I completely understand why Destiny uses rape analogies, it must be tiring talking to people who 99% of the time makes intuitive arguments up on the spot they don't actually agree with
@@modernmagicow9770 You are significantly more likely to be speaking to a rape survivor or person with close connections to rape survivors than murder survivors. It is a highly traumatic, literally triggering subject for many. If the murder rate matched rates of sexual assault then a lot more folks would get upset talking about it.
@@modernmagicow9770 its almost like we have had decades of desensitzing and normalising violence, murder and killing ect through all forms of media and culture but not so much for rape, strange that.
I had a lot of focus on her chat and when we'd lose them, since he kept his cool throughout and they stayed on topic. Apologies for the misses! Hope these are helpful nonetheless, talking with Steven is fun.
Hey, if you happen to talk to him again could you bring up the fact that almost every analogy he uses hinges on the notion of Kyle dying rather than Kyle killing? The rape analogy mentioned in this conversation, for example, is to demonstrate that a girl should not be raped if she goes into a dangerous area. The parallel would be that Kyle should not die from open carrying. But this was never in question. Nobody is arguing that he should die. They're arguing that he shouldn't kill. Lots of other analogies I've heard in the past few conversations follow this logic. I feel like this point does pertain to rhetorical effectiveness, and I'd try to bring it up myself but I don't have a Twitter/Twitch account and I probably wouldn't be noticed.
@@longlivenc7235 The issue is Kyle defending himself, thus it has to hinge on the notion of Kyle dying (or at least being drastically injured - which I guess we would consider rape to be). People are arguing that he wasn't in the right to defend himself while being attacked, if you argue in favor of that, the rape analogy attempts to highlight your inconsistency as you likely wouldn't say that the woman, who is being attacked and has good reason to believe that she is about to be raped, isn't allowed to use her gun to defend herself risking to kill the rapist.
Harsh analogies are fine, but good debaters should learn to both avoid AND deal with them. That being said, it's up to Steven to create tools ("in a clever way") for when his opponents can't deal (emotionally, cognitively, etc) with his examples. He just needs to slow down and notice when he's lost someone. He must use very specific tools to win them back in time for the finale. I think you will be of great help to him in that regard. Both of you seem like extremely intelligent and good faith debaters, I enjoy your content immensely. Keep it up!
@@BigScrapDaddy Thanks dude, I appreciate the comment! Yeah that's a good point, technically if you have a way of pulling them back at the end, the gamble to use those analogies may be more favorable. It's just so rough to multiply that gamble across each audience member though. For your partner, it's good, but the audience is a tricky thing to factor for and I'm still figuring it out 🤔. In any event, that's worth thinking about and I'll ponder it!
@@BookSmarts good point, but as you guys had discussed prior, I think winning over the person you are debating is really the main point. Trying to win over chat seems nonsensical to me, but then again I am not a streamer or youtubers really, so, I'm sure that is a whole different world. GL to you guys, either way! :)
Okay Destiny - as someone who isn't your biggest fan, I am totally on board with both your rhetoric and your principles here, not to mention your style of argument. I think you have done an incredible job with this issue and have exposed a lot of people on this topic as impulsive when they rationalized it for themselves. Kudos.
What about if a felon had a gun and killed a home invader? The purpose of the law that felons can’t own weapons is to stop a dangerous person from causing death or great bodily harm. It still seems morally justified for the felon to shoot the home invader
Same thing applies as in the Kyle situation. A felon in that case would absolutely be morally justified. I would even argue he should be legally justified, with the only charge sticking being the illegal possession of a firearm.
I want to spend more time thinking about this, but this seems really good! It's relevant, comparable, and I feel the answer is clear. Good analogy for me!
@@joeludemann A felon would be charged for illegally possessing the firearm but not the justifiable death. If they did charge him for killing a person on self-defense it wouldn't hold up in court. Self-defense can not be made into an illegal act. NY has tried.
I love when booksmarts comes on because he always scratches that itch I get from watching destiny. The guy is brash, so to have someone as overly careful as booksmarts give him advice on how to handle people and for the advice to actually land is refreshing
@Ross Borrello To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Destiny. The arguments are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of logic most of the analogies will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Steven's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his personality- his personal philosophy draws heavily from moral anti-realist literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these arguments, to realise that they're not just rational- they say something deep about MORALITY. As a consequence people who dislike Destiny truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in his existential catchphrase "Ripperino, cappuccino, pappacino, hoppacino, moppacino, dabbaccino, cappacino, apacino, al pacino, my dudes," which itself is a cryptic reference to Alighieri's Italian epic Divine Comedy. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Steven's genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Destiny tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
@Ross Borrello people aren't innately """logical""". People have hardwired problem solving systems (varying in ability), but bad inputs produce bad outputs. In large part you become """logical""" through acquiring those good inputs and the world isn't set up to provide people those inputs. It's set for people to get enough skills to function in a workplace.
She didn't say that any reasonable person would interpret the law in her way, she was explicitly saying that any reasonable person Could interpret the law in her way. I don't understand why she was making that point because in order for her to continue that train to assign culpability it seems like you need the would, not just could, but yeah. That's why she was saying "in any universe"
At one point I think she went as broad as "at least one reasonable person in some universe could conceivably interpret in this way" just to get some common ground to start from.
Her argument is that a reasonable person would have considered the possibility that her interpretation of the law's intent is the true one. Therefore, however this hypothetical person ultimately comes down regarding the law, they will have considered her interpretation and, given the safety considerations and lethal consequences implied by it, be morally implicated by it. If we imagine a person weighing her interpretation vs. destiny's interpretation and rejecting her interpretation in favor of destiny's interpretation, this person will still bear some amount of responsibility for injuries associated with disregarding the law and the possible intent behind the law. I think that's what she's trying to say.
Even if he has nothing open he's the kind of guy to refresh and select empty spaces on his desktop over and over. But I'm pretty sure he must have been playing _something_
You could argue that the purpose of the law is not just to affect people who don't know how to handle a firearm but also people who don't understand the consequences/responsibilities of carrying one. I would trust a 17yo with the "how" of using a gun, much less so with the understanding of WHEN to use a that gun. This does partially hinge on what happened before that first video tho. And when I say "using" I mean in a very broad sense; how to carry it, how to shoot it, how to store it, etc.
The rape analogy is fine. Don't make assumptions about the intelligence of your chat. If they sincerely can't grasp your train of thought, that's on them.
It isn't fine though. Literally the entire reason this is even a contentious topic is that the crowd of people only agressed on Kyle because they assumed he was the initial aggressor. You would never make this argument for a rapist.
I think if people are uncomfortable with the rape analogy, that kinda is the point. They are comfortable with that topic, and struggle with it because they completely agree that it would be self defense, but it cucks their whole argument.
Jared Dunn Rxpe is pretty strong, Destiny could have opted for something less blunt and let the listener think of rxpe as another likely scenario. The example was good, it just may rhetorically turn groups of listeners away. Many women, for example, can get too uncomfortable at just the idea. And, as Booksmarts said, if they're too uncomfortable the logical appeal may not even register at all, which is important when using such a strong analogy.
I think the appeal to pathos over logos is what ultimately defeats us, as a community or a population, rather than "the better position was lost because of the uneasiness of listeners to take on the analogy."
Robert Schnek "Appeal to pathos over logos" Are you some high school freshman that just learned the words...? Apologies in being blunt, but your reply just comes off as such. No. Using a lighter example in order to improve the "emotional appeal" has no impact on the "logical appeal". So it's not "putting one over the other," so much as it is just elevating one... That's the whole point of improving one's rhetorical appeal...
@@DDogg43777 I'll be blunt - it shows a weakness in our society that we have to say "rxpe" and to choose more palatable examples just to make the logic easier to digest or swallow - and this is *exactly* the elaborate version of "appealing to pathos over logos." I chose to say that because it was quicker for my overall point, as the rape analogy was perfect to demonstrate the logic, and that should be enough, especially if this is a debate. Just to drive the point home - you had no problem being blunt presuming I'm some sorta high school freshman (was that supposed to be an insult?), so do you really believe in the whole "palatable" thing after all?
I don't see how the rape analogy is anything other than the most efficient way to illustrate the point as rapidly as possible. If someone can't follow the analogous logic with the most emphatic way you can do so, they're not at the level intellectually to be engaging in a debate. The reason its such a perfect analogy is that it shows immediately that the only reason they don't acknowledge self-defence is a lack of empathy for the person engaged in the situation,
It's because the exact crime led to the other crimes happening. The rape analogy was circumstantial. The gun situation is would he have shot and killed someone without it? In all likelihood no. In the underage sneak into a party scenario the mere act of being there doesn't mean you are somewhat complicit in another person's decision to rape you. In fact the very charge of rape implies you couldn't consent at all whereas Kyle had a choice to have a gun which logically follows (since it wasn't decoration) the responsibility and capacity to use it as well, which, if he hadn't then he probably wouldn't have shot anyone. And seeing as he wasn't hunting, using it for sport or picked it up after a life and death confrontation it shows premeditation of some kind. Hence the charges.
@@BenReillySpydr1962 Destiny has already retreaded these arguments multiple times but ultimately your comment speaks for itself in why the situations are totally analogous specifically on culpability. Whether or not he had a gun doesn't make a difference because HE is not the aggressor in engaging in physical conflict. Its literally another version of the "short skirt" argument, you're implying that the victim has culpability because they took actions that put themselves in a situation where another person made a decision to initiate a physical conflict with them. "The rape analogy was circumstantial. The gun situation is would he have shot and killed someone without it?" You can apply this same moronic reasoning to the girl in the club and sound equally stupid while also proving that its NOT circumstantial reasoning, lets give it a shot: "The gun analogy was circumstantial. The club situation is would she have been sexually assaulted if she hadn't broken the law in entering the club?" Both of these are totally correct in terms of cause and effect, but you are too simple minded to understand that you can raise probability of harm and still be a victim. Increasing probability of conflict is not the same as engaging in conflict and does not change the fact that you are a victim. THIS IS CRUCIAL. Of course there is "premeditation" in the sense that he went to defend community property and rioters had been consistently violent and many had guns themselves. However that is totally different than premeditated murder as you seem to imply. Apparently you don't seem to know what charges are, but here's a hint: they're not the same as a conviction.
It was also the most boring and Riley's arguments were a joke. The crux of the entire point rests on the idea that 1 day before he's 18 he's at fault for every single aspect of conflict he's involved in including self defence, and the day he turns 18 he is not at fault.
I think the analogy is flawed in two different parts. First, though guns aren’t inherently USED to kill, they are specifically DESIGNED to do so or at the very least inflict grievous bodily harm. This is not the same with any average car. A car is specifically designed as a mode of transport, though they are not inherently USED as transport. Secondly, a drunk driver crashing in to and killing the passenger of the underage drivers car is not even closely analogous to what happened in Kenosha. The drunk driver would just as easily have killed the passenger had they just been walking on the side of the road. The presence of the car has nothing to do with it. Whereas what Destiny and Vaush have both argued is that the presence of the gun is the (no-pun intended) escalating factor in Kenosha. The disagreement they had is whether or not the culpable actor is the person with the gun or the person without it. I think a better analogy (though still not perfect) for Destiny would be what if an underage driver ran over someone who intentionally stepped in front of the car (and in a world where the intention can be proven i.e dash cam footage). Who is at fault? Because on one hand it can be argued the car should not have been driven in the first place, but just because it was does not mean that someone trying to step in front of traffic is not the one who actually escalates the situation.
This focus on the law existing because kids aren't skilled with guns is silly. We don't give guns to kids because they don't have the decision making abilities and emotional intelligence of an adult.
Agreed Im a little annoyed by destiny that he keeps focusing on this. A 17 year old kid can be the most experienced shooter in the world and he should still NEVER be trusted with a firearm in public.
Saying guns aren’t explicitly for killing people is moronic. I can drive a tank around for fun, but it’s main purpose is to be a weapon of war. C’mon destiny
@@Sue_Me_Toogun's are a weapon of war and murder. They can be fun toys for you to play with, but they are fun toys with tremendous power to kill. What most guns end up being used for is irrelevant. Most people who own guns also have them for the explicit purpose of killing somebody (in self-defense).
@@jerryandy7641 i don't disagree, i think he was acting morally, but guns are literally designed to kill, that's like getting a car and saying its not designed to drive you places because you can just sit in it while its parked or just use it to hold stuff, well yes you can do that but its main purpose is to drive you around.
'Murder' isnt an intrinsic purpose of a gun, but killing is. The kinds of guns he's talking about are specifically designed to kill things from a distance. If guns were only used for target sports they wouldnt need to be designed the way they are. You'd just need an acurate gun that left a mark; there would be no need for to it to penetrate an object with a metal bullet. Let us not be disingenuous.
@@vinny5638 It's a deterrent based on it's specific potential to maim and kill. If you brandish a gun there is an implication intrinsic to that action (that youre prepared to use it for the purpose it was designed).
@@cwg9238 At the very least it's reckless use of a lethal weapon which led to a person needlessly dying. People should not be able to get away with that.
@@cwg9238 'Assault' is a very broad term. Even if someone is punching you, you dont have the right to kill them; that is an utterly disproportionate response. 'Self defense' does not equal kill. He executed a kill shot with zero justification, and in a just and civilized society he would go to prison for that.
Also, so many times! She said the interpretation was _A_ possible reasonable interpretation, not the only one. She’s arguing that a reasonable person COULD interpret the law that way, not that they would or should. She’s saying that it is not crazy to ever consider that possibility, not that it is the ONLY possibility to consider. I wanted to scream that nobody got that! That’s why she was so surprised you didn’t grant her that and said she thought it was an easy given.
Lmao what is the guys deal. What was he sent by the council of the left to reel Destiny back in ? He so fucking passive aggressively condescending. Im honstly surprised Destiny puts up with it.
