Destiny vs Vegan Gains + Unnatural Vegan

[NonZeroSum]

________________

Is Destiny a psychopath? Or just delusional? (thoughts on the Vegan Gains debate)
https://youtu.be/AR-63cAVCPM

Published on Jul 5, 2017
Destiny made a lot of Objectivist/Libertarian/Rawlsian claims in his talk with Vegan Gains on veganism and morality. Basically, he doesn't think animals deserve any moral consideration (you can even torture your own dog, if ya like!) because of some strange reverence for the "social contract". As a former Objectivist, I know all about this irrational belief system and just how unsavory it is if followed consistently.


________________

Hey guys, so obviously this is a response to the Destiny - Vegan Gains debate from like a week or two ago and I figured I would respond to this because I know a lot about this kind of stuff, so for those who didn't watch it, a lot of clips will be included in this, so you don't have to watch it before hand, but I would recommend that you do, just in case I'm you know misunderstanding something or misconstruing something.

But, Destiny makes a lot of Objectivist / Libertarian(?) claims and since I used to be one of those, I’m very familiar with these claims, with these arguments, so yeah, I think I'm kind of the perfect person I guess to talk about this debate and to show Destiny if he is watching, and just anyone else watching why he is very, very wrong. That's a great way to start a video right? I'm going to show you how you’re wrong, enjoy!

So, basically the way that I kind of set up my argument, is I guess, it's a little bit axiomatic in that I just define the fact that humans exist on a different level than animals and that gives us the right to do whatever to them, basically the way that I kind of draw this distinction is that animals aren't really capable of reciprocating social value the same way that people are. So for instance, we can have like a social standard of values amongst humans, I can say you know like, we shouldn't kill each other, we shouldn't steal from each other, etc. Etc. Other humans can respect that, if they're too young to, they can grow to respect that right, if they're capable of like intellectually recognizing that thing.

So Destiny claims that children have rights because they can or they will one day grow to respect the social contract, but can they all? This obviously depends on the environment that they grow up in and just what will happen to them, it requires knowledge of the future applied retroactively, which children will and which children won't grow to develop that respect.

If you kill the child before this happens, yes I know this is very dark (it gets worse), but if you kill the child before this happens then you can be 100% certain that the child cannot, will not, grow to respect the social contract, so does that mean that the child retroactively loses his rights when you kill it?

To be consistent, if you are talking about the rights being founded on future ability, you have to say yes. An Objectivist* like Destiny must agree that children only have rights so long as they are not killed or mutilated or abused to the point where they won't join the social contract, that's pretty terrible.

------
*Or whatever he identifies as.
------

If instead of actual future, you assume it's based on the potential*, the child's potential to grow to respect the social contract, even still you run into a few immediate issues.

------
*the “best case scenario (ignoring actual eventualities or probability)”
------

1. Abortion = Murder

First this requires you to be anti-abortion because of the fetus’s potential for the same, so basically abortion is equal to murder,

2. Make all the babies

Second it also requires you to demand the fertilization of every egg to the extent possible, since it has the potential to turn into a fetus, which has the potential to turn into a child, which has the potential to grow to respect social contract and third:

3. Rape all the women (told ya it was gonna get worse)

Erm No FAP for you, sorry, but likewise every sperm has that potential and now things get really pretty nasty because if women won't consent willingly you have a moral dilemma on your hands as a deontologist to rape her or to murder your sperm which has the potential to be a human respecting the social contract. Usually murder beats rape, so Destiny you are morally obligated to rape women, based on your beliefs, I don't think I need to explain how terrible that is.

Even if you try to draw the action/ inaction distinction, you still have to be against the action of masturbating, of using birth control, of saying ‘no,’ of fighting off a rapist, or even of punishing rapists, you have to be against any action that sabotages the potential for a new member to the social contract.

Although clearly Destiny does not make this distinction here, this action/ inaction distinction, in other cases [he does], as he demonstrates here:

I don't see there being a fundamental difference, let's say that I see a child fall in the pool okay? Or let's say that there's a guy walking and the child falls in and that guy could jump in to save that child and he doesn't right? I would think that that would be a morally reprehensible action, for him to not just, if it's very easy for him to hop in the pool and get the child out, now let's say that you're on a cruise ship and there's a massive storm that comes by and a child falls out of a boat, and there's another guy and he doesn't jump into the raging waters to save the child, like I'm not going to give him the same amount of shit, I'm not going to be like “well why didn't you risk your life to do it?” Right? I don't think that would be a very fair thing to do.

If you try to draw an arbitrary distinction somewhere between the independent egg and the sperm, the fetus, the child and the adult, you have to justify this. Clearly one becomes the other, that fetus becomes the child, becomes the adult. There are fundamental changes along the way that there is a continuity of genetics, of living material between them, there is clearly a biological purpose to their existence.

I would say the only real difference* between these states is sentience, but Destiny rejects this:

----
*the only important difference in terms of morality
---

In terms of the animals are sentient beings, so sentience is a trait that, in and of itself, I just don't see much value in, I mean, I don't know how you can necessarily quantify that or what it's relevance really is.

Okay? But then you're going to have a serious problem drawing any sort of rational lines that makes sense between an egg, a sperm, a fetus, a child, even human cancer cells.*

------
*if you try to make the argument about “unique complete human DNA,” and then what are twins?
-----

I talked about this briefly in my response to roaming millennial,[1] so hopefully I've made my point that this Randian or Raulsian idea of rights based on social contract that it just doesn't make sense, it doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny once you start asking questions about children and about where children's rights come from.

I'm very curious to know how Destiny would respond to this dilemma, if he even sees it as a dilemma, I mean he does say some things that suggest that he has no problem with grossly violating any sort of social convention, like this:

. . .I would rather be a sociopath than a hypocrite, I really would.

So maybe Destiny wouldn't have a problem with everything I've said thus far in this video? Maybe he would declare that children are property, that along with non-human animals and the severely intellectually disabled that children are just property. They have no rights and they should only have protection from their owners as an extension of property rights.

In other words maybe he would respond that it's perfectly acceptable for parents, owners really, to treat their children however they want, to sell them, to torture them, whatever, as long as they are not infringing on someone else's rights as a result.

-------
*if we find it useful to let them in at all
-------

And this property status would last, until and if* the child grows up to the point where he or she can respect the social contract, so by this view point it seems that the only wrong would be like manufacturing psychopaths and then releasing them into society and that's only because they would be negatively affecting others, who are members of the social contract, as long as you only produce well-adjusted adults and corpses then you're in the clear.

Or maybe that would cross his arbitrary line, maybe he would declare abortion, birth control and interference with rape tantamount to murder as I explained earlier because it interferes with potential, if that's true though, this wouldn't justify him eating most meat either, if you are going for the best case scenario future options, then you clearly have to give most animals rights too.

