Ask Yourself NTT argument easily debunked #TheTraitIsHumanDNA

[unethical vegan]

There is nothing more nerve-wracking than watching a complete moron talking about a topic he apparently has no clue about. And whats worse is watching the same moron bragging how he is talking about "logic 101" uuugghh. Now, I won't go into the actual logic 101 which would be inference rules and natural deduction. I'm gonna actually follow Ask Yourself into his pseudo-logic unicorn land and still debunk NTT....

The trait is Human DNA...

Actually, several traits can be named, but the trait has to be something that's essential to human and not to animals. Hence "Human DNA" can be a trait.

The argument would like this

AY: What trait justifies stabbing/killing animals?

ME: Animals lack Human DNA

AY: What if Humans Lack Human DNA, would it be okay to stabbing/kill humans?

(Obviously, at this point Ask Yourself understood that this argument does not make sense because humans HAVE human-DNA BY DEFINITION. So what Ask Yourself did was asked the following right after I explained this to him)

""Human DNA also produces a logical inconsistency, since people would not accept being slaughtered/killed if their consciousness were transformed to a non-human body (such as a robot/AI)"

Obviously, this is a very poor reasoning since it ignores the fact that every time a human "kill/slaughter/eat" animals they ARE in their human bodies (which obviously contain human DNA). If humans would eat/kill/slaughter animals when they are in this hypothetical robot ONLY THEN would it be a "contradiction."

A fun thing to note is that this conversation between AY and myself happened on one of my earlier youtube videos. of course, AY being the butthurt little tantrum child he is, just resorted to name calling and leaving the discussion without further explaining why "human DNA" is not a acceptable trait.

#TheTraitIsHumanDNA

Now keep in mind that if y'all wanna engage AY fanbase with this trait, his followers would interpret the "human DNA" as an "appeal to species." It's very important to be firm that "appeal to species" and "human DNA" are two different propositions, this can be easily shown by the two sentences

Is it okay to kill humans because they are different species (alien argument)?
Is it okay to kill humans because they lack Human DNA?


The second sentence cannot even be true by DEFINITION hence making these two DIFFERENT propositions.

[unethical vegan]

Look at Ask Yourself twitter https://twitter.com/Chris33126811/status/967821668935720960

Obviously, he blocked me because i sent him two tweets about how easily the trait can be "human DNA."

I'm am seriously starting to give up on this guy. I actually liked him several months back. He's one of the few vegan youtuber I have seen who doesn't resort to emotional arguments. HOWEVER; The ego of this guy is unbearable. It turns out that he's like every other youtube that passes a certain threshold of subscriber... They start to care less "adapting to new information" and more of "holding onto their platforms beliefs at any cost."

I mean Jesus Christ. At this rate, i don't even believe a professor in Mathematics can convince this schmuck about how important rules of inference are...

[esquizofrenico]

I don't think you can even make the argument that there is such a thing as human DNA. Imagine that in the future, as some people believe will happen, races differentiate because of preferential reproduction with people of their own race, up to the point that the different races will no longer be able to have fertile children with each other. Which race will be the ones having human DNA? None? The two of them? I don't see a clear answer to that question.

You will always reach a circular definition. Human DNA are any DNA that is had by humans. We could get anything with DNA inside or outside the human category that way.

I don't agree with name the trait, but I think human DNA cannot be a differentiation, because you cannot define what human DNA is.

[unethicalVegan]

Do you know believe that the human DNA is essentially different from animals?

Well if its possible to foresee the "future" trait DNA then you can just add it from the get-go. Otherwise you would change the trait when the supposed DNA change happens

Also, just state the point being that the second premise does not make sense with "if absent in humans" if some trait such as human DNA was used. Key is just to use any trait that is essential to human and not animals

[esquizofrenico]

Yeah, of course, you can use human consciousness, or human experience or whatever you want. I don't think name the trait is an effective argument, the problem I have is with trying to define humanity in genetic terms. I think that is something that must be done historically.

The DNA is changing continuously, there are not two humans with identical DNA. Although now that I am reading your comment, I think I have inferred that your way of determining who is human is by genetics, when you are not. It is just that the term human DNA is completely useless, it is just DNA found in a human. To say it in another way, if I construct artificially a copy of my DNA, is that human DNA? I don't know, I don't want to take an strong position on this one, but I am interested due to the consequences it has for other topics, such as abortion, racism, trans-humanism, etc.

What I mean is that "human DNA" is just as useful as "human atoms", Of course all humans have atoms, and we can call them if we want to "human atoms", but is not a very useful definition.