Libertarian TikTok Star Challenges Destiny To A Debate

[@destiny]

Destiny continues his search for right leaning people to debate. This time he debates a libertarian TikTok Star Saanvi Reasoning. Consider leaving a like and a comment. Follow Destiny on TikTok if you like short debate clips and zoomer responses ► www.tiktok.com/@destiny? Timestamp Click▼ 0:00 - Teaser/Intro 0:17 - Why she is pro-life, moral consideration 5:17 - car accident, past conscious experience and asserted preference 8:36 - Why should we value potentiality and is it provable? What is human substance? 14:51 - Suffering and is it brutal to cremate a corpse? 19:23 - Zygotes and active potential 25:11 - Ethical framework and caring about conscious experience as a utilitarian. 34:19 - Did you destroy the Mona Lisa? 42:09 - Preventing suffering and is it subjective? 46:46 - Destiny explains why his argument from a few years earlier is very similar to her

[@Spencerwalker21]

Beyyyyytaaaaaaa male AMAZIN

[@xiqy1959]

LIBERTARIANS LETS GOOOO!!! Rare to see Destiny actually lose a debate!

[@wendoversss]

He should debate zoltanous

[@kevinjohnanand]

What happened to the tiktok account

[@Ossuis]

@Destiny editor, the tiktok link is broken.

[@moonlightrouge3956]

Destiny lost his twitch partnership and is now homless, debating tiktokers at the local park connected to the nearest Starbucks' WiFi

[@SequesteredEquestrian]

This the official cannon now

[@YoutubeMadeMePickHandle]

🤣 this is the best community

[@raulboliomartinez6432]

@@GrannyGlass yikes

[@GrannyGlass]

@@kevincola3184 There are good people, there are bad people. Vaush is the WORST people. classic vaush: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIeylmSMlqqIrNE

[@kirby7475]

Now that is the ultimate aesthetic.

[@ObesetoBeast]

I like Destiny's new room

[@2GuitarsPlay]

When are you going on Destiny’s stream fam, we need it! Also loved today’s video

[@altonsafe]

outside is nice

[@clem7057]

He doesn't keep his homeless hairstyle for nothing

[@altonsafe]

@@clem7057 homefree*

[@pferdsteiger5785]

very open concept; much air

[@masondyfjxuw]

Dude is gonna run through the tiktok community. The tiktok arc has just begun.

[@masondyfjxuw]

Second btw

[@csamazonturk6201]

This is how he +50% his community in a month. Just edgy enough to get teenagers interested and pretty well-reasoned. I think he steals all the tiktok fans if done correctly.

[@swaggytracks]

@@csamazonturk6201 destiny is the next Ben Shapiro

[@ismeal231]

Ironically creating a new generation of KZbinrs that will form communities that he will probably hate lol

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

Really hate how every tik tok debate I have heard thus far is just about abortion. Like for f"cks sake there is never any value to it. Those who are anti-choice are just pro-suffering, they aren't gonna change their mind, and the audience is already biased going in as well. Would be much more interesting for economics or something.

[@Ghee_Buttersnaps]

Melina: Destiny, please go outside for once. Destiny: (sighs) ... Fine

[@frenkysprod.4223]

☠☠☠☠

[@ParasiteHater]

Reminds me of how I used to play videogames outside whenever mom threw me out of the house

[@landonech]

The wind has outpaced him, acoustically.

[@ediewyse]

I actually laughed out loud.

[@rondovk]

Fucken lol comment better than whole vid

[@kubinzz]

@@ediewyse same

[@TheAldevar]

This comment has the most potentiality

[@goRoberth]

@@rondovk fukken tru m9, i fell asleep

[@liam6157]

The TikTok arc of this anime has a lot of potential

[@SequesteredEquestrian]

Best arc so far imo

[@GeekOverdose]

Nice meme

[@alexanderiskandar8379]

True, I really value it

[@abhishekdhiman6216]

but active potential or passive potential?

[@Cycstorm]

Why should I value it though?

[@Simok1234]

I can't believe he's never done one outside before this shit is so scenic

[@ripley4601]

Yeah, because I just love a scenic view while watching a debate on abortion! Jokes aside, I like it too. Much better than the changing lights in a dark room.

[@zacharychristy8928]

But all those calming breezes and birds in the background are preventing me from reaching my target levels of mad.

[@aagh8714]

the birds are debating in the background

[@ripley4601]

@@aagh8714 "Eating at the birdfeeder is a basic birdy right! State seizure of the feed will undoubtedly cause a drop in living standards!" "Government seizure, and redistribution of bird feed is the most ethically sound solution we have to the crisis, both morally, and in common sense! First come first serve has already shown catastrophic results!"

[@daggerdan12]

@@ripley4601 "Over the next 30 minutes I'm going to outline my final solution to the dodo question"

[@memerjohn1]

Oh god. He's gonna be like the reverse Crowder now. Owning college kids, but because they keep challenging him. I can't wait

[@jjmah7]

The difference is that Crowder would never DARE debate someone me like destiny whereas destiny would welcome a Crowder debate with open arms (I’d pay to see it lol)

[@sss-ol3dl]

in what sense is that 'reverse'?

[@trugrit7210]

yeah, looking for low hanging fruit.

[@Cma01]

@@sss-ol3dl it’s reverse because Crowder actively searches for college students to debate by going to their campus, whereas Destiny has college kids coming to him for debates

[@sss-ol3dl]

@@Cma01 destiny also looks for debates, these last 3 tiktokker debates are from people who saw his tiktok videos

[@gavinclancy2890]

Other country's libertarians: I'm not paying taxes American libertarians: The state should be able to force a teenage girl to die so she can give birth to her miscarriage

[@R0B1NG5]

FR, I don't understand US libertarians going to bat for not having the right to personally chose something.

[@GrauKLV]

US lulbertarians are usually just pocket conservatives trying to dodge the "conservative/right" label, Ben Shapiro style. You can't sensibly define your ideology as libertarian if you are Pro-Life, Pro-Wall/Pro-Strong-Borders and against legalization of drugs. Because that just makes you... a conservative

[@DahVoozel]

American Libertarians: "I believe the government should have no role or power to effect the course of individual autonomy... unlessssssss it's something I feel really strongly about, in which case, fuck all yall."

[@Greyz174]

If you think abortion is killing a baby, its not very inconsistent with libertarianism. You probably think a legitimate form of government is to prevent people from killing their babies

[@Kow8675309]

@@DahVoozel Pretty sure most american libertarians are okay with the government locking up murderers

[@Kornbagpipes]

Destiny claims he is not a socialist streamer, yet he uses a blue yeti and streams from the woods.

[@anonymousjohnson8051]

Hotel staff in the background wondering why a homeless person who broke into their establishment is talking about abortion

[@RyVlad]

We didn't get the Noam Chomsky discussion timeline but at least we got the tik tok one.

