12
Jul

Lefty Philosophy's Final Takedown – REKT by MrCropper



ladies and gentlemen mr. cropper here we're going to be doing lefty philosophies final takedown this guy is not sufficient for the task so we are going to be doing it on here because the audio is not good enough to do the normal thing or is it here oh I've got something that's uploading not quite uploaded yet oh here it it's okay this audios not very good we're gonna do it on here it's a 24 minute video I can't promise you that he is very substantive ladies and gentlemen I'm sorry if he lets you down activism and this gentleman here who thinks by the name Brandon crapper as the name response video it's pretty funny actually so we'll have some fun going over some of this critiques probably won't spend that much on it because I honestly don't think he understands my arguments he sets up a lot of strongmen and he also doesn't understand much about objectivism that's laughable that's laughable that's the pot calling the kettle black so you'll have to watch the videos for yourself if you haven't and I'll leave some links to those down below but here's a guy who says that Iran's axioms aren't necessarily true they're just the basic assumptions that she uses to build her philosophy and I don't understand objectivism either even though he is an Objectivist I will premise this by saying I've never taken this in school I've learned everything about iron ran and objectivism through watching hours and hours of her interviews and reading her philosophy and scouring through the internet to understand more about objectivism I don't know how much time he's really spent but it it occurs to me if he has spent hours and hours reading and listening to Objectivist stuff and he still doesn't grasp that the axioms are true that existence exists and you exist and he still thinks that that's just a wildly insane hypothesis you know while I'm just starting to wonder what's between his ears before I say anything bad about objective vision I will say that there is one good thing about objectivism that's I am Lions take down with religion now I did I should guess I should have done this when he did this video before he mentioned an R and something something and that's why she was an atheist and I can't remember what it was it was so stupid and to hear him say this now that that's the one good thing about objectivism I really wish I would have made note of whatever it was that he was confused about before about why I and Ranson atheist the reason I ran as an atheist is because there's not a god nobody's proven to her that there's a god nobody showed her any evidence that there's a God therefore she's an atheist and I can't even remember what sort of equivocal junk he had come up with but that's now he says that's the only good thing about objectivism and he didn't even understand the reason for it so I just put it to the fair-mindedness of the audience a guy who thinks that iran's atheism is the only good thing about objectivism and simultaneously has no idea why she's an atheist he's amazing he's amazing and how she does that if you're an atheist or an antiquey is or agnostic she can really appeal to you because she has some pretty solid ways and arguments against the idea of God and against religion so that is one good thing that comes out of Objectivism anyway how is the audio you hear anything hopefully the audio is good I don't really know I can't hear myself so let me know if the audio is good or not we'll start listening to this video it's a pretty pretty funny actually we go well you know if you can hear alright now I don't know how long I should let myself speak here but I go on quiet a bit he does make some comments over me let's skip forward a bit let's take a look just keep that in mind as possible description and it take it seriously before videos and to be seriously in a certain way then you see that those things right when I tell him to take his philosophy seriously what I mean is you know when Iran says that the axiom means that we exist take that seriously don't just dismiss her and say oh she doesn't really mean that of course take her seriously take her at her word why do you dismiss her and say that's just a wild hypothesis no one could ever really mean these don't have to be true they're just her premises why do you say that take her seriously what if they are true they are true you can't deny them you assume they're true every time you open your mouth that's what I mean by take you seriously does he take it seriously he thinks this is just a parlor game he thinks this is all just mind games seriously now he hasn't seen my entire series on iron ran I have like four videos in which I break down in attempt to steal man her position in her salon yeah I watched your attempts to steal man her position and every time you said a sentence of your own you went a disaster zone you said that the axioms aren't necessarily true you said she doesn't actually advocate selfishness she actually advocates rational self-interest not selfishness I mean you were you're all over the map equivocating and apologizing for her hasa pee he hasn't watched those yet he just went straight to and I did not watch all of them that first one I have to say his introductory one if you took out the three or four sentences where he's tried to stitch the material together it's all fine he's just reading from source material what's funny is that he can read all that source material and not get it that's what's fun did the critique and started saying it though I he keeps saying if I took it seriously I did take it seriously because I was interested in learning a new philosophy a lot of things you see he just takes it as a new philosophy there's 19 philosophies in his memory bank and now he's learning a 20th nothing different about it it's just there's cons there's Hegel there's Rand it's just another philosophy we look at her basic assumptions we look at how she develops them we think about it we play with it then we put it back in the drawer it's just a philosophy zine died I didn't agree with but youyou preempt the philosophy with your objections the objections are not legitimate let's take a look just keep that in mind doubt to my senses I I said it may not be true that everything all of the data and input that your your eyes your ears yeah yeah okay the data may not be true though I've just gone over how we must have some connection to reality or else we wouldn't be able to define call our blindness and we wouldn't be able to come to any idea that our senses are incorrect in hallucinations or delusions or optical illusions we wouldn't know what those were wouldn't be able to define them unless there was some healthy state of sensory perception as as I speak right now I'm wearing eyeglasses that correct my blurred vision how do I know that it's blurred vision because I can walk up to a mailbox or something and it's not a big fuzzy object it's