@@Sampsonoff I don't think that the purpose of the two objects should even matter for the analogy. Riley argued that a reasonable reading of WHY the Wisconsin law was created is that guns cause decreased public safety. The end we are trying to get to is a ban on guns in public but an under 18 ban is all we could get done for now for the sole purpose of having less open carry in general. This even entering Kyle's mind at all would put him on notice that what he is doing is likely harmful and therefor should be held responsible for anything that comes after. Destiny's response is that is not a reasonable reading. A reasonable reading in his mind would be more along the lines of wanting to keep guns out of the hands out of < 18 years olds because they tend to be too immature and inexperienced to make good decisions with them. This happens with drugs, alcohol, voting, etc. It makes logical sense to extend this reasoning to this law because we do this in a lot of policy. This is also why the driver in the analogy is a farmer that has been driving since 12. Then they would have good reason to believe that, since they have been driving 12-17, they are much more experienced than the average 17 year old and the spirit behind the law doesn't apply to them. The point of the analogy was to test Riley's argument because, if the law puts you on notice that what you are doing could lower public safety, then the driver should also be responsible for his sister's death even though he did nothing illegal after the breaking of the initial age-restricted law.
@@nmlynch94 I believe there are some further restrictions to the generally accepted policy of farm kids driving? I don't think they're allowed to go driving around outside of the state on the highway for example. Isn't the generally accepted policy is to allow the "necessary" activities such as driving a tractor around on the farm, maybe going into town and getting supplies. I would say the same applies to Rittenhouse. If he's been using a gun before the standard age because of "experience", then he's okay to use it for the necessary parts of his life (protecting his home, his life in his day to day activities). Extracurricular activities of defending someone else property, town, city, state I would argue is not something he "needs" to do which is why I would argue Rittenhouse has higher culpability in this incident.
@@joshseely8350 Probably. It would vary from state to state. Could you clarify why that's relevant? That analogy already established that the underage driver was taking a trip somewhere which would be breaking the law regardless. The question is, is he then culpable for any bad thing that happens as a result (i.e. drunk driver t-boning them and killing his sister). Also, Rittenhouse viewed Kenosha as his community. He was like a 15 min drive away and used to work at one of the local businesses IIRC. Feels arbitrary to say a valid use is to protect your home, but not anyone else in your community. Esp. when open carry is legal there. He was 100% being stupid, but I don't believe that makes you culpable for any valid use of self-defense after that (assuming that you think it was self-defense but he's still culpable bc of the underage carry.).
@@nmlynch94 For activities that are underage but being justified, I would add that you'd need to weigh the risks vs the necessity of the activities. If a person is driving around for necessary and needed activities such as food/supplies/farm related etc, this would potentially justify the underage activity and if something bad happens - well we all need to live right? Stuff happens..we can nod and understand and move on. If you're driving for sheer joy riding, then this activity was not necessary/not needed and you should bear that extra risk when it involves the underage activity and it tells me you're not responsible enough and shouldn't be granted any benefit of the doubt for underage usage. "Feels arbitrary to say a valid use is to protect your home, but not anyone else in your community" - So I am only referring to underage usage of a firearm. I bear this same standard for firearms. If your underage usage of the fire arm is for an activity that necessary then I could nod and say I understand...if you're going off and doing unnecessary things with that gun you know you're underage for, that tells me you're not responsible enough and shouldn't be granted any benefit of the doubt for underage usage. For Rittenhouse, he knew was breaking the law, had to find a way around the law, and went into a dangerous situation that was not needed for his every day life activities and was not necessary for his life to continue. If he did not obtain the gun, he most likely would not have gone into the situation because he knew it was dangerous. If Rittenhouse, for some random ass reason, had to make the trip/be in the situation to save his life (like the one magic herb just happened to be in Kenosha), or somehow it was "necessary" then him being in that self defense situation would be understandable, shit happens, we move on. We all need to live right? From everything that I understand of the situation, this was an extracurricular activity that could have been avoided, especially since the activity needed an illegal gun (underage for AR-15) to be supposedly safer. It did not involve his life being directly in danger until he placed it in danger by entering that situation with an illegal firearm for his age - which in his eyes allowed him to enter the situation. Basically he said/thought "I want to do what I want to do and I don't care what the law says".
"If your underage usage of the fire arm is for an activity that necessary then I could nod and say I understand" - There is a lot of talk about age here. I have a tough time believing that, all else being equal, if Rittenhouse was a handful of months older to make him 18 and had bought the gun legally, this situation would be fine with people. Correct me if I'm wrong. Reason I think this is because I don't think this thinking would hold in other scenarios. For example, a teenager < 18 in Chicago walking down the street with a gun. Does he lose right to self-defense because he broke the law? He is, after all, performing an illegal action that puts him and others at higher risk of harm. I personally don't think so, but let me know what you think. My guess is the real main contention is the fact that he was doing this was during a BLM protest, which is fine, but arguing about the legality of it bc of his age I feel is distracting from what ppl actually dislike about the situation.
There's not a lot of open carry going on in Iowa. I hardly ever see guns. I even live in a small town. What we see is old men riding down the street on lawn mowers, and people chatting about golf. Some people of course have guns because hunting is done here, but I don't really see open carriers around. I used to live in Kansas, and if I recall correctly it seemed like there were more guns there. In Kansas there were guns going off all the time around my house. I don't know where they were, but the recognizable boom was a sound I heard on a regular basis. Following what Destiny was talking about even though guns were going off quite often I don't think there was one gun murder during my whole residence there. There was a serial killer though, but he didn't use a gun.
Yeah open carrying is not all that prevalent anywhere that I've lived in the Midwest, (Kansas Missouri and Nebraska). I would definetly agree with the point that people here are far more comfortable around guns though.
The law could be bases around mental maturity and decision making ability (rather than/in addition to technical proficiency) in order to reduce reckless use of firearms. I would say the same applies to vehicles
Every time he gets someone to help review an argument, that person is constantly on inconsistent feels. "Some people don't think that far into it" was like... Well duh. But how do you have a debate with someone that refuses to think into issues? How is there even a "framework" if there's no depth? And it always feels more like Destiny is educating the person that is suppose to be mentoring/helping him on it. Riley came across as bias and uninformed on the issue. She admitted she didn't watch some videos on it and kept arguing based on an attack of Kyle's character instead of reasonable actions and analogies based on the circumstances. Like, given all the excuses based on lack of information, she would easily 100% defend an illegal immigrant protester shooting one of those militia larpers despite the same circumstances being there. It's all confirmation bias.
The reality is that's how most people show up to debates. Destiny is in a unique position in the fact that he debates for a living. Most people have never had a debate in their lives and are not used to thinking that far into these things. I think that was Booksmarts point.
@Nilly Sigger I didn't say you couldn't, I agree that Kyle was justified in exercising self defence. Still a fucking cringe ass edgy pfp and name, though.
I think you can over complicate it. The crux of the argument appears to be that because he's a minor he carries a greater moral responsibility. That's just backwards at face value. Age restrictions exist precisely because we consider some people to be less capable of handling consequences.
There is a big difference between roof top Koreans and Kenosha militia. One is defending business on rooftops, the other was patrolling Kenosha like they are the national guards.
@@MikeTall88 Yes, one is taking communicative advantages defensive positions on rooftops. The other think they are heroes patrolling Kenosha like wannabe national guards. Which they are not. One was defending their actual business. The other was walking around trying to get involved in/stop anything they see. Basically arm looking for any kind of confrontation. So yes, big difference. Kyle would never have been separated and chase if he was on top of the business he was actually supposed to defend, instead of trying to be a hero and a wannabe national guard.
@@songmoua9389 I don't think he was looking for confrontation. He was just covering more ground, and good on him for doing that. Too bad he didn't get the two extra kills he could have gotten.
@@Dziugenonas So is Kyle defending business or covering ground trying to get extra kills? Covering more ground trying to get extra kills is looking for trouble/confrontations.
@@songmoua9389 Covering more ground protecting businesses. The ones he killed and nearly killed were in self defense and not directly in defense of the local businesses.
Laws prohibiting kids from doing actions actually do often suggest those actions are dangerous. The implication isn’t that they are suddenly benign once you reach a certain age, but that the government doesn’t have the authority to prevent a free adult citizen from choosing to do these bad things. Smoking and alcohol are obvious examples, and I think the gun argument can be seen as similar. Fundamentally I think many (perhaps most) people supporting open carry do more out of the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to take away their freedom to do so, not that it isn’t dangerous. And especially not that it isn’t dangerous when bringing it to somewhere expected to have violent confrontations.
So all Kyle did wrong was a misdemeanor worthy offense and everything after was ok? Or are we back to "because he broke the law, everything bad that happened after is on Kyle?". Because then all of Destiny's counter arguments need answers, too.
I think this was a distinct camp of response to the argument, for sure. I think I mentioned this, but it's also worth echoing what one of the replies to this said, what's important is what comes next in the argument. If he broke that law, and that was the deciding factor for the other person, it'd be super relevant.
The reason the age restriction exists is to stop a minor accidentally shooting someone or doing some dumb shit. The law does not exist because minors should not be able to responsibly defend themselves from an attacker/s.
A person chose to disregard a law to carry a gun into a dangerous situation (also not defending his home). He would most likely would not have gone into that situation (without the gun) because he already knew it was a dangerous situation (hence the bringing of gun). If he was just walking home or to somewhere where he goes every day and carried the gun for his own protection (because the streets are dangerous and that was his only mode of transportation) I could see a moral argument for this. This is distinctly different from a situation where you purposely enter an unnecessary dangerous situation with an unlawful firearm. Any authority that would have been in that area would have advised any civilian to not be in the area that did not live there. Situation would not have happened. Yes I know your rape analogy. Going to a bar is generally not considered inherently dangerous. Any authority in the area would generally NOT advise civilians against entering a bar. Going to a bar would be considered a every day recreational activity. I would consider that to be the main difference. He was situationally okay for self defense at the moment he appear to be attacked but the situation did not need to happen. He purposely interjected himself with an unlawful deadly weapon into a dangerous situation that he would not have been in had he obeyed the law. Simple as that. Legally speaking due to precedents he will probably not be convicted of any murder or manslaughter charges. He will probably get a class A misdemeanor for the the unlawful possession of firearm which would hopefully get my desired result. Someone who disregarded the law regarding gun possession will no longer be able to legally own a gun.
I think a more comparable analogy would be that the underage driver who is driving late at night runs over a pedestrian who is banging on the hood of his car and threatening him after nearly being hit when Jaywalking. Then he flees the scene because he doesn’t know what to do and runs over and kills some motor bikers who had stumbled onto the scene and given chase. The underage driver bears some culpability for the other people’s deaths because it was their interaction that caused it. Still not a perfect analogy, but it helps mirror more of the surrounding circumstances. I’m sure that there are more details that could make the analogy more relevant, but hopefully this makes sense.
Tbh I liked the talk overal. Problem I had at some point you guys get stuck on either semantics or just seeing things differently due to various circumstances. this conversation got stuck quite fast, perhaps next time move on to a next point so that you perhaps then find out what was wrong with the first argument. Cause this feels a bit like the Sam harris/peterson debate "what is truth" it's an hour long back on forth about basicly the same thing from a different vieuw. So perhaps just move on to another point and perhaps true that the lego's might fall in the correct place for you to understand each other better.
To give her the best version of her argument, you could say that because people under 18 aren't held accountable in the same way over 18 is, they can't have the same privileges. So because the same person breaking the law with a firearm under 18 is treated as a minor when misbehaving, maybe it makes sense to prevent them from carrying these weapons. Not precisely because of competence. A thought.
I'm not sure how much this really affects the overall argument, but in my view the key difference between the car and gun is not what it's used for, it's the projection of how events will play out in the person using it. A minor driving a car to the store will not have to deal with law enforcement if they are successful. A minor successfully using a firearm on someone will have to deal with law enforcement regardless of the circumstances. It will be brought to light that they broke the law. If it's just for a show of force to deter attackers, there wouldn't be a need for live ammunition. Though it would still be illegal possession, it's just that shots not being fired would be more likely to get under the police radar and make it more analogous to trying to just drive to the store, for example. If he thought there was a chance he would actually use the firearm against another human, he would necessarily have to reveal that he was breaking the law. The hypothetical about his age or an arbitrary cut-off for age ignores that this specific case shows him having a conscious disregard for the consequences of law, not just its existence and that only exists in him being a minor. It's a psychological reality that isn't a factor if he's of age. I'm not convinced that this actually changes the self-defense argument. I just thought I'd give my 2 cents on the analogy comparison. THIS IS NOT A FOR OR AGAINST ARGUMENT. Just an analysis of the analogy. Kyle could still be argued to be totally justified in self-defense despite all this.
"A minor successfully using a firearm on someone will have to deal with law enforcement regardless of the circumstances." What about the other use of firearms that Destiny brought up like "Displaying force to discourage potential aggressors to destroy property". In that way a minor could successfully "use" a firearm and if people would just move on from that property and not try to burn it down. So it seems there are circumstances where this is possible. "If it's just for a show of force to deter attackers, there wouldn't be a need for live ammunition." That is true. But don't you agree it's still possible to use the firearm loaded with live ammunition and not having to deal with law enforcement, just like it's possible for a minor to drive to a store and not get caught not having a license? In both cases, they are assuming the risk of having to deal with law enforcement in the worst-case scenario. I guess your contention/distinction works depending on how narrow we will define "successfully use".
Can’t believe you used the “suddenly they become the arbitrary age of 18 and it’s ok???” as a real argument. It’s a horrible argument, as w the pedophilia case. Obviously no specific day is a sudden trigger making it ok to do all these things. We don’t have the ability to have omniscient AI monitoring each individual’s maturity, and maturing doesn’t work like a switch. We know in general people get more responsible as they age, so as an arbitrary standard we have decided certain age cutoffs for certain tasks that require more responsibility (driving, firearm use, handling of other dangerous equipment or substances) as an expedient to effect positive change in society. Especially since Riley’s argument didn’t even rely on that law with that cutoff being a good law, which was said repeatedly. Disappointed to hear such a lazy, Sargon-tier argument from Destiny. You’re usually better than this.