[@destiny]

I hope Destiny gets to talk to him. He's emailed him a couple of times, I think. Fingers crossed.

[@waynetables6414]

@@destiny The idea of Noam Chomsky knowing who Destiny is is hysterical

[@josephrenteria9667]

@@waynetables6414 Chomsky saying "That's a girl's name" would be full circle

[@LVArturs]

I bet Chomsky plays StarCraft and Destiny is his favourite player.

[@hakemate7005]

@@destiny get Pakman to hook you two up

[@endermetal]

The potential actualization of this positively potential debate has been actualized with potent conciousness.

[@Sinjinja]

Seriously. This is how she sounds.

[@R1helper123]

Please let her make her arguments unimpended XDDD

[@mojota6938]

I love it when people have no argument, so they just string a bunch of big words together instead.

[@be8420]

At T0

[@cadenandthegirl]

I think I’m actually losing brain cells at this point.

[@morteporta]

The person on fire versus body being cremated analogy fucking killlllllled her, tucking that one in my pocket for later

[@dirkvalentine6406]

Unfortunately it's not a great argument. And what's even more unfortunate is that now people will use it

[@xray5984]

@@dirkvalentine6406 You could, you know, say why. Give them better ones to use.

[@morteporta]

@@dirkvalentine6406 Thanks for the lesson on arguments, Ben Shabibo.

[@AA-rh5ee]

@@dirkvalentine6406 Fortunately you got your head dunked in the toilet during high school

[@mohammedalubaid8778]

​@@xray5984 You could say that a person whose body gets cremated presumably consents to it , while the person on fire doesn't (unless they're suicidal) .

[@magoog9864]

The cremation point was such a thorough demolishing of her weird corpse stance.

[@NocturnalRecords7]

i really enyoyed that one.

[@Victor.M.O]

Yes, that was great

[@paco1022]

GOD I LOVE ALL THE TIK TOK KIDS WHO DONT KNOW WHO DESTINY IS LMAOOO THIS IS GONNA BE A FUN ARC

[@carterjo5630]

keep it in your pants buddy

[@Aaronmajowskavitz]

@@carterjo5630 why

[@randominternetguy1499]

@@carterjo5630 lmao😂

[@matheusmjb4152]

@@carterjo5630 I don't think you realized how hard you projected there buddy XD

[@LVArturs]

@@matheusmjb4152 you use the word "ironic" in your nickname ergo you must be a JrEg fan. And I think I realize how hard I'm projecting.

[@int537]

I hired a pro life construction company to build my house. They laid the foundation and left. Told me the potential for the house was all that mattered.

[@ricodee3188]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@BobbyJ529]

but was it active tho?!

[@rtbwolf]

I hired a construction company and when they were two thirds complete my wife burnt the whole thing down. When I asked her why she burnt the house down, she replied, "a potential house is not a house and a potential thing has no value".

[@poopfart65]

@@rtbwolf consciousness doesnt develop 2/3 of the way

[@int537]

@@rtbwolf It would be more akin to forcing the company to build the house against their will and then attempting to punish them for not continuing

[@ImDougDimmadome]

Destiny’s fan in the background cheering him on

[@BoxerBoyPilky01]

Silly goose

[@highnoonmoon119]

Haha good one

[@2lostbikes]

That's Destiny's biggest fan.

[@tonjolley6422]

Well played lol

[@Deczx]

If you're not providing Steven with a pleasant breeze, you're not a real fan.

[@themccannman]

Her first few minutes of rehearsed taking points are some hard core pseudo-intellectualism "Actualize potentiality of the human substance" fucking kill me lmfao

[@cornlourd]

Is this a new form of shaming where people demand everything to be dumbed down to their level?

[@coolfool183]

​@@cornlourd i think it just makes it hard to have a productive conversation when you open with Aristotelian substance

[@dezkightz]

@@cornlourd I mean I understand exactly what she means but I still think it’s stupid

[@usucdik]

@@cornlourd I think that is exactly what you need since you don't understand how it sounds incredibly pretentious. It's like she scoured the thesaurus to find these phrasings.

[@cornlourd]

@@usucdik It's funny because she didn't even remotely say "Actualize Potentiality of the human substance" or any close pairings of the words above in her phrasings.

[@gaelheartt]

destiny explaining the same thing 20 different times Her: no but yes

[@BenReillySpydr1962]

Not really no

[@balder6337]

Her: no u r a fucked person

[@MrSaxokeet]

Its unbearable 😫 like hurts my stomach

[@cjvaye99]

omg I know I was pulling my hair out

[@ays162]

She keeps saying the potentiality of the baby but what about all the potentiality of the mother that gets prevented from being actualised and achieved. Why does something that doesn't yet exist take precedence over something that already exists. Like do you not hear yourself. Also what about children whose mother's material circumstances are gonna fuck up the potential life that kid is going to lead, is it ethical to bring life into a world you know will only be adversely affecting a potential human being?

[@vaclavmiller8032]

This girl's opening statement sounds like she read Aristotle but very cursorily lol.

[@objectivenick5008]

She reads Ayn Rand and Aristotle

[@vaclavmiller8032]

@@objectivenick5008 Cringe

[@objectivenick5008]

@@vaclavmiller8032 no😎

[@Etherchannel]

@@objectivenick5008 Cringe

[@vaclavmiller8032]

@@objectivenick5008 Real chads read Kant 💪

[@Mr.Limekiller]

Someone needs to tell her that when she says "Impending someone's life" she means "impeding". She said it way too many times.

[@mikehelton697]

That vocab impended my ability to take her seriously

[@Mr.Limekiller]

@@mikehelton697 She's doing a pretty decent job keeping up with Destiny so far, it just sounds like she's young. I'm not even a grammar nazi, but it seems like her catch phrase or something and it's driving me nuts.

[@christophzeit6282]

Yeah, it makes the skin on my asshole crawl

[@Mr.Limekiller]

​@@christophzeit6282 I'm not a doctor, but that sounds more like pinworms

[@keithkinsala8959]

​@@Mr.Limekiller Pinworms with active potential.

[@vowel8280]

Libertaraians like to show how rational they are by constantly using the words "it's rational"

[@paifu.]

Right wing libertarians really like mental gymnastics

[@Ricky-Spanish]

It's pretty consistent with the origin of their hair brained ideology. Ayn Rand called her set philosophical beliefs "objectivism" cause, you know, it's just objective. Cause that's how philosophy works...

[@nixpix814]

Let's grab a tok tok kid and apply all that this numbskull says to "libertarians say ..." Honesty people, honesty. Don't forget.

[@EverydayAddamsComics]

She’s giving a flowery but circular argument: we value a fetus’ potential life because of its “human substance,” but it’s human substance is its potency for life?

