I wouldn't be that self righteous about this. I completely understand why this guy would hate hearing people talk about this subject considering he was molested as a child.
No, the guy was actually debating the point while talking about how it shouldn't be debated. He didn't realize he already went too far and was debating the point, not whether or not it should be debated. He said something like "No I would never debate that because children are the most vulnerable people." That's already a debate that goes against the topic itself! He just made up his mind on the matter already, so he thinks he's actually one step further back because he is convinced he could never change his mind.
Personally, I have started to question the significance of these debates, entirely. Not that I think it should be off-limits, but I see no reason to believe that anything is gained from these discussions. I mean, other than more memes to add to the memeplex.
tl;dw 1. Whatever I think is wrong, is wrong, because I think it is wrong. 2. Im not against free speech, I just dont want people to speak about "wrong things". 3. Every argument ever made is invalid because whoever made it, was influenced by his past life. Yeah right... circular arguments and hypocrisies are awesome, am I right?! Herpdaderp
Say, for example, you have this RUclipsr who tries to engage in intellectually honest debate, and you put him in a livestream with an obnoxious, disingenuous simpleton...
i think its a distinct lack of imagination, which may have something to do with education. im not sure. i dont want to believe that its a neurology thing because that would indicate genetics being atleast partially to blame, but i woudlnt totally rule out the possibility. either way, its a serious problem since it majorly hinders your ability to do thought experiments, which are critical to understanding how a variable or set of variables might effect a system without actually doing the experiment in real life. basically it makes theory a moot point, and such mindsets help create people who think direct personal observation is the only way to understand reality. and if you've dealt with enough Flat-Earthers, you'd know how frustrating that mindset is...
@@ellusivegman i agree that he probably felt he was using it as an argumentative tactic, but honestly it came off as so tactless. he could clearly see destiny was uncomfortable and didn't want to reveal or talk about this stuff. any rational person would've backed off the moment destiny said 'i absolutely know i would... because i just do.'
This was very well navigated debate and a decent introduction to questioning difficult topics in general. I know you hate anecdotes because they shade your arguments, but I will say subtly learning a little more of your past and realizing how many times you could have appealed to anecdotes in past debates, yet you didn't, just makes me respect you even more. Keep up the great work bud, glad I found your channel.
He actually uses anecdotes a lot to trick morons into instantly agreeing with him. Usually when logic fails he just goes "fuck it" and pulls out a falsified anecdote and it tends to work sadly.
This guy completely stopped trying to argue with you as soon as he clocked you as a victim. I know that's why you don't like to use anecdotes, but it was interesting to see it play out. I think it only helped your side of the debate.
This was infuriating to watch. Once he "pegged him" he was extremely condescending and dismissed the whole conversation and all of Destiny's points as a result of his perceived victim hood.
@@shinohidanzetsu the Irish person immediately started treating Destiny like a child who couldn't possibly hold the position he does aside from trying to rectify past wrongs. So dishonest.
Hey destiny, as a person who watches your RUclips videos. It would be nice if when any debator (including you), presents evidence to each other or in this case a "clip" you could edit that said clip in to bring everyone up to speed. I feel like half the time you bring someone to debate I feel out of place for the first few minutes. Some context would be nice. I still enjoy all your videos.
You start getting into a gray area about editing in evidence. If you watch the destiny/glink debate over on Glinks channel you can watch how awful this is in practice.
PuppySoft if that's the reason then of course not, I don't know the RUclips guidlines. It was just a suggestion to help viewers follow the argument at its premise
Go to ANY academic philosophy department, everyone there will have Destiny’s cool headed detachment when discussing some of the most absurd and creepy ideas imaginable.
Well, to be fair as well, that's because people in philosophy departments are usually at least somewhat respectable towards their opponent's intellect. This is somewhat off topic, but I've noticed that philosophy department professors and grad students and the like notice an EXTREME difference between debating a subject among each other and on the internet, to the point where internet arguments will actually infuriate them because of how 'head banging against a cement wall' they seem to be. Most people online(and I would argue in general)don't entertain hypotheticals, thought experiments, or even the notion they could be wrong(even though most people falsely believe that they are open to changing their mind about subjects), which is so starkly in contrast with people in philosophy departments as to be almost an entirely different realm of communication.
BigLundi that’s exactly right, I think I empathise with your sentiment. I’m a philosophy PhD candidate and one of the reasons I like Destiny’s discussions is he’s able to separate out what he personally endorses, from a discussion about ethics and fundamental principles (unlike the majority of internet discourse which is emotional, even when proponents insist they’re ‘rational’ / ‘skeptical’). The principle re generously interpreting your opponents argument is known in philosophy as the principle of charity, basically you give the strongest articulation of your opponents view in order to defeat the best version of it, thus making your own counter argument as strong as possible. Destiny consistently employs that principle of charity in his discussions (which benefits his argument in a substantive fashion and benefits the discourse more broadly), whereas most of the bullshit skeptics online (Sargon etc) construct the most absurd strawman of their opponents argument and then defeat that, a Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.
I'm reminded of a debate I had with Sargon way back in the day, about 3-4 years ago now where we were debating the whole drunk sex debacle when that was a popular topic of conversation. To spare you the details, near the end of the debate I made the statement, "Well just because two people agree to have sex does not necessarily mean it was consensual." to which he said, "Ok so you just made the statement that two people can agree to have sex and it not be consensual." I said, "Well yes, of course-" And I was going to go on to explain that children are, technically people, and just because they agree to sex, does not mean we consider that 'consent', instead, he cut me off and said, "Let's just move on, I don't think anything else needs to be said there." and laughed along with his chat and insisted we drop the subject entirely, like he 'got me'. It's a rhetorical game for these people, not an honest exchange of ideas, they're not interested in learning, considering, thinking, they're interested in fighting, winning, and 'being right'. It's rather boorish and asinine, and why I stopped trying a long time ago.
TL;DR Destiny "I think it's important to always have an open mind" Random Irish Guy "I can't fathom that, let me rephrase the same question for the entire debate"
This guy trying to diagnose destiny was some of the most cringe shit ever. It sounds like he never tried to engage with Destiny's arguments, just wanted to find a way to win.
I don't think he was looking for a way to win in that moment, he just latched onto the subject because was approaching the argument from a purely emotional standpoint to begin with. It allowed him an avenue to empathize with Destiny, which as an emotional appeal was far more compelling than any logical argument ever would be. If Destiny is an example of somebody whose primary appeal is logos, O'Tool is a perfect example of an individual who is ruled by pathos.
He didn’t seem that attached to the win or lose factor in this debate, I think he was quite curious about destiny actually after he stated he certainly l would hold the same opinions with different life experiences. It’s not a statement most people would make.
This was pretty obvious: 1. It was his direct response to Destinies argument. 2. He totally dodged any reply to it whatsoever. 3. He never had the slightest intention to come back to it whatsoever. tl;dr he was looking for a way out of the debate and found it in Destinies past.
