Destiny vs VeganGains

Destiny doesn't seem to be aware of the logical inconsistencies and practical shortcomings in his moral outlook.

Support me on Patreon:
Debate video:
outro: Beef by KRS-One
Follow me on Facebook:

Rat empathy:

Crows reciprocate affection with gifts:

Destiny vs VeganGains

Destiny doesn't seem to be aware of the logical inconsistencies and practical shortcomings in his moral outlook.

Support me on Patreon:
Debate video:
outro: Beef by KRS-One
Follow me on Facebook:

Rat empathy:
Crows reciprocate affection with gifts:

48 thoughts on “Destiny vs VeganGains

  1. Having the right to skin your dog alive is logically consistent to eating meat unnecessarily, but that doesn’t make it ethical.

    1. If you have to add the caveat that it’s not ethical then being logically consistent is worthless.

    1. Jerell Sure, but then you would balance that with the social contract, by saying we have to prevent *unnecessary* suffering. Of course, if someone enters your home, and you retaliate in self defense, his suffering wasn’t unnecessary. If you allow him to attack you, then it would lead to *your* unnecessary suffering.

      Besides, even though logically, the standard sounds intact – someone renouncing the social contract deserves not the protections of society – in practice, it just sounds a lot like the golden rule. Consistent wrongdoers easily circumvent this by making up their own social contract. For example, a consistent flasher wants others to flash them. A suicidal serial killer wants a cop to find and kill him.

      *However*, if you take into account everyone’s unnecessary suffering, then you would realize that peoples rights outweigh your desire to flash them, rape them, kill them, etc.

    2. The way he places value *exclusively* on the social contract is flawed, Because there is some deeper meaning behind it. Social contracts exist *because* we value our own lives, because we value our own suffering.
      Then you and Destiny would turn around and say, “Oh sure, but it’s human suffering I care about.” How does he *_prove_* that human suffering is the only one that matters? He said, “social contract,” so really, he’s just going around in circles. Unless you can prove that human suffering matters more than animals without using the social contract, then Vegan Gains is in the right here.

    3. It sounds a lot like the golden rule because that’s what it is.
      When he states his position, he says that he wouldn’t want certain things to happen to him (murder/abuse/etc) so he doesn’t do those things to other people, that he doesn’t see himself as inherently different to other people, and that this means that he should demand the same rights for other people as he does for himself.

      Pretty much just “treat others as you would want to be treated.”

      It does allow for other people to come to different conclusions but the idea that someone else could see something differently doesn’t invalidate his own personal moral judgement on an action. I can think something you did is morally wrong even if you don’t and neither of us would be objectively right or wrong but that wouldn’t change the fact that you broke one of my rules.

      He takes the stance that by default things are morally neutral. For things to be morally good or bad, there must be a reason for them to matter. He said that pain is one of many biological processes that he doesn’t have a reason to value over any other. The argument against this is not that it can sometimes be unnecessary. If someone said we needed to reduce unnecessary pleasure it would seem absurd.

      He doesn’t argue that human suffering is inherently more valuable than animal suffering, as evidenced by the point about the hostile tribe that can never learn to respect the rights of others. Remember he said he would be alright with killing them like animals if there was no chance of them ever coming to an agreement.

    1. Joe Rogan probably won’t agree to debate him. Rogan doesn’t like talking to anyone that might make him look stupid. He refused to have a discussion with famous skeptic Steven Novella when Novella called him on his bs around promoting cryotherapy.

  2. I get the sense that Vegan Gains doesn’t dislike Destiny as much as the other people he has debated.

    1. “I read in the “Comprehensive Edition” (the unabridged version) of Vesanto Melina’s book “Becoming Vegan” or whatever it is, that there was one study done that found that vegan men had an average IQ of 118. I’m
      guessing this was using the Weschler scale which has a standard deviation of 15 sigma. The Stanford-Binet has an SD of 16. The Cattell Verbal has an SD of like 24 or something. I want to find the original
      study though, because it sounds fascinating.”

      Relative sample sizes are kind of dumb to use though. What is the pop of vegan vs non?

    2. “I’d be surprised to. It’s like Isaac said. It doesn’t take a genius to work out needlessly stabbing sentient beings to death is immoral.”

      It also doesn’t take a genius to know a dishonest loaded and oversimplified statement when you see one.

    3. “Footsolder, Durianrider etc.) I’d be surprised if there’s a positive IQ gap in favour of veganism”

      Damn belex, I’m surprised people even remember durianrider, remember – sprite is fruit in a can.