[@mintymojito9057]

Noticed that too, I think that person had too much social and monetary capital on the line to concede a single point

[@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965]

exactly yeah, it's a go nowhere reeeeing, round and round we go.

[@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965]

@@mintymojito9057 100% pointless song and dance to garner some clicks and soak up air time. Libertarians are idiots.

[@amirguri1335]

She's also pointing to something valid. There's a difference between a thing with potential consciousness and a thing without potential consciousness, between a fetus and a pebble. We should give some consideration to that potential.

[@amirguri1335]

@@user-fy7ri8gu8lImagine a scenario where there are two rocks that you can mine. The first type s dead and the second type might be alive or might soon become alive. Which of the rocks are you going to choose? With due respect, only a sociopath would say that it doesn't matter which of the rocks you choose, wouldn't recognize a meaningful difference between these two classes. Not that you're a sociopath. There is, however, value in potential life that we shouldn't be too quick to overlook.

[@wolfmaster7746]

Libertarian: "I believe the Government should protect life at all costs, but having no access to healthcare is ok by me"

[@onnol917]

Yeah, its an indiffirent ideaology with zerp understanding actual problems. Talking to these people just nukes your brain

[@sloppyjoe9070]

It wouldn’t be “no access to healthcare,” it would just be private healthcare

[@jcarc5701]

@@sloppyjoe9070 Oh I get it, private healthcare as opposed to government making decisions for your private natal care. The education system has failed.

[@wolfmaster7746]

@@sloppyjoe9070 Private Healthcare implies that a portion of the population (the poor) wouldn't have access to it.

[@chrishekman6179]

@kaelion. For the same reason BMW doesnt cater to over half the population, the population isnt rich enough.

[@Steponlyone]

I like how this “libertarian” believes that the state should be able to force a person to donate part of its body to ensure the survival of another one.

[@dantan1249]

Even worse. Not not even a person. I don’t get why it’s hard to understand that the person is the consciousness.

[@Steponlyone]

@@dantan1249 I personally agree with your definition of a person but that’s the thing: even if you grant them the “person since fertilization” claim, it does not change anything as far as letting the state being able to force a person to donate part of its body for the survival of another one. Which is probably far from the “liberty” they so loudly claim to defend.

[@cf6713]

@@Steponlyone I’m just not gonna listen to this. Do they have some plan for maximizing liberty of the beings they consider conscious or something?

[@mikethered4864]

Just popping in to say I'm a libertarian and I very much disagree with her. Abortion is a pretty contentious topic in libertarian circles, but in my experience over the past 10 years of being one, the majority are pro-choice. And that includes the past 3 libertarian candidates for president. What's happening is that a lot of republicans and conservatives are very dissatisfied with the GOP, and they know libertarians like freedom. So they call themselves libertarians without really understanding the history of thought and how we truly are very different than conservatives.

[@G.Bfit.93]

@@cf6713 the libertarians? no. they just want them "alive." doesn't matter if enslaved or whatever else.

[@johnleoks7642]

She sounds insane NGL. Forcing a mother to go through pregnancy with a 90% chance of death, really?

[@gabe4sd]

b-but the potentiality!

[@frostbite3318]

@@gabe4sd Active or passive?

[@nullobjecttype]

90% bruh.....

[@croisaor2308]

This is how all of morality works. Destiny defended a hypothetical system of slavery, defended raping a fetus and he also said killing a fetus five seconds before it achieved consciousness is ok, because he has to for his defence of abortion to hold up. If you look to edge cases you can set up hypothetical scenarios that sound insane but you literally have to agree with them for the system to hold up.

[@ludvig3242]

Surprised she bit the bullet.

[@waynewalkerorg]

That last line where she said she will force a woman to give birth, even if the woman died 9/10 times - and said it in a cute, slightly lispy way - is actually fucking horrific

[@bananamerchant6387]

She's an actual psychopath. According to her, we should kill unconscious fully grown humans because "Who cares what they think, they're unconscious", but we should value the potentially of human life. Which is such a vauge and nebulous phrase. She cannot claim to be pro life but then turn around and be like "Oh. This person is unconscious and hasn't been placed on DNR? Fuck'em, pull the plug."

[@supahjadi8944]

@@bananamerchant6387 "Potentially human life" It is a human life, that's scientifically true. Whether you value that human life or not is the question in the debate among higher level pro life/pro choice debaters.

[@creepincat7399]

Brutal, as some would say.

[@mickbreeden6516]

Timestamp please

[@DanielHernandez-xe8kx]

I come from a catholic school, and even there they said that it was choice in that scenario lol.

[@Thinkcrown]

Libertarian = let’s let people do what they want. American Libertarian (Conservative who smokes weed) = let’s let people who don’t exist to do what I want.

[@Sprite_525]

*Destiny* : “is there seriously any suffering in a day-zero zygote that gets aborted?” “ *uh…. Can… can you … repeat the question 😳* “

[@BouncinBrandon]

Actually she first goes on an irrelevant tangent, and then Destiny has to ask the question again, and then she gets flustered when she realized she wasn't even answering the question

[@Sprite_525]

@@BouncinBrandon yeah after she got her bearings, she tried to reframe his question to ‘relate to my salient criteria’, but he wasn’t having it lol 😆

[@cjvaye99]

that's the thing. she couldn't answer it bc it would completely prove all her arguments wrong. most abortions occur way before any chance of sentience/nervous system/brain activity...whatever you want to call it happens. I hate how dishonest these pro life ppl are they make it seem like doctors are literally chopping up babies that are fully aware. Its such bs man...no wonder so many brain washed ppl are so staunchly anti abortion. Theres so much propaganda and misinformation like that. If you go to any prolife websites they have horrific pictures of dismembered babies.

[@rosssivertson6339]

I understand irresponsibility but when it's leading to abortion I would strongly consider taking a hard look in the mirror and figuring shit out. What's fucked up is the sheer number of people who treat this like it's an after thought and oftentimes go and get pregnant again resulting in a 2nd or more abortions.

[@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965]

@@cjvaye99 Yep exactly, that's the whole thing, nobody who is pro-abortion wants women to go around carelessly flippantly getting them at the last minute. Pro-lifers just can't understand the reality, they can't understand why endangering the mother by forcing a birth makes them the not pro-life people actually. It's a sad pickle they are trapped in.

[@Godsabum]

"Why should I care about what an unconscious persons preference is?" "That depends on your ethical framework" (goes on to explain his axioms) "Yeah but why should I care?" Bitch he just answered!

[@frenkysprod.4223]

Right 🤣🤣🤣

[@tiena6630]

Melina: swims, takes pictures, relaxes Destiny: interrupts vacation to debate abortion ._. Me: Excuse you?!

[@Slim_Filthy]

Who else but Destiny 😂

[@zacharychristy8928]

They're both doing what they love.