Intelligent animals are capable of learning social rules to varying degrees depending on their intelligence and of practicing them to the extent of their impulse control.[2] Social and domesticated animals like dogs, cows, pigs and even chickens are particularly capable of learning civil behavior given the right environment. Just as humans are incapable given the wrong environment because notions of non-violence, of property rights, of just basic civility are learned, these are not things that are innate to human beings.

But that's not to say it's rocket science, particularly just respecting the right to life, if well-trained domestic animals can respect Destiny’s right to life and avoid harming him and even property, why can't he do the same?

As unprepared as he was for Destiny’s interesting views on morality, Vegan Gains did bring up the perhaps simpler social contract between human and dogs, a point Destiny dismissed in a dazzling display of intellectual dishonesty, appealing to some sort of perfect all-consuming respect/ reverence for the social contract, that is stronger than survival?

Like the issue I have here, is it seems like you're sort of ignoring the fact that animals, like can to some extent have sort of a social contract with you, like even if you think, okay it's not real love, they're just like the only reason they like you is because you fed them and gave them a warm home and everything, don't you think just the fact that they'd sort of return the favor to you, like the affectionate towards you, not bite you, because you give affection to them, like you don't think that gives them any sort of right to any kind of respect?

Not particularly, no I don't think that, that the fact that something is grateful to you that you feed it, I don't think necessarily entitles you to the same rights that humans have or any level of rights that would be similar to a human.

Okay so like, even if, like so, you just think anyone should be able to like torture their dog to death.

Pretty much yeah, because it's a possession and you don't extend the same rights to the animal that you would to humans yeah.

To any sensible person that is obviously a social contract of trust, but Destiny does not want to recognize it because of some perceived imperfections. In reality though, we're really all fair-weather friends, a typical human will steal from you or even murder you for food (if starving), particularly if their children are starving.

You can easily say that everyone is only behaving nicely because of the rewards that behaving nicely brings.*

-------
*there’s a very strong case to be made for this in psychology, and how it affects human actions and trustworthiness.
-------

Or because they are grateful to society or to those they are bonded with. So I guess the only people who deserve rights are the people who would suffer and starve to death instead of steal to live? The people who would dogmatically follow the social contract for its own sake, instead of because it's useful?

So if someone would hold their own survival above your property rights that means that they don't deserve any rights at all ever? Even in fair weather? Just as Destiny would deny rights to a dog, based on the source of the behavior or the hypothetical breakdown of that behavior if the feeding ends?

This seems to be what he's saying, it's understandable that Destiny might defend himself or his property if attacked by a starving person, but by his reasoning, rights are all or nothing. If a person would resort to such behavior then they do not respect the social contract and so they do not deserve rights in any situation.

So it's fine to do whatever you want with that person, torture or murder that person because they're not a true Scots[man]… I mean social agent.

Your logical fallacy is: no true Scotsman; you made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

And just so we're clear here, not all dogs will do this, not all dogs will attack their owners when they're hungry, I mean there are dogs that will starve before biting their humans and some humans won't do this either*

-------
*usually based on quasi-religious devotion to authority.
-------

But it's the rare exception, as a rule the vast majority of humans have only limited respect for the social contract, so if you are keen to invalidate the rights of another based on a hypothetical situation in which that respect is overcome by survival instinct then your framework crumbles pretty fast.

There is probably not a libertarian on earth who would starve for their ideology rather than steal a loaf of bread, no matter what they say. This all-or-nothing mentality is really a serious problem, it is an inherent problem of deontology, which I talk about here. [3]

People trying to cling to a rule or dogma regardless of consequence or the reasoning that got them there, Destiny’s Dogma is no exception and with regard to consequences and consequentialism, Destiny makes it clear that he rejects that too.

I'm not very much an “ends justify the means” person, I think that morality should be considered through and through, so for instance, you get into weird territories when you're like, should you consider the outcome when you're talking about morality, things like the trolley problem, at that point right? If you could push somebody in front of a moving train to say four people, would you do it? Or would you kill one person to harvest organs to save ten people, like I feel like you get into weird areas there, I don't usually consider morality based on outcomes, but more based on the actions that you're committing.

He also discusses later how he thinks his dogmatic adherence to social contract is derived, spoiler, [from] self-interest.

So like my fundamental axioms would be that my life matters, I guess, which I think most people agree on that, I think therefore I am, right? I know I exist and I know that my life matters, right? And then from there I know that there are other humans that are similar to me and because I want to exist right, if that's like my fundamental axiom, is that I want to exist and I don't want other people to fuck with my existence, it's like my fundamental belief, right? Now from that point of view I want to maximize whatever I can, to maintain that belief, I want to exist and I don’t want other people to fuck with me.

And for me, I think that the most rational way of doing that, is to demand for others the same rights that you would demand for yourself, that's where the social contract comes from right? Now if I were faced with a bear or a deer or a or an well probably not a dear, but whatever I don't know, anything else, a lion, a tiger, that would want to eat me, right? It doesn't matter what part of the social contract or how I engage with him or whatever, that dude is gonna fuckin’ eat me if he's hungry. Or if I seem threatening or whatever, right? So I don't really give a fuck what he thinks, what an animal thinks about that, because they're not capable of engaging with me in a social contract in this way.

I'm not a tiger, I'm not concerned with the existence of tigers, I'm a human that's what I am, I'm concerned with the existence of other humans because I know they can be concerned with my existence, this is how my moral code kind of works.

So you're basically saying you don't give a shit about anyone else other than yourself and the only reason you create a moral, like a social contract with people is just to save your own ass?

Correct.

Okay.

But I think I can extend that to every other person too, so that they can all be self-interested in much the same way, yeah.

So Destiny makes it pretty clear here that he only values the social contract because of what it can do for him, so does that mean that he's one of those people who would violate the social contract in order to survive and if that's true well does that mean that he has no rights? That we can now torture him, murder him, just for fun because his adherence to the social contract is imperfect?

Given that he's unwilling to give the benefit of a doubt to non-humans and wait for actual violations to justify harming them then he'd have to say yes*, he'd have to say yes, that he doesn't really have rights because he doesn't truly subscribe to the social contract when it comes down to it.

--------
*if he were being consistent with his deontological beliefs.
---------

Well no, I don't have to respect that social contract, so I could just say it's fine to like kill humans.

So you don't respect my social contract then that means that I no longer respect you as a human.

So that's kind of creepy, he seriously sounds like some Fundamentalist right out of the Dark Ages, who regarded non-Christians as sub-human. Point is, if Destiny was really being consistent, really being consistent with his beliefs and with the reasoning he's employed to get to those beliefs, he would be nothing but a self-serving egoist, using arguments for the social contract when it suits him, when it benefits him and then going against it when it doesn't, so just always following his own whims.

