destiny, 0:36

“one quick thing. can we please just focus on this one argument. i think we both are intelligent enough that if we use an analogy, we can generalize it. i don’t want to hear “you’re making the same ‘nazi, conservative’…just focus on the line level directly applicable arguments instead of trying to draw this into anything else, okay? i dont think the situation is that complicated that we need to draw parallels to other things, okay?”

vaush tries to frame the guy as an “active shooter”

destiny rebuttal is that 1) he doesnt think active shooter; 2) trying to restrain an active shooter is dangerous (eg richochets, misfires)

vaush: was shooter in the right to murder the people that he murdered?

destiny: you completely moved off of the previous thing

vaush: no no i can go back to that, im just curuoosu because i want to know if you think if people were even justified in chasing him down

destiny: okay, so youre not asking about everybody, youre just asking about the very first guy, right?

vaush: yes, i just jumped ahead a little bit

destiny: okay, i just want to make sure we are being *razor specific* on our questions

vaush: okay okay

vaush: person with bag chasing guy with gun, he threw coke bottle into it, he missed, he continued chasing, and then the guy with the gun turnjed around and unloaded into him

destiny: how many shots? one or more than one?

vaush: i think more than one, but can take a look at vid again if chat wants to link

destiny: ok im seeing 3 or 4 shots, ok in this instance, self defesnes is justified

vaush: really? even though wisconsin is not a stand your ground state?

destiny: do you want to talk moiral or legal?

vaush: morally. do you think if youre being chased down by an unarmed person if you have a firearm means youre morally justified in shooting them?

destiny: absolutely, yes

vaush: you dont believe in escalation of forc, like there needs to be a demonstration of lethal escalation of force before youre allowed to respond in kind or…?

detiny: if youre brandishing a firearm and someone is charging you anyways, its fair to assume that that person likely has lethal intent. they could have a knife or try to take your friearm from you and try to kill you with it. you have no way of know9ing that, its not your responsibility to know that. if youre trying to comply with what i would consider a moral duty to retreat, w2hich it seems like he was–he was running away–but another person is charging after you regardless, by the time youve ascertained whether they have a knife or something, youre probably likely going to die. so yeah, i think you have a right to defend yoursle fin that circumsatnce.

vaush: ok, so if we’r strictly speaking morally here, i think thats abhorent–

destiny: would you tell me why?

vaush: yes, because you can justify with that line of logic an unbleeibale range of potential justificayions for engaging in a preemptive lethal force.

destiny: sure, can you give me an example?

vaush: yeah, i dont think any time a person is running at you, that gives you permissioin to kill them.

destiny: im not saying any time a person is running at you. im saying any time a peson is running at you when youve displayed lethal intent.

4:30

optimal decision-making vs morality

ev positive

vaush: do you belive the act of open carrying means that you have a lower bar that justifies lethal enaggement with other people? might be fundamental question we’re disagreeing on

destiny: these analogies are disanalagous

28:30– “nto arguing in good faith”

“i know you dont like breaking news very much”

“now we’ve left the moral arguments and now we’ve evntered the breaking news game”

“submit yourself to the justice of the mob”

“we’re not arguing body count”

“what is this biological essentialism”

difference between destiny and vaush is over the morality of mob rule, mob justice

the politics streamer / e-influencer space is that the streamers are able to disconnect their own rhetoric from their own substance at will eg “he should die” vs “he shouldnt actually be killed but should go through an arduous legal process and be tried by the couirt”