[@Awesomeficationify]

Destiny: *A premise* Saanvi: *fumbles* "pOtEnTiaLiTy" My god, this is rage-inducing.

[@Somefatguyification]

This is far from upsetting compared to almost any destiny debate he has uploaded

[@Araz907]

@@Somefatguyification agreed, I thought she was very good at responding and going back and forth, though I can still acknowledge she avoided some answers at times, she ultimately bit the bullet on the whole “mother dying 9/10 times” hypothetical, which is far more good faith than most of the people destiny debates.

[@RardTangler]

@@Araz907 I feel like she missed several opportunities to bring up valid points. I agree with most of Destiny’s premises, but I thought she had a great opportunity to counter Destiny’s argument against placing value in potential. Also, her tendency to interrupt was slightly infuriating.

[@rdes225]

@@RardTangler There were sooo many things destiny could’ve pinned her on. Like her active potential bs. She conflated someone making the choice to kill someone with biological processes creating a baby separate of consciousness.

[@roberteriksen6434]

You can instantly pinpoint the wrong side when somebody argues for the potentiality/possibility that they are right, rather than why they are right. You don't even need to know what the topic is at that point, it's a default L, at least in my book.

[@davidafunk85]

Also, she should be fighting hardest to eradicate poverty, if she’s pro-life. The potential of the poor is based in reality and will also mean less abortions..

[@phokas260]

Wouldn't a pro-life libertarian just be a conservative? lol

[@andrewfolsom3836]

Old people are conservative lol

[@2for99cents]

Yes

[@jameskilgour387]

Yeah, it just doesn't sound as cool

[@1110-s1t]

Should the State reserve the right to criminalize homicides? If so, should a fetus be considered a human life in the eyes of the law? You can believe in the NAP, or some other libertarian philosophy and answer yes to both of those questions. A good example is drunk drivers getting 2 counts if they kill a pregnant woman and her unborn baby, even if theoretically she was on her way to abort it.

[@kaelion]

not really, pro life libertarians argue that the fetus has a natural right to be there and removing it is murder, which is a violation of the NAP at its core

[@ziyif]

She seemed to neglect the "potentiality" of the mother when he asked about the mother giving birth, but dying 9 times out of 10. Does this make sense? I am sort of confused by her arguments. And she said the loss of "potentiality" was what it means to die (I assume she means all potential). That seems quite vague, but perhaps it is clear due to context and I am missing it.

[@Manbabalab]

Im assuming the reason she chose to not abort on 9/10 times was because she treats all potential the same. So in a 10/10 death scenario they lost 1 potential and gained 1 potential creating a neutral, thus being ok to abort. In a 9/10 scenario, the potential loss becomes 0.9 and potential stays 1 so a net positive of 0.1. Since there is a net gain... she doesnt abort. But i could be making this all up since I don't know how she thinks.

[@eskimo5274]

@@Manbabalab that probably is what she's thinking, but she's ignoring the potential of the original mother to have more babies vs the baby growing up and deciding cuz its mother died in child birth to not have children. Which obviously is only one possibility, but her world leads us down maybe a path where we either force the mother to have a child or not based on he willingness to have more babies

[@Manbabalab]

@@eskimo5274 I think in her framework she said she doesnt include the passive potential in decision making. So the mothers ability and childs likelihood of having babies wouldn't be included in the equation. It's only when the mother is actively put in the situation.

[@radred609]

i honestly think that "potency" "human substance" "substance form" "potentiality" etc. are just words that she's using because they feel like they're some kind of "fact" that she can retreat to and/or hide her presuppositions in.

[@ziyif]

@@Manbabalab I see. Then I think my confusion lies in what she means by potential and why the distinction between passive and active potential is important!

[@kwalshe15]

This girl seems smart enough, I'll assume she's a few years younger than Destiny, pretty hard to change your moral positions in a debate 9n the spot (from a purely emotional perspective) hopefully she does considering she ended up going in circles, despite having P O T E N T I A L.

[@bbtcrt56]

Oh she will change her mind sooner alright, once she needs an abortion after slacking around with few dudes.

[@tlanimass952]

@@bbtcrt56 Or she actually becomes a libertarian and becomes pro-choice.

[@sardonicsister8502]

i know her irl. she was like 16 when she did this debate

[@GO-GO_SO-SO]

You'd think a libertarian--someone that believes in smaller to sometimes no government at all--would not agree with the government telling people what to do regarding their own bodies.

[@DaTurdburglar]

There should be a term for that: LINOs. 9/10 people that say they’re “Libertarian” are just Republicans/Auth Rights that don’t like the baggage being Auth Right has.

[@pariah8730]

Pretty fuzzy. Governments regularly tell their people to not murder people - this limits what they can do with their own bodies. They regularly forbid all manner of things. Government telling people to get pregnant is not the same as forbidding abortion, positive vs. negative.

[@BenYork-UBY]

My thoughts exactly. I feel like I'm a better libertarian than some of these libertarians because my argument for abortion is based on personal liberty and not having government controlling an important family/parental decision that could affect my entire life. And I don't even call myself libertarian

[@lukaswichern4745]

I'm not a libertarian and very much pro-abortion, but i think that libertarianism and being anti-abortion are not as incompatible as people often try to make it seem. Basically all libertarians agree that one's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins (my right to wave my fist around ends at your nose). Whenever someone violates this non-agression principle there needs to be some societal response, which can take the form of government intervention even in a libertarian worldview. So if you're a libertarian who is of the belief that a fetus is indeed a person that has it's own right to freedom you could very well be in favor of a state-enforced ban on abortion.

[@MsHumanOfTheDecade]

@@lukaswichern4745 the problem is that if you value the possibility of a fetus to become a person as much as an existing person then you'd have to grant real insanity. considering there may be many complications that prematurely ends the fetus' life, that implies you value the chance which could be led back just to two people loving eachother.

[@DahVoozel]

"What is your reason for being anti-abortion?" *metaphysical, unfalsifiable jargon follows* "Mhhmmhm."

[@liblol972]

Actualized goal based potency human substance active passive potentialized

[@dianarosas4002]

This is literally like the only way these people can defend their positions. It’s so damn irritating, especially when you call them out on it and they still keep talking about “potentialities” and “substances”.

[@rianalee3138]

@@dianarosas4002 i thought i was the only one who noticed she just kept repeating buzz words 😭

[@MYWAYORSTUDIOS]

In order to truly justify any ethical statement you have to talk about meta ethics buddy.

[@MYWAYORSTUDIOS]

​@@liblol972of course someone is gonna talk about meta ethics when they are dealing with a meta ethical question.

[@joonnoob3119]

Destiny: *Clearly lays out his consistent moral framework This Chick: *Completely ignores and continues her dialogue tree

[@eskimo5274]

People like this have their belief and then a bunch of words that they don't fully understand.. it's a little sad

[@cupthought919]

Idk, I thought she did a good job

[@joonnoob3119]

@@cupthought919 Not really, much like Vaush, she only used big words. She kept going in circles.

