You missed one; 3:36 “Eejit”

your example of strawman is not very good mainly because there is virtualy no one advocating for less petroleum products(plastics,etc) which is what i assume you meant where as people in the current climate would prob assume you are misinformed and actually meant to say oil production which Joe Bidens administration has actively been preventing but at the time you made the video it was prob a pretty good example

as an addition at the time of posting this gas is like 5 and half buck closing on 6

Thanks for the clarification!

I would love to be a “cheese expert”

Yes, good call!

I know I'm late here, I totally agree with you and that's the same thing as saying "You can't be happy about that, other people have it better." Which, I think most people would agree, is a ridiculous thing to say.

A favorite of my mother's generation [born in WW2] and earlier ones. I'm not sure it's a true logical fallacy, though- they know perfectly well you can still be sad, sick, angry, or whatever, they're just telling you to get some perspective and maybe realize your sh*t isn't that bad. Whether or not I find it annoying will vary from context, but the corrective can actually be useful. If I AM irritated, I usually resort to Calvin [from Calvin and Hobbes] "Yeah, well lots of other people have it a lot better, too!". In effect, there's effectively and should be a human right to complain, but there's a corresponding human right for the next person to call time and tell the complainer to shut up.

There is a whole song by AJR discussing this and why it's stupid

It's called The World's Smallest Violin and it's really good

Pirate parties all over the world have stated that for years, but they always get ignored, together with all the other brilliant solutions they offer.

FSM. KANSAS BOARD OF EDUCATION. Pastafarianism. 👍

International shipping is a big source of carbon emissions so I guess you are right.

My takeaway is that I should eat cake

Well, my goal in life is to become a pirate, so wish me luck fighting global warming! (I am 100% serious that I want to be a pirate.)

what a legend

Yes! Making something out of nothing to push your narrative! Self righteous people do this all the time!

ahaha this is genius

Somehow I think that would've impressed the interviewer rather than bothered him.

😂😂😂😂🔥🔥🔥🔥

It seems to me that people (including myself) don't know almost anything. We navigate reality with our schemas and concepts but when the real substantial knowledge is very little! Just my experience. I think that natural wisdom is a different thing, if you know what I mean :)

When we are put on the spot and questioned for our real knowledge, it can often fall short. I'm speaking of myself of course....

Wait, so you learned how to be an evil politician?

​@@avivastudios2311 Eristics my dude

​@@avivastudios2311 That's obviously a loaded question, indicating that there are actually good politicians

@tedagent - it’s the same way in the legal field. They teach about the constitution but all the teacher ways to get around it in America.

​@@_jpg Not really. There are good politicians. It just depends on what we mean by good ...

It doesn't mean they are wrong. It means we can't _rely_ on their being right and should reject their ideas until the re-evaluate their position using rigorous logic. What you are proposing has literally gotten people killed in the real world and is utterly disastrous thinking.

@@j.f.fisher5318 ... What?

@@j.f.fisher5318 would you be so kind as to elaborate what I was proposing, that would be so utterly disastrous?

It does in a sense invalidate their point LMFAO. The very concept of a dialectic is to propose logically valid and or consistent point, so if someone's argument is predicated on a fallacy, that invalidates their argument, however, it doesnt make their conclusion or point actually incorrect

yeah, you can make some mistakes in a math problem and still get the right answer. Buuut, that usually involves going back, inspecting all of the steps along the way and then maybe solving it again

aka. the "once a criminal, always a criminal" fallacy. aka. the self-fullfilling prophecy fallacy.

⁠@@Bird_Dog00iCareful with that. If we define a criminal as someone who has committed a crime, then this hypothetical Scrooge fallacy wouldn’t apply because the criminal offense was still committed regardless of time served or their personal growth. You are, by identity, the same person who committed a crime regardless of if you would do it again or not. Obviously, this entire objection would no longer be valid if ‘criminal’ were to be defined as somebody who has not yet been punished for a crime committed. By this definition, once this criminal has been justly punished, they are no longer a criminal because they do not fulfill the condition that is part of the definition. The term ‘Criminal’ thus probably isn’t the best comparison to the hypothetical fallacy above, as ‘alcoholic’ infers somebody that is suffering from a condition that can end (alcoholism) once the addiction is overcome. ‘Criminal’, as most would likely define it, is simply somebody who does an illegal act, a crime. Time itself would have to never have ever existed in the first place for the crime to have never taken place, thus negating the label ‘criminal’. Actions, rather than a condition such as a disease / addiction, do not forfeit their subsequent labels because they objectively occurred at a point in time regardless of the persons current state, whereas conditions can fundamentally end by definition. Alcoholic, by the likely definition, infers a present and temporal tense that is subject to change, however criminal may not. However, just as the ‘criminal’ comparison is fulfilled once the term is properly defined, likewise can ‘alcoholic’ be defined as somebody who just drinks (action instead of condition) rather than suffering from alcoholism and this entire argument totally falls apart 😂 Then I’d be probably be straw-manning LOL It is very apparent that ultimately everything depends on the definition, but it could be argued that definitions depend on the societal context and the way they are generally perceived or interpreted, which itself can end up changing depending on shifts within the culture, movements, and beliefs of society? Man, philosophy is complicated 😂

@@WordOfYah err... not sure how to react to this wall of text. I'm guessing you are overthinking what I wrote. "Once a criminal, always a criminal" refers to the belief held by some, that if someone has commited a criminal act - regardless of wheter they've been convicted and punished or not - they will always commit more criminal acts in the future and are thus are not to be trusted and should be kept away from society as much as possible. It is a self-fullfilling profecy, since shunning such a person will place them in a position where they are much more likely to reoffend and thus seemingly confirm the prejudice.

I deliberately make this fallacy if people have hurt me. I'll assume that they are just as shit as they were back then, even if other people say that the people who hurt me have improved since then, if I haven't personally seen the improvement. The people who hurt me have to specifically prove to me personally that they are better. Otherwise, I will insistently see them as the same pieces of shit.

Isn't this also ad hominem?

A very good one, I find this common in conversations I observe, or participate in...

Yup. Which can lead to the fallacy of "piling on," or making it seem like strength in numbers makes the person/ people that much more "wrong." Hey, someone found a weak argument against this person / people due to hindsight, etc... let's all pile on about just how wrong that is, or how wrong they've been about other things...

Yess. There was a video of a lion opening a car door and people were bashing the family for not locking the doors. As if it's trivial that lions can and will use their mouths to systematically open the car door...

@@angadsingh9314 That's an excellent example!

Please describe this again with a unique example sir

sophistry

Yes !! I have a work collague with very extreme views politically he is a marvellous debater but 80% of the stuff he comes out with is shite. But weve givin up debating him because he just spins arguments on their heads.

Being correct only aids your point

Sadly, this is often true

​@@UncleMerlin Sometimes

Go with it: Say "And then what happens? And then what?" Let him run with it. Or do it yourself and one-up him, make it a game: "If an ostrich is a T-rex, then it is also an space alien, because it is in the future from 66 mio. years ago, and the dinosaur is riding in a spaceship." He will likely either think it is fun, or he will roll-eyes and tell you how things actually are (instead of you struggling to tell him that same). Kids often do it, because: 1. They aren't quite sure of how the world actually works, 2. If they are bright but haven't learned logic yet, or are demand resistant 3. because it gives them a lot of interaction "all attention is good attention" and it is fun to discuss ridiculous things with people, and 4. Some just have a wild imagination.

You should have met my parents...

It’s a child, bro dawg doesn’t even know there’s letters in math yet

i understand, he lives across the street from me.

i have that with my mom, huh, she must secretly be a seven year old boy

Seahorses lay eggs. =^[.]^=

Therefore all seahorses are -frogs- I mean -mammals- er... confusing.

Periods..?

@@kingoreo7050 ellipsis, actually

are we sure there are no egg-laying horses though? have we checked all the horses? xD

Or Facebook

Or Twitter

Or KZfaq

Thumbs up to everyone above! LOL

Bahahahaha that and the incels

I see whatcha did there.

Ohh so you're basically a person who loves to proves others wrong yeah? Since you lovvveee fallacies. (I'm joking)

You're saying you want starving children in Africa to die? Why would you want that? Clearly because you stole a candy bar in 4th grade. We can't trust you because you did that now can we? Experts say that petty thieves aren't good people, and my emotions say the same and therefore you are wrong.

oh so you think everyone should be mandated to watch this video? what about the soldiers who are fighting for their motherland or other people who keep society running, do you think they have time for that????? why do you want society to collapse?????!?!??

@@LinkRammerwell, of course, if the starving children in africe die, they will no longer be starving, thus solving the starvation problem for them

Bray watt's brother you are because he uses the same sur name

@@handsomerat5926 Or sometimes people are just done arguing with fools. Can’t really tell that from ones own perspective.

@@handsomerat5926 Unfortunately the most convincing argument against basic etiquette is to converse with a fool.

@@handsomerat5926 It was just the shortest way I could think to phrase it. All it meant was that talking to people who are incapable of or unwilling to correcting their logic inspires one to rudeness very quickly. After a while, you give up having a civilized conversation, and either leave without further comment or descend into angry ranting.

@@handsomerat5926 Fair enough.

thank you. this comment is underrated

AISHWARYA DEVI RAJAVEL Indeed

Gia Sharie Indee

this was already in the description

thanks

That's a good quote. Know any other good videos about fallacies?

@@avivastudios2311 I haven't really looked - they tend to pop up in my recommended viewing from time to time now that I've watched this one! 😄

Good lord I hope you're talking about participating in actual debate. BecUse if this is about online arguements... then this is sooooo sad.

zsantschi Could that be the ad hominem fallacy she mentioned? It seems similar to me.

...Except I've only seen "whataboutism" used in situations where it's actually relevant. For example: A: I can't believe C murdered two people! What a horrible person, murder is an unthinkable act! It's NEVER justified, I don't care that his victims bullied him! B: A, you murdered three people, and you said after you were arrested that it was justified because you were bullied by them. A: WHATABOUTISM!