"I'm triggered by this, and I have a strong, unswayable opinion...but I'm not a triggered, SJW or am doing the things I like to make fun of on Twitter. No way. Nuh uh."
This guy is incredible at avoiding answering the arguments Destiny made. The pinacle was when he tried to dwell into Destiny's personal experiences to devalue Destiny's arguments and to move the conversation to a discussion about Destiny instead of the actual topic. The most perfect Ad hominem i have ever seen.
This is just silly. If something is wrong to you, you should be able to be confident in saying exactly why. The idea that you should just avoid it basically just means you admit loss and think it's bad for no reason other than its society says its bad so you're just being reactionary.
Then people dismiss his argument even further. There is no possible way to win this argument. Thats why its dishonest from "O Tool" to even use it. Its literally an AD Hominem that "O Tool" used to undermine Destinies argument. The real one, not the one that most people confused with plain insults.
This person went from seemingly polite to... kind of psychopathic? Why does he keep trying to bring you back to the past? Some sick sense of enjoyment?
I don't think he's psychopathic. his flaw is that he greatly overvalues emotional perspectives over logical ones. that's why he's unable to change his perspective on discussing pedophilia, and that's why he latched onto destiny's personal anecdote -- because he wanted to pull the emotion from it and see if that led to anything.
I think there's a point where you need to use common decency instead of using everything as a tool for an argument. I don't know, didn't seem like Destiny was interested in discussing what happened.
I agree, it was kinda socially awkward and douchey for him to do that and to dwell on it so much, but I think that was just because he felt like he was finally finding something that he could work with -- emotion/personal experience -- compared to the unfeeling/objective reasoning that destiny was using. i don't agree with it, but I see why he went there (because that's his personality).
It was a prime example of an AD Hominem argument that O Tool used to undermine Destinies argument. Im talking about the real one, not the one most people confused with plain insults.
i realized one of the reasons i adore destiny just now while driving home from work. how he doesn’t just completely blow up and call the other person a bad faith liar and question dodging clown makes me appreciate his wrinkly brain so much. i will always watch this dude!
This listener seems to conflate changing social consensus with breaking laws and doing whatever you want. Even if Amos convinced anyone, it remains illegal, and any support for removing the legal restrictions is just building the number of people in a social movement, not an encouragement of child abuse. Moreover, if Amos’ argument is garbage (and it really was) Destiny exposed its flaws. The conversation is going to take place whether Destiny has it or not, it’s just that in many other venues for that conversation Amos may not find as strong a counter argument. By the way, this guy is moralising and censorious based on his own predilections. If people didn’t have public discussions on the social-political legitimacy of transgender people we wouldn’t shift cultural norms towards their inclusion in society, that would be incredibly harmful for trans people and also for the rest of us (we’d be collectively deprived of trans peoples contributions to our society). Having conversations which make people uncomfortable is a requirement of moral progress as a culture. Insisting certain questions are out of bounds is fundamentally authoritarian and illiberal and leaves your moral development stuck in a cul-de-sac.
Good LORD! Look forward to hearing you debate someone with a basic grasp of debate and rational thought; someone who is secure enough in their principles to hear an opposing view openly and weigh it. Massive respect for both your position and your seemingly endless patience when banging your head against an immutable brick wall :)
Here is the entire debate "You shouldnt have hypothetical debates on anything I dont like, and shouldnt let people have a platform if I disagree with them. " There, saved an.hour and a half
You needed to stop him sooner. When he said "How can you debate that when " At that point he is already debating it! He is already doing what he is suggesting you shouldn't be doing. He just doesn't realize it because he feels so set in his opinion on the topic that he doesn't realize he is debating it, because he is convinced he couldn't change his mind. In reality, anyone can change their mind on any topic. It might just take some otherworldly event or circumstance, but still, theoretically it's possible.
yeah that’s rlly uncool. the degree to which one’s transness is a valid component of their identity shouldn’t be contingent on the specific person’s political predilections.
It's nice to see someone able to discuss these kinds of things that a lot of other people feel afraid to talk about. It's funny that people call it "inhuman" because you can separate your emotions from the reason in your arguments. It's hard to find someone who can do that because I think that I have the ability to do that as well and I don't find many people who can do that. I just recently discovered you and already like these types of videos of yours, and also your league randomness with lily and poki. Thanks for doing these things man!
What was brought up in this discussion not only should vindicate you from the narrow-minded trolls but frankly I found it quite inspiring as this showed to me what lengths you would go to at least attempt to live your life by logos. Aside from this - even though his whole argument could easily be picked apart by anyone who has been following you for a while - this has been my favourite debate so far, because so refreshing to have something other than a shouting match every once and a while.
I hope you read this destiny (or whoever edits your videos) In my opinion it would be incredibly useful if links of the videos & articles being referenced were included in the description of the video. Refering only to your debate vods. Have a nice day. Appreciate your content :)
I just dont think he is able to seperate your arguments of being able to have your mind changed, if they have a compelling enough argument, and being against child explotation.
This ended up being a great discussion. Weird for that little stretch where there was too much personal diagnosis happening, but at the end it actually felt like some depth of discussion was achieved.
So did I catch that correctly in the middle: Steven basically nonchallantly said that he also suffered from child abuse when he was younger and never talked about it in front of an audience (while doing precisely that), or were they still in the hypothetical scenario the whole time and spent way too much time pretending it happened to Steven even though that didn't really help the discussion at all?
bro i’ve been looking across the internet and especially his subreddit for so long and literally no one is or has ever talked about it. I’m flabbergasted.
His argument is dumb. It hinges on objective morality, when you try to (and should) explore and, in some cases, debunk these "common sense" moral stances. It's not YOUR responsibility to shape what your listeners believe through trickery and lies, or even omission of topics some random guy thinks is too "harmful" to even speak on.
I dont understand why everyone feels compelled to his argument on this. Just because hes coherent in his argument doesnt make them good. The entire argument was based on an emotional appeal. Why then is the topic of murder and genocide up for discussion when child molestation is not? Growing up I used to be a fat fuck, and was made fun of constantly for it. That doesnt mean that just because the topic strikes a nerve to me personally that it is then not up for discussion. Thats ridiculous.
I guess he's coming at this from a more intrinsic, what we talk about and why, autobiographical affects on our rhetoric. Destiny wants to be a warrior holed up in his logic bunker, but the debate got him to open up a little and admit that we are human and not in a vacuum. It's about crossing the line from anonymous arguments over the internet into something that you're proud of, which is essentially what destiny always intends with his cold Nippon steel, but again we are to an extent intrinsically compromised with what comes out of our mouths IN our lives. It's an extremely deep topic that isn't popular, as it is a concept so humbling it can shake some to their core whilst extremely convenient for the non sequitur teleport-katana argumentor whom wields it out of dishonesty. Oddly enough, destiny has definitely something to look at when lit under such a light, not because we should throw out arguments just because they're made my certain people, but to hopefully make a strong argument even under such scrutinous circumstances.