[@joonnoob3119]

@@cupthought919 Destiny explained why we should look to the past in regards to consciousness, yet she never addressed this and kept going on about “potentiality”.

[@yahsengshilo9500]

​@@joonnoob3119 If the past is the focal point of valuing consciousness, then you'd have to protect brain dead people indefinitely. Potentiality is absolutely the most important thing. In fact, it is the foundational thing that is valuable about consciousness at all. If your life is threatened, what are you protecting other than the potential to have a future life?

[@bizzr2457]

I’ve been bashing my head against the wall every time I see her tiktoks, glad destiny is on the case

[@GroundUpProduct00]

What’s her name on Tiktok

[@_alreph]

@@GroundUpProduct00 Saanvi Reasoning, it was in the description.

[@Godsabum]

@@_alreph she needs to drop the "reasoning" part, she's not quite there yet.

[@John_Lee_]

maybe get off TikTok?

[@jessicastich]

SAME

[@nemomeimpunelacessit8121]

Her not caring about suffering at all is positively evil to me, tbh

[@grannysh1fter612]

She is most definitely a narcissistic sociopath

[@blacklightgamer97]

life over quality of life

[@yahsengshilo9500]

Who are you to decide what suffering means to another person?

[@TheGIGACapitalist]

"Touch grass" No, I'm going to debate tiktokers in a shed thanks- that counts as enough outside for me.

[@Ematched]

Didn't you see the bear hunt?

[@DankAudioStash24]

This discussion sure had a lot of unrealized potential. They shouldn't have aborted it by going in circles.

[@samwobbe3945]

"Libertarian" "I am pro-life" Ah

[@erebusblack457]

Yeah, some libertarians are pro life, some are pro choice. Myself as a libertarian am pro choice because the pro life position, taken to its logical conclusion, would require draconian measures against women all in the name of keeping the fetus/baby unharmed

[@MasteringJohn]

Prolife is a descriptive position of believing the unborn to have equal moral worth with those already born, and therefore entitled to the same rights. It's not inconsistent with libertarianism, unless you're talking about some other version of prolife that simply wishes to restrict abortion as a matter of course, not to protect another person.

[@xiqy1959]

@@erebusblack457 Such is the result of the informed consent of the women procreating. Good to see more libertarians here, even if they are pro choice.

[@BoihazardRE]

@@xiqy1959 if the purpose of having sex was mainly to make babies I might agree with you. However, in our species, it is mainly recreational, therefore I would say it's only immoral to abort if the main purpose in the specific case was to create a new life (assuming no complications with the pregnancy)

[@2lostbikes]

By the third time she circled back around and repeated her naive potentiality argument, I was surprised at how patient Destiny was being with her. She certainly knows how to talk *at* people, I'll give her that.

[@note4note804]

Why is she using physics terms in a moral argument? I spent so long trying to figure out what kind of argument includes "actualization of potential at t0 at value x" until I heard her define active potential as one would define literal force acting on an object. I can't tell if she's the kind of person who half understood a good argument and decided to copy it, or if she fully understood a bad argument and wasn't smart enough to know not to copy it.

[@swankyfur1850]

Okay libertarians are just a term for zoomers who dont want to label themselves conservative

[@iikarrus]

yeah nah

[@nc7807]

No.

[@OrganicDolphin]

Libertarians are just conservatives who like weed

[@nc7807]

@@OrganicDolphin also entirely incorrect

[@adamdaniel01]

@@OrganicDolphin 90% true

[@Cylonick]

it's like watching a full grown adult running onto the playground and flinging children around.

[@hypercortical7772]

Love how destiny has gotten closer and closer to my way of evaluating the morality of abortion, over the years. I never even had to debate him. *smugface*

[@mkunkel7]

Let's see if I can summarize these points accurately... Destiny: A human with previous conscious experiences are different and morally more valuable than a human with no previous conscious experience. So sleep and other unconscious states don't relinquish a person's right to preservation of life since they've had a previous conscious experience. A human fetus or any other early developmental stage has no demonstrable previous conscious state and therefore has no right to life with which one needs to preserve. Saanvi: The human conscious experience transcends time and therefore the future potential for a conscious experience has the same moral value as a previous or present conscious experience. Therefore a fetus, zygote, or other specific developmental stage of human birth has a right to preservation of life since the potential for a conscious state is assumed.

[@croisaor2308]

Both did great at presenting and defending their viewpoints. It's an axiomatic disagreement that really can't be solved because both starting points are subjective.

[@sathrielsatanson666]

@@croisaor2308 yeap, I smirked when she said that Destiny's stance was subjective as it was a gotcha.

[@Thomas-nv8os]

@@croisaor2308 I mean, not really. The disagreement is axiomatic, but as Destiny showed in both debates, their axioms lead to many more undesirable conclusions/outcomes for society (e.g. Anti-Natalism)

[@croisaor2308]

@@Thomas-nv8os "their axioms lead to many more undesirable conclusions/outcomes for society (e.g. Anti-Natalism)" How so? Her position isn't anti-natalist, suffering doesn't factor into her argument at all as she said at the end. Positive and negative outcomes only happen here based on one's view of human life. One side (Destiny) doesn't consider it a loss of life, so nothing is lost to society, while the other does consider it a loss of life, which is a loss to society. Both frameworks lead to better outcomes depending on which one you buy into, which is why it matters more which framework you have rather than who has better arguments.

[@nicknevins628]

@@croisaor2308 She doesn't care about the loss of life she literally said the mother has to go through with the pregnancy even if it kills her. She is merely valuing "potential" life over actual life.

[@stropheum]

The potency to self actualize is a weird stance to take. Saying that a fetus will eventually become conscious therefore the mother has an obligation to nourish and nurture it to that point would logically extend to the concept of eggs having the potential to be fertilized and by extension have the potency to self actualize, so women have a moral obligation to breed at every ovulation cycle. It's a really weird position

[@lc7173]

Sheesh. Thats pretty true.

[@nikobates6897]

Perhaps it would be charitable to say that the “potential to self actualize” begins at conception. Telling someone that they have to logically fertilize every egg sounds very debate bro-esque.

[@crazysk8ta123]

@@nikobates6897 what this argument points out is that the "potential to self actualize" means nothing. It's just another way to dress up the notion of human life starting at conception. Any attempt to make it less arbitrary would run into the problem that prior states causally led to the current one and should therefore be granted the same moral value.

[@_alreph]

You could flip it and say that someone has the potential to become a serial murderer. Say we could calculate a percentage of people that could become so, should we mass execute random people now because of the potential for them to become a serial killer? It makes no sense.

