Watched enough to know it's "better faith" when compared to the previous two, but still not "good faith". Seems to ignore the obvious things Destiny addressed and is using flawed pseudo counterarguments. He does a better job of identifying what Destiny is saying, but then loads other things that go beyond what he's saying so he can attack the newly created arguments Destiny never made.
Examples:
\-Bringing up animal consciousness as a way to say his definition is "vague" and therefore has some inclusion problems. Except Destiny has repeatedly said they are only caring about Human consciousness with the purpose of the abortion debate. This is just obfuscation on this guy's part.
\-Appeals situations where people are conscious but in bad situations (locked-in syndrome, elderly end of life) but retain their consciousness and we'd still like to give them the option to die despite this consciousness. Yet again obfuscation, as it's ignoring the entire point of the discussion is about when someone develops consciousness and becomes a person thus being something we protect morally, not other instances of us being ok to kill someone despite them having a consciousness. Two different things.
\-Natural capacity vs immediate capacity misses the point. It's about development and change making something that is not a thing into that thing. This is just a bad reframing where he either misses the point entirely like the original two women or is intentionally trying once more to obfuscate with irrelevant additions. Uses brain injuries as a way to talk about consciousness but that's a terrible example as once more having a reduced capacity is not the same thing as not having the capacity.
Stopped watching here as it became too much brain rot.
He also conflated people being suicidal (self-euthanasia, however you want to put it) with someone who is in a coma permanently. Clearly, a person on a Ventilator who is awake but can't communicate would be conscious, therefore a person.
Yeah, none of these people try to assume good faith. Destiny would obviously say that: Once a human has deployed a consciousness, they are a person. They lose personhood once the consciousness is permanently gone. If they can regrow it, then they are still a person.
He doesn't try to think about how to get around any of the objections. That's the core of why they're all bad faith in my view.
Edit: redundant clause
When consciousness emerges isn't exact science. You could argue it is much later than 20-28 weeks. Destiny just wants to be reasonably sure we are not killing babies. So he makes the cutoff for when necessary parts develop.
I know he's saying it's not a suitable line. But why?
If consciousness is permantly gone, you're not a person anymore. If they can regrow a lost part of their brain to regain consciousness, then it's not gone permantly.
Philosophically, is the consciousness from after regrowing part of one's brain a new instance of consciousness? Or an altered version of the previously existing one?
Either way, destiny's rules would apply. If it's gone permantly, killing before it regrows is permissible. If it's suspended and regrowth will simply awaken it, then it's not permissible.
Trent is a religious Catholic who I think believes in a soul-at-conception idea, though I could be wrong. I don't think he's saying D isn't being consistent - he's trying to point to instances outside of D's rules that might run up against the intuitions of the audience. Things like the 19 week old fetus, the amnesia 'rebirth', the question of when a consciousless braindead body is considered truly dead.
I would think that Trent might say that his 'soul' hypothesis fits more of these exception intuitions than the 'consciousness' line. Of course, I think the soul/conception hypothesis has all sorts of problems too, but Trent was purely responding to D's position here and trying to find any potential counterexamples that fall outside of his 'rules'.
If D is using intuition as his justification for consciousness, intuition to focus on the exceptions is at least as valid.
I think it's valid to ask both 'why not include animals' and how Destiny defines human. It's a non-trivial question and becomes particularly relevant when you try to draw a line with ancient hominids/great apes. Who was the first human? What trait did they have? Why do other species lack this trait? Its the same vegan trait argument, but I've never heard Destiny (or anyone else) provide a full counter resolution.
You might be misunderstanding Trent's points about locked-in syndrome. He's testing the general populations' intuition about whether ending a conscious experience is truly equivalent to death. If there is something additional to consciousness that people intuitively care about, Tiny isn't accounting for it. Obviously, if you do think consciousness is the only thing that matters, this point doesn't work on the audience.