Essentially I would boil it down to, when and if, a bias is helpful or not, maybe needed or not, in argumentation. I do think it asks a level of honesty seemingly unreachable so it would be a neat exercise.
Im not gonna lie buddy, I read your second reply like three times and still didnt get it. Can you please elaborate on that? Im so lost. As to your first, well... isnt that my point exactly? That some topic are so extremely sensitive to us that sometimes our judgement can be compromised by our background? And that Destiny's argument is that these are exactly the times when we must be extremely careful when we are employing logic precisely because emotion tends to muddle the waters? Or is there sometime that Im missing here?
Will Cheng to the best of my recollection, I think what you described as the exact revelation that came over Destiny; omitting anecdotal evidence may not be sufficient in detachment from just any topic
Well of course not, but I dont think thats enough of a reason to not try and be objective in a debate about moral ethics. Isnt the whole point NOT to argue with our feelings but with reason?
If we can’t discuss controversial ideas in public, you decrease the likelihood of people hearing a strong counter to said idea. All ideas should be held up to scrutiny. Doing it in a public sphere enables that scrutiny.
*Twitter user* : So I have no points, but may I psycho-analyze you? *Destiny* : No. *Twitter User* : So much for mister ‘discuss everything’, eh *Destiny* : Well, when we’re making logical arguments, yeah discuss everything relevant to the logic of the arguments.. *Twitter User* : you poor guy.. I misjudged you.. you’re just sad... anyway it’s time to go, I’ve seen all I need. have a nice life, my fragile little dove.. fly, fly, fly *Destiny* : ok
This was a really great discussion until he got caught up on that personal event Destiny didn't want to speak on. I sort agree with Destiny that to have a real debate on ethics of need to avoid stuff like that in order to reach the most rational conclusion.
Can't believe people aren't talking about the fact that Destiny seems to have admitted to having been abused as a child here... Maybe this is very well known amongst fans? Or maybe people don't want to highlight it because - as he states here - he doesn't want it to be treated as relevant to his arguments? Either way (and I guess he'd cringe at this), I think he's brave, and I couldn't find a comment to that effect that I could just upvote; so I wrote it.
This guy is fucking cringe worthy. He doesn't want to talk about something because he get offended emotionally? Lol he is the sjw he cries about. And his whole entire ad hominem is fucking dishonest.
I live in Ireland, I have lived in Kerry, Derry City , Cork City and Belfast. I have never heard anybody call another handbag. I have heard tool, spanner and weapon.
LOL nobody in Ireland calls each other handbags. I haven't heard everything from the various parts, but that's definitely not one of them. This dude is trolling
Exactly. Otherwise, people don't even understand why something like pedophilia is wrong. It becomes 'it's wrong bc it just is', which is actually quite dangerous and can lead to people being deceived/misled.
It’s really ironic that the caller complains about blasphemy laws in their country... What is a blasphemy law? It’s essentially saying that there are ideas or subjects which are so absolutely wrong to express that they are unspeakable. That’s literally their argument. Granted, it’s different to enforce it legally versus just shaming someone for expressing those ideas, but the basis for the ethical justification of blaphemy laws would be essentially the kind of argument they’re making. The difference is only that blasphemy laws classify religious blasphemy as the unspeakable idea (which I’m sure they argue is because it is an absolute wrong which ought simply to never be vocalized based on their religion) and the caller is arguing the same thing about things whose ramifications they (pretty arbitrarily) deem to be too great to even give them a hearing. They both hold that if an idea carries significant enough potential ethical consequences, it should not be publically discussable. Not to say both cases are the exact same, but the parallel is pretty striking. The biggest differences are just where they draw the line (what is so wrong/harmful that it shouldn’t be discussed publically) and what should be done about the offenders. To be fair, I do think that debating a subject publicly is a tactical decision and that the potential consequences should factor in to whether or not you platform someone and debate (or even talk to) them in front of an audience. For instance, what Joe Rohan does by having alt/far-right guests on constantly in front of a million plus fans is wrong, but it’s not wrong just because he has them on. It’s wrong because he doesn’t provide counterarguments. He takes an extremely friendly and unconfrontational approach where he literally goes along or agrees with virtually every claim or assumption they make, periodically he contributes the same kinds of horrible ideas and false claims, and then in later interviews he repeats things he heard from them, unattributed, as if they are just facts. He doesn’t just let them talk to a million person audience, he does so without virtually any pushback or fact-checking, because he holds a lot of similar views. I think that establishing an ethnostate or demonizing trans people is absolutely ethically wrong... But it’s just a reality that there are people out there putting those propositions forward. On the other hand, what channels like this do is quite different. They have discussions with these people and every time they debate them- they fact-check, they challenge, and they put forward alternative hypotheses. It is a reality that these topics are being debated in society at large, whether we happen to like that or think it’s ethical or not; advocates for bad positions are going to advocate for their bad positions. The onus is on us to counter their arguments in order to persuade people. The moral hazard only arises if someone does not take on the responsibility of sufficiently informing themselves in order to effectively combat the other side, or if radical moderate types act as though morality doesn’t factor in here and every side is equally right as long as they don’t make factually incorrect statements. I’m basically a rule consequentialist (as far as I understand it- this is not my strongest suit), and being that I believe applied ethics is about the predictable human consequences of your actions (including inaction), my issue is whether you approach a conversation such that you have good reason to expect that the odds are in favor of the act of publicly debating it will have net positive consequences. One can make an argument about whether the net consequences of a debate which moves us towards an objective truth are positive regardless of which side it turns out wins- I’m not even weighing in on that, because that’s an extremely complicated kind of calculus that I think likely creates a grey area, or at least one I’m not comfortable acting conclusive about. But I don’t think there are any issues which, as a rule, simply cannot be debated (even publicly). And certainly I don’t think it’s unethical to debate whether it’s ethical to debate these issues, which the caller seems to find shocking. If the predictable consequences (and therefore morality) of publicly debating the predictable consequences (and therefore morality) of an issue turn out to be positive, if he potential benefits outweigh the risks, then within the logic of that ethical framework it makes perfect sense to do so. If I thought it was likely that I would be setting someone up to make an overwhelmingly stronger argument for a position that I thought would do more serious harm than good, then I would not have the public debate, but if at another time the predictable consequences of having the same exact conversation would be positive then I think it would be right to. Of course, if one side is observably correct about their reasons for reaching their conclusion and the other isn’t, then one must take this new information into account in as much as it comes to bear on the issue. But ultimately the ethical question is a normative one; it should be informed by the facts, but at the end of the day a person still must draw a conclusion based on the logic of their ethical framework. I understand the caller’s concern, but I think they’re fundamentally misunderstanding what it means to keep one’s mind open on these subjects. It’s not a lack of condemnation. It’s just an acknowledgement of the fact that justification is the metric by which we rationally judge whether we should deem something correct or incorrect. We may already find something incredibly unethical and despicable, but the reason we do is not because it’s bad. We do because a compelling case can be made for why it is unethical. And note: I do believe there is probably an objective morality. But even if there is, we don’t have access to it; even if some things are objectively right or wrong, we have to have some method for determining what we think is right or wrong. We may be correct or incorrect, but that rationale, the degree of justification and defensibility (and the argumentation between frameworks which come to different conclusions about it) is literally all we have to give us any indication. This is why it’s important to keep an open mind and hear our arguments. Unless God comes down and actually does lay out the tenets of the objective morality (or if there are no rules, reveals to us what is the objectively correct moral logic/framework), all we can do is reason our way to the best conclusion we can reach, in the same way that objective reality may not be accessible to us (everything is constrained by the filter of our senses, our subjectivity), but we can use processes such as the scientific method or philosophical inquiry to move towards truth, whether or not the absolute truth is in principle accessible to us.
The issue here is that this fellow doesn't understand is that being open to having your mind changed and thinking it is likely your opponent will be capable of changing your mind on a particular subject is very different. I think it's preposterous to assume Destiny went into said debate thinking "Oh boy I'm about to learn some shit!"
Title question answered quick: No. Whether or not you should discuss something is just dependent on whether you want to, either because it's boring or because you don't enjoy it. But if you just don't care about the worst things life has to offer, you can talk about anything. This changes depending on consequence. If you can prove that a discussion can subvert someone's will, it opens a can of worms. Hypothetically a discussion that could convince someone to kill shouldn't be discussed, because it is no different from pulling the trigger. Just another means to do so. What's the point of persuasion if not to influence people's beliefs, and how do beliefs change people's actions in different contexts? These things matter.
We know this to be true because we know that environment affects outcome in people's life. So what you discuss with them is to a growing plant a nutrient or a toxin. Many people have no idea what the effects of what they say are, some people, like teachers or guides, are well aware that their words carry weight and that their students will come to rely on them later. Anakin didn't join the dark side for no reason. He was convinced.
Fun fact, guys: Shaniqua O'Toole turned out to be a parody Twitter account. Is this unequivocal evidence that they're trolling in this conversation? No, but they probably are. (There's almost no way I know about the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement, but this guy has never heard of the US Civil War.) ------------- Jeez, this was really insidious. "Shaniqua" wasn't kinder after he wrenched that out of Destiny, he leapt on it with smug satisfaction and used it to score points he knew he didn't really have. Any sane person, especially one who talks about being a victim, would back off when Destiny first said it wasn't relevant and he wasn't going to talk about it. Especially if you don't know if it's already public, a normal person wouldn't go on and draw attention to it.
the analogy about segregation in the us and how that was similar to that guys view on no having debates because you should be "wise enough" literally won the whole argument but he covertly dispelled by saying he didnt know what it was about and the situation isnt comparable. he was almost there ffs
i respect that destiny strives to eliminate emotion from his discussions. it's a really interesting and honest approach, and i think this guy isn't understanding that (initially). but it's also interesting that by suckering destiny into the emotional side of the conversation, they did manage to reach a mutually constructive understanding.
« I think I have found the missing piece ». Well, congratulations to you Sherlock Holmes, you just have stumbled upon the Narcissistic wound of your interlocutor. >_> Sadness and despair awaits thou... Now that you have understood it, I am proud of you. Now I am going to go cry too.
There was a comedy film in Ireland a few years ago called "The Guard". In it, an Irish police officer is aided by an African-American FBI agent in an international drug bust. When they first meet, the Irish police officer says something racist and tries to excuse it by saying that "Racism is part of my culture." This man reminds me of him so much. No Irish person is this sense about American race relations. They just spend to much time complaining about Nigerians and Poles to notice the similarities.
This guy's entire argument is essentially the trolley problem......... "Would you rather make [this] choice, or [this] choice?" And one way is the clear choice. Saving more children is always the answer.
![Oscar Maydon x Fuerza Regida - Tu Boda [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_ymicn0_GYc/mqdefault.jpg)
This is literally a debate about whether or not we should debate.
And we should. This guy is a triggered do-gooder who does not admit he is one.
I wouldn't be that self righteous about this. I completely understand why this guy would hate hearing people talk about this subject considering he was molested as a child.
No, the guy was actually debating the point while talking about how it shouldn't be debated. He didn't realize he already went too far and was debating the point, not whether or not it should be debated.
He said something like "No I would never debate that because children are the most vulnerable people." That's already a debate that goes against the topic itself! He just made up his mind on the matter already, so he thinks he's actually one step further back because he is convinced he could never change his mind.
Personally, I have started to question the significance of these debates, entirely. Not that I think it should be off-limits, but I see no reason to believe that anything is gained from these discussions. I mean, other than more memes to add to the memeplex.
tl;dw 1. Whatever I think is wrong, is wrong, because I think it is wrong.
2. Im not against free speech, I just dont want people to speak about "wrong things".
3. Every argument ever made is invalid because whoever made it, was influenced by his past life.
Yeah right... circular arguments and hypocrisies are awesome, am I right?! Herpdaderp
Why the hell does no one Destiny talks to understand how hypotheticals work?
Wendigo 1 I have no fucking clue
Say, for example, you have this RUclipsr who tries to engage in intellectually honest debate, and you put him in a livestream with an obnoxious, disingenuous simpleton...
BUT WOULD YOU LISTEN TO HITLER?
Apparently there are an absurd amount literalist dullards out there.
i think its a distinct lack of imagination, which may have something to do with education. im not sure. i dont want to believe that its a neurology thing because that would indicate genetics being atleast partially to blame, but i woudlnt totally rule out the possibility.
either way, its a serious problem since it majorly hinders your ability to do thought experiments, which are critical to understanding how a variable or set of variables might effect a system without actually doing the experiment in real life. basically it makes theory a moot point, and such mindsets help create people who think direct personal observation is the only way to understand reality. and if you've dealt with enough Flat-Earthers, you'd know how frustrating that mindset is...
This guy turned into doctor Phil at the end there
@@ellusivegman i agree that he probably felt he was using it as an argumentative tactic, but honestly it came off as so tactless. he could clearly see destiny was uncomfortable and didn't want to reveal or talk about this stuff. any rational person would've backed off the moment destiny said 'i absolutely know i would... because i just do.'
This was very well navigated debate and a decent introduction to questioning difficult topics in general. I know you hate anecdotes because they shade your arguments, but I will say subtly learning a little more of your past and realizing how many times you could have appealed to anecdotes in past debates, yet you didn't, just makes me respect you even more. Keep up the great work bud, glad I found your channel.
He actually uses anecdotes a lot to trick morons into instantly agreeing with him. Usually when logic fails he just goes "fuck it" and pulls out a falsified anecdote and it tends to work sadly.
This guy completely stopped trying to argue with you as soon as he clocked you as a victim. I know that's why you don't like to use anecdotes, but it was interesting to see it play out. I think it only helped your side of the debate.
It was a prime example of using Ad Hominem. The real one. Not the one most people confused with plain insults.
This was infuriating to watch. Once he "pegged him" he was extremely condescending and dismissed the whole conversation and all of Destiny's points as a result of his perceived victim hood.
I agree. Creepy as fuck.
Genuinely angering
@@shinohidanzetsu the Irish person immediately started treating Destiny like a child who couldn't possibly hold the position he does aside from trying to rectify past wrongs.
So dishonest.
Hey destiny, as a person who watches your RUclips videos. It would be nice if when any debator (including you), presents evidence to each other or in this case a "clip" you could edit that said clip in to bring everyone up to speed. I feel like half the time you bring someone to debate I feel out of place for the first few minutes. Some context would be nice. I still enjoy all your videos.
Did you just ask Steven to edit his videos? Omygosh I’m dying hahahahaha
You start getting into a gray area about editing in evidence. If you watch the destiny/glink debate over on Glinks channel you can watch how awful this is in practice.
Honestly... I just want links to the articles and evidence that they use in the description box. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Brandon Garcia I don't know if he can do that legally without his RUclips being fucked.
PuppySoft if that's the reason then of course not, I don't know the RUclips guidlines. It was just a suggestion to help viewers follow the argument at its premise
6 minutes in this guy is 100% a troll pretending to not know what words like tool mean when he's from my side of the pond it's a commonly used word
@@ChiefBinChicken huh? wtf r u talking about
Dude did you not even watch the full debate? This guy was genuine quit being a dickhead
@@JOHN-cx6kn did you miss that part?
- "I'm never uncomfortable", *chair shaking INTENSIFIES*
Go to ANY academic philosophy department, everyone there will have Destiny’s cool headed detachment when discussing some of the most absurd and creepy ideas imaginable.
Why? Philosophy is the field of argumentation, why would it stop at pedophilia?
I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m not advocating arbitrary restrictions on intellectual or rhetorical enquiry.
Well, to be fair as well, that's because people in philosophy departments are usually at least somewhat respectable towards their opponent's intellect. This is somewhat off topic, but I've noticed that philosophy department professors and grad students and the like notice an EXTREME difference between debating a subject among each other and on the internet, to the point where internet arguments will actually infuriate them because of how 'head banging against a cement wall' they seem to be. Most people online(and I would argue in general)don't entertain hypotheticals, thought experiments, or even the notion they could be wrong(even though most people falsely believe that they are open to changing their mind about subjects), which is so starkly in contrast with people in philosophy departments as to be almost an entirely different realm of communication.
BigLundi that’s exactly right, I think I empathise with your sentiment. I’m a philosophy PhD candidate and one of the reasons I like Destiny’s discussions is he’s able to separate out what he personally endorses, from a discussion about ethics and fundamental principles (unlike the majority of internet discourse which is emotional, even when proponents insist they’re ‘rational’ / ‘skeptical’). The principle re generously interpreting your opponents argument is known in philosophy as the principle of charity, basically you give the strongest articulation of your opponents view in order to defeat the best version of it, thus making your own counter argument as strong as possible. Destiny consistently employs that principle of charity in his discussions (which benefits his argument in a substantive fashion and benefits the discourse more broadly), whereas most of the bullshit skeptics online (Sargon etc) construct the most absurd strawman of their opponents argument and then defeat that, a Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.
I'm reminded of a debate I had with Sargon way back in the day, about 3-4 years ago now where we were debating the whole drunk sex debacle when that was a popular topic of conversation. To spare you the details, near the end of the debate I made the statement, "Well just because two people agree to have sex does not necessarily mean it was consensual." to which he said, "Ok so you just made the statement that two people can agree to have sex and it not be consensual." I said, "Well yes, of course-" And I was going to go on to explain that children are, technically people, and just because they agree to sex, does not mean we consider that 'consent', instead, he cut me off and said, "Let's just move on, I don't think anything else needs to be said there." and laughed along with his chat and insisted we drop the subject entirely, like he 'got me'. It's a rhetorical game for these people, not an honest exchange of ideas, they're not interested in learning, considering, thinking, they're interested in fighting, winning, and 'being right'. It's rather boorish and asinine, and why I stopped trying a long time ago.
TL;DR Destiny "I think it's important to always have an open mind"
Random Irish Guy "I can't fathom that, let me rephrase the same question for the entire debate"
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.
4:50 "It's hard to tell when you profile picture is literally a fat black woman doing the sassy thing and then your name is Shoniqua O'Toole"
This guy trying to diagnose destiny was some of the most cringe shit ever. It sounds like he never tried to engage with Destiny's arguments, just wanted to find a way to win.
I don't think he was looking for a way to win in that moment, he just latched onto the subject because was approaching the argument from a purely emotional standpoint to begin with. It allowed him an avenue to empathize with Destiny, which as an emotional appeal was far more compelling than any logical argument ever would be. If Destiny is an example of somebody whose primary appeal is logos, O'Tool is a perfect example of an individual who is ruled by pathos.
Yeah only Martin Shkreli can diagnose Destiny.
He didn’t seem that attached to the win or lose factor in this debate, I think he was quite curious about destiny actually after he stated he certainly l would hold the same opinions with different life experiences. It’s not a statement most people would make.
This was pretty obvious:
1. It was his direct response to Destinies argument.
2. He totally dodged any reply to it whatsoever.
3. He never had the slightest intention to come back to it whatsoever.
tl;dr he was looking for a way out of the debate and found it in Destinies past.
wow free speech got destroyed in this debate.
new thumbnails are beast. thank you for releasing so much on youtube lately
"I'm triggered by this, and I have a strong, unswayable opinion...but I'm not a triggered, SJW or am doing the things I like to make fun of on Twitter. No way. Nuh uh."
"My friend is a crazy SJW liberal and they call me Shaniqui." I knew at that moment this would be a roller-coaster
THE IRONY
This guy is incredible at avoiding answering the arguments Destiny made. The pinacle was when he tried to dwell into Destiny's personal experiences to devalue Destiny's arguments and to move the conversation to a discussion about Destiny instead of the actual topic. The most perfect Ad hominem i have ever seen.
This is just silly. If something is wrong to you, you should be able to be confident in saying exactly why. The idea that you should just avoid it basically just means you admit loss and think it's bad for no reason other than its society says its bad so you're just being reactionary.
Then people dismiss his argument even further. There is no possible way to win this argument. Thats why its dishonest from "O Tool" to even use it. Its literally an AD Hominem that "O Tool" used to undermine Destinies argument. The real one, not the one that most people confused with plain insults.
This person went from seemingly polite to... kind of psychopathic? Why does he keep trying to bring you back to the past? Some sick sense of enjoyment?
I don't think he's psychopathic. his flaw is that he greatly overvalues emotional perspectives over logical ones. that's why he's unable to change his perspective on discussing pedophilia, and that's why he latched onto destiny's personal anecdote -- because he wanted to pull the emotion from it and see if that led to anything.
I think there's a point where you need to use common decency instead of using everything as a tool for an argument. I don't know, didn't seem like Destiny was interested in discussing what happened.
I agree, it was kinda socially awkward and douchey for him to do that and to dwell on it so much, but I think that was just because he felt like he was finally finding something that he could work with -- emotion/personal experience -- compared to the unfeeling/objective reasoning that destiny was using. i don't agree with it, but I see why he went there (because that's his personality).
It was a prime example of an AD Hominem argument that O Tool used to undermine Destinies argument. Im talking about the real one, not the one most people confused with plain insults.
It might be possible that english was his second language
i realized one of the reasons i adore destiny just now while driving home from work. how he doesn’t just completely blow up and call the other person a bad faith liar and question dodging clown makes me appreciate his wrinkly brain so much. i will always watch this dude!
This listener seems to conflate changing social consensus with breaking laws and doing whatever you want.
Even if Amos convinced anyone, it remains illegal, and any support for removing the legal restrictions is just building the number of people in a social movement, not an encouragement of child abuse.
Moreover, if Amos’ argument is garbage (and it really was) Destiny exposed its flaws. The conversation is going to take place whether Destiny has it or not, it’s just that in many other venues for that conversation Amos may not find as strong a counter argument.
By the way, this guy is moralising and censorious based on his own predilections. If people didn’t have public discussions on the social-political legitimacy of transgender people we wouldn’t shift cultural norms towards their inclusion in society, that would be incredibly harmful for trans people and also for the rest of us (we’d be collectively deprived of trans peoples contributions to our society). Having conversations which make people uncomfortable is a requirement of moral progress as a culture. Insisting certain questions are out of bounds is fundamentally authoritarian and illiberal and leaves your moral development stuck in a cul-de-sac.
Aimee Lawrence ^^^ this! Feelsbad that in our current climate for discourse is pretty hostile and near non-existent because of this triggered culture.
bro I’ll hear out an argument about why I should die
"I thought this would be a shit show"
Me too Destiny me too
Mizuki Sayomi It was
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Planned on being bored to death with circular arguments about topics that don't affect me. Stayed for the ASMR.
Good LORD! Look forward to hearing you debate someone with a basic grasp of debate and rational thought; someone who is secure enough in their principles to hear an opposing view openly and weigh it. Massive respect for both your position and your seemingly endless patience when banging your head against an immutable brick wall :)
Here is the entire debate
"You shouldnt have hypothetical debates on anything I dont like, and shouldnt let people have a platform if I disagree with them. "
There, saved an.hour and a half
EVERY single argument that the guest made against discussing pedophilia could be made against discussing gay and transgender rights 25+ years ago.
You needed to stop him sooner. When he said "How can you debate that when " At that point he is already debating it! He is already doing what he is suggesting you shouldn't be doing. He just doesn't realize it because he feels so set in his opinion on the topic that he doesn't realize he is debating it, because he is convinced he couldn't change his mind. In reality, anyone can change their mind on any topic. It might just take some otherworldly event or circumstance, but still, theoretically it's possible.
Destiny chat is fine using the wrong pronouns if they disagree with the person WeirdChamp
yeah that’s rlly uncool. the degree to which one’s transness is a valid component of their identity shouldn’t be contingent on the specific person’s political predilections.
It's nice to see someone able to discuss these kinds of things that a lot of other people feel afraid to talk about. It's funny that people call it "inhuman" because you can separate your emotions from the reason in your arguments. It's hard to find someone who can do that because I think that I have the ability to do that as well and I don't find many people who can do that. I just recently discovered you and already like these types of videos of yours, and also your league randomness with lily and poki. Thanks for doing these things man!
What was brought up in this discussion not only should vindicate you from the narrow-minded trolls but frankly I found it quite inspiring as this showed to me what lengths you would go to at least attempt to live your life by logos.
Aside from this - even though his whole argument could easily be picked apart by anyone who has been following you for a while - this has been my favourite debate so far, because so refreshing to have something other than a shouting match every once and a while.
stop debating people with mental issues... its just sooo unproductive having to explain basic logic every 10 mins...
I hope you read this destiny (or whoever edits your videos)
In my opinion it would be incredibly useful if links of the videos & articles being referenced were included in the description of the video. Refering only to your debate vods.
Have a nice day. Appreciate your content :)
Holy shit you gotta get the discussion back on track. This went way off the fucking rails.
Hey Editor, thanks for taking my suggestion to put the date streamed in the description. :)
That was really engaging...hope to see part 2 one day :)
this is either the biggest troll or the smartest person you've debated yet
56:00 DESTINY GOT CRACKED, THIS GUY IS A GENIUS
Destiny says he doesn't want to talk about the subject, the other guy fishes on about it for over 10 minutes... what a fucking O'tool
How the fuck can anyone NOT think he's a troll looking at his twitter?
How the fuck was this dude 'smart?'
What part of his purely emotion-based argument was "smart"? And if he's a troll, it's irrelevant if he passes the non-troll "Turing Test".
how is noticing the obvious "genius"?
this was the first destiny video I ever watched
I just dont think he is able to seperate your arguments of being able to have your mind changed, if they have a compelling enough argument, and being against child explotation.
This actually was a very good debate for once, very interesting character this guy!
This ended up being a great discussion. Weird for that little stretch where there was too much personal diagnosis happening, but at the end it actually felt like some depth of discussion was achieved.
So did I catch that correctly in the middle: Steven basically nonchallantly said that he also suffered from child abuse when he was younger and never talked about it in front of an audience (while doing precisely that), or were they still in the hypothetical scenario the whole time and spent way too much time pretending it happened to Steven even though that didn't really help the discussion at all?
^this
No that was real
bro i’ve been looking across the internet and especially his subreddit for so long and literally no one is or has ever talked about it. I’m flabbergasted.
His argument is dumb. It hinges on objective morality, when you try to (and should) explore and, in some cases, debunk these "common sense" moral stances. It's not YOUR responsibility to shape what your listeners believe through trickery and lies, or even omission of topics some random guy thinks is too "harmful" to even speak on.
@@yay842 and you just liked your own comment.
I dont understand why everyone feels compelled to his argument on this. Just because hes coherent in his argument doesnt make them good. The entire argument was based on an emotional appeal. Why then is the topic of murder and genocide up for discussion when child molestation is not? Growing up I used to be a fat fuck, and was made fun of constantly for it. That doesnt mean that just because the topic strikes a nerve to me personally that it is then not up for discussion. Thats ridiculous.
I guess he's coming at this from a more intrinsic, what we talk about and why, autobiographical affects on our rhetoric. Destiny wants to be a warrior holed up in his logic bunker, but the debate got him to open up a little and admit that we are human and not in a vacuum. It's about crossing the line from anonymous arguments over the internet into something that you're proud of, which is essentially what destiny always intends with his cold Nippon steel, but again we are to an extent intrinsically compromised with what comes out of our mouths IN our lives. It's an extremely deep topic that isn't popular, as it is a concept so humbling it can shake some to their core whilst extremely convenient for the non sequitur teleport-katana argumentor whom wields it out of dishonesty. Oddly enough, destiny has definitely something to look at when lit under such a light, not because we should throw out arguments just because they're made my certain people, but to hopefully make a strong argument even under such scrutinous circumstances.
Essentially I would boil it down to, when and if, a bias is helpful or not, maybe needed or not, in argumentation. I do think it asks a level of honesty seemingly unreachable so it would be a neat exercise.
Im not gonna lie buddy, I read your second reply like three times and still didnt get it. Can you please elaborate on that? Im so lost.
As to your first, well... isnt that my point exactly? That some topic are so extremely sensitive to us that sometimes our judgement can be compromised by our background? And that Destiny's argument is that these are exactly the times when we must be extremely careful when we are employing logic precisely because emotion tends to muddle the waters?
Or is there sometime that Im missing here?
Will Cheng to the best of my recollection, I think what you described as the exact revelation that came over Destiny; omitting anecdotal evidence may not be sufficient in detachment from just any topic
Well of course not, but I dont think thats enough of a reason to not try and be objective in a debate about moral ethics. Isnt the whole point NOT to argue with our feelings but with reason?
This otoole guy doesnt seem to have any point?
If we can’t discuss controversial ideas in public, you decrease the likelihood of people hearing a strong counter to said idea. All ideas should be held up to scrutiny. Doing it in a public sphere enables that scrutiny.
*Twitter user* : So I have no points, but may I psycho-analyze you?
*Destiny* : No.
*Twitter User* : So much for mister ‘discuss everything’, eh
*Destiny* : Well, when we’re making logical arguments, yeah discuss everything relevant to the logic of the arguments..
*Twitter User* : you poor guy.. I misjudged you.. you’re just sad... anyway it’s time to go, I’ve seen all I need. have a nice life, my fragile little dove.. fly, fly, fly
*Destiny* : ok
**forcefully extracts and infers highly specific information**
"oh i didn't mean to out you!"
This was a really great discussion until he got caught up on that personal event Destiny didn't want to speak on. I sort agree with Destiny that to have a real debate on ethics of need to avoid stuff like that in order to reach the most rational conclusion.
I'm 22 minutes in and you know what? I like this one.
Wait until you get to the part where he acts like a therapist
Luis Niebla oh that was brilliant. "Do you ever... Talk about it... Do you want to?" I literally loled
#metoo
I assume that changed later
Is it odd that this guy said I don't understand why there are problems with race in the US but never thought to look into it.
7:10 This guy is 10/10 trolling. "Publicize me, pleaseeee"
This was the first time I've looked at Destiny's chat. Certainly the last one.
5:58 "Why can't I be sexually attracted to my MEME PROFILE picture?"
SkeptiKat_ OwO
Person A: Some topics should be too sacrilegious to be publicly discussed;
Person B: No.
That was intense.i love you Destiny
It was so weird hearing this person just fundamentally not be able to grapple with destiny’s position.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
I love your debates, Man. Keep on.
I mean if having a discussion could sway people either way isn't it likely they'll just develop whatever opinion regardless based on information?
This guy doesn't get it - it's nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with critical thinking and intellectual honesty.
Wow... I was pretty shocked by this one!
>Comes from a country that exports so many actors in American Civil War movies
>Still doesn't know what The American Civil War was
Definitely a troll.
We fought on both sides. He probably thought it was the same army.
Can't believe people aren't talking about the fact that Destiny seems to have admitted to having been abused as a child here... Maybe this is very well known amongst fans? Or maybe people don't want to highlight it because - as he states here - he doesn't want it to be treated as relevant to his arguments? Either way (and I guess he'd cringe at this), I think he's brave, and I couldn't find a comment to that effect that I could just upvote; so I wrote it.
Hysterical man speaking calmly.
This guy is fucking cringe worthy. He doesn't want to talk about something because he get offended emotionally? Lol he is the sjw he cries about. And his whole entire ad hominem is fucking dishonest.
I live in Ireland, I have lived in Kerry, Derry City , Cork City and Belfast. I have never heard anybody call another handbag. I have heard tool, spanner and weapon.
I love it when people can debate or discuss subjects without their feelings influencing their reasoning.
LOL nobody in Ireland calls each other handbags. I haven't heard everything from the various parts, but that's definitely not one of them. This dude is trolling
Yah I got that as well I’m from cork been to nearly county nobody has ever said that he’s winding him up
love your debates.
Thank you I try.
nothing should be beyond discussion, it's one the very few ways we can become reasonably certain that the beliefs that we hold are actually valid.
Exactly. Otherwise, people don't even understand why something like pedophilia is wrong. It becomes 'it's wrong bc it just is', which is actually quite dangerous and can lead to people being deceived/misled.
It’s really ironic that the caller complains about blasphemy laws in their country... What is a blasphemy law? It’s essentially saying that there are ideas or subjects which are so absolutely wrong to express that they are unspeakable. That’s literally their argument.
Granted, it’s different to enforce it legally versus just shaming someone for expressing those ideas, but the basis for the ethical justification of blaphemy laws would be essentially the kind of argument they’re making. The difference is only that blasphemy laws classify religious blasphemy as the unspeakable idea (which I’m sure they argue is because it is an absolute wrong which ought simply to never be vocalized based on their religion) and the caller is arguing the same thing about things whose ramifications they (pretty arbitrarily) deem to be too great to even give them a hearing. They both hold that if an idea carries significant enough potential ethical consequences, it should not be publically discussable. Not to say both cases are the exact same, but the parallel is pretty striking. The biggest differences are just where they draw the line (what is so wrong/harmful that it shouldn’t be discussed publically) and what should be done about the offenders.
To be fair, I do think that debating a subject publicly is a tactical decision and that the potential consequences should factor in to whether or not you platform someone and debate (or even talk to) them in front of an audience. For instance, what Joe Rohan does by having alt/far-right guests on constantly in front of a million plus fans is wrong, but it’s not wrong just because he has them on. It’s wrong because he doesn’t provide counterarguments. He takes an extremely friendly and unconfrontational approach where he literally goes along or agrees with virtually every claim or assumption they make, periodically he contributes the same kinds of horrible ideas and false claims, and then in later interviews he repeats things he heard from them, unattributed, as if they are just facts. He doesn’t just let them talk to a million person audience, he does so without virtually any pushback or fact-checking, because he holds a lot of similar views. I think that establishing an ethnostate or demonizing trans people is absolutely ethically wrong... But it’s just a reality that there are people out there putting those propositions forward.