[@hoominbeeing]

She could set an arbitrary value at conception. For example, "I only value self actualization when conception occurs and I do this arbitrarily". However, at that point, you have a fundamental disagreement and debate is no longer necessary. It would be like debating someone who rejects the concept of logic; no argument is going to work.

[@DustbinFunkbndr]

She clearly didn’t understand almost any point Destiny made but just kept talking as if she did. Wowza.

[@pmgroundhog]

People like this deserve to experience the world they claim to want. Their mind would immediately change

[@nathund1]

this woman is the epitome of "I know big words, that means I'm right, now agree with me" like holy shit she's just endlessly trying to obfuscate so people say "I don't know I guess you're right, now stop talking to me"

[@BobbyJ529]

@@WanderOnward She didn't see the potentiality of misuse.

[@nickmyers3065]

Shes a young person who wanted to gain experience in arguments and debates. I don't know why we need to bash her lol I disagree with her also. Most of us and especially you guys. Would not be able to have a debate like these two.

[@nickmyers3065]

@@adhdrunsme5536 There was a few moments I couldn't disagree with her either. I think in the end like destiny, I am 55% against abortion, but legally 100% against it. I think it's hard to talk about ending a potential life, but I don't believe I have the right to force someone to have a baby. Usually, if someone keeps pushing the abortion thing, I am confused why they don't also push free healthcare and other social structures to Keep Humans living well and Healthy as a human right.

[@aagh8714]

"BIG WUUUUUUURDS" - piotr coffin, 2k21

[@fabiobalassia]

@@adhdrunsme5536 Really? She sounded like every pro-life Destiny ever debated, with some new rhetoric twists to very old arguments

[@Visitant69]

This girl engages in the most intelligent sounding dialogue treeing I have ever heard.

[@MMAGamblingTips]

A libertarian walks into a bar. . . The barman serves him tainted alcohol because there are no regulations. He dies.

[@MasteringJohn]

A government decides to dictate proper nutrition. Deceives the public into thinking fat is the main cause of heart disease, rather than sugar thanks to corporate lobbying. Hundreds of millions of people across the next half century have their life expectancies shortened. Not a libertarian, but there's no such thing as a costless solution, or a perfect system that precludes human error. Whether on a individual level, or an institutional level, stupidity reigns supreme.

[@daltonbrasier5491]

@@MasteringJohn Thanks for defending truth over politics.

[@henrytep8884]

@@MasteringJohn people exist. This is the scope of your statement.

[@MasteringJohn]

@@markharrison6498 How is it not? Human nature doesn't evaporate the moment you place a bureaucracy around it. Even if you think regulations are necessary (which, incidentally, I do), that doesn't make them an unadulterated good, or the supposed experts who crafted them beyond reproach. On that score, the libertarians are absolutely correct.

[@MasteringJohn]

@@henrytep8884 With all of the horror that implies.

[@Araz907]

“I wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted therefore I am anti-abortion” is something that’s popped into my head a ton that I’ve never had a good answer for, but I think destiny’s response to it makes a lot of sense. Really like his answer and makes me think. Thanks for the content

[@aydenr5467]

I mean, you wouldn't have been you if you'd be aborted. Therefore there was never any you to abort. The only part of you that is you is your conscious experience. Glad your thinking about these things.

[@fabfabrice3434]

Maybe you wouldn't have wanted to be aborted because of the life you had. I Can imagine that if your mother would have want to aborted you its because she tought she wasn't capable of taking Care of you for any reason. Your life would then have been different, you wouldn't have been you.

[@illitaret8780]

@@aydenr5467 But if you were killed lets say as a two day old baby, that argument would still be true, no? I mean you wouldn’t be the you that exists presently, therefore it wouldn’t matter? Newborns do not possess high consciousness, I am not necessarily informed but I imagine the levels of consciousness one hour before and after birth are near equivalent?

[@enwhansssnsjsam6987]

@@illitaret8780 Good point.

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@aydenr5467 So while unconscious you don't exist?

[@cagecunningham6316]

>”Libertarian” > Pro-State infringing on bodily autonomy ???

[@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand]

Maybe she's an anti-rational libertarian.

[@cagecunningham6316]

@@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand So libertarian, then

[@Vegan_Kebab_In_My_Hand]

@@cagecunningham6316 You know these days, they really do be like that

[@sloppyjoe9070]

“Pro-Life” means believing unborn babies are humans too. Therefore they deserve human rights. Libertarians believe in human rights

[@alejandrorapag9032]

That setting a person on fire/cremating a corpse argument was fucking genius

[@Kor0Kor0]

This debate ended 20 min. in. This person doesn't seem to grasp previous conscious experience.

[@antipositivism3128]

Explain it to me it's moral relevance

[@antipositivism3128]

@Pyro yes

[@antipositivism3128]

@Pyro Jonah's argument when I debated him was arguing that sentience was still maintained to a relevant capacity.

[@YeahBoy1019]

I was going to flip out if she said “at T = Zero” again. She offered nothing but a heap of word salad

[@miguelzavaleta1911]

Did she ever define that explicitly? I thought I understood what she meant, but then used it in different contexts and now I'm confused.

[@rianalee3138]

@@miguelzavaleta1911 i think she used it wrong, from my understanding it’s the beginning or where time is equal to 0 but hey who knows

[@miguelzavaleta1911]

@@rianalee3138 It has a contextual meaning in math or physics, yeah -- but not in the way she used it.

[@rianalee3138]

@@miguelzavaleta1911 interesting i think she used the mathematical concept once but a different later on

[@jedirock9950]

I actually cannot believe that she said that a mother should have to give birth if giving birth would kill them. She might be consistent but it's absolutely despicable to force someone to do that.

[@septimus378]

I feel like this whole concept of “potentiality” could be dumped so easily but destiny keeps jumping away from it for no reason. The crux of her argument is potentiality, but the can of worms that opens up is fucking massive.

[@RadicalReviewer]

After brain death a person's hair and nails still grow. Dont bury that person they havent fulfilled their active potential!!

[@Ynot533]

Additionally the potential for existence doesn’t start at conception. Potential can be drawn back to when two people are attracted

[@Lucas43434]

By her logic it's wrong to change your mind about wanting a child? That idea could have become a person!

[@mitchyorkey2914]

Morally wrong to pull out lmfao

[@dylansevitt]

it's all based on this misused Aristotelian notions of causality. in general she has a mishmash of Kantian and virtue ethics 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@lukaszmarzec1226]

@@mitchyorkey2914 based and true

[@illitaret8780]

@@Lucas43434 That is true, she should have argued from the prospective of the fetus already existing as an individual, instead as potential.