    1. + Level Up Kuyt
      As I said before, I don’t care if they don’t have a choice. It does not negate the fact that they are nothing more than organic killing machines.
      I see them as somewhat equivalent to a more sophisticated maggot or tick, species most people, including vegans would have no hesitation to kill.
      A tick or maggot has no choice as well, but according to your moral logic, in order to be logically consistent, you’d argue these species also have “moral value.” Please spare me your rationalization, it’s going to be nothing but convoluted pseudo-intellectual babble.
      Humans can create a Heaven on Earth, herbivorous species numbers such as gazelles and antelopes can be kept in check via humane, non-lethal methods such as selectively sterilizing males.
      Ergo, rendering the ecological argument for valuing predatory animals such as lions and hyenas morally bankrupt.

  3. VG I would put money on you debating anyone on the planet. I’m a pescatarian, not a vegan, so I realize I’m being hypocritical here. I see a gradation of morality depending on sentence (harvesting of mammals is repulsive to me, but fishing doesn’t bother me). But there is no way to win the debate against veganism. Eating any animal or fish is wrong. You are a boss.

    1. Spooky Skeleton grade A doesn’t upload no more because his face is plastered all around YouTube(small channels)..he’s afraid if he pisses someone off they’ll put his face in many videos.. that’s the reason he doesn’t upload

  4. If cow milk is for baby cows, then almond milk is for baby almonds and soy milk is for baby soy beans. Checkmate vegans

  5. In the debate, destiny had to think about it when richard asked him if he’d kill a dog

    and people say vegan gains is a sociopath lmao

    1. I dont see how killing a dog = sociopath.

      Like really you dont even give any context? you just think the act of killing a dog is sociopathic ….

    2. Doc Manhattan A duck would rape another duck and a praying mantis eats her husband after sex. Is this something we should do too dumbass?

  6. I find it hard to believe Destiny is that far detached from reality. Feels like a bit of an edgy, emotionless gimmick combined with stubbornness to me.

  7. Wasn’t destiny’s position that social contract has moral value because he values his own life and his own happiness? Since he values his own wellbeing, social contract helps to protect that wellbeing. Similarly, since other people value their own wellbeing, their social contracts also serve to protect their individual wellbeing, thus creating a network of social contracts to help protect each individuals wellbeing. Since animals can’t reciprocate that contract, then from the point of view of someone trying to protect their own wellbeing, animal’s suffering carries no moral weight.

    Similarly, with the argument that children would have to also fall under this, wasn’t destiny’s point that children will develops into people that can reflect social contract while animals cannot?

    I don’t even agree with destiny bc I think he’s being disingenuous, but I don’t think this video correctly outlines the logical inconsistencies in his argument.

    1. Well I think he’s being dishonest and doesn’t actually mean what he’s saying. Again he admitted that he does not care about things like wellbeing, he believes pain is just a biological response that has no value, and he also believes that sentient life also has no inherent moral value as he’s also fine with committing genocide against tribes people just for fun. So if he was going to claim that he only values the utility of a social contract because it protects his own life then it would be a contradiction to also be against slavery and killing gays as placing value only on social contract would allow slavery and it would allow the killing of gay people. So he’s just being dishonest, he doesn’t really believe in what he’s saying. In reality he values sentience and not just a social contract, he was only saying this so that he could have an argument in support of eating meat.

      There’s also the huge practical issue of no one agreeing to your moral system. If he’s going to claim that social contract is the only thing that has moral value, then he’d have to develop a moral system that the majority of people would adopt and that would mean valuing sentience and not just a social contract, and then we’re back to having a moral system that values sentience first and foremost. And as I pointed out in the video animals can in fact form social contracts so everything about his argument falls apart.

    1. I essentially made the same arguments in the debate. Can you explain how I lost and how these arguments are not valid or adequate?

    2. The argument is NOT that there aren’t justifications to eat meat.
      Or that eating meat itself is unethical.

      Logically consistent doesn’t mean ethical.
      This is an argument on ethics that are logically consistent, not simply being logically consistent.

      That’s like saying it’s ok to do something horrific like rape as long as you’re logically consistent about it.
      You’re supporting a man who said it’s ok to rape women and animals who can’t follow a social contract.

    3. That’s the thing. All thats left is opinion.
      Also I believe destiny didn’t say raping women who don’t follow social contract as for if you’re raping that woman you’re also braking the social contract.

      And I never said I ever supported destiny or not. I just believe he did well in this debate and won which I explained in my earlier comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *