Comments by "" (@CYMotorsport) on "" video.

  1. 16:10 Respectfully, I wholly disagree. Even in this construct you've created, self-reliance isn't the "ONLY" way and that perceived fact wouldn't be why people reach for it. That would not qualify as rugged individualism. It would be a path chosen that after consideration is decided to be the most meaningful way to improve individual circumstances. The emphasis would be benefits to your immediate issues and prosperity first. You ultimately land in the correct spot but it had to be framed IMO incorrectly to contrast with your point. You then go on to say though this weakens the social support systems "vital for mental and emotional health". This is troubling as it implies there's no other possible reason for this breakdown in mental and emotional health. Framed this way, you can now say this lawnmower example by extension would do the opposite. This is HIGHLY ironic given the concept you're even talking about coined by Hoover took hold so strongly because of the many failings of the New Deal. You fail to mention any of the negative outcomes for instance with the community lawnmower which I think one could describe fairly as convenient. Further, it becomes hard to debate some of the things you lay out due to the shifting of said framework mid-thought. This is another example. You frame the common misconception of "degradation of society" from the shift from conservative values then pick back up contrasting it with the "unraveling of community bonds". These are not the same, of course. This is a quintessential example of what we'd call "faulty syllogism". Your major and minor premises are not aligned. I will continue to listen as i enjoy a very different perspective but the major points have some elements of the above which is objectively an impossible debate to be had. You've just unequivocally linked stated by implication that "unraveling of community bonds" leads to the "degradation of society", full stop. That very very much could easily be torn apart. You would first need to plot that out contrasting with the the alternative. This goes back to my initial sentence though as you incorrectly understood the idea of self-reliance and possibly the notion of "rugged individualism". However I'll continue to digest the information with an open mind. I just had to pause because it's truly difficult to find ground to opine in a counter way when goalposts are moved through rhetorical manipulation. I hope you don't take this as an attack of sorts. If there's frustration it's because I am enjoying listening but right at key moments when I'm able to internally challenge a point, the framework readjusts favorably to your ultimate point.
    1