Comments by "Rob McCune" (@robm6645) on "Should We Be Skeptical of Iran Nuclear Deal?" video.

Short answer: No.
6
Not a-Theist According to your own framework you are as well, but that is a moot point. The outline of the deal has been confirmed by all 7 parties to the agreement, meanwhile fake "skepticism" comes from Bibi Netanyahoo and Donald Trump. If you have a reason to doubt the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany and Iran besides your own nihilism, then say so. All parties to the deal have their own agendas, including adversarial agendas from the U.S. and Iran, with the other nations having shades of allegiance to one side or the other. This makes secret collusion to hide significant details from the public highly unlikely and demands evidence to confirm that there should be doubt. The fact that I don't have the exact text on my phone does not mean the deal could give Iran 1 billion gummy bears, not without evidence anyway.
3
Not a-Theist How is ignoring facts and logic the "smart answer?"
1
Not a-Theist I think that's the most thinking you've ever done on the issue.
1
Not a-Theist And many have come out to say... That is the most unskeptical reasoning I have ever seen.
1
Not a-Theist You are not being skeptical in any positive sense. Firstly you do not actually seek an objective way to evaluate both sides, namely using facts and logic, you only rely on a he said she said approach. Secondly if a skeptic is confronted with a situation where there is no objective way to evaluate both claims (which this is not) the default position is one of neutrality, not taking the opposite side. This a second failure of logic on your part, namely denying the antecedent. Of course since there is a factual basis to diplomacy, nuclear energy, and non-proliferation policy, to compare the claims of supporters of the deal against the claims of opponents of the deal is not a matter of he said she said, but of comparing claims to the facts and using logic to evaluate those claims. When this happens opponents of the deal are exposed as paranoid hawkish frauds, while supporters are validated by the facts available to the public.
1
Not a-Theist If you don't understand what neutrality is then you should not be calling others stupid, and talk of diplomacy would be lost on you.
1
Not a-Theist If you are opposing the deal you are not neutral, neutrality is having no opinion on the matter. You are an opponent of the deal if you wish discard it, and do something else that could be either renegotiation, no negotiation, or war. If you are a supporter of the deal you wish to see it implemented. If you are neutral you do not know which is the right decision.
1
Not a-Theist Like I said you are not skeptical in any positive sense, you merely express doubt without offering any means of finding the truth. Furthermore you are engaging in circular reasoning, and an argument from incredulity.
1
Not a-Theist The differences there are first, the entirety of those treaties are hidden from the public, and again, looking at the facts of prior "free trade agreements" like NAFTA there is an extremely good argument to be made against TPP and TTIP. The Iran deal has a detailed outline released which contains an incredibly strict inspections regime including real time monitoring of Iran's entire fuel cycle and dismantles huge portions of the existing Iranian nuclear program. Meanwhile all known provisions of the TPP and TTIP are essentially giveaways to corportions, so these are not even comparable. Unless you have evidence of corporate collusion being responsible for the deal.
1