Smoker here. Smoking is age restricted. We don't want people to smoke, it's not good for them, others around them or the environment. But we still allow them to after a certain age. That doesn't mean it's endorsed, it means the government has to draw an arbitrary line and they set it where it is based on where people thought it might be okay for those people to make that decision for themselves. That doesn't make it a good or even okay thing for you to do once you hit the legal age. Destiny's argument about age limits is the same argument pedophiles use to go after 12 year olds, just repackaged in a different skin
In reference to her dropping the argument if Kyle was 18. If you listen back she qualified this statement by saying that this was a reason that the law is insufficient in addressing the problem. She did say that gun laws are there to minimize harm, and I fail to see how that's controversial. The way you read a law is :"Im not allowed to do that, so I'm not going to do that." Unless there's a moral imperative to transgress
The idea the law is there to ensure people are competent with a gun is making a similar assumption to her "open carry is bad" notice. I would think the law restricting to 18 also reflects maturity and other factors outside of gun competence.
Primary use of a gun is to kill or injure and the primary use of a car is for transportation. You can make the argument that anything can be used for killing but the primary use and the intention for creating any weapon is to use it to kill or injure, though I would argue more for the former. That being said, people can still own their guns, just don’t sugarcoat why you got it.
False. You are assuming that the person who "created" the gun, and the person holding it, are one and the same. There are people who have never done anything but target practice. And there are ranchers who NEED it to prevent harm to their animals. Depending on where they are, and what predators you are scaring off, it may not even be a good idea to HIT said predator... My boy owns a gun just to scare bears away. Never used it for anything else. Therefore, the primary reason HIS gun exists...is to scare bears.
Firghtening Truth That’s not what I’m saying though. The explicit reason for the creation of guns is to kill (or hunt) or injure. If I take a knife and use it to untwist a flat screw, I’m not using it for its intended purpose. Do you not think your friend would shoot and kill or injure that bear if it was threatening him? I’m not saying that you cannot use guns for anything else but killing or injury but it’s impossible to think that the invention of the gun wasn’t for the reason to kill faster, quicker, and have a lower barrier to entry for people who normally couldn’t do those things by themselves. Though that latter reason came from the prior two. And like I finished my statement. People can own guns if they want, I’m not trying to advocate for anti-gun laws or whatever, I’m just saying that the intention for a car and the intention for a gun are vastly different. I want to preface this also by saying that I know Destiny isn’t arguing this but it was something I caught within the first few minutes and I just wanted to say something about it.
@@LuckyArrowftw yeah, but you are discrediting the person USING the tool, as if WELL ITS A GUN, SO OF COURSE EVERYONE WHO OWNS A GUN USES IT FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE, TO KILL was a logical argument. And I think phrasing it that way isnt useful. Is a knife meant to kill people? No. Its simply meant to cut. But it is the leading cause of murder in the uk. I dont think its helpful to bring up what a tools intent was, merely HOW ITS BEING USED in a certain situation. Also, many dont make tge distinction between KILL and KILL PEOPLE. Because wgile I would cede that the m16 was a gun made to kill people...im not quite sure Id cede that an ar15 was. As its a civvie variant, and was mostly thought to be intended for hunting (pigs being the thought, since they are so dangeroys, and often need a followup shot)...although, self defense was ALSO a thought.
Firghtening Truth hunting = killing; self defense = kill or injury I don’t really see why you’re not seeing this. I’m not saying everyone gets a gun to kill, I’m just saying that it’s intended purpose was and is to kill.
@@LuckyArrowftw whats an items intended purpose if not why it was acquired? Thats the reason. Its not its "intended purpose" so much as its, "why it was invented" that you are arguing... Right?
Destiny what if the argument isn't about having experience or training with a weapon or a tool? The way I interpret age laws is that they disallow children from doing certain activities because they lack sound judgement. You can have all the training and experience you want, but if your brain isn't cognitively mature enough to deescalate violent situations, to judge whether certain situations are safe, or if a person is or isnt a threat that requires deadly force than it doesn't matter. I think society arbitrarily chose 18 to be the cutoff point to where people are judged to have sound enough judgement and emotional maturity to handle themselves safely and make good decisions, which is why the age cut off for open carry existed. If it was a matter of experience or training, than there would explicitly be some requirement of so many hours of training or hours of use under supervision just like with a car. But you can be of age and have never handled a firearm and still legally open carry without having ever touched a weapon in your life.
You are talking about semantics at this point. Experience and training with a tool includes decision making with the tool in different situations. This is not a hard thing to understand. Doesn't america have laws that you need to have some kind of training to own a firearm? What was the problem with Kyles decision making with a gun besides bringing it to place? The evidence we have now shows very restrained and practiced gun use.
@@RanEncounter Experience and training to me means being able to mechanically fire the gun safely and not endangering other people during the act of shooting. However there are other things that aren't accounted for when talking about some ones mental maturity as it pertains to their age. I don't expect a 17 or less year old to be able to deescalate a situation better than someone with more emotional maturity and judgement that comes with age. I don't expect a 17 or less year old to be able to read certain situations and have the wisdom or forethought to know to avoid putting yourself in such a situation, like getting isolated from your group and having to defend yourself 1v1 against a mob. And no there is no training requirement for americans to own a gun. There is a lot more to being able to responsibly carry a gun than simply being able to mechanically fire one safely. Judgement and emotional maturity also entails not being drawn into conflict with others unless absolutely necessary, something young men in particular have trouble with.
@@RanEncounter Also, in regards to kyles decision making. we don't know what was said/the interactions between him and the first party (the guy that got shot first). We don't know if kyle tried to deescalate the situation or if he provoked the guy into attacking him. As I mentioned previously, its pretty easy to goad young guys into violence, and just now there is a video of kyle suckerpunching a girl and getting into a brawl just 5 days before the shooting. Further telling me that this guy was not emotionally mature enough or had good judgement to be carrying a firearm.
@@takeshii Do you think 18 year-olds or even 50 year-olds are mentally mature in all aspects? Kyle showed a level of gun handling that is way above the legal standard. Of course ignoring the legality of a 17 year-olds possession of a gun. Being old does not mean you are mentally mature. "I don't expect a 17..." And yet he did. You are directly ignoring his actions here.
@@takeshii "we don't know what was..." Exactly my point. From the evidence we see he tried the best he could to deesclate the situation. Look at the evidence and leave your assumptions out. His action before the incident is not evidence of what he did in this case. I am not avare of these videos or the circumstances to these videos. From what I have seen from you, I cannot accept you are giving this information without a bias. Every single video points to mature gun handling in this case. Leave your assumptions of his actions out and actually look at the evidnence.
I think the most comparable argument would be cigarettes. Age limit 18. Dangerous for the smoker/ open carrier. More dangerous to those around the smoker/ person open carrying. Can't smoke in buildings in some states/can't take guns in government buildings.
Hypothetical reasonable person could have that Interpretation. True. However extremely unlikely. Basing your argument around that interpretation is kinda ehh. Doesn’t really meet the moral ground and doesn’t really meet the legal ground too as I think it would be really easy to argue or just poll how people would interpret a law by specifically what it says especially in this context or to infer more from it which may not even be there.
the problem is that her saying that doesn't make sense. In order for her to make her claims of culpability she needs it to be would, not could. So in remembering and in the moment Destiny probably assumes she means would.
Do you not think that it is that minors are considered less responsible, and therefore should not be in these situations. There were other right wingers with guns that didn't end up killing the same guy when he provoked them. A car example would be more like the recklessness of young people, not simply proficiency. The age of being an adult is generally not used as destiny is here. For sex it's not about being bad at sex, it's a out understanding the possible permanent ramifications, same for smoking, alcohol, legal contracts, etc. It's about responsibility and mental development, not proficiency in a given area.
Can someone clarify this: I thought part of Riley's argument is that Kyle recognized the law yet willingly chose to ignore it or simply overlook it for reasons that Destiny describes (regardless of whether he was 12 hours away from being 18, or that it didn't apply to him in terms of his experience experience). But, by virtue of Kyle recognizing the law exists, does that not in some way mean that he is morally in the wrong? The law recognized the risks of underage open carry or the inability for those under the age of 18 to handle certain situations (as Destiny says). And, sure if he was 18 the same situation could have played out the same. However, by Kyle simply knowing he is 17 and not 18 (regardless of if he was 12 hours away from it) doesn't that still mean he willingly chose to ignore it? Perhaps I misunderstood Riley, but I thought that by Kyle fully recognizing he was doing something against the law (whether or not he thought it applied to him), that he is morally in the wrong. Thus, since he recognizes this law, it suggests that he knew well the risks (increased bodily harm, etc.). His intent for being there in the first place would already be morally compromised. This is why this whole argument would fall apart if he was 18 - because he would not need to recognize the law in the first place (even if the events played out the same.) The laws can be based on various reasons for their existence, but the age limit still applies. It's the fact that going against this age limit (importantly with full recognition) would mean that you are committing some moral wrongdoing. I don't think it's a matter of hours to age 18, it's rather the recognition of breaking the law (sorry for repeating myself so much).
Yeah TLDR he willingly disobeyed a law (under the likely assumption he was informed of the law) which may or may not be a slippery slope that leads to disobeying future laws. I was thinking something similar.
I think Destiny acknowledged the possibility of Kyle's presence in that situation being stupid, as well as him bringing a gun being stupid and maybe illegal. If I understand correctly, his response to that was, that it doesn't make his self-defense against people trying to harm him an immoral response.
So Riley's line of is basically that the law gives you notice so in breaking the law, you accept any liability that occur after. Would that not apply to any other laws bring broken in this instance? Destroying property, breaking curfew would leave the individuals liable for following consequences.
And LEGALLY, that is how the law will be used against him. I cant tell you how many times ive been told, "ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it"
@Golden Stacked Warriors A gun existing is dangerous. It's that much easier to be used. That's why nuclear proliferation, for example, is dangerous. By your logic, we should just let Iran and NK get nukes as long as they promise not to arm them lol.
@Golden Stacked Warriors Please read the whole thread to understand why you're wrong. There's a reason most states require guns to be stored properly in a gun safe and not just left lying around on tables. lol.
@@Sampsonoff your comment is still pretty shit tier tho. You are judging Americans for something specifically their country allows them to do. Its seems pretty clear your mocking that Americans, but seems to be walking away from that point. Hell I'll make fun of America all day long, but at least own up to it.
Destiny doesnt take into account that the law protects the kids and others from the inexpirienced judgement of a minor. A minors judgement could lead them to do something dangerous, like walk into a protest and shoot 3 people.
1. Destiny seemed to use the 330 million guns in America and the associated murders to argue an acceptable correlation to gun violence. Which is fine except those 330 million guns are owned and used by 30% +/- of the population. His point may still carry over for you but using 330 million guns vs. 110 million gun owners is a misleading fact in bolstering his argument. 2. He argues that having the skill and training to use a firearm should be the only gauge to which the law should prove someone's ability to use any firearm in public. So I guess there is no basis for emotional maturity in someone's age anymore? Not to mention there is no record of his training you suppose and if he was likewise breaking the law then and for how many years which you are pretty much supporting since it is your whole argument. 3. This in no way changes whether he should have defended himself but let your premises bring you to your argument not top down.
Fire extinguishers aren't EXCLUSIVELY used for extinguishing fires. How many millions are out there? How many are actually used to put fires out? His reasoning for guns aren't used for killing people doesn't really make sense to me.
because a lot of them are also used for target practice, the gun nuts primarly use them for target practice and in other cases they're also used for hunting.
@@AlineaEuros ok. So hunting is STILL killing. Just not people. So the point stands they're used to kill. "B-b-but muh target practice!" You're just practicing to get better at killing. That's all it is. In the SAME way when they have jr. Firefighters practice PASS with no fires present. Its so when a fire DOES happen, they know what to do. The definition of a firearm is a weapon, which are used to kill or destroy. That's their primary intended purpose. I don't think the 3 mil or so are all track guns.
@@jokersdemise you can dismiss that all you want, people find target practice fun in some form or the other, doesn't change the fact that you're not killing anything though doing that. Swords and bows are also considered weapons yet most of them aren't even used to kill anyone or even anything.
@UCSwhVEVC5CNN3XMR-dtwQXQ There's mass stabbings but they dont use swords for that. But what is the point being talked about here? that most fire arms are used in mass shootings? because clearly that isn't the case.
@@AlineaEuros the idea that "because there's 3 mill guns in US and only 60k gun deaths proves that guns aren't used explicitly for killing" So because the vast majority of fire extinguishers aren't actually used on fires, it could be stated using this logic that fire extinguishers aren't EXCLUSIVELY for putting out fires. At the end of the day, guns are used to kill or destroy, OR to simulate killing/ destroying using stand-in targets. Just because something hasn't been used YET for its intended purpose doesn't change its intended purpose.
There’s no way Destiny can reconcile th arguments she made because every debate including this one is people trying to find weasely ass ways to win an argument where they’re wrong.
I think a lot of people the nuances in buying cars and guns. Some people but guns for collection, some buy for strictly self defense, some buy to have power over others to take advantage of them, some buy for sport. Some people buy cars to go from A to B, some buy for collection, and some have even bought cars explicitly with the intent to kill others. They have their differences but they are comparable in many ways imo.
Any reasonable person who reads the law prohibiting minors from carrying firearms should understand that it is meant as a broad rule to keep the average maturity and experience of a gun owner as high as possible. With this in mind it is absurd to condemn Kyle for carrying the gun with his background and obvious mastery with gun handling. This is especially true if you admit that all of his shootings were justified.
