I only know Destiny from him playing League of Legends. In fact I do remember one time Destiny played his ADC role and he had hashinshin supporting him in lane, safe to say, hashinshin was trying to piss off Destiny for a laugh entire game.
hashinshin (league streamer)
I guess the serious debate stuff is somewhat new, but before it was basically rando's who would really go out of their way to try to piss him off, and who would subsequently beg for a call and a chance to defend their argument, because they know destiny rarely bites that bait.
The context of these debates and the kind of people it takes to get there, is just so fucking terrible. There is little beyond looking how big the dumpster fire gets.
[QUOTE=Camdude90;52682851]i always thought this dude was playing a character
but considering his falling out with maddox and this it seems like he's just fucking crazy?[/QUOTE]
The reason Maddox ended the podcast was because Dick left a wedding with his ex, while Maddox had a new girlfriend he was living with. Keep in mind Maddox and the ex were together 3 year prior to that. Maddox also hijacked the itunes feed for the show and redirected it to his new show, so all the positive ratings would still be there. He gave a way bonus content, that they both had equal share of ownership on without talking to Dick about it. He made a video accusing Dick of being a rape apologist, for stealing money, not sending financial documents (W9). Claimed Dick and his fanbase was maintaining a rape list on 8chan, which caused Dick to get kicked off a long running show at the UCB comedy theather
[QUOTE=Snapster;52683866]For that animal debate he was arguing a side that's logically sound without being a hyprocrite.
If you can back up your claims with facts he's said he would change his views on things. When he has discussions with people that are more educated in specifics fields he does come off as trying to listen to what they know rather than just arguing against them.[/QUOTE]
That's simply not true. His social constract argument was to get out of the ethical discussion. There was zero talk about anything, except how animals are useless to humans, so it doesn't matter. He spend many more talks on it after that discussion with Vegan Gains.
He has dipped his toes in veganism on and off for years before that. Always very non-committal, but aware of his behaviour not being ethical. His big meme (to use his own terminology) is use the analogy of aliens and how they would view us as livestock.
People have talked to him about veganism before, I even have made posts about it on his subreddit, but he doesn't care. He found his way out and he will stick to it.
He does not care about facts when he gets it in his head that he is right.
[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;52684095]That's simply not true. His social constract argument was to get out of the ethical discussion. There was zero talk about anything, except how animals are useless to humans, so it doesn't matter. He spend many more talks on it after that discussion with Vegan Gains.
He has dipped his toes in veganism on and off for years before that. Always very non-committal, but aware of his behaviour not being ethical. His big meme (to use his own terminology) is use the analogy of aliens and how they would view us as livestock.
People have talked to him about veganism before, I even have made posts about it on his subreddit, but he doesn't care. He found his way out and he will stick to it.
He does not care about facts when he gets it in his head that he is right.[/QUOTE]
arguing about basic moral axioms isn't 'sidestepping the question of ethics'
if you argue that killing hitler is wrong because it's wrong to kill people and I argue it's justified because the ends justify the means, we aren't sidestepping the ethical discussion, we're addressing the core issue that leads to our disagreement
The reason that discussion is important is that vegangains' position was almost entirely subjective and based on emotion, meaning that what vegangains decides to do as a result of using that moral framework is almost entirely based on how he feels, whereas the moral framework destiny presented was much more well defined.
The alien meme is important, because what you're really asking with that hypothetical is "would this moral system result in a non human third party without human impulses and behavior making choices that I would find acceptable". You're testing the logic of the system in a controlled environment.
the problem with vegangains' moral system is that what he's essentially advocating for is that life that's noticeably similar to himself shouldn't be harmed, which isn't really a moral system that can be applied to a third party. Using his vague definitions of sentient and suffering a third party could just as easily disregard our pain responses the same way vegangains disregards the pain responses of trees and insects.