[@roachofdoom1234]

10:47. Holy shit she’s unhinged. She thinks that she shouldn’t have to value a human being that’s already living and has experience being conscious and having an actual life

[@charleskummerer]

If she uses the term "potentiality" one more time i'm gonna lose my mind

[@mustacheman4476]

“First of all you violated his property rights” Holy shit that is the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard given the context, yet she thought she really got Steven with that one

[@Ricky-Spanish]

Didn't listen to the entire video so it's possible he brought this up and I just missed it, but whenever any libertarian talks of inherent property rights, I find it's useful to examine the history and philosophy of right. If you do, you'll find it not only an ideologically loaded and historically/contingent concept (like so many other things), but one that practically speaking, doesn't mean anything without the existence of a state or institution that can enforce that right. The modern concept of property is really tied to the rise of capitalism and (mostly) English law, backed up by an authority with a "monopoly of force". Essentially, property rights, and by extension capitalism doesn't exist without the state. I think this is one of the central misunderstandings of libertarianism, among other things.

[@nwalegend1439]

@@Ricky-Spanish not even the concept of property rights wasnt even part of the equation lol. seemed like she was buying time to think

[@christopherallen9476]

I love people like this. They want every single fetus to come into being while arguing from one side of their face, and then will argue against protecting the environment and resources needed for that life to survive with the other side. Second half of this moronic debate was very cringe. Her smugness and condescension were hard to take

[@ThinWhiteLuke]

@M S I think they meant literally the 2nd half of THIS video. I’m assuming they meant the last 25 or so minutes of this video.

[@illitaret8780]

@@ravenecho2410 welcome to online politics :)

[@beepboopbeepp]

@@ravenecho2410 Because it's common of people who take strong positions within certain areas of politics to have fairly similair postions, you're right though.

[@Gum_Cuzzler]

The amount of people who claim to be all about personal freedoms but are against women having control of their own reproductive system really gives the game away imo.

[@davidafunk85]

Also, she asks a lot of questions that are cherry picking stupid stuff. Most of her points relate to harming unconscious people lol.

[@krumpi6500]

38:12 she just proved his point, you DON'T value your potential to kill someone, we 'value' you commiting murder = we don't value something's potential to become a concious, we value consciousness

[@thebetus8803]

Out here debating children. You can clearly tell she hasn’t thought any of this through. The burn a person vs. cremation example perfectly showed how unprepared she was

[@someguyyoukno]

Exactly, people like her have such strong conviction of their own ideas without even attempting to consider devil's advocate scenarios to solidify their positions.

[@rianalee3138]

she thought she was prepared but in actuality she was far from it

[@FuckinZ3braS0n]

Sometimes you gotta get knocked down a couple pegs to realize how stupid you actually are. It's good for the ego

[@titodaddy7]

even though destiny is right, i don't think the burn a person is comparable since the cremation is done with consent of a previous consciousness, whereas the burning of a fetus is just an object lacking consciousness.

[@Skronkful]

I was expecting the TikTokers to have much worse arguments, these are actually interesting conversations. Or did the lefty arc set the bar so low?

[@FffffffffffffffffffffffffffffL]

Wow I watched this entire 49 minute debate already, it was really good

[@christophzeit6282]

I watch this while taking a gigantic dump, so it's fine

[@carvedwood1953]

Allowing a kid to be born to die at 4 years old from leukemia seems like one of the most evil things I can think of.

[@milesl-worth3300]

Or, let them live in terrible conditions for their entire lives under a terrible foster care system which leads to homelessness and drug abuse I’d argue that’s even more evil

[@dougleakh9330]

@@milesl-worth3300 I never get this argument the alternative is not being able to experience anything positive or negative your only chance at life is gone and now you will spend eternity in the void

[@milesl-worth3300]

Unfortunately MILLIONS of children do every single day because we would rather invest into another nuclear bomb then actually invest money into programs that need it

[@yahsengshilo9500]

Stop playing god and let people live.

[@kvikmynd]

Uhh when she says "subjecting something to potential harm isn't the same as actually harming it", this is LITERALLY the same as Destiny's position which is "Why should anyone value the potential of something" When she says this, it kind of implies that she IS NOT valuing the potential of the baby possibly being harmed, YET when Destiny says that he doesn't value the potential of a human experience, she disagrees? Kind of sounds like a contradiction in her ethical framework lol

[@danielf2651]

I was thinkin that too

[@MrDoomsdayBomb]

Maybe the difference for her is one of degree, not of kind.

[@kvikmynd]

@@MrDoomsdayBomb elaborate ? Cuz im interested in what u mean but its hard to 100% understand

[@MrDoomsdayBomb]

@@kvikmynd Let's say that the difference is one of value. If it's only a difference in degree, then it seems noncontradictory to say that potential harm and actual harm are both different yet still valuable. This may explain why she takes issue with Destiny's dismissal of value in potency. If it's a difference in kind, then potential harm and actual harm are CATEGORICALLY different, in that one is valuable yet the other isn't.

[@theowlsarefun]

Oh my god she says "impending" when she means "impeding," it's fucking up my head lmao

[@Juuk-D]

What about people that wish they weren't born? This girl is slowly making me join that group.

[@WestinsChannel]

What never made sense to me, is people that walk around declaring that they wish they "were never born" yet, they do not proactively try to end their life, the sentiment kind of flies in the face of their actions.

[@pumaspyjamas9692]

@@WestinsChannel no it doesn't? Is it like rocket science to understand that it's not easy for people to just kill themselves especially if there are go good means for that and not everyone wants to die a horrible death or to subject their relatives to such suffering? What I don't get is dumbasses saying abortion is bad because what if you were aborted as a fetus. When it doesn't make any sense, cos you'd just not exist then and you'd never worry about not being born.

[@hugonamenlos7218]

@@WestinsChannel because not beeing born is the same as killing yourself

[@illitaret8780]

@@hugonamenlos7218 If some one truly despises existence, the door is always open for them to leave.

[@hugonamenlos7218]

@@illitaret8780 that is true but if you want to do it yourself you have to cross some sort of line which takes quite some conviction while saying you wish you werent born implies that you dont even want to be confronted with such a hard decision

[@TravellingMark5454]

Wow she turned into a MONSTER at the end with putting the mother into a 9 out of 10 situation of dying during birth.

[@alexandersanchez9138]

Destiny's patience never fails to impress me.

[@BlackReaperGames]

she sounded a lil teary-eyed at the end there lolz she'll grow up a bit i feel tho i think she was concious of how many circles she walked

[@CPTPlanet85]

the "Setting on fire vs Cremation" line was the mic drop moment for me lol

[@andrewcovell9692]

Destiny vs a libertarian who's actually a concervitive lbh though real liberals and libertarians agree on so much the only difference between then being their economic views that he wouldn't actually be able to argue with an actual libertarian and come out looking good

[@ImperatorZed]

No true scotsman

[@shiroblank277]

In reference to a sapling. "Oh you mean like a seed." No, like a fucking sapling.

