Skeptic Community 2018 – “The Common Good, Screw Rights!”





There are 44 comments

Add yours
  1. Sir Vindicator

    Add to this list of skeptics that need to go:
    -Steve Shives
    -Cult of Dusty
    -TJ Kirk

  2. Sir Vindicator

    I am unsubscribing from Mr. Dapperton the vocap! I will NOT stomp on my principles and reasoning and vote out the state and government, sorry. Agorism, end of discussion!

  3. Sir Vindicator

    7:087:17 Yeah, no! It has created a bunch of nihilists/subjectivists, greatly empowered the elites on the left and made religious people look like illogical terrorists. Most people can't even admit to being religious, (excluding Islamists), without the skeptics using it to try and discredit them.

  4. the rougemillenial

    This is why I left a good chunk of that community in the dust(y the white) a couple years ago. Granted I still agree with shoeonhead, vee, and TJ on some things and I do enjoy their content, I’ve moved into the logical community as I think what happened is that the skeptic community fragmented as a result of the introduction of atheism plus which was a Marxist Trojan horse to allow feminists to hijack the movement for their own gain. The reactionary collectivist ‘skeptics’ and the logical people formed different groups.

  5. pktesla

    Wow such comment spam. but yeeeeah calling yourself skeptic and believe in something… something to throw along with Antifa fighting globalism together (around the world) and Flat earth society having followers all around the globe.

  6. CDR Rockwell's Ghost

    Can you please change your intro before you give someone a seizure? (Kidding, but seriously, just do a title card like adult swim does)

  7. Marianne Ancapikitty

    A Left-sider: "Hah! Look at this video in response to yours! Reckt…"
    Me: after seeing the original video "Appeal to emotion, appeal to emotion, appeal to emotion…." gagging noises
    Watches Eso shred up her arguments =)

  8. Scrotie McB

    Regarding the common good…

    There are two different forms of individualism, idealistic and pragmatic-collectivist. The first is the type that says there is no such thing as the common good, rejecting any sort of collectivist value.

    The second form, however, is more popular and built upon the collectivist moral premises of utilitarianism. Pragmatic-collectivist individualism starts with the Question of the Common Good — "what provides the greatest value to the greatest number?" — and answers that question with "individualism." By this logic, the group recognition of individual rights and numerous other agreements with idealistic individualism are justified, but only because the pragmatic-collectivist believes the net result will be a collective good.

    Put another way: while the idealistic individualist views individualism as polar opposite to collectivism, the pragmatic-collectivist views communism, tribalism, etc as false examples of collectivism while individualism is, in their view, the most effective form of collectivism.

    Although this position might appear silly to you, it's one that idealistic individualists constantly cater to in their rhetoric. How many times have you heard an argument along the lines of "if collectivists really cared about group x, they'd adopt individualist position y"? Well, pragmatic-collectivists really do care about x, and they're thus sold by idealistic individualists into adopting position y. Such arguments are essentially appeals to the common good, which makes them, from an idealistic individualism perspective, some form of logical fallacy.

    Instead, individualists should be arguing from a position that caring about a group of people other than yourself is often harmful to both the one caring and the one cared for. We need to have the intellectual thoroughness to attack not only the morality of those who compel redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive, but also the morality of the voluntarist charity that does so. We need to foster a culture wherein those who enable abusers with their reckless generosity are themselves held responsible, not by law but by voluntarist ostracism.

    People who help scumbags are not good people, unless the sole form of their help is the exchange of value for value.

  9. lchpdmq

    Actually, things have gone so far off the deep end that the low hanging fruit is exactly where people should start and when hopefully the insanity is ended then you can quibble over details

  10. Joshua LoCicero

    David friedman takes a consequentialist aproach which i think is better because aeguing from axioms only works if they accept your priors. I know it sounds crazy but theres no way to universally apply an axiom

  11. Robert Morgan

    I didn't realise this until after going to her channel but she hasn't even have her channel off the ground. 7 subscribers and only 3 videos made. Lol

  12. Esoteric Entity

    +Operation Anarchism Left a really good comment, I wanted to give it a thumbs up but I accidentally deleted it since I was on mobile.

    Anyway, his comment read:
    "What's correct isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always correct"

  13. John Parks

    I'm not a statist, so I am an anarchist. I have two questions. 1. Let's say Sweden or any "country" wanted to keep their culture, how could they? Foreigners could just walk right through.

    2. All countries wouldn't just vanish. Places like China, North Korea, how would the population be convinced that anarchy is the only logical, and moral way?

  14. Victor Rand

    Ok im not addressing her argument. Why the fuck is she wearing her mickeyd's uniform in a video? Nothing says "im an intellectual in political theory" than your fast food chain uniform.
    Not saying someone cant be intelligent working in fast food, but ffs change before you record your image for posterity.

  15. Darth Utah 66

    4:30 The US government spent $4 trillion last year. By comparison, Apple was worth $869 billion at the end of 2017. So I guess you could say that the government creates cooperation. And as for "the government doesn't create anything", has anyone not heard of the manhattan project, V2 rockets, stealth fighters, GPS, naval ships, and even the freaking deep web. Yes, you heard that right, the government created the deep web. It was apparently invented by the US navy to allow communication without being traced but then in 2004, it was handed over to the public domain.

    4:48 You do realize that private charity and private school aren't illegal in the US, right? And if it's cheaper, why does anybody use the government services?

Post a new comment