while destiny's moral system doesn't provide protections for life below a certain degree of intelligence, it does reliably provide protection for certain kinds of life regardless of circumstances
even with that said, there are a lot of problems with destiny's moral framework too. It's still an ongoing discussion
it's a lot more than just 'destiny thinks he's right so he's trying to avoid the real issues'
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;52683352]A fake identity created by a guy named Jan Rankowski. For years he had the internet thinking Jace was a real person and that he and his friends were doing crazy shit like flying to Israel to search for Tupac. People were calling him the next Chris-Chan and then it all turned out to be an elaborate ruse.[/QUOTE]
An elaborate ruse backed by Sam Hyde nonetheless
[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;52683833]My biggest issue with him is that in the past he agreed that he was wrong for eating meat, but he constructed this whole bullshit philosophy about social contracts and how animals can't reciprocate, so killing animals is okay. Then later on he stands to get flustered when people start bringing up pets, so he starts saying that some species have been bred to be companions and are smarter so that makes it okay.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you're referring to here? I follow his content rather closely and I don't think he has ever come out and agreed that eating meat was wrong, but rather he was undecided on the issue before settling on his "bullshit philosophy about social contracts". I don't remember him ever being flustered at the mention of pets, his view on pets is the same as his view on livestock: we use them for the sake of enjoyment. While there is no moral distinction between the killing of a pet and the killing of livestock under his framework, somebody who would derive pleasure from killing or abusing pets is probably fucked in the head in other ways as that is not generally a thing that well-adjusted people do.
Jace is the ultimate example of how ridiculous stuff like the stalking of Chris Chan is, where you can 'document' so much of someone's personality that eventually you just kinda, make shit up about that person. He took so much from their observations that it's absolutely hysterical that people still deny that the reveal was fake.
Of course like, 90% of the Chris Chan documentation is bizarrely documented with evidence, but almost all of the exchanges that people claim to have with him are possibly fake.
If you think destiny is smug then you really have no idea what hes doing. He isn't baiting anyone or targetting idiots, hes just a dude who knows how arguments actually work and the people who come on his show are usually their own undoing because they have never had a real argument where all their statements are required to be logically accountable and factually sound.
[editline]15th September 2017[/editline]
Theres no ulterior motives and he doesn't pick any sort of loaded issue that these people haven't dealt with before. It is all honesty simple argumentative reasoning applied to existing statements made by the other party
destiny is smug as fuck a lot of the time, I just don't think there's really anything wrong with it
like here he's absolutely being condescending as fuck, but it's in response to someone who's having a fit and throwing out insults while clearly knowing absolutely nothing about what he's talking about, so I don't really see what the problem is
[QUOTE=Mud;52684480]If you think destiny is smug then you really have no idea what hes doing. He isn't baiting anyone or targetting idiots, hes just a dude who knows how arguments actually work and the people who come on his show are usually their own undoing because they have never had a real argument where all their statements are required to be logically accountable and factually sound.
[editline]15th September 2017[/editline]
Theres no ulterior motives and he doesn't pick any sort of loaded issue that these people haven't dealt with before. It is all honesty simple argumentative reasoning applied to existing statements made by the other party[/QUOTE]
You can can both be smug and correct/GOOD debater without having ulterior motives. Smugness just comes from believing you are better than other people and looking down upon them.
I still enjoy listening to him, HELL I have some concept Artist friends that are smug as fuck and it's annoying but they are badass artists.
I just don't think theres anything condescending or smug about pointing out a clear gap in logic.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52684219]arguing about basic moral axioms isn't 'sidestepping the question of ethics'
if you argue that killing hitler is wrong because it's wrong to kill people and I argue it's justified because the ends justify the means, we aren't sidestepping the ethical discussion, we're addressing the core issue that leads to our disagreement
The reason that discussion is important is that vegangains' position was almost entirely subjective and based on emotion, meaning that what vegangains decides to do as a result of using that moral framework is almost entirely based on how he feels, whereas the moral framework destiny presented was much more well defined.
The alien meme is important, because what you're really asking with that hypothetical is "would this moral system result in a non human third party without human impulses and behavior making choices that I would find acceptable". You're testing the logic of the system in a controlled environment.
the problem with vegangains' moral system is that what he's essentially advocating for is that life that's noticeably similar to himself shouldn't be harmed, which isn't really a moral system that can be applied to a third party. Using his vague definitions of sentient and suffering a third party could just as easily disregard our pain responses the same way vegangains disregards the pain responses of trees and insects.
while destiny's moral system doesn't provide protections for life below a certain degree of intelligence, it does reliably provide protection for certain kinds of life regardless of circumstances
even with that said, there are a lot of problems with destiny's moral framework too. It's still an ongoing discussion
it's a lot more than just 'destiny thinks he's right so he's trying to avoid the real issues'[/QUOTE]
The thing is, his entire premise is flawed. He thinks causing harm and suffering to animals, humans and the environment is fine (or conveniently forgot about the last 2). From his point of view animals can't reciprocate with humans, so they have no other purpose than to be our objects to use as we see fit.
I either missed it or Vegan Gains didn't ask this question, because I would've loved him to ask what he benefits Destiny by using animal products. His life isn't infinitely better, the environment isn't better off and the animals aren't better off.
Honestly, I don't really care that his philosophy makes ''sense''. There are all kinds of moral philosophies, you can excuse pretty much all behaviour with one, that doesn't mean it is a rational thing to do. Yes, you could argue that Destiny is logical, but that doesn't make it right or rational (I understand right is morally subjective).
As for the alien meme, I should've clarified myself better. He used that meme in the early days as a way to illustrate how fucked up using animal products is, because as soon as an alien comes along with current Destiny's moral philosophy and they are advanced enough, they will slaughter and enslave us. Because we can't reach to their level, we will never be able to engage in a social contract.
[quote]While there is no moral distinction between the killing of a pet and the killing of livestock under his framework, somebody who would derive pleasure from killing or abusing pets is probably fucked in the head in other ways as that is not generally a thing that well-adjusted people do.[/quote]
It is exactly the same though, the difference is that the one doing the killing might not end up eating the animal. You might not enjoy killing, but you do enjoy the taste of the burger in your mouth. So ultimately, your reason for the harm caused is the same.
On another note, did you know that slaughterhouse workers can get PTSD from their work?
[quote]A combination of these mental acrobatics and stressors contributes to psychological disorder, and specifically may create a type of post-traumatic stress disorder called perpetration-induced traumatic stress (PITS).8 Unlike many forms of traumatic stress disorders in which sufferers have been victims in a traumatic situation, sufferers of PITS are the “causal participant” in a traumatic situation.9 In other words, they are the direct reason for another being’s trauma. Living with the knowledge of their actions causes symptoms similar to those of individuals who are recipients of trauma: substance abuse, anxiety issues, depression, and dissociation from reality.8 Once again, studies of this psychological phenomenon have largely ignored the slaughterhouse worker community, but they have addressed the issue in analogous populations, primarily Nazis and executioners.8 Without resorting to formal study, however, it is still possible to see that the symptoms (and causes) of PITS fit neatly with slaughterhouse workers’ testimonies about their experiences[/quote]
[url]https://yaleglobalhealthreview.com/2016/01/25/a-call-to-action-psychological-harm-in-slaughterhouse-workers/[/url]
One of the cited studies in the article does mention:
[quote]“One of (the explanations) is the violence they witness and sometimes have to participate in might result in some kind of desensitization,” she says. But the correlation was not as strong for smaller farms where animals were killed.[/quote]
I would still argue two points leading from there. 1. There is still desensitization, I've read countless homesteaders that felt uncomfortable slaughtering an animal they had bonded with. That still shows an innate empathy within. 2. If we were to remove factory farming and go back to the basics, we could not sustain the current demand for meat. There simply isn't the space.
TLDR;
Destiny wrong. Only talks about one aspect, forgets to think of the impact animal agriculture has on humans, health and environment. Bacon though.