Destiny needs an intelligent non-partisan and calm person to talk to about these things. It drives him mad to talk to people who just fall into line with their side without critical analysis.
You don't understand if Trayvon have a gun and kill George they would have say what was he doing with a gun if he was not looking for trouble buy Kyle was protecting himself black man with a gun is looking for trouble but Kyle is a hero
All of these analogies are irrelevant. It doesn't really even matter whether or not a person is "aware" of the law. Many times people think they have "the right" to do something and there are laws that say otherwise. People can have opinions of laws and say they don't agree, and that's what they should talk about, but if the law says someone under age X can't have a gun...that's the bottom line so all this back and forth was unnecessary. Take it from the other side. If you had a loved one that was killed and the other side argues "I was a day away from 18" it doesn't matter. In your eyes they shouldn't have had a weapon in a public place. The law says 18 and people get into problems when they take it upon themselves to decide which laws to follow and which ones not to. If you don't like a law change it but in the meantime that's the rule. So rape and driving illegally...not relevant.
Except that destiny argues from a moral perspective, not a legal one. He says that often. And at times I swear he just uses it as an out. Thats where a lot of this conversation got stuck...i think. Its like the old "begging the question" debate of... A>Why is weed bad? B>because its illegal A>ok, but why is it illegal? B>because its bad.
@@firghteningtruth7173 But this is sort of the problem, right? First off I mostly like Destiny so nothing against him. But even though he uses the moral side as an out as you say he goes back to scenarios like "two hours before turning 18" which feels like he's arguing against age as a factor for who can/can't open carry...which is a legal point of contention. Morality is a gray area which is why we have laws, we're not GOVERNED by morality, more so GUIDED by it...which are two separate things. And the lines can get blurred. Like to me, morally, anyone not protesting against the police as an armed wing of the government is morally in the wrong. They have THE RIGHT to be there but supporting injustice actively or passively is morally wrong. And we have concrete correlations, a fascist president calling for non-law enforcement to intervene. I think the property argument is an excuse to cause conflict. We have had riots in the past....where were THESE "property protectors" then? There are just some dots one can easily connect and if you aren't addressing them then how can the conversation be taken seriously..
@@CGImagination1 I mean, yeah. I agree, mostly. Kid put himself there. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And that can be said about rosenbaum too. The part about destinys argument I dont get is... Destiny stated the people shouldnt have tried to stop him after the first shooting...they should retreat and call an "authority," as it wasnt "their jobs" to stop him. But then flip that...is he a firefighter? Is he a cop? Why is he intervening in vandalism? Shouldnt he have backed off and called the cops? Then destiny has stated he wasnt "an active shooter," but describe what an active shooter looks like and try NOT to unintentionally describe this guy. Whatever his intention was, he didnt stay on scene, and he DIDNT make it clear he was not a threat (hands in the air, mag out of his weapon, or anything, really)... Then he continued to move about the crowd. Destiny tries to say well, "he didnt shoot the guy rendering aid..." but the guy in el paso didnt shoot any white people either. That doesnt make him not a threat. So, its reasonable, as a moving entity with a gun whos just killed someone to be seen as a threat. We will see where the court rules on it, but I believe the prosecutor will spend the most time here...and then, idk what wisconsins laws are, but use of appropriate force is a thing in mamy places. I.e. you cant shoot someone that merely brushes against you and call it self defense.
CGImagination1 this man thank you this whole thing has seemed really fucking pointless to me cause he’s saying purely morally he’s justified in all the shootings but that is litterally so pointless in the eyes of the law In this case, if he’s found guilty of breaking open carry laws and illegally being in possession of a firearm underaged then his self defence is gone he can’t claim it as he was committing a criminal offence. Debating over whether or not he’s morally right and just removing the legal aspect seems really pointless and stupid as it litterally will change nothing as he still broke the law whether or not he is morally right in the subsequent killings. I think destiny saying all theses people arguing against him are not understanding his point is true because he’s not arguing for any specific purpose other than morally questioning while removing the blatant facts that make it illegal in the eyes of the law. Seeing everyone in the comments just ignore this and act as if he has a super solid defence in court because he defended himself when attacked is silly and to me seems that they either don’t understand the law or are merely arguing from a purely moral perspective
Hey all. Do you like philosophy? Debate? Memes? Well come on down to Tom Jumps Dischord discord.gg/QnNSEm You might remember him from a lukewarm debate he had with Destiny about morality a while back or from his appearance on MDD with his debate with Jake.
I feel bad for Destiny, the guy’s had life experience and he’s arguing with sensitive children. Please don’t dilute your arguments because a couple of punes can’t handle the subject matter.
Lolol. What are you considering life experience? I mean rtr literally went through a transition. Thats pretty out there in terms of "life experience"...that probably sucked in terms of dealing with societies interpretation of whether that is right or wrong. So what do you mean, exactly?
@@firghteningtruth7173 probably meant different types of life experience, the life experience of destiny is probably closer to Kyle's in the sense that he is from a more conservative state where where guns are more freely accepted, whereas Reiley is I'm guessing from a liberal state (I could be wrong) where she was able to transition not to say that isn't arduous experience, it's just likely those bias will affect her argument. The argument of age restrictions on a gun leads to guns being are bad is kind-of a weird argument.
It's because the exact crime led to the other crimes happening. The rape analogy was circumstantial. The gun situation is would he have shot and killed someone without it? In all likelihood no. In the underage sneak into a party scenario the mere act of being there doesn't mean you are somewhat complicit in another person's decision to rape you. In fact the very charge of rape implies you couldn't consent at all whereas Kyle had a choice to have a gun which logically follows (since it wasn't decoration) the responsibility and capacity to use it as well, which, if he hadn't then he probably wouldn't have shot anyone. And seeing as he wasn't hunting, using it for sport or picked it up after a life and death confrontation it shows premeditation of some kind. Hence the charges.
If being underage at a party doesn't make you complicit in someone raping you the mere act of being underage and open carrying doesn't make you complicit in someone chasing you to try and assault you
@@alexjohansen1337 Yeah no one is arguing that. Illegally carrying a firearm is what makes you complicit in killing someone by discharging it be it intentionally or unintentionally. You cant say of you didn't sneak in you wouldnt be raped but you can say if you wouldn't have shot someone with the gun if you never picked it up. The gun is what tool was used to kill others a fake id isn't. Legally speaking this is what the DA would use.
@@RanEncounter they mean having Alexandra Botez performing a cock and ball torture comment whilst assuming a Yoda voice at the end of every video is very amusing to them.
I don't get this *'lets dumb down the analogies so stupid people understand them'* meme... if someone doesn't get the rape-analogy they're not intelligent enough to talk about the moraliy of self-defense -.-
I wish I was aware of these discussions at the time... I would of used this real story as my analogy instead of the rape one... illinois.concealedcarry.com/2019/12/10/mother-arrested-for-defending-her-life/ Cause if Kyle can't use self defense cause he had a gun when he wasn't supposed to then she should be charged too.
10:30 ish “We have to find any little argument we think we can hold against him” Fair, if this is an intellectual exercise I guess. Find a viable one, though. Fail
In the rape analogy, the rapist is obviously in the wrong, full stop. But if it's not victim blaming to say a person hit by a train in a stolen car was still at fault for stealing the car, it's not victim blaming to accuse her of whatever laws she broke up to the point of self defense.
I wish In had a booksmarts to analyze interactions, I think we all could benefit from someone objectively viewing or conversations to correct failings in them
Regarding the intention of open carry laws. He can handle a rifle, yes. But he couldn't handle putting himself in harm's way. The fact that he brought a gun is what put him in a situation to have to defend himself. There are plenty of adults that would do this too, the idea behind the law might be that we don't trust children to make that decision
I grew up in Iowa, 2 hours from Destiny. People would absolutely care if someone was walking around with anything but clearly a hunting rifle. A smaller far arm on your waist is completely dependent on race or wealth.
Homeboy's guilty of breaking the law. It is reckless endangerment for anyone to be walking around pointing his gun like that, regardless of his age. He was behaving in a manner that would lead people to believe he was an active shooter and it is morally okay for the people there to treat him as such. Do you think a valid defense is, "I had to shoot my way out because I had a gun, so now my life was at risk because they could've tried to take my gun and shoot me or beat me to death." The judge may not even allow him to use a self-defense plea. Then anyone could just pull out a gun, and wait to be confronted or noticed and they can start killing people without repercussion.
1untamedbrain 100%. All this moral argument shit is pointless when the law just doesn’t agree. You can disagree with the law and critique it but for better or worse, that’s the current law they have there. Judge 100% could throw out self defence as he was actively committing a criminal offence by carrying a gun around underage. Now you could make the argument that well since laws change as our morals do then us having this discussion nationwide could change our viewpoint and fair enough, but in the current situation I don’t see that happening. Good to finally see someone else who sees this.
The rape analogy falls apart because there is no scenario in which rape can be seen as self defense. The people viewing Rittenhouse as a white nationalist agressor view the three people he has shot as people defending themselves and others from a shooter. I think it is reasonable, especially after the first person has been shot, that people around Rittenhouse perceived him as an active threat, as he still had his rifle in hand while running. If in the situation you think he just murdered someone and is now running away while still holding the rifle, agressing on him to get that gun from him or make sure you can't get away can be be seen as an act to reduce the harm that Rittenhouse might be able to do following the confrontation. Someone raping an underaged girl at a party, would never be able to claim that they thought the girl might endanger them and or others - so that the only solution was rape. I feel Destiny in this case is just reaching for a scenario that is emotionally loaded in order to make people feel for who he perceives as a victim in this scenario; without thinking through why the other side might argue for Rittenhouse being the agressor not the victim.
This question has jack shit to do with what those other people are *justified* in doing. If somebody has a suicide collar strapped to their neck and is told "rape that woman, or I kill you and your family", it would make 'sense' for them to try to rape the woman. But that's *irrelevant*, the woman would still be justified to kill him in self-defense. Translating here, and taking for granted that the people chasing Rittenhouse knew he killed, didn't kill in self defense, and weren't "trying to cranium him" (which all are big assumptions, especially given that last bit is a literal quote from one of them), it would take magical divination for Rittenhouse to *know* that they weren't trying to murder him.
I just can't help but feel like almost everybody online that talks with Destiny either supportively or oppositionally is attempting to gaslight him in some way, and over time it works
I completely understand why Destiny uses rape analogies, it must be tiring talking to people who 99% of the time makes intuitive arguments up on the spot they don't actually agree with
I don't understand how rape is too repulsive to bring up to someone who wants to debate about a possible murder.
@@modernmagicow9770 You are significantly more likely to be speaking to a rape survivor or person with close connections to rape survivors than murder survivors. It is a highly traumatic, literally triggering subject for many. If the murder rate matched rates of sexual assault then a lot more folks would get upset talking about it.
@@modernmagicow9770 its almost like we have had decades of desensitzing and normalising violence, murder and killing ect through all forms of media and culture but not so much for rape, strange that.
@@aquanecromancer5776 uhhh, I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a murder survivor, I don’t think we even need to pull up the statistics.
@@aquanecromancer5776 … murder survivors?
I had a lot of focus on her chat and when we'd lose them, since he kept his cool throughout and they stayed on topic. Apologies for the misses!
Hope these are helpful nonetheless, talking with Steven is fun.
Hey, if you happen to talk to him again could you bring up the fact that almost every analogy he uses hinges on the notion of Kyle dying rather than Kyle killing? The rape analogy mentioned in this conversation, for example, is to demonstrate that a girl should not be raped if she goes into a dangerous area. The parallel would be that Kyle should not die from open carrying. But this was never in question. Nobody is arguing that he should die. They're arguing that he shouldn't kill. Lots of other analogies I've heard in the past few conversations follow this logic. I feel like this point does pertain to rhetorical effectiveness, and I'd try to bring it up myself but I don't have a Twitter/Twitch account and I probably wouldn't be noticed.
@@longlivenc7235 The issue is Kyle defending himself, thus it has to hinge on the notion of Kyle dying (or at least being drastically injured - which I guess we would consider rape to be). People are arguing that he wasn't in the right to defend himself while being attacked, if you argue in favor of that, the rape analogy attempts to highlight your inconsistency as you likely wouldn't say that the woman, who is being attacked and has good reason to believe that she is about to be raped, isn't allowed to use her gun to defend herself risking to kill the rapist.
Harsh analogies are fine, but good debaters should learn to both avoid AND deal with them. That being said, it's up to Steven to create tools ("in a clever way") for when his opponents can't deal (emotionally, cognitively, etc) with his examples. He just needs to slow down and notice when he's lost someone. He must use very specific tools to win them back in time for the finale. I think you will be of great help to him in that regard. Both of you seem like extremely intelligent and good faith debaters, I enjoy your content immensely. Keep it up!
@@BigScrapDaddy Thanks dude, I appreciate the comment! Yeah that's a good point, technically if you have a way of pulling them back at the end, the gamble to use those analogies may be more favorable. It's just so rough to multiply that gamble across each audience member though. For your partner, it's good, but the audience is a tricky thing to factor for and I'm still figuring it out 🤔. In any event, that's worth thinking about and I'll ponder it!
@@BookSmarts good point, but as you guys had discussed prior, I think winning over the person you are debating is really the main point. Trying to win over chat seems nonsensical to me, but then again I am not a streamer or youtubers really, so, I'm sure that is a whole different world. GL to you guys, either way! :)
Okay Destiny - as someone who isn't your biggest fan, I am totally on board with both your rhetoric and your principles here, not to mention your style of argument.
I think you have done an incredible job with this issue and have exposed a lot of people on this topic as impulsive when they rationalized it for themselves.
Kudos.
What about if a felon had a gun and killed a home invader? The purpose of the law that felons can’t own weapons is to stop a dangerous person from causing death or great bodily harm. It still seems morally justified for the felon to shoot the home invader
Same thing applies as in the Kyle situation. A felon in that case would absolutely be morally justified. I would even argue he should be legally justified, with the only charge sticking being the illegal possession of a firearm.
I want to spend more time thinking about this, but this seems really good! It's relevant, comparable, and I feel the answer is clear. Good analogy for me!
@@trime547 That depends, many felons are still on parole or probation. It also depends on the amount of felonies they have on record.
In the case of using an illegal gun to justifiably kill someone you can still be charged with causing an unlawful death not murder.
@@joeludemann A felon would be charged for illegally possessing the firearm but not the justifiable death. If they did charge him for killing a person on self-defense it wouldn't hold up in court. Self-defense can not be made into an illegal act. NY has tried.
I love when booksmarts comes on because he always scratches that itch I get from watching destiny. The guy is brash, so to have someone as overly careful as booksmarts give him advice on how to handle people and for the advice to actually land is refreshing
Ross Borrello bro I totally relate my brain is also too big to fit into my head and everyone else is an NPC right bro
@Ross Borrello WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB!!!!
@Ross Borrello I also watch rick and morty bro I can relate.
@Ross Borrello To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Destiny. The arguments are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of logic most of the analogies will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Steven's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his personality- his personal philosophy draws heavily from moral anti-realist literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these arguments, to realise that they're not just rational- they say something deep about MORALITY. As a consequence people who dislike Destiny truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in his existential catchphrase "Ripperino, cappuccino, pappacino, hoppacino, moppacino, dabbaccino, cappacino, apacino, al pacino, my dudes," which itself is a cryptic reference to Alighieri's Italian epic Divine Comedy. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Steven's genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Destiny tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
@Ross Borrello people aren't innately """logical""". People have hardwired problem solving systems (varying in ability), but bad inputs produce bad outputs. In large part you become """logical""" through acquiring those good inputs and the world isn't set up to provide people those inputs. It's set for people to get enough skills to function in a workplace.
She didn't say that any reasonable person would interpret the law in her way, she was explicitly saying that any reasonable person Could interpret the law in her way. I don't understand why she was making that point because in order for her to continue that train to assign culpability it seems like you need the would, not just could, but yeah. That's why she was saying "in any universe"
It's because the way it's argued legally.
At one point I think she went as broad as "at least one reasonable person in some universe could conceivably interpret in this way" just to get some common ground to start from.
Huge agree. I think Destiny misunderstands it because he couldn't imagine anyone making a point like that, it's a weird unintuitive point to make.
Her argument is that a reasonable person would have considered the possibility that her interpretation of the law's intent is the true one. Therefore, however this hypothetical person ultimately comes down regarding the law, they will have considered her interpretation and, given the safety considerations and lethal consequences implied by it, be morally implicated by it.
If we imagine a person weighing her interpretation vs. destiny's interpretation and rejecting her interpretation in favor of destiny's interpretation, this person will still bear some amount of responsibility for injuries associated with disregarding the law and the possible intent behind the law. I think that's what she's trying to say.
@@JoelDZ I think it's due to a Theory of Mind defect on his part but 🤷
This more clean cut Destiny looks more gentlemanly than ever. The hair cut is awesome
Why does it always sound like Destiny is playing Starcraft with his mouse? I never hear the keyboard just hear constant mouse scrolls and clicks.
Because he is
@Joseph You're a dedicated spammer, I'll give you that
@@vinicius1589 beat me to it
Except when you play SC, you also use a lot of keyboard keys as well. So, disagreed.
Even if he has nothing open he's the kind of guy to refresh and select empty spaces on his desktop over and over. But I'm pretty sure he must have been playing _something_
Love this guy. He's so genuine. Keep it up, Book Smarts. Your heart's in the right place.
You could argue that the purpose of the law is not just to affect people who don't know how to handle a firearm but also people who don't understand the consequences/responsibilities of carrying one. I would trust a 17yo with the "how" of using a gun, much less so with the understanding of WHEN to use a that gun. This does partially hinge on what happened before that first video tho.
And when I say "using" I mean in a very broad sense; how to carry it, how to shoot it, how to store it, etc.
I think using a gun on a violent pedophile is justifiable, especially if you are a minor.
The rape analogy is fine. Don't make assumptions about the intelligence of your chat. If they sincerely can't grasp your train of thought, that's on them.
Sry can you tie your second thought to a rape analogy? I can’t really understand it otherwise.
This is a dumbfuck take. Refusing to be rhetorically effective is the best way to accomplish absolutely nothing in your debates.
It isn't fine though. Literally the entire reason this is even a contentious topic is that the crowd of people only agressed on Kyle because they assumed he was the initial aggressor. You would never make this argument for a rapist.
Except that he feels very responsible for his audience.
@@longlivenc7235 So everything in a debate is about being effective is a debate and nothing to do with logic and reason? That is a really bad take.
I think if people are uncomfortable with the rape analogy, that kinda is the point. They are comfortable with that topic, and struggle with it because they completely agree that it would be self defense, but it cucks their whole argument.
At some point, rape became worse than murder to those people; I wouldn't worry about trying to convince them.
Nah the Rxpe argument was really good. That’s actually what convinced me to change my mind.
Just because it convinced you doesn't mean another argument couldn't convince more people as a percentage.
Jared Dunn
Rxpe is pretty strong, Destiny could have opted for something less blunt and let the listener think of rxpe as another likely scenario.
The example was good, it just may rhetorically turn groups of listeners away. Many women, for example, can get too uncomfortable at just the idea. And, as Booksmarts said, if they're too uncomfortable the logical appeal may not even register at all, which is important when using such a strong analogy.
I think the appeal to pathos over logos is what ultimately defeats us, as a community or a population, rather than "the better position was lost because of the uneasiness of listeners to take on the analogy."
Robert Schnek
"Appeal to pathos over logos"
Are you some high school freshman that just learned the words...? Apologies in being blunt, but your reply just comes off as such.
No. Using a lighter example in order to improve the "emotional appeal" has no impact on the "logical appeal". So it's not "putting one over the other," so much as it is just elevating one... That's the whole point of improving one's rhetorical appeal...
@@DDogg43777 I'll be blunt - it shows a weakness in our society that we have to say "rxpe" and to choose more palatable examples just to make the logic easier to digest or swallow - and this is *exactly* the elaborate version of "appealing to pathos over logos." I chose to say that because it was quicker for my overall point, as the rape analogy was perfect to demonstrate the logic, and that should be enough, especially if this is a debate.
Just to drive the point home - you had no problem being blunt presuming I'm some sorta high school freshman (was that supposed to be an insult?), so do you really believe in the whole "palatable" thing after all?
I don't see how the rape analogy is anything other than the most efficient way to illustrate the point as rapidly as possible. If someone can't follow the analogous logic with the most emphatic way you can do so, they're not at the level intellectually to be engaging in a debate. The reason its such a perfect analogy is that it shows immediately that the only reason they don't acknowledge self-defence is a lack of empathy for the person engaged in the situation,
It's because the exact crime led to the other crimes happening. The rape analogy was circumstantial. The gun situation is would he have shot and killed someone without it? In all likelihood no. In the underage sneak into a party scenario the mere act of being there doesn't mean you are somewhat complicit in another person's decision to rape you. In fact the very charge of rape implies you couldn't consent at all whereas Kyle had a choice to have a gun which logically follows (since it wasn't decoration) the responsibility and capacity to use it as well, which, if he hadn't then he probably wouldn't have shot anyone. And seeing as he wasn't hunting, using it for sport or picked it up after a life and death confrontation it shows premeditation of some kind. Hence the charges.
@@BenReillySpydr1962 Destiny has already retreaded these arguments multiple times but ultimately your comment speaks for itself in why the situations are totally analogous specifically on culpability. Whether or not he had a gun doesn't make a difference because HE is not the aggressor in engaging in physical conflict. Its literally another version of the "short skirt" argument, you're implying that the victim has culpability because they took actions that put themselves in a situation where another person made a decision to initiate a physical conflict with them.
"The rape analogy was circumstantial. The gun situation is would he have shot and killed someone without it?"
You can apply this same moronic reasoning to the girl in the club and sound equally stupid while also proving that its NOT circumstantial reasoning, lets give it a shot:
"The gun analogy was circumstantial. The club situation is would she have been sexually assaulted if she hadn't broken the law in entering the club?"
Both of these are totally correct in terms of cause and effect, but you are too simple minded to understand that you can raise probability of harm and still be a victim. Increasing probability of conflict is not the same as engaging in conflict and does not change the fact that you are a victim. THIS IS CRUCIAL.
Of course there is "premeditation" in the sense that he went to defend community property and rioters had been consistently violent and many had guns themselves. However that is totally different than premeditated murder as you seem to imply. Apparently you don't seem to know what charges are, but here's a hint: they're not the same as a conviction.
That was the most tame debate he had in a while
Yeah its refreshing to see two people who disagree not raise their voices at eachother and get mad... Especially now a days
It was also the most boring and Riley's arguments were a joke. The crux of the entire point rests on the idea that 1 day before he's 18 he's at fault for every single aspect of conflict he's involved in including self defence, and the day he turns 18 he is not at fault.
I think the analogy is flawed in two different parts. First, though guns aren’t inherently USED to kill, they are specifically DESIGNED to do so or at the very least inflict grievous bodily harm. This is not the same with any average car. A car is specifically designed as a mode of transport, though they are not inherently USED as transport.
Secondly, a drunk driver crashing in to and killing the passenger of the underage drivers car is not even closely analogous to what happened in Kenosha. The drunk driver would just as easily have killed the passenger had they just been walking on the side of the road. The presence of the car has nothing to do with it. Whereas what Destiny and Vaush have both argued is that the presence of the gun is the (no-pun intended) escalating factor in Kenosha. The disagreement they had is whether or not the culpable actor is the person with the gun or the person without it.
I think a better analogy (though still not perfect) for Destiny would be what if an underage driver ran over someone who intentionally stepped in front of the car (and in a world where the intention can be proven i.e dash cam footage). Who is at fault? Because on one hand it can be argued the car should not have been driven in the first place, but just because it was does not mean that someone trying to step in front of traffic is not the one who actually escalates the situation.
Big agree
This is a clear analogy to me.
Actually a lot of guns and even bullets are designed to injure people and specifically not kill them.
C F yeah... does that change anything?
At best the analogy works with people jaywalking. They're not looking to be hit/killed. They're not suicidal
Destiny's rape analogy is perfect in my eyes
This focus on the law existing because kids aren't skilled with guns is silly. We don't give guns to kids because they don't have the decision making abilities and emotional intelligence of an adult.
Agreed Im a little annoyed by destiny that he keeps focusing on this. A 17 year old kid can be the most experienced shooter in the world and he should still NEVER be trusted with a firearm in public.
Saying guns aren’t explicitly for killing people is moronic. I can drive a tank around for fun, but it’s main purpose is to be a weapon of war. C’mon destiny
@@Sue_Me_Toogun's are a weapon of war and murder. They can be fun toys for you to play with, but they are fun toys with tremendous power to kill. What most guns end up being used for is irrelevant. Most people who own guns also have them for the explicit purpose of killing somebody (in self-defense).
does destiny not think guns are meant for killing? I mean that's literally what they're designed to do
@@jerryandy7641 i don't disagree, i think he was acting morally, but guns are literally designed to kill, that's like getting a car and saying its not designed to drive you places because you can just sit in it while its parked or just use it to hold stuff, well yes you can do that but its main purpose is to drive you around.
Thank god Destiny has a caretaker now 😂 actually like their inputs
'Murder' isnt an intrinsic purpose of a gun, but killing is. The kinds of guns he's talking about are specifically designed to kill things from a distance. If guns were only used for target sports they wouldnt need to be designed the way they are. You'd just need an acurate gun that left a mark; there would be no need for to it to penetrate an object with a metal bullet. Let us not be disingenuous.
@@vinny5638 It's a deterrent based on it's specific potential to maim and kill. If you brandish a gun there is an implication intrinsic to that action (that youre prepared to use it for the purpose it was designed).
@@cwg9238 I was responding to Destiny's comment about guns being 'murder machines'.
@@cwg9238 Sure, but no one deserved to executed for it, which is what a shot to the head is.
@@cwg9238 At the very least it's reckless use of a lethal weapon which led to a person needlessly dying. People should not be able to get away with that.
@@cwg9238 'Assault' is a very broad term. Even if someone is punching you, you dont have the right to kill them; that is an utterly disproportionate response. 'Self defense' does not equal kill. He executed a kill shot with zero justification, and in a just and civilized society he would go to prison for that.
Also, so many times! She said the interpretation was _A_ possible reasonable interpretation, not the only one. She’s arguing that a reasonable person COULD interpret the law that way, not that they would or should. She’s saying that it is not crazy to ever consider that possibility, not that it is the ONLY possibility to consider. I wanted to scream that nobody got that! That’s why she was so surprised you didn’t grant her that and said she thought it was an easy given.
Lmao what is the guys deal. What was he sent by the council of the left to reel Destiny back in ? He so fucking passive aggressively condescending. Im honstly surprised Destiny puts up with it.
Damn I thought it was Riley Reid
I ' M G O N N A C O O M ! !
COOMER
47 STEEZ
What would Reid's take on this be?
@@brandonden795 jizz
The car example was perfectc especially in terms of rhethoric
@@Sampsonoff I don't think that the purpose of the two objects should even matter for the analogy.
Riley argued that a reasonable reading of WHY the Wisconsin law was created is that guns cause decreased public safety. The end we are trying to get to is a ban on guns in public but an under 18 ban is all we could get done for now for the sole purpose of having less open carry in general. This even entering Kyle's mind at all would put him on notice that what he is doing is likely harmful and therefor should be held responsible for anything that comes after.
Destiny's response is that is not a reasonable reading. A reasonable reading in his mind would be more along the lines of wanting to keep guns out of the hands out of < 18 years olds because they tend to be too immature and inexperienced to make good decisions with them. This happens with drugs, alcohol, voting, etc. It makes logical sense to extend this reasoning to this law because we do this in a lot of policy. This is also why the driver in the analogy is a farmer that has been driving since 12. Then they would have good reason to believe that, since they have been driving 12-17, they are much more experienced than the average 17 year old and the spirit behind the law doesn't apply to them.
The point of the analogy was to test Riley's argument because, if the law puts you on notice that what you are doing could lower public safety, then the driver should also be responsible for his sister's death even though he did nothing illegal after the breaking of the initial age-restricted law.
@@nmlynch94 I believe there are some further restrictions to the generally accepted policy of farm kids driving? I don't think they're allowed to go driving around outside of the state on the highway for example. Isn't the generally accepted policy is to allow the "necessary" activities such as driving a tractor around on the farm, maybe going into town and getting supplies.
I would say the same applies to Rittenhouse. If he's been using a gun before the standard age because of "experience", then he's okay to use it for the necessary parts of his life (protecting his home, his life in his day to day activities). Extracurricular activities of defending someone else property, town, city, state I would argue is not something he "needs" to do which is why I would argue Rittenhouse has higher culpability in this incident.
@@joshseely8350 Probably. It would vary from state to state. Could you clarify why that's relevant? That analogy already established that the underage driver was taking a trip somewhere which would be breaking the law regardless. The question is, is he then culpable for any bad thing that happens as a result (i.e. drunk driver t-boning them and killing his sister).
Also, Rittenhouse viewed Kenosha as his community. He was like a 15 min drive away and used to work at one of the local businesses IIRC. Feels arbitrary to say a valid use is to protect your home, but not anyone else in your community. Esp. when open carry is legal there. He was 100% being stupid, but I don't believe that makes you culpable for any valid use of self-defense after that (assuming that you think it was self-defense but he's still culpable bc of the underage carry.).
@@nmlynch94 For activities that are underage but being justified, I would add that you'd need to weigh the risks vs the necessity of the activities. If a person is driving around for necessary and needed activities such as food/supplies/farm related etc, this would potentially justify the underage activity and if something bad happens - well we all need to live right? Stuff happens..we can nod and understand and move on. If you're driving for sheer joy riding, then this activity was not necessary/not needed and you should bear that extra risk when it involves the underage activity and it tells me you're not responsible enough and shouldn't be granted any benefit of the doubt for underage usage.
"Feels arbitrary to say a valid use is to protect your home, but not anyone else in your community" - So I am only referring to underage usage of a firearm.
I bear this same standard for firearms. If your underage usage of the fire arm is for an activity that necessary then I could nod and say I understand...if you're going off and doing unnecessary things with that gun you know you're underage for, that tells me you're not responsible enough and shouldn't be granted any benefit of the doubt for underage usage.
For Rittenhouse, he knew was breaking the law, had to find a way around the law, and went into a dangerous situation that was not needed for his every day life activities and was not necessary for his life to continue. If he did not obtain the gun, he most likely would not have gone into the situation because he knew it was dangerous.
If Rittenhouse, for some random ass reason, had to make the trip/be in the situation to save his life (like the one magic herb just happened to be in Kenosha), or somehow it was "necessary" then him being in that self defense situation would be understandable, shit happens, we move on. We all need to live right?
From everything that I understand of the situation, this was an extracurricular activity that could have been avoided, especially since the activity needed an illegal gun (underage for AR-15) to be supposedly safer. It did not involve his life being directly in danger until he placed it in danger by entering that situation with an illegal firearm for his age - which in his eyes allowed him to enter the situation.
Basically he said/thought "I want to do what I want to do and I don't care what the law says".
"If your underage usage of the fire arm is for an activity that necessary then I could nod and say I understand" - There is a lot of talk about age here. I have a tough time believing that, all else being equal, if Rittenhouse was a handful of months older to make him 18 and had bought the gun legally, this situation would be fine with people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Reason I think this is because I don't think this thinking would hold in other scenarios. For example, a teenager < 18 in Chicago walking down the street with a gun. Does he lose right to self-defense because he broke the law? He is, after all, performing an illegal action that puts him and others at higher risk of harm. I personally don't think so, but let me know what you think.
My guess is the real main contention is the fact that he was doing this was during a BLM protest, which is fine, but arguing about the legality of it bc of his age I feel is distracting from what ppl actually dislike about the situation.
There's not a lot of open carry going on in Iowa. I hardly ever see guns. I even live in a small town. What we see is old men riding down the street on lawn mowers, and people chatting about golf. Some people of course have guns because hunting is done here, but I don't really see open carriers around. I used to live in Kansas, and if I recall correctly it seemed like there were more guns there. In Kansas there were guns going off all the time around my house. I don't know where they were, but the recognizable boom was a sound I heard on a regular basis. Following what Destiny was talking about even though guns were going off quite often I don't think there was one gun murder during my whole residence there. There was a serial killer though, but he didn't use a gun.
Yup, maybe more on the far west border? But where I'm at I think I can count on one hand the number of open carry people I've seen in 30 years.
@@anonymous7820 Do you mean in Kansas? Where I'm talking about is near Kansas City.
@@spacedoohicky Talking about Eastern Iowa.
@@anonymous7820 I live right in the middle.
Yeah open carrying is not all that prevalent anywhere that I've lived in the Midwest, (Kansas Missouri and Nebraska). I would definetly agree with the point that people here are far more comfortable around guns though.
The law could be bases around mental maturity and decision making ability (rather than/in addition to technical proficiency) in order to reduce reckless use of firearms.
I would say the same applies to vehicles
Every time he gets someone to help review an argument, that person is constantly on inconsistent feels. "Some people don't think that far into it" was like... Well duh. But how do you have a debate with someone that refuses to think into issues? How is there even a "framework" if there's no depth? And it always feels more like Destiny is educating the person that is suppose to be mentoring/helping him on it.
Riley came across as bias and uninformed on the issue. She admitted she didn't watch some videos on it and kept arguing based on an attack of Kyle's character instead of reasonable actions and analogies based on the circumstances. Like, given all the excuses based on lack of information, she would easily 100% defend an illegal immigrant protester shooting one of those militia larpers despite the same circumstances being there. It's all confirmation bias.
@Nilly Sigger Okay Nilly Sigger with an edgy profile picture and a video with a kekistan flag as the thumbnail.
The reality is that's how most people show up to debates. Destiny is in a unique position in the fact that he debates for a living. Most people have never had a debate in their lives and are not used to thinking that far into these things. I think that was Booksmarts point.
@Nilly Sigger I didn't say you couldn't, I agree that Kyle was justified in exercising self defence. Still a fucking cringe ass edgy pfp and name, though.
I think you can over complicate it. The crux of the argument appears to be that because he's a minor he carries a greater moral responsibility. That's just backwards at face value. Age restrictions exist precisely because we consider some people to be less capable of handling consequences.
And Kyle assumes the risk by choosing to ignore the law
@@slowermindskeepright1788 I'm not saying he has no responsibility to the law.
HANDS UP! DROP YOUR CAR!
There is a big difference between roof top Koreans and Kenosha militia. One is defending business on rooftops, the other was patrolling Kenosha like they are the national guards.
Big difference?
One is just using the high ground.
@@MikeTall88 Yes, one is taking communicative advantages defensive positions on rooftops. The other think they are heroes patrolling Kenosha like wannabe national guards. Which they are not. One was defending their actual business. The other was walking around trying to get involved in/stop anything they see. Basically arm looking for any kind of confrontation. So yes, big difference. Kyle would never have been separated and chase if he was on top of the business he was actually supposed to defend, instead of trying to be a hero and a wannabe national guard.
@@songmoua9389 I don't think he was looking for confrontation. He was just covering more ground, and good on him for doing that. Too bad he didn't get the two extra kills he could have gotten.
@@Dziugenonas So is Kyle defending business or covering ground trying to get extra kills? Covering more ground trying to get extra kills is looking for trouble/confrontations.
@@songmoua9389 Covering more ground protecting businesses. The ones he killed and nearly killed were in self defense and not directly in defense of the local businesses.
I strongly disagree. I think the rape analogy was completely fair. And I actually think MOST people are capable of following that line of logic.
Laws prohibiting kids from doing actions actually do often suggest those actions are dangerous. The implication isn’t that they are suddenly benign once you reach a certain age, but that the government doesn’t have the authority to prevent a free adult citizen from choosing to do these bad things. Smoking and alcohol are obvious examples, and I think the gun argument can be seen as similar.
Fundamentally I think many (perhaps most) people supporting open carry do more out of the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to take away their freedom to do so, not that it isn’t dangerous. And especially not that it isn’t dangerous when bringing it to somewhere expected to have violent confrontations.
Fuck I love the booksmarts destiny dynamic. It’s so fucking brilliant!!
Yeah you dont get to decide which laws apply to you. An age restriction is an absolute minimum.
The argument is about for what purpose age restrictive laws exist, not whether or not you can decide for yourself to follow them
So all Kyle did wrong was a misdemeanor worthy offense and everything after was ok? Or are we back to "because he broke the law, everything bad that happened after is on Kyle?". Because then all of Destiny's counter arguments need answers, too.
I think this was a distinct camp of response to the argument, for sure. I think I mentioned this, but it's also worth echoing what one of the replies to this said, what's important is what comes next in the argument. If he broke that law, and that was the deciding factor for the other person, it'd be super relevant.
The reason the age restriction exists is to stop a minor accidentally shooting someone or doing some dumb shit. The law does not exist because minors should not be able to responsibly defend themselves from an attacker/s.
@@paegun It's obvious why the laws exist: age has implications for competency and responsibility.
Right.
Good discussion
A person chose to disregard a law to carry a gun into a dangerous situation (also not defending his home). He would most likely would not have gone into that situation (without the gun) because he already knew it was a dangerous situation (hence the bringing of gun). If he was just walking home or to somewhere where he goes every day and carried the gun for his own protection (because the streets are dangerous and that was his only mode of transportation) I could see a moral argument for this. This is distinctly different from a situation where you purposely enter an unnecessary dangerous situation with an unlawful firearm.
Any authority that would have been in that area would have advised any civilian to not be in the area that did not live there.
Situation would not have happened.
Yes I know your rape analogy. Going to a bar is generally not considered inherently dangerous. Any authority in the area would generally NOT advise civilians against entering a bar. Going to a bar would be considered a every day recreational activity. I would consider that to be the main difference.
He was situationally okay for self defense at the moment he appear to be attacked but the situation did not need to happen. He purposely interjected himself with an unlawful deadly weapon into a dangerous situation that he would not have been in had he obeyed the law. Simple as that. Legally speaking due to precedents he will probably not be convicted of any murder or manslaughter charges. He will probably get a class A misdemeanor for the the unlawful possession of firearm which would hopefully get my desired result. Someone who disregarded the law regarding gun possession will no longer be able to legally own a gun.
I think a more comparable analogy would be that the underage driver who is driving late at night runs over a pedestrian who is banging on the hood of his car and threatening him after nearly being hit when Jaywalking. Then he flees the scene because he doesn’t know what to do and runs over and kills some motor bikers who had stumbled onto the scene and given chase. The underage driver bears some culpability for the other people’s deaths because it was their interaction that caused it. Still not a perfect analogy, but it helps mirror more of the surrounding circumstances. I’m sure that there are more details that could make the analogy more relevant, but hopefully this makes sense.
Tbh I liked the talk overal. Problem I had at some point you guys get stuck on either semantics or just seeing things differently due to various circumstances. this conversation got stuck quite fast, perhaps next time move on to a next point so that you perhaps then find out what was wrong with the first argument. Cause this feels a bit like the Sam harris/peterson debate "what is truth" it's an hour long back on forth about basicly the same thing from a different vieuw. So perhaps just move on to another point and perhaps true that the lego's might fall in the correct place for you to understand each other better.
Poor Destiny. Hes been arguing with idiots for about 2 weeks now.
To give her the best version of her argument, you could say that because people under 18 aren't held accountable in the same way over 18 is, they can't have the same privileges. So because the same person breaking the law with a firearm under 18 is treated as a minor when misbehaving, maybe it makes sense to prevent them from carrying these weapons. Not precisely because of competence.
A thought.
I'm not sure how much this really affects the overall argument, but in my view the key difference between the car and gun is not what it's used for, it's the projection of how events will play out in the person using it. A minor driving a car to the store will not have to deal with law enforcement if they are successful. A minor successfully using a firearm on someone will have to deal with law enforcement regardless of the circumstances. It will be brought to light that they broke the law. If it's just for a show of force to deter attackers, there wouldn't be a need for live ammunition. Though it would still be illegal possession, it's just that shots not being fired would be more likely to get under the police radar and make it more analogous to trying to just drive to the store, for example. If he thought there was a chance he would actually use the firearm against another human, he would necessarily have to reveal that he was breaking the law.
The hypothetical about his age or an arbitrary cut-off for age ignores that this specific case shows him having a conscious disregard for the consequences of law, not just its existence and that only exists in him being a minor. It's a psychological reality that isn't a factor if he's of age. I'm not convinced that this actually changes the self-defense argument. I just thought I'd give my 2 cents on the analogy comparison.
THIS IS NOT A FOR OR AGAINST ARGUMENT. Just an analysis of the analogy. Kyle could still be argued to be totally justified in self-defense despite all this.
"A minor successfully using a firearm on someone will have to deal with law enforcement regardless of the circumstances."
What about the other use of firearms that Destiny brought up like "Displaying force to discourage potential aggressors to destroy property".
In that way a minor could successfully "use" a firearm and if people would just move on from that property and not try to burn it down. So it seems there are circumstances where this is possible.
"If it's just for a show of force to deter attackers, there wouldn't be a need for live ammunition."
That is true. But don't you agree it's still possible to use the firearm loaded with live ammunition and not having to deal with law enforcement, just like it's possible for a minor to drive to a store and not get caught not having a license?
In both cases, they are assuming the risk of having to deal with law enforcement in the worst-case scenario.
I guess your contention/distinction works depending on how narrow we will define "successfully use".
Can’t believe you used the “suddenly they become the arbitrary age of 18 and it’s ok???” as a real argument. It’s a horrible argument, as w the pedophilia case.
Obviously no specific day is a sudden trigger making it ok to do all these things. We don’t have the ability to have omniscient AI monitoring each individual’s maturity, and maturing doesn’t work like a switch. We know in general people get more responsible as they age, so as an arbitrary standard we have decided certain age cutoffs for certain tasks that require more responsibility (driving, firearm use, handling of other dangerous equipment or substances) as an expedient to effect positive change in society.
Especially since Riley’s argument didn’t even rely on that law with that cutoff being a good law, which was said repeatedly.
Disappointed to hear such a lazy, Sargon-tier argument from Destiny. You’re usually better than this.
Smoker here. Smoking is age restricted. We don't want people to smoke, it's not good for them, others around them or the environment. But we still allow them to after a certain age. That doesn't mean it's endorsed, it means the government has to draw an arbitrary line and they set it where it is based on where people thought it might be okay for those people to make that decision for themselves. That doesn't make it a good or even okay thing for you to do once you hit the legal age. Destiny's argument about age limits is the same argument pedophiles use to go after 12 year olds, just repackaged in a different skin
In reference to her dropping the argument if Kyle was 18. If you listen back she qualified this statement by saying that this was a reason that the law is insufficient in addressing the problem. She did say that gun laws are there to minimize harm, and I fail to see how that's controversial. The way you read a law is :"Im not allowed to do that, so I'm not going to do that." Unless there's a moral imperative to transgress
The reasonable reading is "I had better not get CAUGHT (by police) with this firearm until I'm 18". Isn't that how laws work?
The idea the law is there to ensure people are competent with a gun is making a similar assumption to her "open carry is bad" notice. I would think the law restricting to 18 also reflects maturity and other factors outside of gun competence.
Primary use of a gun is to kill or injure and the primary use of a car is for transportation. You can make the argument that anything can be used for killing but the primary use and the intention for creating any weapon is to use it to kill or injure, though I would argue more for the former.
That being said, people can still own their guns, just don’t sugarcoat why you got it.
False. You are assuming that the person who "created" the gun, and the person holding it, are one and the same.
There are people who have never done anything but target practice. And there are ranchers who NEED it to prevent harm to their animals.
Depending on where they are, and what predators you are scaring off, it may not even be a good idea to HIT said predator...
My boy owns a gun just to scare bears away. Never used it for anything else.
Therefore, the primary reason HIS gun exists...is to scare bears.
Firghtening Truth That’s not what I’m saying though. The explicit reason for the creation of guns is to kill (or hunt) or injure. If I take a knife and use it to untwist a flat screw, I’m not using it for its intended purpose.
Do you not think your friend would shoot and kill or injure that bear if it was threatening him?
I’m not saying that you cannot use guns for anything else but killing or injury but it’s impossible to think that the invention of the gun wasn’t for the reason to kill faster, quicker, and have a lower barrier to entry for people who normally couldn’t do those things by themselves. Though that latter reason came from the prior two.
And like I finished my statement. People can own guns if they want, I’m not trying to advocate for anti-gun laws or whatever, I’m just saying that the intention for a car and the intention for a gun are vastly different.
I want to preface this also by saying that I know Destiny isn’t arguing this but it was something I caught within the first few minutes and I just wanted to say something about it.
@@LuckyArrowftw yeah, but you are discrediting the person USING the tool, as if WELL ITS A GUN, SO OF COURSE EVERYONE WHO OWNS A GUN USES IT FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE, TO KILL was a logical argument.
And I think phrasing it that way isnt useful. Is a knife meant to kill people? No. Its simply meant to cut. But it is the leading cause of murder in the uk.
I dont think its helpful to bring up what a tools intent was, merely HOW ITS BEING USED in a certain situation.
Also, many dont make tge distinction between KILL and KILL PEOPLE. Because wgile I would cede that the m16 was a gun made to kill people...im not quite sure Id cede that an ar15 was. As its a civvie variant, and was mostly thought to be intended for hunting (pigs being the thought, since they are so dangeroys, and often need a followup shot)...although, self defense was ALSO a thought.
Firghtening Truth hunting = killing; self defense = kill or injury
I don’t really see why you’re not seeing this. I’m not saying everyone gets a gun to kill, I’m just saying that it’s intended purpose was and is to kill.
@@LuckyArrowftw whats an items intended purpose if not why it was acquired?
Thats the reason. Its not its "intended purpose" so much as its, "why it was invented" that you are arguing...
Right?
Destiny what if the argument isn't about having experience or training with a weapon or a tool? The way I interpret age laws is that they disallow children from doing certain activities because they lack sound judgement. You can have all the training and experience you want, but if your brain isn't cognitively mature enough to deescalate violent situations, to judge whether certain situations are safe, or if a person is or isnt a threat that requires deadly force than it doesn't matter. I think society arbitrarily chose 18 to be the cutoff point to where people are judged to have sound enough judgement and emotional maturity to handle themselves safely and make good decisions, which is why the age cut off for open carry existed. If it was a matter of experience or training, than there would explicitly be some requirement of so many hours of training or hours of use under supervision just like with a car. But you can be of age and have never handled a firearm and still legally open carry without having ever touched a weapon in your life.
You are talking about semantics at this point. Experience and training with a tool includes decision making with the tool in different situations. This is not a hard thing to understand. Doesn't america have laws that you need to have some kind of training to own a firearm?
What was the problem with Kyles decision making with a gun besides bringing it to place? The evidence we have now shows very restrained and practiced gun use.
@@RanEncounter Experience and training to me means being able to mechanically fire the gun safely and not endangering other people during the act of shooting. However there are other things that aren't accounted for when talking about some ones mental maturity as it pertains to their age.
I don't expect a 17 or less year old to be able to deescalate a situation better than someone with more emotional maturity and judgement that comes with age. I don't expect a 17 or less year old to be able to read certain situations and have the wisdom or forethought to know to avoid putting yourself in such a situation, like getting isolated from your group and having to defend yourself 1v1 against a mob. And no there is no training requirement for americans to own a gun.
There is a lot more to being able to responsibly carry a gun than simply being able to mechanically fire one safely. Judgement and emotional maturity also entails not being drawn into conflict with others unless absolutely necessary, something young men in particular have trouble with.
@@RanEncounter Also, in regards to kyles decision making. we don't know what was said/the interactions between him and the first party (the guy that got shot first). We don't know if kyle tried to deescalate the situation or if he provoked the guy into attacking him.
As I mentioned previously, its pretty easy to goad young guys into violence, and just now there is a video of kyle suckerpunching a girl and getting into a brawl just 5 days before the shooting. Further telling me that this guy was not emotionally mature enough or had good judgement to be carrying a firearm.
@@takeshii Do you think 18 year-olds or even 50 year-olds are mentally mature in all aspects? Kyle showed a level of gun handling that is way above the legal standard. Of course ignoring the legality of a 17 year-olds possession of a gun. Being old does not mean you are mentally mature.
"I don't expect a 17..."
And yet he did. You are directly ignoring his actions here.
@@takeshii "we don't know what was..."
Exactly my point. From the evidence we see he tried the best he could to deesclate the situation. Look at the evidence and leave your assumptions out.
His action before the incident is not evidence of what he did in this case. I am not avare of these videos or the circumstances to these videos. From what I have seen from you, I cannot accept you are giving this information without a bias.
Every single video points to mature gun handling in this case. Leave your assumptions of his actions out and actually look at the evidnence.
I think the most comparable argument would be cigarettes. Age limit 18. Dangerous for the smoker/ open carrier. More dangerous to those around the smoker/ person open carrying. Can't smoke in buildings in some states/can't take guns in government buildings.
I have recently noticed that no matter what I comment on a destiny video an argument breaks out in the reply’s
I disagree with you and you are stupid
@@lukedotgru1 dude, how could you disagree with him? I disagree with you on the fundamental basis that you disagree with him
@@frogturtle I disagree plus you're white
she said a reasonable person COULD have that interpretation, not would.
I don't disagree with you but you aren't framing her argument properly
Hypothetical reasonable person could have that Interpretation. True. However extremely unlikely. Basing your argument around that interpretation is kinda ehh. Doesn’t really meet the moral ground and doesn’t really meet the legal ground too as I think it would be really easy to argue or just poll how people would interpret a law by specifically what it says especially in this context or to infer more from it which may not even be there.
the problem is that her saying that doesn't make sense. In order for her to make her claims of culpability she needs it to be would, not could. So in remembering and in the moment Destiny probably assumes she means would.
But using the "could" make her whole point baseless....law is about what a reasonable person "would" do not "could" do
I luv Booksmarts
But do you luh him?
Do you not think that it is that minors are considered less responsible, and therefore should not be in these situations. There were other right wingers with guns that didn't end up killing the same guy when he provoked them. A car example would be more like the recklessness of young people, not simply proficiency. The age of being an adult is generally not used as destiny is here. For sex it's not about being bad at sex, it's a out understanding the possible permanent ramifications, same for smoking, alcohol, legal contracts, etc. It's about responsibility and mental development, not proficiency in a given area.
Can someone clarify this: I thought part of Riley's argument is that Kyle recognized the law yet willingly chose to ignore it or simply overlook it for reasons that Destiny describes (regardless of whether he was 12 hours away from being 18, or that it didn't apply to him in terms of his experience experience). But, by virtue of Kyle recognizing the law exists, does that not in some way mean that he is morally in the wrong? The law recognized the risks of underage open carry or the inability for those under the age of 18 to handle certain situations (as Destiny says). And, sure if he was 18 the same situation could have played out the same. However, by Kyle simply knowing he is 17 and not 18 (regardless of if he was 12 hours away from it) doesn't that still mean he willingly chose to ignore it? Perhaps I misunderstood Riley, but I thought that by Kyle fully recognizing he was doing something against the law (whether or not he thought it applied to him), that he is morally in the wrong. Thus, since he recognizes this law, it suggests that he knew well the risks (increased bodily harm, etc.). His intent for being there in the first place would already be morally compromised. This is why this whole argument would fall apart if he was 18 - because he would not need to recognize the law in the first place (even if the events played out the same.) The laws can be based on various reasons for their existence, but the age limit still applies. It's the fact that going against this age limit (importantly with full recognition) would mean that you are committing some moral wrongdoing. I don't think it's a matter of hours to age 18, it's rather the recognition of breaking the law (sorry for repeating myself so much).
Yeah TLDR he willingly disobeyed a law (under the likely assumption he was informed of the law) which may or may not be a slippery slope that leads to disobeying future laws. I was thinking something similar.
I think Destiny acknowledged the possibility of Kyle's presence in that situation being stupid, as well as him bringing a gun being stupid and maybe illegal. If I understand correctly, his response to that was, that it doesn't make his self-defense against people trying to harm him an immoral response.
So Riley's line of is basically that the law gives you notice so in breaking the law, you accept any liability that occur after. Would that not apply to any other laws bring broken in this instance? Destroying property, breaking curfew would leave the individuals liable for following consequences.
Yes, yes, and yes.
And LEGALLY, that is how the law will be used against him.
I cant tell you how many times ive been told, "ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it"
All guns are dangerous, not bad. She's not wrong lol.
@Golden Stacked Warriors A gun existing is dangerous. It's that much easier to be used. That's why nuclear proliferation, for example, is dangerous. By your logic, we should just let Iran and NK get nukes as long as they promise not to arm them lol.
@@snowballeffect7812 Yuuuup. A bomb sitting on a table is safe as long as no one sets a countdown lol
@@crzyprplmnky so would a bomb sitting on the table be safer than no bomb sitting on the table?
@Golden Stacked Warriors Please read the whole thread to understand why you're wrong. There's a reason most states require guns to be stored properly in a gun safe and not just left lying around on tables. lol.
@Golden Stacked Warriors Interesting way to concede the point, but ok lol.
So true. when I seen open carry for the first time, it blew my mind.
@@Sampsonoff your comment is still pretty shit tier tho.
You are judging Americans for something specifically their country allows them to do. Its seems pretty clear your mocking that Americans, but seems to be walking away from that point. Hell I'll make fun of America all day long, but at least own up to it.
Damn Joseph is poppin' off under 2 vids simultaniously
That's not the same Jospeh spamming cringe is it?
Destiny doesnt take into account that the law protects the kids and others from the inexpirienced judgement of a minor. A minors judgement could lead them to do something dangerous, like walk into a protest and shoot 3 people.
1. Destiny seemed to use the 330 million guns in America and the associated murders to argue an acceptable correlation to gun violence. Which is fine except those 330 million guns are owned and used by 30% +/- of the population. His point may still carry over for you but using 330 million guns vs. 110 million gun owners is a misleading fact in bolstering his argument.
2. He argues that having the skill and training to use a firearm should be the only gauge to which the law should prove someone's ability to use any firearm in public. So I guess there is no basis for emotional maturity in someone's age anymore?
Not to mention there is no record of his training you suppose and if he was likewise breaking the law then and for how many years which you are pretty much supporting since it is your whole argument.
3. This in no way changes whether he should have defended himself but let your premises bring you to your argument not top down.
ps where do i apply to be densities caretaker?
Fire extinguishers aren't EXCLUSIVELY used for extinguishing fires. How many millions are out there? How many are actually used to put fires out?
His reasoning for guns aren't used for killing people doesn't really make sense to me.
because a lot of them are also used for target practice, the gun nuts primarly use them for target practice and in other cases they're also used for hunting.
@@AlineaEuros ok.
So hunting is STILL killing. Just not people. So the point stands they're used to kill.
"B-b-but muh target practice!"