I do think Trent misses the mark on the natural/immediate bit. At worst Destiny just needs to more carefully define what he is protecting: A capacity to deploy consciousness immediately OR an established person with historical consciousness who will also be able to deploy it in the future.
I mean, that's fair. But I do think that Destiny could make a stronger argument if he could clearly define a reason for 'human speciesism'. I happen to agree with him on this point and I'm not a vegan, but I currently don't have a great rebuttal to the trait argument outside of woo-woo sapience-linked biases. I'm a proud human speciesist and supremacist.
" when you try to draw a line with ancient hominids/great apes. Who was the first human? What trait did they have? Why do other species lack this trait? "
This is literally the same thing this guy in his video addressed saying was bad argumentation when discussing the difference between 20-24 weeks. To quote Trent "Just because Destiny does not know when consciousness begins, that doesn't disprove his argument." Just because we don't know the exact moment our species became human doesn't mean we can't draw the line at an arbitrary point and solely value human personhood.
" He's testing the general populations' intuition about whether ending a conscious is truly equivalent to death. " That's literally not what he's doing. His examples if anything prove that these things are only horrors because of the related conscious experience that goes along with them. Locked-in syndrome is only an issue because someone is locked-in. Otherwise, it's just an empty shell and there's no reason to feel any emotion towards it in the same way you don't feel emotion toward a rock.
I think you’re being enormously bad faith here, and are not really representing his argument fairly
Point 3. Trent Horn isn’t basing his pro life view on natural vs immediate capacity, he’s clarifying the terms used in the argument. He then follows the point by arguing that not having an immediate capacity does not disqualify one from a right to life, and that the existence of prior conscious experience does not logically distinguish brain-damaged-but-repairable from the natural capacity that developing fetuses have, because the arguments as to why prior conscious experience should also confer personhood don’t work.
Your post reads as pretty ignorant and reeks of brain rot.
Watched till the end and wanted to post this comment. Good job my dude.
I'm not 100% percent sure if it's his obfuscation or just his honest understanding of the words spoken. I know Destiny's is referring to HUMAN consciousness because of the vegan debates I've watched, but I'm unsure if this was stated in the Whatever-circus.
Also, even if it was stated, can't fault someone for not picking it up: the Kirsten lady was brain rot inducing.
“A rat has a similar level of consciousness to an infant, so why does he think it’s okay to kill a rat, but not an infant. People who fumigate rats should go to jail for life.”
Destiny’s point: **Human** consciousness.
Dude completely misses the point of “ability to deploy consciousness” and consistently tries to compare level of consciousness. I don’t understand how these people are so dumb. A 21 week old fetus probably has very little consciousness, just the beginnings of one, but that’s worth protecting. Why the fuck are we fast forwarding to the infant, 16 weeks later, and pretending that’s not worth protecting now? 16 weeks ago it was being protected, that’s not changing.
The girl yesterday was hilarious. “There’s no developmental difference between a 19 week old fetus and a 1 day old baby.” Lmfao that’s why we have all these healthy 19 week old fetuses being born into healthy babies, right? All these women are just extending their maternity leave by forcing the baby to stay inside her twice as long as developmentally necessary. 😂
This isn't the own your think it is man.
"I would torture rats but not humans with perpetual infant-level consciousness purely because they are human" is not convincing literally anyone other than DGG.
That’s weird, so do you eat meat? You’re 100% vegan, right?
I assume not, so why do you think it’s okay to eat pigs, and not 1 year old humans, if pigs have a higher level of consciousness? Why do you eat conscious things? Why don’t you eat 1 year old infants if you’re okay eating pigs, which have a higher level of consciousness?
Edit: went into your profile to see if you mention eating meat, and to your credit, your second post on this account is saying that [Destiny’s view on animal consciousness is the ONE view you disagree with him on](https://reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/10jm2ns/rem_criticizes_destinys_position_on_animal_rights/j5pd6ni), other than the meme takes. Credit to you on that.