actually has sharp edges so I know objectively but that's not a fuzzy object so when my eyes say that it is then I go to the ophthalmologist somebody said they were seeing spots one time and the blonde girl said have you they said no I can't remember the joke alright now I got to drop it because I can't remember the joke off the top of my head okay back to this guy and his disaster your sense is bring into your brain that it may not be complete or perfect so it might not be complete or perfect data he says there is the chance there is the option of failure there is the option of blindness that's why I'm wearing glasses because my eyes are fuzzy so I guess I'm saying to him correct but how do we know that can you hear this and and I said the question about nine times and he actually listened to it on screen how do we know that this is blurry vision how do we know that it's color blindness we know it because we can measure it against reality well how do we know reality because our senses connect us to reality so he says because there is some possibility that sometime we can possibly be wrong about something that we sense therefore what therefore what leftie therefore what what follows from that see he we've already lost him he can't think he's he if he's listening to my voice right now he's already lost in la-la-land let me connect the thought for you therefore we must have some connection to reality our senses connect us to reality now he is a total d-type in in Lenape comes dim hypothesis this guy is a d2 when you when you say everything to him just right here I've just said your senses must be connecting you to reality or else we wouldn't be able to define color blindness as a blindness of some kind we wouldn't be able to wear eyeglasses to kuryak correct our senses unless we're sense is connected to a real reality which we could measure it against when I say these things to him his response is going to be well yeah but some people can be born colored blonde okay he's a D type he's just gonna destroy any integration even if you ask him you say that doesn't dismiss the fact that I'm making this integration now what do you say all he can do is name the fact again that you've just dismissed what about color blindness we wouldn't know how to define it as collar blindness if we didn't know how the collars actually looked too irregular held the eye and bees see a different stuff than we do in crabs see an x-ray fine and we know that we know that we have a nature to our mind you see that's his real problem here he says because we are not infallible therefore that's what really bugs him because he's a plate inist and is he's a d type so he either wants humans to be perfectly infallible or they are wrecked and we can't trust them and he wants to get together in a group of twenty or thirty or nine people and ask if that something's to call her red and if it's red then oh my god he's a mess data it's it's all I said I didn't say that there was no way that or I didn't say everything that your senses is can be doubted I was just saying that it's possible because I do give some examples later in my video which he goes over but that's all I was saying now if that's all you're saying is that sometimes it's possible for our senses to be wrong then then why do you dismiss Iran's axioms why so our senses tell us there is a reality that's correct and we know something about that reality and that's correct and sometimes that our senses can be wrong and that we call that color blindness or blurred vision so we do something to correct that or we try to learn about it know about it so then you go and say that we don't necessarily exist or have a mind see this is all just a floating parlor beam front he'll admit that senses are sometimes right but what are they right about reality no no there's no reality and he seems to think that I was like you can't trust your senses at all yeah it's either/or either you trust the fact that our senses connect us to reality or you don't now I say they do connect us to reality and we can wear glasses to correct blurry vision and we can define colorblindness because our senses connect us to reality I haven't said that we're omniscient I've said that the colorblindness is possible I did not claim omniscience and I don't need to you are measuring us against omniscience you're saying we have to know absolutely everything because if there's even one person who could possibly be born colorblind then what how would we know they're colorblind what follows you cannot follow a thought can your senses is true how would you go about doubting that no I mean what other source of knowledge do you have you go here you're going to talk about illusions how do we know they're religious you're going to talk about the hand experiment how do we know we didn't raise the money if we don't know that there's a real reality how do we know that they're illusions is we don't know what it means for the eyeball to work correctly what's the definition of Anuj it's when the eyeball was mistaken what's the definition of an illusion that's when the eyeball was mistaken look at his face he doesn't get that he's not getting anything nothing's getting through his thick skull what does it mean to be was think it means not great that means there's something that's correct doesn't it but you just assumed maybe not maybe everything is incorrect all the two grounds for saying that I tell you the grounds for saying that you should probably just assume that your senses are correct because okay so this is my first problem the thing is that there are reasons to think that your sensory input may not always be correct that is not the question I put to you you lamebrain idiot I said what makes you think that your senses aren't correct I did not say that they are always correct see you are measuring it against omniscience you're saying because we are not a God who always knows everything perfectly therefore okay so this is my first problem with it is that there are reasons to think that your sensory inputs may not always be correct may not always be correct look at the guy on the screen in front of you you moron he's wearing glasses god you're so stupid all right all right ladies and gentlemen I'm I'm done with him he's so stupid lefty philosophy this is why he says I remember this is why I do not engage with Objectivists anymore oh my god go to 7-eleven and buy some IQ

Tags: , , ,

3 Comments

  • ThreeFingerG says:

    As much of a chore as it is, I ask that you make a part 2 and dismantle the rest of his video. This lout should not be given the opportunity to assert that you sre dishonest by not doing his "arguments" in full.

  • ThreeFingerG says:

    "Go to 7 11 and buy some IQ". lol

  • OligarchySlayer says:

    I’m afraid he’s a lost cause. A complete D2 type. He’s nothing more than a walking Dunning-Kruger Effect. 😔

Leave a Reply

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