On the other hand, what channels like this do is quite different. They have discussions with these people and every time they debate them- they fact-check, they challenge, and they put forward alternative hypotheses. It is a reality that these topics are being debated in society at large, whether we happen to like that or think it’s ethical or not; advocates for bad positions are going to advocate for their bad positions. The onus is on us to counter their arguments in order to persuade people. The moral hazard only arises if someone does not take on the responsibility of sufficiently informing themselves in order to effectively combat the other side, or if radical moderate types act as though morality doesn’t factor in here and every side is equally right as long as they don’t make factually incorrect statements. I’m basically a rule consequentialist (as far as I understand it- this is not my strongest suit), and being that I believe applied ethics is about the predictable human consequences of your actions (including inaction), my issue is whether you approach a conversation such that you have good reason to expect that the odds are in favor of the act of publicly debating it will have net positive consequences. One can make an argument about whether the net consequences of a debate which moves us towards an objective truth are positive regardless of which side it turns out wins- I’m not even weighing in on that, because that’s an extremely complicated kind of calculus that I think likely creates a grey area, or at least one I’m not comfortable acting conclusive about. But I don’t think there are any issues which, as a rule, simply cannot be debated (even publicly). And certainly I don’t think it’s unethical to debate whether it’s ethical to debate these issues, which the caller seems to find shocking.
If the predictable consequences (and therefore morality) of publicly debating the predictable consequences (and therefore morality) of an issue turn out to be positive, if he potential benefits outweigh the risks, then within the logic of that ethical framework it makes perfect sense to do so. If I thought it was likely that I would be setting someone up to make an overwhelmingly stronger argument for a position that I thought would do more serious harm than good, then I would not have the public debate, but if at another time the predictable consequences of having the same exact conversation would be positive then I think it would be right to. Of course, if one side is observably correct about their reasons for reaching their conclusion and the other isn’t, then one must take this new information into account in as much as it comes to bear on the issue. But ultimately the ethical question is a normative one; it should be informed by the facts, but at the end of the day a person still must draw a conclusion based on the logic of their ethical framework.
I understand the caller’s concern, but I think they’re fundamentally misunderstanding what it means to keep one’s mind open on these subjects. It’s not a lack of condemnation. It’s just an acknowledgement of the fact that justification is the metric by which we rationally judge whether we should deem something correct or incorrect. We may already find something incredibly unethical and despicable, but the reason we do is not because it’s bad. We do because a compelling case can be made for why it is unethical. And note: I do believe there is probably an objective morality. But even if there is, we don’t have access to it; even if some things are objectively right or wrong, we have to have some method for determining what we think is right or wrong. We may be correct or incorrect, but that rationale, the degree of justification and defensibility (and the argumentation between frameworks which come to different conclusions about it) is literally all we have to give us any indication. This is why it’s important to keep an open mind and hear our arguments. Unless God comes down and actually does lay out the tenets of the objective morality (or if there are no rules, reveals to us what is the objectively correct moral logic/framework), all we can do is reason our way to the best conclusion we can reach, in the same way that objective reality may not be accessible to us (everything is constrained by the filter of our senses, our subjectivity), but we can use processes such as the scientific method or philosophical inquiry to move towards truth, whether or not the absolute truth is in principle accessible to us.
Mich opening destinys stream fuckign killed me dude xDDD
I feel like I can get a sense as to why Catholicism thrived in Ireland throughout history after listening to this person.
The issue here is that this fellow doesn't understand is that being open to having your mind changed and thinking it is likely your opponent will be capable of changing your mind on a particular subject is very different. I think it's preposterous to assume Destiny went into said debate thinking "Oh boy I'm about to learn some shit!"
Title question answered quick: No.
Whether or not you should discuss something is just dependent on whether you want to, either because it's boring or because you don't enjoy it. But if you just don't care about the worst things life has to offer, you can talk about anything.
This changes depending on consequence.
If you can prove that a discussion can subvert someone's will, it opens a can of worms. Hypothetically a discussion that could convince someone to kill shouldn't be discussed, because it is no different from pulling the trigger. Just another means to do so.
What's the point of persuasion if not to influence people's beliefs, and how do beliefs change people's actions in different contexts? These things matter.
We know this to be true because we know that environment affects outcome in people's life. So what you discuss with them is to a growing plant a nutrient or a toxin. Many people have no idea what the effects of what they say are, some people, like teachers or guides, are well aware that their words carry weight and that their students will come to rely on them later.
Anakin didn't join the dark side for no reason. He was convinced.
What a creep.
Got to love "free speech BUTTTTTTTTT"
This guys might be a little ridiculous as far as his ways of thinking go, but he is so polite and calm that I can't help but like and respect him.
I’m impressed Destiny is self aware of his inability to form personal relationships, that’s interesting
penjotical1 it’s honestly not surprising to me
Fun fact, guys: Shaniqua O'Toole turned out to be a parody Twitter account. Is this unequivocal evidence that they're trolling in this conversation? No, but they probably are. (There's almost no way I know about the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement, but this guy has never heard of the US Civil War.)
-------------
Jeez, this was really insidious. "Shaniqua" wasn't kinder after he wrenched that out of Destiny, he leapt on it with smug satisfaction and used it to score points he knew he didn't really have. Any sane person, especially one who talks about being a victim, would back off when Destiny first said it wasn't relevant and he wasn't going to talk about it. Especially if you don't know if it's already public, a normal person wouldn't go on and draw attention to it.
damn its like two destiny's brought up in two different environments both debating
the analogy about segregation in the us and how that was similar to that guys view on no having debates because you should be "wise enough" literally won the whole argument but he covertly dispelled by saying he didnt know what it was about and the situation isnt comparable. he was almost there ffs
i respect that destiny strives to eliminate emotion from his discussions. it's a really interesting and honest approach, and i think this guy isn't understanding that (initially). but it's also interesting that by suckering destiny into the emotional side of the conversation, they did manage to reach a mutually constructive understanding.
I always thought "tool" was just a substitute for "dick" or "asshole" or "jerk"
The Mitch clip at the end was perfect
54:00 pls make it stop, that got sooo uncomfortable, how tactless can you be
The paradox of being unmovable on being movable
« I think I have found the missing piece ». Well, congratulations to you Sherlock Holmes, you just have stumbled upon the Narcissistic wound of your interlocutor. >_>
Sadness and despair awaits thou... Now that you have understood it, I am proud of you. Now I am going to go cry too.
This dude trying to pathologize Destiny towards the end is really insulting.
Destiny .. the voice of reason 🙌🏻
I enjoyed this one, for once it was enjoyable listening to both sides.
This person's mind is rotted away. I can't begin to understand how he's missing this.
A very interesting video, thanks !
The guy he confronts... is unironically completely aloof on anything that's ever happened in the world. DOINK
One thing the person was right about was amos yee's tendancies
"Official entrant into the Oppression Olympics 2018" blurb totally doesn't come off as something a racist troll would say LMAO
There was a comedy film in Ireland a few years ago called "The Guard". In it, an Irish police officer is aided by an African-American FBI agent in an international drug bust. When they first meet, the Irish police officer says something racist and tries to excuse it by saying that "Racism is part of my culture." This man reminds me of him so much. No Irish person is this sense about American race relations. They just spend to much time complaining about Nigerians and Poles to notice the similarities.
This guy's entire argument is essentially the trolley problem......... "Would you rather make [this] choice, or [this] choice?" And one way is the clear choice. Saving more children is always the answer.
This discussion didn’t need to be this long.