And maybe that's the only thing he's really being consistent with, maybe he doesn't really value honesty at all, it might explain his interesting views on burden of proof, so about 1 hour and 47 minutes into the debate, he says this:

But why do you think you should have the liberty to torture and kill animals?

Well because the argument hasn't been made that animals are worthy of any kind of protection.

But then a minute later he says this:

Like you could do that exact same thing and justify the Holocaust really.

But you can't, right? We already went over this.

But you can.

Well what is your argument? Like for example if you’re a Nazi, what's your argument for treating Jews as less than human, like what is your rationalization there for that or your rationale for that sorry.

So in other words, if someone wants to torture animals the burden of proof is not on them, the burden is on the people against it, they have to prove why it's wrong but in the case of someone wanting to torture like a group of disenfranchised humans, then the burden is on the torturer. And their liberty to do so - you know torture those people is denied by default. How does that work?

So definitely thinks that this is the most rational, ethical system, the social contract:

So like using social contract, I think that you can generate a system of ethics and morals that works even on people with no empathy whatsoever, even if I don't give a fuck, I could maybe watch my neighbor die in his front yard of a fucking heart attack and walk away from it and not care, but I still wouldn't go over and kill him myself because I want that same respect for me.

But it's really interesting when you start questioning the basis for those contractual details he reverts into relativism.

Right, so there's no such, like you keep going back and forth, you said that it's wrong to break a social contract, well why is it wrong to break a social contract?

Well I, you're asking me from like a meta position, a person has morality A and there's morality B, could an outside hypothetical observer, would he say that it's wrong to move from morality A to B, no I mean if you want to, from an ultimate frame of reference, that guy could say that okay well he moved from A to B that's fine, but now a person who believes in morality A, like I do, if I see you move from my morality to something different, then I would say that's wrong, but it but it depends on like I guess the observer that you're talking about.

So what he's saying here, is that it's his personal morality, only his personal morality that tells him that the Holocaust was wrong, that there's nothing objectively wrong about the Holocaust and that other social contracts can be equally valid, including those exclusive to Nazi’s bent on eradicating Jews.

Vegan Gains called it earlier in the debate when he said that Destiny’s views on morality, it just sounds like might makes right, rights can only be negotiated with power and no system based purely in social contract, cares at all about the disenfranchised, you can really see the unsavouriness of his views, just by making slight adjustments to his earlier rationalization.

“I'm not a tiger, I'm not concerned with the existence of tigers, I'm a human, that's what I am, I'm concerned with the existence of other humans because I know they can be concerned with my existence, this is how my moral code kind of works.”

“I'm not a [Jew], I'm not concerned with the existence of [Jews], I'm a[n Aryan], that's what I am, I'm concerned with the existence of other [Aryans] because I know they can be concerned with my existence, this is how my moral code kind of works.”

That felt disgusting to say, I'm sorry.

It's just as valid to draw an arbitrary line at race, if one liberty, in inflicting harm against another group doesn't have to be justified, then the other doesn't either, both mentalities draw on the same fallacies and this mind-set very easily leads from speciesism to racism, when you don't care about the suffering of others.

These people are only out for themselves and for what they perceive to be their in-group because they believe that getting their kind ahead is the best way for them to prosper personally, Destiny's argument is not the most rational for eating meat, it's the least consistent and the easiest to debunk because it's filled with contradictions, while pretending to be logical.

It just may seem that way because most people, including most vegans are just so unfamiliar with it because it's so uncommon because as I've hopefully demonstrated it’s really revolting and goes against most people's just innate understanding of what morality is.

It's the golden rule basically, you know most people know that morality; it's not about what you can get, it's about what you can give, even when it's unearned.

Just to be clear, I do not believe that Destiny is a disgusting person, I don't think he really is okay with kids being treated as property, honestly I don't think he's thought that far into it. I think he's doing his best to avoid the notion that his eating habits are harming others and as a result he has aligned himself with a really, really, unsavory ethical system, which is to say no ethical system.

I know he did say ‘correct,’ in answer to Vegan Gains question about only being out for himself, but really I think that's just a defense mechanism, the number of Psychopaths and sociopaths in the world is incredibly small, so it's pretty unlikely that he's one of those, it's far more likely that he's lying to himself, he may really think that he's being honest, but the mind’s a funny thing and we can convince ourselves of a lot of wrong… stuff.

So I'm gonna end it there, thank you so much for watching. . .


_____________________

References:

1. Roaming Millennial needs a safe space from vegans - https://youtu.be/T2Hcd63TKdQ
2. Moral behavior in animals | Frans de Waal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk
3. Dogmatic Justice vs. Morality, Animal experimentation, etc. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUKFHMHhv5E

[NonZeroSum]

So this was super interesting, I already figured Destiny didn't know what they were talking about because they straight up admitted they didn't have a leg to stand on in the post debate: "I feel like I constructed the most like, I had this house of cards that I was sitting on the entire time, I was so worried." But UV totally blew objectivism out of the water in this video.

From 127:00
https://youtu.be/-Ssj0AYumQY?t=2h7m48s

Holy Shit! Oh my god! I don't know how!? I don't know how we navigated that conversation? Boy phew, but I think, I think we've, I think we got there, I think we got there in the end, somehow, I don't know how? But somehow I think we got there in the end.

[Destiny] I'd like to talk to you about your social contract [memes]

I’m not talking to anybody about this, I feel like I constructed the most like, I had this house of cards that I was sitting on the entire time, I was so worried.

Destiny totally won that debate? You’re all or nothing argument for a meteor totally confused him, however since meteor is just a space rock, it makes you sound like a sociopath, be yourself

I feel like this isn't the end of the vegan topic

Well we're not even done with the autism topic yet dude.

I think this discussion heard a lot because he kept talking about morality unethical assuming that there are moral facts that are inherently so like okay so hey let me finish you some of our moral facts that are here to in "I’m jaded," right or wrong in morality is some kind of ontological thing that we discover instead of creating. You clearly don't believe this, but he kept thinking that you do, he kept arguing from the sort of morality, well you argued purely out of self-interest, denying moral realism from the start would have made it clear?

Yeah because he kind of seemed like a moral realist, people seem to hate moral relativism, that Stephan Molineux guy, I don't know, I think I might be like really morally relativistic, I’m not sure if, but a lot of people seem to like really shit talk moral relativism, so I try to never use that word but um?

Do you actually believe everything you said or were you playing it up a little?

No I believe everything I said, I’m never gonna, I’m not going to go full JF and say some shit that I don't believe for the sake of a fucking debate, that's fucking retarded, I would never fucking do that, unless I’m telling you, unless I’m telling you like hey, like I’m you know just as a hypothetical but I’m not going to go and misrepresent my views to try to like troll somebody, win an argument, that’s a fucked thing to do like I dunno.

People should talk about moral relativism because you don’t understand it.

Yeah, maybe.

Destiny, you got destroyed in that debate, you could have played that so much better,

If I just kind of like think it out a little bit, like some of the problems is that um. Some of the problems that I have is that um. Well so let's say that you have another human that's not capable of recognizing the social contract. Why not just kill the human period, why not, just kill them outright and I would say something along the lines of like, well it's because they're human, why does being human matter, speciesism is kind of an axiom that I accept, that I don't think I ever really defined.

Like why do I care about humans more than like pigs, do I really have a reason for that or is that just like axiomatic? I don't like axioms, I’ve discovered that axioms are the things that I hate the most, of all the things that have ever existed its axioms, these unjustified assertions and you just have to make it, except it's true.

I don't I don't know but then I guess maybe, we go into social contract memes, what about dogs, you can train a dog to respect humans quite a bit, the dog won't hurt a human, the dog won't go into your yard, the dog will respect pretty much everything you can, what right would you have to kill a dog right? If I if a dog with a sufficient level of training is capable of respecting me as a human in every sense of the word, what right would I possibly have to kill a dog, I’m not sure you.

You can't not accept something as a presupposition?

You say that Cobain, but one day, when I die and I meet my creator god, I will discover the fundamental truths of the universe, okay?

Well I guess those are just be my new axioms, ok.

Please stop throwing around the term social contract

So how is this not like a social contract argument, am I doing this wrong?

That guy was a literal fucking retard.

I don't think he was a retard at all or no I think he was really really really reasonable. I think that we kind of got off on a couple points and I think he kind of he ran around a little bit but I probably did too, but I don't think he was retarded, I thought he was pretty intelligent.

You guys were all telling me that he was like really fucking crazy and shit and I thought he was perfectly reasonable during that conversation.

[NonZeroSum]

Man this guy is the champion of own goals, live responding playing a video game, coming across incredibly childish talking shit as he listens to himself get destroyed by a well articulated philosophy major.

___________________

The Social Contract - Responding to 'Unnatural Vegan'
https://youtu.be/vd8ARdQJUf4

Published on Jul 6, 2017
Responding to Unnatural Vegan's video.

Follow Destiny
►STREAM - http://www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - https://www.twitter.com/OmniDestiny
►DISCORD - https://discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/

___________________

Comment Pinned by Destiny:

You have a lot to learn Destiny, A LOT. You need to be more humble with your approach in certain topics that go beyond shallow topics of current events and politics (easy picks, unless you don't mind looking like a complete imbecile, which I know you care, given the recent ego-trip you have been in). Just a reminder that you have spent the good part of your life barely surviving, fighting not to be homeless and wiping floors in stadiums, while most of us have been intellectually curious and dedicating our time to learn, read and listen people that are smarter than us. So either you are completely oblivious of how much information/education you have missed in the past 2 decades (and how far behind you are vs other actual intelligent people), OR you think yourself smarter than the majority, in which case I have to remind you that smart people not necessarily start questioning the world at the age of 30, certainly don't spend their 20s doing manual work and living with their parents. Forming rational thoughts is not an acomplishment, I get it you are excited because this is new to you, but most people were doing that in high school, (while passing the classes you are still completely oblivious about, like Calculus? do you even know what that is?). Be humble, you will learn more that way.

_______________

Full Transcript:

I can't get sidetracked, who is this person? The 'Unnatural Vegan.' Oh no!

Hey guys, so obviously this is a response to the Destiny - Vegan Gains debate from like a week or two ago and I figured I would respond to this because I know a lot about this kind of stuff, so for those who didn't watch it, a lot of clips will be included in this, so you don't have to watch it before hand, but I would recommend that you do, just in case I'm you know misunderstanding something or misconstruing something.

But, Destiny makes a lot of Objectivist / Libertarian(?). . .

Yeah Objectivist, oh god, "how does she know dude? At night, every night before I go to sleep, I actually have this fucking shrine built to Ayn Rand, and I read anthem every night before going to sleep and then I have monthly readings of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, oh how did she know? How did she die sect my personal philosophy so well?"

. . .claims and since I used to be one of those, I’m very familiar with these claims, with these arguments, so yeah, I think I'm kind of the perfect person I guess to talk about this debate and to show Destiny if he is watching, and just anyone else watching why he is very, very wrong. That's a great way to start a video right? I'm going to show you how you’re wrong, enjoy!

So, basically the way that I kind of set up my argument, is I guess, it's a little bit axiomatic in that I just define the fact that humans exist on a different level than animals and that gives us the right to do whatever to them, basically the way that I kind of draw this distinction is that animals aren't really capable of reciprocating social value the same way that people are. So for instance, we can have like a social standard of values amongst humans, I can say you know like, we shouldn't kill each other, we shouldn't steal from each other, etc. Etc. Other humans can respect that, if they're too young to, they can grow to respect that right, if they're capable of like intellectually recognizing that thing.

So Destiny claims that children have rights because they can or they will one day grow to respect the social contract, but can they all? This obviously depends on the environment that they grow up in and just what will happen to them, it requires knowledge of the future applied retroactively, which children will and which children won't grow to develop that respect.

If you kill the child before this happens, yes I know this is very dark (it gets worse), but if you kill the child before this happens then you can be 100% certain that the child cannot, will not, grow to respect the social contract, so does that mean that the child retroactively loses his rights when you kill it? To be consistent

Wait! What!? No What!? So her principle challenge is; "you don't know whether or not, a child say, whether or not somebody who grows up to respect the social contract or not, which is a valid, okay, so sure, that's a valid argument against me. So my retort is, you wouldn't expect a child to, so like if a child steals a piece of gum, or wonders onto your property right? You wouldn't shoot them, you wouldn't lock them up in jail, 5 year olds don't go to juvi because they stole gum from a store, right?

But if somebody grows up grows up and doesn't respect the social contract and starts murdering people or whatever, then yeah we absolutely do revoke their rights, of course.

. . .if you are talking about the rights being founded on future ability, you have to say yes. An Objectivist like Destiny you must agree that children. . .

Why does she keep calling me an Objectivist! Oh No what did I do to deserve this? Well boo hoo, am I? am I? an Objectivist? Do I really fit? Have I come full circle back to my high school self? Why am I an Objectivist?

. . .only have rights so long as they are not killed or mutilated or abused to the point where they won't join the social contract, that's pretty terrible.

Wait let me listen to this one more time...

If you kill the child before this happens, yes I know this is very dark (it gets worse), but if you kill the child before this happens then you can be 100% certain that the child cannot, will not, grow to respect the social contract. . .

Yeah but they've got the potential to grow and respect the social contract right? Which is something that I think I take into account, right? As part of my moral view, right? That if at one point in life I was a child who could not respect social contract, but I would grow up and be expected to respect it at one point in time, right? So as a child, I wouldn't want to be murdered because I'm still a kid, right? Murdering isn't permissible because they're not currently developed to the point to where, oh she probably doesn't know I'm pro-life huh hahaha!

so does that mean that the child retroactively loses his rights when you kill it?

To be consistent, if you are talking about the rights being founded on future ability, you have to say yes. An Objectivist like Destiny must agree that children only have rights so long as they are not killed or mutilated or abused to the point where they won't join the social contract, that's pretty terrible.

If instead of actual future, you assume it's based on the potential*, the child's potential to grow to respect the social contract, even still you run into a few immediate issues.

------
*the “best case scenario (ignoring actual eventualities or probability)”
------

1. Abortion = Murder

First this requires you to be anti-abortion because of the fetus’s potential for the same,

Yep!

so basically abortion is equal to murder,

2. Make all the babies

Second it also requires you to demand the fertilization of every egg to the extent possible, since it has the potential to turn into a fetus

Noooo I don't agree with that, so I've seen people bring that up, just because you value life or you protect life, or the potential for life, doesn't mean you have a, that you have a necessity to propagate life as much as possible, life as much as possible. I don't think that that's a legitimate...

which has the potential to grow to respect social contract and third:

3. Rape all the women (told ya it was gonna get worse)

Erm No FAP for you, sorry, but likewise every sperm has that potential and now things get really pretty nasty because

I think you need, I think you have to bridge that, I think she needs to bridge that more, I don't agree, I don't agree with that. So she's saying that because I think that the potential for life is important, every single sperm and every single ovum or whatever, have to become one and become a zygote and then grow up into a person, I don't, I don't think that's a, I don't think that's legitimate. I don't think that's a legitimate challenge of my platform, I don't think, I've drawn the distinction pretty clearly at human life, right? Or human life that has the potential to to grow up and partake in the social contract, right? I don't say that anything that can ever become a human, right? I don't think that's a fair distinction to make.

if women won't consent willingly you have a moral dilemma on your hands as a deontologist to rape her or to murder your sperm which has the potential to be a human respecting the social contract. Usually murder beats rape, so Destiny you are morally obligated to rape women, based on your beliefs, I don't think I need to explain how terrible that is.

Even if you try to draw the action/ inaction distinction, you still have to be against the action of masturbating, of using birth control, of saying ‘no,’ of fighting off a rapist, or even of punishing rapists, you have to be against any action that sabotages the potential for a new member to the social contract.

Although clearly Destiny does not make this distinction here, this action/ inaction distinction, in other cases [he does], as he demonstrates here:

I don't see there being a fundamental difference, let's say that I see a child fall in the pool okay? Or let's say that there's a guy walking and the child falls in and that guy could jump in to save that child and he doesn't right? I would think that that would be a morally reprehensible action, for him to not just, if it's very easy for him to hop in the pool and get the child out, now let's say that you're on a cruise ship and there's a massive storm that comes by and a child falls out of a boat, and there's another guy and he doesn't jump into the raging waters to save the child, like I'm not going to give him the same amount of shit, I'm not going to be like “well why didn't you risk your life to do it?” Right? I don't think that would be a very fair thing to do.

If you try to draw an arbitrary distinction somewhere between the independent egg and the sperm, the fetus, the child and the adult, you have to justify this. Clearly one becomes the other, that fetus becomes the child, becomes the adult. There are fundamental changes along the way that there is a continuity of genetics, of living material

So, so to rephrase her argument, a little more generously towards me, Jesus fuck, what she could have said was, I'm very interested at what Destiny defines or what Steven defines as human life, because if he doesn't define it at some point, then it is incredibly arbitrary and you can you can use it to draw a lot of conclusions that he probably doesn't agree with that would challenge his platform. That would have been, that would have been like the the kind way aha, the kind way to challenge my platform, instead of assigning me some definition and then using that to say that under my system that she is now created I am encouraging everybody to rape all women. Jesus fuck!

between them, there is clearly a biological purpose to their existence.

I would say the only real difference* between these states is sentience, but Destiny rejects this:

----
*the only important difference in terms of morality
---

In terms of the animals are sentient beings, so sentience is a trait that, in and of itself, I just don't see much value in, I mean, I don't know how you can necessarily quantify that or what it's relevance really is.

Okay? But then you're going to have a serious problem drawing any sort of rational lines that makes sense between an egg, a sperm, a fetus, a child, even human cancer cells.*

------
*if you try to make the argument about “unique complete human DNA,” and then what are twins?
-----

I talked about this briefly in my response to roaming millennial,[1] so hopefully I've made my point that this Randian or Raulsian idea of rights based on social contract that it just doesn't make sense, it doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny once you start asking questions about children and about where children's rights come from.

I'm very curious to know how Destiny would respond to this dilemma. . .

Maybe that would have been aha, now that I've assigned destiny as a rapist-murderer, masturbation shunner, I'm actually curious what he actually thinks, I mean whatever I guess...

if he even sees it as a dilemma, I mean he does say some things that suggest that he has no problem with grossly violating any sort of social convention, like this:

. . .I would rather be a sociopath than a hypocrite, I really would.

I mean who wouldn't!? Why are people so okay with being hypocritical? What the fuck problem with, can I, are we done with this video?

So maybe Destiny wouldn't have a problem with everything I've said thus far in this video? Maybe he would declare that children are property, that along with non-human animals and the severely intellectually disabled that children are just property. They have no rights and they should only have protection from their owners as an extension of property rights.

In other words maybe he would respond that it's perfectly acceptable for parents, owners really, to treat their children however they want, to sell them, to torture them, whatever, as long as they are not infringing on someone else's rights as a result.

-------
*if we find it useful to let them in at all
-------

And this property status would last, until and if* the child grows up to the point where he or she can respect the social contract, so by this view point it seems that the only wrong would be like manufacturing psychopaths and then releasing them into society and that's only because they would be negatively affecting others, who are members of the social contract, as long as you only produce well-adjusted adults and corpses then you're in the clear.

Or maybe that would cross his arbitrary line, maybe he would declare abortion, birth control and interference with rape tantamount to murder as I explained earlier because it interferes with potential, if that's true though, this wouldn't justify him eating most meat either, if you are going for the best case scenario future options, then you clearly have to give most animals rights too.

Intelligent animals are capable of learning social rules to varying degrees depending on their intelligence and of practicing them to the extent of their impulse control.[2] Social and domesticated animals like dogs, cows, pigs and even chickens are particularly capable of learning civil behavior given the right environment. Just as humans are incapable given the wrong environment because notions of non-violence, of property rights, of just basic civility are learned, these are not things that are innate to human beings.

But that's not to say it's rocket science, particularly just respecting the right to life, if well-trained domestic animals can respect Destiny’s right to life and avoid harming him and even property, why can't he do the same?

As unprepared as he was for Destiny’s interesting views on morality, Vegan Gains did bring up the perhaps simpler social contract between human and dogs, a point Destiny dismissed in a dazzling display of intellectual dishonesty, appealing to some sort of perfect all-consuming respect/ reverence for the social contract, that is stronger than survival?