So I'm personally not a huge fan of Destiny, but among the fuckton of other stupidity, Dick initially complains about Destiny taking things out of context (except not really, Destiny asks for evidence and examples, and that's apparently "dishonest arguing", but whatever), then about 20 minutes in that's exactly what Dick's doing himself, except he's literally taking things out of context. This Masterson guy must be a troll, I have a hard time believing, and I don't want to believe, that anyone can be this vacuum skulled and stubborn and still be mildly successful
[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;52684631]The thing is, his entire premise is flawed. He thinks causing harm and suffering to animals, humans and the environment is fine (or conveniently forgot about the last 2). From his point of view animals can't reciprocate with humans, so they have no other purpose than to be our objects to use as we see fit.
I either missed it or Vegan Gains didn't ask this question, because I would've loved him to ask what he benefits Destiny by using animal products. His life isn't infinitely better, the environment isn't better off and the animals aren't better off.
Honestly, I don't really care that his philosophy makes ''sense''. There are all kinds of moral philosophies, you can excuse pretty much all behaviour with one, that doesn't mean it is a rational thing to do. Yes, you could argue that Destiny is logical, but that doesn't make it right or rational (I understand right is morally subjective).
As for the alien meme, I should've clarified myself better. He used that meme in the early days as a way to illustrate how fucked up using animal products is, because as soon as an alien comes along with current Destiny's moral philosophy and they are advanced enough, they will slaughter and enslave us. Because we can't reach to their level, we will never be able to engage in a social contract.
It is exactly the same though, the difference is that the one doing the killing might not end up eating the animal. You might not enjoy killing, but you do enjoy the taste of the burger in your mouth. So ultimately, your reason for the harm caused is the same.
On another note, did you know that slaughterhouse workers can get PTSD from their work?
[url]https://yaleglobalhealthreview.com/2016/01/25/a-call-to-action-psychological-harm-in-slaughterhouse-workers/[/url]
One of the cited studies in the article does mention:
I would still argue two points leading from there. 1. There is still desensitization, I've read countless homesteaders that felt uncomfortable slaughtering an animal they had bonded with. That still shows an innate empathy within. 2. If we were to remove factory farming and go back to the basics, we could not sustain the current demand for meat. There simply isn't the space.
TLDR;
Destiny wrong. Only talks about one aspect, forgets to think of the impact animal agriculture has on humans, health and environment. Bacon though.[/QUOTE]
Under his moral framework, harming animals is morally neutral as there's no moral obligation not to harm animals. That isn't to say that harming animals should necessarily be legal, or that it should be encouraged, because what is morally neutral and what should be permissible aren't necessarily the same thing.
It doesn't matter that eating meat harms the environment. Plenty of things we do negatively impact the environment. Unless you're arguing from the position that we have a moral obligation not to negatively impact the environment, it's irrelevant. And if that [I]is[/I] the position you want to argue from, then a great deal of things humans do become immoral.
I agree, you can construct consistent moral frameworks to justify any individual behavior. I don't agree with Destiny because his framework is consistent, I agree with it because it's practical, it generally produces answers to moral questions I agree with, and it's better defined than the alternative.
The alien meme isn't an example of how the whole social contract thing doesn't work. It's an example of how you can have a consistent moral philosophy where killing animals is okay but killing people isn't. A human being can agree not to fuck with any other being, regardless of how intelligent it is. The same agreement can't be reached with an animal. In the framework, the ability to communicate, understand, and respect desires and needs is the fundamental requirement for affording a living organism rights.
The reason the alien meme is a thing is because if you don't have that framework, there is no real argument you can put forward for why any form of life shouldn't be able to kill or harm any other relatively unintelligent form of life. I would argue that's still a problem even with vegangains' framework.
And yes, many of the same mechanisms that allow us to empathize with humans allow us to empathize with animals as well. That's why torturing animals is a sign of being fucked in the head.
The fact that we're able to empathize with animals doesn't prove that harming animals is morally wrong. We're capable of empathizing with almost anything.
