ones talking any sense on the most pressing political issues, apart from abortion of course. Modern leftism is insane and has gone completely off the rails. As of now, Conservatives are living closer to reality than “progressives”. I fully admit I used to identify among them. Although I’ve been “red pilled” to an extent, it doesn’t contradict the ethical true north that is NU. I agree, this lady, like most humans, are walking contradictions. Thanks for sharing LS.
BS. The far-left AND far-right are insane. That's what 'far' is.
You make literally no attempt to understand the arguments that have been advanced. You can directly debate AY or Avi or if you're afraid of being stomped by them, you can still pop by the server and even a low tier debater there will be able to explain what a symmetry breaker is and how you grossly misunderstand threshold deontology.
@@justanotherutuber3 They've challenged him to a debate but this guy is a pussy. Not their fault
Ok, since you are here now could you explain to me what a symmetry breaker is?
@@ziharkeus7814 Sure. So when you have 2 situations that are similar, but your actions are different, you need to specify what is the factor that justifies doing x in one situation and y in another similar situation. That factor would be a symmetry breaker. It breaks the symmetry between two supposedly similar situations.
For example:
Vegans are faced with "plants feel pain tho" where they are accused of applying a double standard of killing plants but not killing animals. So in order to show that it's not a double standard, vegans provide "sentience" as the symmetry breaker. Plants aren't sentient, animals are. We shouldn't kill sentient beings. Therefore we shouldn't animals.
@@aravindvenkatasubramanian1501 I understand. So what is the symmetry situation when it comes to abortion? I assume it has to do with murder/killing? If that's the case I could for example provide a very similar argument to what you stated in regards to the ridiculous "plants feel pain" argument that we are faced with as vegans: Killing an organism is wrong given that the organism is sentient. Killing a (developing) organism that is not (yet) sentient is not wrong since there is no harm inflicted. So in this case the symmetry breaker in this killing situation would once again be sentience. But which symnetry breaker are you specifically talking about regarding abortion?
@@ziharkeus7814 So the symmetry breaking is being done between the Violinist Analogy and Abortion. There are 5 symmetry breakers from his latest view, and in conjunction they overdetermine the responsibility objection to Abortion.
1. There is some evidence for fetal sentience.
2. The dependence is already instantiated
3. The parents willingly partook in forcing the fetus into a state of dependence
4. The parents had the knowledge of the possibility of dependence happening
5. The disutility generated is approximate to the disutility generated by the average pregnancy.
When these are true, it calls for a precautionary principle against abortion i.e. Chopping up fetuses.
Is infanticide ok? Can't you argue that any murder is good because you're putting an end to someone's suffering?
You could argue that, yes, at least if death is almost instantaneous. If you shoot someone in the head with a rifle without the person knowing it, they will usually be dead within a second or at least unconscious and feeling no anxiety before. That's a much more lenient death than most people will experience. 65-70% of all people, even in Europe, North America and Japan, will feel a lot of pain before they die a "natural" death. But of course, it's against how most people think and feel intuitively. Even Schopenhauer saved a young boy from drowning himself, although he would have suffered less all in all if he had drowned.
@@francisdec1615 A bit ironic, since his father drowned himself.
just a whole lot of strawman