Like the issue I have here, is it seems like you're sort of ignoring the fact that animals, like can to some extent have sort of a social contract with you, like even if you think, okay it's not real love, they're just like the only reason they like you is because you fed them and gave them a warm home and everything, don't you think just the fact that they'd sort of return the favor to you, like the affectionate towards you, not bite you, because you give affection to them, like you don't think that gives them any sort of right to any kind of respect?

Not particularly, no I don't think that, that the fact that something is grateful to you that you feed it, I don't think necessarily entitles you to the same rights that humans have or any level of rights that would be similar to a human.

Okay so like, even if, like so,

What? If you want to go down this road, then how do you draw the distinction between a plant and an animal, right? If this is, now I'm not dismissing his entire argument, but this point is a bad point I think because let's say that I have something that I feed and it gives me flowers or it gives me potatoes or something right, what right do you have then to destroy that thing because if you feed it and then it gives you some shit that nourishes you because you nourish it, right? What is your differentiator here between the plant and the animal at this point? I feel like you have to go down a different line of thinking than this...

. . .you just think anyone should be able to like torture their dog to death.

Pretty much yeah because it's a possession and you know

I mean like, the loaded fucking, I should just not answer any of these loaded questions, I should just say that like, we're talking about whether the animals should be treated as an object or not, like if you want to say like torture the dog and skin it to death like I mean like, would any normal well-adjusted person do this, probably not, but like if anybody would asked me this question about any possession, I would say no that's probably a dumb idea, like would you, "what if I wanted to go outside and I wanted to strip from my car, piece from piece, every piece of metal and I wanted to dissolve it in a bath of acid and destroy every..." well I'd be like well no, that's, that sounds pretty fucked up dawg, I'm like why would you do that,

Like I can say that without respecting the car as like as a as an object that has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I'm sure, like I don't have to respect it as a sentient creature to say well like it's kind of fucked up that you would go out and do that, right? Like that's a little bit fucked up, I guess like, so I should be more careful on like these insane hypotheticals that are loaded with like emotional language, I guess?

extend the same rights to the animal that you would to humans yeah.

To any sensible person that is obviously a social contract of trust, but Destiny does not want to recognize it because of some perceived imperfections. In reality though, we're really all fair-weather friends, a typical human will steal from you or even murder you for food (if starving), particularly if their children are starving.

You can easily say that everyone is only behaving. . .

But if they do then, you'd then, you revoke your fucking shit then, you know, you don't respect the rights of that person, I already addressed this during the conversation.

nicely because of the rewards that behaving nicely brings.*

-------
*there’s a very strong case to be made for this in psychology, and how it affects human actions and trustworthiness.
-------

Or because they are grateful to society or to those they are bonded with. So I guess the only people who deserve rights are the people who would suffer and starve to death instead of steal to live?

Oh my god! These conclusions hahaha!

The people who would dogmatically follow the social contract for its own sake, instead of because it's useful?

So if someone would hold their own survival above your property rights that means that they don't deserve any rights at all ever? Even in fair weather? Just as Destiny would deny rights to a dog, based on the source of the behavior or the hypothetical breakdown of that behavior if the feeding ends?

This seems to be what he's saying, it's understandable that Destiny might defend himself or his property if attacked by a starving person, but by his reasoning, rights are all or nothing. If a person would resort to such behavior then they do not respect the social contract and so they do not deserve rights in any situation.

So it's fine to do whatever you want with that person, torture or murder that person because they're not a true Scots[man]… I mean social agent.

Your logical fallacy is: no true Scotsman; you made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

And just so we're clear here, not all dogs will do this, not all dogs will attack their owners when they're hungry, I mean there are dogs that will starve before biting their humans and some humans won't do this either*

-------
*usually based on quasi-religious devotion to authority.
-------

But it's the rare exception, as a rule the vast majority of humans have only limited respect for the social contract, so if you are keen to invalidate the rights of another based on a hypothetical situation in which that respect is overcome by survival instinct then your framework crumbles pretty fast.

There is probably not a libertarian on earth who would starve for their ideology rather than steal a loaf of bread, no matter what they say. This all-or-nothing mentality is really a serious problem, it is an inherent problem of deontology, which I talk about here. [3]

People trying to cling to a rule or dogma regardless of consequence or the reasoning that got them there, Destiny’s Dogma is no exception and with regard to consequences and consequentialism, Destiny makes it clear that he rejects that too.

I'm not very much an “ends justify the means” person, I think that morality should be considered through and through, so for instance, you get into weird territories when you're like, should you consider the outcome when you're talking about morality, things like the trolley problem, at that point right? If you could push somebody in front of a moving train to say four people, would you do it? Or would you kill one person to harvest organs to save ten people, like I feel like you get into weird areas there, I don't usually consider morality based on outcomes, but more based on the actions that you're committing.

He also discusses later how he thinks his dogmatic adherence to social contract is derived, spoiler, [from] self-interest.

So like my fundamental axioms would be that my life matters, I guess, which I think most people agree on that, I think therefore I am, right? I know I exist and I know that my life matters, right? And then from there I know that there are other humans that are similar to me and because I want to exist right, if that's like my fundamental axiom, is that I want to exist and I don't want other people to fuck with my existence, it's like my fundamental belief, right? Now from that point of view I want to maximize whatever I can, to maintain that belief, I want to exist and I don’t want other people to fuck with me.

And for me, I think that the most rational way of doing that, is to demand for others the same rights that you would demand for yourself, that's where the social contract comes from right? Now if I were faced with a bear or a deer or a or an well probably not a dear, but whatever I don't know, anything else, a lion, a tiger, that would want to eat me, right? It doesn't matter what part of the social contract or how I engage with him or whatever, that dude is gonna fuckin’ eat me if he's hungry. Or if I seem threatening or whatever, right? So I don't really give a fuck what he thinks, what an animal thinks about that, because they're not capable of engaging with me in a social contract in this way.

I'm not a tiger, I'm not concerned with the existence of tigers, I'm a human that's what I am, I'm concerned with the existence of other humans because I know they can be concerned with my existence, this is how my moral code kind of works.

So you're basically saying you don't give a shit about anyone else other than yourself and the only reason you create a moral, like a social contract with people is just to save your own ass?

Correct.

Okay.

But I think I can extend that to every other person too, so that they can all be self-interested in much the same way, yeah.

So Destiny makes it pretty clear here that he only values the social contract because of what it can do for him, so does that mean that he's one of those people who would violate the social contract in order to survive and if that's true well does that mean that he has no rights? That we can now torture him, murder him, just. . .

Wait don't I literally address this multiple times in conversation? Where I would say that you would try not to violate this as much as possible because you always want people acting in an optimal way for your survival and the only way to do that is to act in optimal ways for the survival of other people.