I could understand criticizing Destiny if he has a lot of people like this on. There's no point in having this guy on the show, everybody's just laughing at how stupid he is.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;52684736]I could understand criticizing Destiny if he has a lot of people like this on. There's no point in having this guy on the show, everybody's just laughing at how stupid he is.[/QUOTE]
He specifically tries to talk to people with audiences, not necessarily people who are educated/"smart". Rather than attempting to change the minds of the people he's talking to specifically, his stated goal is to try and reach the people listening who are either undecided or not overly attached to the particular figure he is debating. [URL="https://i.imgur.com/dgqbC6C.png"]He shared an example of the type of reaction he looks for in discussions with the more "stupid" guests on stream today.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Singed;52684949]He specifically tries to talk to people with audiences, not necessarily people who are educated/"smart". Rather than attempting to change the minds of the people he's talking to specifically, his stated goal is to try and reach the people listening who are either undecided or not overly attached to the particular figure he is debating. [URL="https://i.imgur.com/dgqbC6C.png"]He shared an example of the type of reaction he looks for in discussions with the more "stupid" guests on stream today.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Okay, I've never seen him do anything that I particularly disagreed with, it just seems like some people here don't like him.
It's interesting that Dick brings up the idea of zeroing in on small details to say things that sound smart because I've seen conservatives do that in order to score points and "win" a debate even if their overall view is in the wrong. Destiny's points are pretty general despite him using fancy phrasing a lot though, and Dick's argument is basically that it's C'MON OBVIOUS what the truth is, which conveniently is also his view.
[QUOTE=Singed;52684949]He specifically tries to talk to people with audiences, not necessarily people who are educated/"smart". Rather than attempting to change the minds of the people he's talking to specifically, his stated goal is to try and reach the people listening who are either undecided or not overly attached to the particular figure he is debating. [URL="https://i.imgur.com/dgqbC6C.png"]He shared an example of the type of reaction he looks for in discussions with the more "stupid" guests on stream today.[/URL][/QUOTE]
That's an interesting idea, but if that's the case I'm not sure what he gets out of debating people like Vegan Gains. It's not like it's difficult to make him act like a prick.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;52685089]That's an interesting idea, but if that's the case I'm not sure what he gets out of debating people like Vegan Gains. It's not like it's difficult to make him act like a prick.[/QUOTE]
Eh, that's not always his goal.
With vegan gains he seemed more interested in the topic about the ethics of animal consumption. And he'll sometimes just bring on a random viewer of his if they're being very opinionated on reddit or chat about something, someone who obviously has next to zero audience.
ALERT! Incoming straw-man:
My name is Destiny. I'm a high-functioning machine constructed of pure logic and none of those filthy emotions. I deal with FACTS and it's highly important that I know the person I'm debating is living in the same reality as I am. (Despite the fact that reality is subjective.) If I throw out enough #facts at my opponent, it will look like I'm totally destroying them and not at all like I'm making too many claims at once for them to be able to debunk. And you know they're facts, because I say them like they're facts. I don't need to win the argument, I can just dissect it into a smaller argument and win that argument so that it looks like I was right. Get schooled kid! Haha, I don't need a moderator for my debates, I can just moderate them myself, that way I can control the debate and manipulate it to my will. And really, who needs to let the person they're debating actually finish the point when I can constantly interrupt them to argue semantics (cause it's the little things that really matter). WOW, SO COOL! I'd better make sure that I only ever invite comedians and obvious trolls onto my 'serious' debate show so that I can jerk myself off in front of all my 'intellectual' viewers with high IQs and big dicks. Look how calm I am, this guy is yelling while I'm keeping my cool. Better make sure I insult my guest before hanging up on him like a little bitch at the end because I was too much of a bitch to do it when he could respond. Instead I just turn my head from the mic and snigger like a little cunt because this fucking idiot doesn't exist in the same enlightened reality as me. And that reality is real fucking concrete solid life motherfucker. Hahaha, look how much I owned this guy dudes. Glad I showed him whose boss by delivering some epic drive-by take-downs instead of actually having any persuasive arguments.
I can't believe people take this guy seriously.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