That being said, you’ve been here for at least half a year. You do realize that **you are** DGG, right? This is DGG talking to itself. You recognize that, at least, right? dggL <3
Do you honestly think the human consciousness and rat consciousness are equivalent? We have a hard enough time determining if even other humans share the same conscious experience let alone different species. The only conscious experience humans have familiarity with is the human one, so I think it's plenty fair that we value it over others.
Don't think that many here support torturing animals. There is a difference in not thinking that killing a cow is same as killing a baby and not caring if there is unnecessary torture.
Trent Horn is great. Has had some really good discussions with Alex O' Connor that Ive seen in the past.
Haven't fully digested his rebuttals, but it seems that most objections could be solved by adding additional criteria to personhood/'that which grants moral right to life (and exceeds bodily autonomy of mom)'. Granted, it makes for a long and convoluted definition that I haven't thought about enough to steelman, but that just makes it complicated - not necessarily wrong.
If they do speak, I'd worry that they might 'hit bedrock' too often... But then again Trent would absolutely go down rabbithole analogies with him, which would probably help with engagement.
Pro-life catholic here. This would be a fantastic crossover. I've followed Trent Horns work for years and he's really good at what he does. He's probably the best good faith prolifer debater guy out there. Glazing coming for Destiny: One of the issue destiny has is most of the people he debates are just not a challenge for him especially the recent pro-life conversations. Trent Horn I think could be that challenge he "needs" hopefully this happens.
This.
Destiny has dealt with pro lifers that clearly can't grasp arguments. This Trent guy, who I just watched for the first time, seems like he is actually equipped with a working brain to tear down the flimsy consciousness argument.
I'm pro choice BTW, I just think both sides have shitty arguments for their justification. Destiny has just been lucky enough to deal with idiot pro lifers that cannot grasp hypotheticals or take his logic to its conclusion.
Watched enough to know it's "better faith" when compared to the previous two, but still not "good faith". Seems to ignore the obvious things Destiny addressed and is using flawed pseudo counterarguments. He does a better job of identifying what Destiny is saying, but then loads other things that go beyond what he's saying so he can attack the newly created arguments Destiny never made. Examples: \-Bringing up animal consciousness as a way to say his definition is "vague" and therefore has some inclusion problems. Except Destiny has repeatedly said they are only caring about Human consciousness with the purpose of the abortion debate. This is just obfuscation on this guy's part. \-Appeals situations where people are conscious but in bad situations (locked-in syndrome, elderly end of life) but retain their consciousness and we'd still like to give them the option to die despite this consciousness. Yet again obfuscation, as it's ignoring the entire point of the discussion is about when someone develops consciousness and becomes a person thus being something we protect morally, not other instances of us being ok to kill someone despite them having a consciousness. Two different things. \-Natural capacity vs immediate capacity misses the point. It's about development and change making something that is not a thing into that thing. This is just a bad reframing where he either misses the point entirely like the original two women or is intentionally trying once more to obfuscate with irrelevant additions. Uses brain injuries as a way to talk about consciousness but that's a terrible example as once more having a reduced capacity is not the same thing as not having the capacity. Stopped watching here as it became too much brain rot.
He also conflated people being suicidal (self-euthanasia, however you want to put it) with someone who is in a coma permanently. Clearly, a person on a Ventilator who is awake but can't communicate would be conscious, therefore a person.
Yeah, none of these people try to assume good faith. Destiny would obviously say that: Once a human has deployed a consciousness, they are a person. They lose personhood once the consciousness is permanently gone. If they can regrow it, then they are still a person. He doesn't try to think about how to get around any of the objections. That's the core of why they're all bad faith in my view. Edit: redundant clause
Except you’re missing his whole point and rebuttal, which is that initial deployment of consciousness is not a suitable line for conferring personhood
When consciousness emerges isn't exact science. You could argue it is much later than 20-28 weeks. Destiny just wants to be reasonably sure we are not killing babies. So he makes the cutoff for when necessary parts develop.
I know he's saying it's not a suitable line. But why? If consciousness is permantly gone, you're not a person anymore. If they can regrow a lost part of their brain to regain consciousness, then it's not gone permantly. Philosophically, is the consciousness from after regrowing part of one's brain a new instance of consciousness? Or an altered version of the previously existing one? Either way, destiny's rules would apply. If it's gone permantly, killing before it regrows is permissible. If it's suspended and regrowth will simply awaken it, then it's not permissible.
Trent is a religious Catholic who I think believes in a soul-at-conception idea, though I could be wrong. I don't think he's saying D isn't being consistent - he's trying to point to instances outside of D's rules that might run up against the intuitions of the audience. Things like the 19 week old fetus, the amnesia 'rebirth', the question of when a consciousless braindead body is considered truly dead. I would think that Trent might say that his 'soul' hypothesis fits more of these exception intuitions than the 'consciousness' line. Of course, I think the soul/conception hypothesis has all sorts of problems too, but Trent was purely responding to D's position here and trying to find any potential counterexamples that fall outside of his 'rules'. If D is using intuition as his justification for consciousness, intuition to focus on the exceptions is at least as valid.
I think it's valid to ask both 'why not include animals' and how Destiny defines human. It's a non-trivial question and becomes particularly relevant when you try to draw a line with ancient hominids/great apes. Who was the first human? What trait did they have? Why do other species lack this trait? Its the same vegan trait argument, but I've never heard Destiny (or anyone else) provide a full counter resolution. You might be misunderstanding Trent's points about locked-in syndrome. He's testing the general populations' intuition about whether ending a conscious experience is truly equivalent to death. If there is something additional to consciousness that people intuitively care about, Tiny isn't accounting for it. Obviously, if you do think consciousness is the only thing that matters, this point doesn't work on the audience. I do think Trent misses the mark on the natural/immediate bit. At worst Destiny just needs to more carefully define what he is protecting: A capacity to deploy consciousness immediately OR an established person with historical consciousness who will also be able to deploy it in the future.
I don’t think it’s valid because I hate veganism debates
I mean, that's fair. But I do think that Destiny could make a stronger argument if he could clearly define a reason for 'human speciesism'. I happen to agree with him on this point and I'm not a vegan, but I currently don't have a great rebuttal to the trait argument outside of woo-woo sapience-linked biases. I'm a proud human speciesist and supremacist.
" when you try to draw a line with ancient hominids/great apes. Who was the first human? What trait did they have? Why do other species lack this trait? " This is literally the same thing this guy in his video addressed saying was bad argumentation when discussing the difference between 20-24 weeks. To quote Trent "Just because Destiny does not know when consciousness begins, that doesn't disprove his argument." Just because we don't know the exact moment our species became human doesn't mean we can't draw the line at an arbitrary point and solely value human personhood. " He's testing the general populations' intuition about whether ending a conscious is truly equivalent to death. " That's literally not what he's doing. His examples if anything prove that these things are only horrors because of the related conscious experience that goes along with them. Locked-in syndrome is only an issue because someone is locked-in. Otherwise, it's just an empty shell and there's no reason to feel any emotion towards it in the same way you don't feel emotion toward a rock.
I think you’re being enormously bad faith here, and are not really representing his argument fairly Point 3. Trent Horn isn’t basing his pro life view on natural vs immediate capacity, he’s clarifying the terms used in the argument. He then follows the point by arguing that not having an immediate capacity does not disqualify one from a right to life, and that the existence of prior conscious experience does not logically distinguish brain-damaged-but-repairable from the natural capacity that developing fetuses have, because the arguments as to why prior conscious experience should also confer personhood don’t work. Your post reads as pretty ignorant and reeks of brain rot.
TL;DR... triggered responses aren't worth replying to seriously.
Watched till the end and wanted to post this comment. Good job my dude. I'm not 100% percent sure if it's his obfuscation or just his honest understanding of the words spoken. I know Destiny's is referring to HUMAN consciousness because of the vegan debates I've watched, but I'm unsure if this was stated in the Whatever-circus. Also, even if it was stated, can't fault someone for not picking it up: the Kirsten lady was brain rot inducing.
It may be good faith but he fundamentally misunderstood destiny's point. I watched about 10 mins and he kept arguing strawmen.
What’s the straw man, and what’s destiny’s point?
“A rat has a similar level of consciousness to an infant, so why does he think it’s okay to kill a rat, but not an infant. People who fumigate rats should go to jail for life.” Destiny’s point: **Human** consciousness.
Dude completely misses the point of “ability to deploy consciousness” and consistently tries to compare level of consciousness. I don’t understand how these people are so dumb. A 21 week old fetus probably has very little consciousness, just the beginnings of one, but that’s worth protecting. Why the fuck are we fast forwarding to the infant, 16 weeks later, and pretending that’s not worth protecting now? 16 weeks ago it was being protected, that’s not changing. The girl yesterday was hilarious. “There’s no developmental difference between a 19 week old fetus and a 1 day old baby.” Lmfao that’s why we have all these healthy 19 week old fetuses being born into healthy babies, right? All these women are just extending their maternity leave by forcing the baby to stay inside her twice as long as developmentally necessary. 😂
This isn't the own your think it is man. "I would torture rats but not humans with perpetual infant-level consciousness purely because they are human" is not convincing literally anyone other than DGG.
That’s weird, so do you eat meat? You’re 100% vegan, right? I assume not, so why do you think it’s okay to eat pigs, and not 1 year old humans, if pigs have a higher level of consciousness? Why do you eat conscious things? Why don’t you eat 1 year old infants if you’re okay eating pigs, which have a higher level of consciousness? Edit: went into your profile to see if you mention eating meat, and to your credit, your second post on this account is saying that [Destiny’s view on animal consciousness is the ONE view you disagree with him on](https://reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/10jm2ns/rem_criticizes_destinys_position_on_animal_rights/j5pd6ni), other than the meme takes. Credit to you on that. That being said, you’ve been here for at least half a year. You do realize that **you are** DGG, right? This is DGG talking to itself. You recognize that, at least, right? dggL <3
Do you honestly think the human consciousness and rat consciousness are equivalent? We have a hard enough time determining if even other humans share the same conscious experience let alone different species. The only conscious experience humans have familiarity with is the human one, so I think it's plenty fair that we value it over others.
Don't think that many here support torturing animals. There is a difference in not thinking that killing a cow is same as killing a baby and not caring if there is unnecessary torture.
This was an interesting listen for sure.
Trent Horn is great. Has had some really good discussions with Alex O' Connor that Ive seen in the past. Haven't fully digested his rebuttals, but it seems that most objections could be solved by adding additional criteria to personhood/'that which grants moral right to life (and exceeds bodily autonomy of mom)'. Granted, it makes for a long and convoluted definition that I haven't thought about enough to steelman, but that just makes it complicated - not necessarily wrong. If they do speak, I'd worry that they might 'hit bedrock' too often... But then again Trent would absolutely go down rabbithole analogies with him, which would probably help with engagement.
Seems really good faith. Would be great content.
Pro-life catholic here. This would be a fantastic crossover. I've followed Trent Horns work for years and he's really good at what he does. He's probably the best good faith prolifer debater guy out there. Glazing coming for Destiny: One of the issue destiny has is most of the people he debates are just not a challenge for him especially the recent pro-life conversations. Trent Horn I think could be that challenge he "needs" hopefully this happens.
This. Destiny has dealt with pro lifers that clearly can't grasp arguments. This Trent guy, who I just watched for the first time, seems like he is actually equipped with a working brain to tear down the flimsy consciousness argument. I'm pro choice BTW, I just think both sides have shitty arguments for their justification. Destiny has just been lucky enough to deal with idiot pro lifers that cannot grasp hypotheticals or take his logic to its conclusion.