Don't I say this like a million times, in this conversation? I'm pretty, I feel like I addressed it so many times, I feel like there's like 10 different times where I address this exact question.

for fun because his adherence to the social contract is imperfect?

Given that he's unwilling to give the benefit of a doubt to non-humans and wait for actual violations to justify harming them then he'd have to say yes*, he'd have to say yes, that he doesn't really have rights because he doesn't truly subscribe to the social contract when it comes down to it.

--------
*if he were being consistent with his deontological beliefs.
---------

Well no, I don't have to respect that social contract, so I could just say it's fine to like kill humans.

So you don't respect my social contract then that means that I no longer respect you as a human.

So that's kind of creepy,

It's not creepy at all, I love the loaded emotional language because people are like so fucking uncomfortable with like using their brain for like two fucking seconds, the guy walks into your house with a gun, he says he's gonna rape and murder you, do you respect that person as a person, of course not! Well why is she acting like it's such a, it's such a creepy, "so wait, so you're saying that if some guy came in and he had a giant fucking spiked bat and he said he was gonna shove it up your asshole until you fucking bled out and the stomach acid ate through your body and you died, you're saying that you wouldn't respect his right as a person?

Like I can load my statements with emotional language as well, if that's like, if that's how you have to play the game in order to win it, in order to make it sound good?

Like why can't you just use the examples or why can't you just like if you want to make an analogy that's fine, but stick to words that actually mean something, stop trying to emotionally load all of your examples because it makes it feel like you don't have a point.

And I think she's relatively intelligent, I mean I don't like the way she's attacking my points, but she's not an idiot, you don't have to do this, why do you have to dig so far into your into your emotional fucking vocabulary to make your points not any better.

. . .he seriously sounds like some Fundamentalist right out of the Dark Ages, who regarded non-Christians as sub-human. Point is, if Destiny was really being consistent, really being consistent with his beliefs and with the reasoning he's employed to get to those beliefs, he would be nothing but a self-serving egoist, using arguments for the social contract when it suits him, when it benefits him and then going against it when it doesn't, so just always following his own whims.

And maybe that's the only thing he's really being consistent with, maybe he doesn't really value honesty at all, it might explain his interesting views on burden of proof, so about 1 hour and 47 minutes into the debate, he says this:

But why do you think you should have the liberty to torture and kill animals?

Well because the argument hasn't been made that animals are worthy of any kind of protection.

But then a minute later he says this:

Like you could do that exact same thing and justify the Holocaust really.

But you can't, right? We already went over this.

But you can.

Well what is your argument? Like for example if you’re a Nazi, what's your argument for treating Jews as less than human, like what is your rationalization there for that or your rationale for that sorry.

So in other words, if someone wants to torture animals the burden of proof is not on them, the burden is on the people against it, they have to prove why it's wrong but in the case of someone wanting to torture like a group of disenfranchised humans. . .

Because we're already all starting from the assumption that humans are worthy of protection we already agree on that, that's not what's up for debate. We're not debating on whether or not humans should be protected, we're debating on whether or not animals should be protected.

Of course the humans being protected is already an assumption that we already agree.

The burden is on the torturer and their liberty to do so, to you know torture those people is denied by default.

Yeah of course it is because that's that's my whole fundamental fucking axiom that I built my argument around is that people shouldn't be allowed to fuck with other people, you've even said in this very video, that that is my fundamental basis for belief, is that humans shouldn't be able to fuck with the rights of other humans, didn't she say that? Didn't she simply talk about that earlier in this video?

How does that work?

So definitely thinks that this is the most rational, ethical system, the social contract:

So like using social contract, I think that you can generate a system of ethics and morals that works even on people with no empathy whatsoever, even if I don't give a fuck, I could maybe watch my neighbor die in his front yard of a fucking heart attack and walk away from it and not care. . .

Destiny that's false, everyone doesn't agree that humans should be protected, the example he made was if Nazis didn't agree.

But okay, but then you would ask the Nazis for their rationale, right? What are the Nazis rationalizations for treating Jews as less than human and if they can't provide any then they're breaching the social contract by killing them, without providing good reason for doing so, right? This is all accounted for and everything I've said.

. . .but I still wouldn't go over and kill him myself because I want that same respect for me.

But it's really interesting when you start questioning the basis for those contractual details he reverts into relativism.

Right, so there's no such, like you keep going back and forth, you said that it's wrong to break a social contract, well why is it wrong to break a social contract?

Well I, you're asking me from like a meta position, a person has morality A and there's morality B, could an outside hypothetical observer, would he say that it's wrong to move from morality A to B, no I mean if you want to, from an ultimate frame of reference, . . .

Oh that's because Vegan Gains kept saying well what if somebody wants to leave the social contract or something and then he's asking me would it be wrong for them to do so, well I mean of course I would view that as wrong but maybe they wouldn't view it if they're leaving it? Or if someone else wouldn't?

But that's like a very weird question to ask, like outside of my morality, if somebody leaves my morality is that wrong? I mean are you asking me, are you asking a third party, are you asking them?

. . .that guy could say that okay well he moved from A to B that's fine, but now a person who believes in morality A, like I do, if I see you move from my morality to something different, then I would say that's wrong, but it but it depends on like I guess the observer that you're talking about.

I don't think that this is moral relativism, I don't think that this is what moral relativism means, but I could be wrong, but okay.

So what he's saying here is that it's his personal morality only his personal morality that tells him that the Holocaust was wrong that there's nothing objectively wrong about the Holocaust and that other social code. . .

Woh wait, does she have the objectively wrong answer for why you shouldn't kill another human, I'm sorry is this, am I talking to fucking god? I'm literally arguing moral axioms with another person, of course I'm not going to say that my system is objectively correct, what an absurd thing to do in a discussion.

Does she claim to have the answers, is she sway? Does she have the answers, what do you?

. . .contracts can be equally valid including those exclusive to Nazi and bent on eradicating Jews.

I didn't say their contract would be good though, I didn't say theirs will be valid, I would view them as being incredibly invalid.

. . .objectively wrong about the Holocaust and that other social contracts can be equally valid. . .

nooooooo

. . .exclusive to Nazis no eradicating Jews. . .

nooooooo

Vegan Gains called it earlier in the debate when he said that Destiny's Muse on morality it just sounds like might makes right rights can only be negotiated with power and no system based purely in social contract cares at all about the disenfranchised you can really see the unsavoryness. . .

Except my entire morality cares about the disenfranchised because my entire morality is built around the fact that I could be a disenfranchised person, it's literally the quantity of time, it's like one of the central points of my, that's why I'm an SJW Lib cuck now, right? Who said um what was the example brought up up over the curtain, that you are going to be placed into society, but you don't know who you're going to be and there is a curtain in front of you that you can't see beyond and your goal is to maximize society, so that if you were placed into any world in society you would be doing optimally well, you optimized society for as many people as possible because you could be any individual in that society, that's like the entire point of my of my of my train of thought.

