Reality Check with Mark Pellegrino - short videos about big ideas.
Why should you be selfish? What's the problem with democracy? Why do we think evil is so powerful? Find answers to these questions and more in this series of entertaining and succinct videos about philosophical topics relevant to everyday life.
Please subscribe and hit the notification bell so you're the first to know when new videos are added!
Mark Pellegrino is a successful actor who appeared in Lost, Supernatural, Being Human, 13 Reasons Why, American Rust, The Closer, The Tomorrow People, Dexter, The Big Lebowski, Mulholland Drive, Capote and more. Mark teaches at Playhouse Paris, the acting school he and his wife founded in Paris. He is also a co-founder of the American Capitalist Party and a graduate of the Objectivist Academic Center.
If you enjoy these videos, please consider supporting Mark's work via Patreon.
Although morality is a complex discussion, I believe what you say is so true. Good is that which improves the physical and emotional quality of individual living beings as well as the quantity of living beings. Evil does the opposite. This gets complex when you view things on a large scale and a long period of time, as well as many different defitions for what exactly "spiritual" health means and if it differs from physical and emotional health, but I believe it still rings true.
So Mark and Michael's moral foundation leads them to the conclusion that it's okay to kill potentially hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East because a bunch of gang members broke out of prison and killed over 1,000 Israelis. I understand the people who remain neutral in the conflict and suggest that it's not our war, but to cheer on the death of so many innocent people is just disgusting. It makes me like Ayn Rand a lot less if this is truly where the ideology leads.
I would suggest making an argument or presenting a counterpoint to Smith’s positions. Should be relatively easy if he is very unprincipled and incorrect
Man. Judging from these comments it looks very definitively like you're actually wrong and Dave is right. Asking to debate him with this level of dumbassery is like asking your whole family to come over and watch you get your ass kicked twice.
Imagine saying that the guy whole had probably most spread libertarianism since Ron Paul is dangerous to libertarianism. Maybe if by libertarian you mean the old LP, but that was just a bunch of self important people pretending they cared about liberty.
Lol debate then. I've been a libertarian since 2008 and Dave Smith has been a breath of fresh air in the libertarian sphere since Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign. He is one of the best voices articulating libertarianism and I'm here for it.
Lmao a guy who literally went to prison for stabbing his girlfriend accusing another person of having no moral foundation. How is there 0 self awareness?
He didn’t stab his girlfriend and has posted the actual case on line for people to see. Try to be less of a dumbass and try actually knowing what you’re talking about before you open your mouth…. Super hard ask for a smith libertarian. But give it a shot.
"I don't want to go too much into the weeds with this," he then does not provide a single example. Why would anyone debate someone that thinks assertions are arguments?
"He makes moral proclamations but doesnt defend his moral foundation" ...."I don't want to get into the weeds." The whole point of shorts is to pick the part of the conversation where you don't immediately contradict yourself.
You did not expose a single thing in this video. This fake "exposing" video exists because Dave utterly bodied Mark on Twitter and he's bitter over his irrelevancy. this was utterly pathetic
The geneva conventions that define very precisely the condemnable actions that a belligerent party may befound guity of, & thus liable for the consequences say nothing about "proportionality of casualties, nor has anyoone other than disingenuous sophists like yourself ever applied "proportinal deaths" as a sufficient justif the condemnation of Israel for continuiusly prosecuting an ongoing genocide. But I know as well as you do that you must always employ straw-man rhetorical buffoonery, because the facts of the issue of Palestine are not on the side of the Zionists, nor are they with the pseudophilosophical sophist who seeks to rationalize his preconceived biases, his unconfirmed assumptions, & his multifacetsd bigotries with sophistry, fallacies, thought-terminating-clichés, platitudes, & truisms which is why you have an entire channel of you failing to engage with any position other than the one you pander to, Rather than address any of the arguments made during rhe ICJ's legal hearings relevant to Israel's genocide tribunals.
It's amazing how I've been following Michael and he's the one that actually made me read libertarians and classical liberals. And while i had read a few books (like The Law), Michael made me realize that there's a lot of value in libertarian and classical liberal thinkers. That being said, I've also realized why Rand and the objectivist movement from the past to this day dislikes libertarians. Because while there's value in their ideas (mostly economics imo), there's nothing in common between them and objectivists. I only see more and more differences the more i read libertarians. Thanks for this!
"Only in Israel can you freely express your dissent with the political class and still be safe." um... unless oyou are one of the 80+ journalists israel has merked .. or if you are Aljazeera who was just shut down.. ... what are you talking about... bibi is a tyrant
Michael's ascent from a very bad place is proof, surely, that good ideas have good consequences, and that embracing free will, agency and throwing off a victim mindset can lead to better things.
wow! i see a random episode of northern exposure, do a deep dive that leads me here, and I'm blown away. you folks are killing it so thanks for the open excellent necessary discussion. im hooked.