[@Loislikes]

WOOOO, Saanvi! Saw her debating on Modern Day Debate lately. She is awesome!

[@Loislikes]

@@RV3G4 Destiny cult member.

[@BadHombre914]

I've noticed every time you pointed out an flaw in her point of view she doesn't acknowledge it and instead changes the subject or disregards it.

[@obezy.]

This just isn’t true? Maybe listen again with your ears opens

[@hereisacomment4u]

All this substance talk is making a bunch of philosophers turn in their graves

[@FPSpectre]

DESTINY IM COOOOOOMING

[@ThePainkiller9995]

how did you do that

[@ObeseKermit]

@@ThePainkiller9995 sub

[@alexpenneytration699]

Very quick with that cremation argument, was good

[@humblesaltminer2463]

I mean, it caught her off guard, but it wasn't a great argument. You can brutally smash a dead man's skull with a sledgehammer. A tornado can brutally tear through a forest.

[@kloakheesten]

@@humblesaltminer2463 Yeah but when she uses the word in the context of abortion she is quite obviously trying to appeal to a person's emotions.

[@67awesomekid]

RIP all the potentiality wasted by young men all across the glboe

[@ticker0157]

The countess trillions killed everyday

[@NoUseForAName06]

That's an interesting thought actually. Shouldn't she be against contraception in general?

[@RunFreeRyan]

I would really like it when Destiny talks to these people about "life beginning at conception" to ask them what they think about in vitro fertilization. If they're for it then they are in a pickle. Before doctors put the fertilized egg in the woman, they fertilize a bunch of eggs and store them for potential use in the future. If the woman doesn't want anymore kids then they will destroy the fertilized eggs. If life really begins at conception, then these people should think IVF is bad and killing lives. If they're okay with it, they have some grappling to do with their own beliefs to make then consistent. It's a pretty easy litmus test to see if they believe what they actually say they do.

[@theowlsarefun]

I think they are generally against IVF because of the destruction of fertilized eggs.

[@aydenr5467]

I mean it's not a hard bullet to bite. Just be anti-IVF. Sorted. They're already against abortion, they've already taken a polarised stance to life.

[@rodripalma2457]

I would just correct you that life does begins at conception but that doesn't imply it has value. With the logic you expose for a pro life it would make sense to give the fetus value just because it has potential so you would have to attack that point (as destiny does). But regardless, nobody is disputing the fact that is a human life, only if it has value

[@RunFreeRyan]

@@aydenr5467 you'd be surprised how many conservatives like IVF but are against abortion. Ive debated with many.

[@at5203]

@@RunFreeRyan Probably, but if Destiny did this it would just be setting up a gotcha that most often than not wouldn't pay off.

[@crabenchanter4890]

You already know who wins this in the first minute of the debate just by the confidence and the vocabulary they used.

[@onlyeveryone2253]

Girl: we value potential life because it will be alive if not stopped. Destiny: why do we value that? Girl: Because it is the process to become alive. Destiny: why does that matter? Girl: because it has the potential to be alive.

[@bognarandras8398]

Classic circular reasoning.

[@ThePainkiller9995]

the fan in the background looks like it's lagging

[@_alreph]

Refresh rate vs RPM

[@ThePainkiller9995]

@@_alreph refresh these nuts lmao

[@_alreph]

@@ThePainkiller9995 WooYeah got me

[@lalohernandez5582]

She doesn’t make points she speaks in circles.. it’s pretty simple to understand the difference from some one going to surgery in order to continue living .. vs a non viable pregnancy?

[@jamespeterson7125]

I've listened to a few of these debates recently and one of the critiques I have is that they always turn to a discussion of when a fetus should be given moral consideration as a binary. To me this is completely about when the moral consideration for the fetus is greater than that of the mother. There are plenty of things, e.g. livestock, that we give moral consideration, but less than ours if we want to end their conscious experiences. If we lived in a world where we could teleport a zygote out of a mother to develop independent of her with technological means I would probably be against abortion. As it is though, I think it is immoral to require women to undergo real harm for something that has less moral consideration than her. Edit: I don't like these TikTok debates. The people you debate have a veneer of good arguments to their followers but aren't able to put together good formal arguments.

[@JBHACKSAW]

But there is a potential we could develop that technology in the future, so why don't we preserve the zygotes just in case we have that technology tomorrow?

[@shadyflakes6979]

I think valuing the life of the mother is an odd way to view it because at conception, a child is a sickness or bother to the mom. Which might open the door to kill any child that sickens or bothers them. The only time this view would work is if the mother will die from child birth. Following even if technologically the zygote could be hosted by a machine, I assume the mother would have to pay for it. If abortion ended up being cheaper, I'd still side with choice.

[@riteshyeddu]

@@JBHACKSAW this never crossed my mind!

[@jamespeterson7125]

Thanks for the good responses. I'll do my best at both explaining and exploring the position I stated here. I think that's a good way to help me figure out my own position better. I think the first thing to clarify that I'm talking about what should be legally, not morally, and in an ideal society. Part of what I'm talking about is that vegans make the argument that it is not moral to eat animals. I think it is a compelling argument (although I still eat meat), but I don't think veganism should be enshrined in law. With the technology question, it could be argued that it would be moral to preserve zygotes for this future technology (assuming the government would be paying for the service much like how the U.S. government funds some amount of foster care and other services). With my statement that I would be against it, I think that would be on a moral level, not a legal one. I think there are reasonable arguments that living things (even non-persons) deserve some moral consideration, and that would include the zygote. They should be given much less moral consideration than living things with a human conscious experience, but still some. So in this hypothetical where there are contemporary options available at no cost to the woman it would be immoral, but should still not be illegal. And I do have to say contemporary because in JB R's question about preserving the zygotes, it's not immoral to not do it because the "teleportation" technology doesn't currently exist. And even if we're talking about petri dish zygotes we still end up with Destiny's points about the moral difficulty measuring future potential. As for ShadyFlakes' point about the child being a harm to the mother, I think we need to separate the arguments for before or after initiation of a conscious experience. Following Destiny's argument that a conscious experience is a good place to draw a line of some kind, it could be reasonable to say that at that point it doesn't matter if the child "sickens or bothers" the mother because it has as much moral consideration as the mother. Before then, there is no moral consideration given to the "child" and there would be no issues with abortion at all. I think one final thought is that I don't view all immoral actions the same. I think murder is way more immoral than a child stealing a candy bar. For the record, I generally agree with the original holdings of Roe v. Wade. It seems to me like the government should have no ability to prohibit abortions in the first trimester, can require reasonable health regulations in the second, and can prohibit abortions in the third with exceptions. Edit: I made corrections to the way I stated the Roe v. Wade holding.

[@AndrewNajash]

Keep up these videos and destiny could be on the next KZbinr vs TikToker boxing card