The veil of ignorance, how could you say that, I that I would justify...

of his views, just by making slight adjustments to his earlier rationalization.

“I'm not a tiger, I'm not concerned with the existence of tigers, I'm a human, that's what I am, I'm concerned with

Oh and now she's gonna say I'm not a poor person, I'm not a black person, I'm not concerned with the existence of black people, so I shouldn't care about black people, here it comes, that's where she's going with this, sure go ahead, go ahead, hit me up, go ahead, hit me with it...

. . .the existence of [Jews], I'm a[n Aryan], that's what I am, I'm concerned with the existence of other [Aryans] because I know they can be concerned with my existence, this is how my moral code kind of works."

oh God wins on me, thank you, I know, you got me dude, you got me so well, good job dude,

That felt disgusting to say, I'm sorry.

It's just as valid to draw an arbitrary line at race, if one liberty, in inflicting harm against another group doesn't have to be justified, then the other doesn't either, both mentalities draw on the same fallacies and this mind-set very easily leads from speciesism to racism, when you don't care about the suffering of others.

These people are only out for themselves and for what they perceive to be their in-group because they believe that getting their kind ahead is the best way for them to prosper personally, Destiny's argument is not the most rational for eating meat, it's the least consistent and the easiest to debunk because it's filled with contradictions, while pretending to be logical.

It just may seem that way because most people, including most vegans are just so unfamiliar with it because it's so uncommon because as I've hopefully demonstrated it’s really revolting and goes against most people's just innate understanding of what morality is.

It's the golden rule basically, you know most people know that morality; it's not about what you can get, it's about what you can give, even when it's unearned.

Just to be clear,

Just for a funny meme the golden rule is literally do unto others what you would have them do unto you just as a little meme

I do not believe that Destiny is a disgusting person, I don't think he really is okay with kids being treated as property, honestly I don't think he's thought that far into it. I think he's doing his best to avoid the notion that his eating habits are harming others and as a result he has aligned himself with a really, really, unsavory ethical system, which is to say no ethical system.

I know he did say ‘correct,’ in answer to Vegan Gains question about only being out for himself, but really I think that's just a defense mechanism, the number of Psychopaths and sociopaths in the world is incredibly small, so it's pretty unlikely that he's one of those, it's far more likely that he's. . .

Just stupid?

. . .he's lying to himself. . .

Oh why not.

he may really think that he's being honest, but the mind’s a funny thing and we can convince ourselves of a lot of wrong… stuff.

So I'm gonna end it there, thank you so much for watching. . .

Oh god alright, where are we at now, so now I'm also an Objectivist, libertarian, Nazi, that hates, that's pro-life, but also anti child, and I hate poor people, do we have that, are we there now

I need to go put Nathan to bed that's what I need to do right now or maybe I know maybe I because maybe I don't care about Nathan's I don't even know any like I'll also, oh yeah a rapist and an anti-masturbator, don't masturbate and rape all the women, A moral relativist,

don't forget about the subhuman non-christians you Dark Age funda

Aha and a fundamentalist, and a fundamentalist, that too, okay.

[NonZeroSum]

Unnatural Vegan commented:

Watching while streaming might not have been the best idea, as you missed or misunderstood the majority of my argument. You seem to think I was out to paint you as a rape apologist, but at the end of my video I say I don't think you advocate that. My point was that you're logically inconsistent, and that your views result in such conclusions if you don't draw any arbitrary lines.

You seem to think drawing arbitrary lines is fine, that it's fine for your conclusion to be your premise. But that's not how a rational argument works; that's how religion works. If you're coming at this from a faith-based perspective, that's your prerogative, but you should be honest about this.

You also completely missed my point about the burden of proof. You claim vegans need to prove why animals deserve moral consideration. A Nazi can claim YOU need to prove why Jews deserve moral consideration. You cannot merely state that it's the assumption or premise of your moral belief and think that's somehow a compelling argument.

If Nazis have to prove why Jews don't deserve consideration, you have to prove why non-humans don't. Arbitrary lines are just arbitrary lines until they're backed up by reasoned arguments and evidence.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you can't be intellectually lazy. I look forward to you watching the video again, taking some time to think about it, and making a more thoughtful reply that is not just you being triggered while streaming some game. 

[NonZeroSum]

Any thoughts anyone?

It really seems to me one step away from the 'I don't care' amoral nihilism of trusting in your fellow human to have an irrational sympathy towards their own species tribe, and when they don't, lock them in prison. If they didn't try to package it in axioms and reverence/productivity, and just admit veganism is more moral they wouldn't have a problem.

What do you think of them bringing up Rawls veil of ignorance, I probably never read much on it, sticking to my Locke because I just discounted it off the bat as totalitarian fawning, but the way he dresses it up almost like Plato's republic, makes me think he's edging towards virtue ethics, but still in the wrong dimension of deontology.

Also they admit to being an objectivist in school, and they bring up Stephen Molyneux saying they think they are really morally relativistic one moment, so I really think they haven't thought this through and are just being triggered as UV said.

[brimstoneSalad]

Maybe you can try to start a conversation with him?

[NonZeroSum]

Maybe you can try to start a conversation with him?

Planted some seeds around the comment section, and his discussion page on their profile.

+Destiny

Respectfully Destiny, you missed so much by not watching UV's video, I transcribed it for you so it should only take you 3 mins to read and digest the arguments properly this time, you can even come onto the forum to discuss it with us where you don't understand - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&p=32233#p32233

+Mohammed Rashid +ThFewThProudThLEGIT +Literally Hoi +abc 123

UV is arguing against the coherency of all axioms, as she said in her video if you watched it, she has many videos debunking deontology. Moral relativism and Rawlsian veil of ignorance that was supposed to be used in a very limited political extent, not philosophy, is just one of the easiest to debunk. Other nations in WW2 might have been able to argue that their contractarian model was more productive than fascism, but contractarianism in and of itself is inconsistent, so might makes right is the only way to enforce it.

I'm an existentialist, but I accept that consequentialist philosophy and resource mobilization theory is air tight, it just doesn't have everything I desire so I look for softer virtue ethics, but still within the sphere of consequentialism. You and your fans are lost in a post-divine command deontological framework which is just not consistent, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Respectfully to Destiny and all his fans; you missed so much by not watching UV's video, I transcribed it for you so it should only take you 3 mins to read and digest the arguments properly this time, you can even come onto the forum to discuss it with us where you don't understand - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&p=32233#p32233

---

Listening to this now to familiarize myself to their worldview and argumentation:

Discussing ContraPoint's 'Debating the Alt-Right' Video with ContraPoints - Destiny Debates
- https://youtu.be/pjRWujUXKL8