You're just practicing to get better at killing. That's all it is.
In the SAME way when they have jr. Firefighters practice PASS with no fires present. Its so when a fire DOES happen, they know what to do.
The definition of a firearm is a weapon, which are used to kill or destroy. That's their primary intended purpose. I don't think the 3 mil or so are all track guns.
@@jokersdemise you can dismiss that all you want, people find target practice fun in some form or the other, doesn't change the fact that you're not killing anything though doing that. Swords and bows are also considered weapons yet most of them aren't even used to kill anyone or even anything.
@UCSwhVEVC5CNN3XMR-dtwQXQ There's mass stabbings but they dont use swords for that. But what is the point being talked about here? that most fire arms are used in mass shootings? because clearly that isn't the case.
@@AlineaEuros the idea that "because there's 3 mill guns in US and only 60k gun deaths proves that guns aren't used explicitly for killing"
So because the vast majority of fire extinguishers aren't actually used on fires, it could be stated using this logic that fire extinguishers aren't EXCLUSIVELY for putting out fires.
At the end of the day, guns are used to kill or destroy, OR to simulate killing/ destroying using stand-in targets.
Just because something hasn't been used YET for its intended purpose doesn't change its intended purpose.
There’s no way Destiny can reconcile th arguments she made because every debate including this one is people trying to find weasely ass ways to win an argument where they’re wrong.
I think a lot of people the nuances in buying cars and guns. Some people but guns for collection, some buy for strictly self defense, some buy to have power over others to take advantage of them, some buy for sport. Some people buy cars to go from A to B, some buy for collection, and some have even bought cars explicitly with the intent to kill others. They have their differences but they are comparable in many ways imo.
Any reasonable person who reads the law prohibiting minors from carrying firearms should understand that it is meant as a broad rule to keep the average maturity and experience of a gun owner as high as possible.
With this in mind it is absurd to condemn Kyle for carrying the gun with his background and obvious mastery with gun handling.
This is especially true if you admit that all of his shootings were justified.
"The more anal you are about the law the more moral you are" unironic lawyer mindset
Tom H Vaush said 15 -16
@Tom H 16 sounds about right to me but it's really not a hill that I want to die on there's nothing inherently horrible about an age of consent at 18
I do wonder how you would confront unjust laws with her mindset.
Who is this guy and why is he spending so much time with Destiny as of late¡
Destiny needs an intelligent non-partisan and calm person to talk to about these things. It drives him mad to talk to people who just fall into line with their side without critical analysis.
Nice destiny very cool
You don't understand if Trayvon have a gun and kill George they would have say what was he doing with a gun if he was not looking for trouble buy Kyle was protecting himself black man with a gun is looking for trouble but Kyle is a hero
All of these analogies are irrelevant. It doesn't really even matter whether or not a person is "aware" of the law. Many times people think they have "the right" to do something and there are laws that say otherwise. People can have opinions of laws and say they don't agree, and that's what they should talk about, but if the law says someone under age X can't have a gun...that's the bottom line so all this back and forth was unnecessary. Take it from the other side. If you had a loved one that was killed and the other side argues "I was a day away from 18" it doesn't matter. In your eyes they shouldn't have had a weapon in a public place. The law says 18 and people get into problems when they take it upon themselves to decide which laws to follow and which ones not to. If you don't like a law change it but in the meantime that's the rule. So rape and driving illegally...not relevant.
Except that destiny argues from a moral perspective, not a legal one. He says that often. And at times I swear he just uses it as an out.
Thats where a lot of this conversation got stuck...i think.
Its like the old "begging the question" debate of...
A>Why is weed bad?
B>because its illegal
A>ok, but why is it illegal?
B>because its bad.
But you are correct. In courtrooms you hear it all the time
"...ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it."
@@firghteningtruth7173 But this is sort of the problem, right? First off I mostly like Destiny so nothing against him. But even though he uses the moral side as an out as you say he goes back to scenarios like "two hours before turning 18" which feels like he's arguing against age as a factor for who can/can't open carry...which is a legal point of contention. Morality is a gray area which is why we have laws, we're not GOVERNED by morality, more so GUIDED by it...which are two separate things. And the lines can get blurred. Like to me, morally, anyone not protesting against the police as an armed wing of the government is morally in the wrong. They have THE RIGHT to be there but supporting injustice actively or passively is morally wrong. And we have concrete correlations, a fascist president calling for non-law enforcement to intervene. I think the property argument is an excuse to cause conflict. We have had riots in the past....where were THESE "property protectors" then? There are just some dots one can easily connect and if you aren't addressing them then how can the conversation be taken seriously..
@@CGImagination1 I mean, yeah. I agree, mostly. Kid put himself there.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And that can be said about rosenbaum too.
The part about destinys argument I dont get is...
Destiny stated the people shouldnt have tried to stop him after the first shooting...they should retreat and call an "authority," as it wasnt "their jobs" to stop him.
But then flip that...is he a firefighter? Is he a cop? Why is he intervening in vandalism? Shouldnt he have backed off and called the cops?
Then destiny has stated he wasnt "an active shooter," but describe what an active shooter looks like and try NOT to unintentionally describe this guy. Whatever his intention was, he didnt stay on scene, and he DIDNT make it clear he was not a threat (hands in the air, mag out of his weapon, or anything, really)...
Then he continued to move about the crowd. Destiny tries to say well, "he didnt shoot the guy rendering aid..." but the guy in el paso didnt shoot any white people either. That doesnt make him not a threat.
So, its reasonable, as a moving entity with a gun whos just killed someone to be seen as a threat.
We will see where the court rules on it, but I believe the prosecutor will spend the most time here...and then, idk what wisconsins laws are, but use of appropriate force is a thing in mamy places. I.e. you cant shoot someone that merely brushes against you and call it self defense.
CGImagination1 this man thank you this whole thing has seemed really fucking pointless to me cause he’s saying purely morally he’s justified in all the shootings but that is litterally so pointless in the eyes of the law In this case, if he’s found guilty of breaking open carry laws and illegally being in possession of a firearm underaged then his self defence is gone he can’t claim it as he was committing a criminal offence. Debating over whether or not he’s morally right and just removing the legal aspect seems really pointless and stupid as it litterally will change nothing as he still broke the law whether or not he is morally right in the subsequent killings. I think destiny saying all theses people arguing against him are not understanding his point is true because he’s not arguing for any specific purpose other than morally questioning while removing the blatant facts that make it illegal in the eyes of the law. Seeing everyone in the comments just ignore this and act as if he has a super solid defence in court because he defended himself when attacked is silly and to me seems that they either don’t understand the law or are merely arguing from a purely moral perspective
Hey all. Do you like philosophy? Debate? Memes? Well come on down to Tom Jumps Dischord discord.gg/QnNSEm
You might remember him from a lukewarm debate he had with Destiny about morality a while back or from his appearance on MDD with his debate with Jake.
I fr thought he debated Riley Reid
What does some guns being unused have to do with the purpose of guns? Why does that matter at all?
Are the vast majority of firearms used at all? What's the proportion of deaths to hours used?
I don’t think she had conceded that if he were 18 it would’ve been ok
Reluctantly, but yes, she said she would drop her argument.
ruclips.net/video/u7JqJj807YU/видео.html timestamped at 01:08:44
scepgineer21 oh yeah yikes. That’s a loss right there lol. Thanks for pointing that out
I feel bad for Destiny, the guy’s had life experience and he’s arguing with sensitive children. Please don’t dilute your arguments because a couple of punes can’t handle the subject matter.
Lolol. What are you considering life experience?
I mean rtr literally went through a transition. Thats pretty out there in terms of "life experience"...that probably sucked in terms of dealing with societies interpretation of whether that is right or wrong.
So what do you mean, exactly?
@@firghteningtruth7173 probably meant different types of life experience, the life experience of destiny is probably closer to Kyle's in the sense that he is from a more conservative state where where guns are more freely accepted, whereas Reiley is I'm guessing from a liberal state (I could be wrong) where she was able to transition not to say that isn't arduous experience, it's just likely those bias will affect her argument. The argument of age restrictions on a gun leads to guns being are bad is kind-of a weird argument.
shooting people doesn't instantly eject the life out of them
people play too much video games
It does if its in the heart.
It's because the exact crime led to the other crimes happening. The rape analogy was circumstantial. The gun situation is would he have shot and killed someone without it? In all likelihood no. In the underage sneak into a party scenario the mere act of being there doesn't mean you are somewhat complicit in another person's decision to rape you. In fact the very charge of rape implies you couldn't consent at all whereas Kyle had a choice to have a gun which logically follows (since it wasn't decoration) the responsibility and capacity to use it as well, which, if he hadn't then he probably wouldn't have shot anyone. And seeing as he wasn't hunting, using it for sport or picked it up after a life and death confrontation it shows premeditation of some kind. Hence the charges.
If being underage at a party doesn't make you complicit in someone raping you the mere act of being underage and open carrying doesn't make you complicit in someone chasing you to try and assault you
@@alexjohansen1337 Yeah no one is arguing that. Illegally carrying a firearm is what makes you complicit in killing someone by discharging it be it intentionally or unintentionally. You cant say of you didn't sneak in you wouldnt be raped but you can say if you wouldn't have shot someone with the gun if you never picked it up. The gun is what tool was used to kill others a fake id isn't. Legally speaking this is what the DA would use.
Joseph do it again please
At this point I feel like having the botez quote at the end of every video is just petty lmao
What do you mean?
@@RanEncounter they mean having Alexandra Botez performing a cock and ball torture comment whilst assuming a Yoda voice at the end of every video is very amusing to them.
I just found Riley last week, i love her channel. Check it out if yall haven't, support small left tubers
I don't get this *'lets dumb down the analogies so stupid people understand them'* meme... if someone doesn't get the rape-analogy they're not intelligent enough to talk about the moraliy of self-defense -.-
Argumentative style is just another way to say debate tactics.
imagine having handlers that gas light you and you're oblivious to it all.
Booksmarts PepeMods
I wish I was aware of these discussions at the time... I would of used this real story as my analogy instead of the rape one...
illinois.concealedcarry.com/2019/12/10/mother-arrested-for-defending-her-life/
Cause if Kyle can't use self defense cause he had a gun when he wasn't supposed to then she should be charged too.
Who the hell is Joseph?
A random commenter who responds with "Cringee" to everyone.
10:30 ish “We have to find any little argument we think we can hold against him”
Fair, if this is an intellectual exercise I guess. Find a viable one, though. Fail
In the rape analogy, the rapist is obviously in the wrong, full stop. But if it's not victim blaming to say a person hit by a train in a stolen car was still at fault for stealing the car, it's not victim blaming to accuse her of whatever laws she broke up to the point of self defense.
I wish In had a booksmarts to analyze interactions, I think we all could benefit from someone objectively viewing or conversations to correct failings in them
@@markantony12 I respectfully disagree
Regarding the intention of open carry laws. He can handle a rifle, yes. But he couldn't handle putting himself in harm's way. The fact that he brought a gun is what put him in a situation to have to defend himself. There are plenty of adults that would do this too, the idea behind the law might be that we don't trust children to make that decision
I grew up in Iowa, 2 hours from Destiny. People would absolutely care if someone was walking around with anything but clearly a hunting rifle. A smaller far arm on your waist is completely dependent on race or wealth.
Homeboy's guilty of breaking the law. It is reckless endangerment for anyone to be walking around pointing his gun like that, regardless of his age. He was behaving in a manner that would lead people to believe he was an active shooter and it is morally okay for the people there to treat him as such. Do you think a valid defense is, "I had to shoot my way out because I had a gun, so now my life was at risk because they could've tried to take my gun and shoot me or beat me to death." The judge may not even allow him to use a self-defense plea. Then anyone could just pull out a gun, and wait to be confronted or noticed and they can start killing people without repercussion.
1untamedbrain 100%. All this moral argument shit is pointless when the law just doesn’t agree. You can disagree with the law and critique it but for better or worse, that’s the current law they have there. Judge 100% could throw out self defence as he was actively committing a criminal offence by carrying a gun around underage. Now you could make the argument that well since laws change as our morals do then us having this discussion nationwide could change our viewpoint and fair enough, but in the current situation I don’t see that happening. Good to finally see someone else who sees this.
The rape analogy falls apart because there is no scenario in which rape can be seen as self defense. The people viewing Rittenhouse as a white nationalist agressor view the three people he has shot as people defending themselves and others from a shooter. I think it is reasonable, especially after the first person has been shot, that people around Rittenhouse perceived him as an active threat, as he still had his rifle in hand while running.
If in the situation you think he just murdered someone and is now running away while still holding the rifle, agressing on him to get that gun from him or make sure you can't get away can be be seen as an act to reduce the harm that Rittenhouse might be able to do following the confrontation.
Someone raping an underaged girl at a party, would never be able to claim that they thought the girl might endanger them and or others - so that the only solution was rape.
I feel Destiny in this case is just reaching for a scenario that is emotionally loaded in order to make people feel for who he perceives as a victim in this scenario; without thinking through why the other side might argue for Rittenhouse being the agressor not the victim.
This question has jack shit to do with what those other people are *justified* in doing. If somebody has a suicide collar strapped to their neck and is told "rape that woman, or I kill you and your family", it would make 'sense' for them to try to rape the woman. But that's *irrelevant*, the woman would still be justified to kill him in self-defense.
Translating here, and taking for granted that the people chasing Rittenhouse knew he killed, didn't kill in self defense, and weren't "trying to cranium him" (which all are big assumptions, especially given that last bit is a literal quote from one of them), it would take magical divination for Rittenhouse to *know* that they weren't trying to murder him.
Stop letting them use the word murder.
This guy was a terrible counter to destiny's viewpoint of the debate. He is clueless.
champ
Pog
I just can't help but feel like almost everybody online that talks with Destiny either supportively or oppositionally is attempting to gaslight him in some way, and over time it works