@@pathfinder1273 ad hominem is when you discard someone arguments based of that person's character. Example: If the serial killer Ted bundy would've said that the earth is round and you claiming that the argument about the earth being round is false bc Ted was a serial killer.

@@someguy6601 I would say that is more hypocrisy or self-righteousness than whataboutism.

@@manjulanilsson6011 Ah, good point, thank you.

Well duh ! That's like saying the demolition class teaches you the exact opposite of the construction class 😁

@@TheNefastor Well, not the exact opposite, both have similar concepts, demolition is more or less tearing something down safely, so both might tell you fire safety

@@determinedhelicopter2948 what do you mean, "safely" ? 😉

Yes, because marketing and everyone involved are literal satans and should be ostracised from society.

@@TheNefastor Reducing the risk as much as physically/logistically possible

The complete opposite happens a fair bit too and is equally as frustrating. People just conceding their point immediately upon being challenged to avoid the argument. I want to know how they got to that conclusion! But instead of reasoning it out to me all I get is "No, you're right, forget I said anything." At least its over quickly I guess

@@HeroGuy3 Oh its so frustrating when you want someone to explain their opinions and they just refuse and concede that they were wrong. Like no im not saying you are necessarily wrong I just want to know how to reached the conclusion.

btw, is it a fallacy or just a "flaw" that a lot of people these days feel offended when you point out a mistake/suggest-them-an-improvement? "you pointed out my error, ergo you must hate me" (i ain't sure if it's a variant of the black/white mentality or just not understanding the process of growth)

@@HeroGuy3 i feel called out and i'm not sure how to feel

Cool story, realised that already, without the Hollywood involved.

Never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience!

Unless they can.

Okay when did Mark Twain become the wisecrack with a whole new set of quotes no ones heard before.

@@naveenthomas9931 His 'quotes' are generally pretty well known due to their wit and pragmatic insight.

@Drew Peacock Thanks for that insight, it had never occurred to me before that a famous quote from someone was famous because it was more than the every day, the pragmatic, the mundane. Have you got any other pearls of wisdom and knowledge that you'd like to share with the group?

I always walk a mile in the shoes of those I disagree with, because when they get angry, they're one mile away and shoeless😊.

The whole lockdown and vaccine campaign were a treasure trove of logical fallacies heaped upon us: appeal to authority, moving the goalpost, false cause, tu quoque...We all need these lessons to protect us from the authorities so hopefully they don't pull the wool over our eyes again.

I've actually just embraced the fallacies that I do know... except for the straw man. By using them, I can accomplish a few things. First, I can be prepared for how I think the other person would (or should contest my points). Second, if I use enough of them, my opponents will get overwhelmed and not be able to properly contest my point, if they choose to contest it at all at that point. In casual conversations, a lot of people just jokingly say that I'm right and move on.

they will get worse. he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

dude everyone has grown up with fallacy laden arguments😂

@@commander8625 Isn’t that gish galloping?

@@hiddenharmonicssystemforwi4484 it is, this is textbook Gish galloping

Absolutely right. An appeal to authority doesn't have to do with your source being an expert in the relevant subject or not; it's about referring to someone that is seen as an expert in the place of evidence or reason. Darwin is considered an expert or authority on evolution but if you say "Evolution is real. Charles Darwin, the most famous and relevant scientist that studied that subject says so." The evidence of evolution is evidence of evolution: fossil record, micro-biology, observable micro-evolution, anatomy, etc. If you are going to cite an expert then the reasons why they have a certain opinion and the accompanying data are more relevant and helpful than some schmuck's opinion, even if they're a credentialed schmuck.

Continental drift theory is such case. But it is more complicated than that, because although the premise was correct not the proposed process (centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation). So it was rediculed for many years in geology field. Also the case with Newton's Gravity worth mentioning - although it was proven wrong - it is still widely used - becouse accurate enough... This means truth sometimes can be... unnecessary complex?

There is another layer on this type of fallacy which deserves to be called out as a subset. And this is when an argument is presented as having the VAST majority of scientists supporting it. This is NOT how science works. One single person can hold a view while thousands hold the standard understanding, yet this fails to disprove the one person. Science is not a democracy. For example, when Darwin came up with evolution, he was in an extremely slim minority. Before that idea gained traction, we can imagine that there were those who presented the argument that almost everyone believes this one thing, while Darwin is way out at the fringe. Well as it turns out, Darwin was on to something. Every great idea, it is said, begins as a blasphemy. The most notable example for our current age is Global Warming (AGW). It FAILS to prove the theory just because many many people with PhDs support it. And an extremely common argument you will hear is that almost all scientists support it.

I think the thing about appeal to authority is that, if you have to appeal to an authority on a topic, you probably aren't qualified to debate that topic in the first place. You should know the arguments that experts make on that topic, so you can bring them up directly. Expert witnesses are brought up in the court of law, but a lawyer can debate the arguments the expert is making in the cross-examination, if they have the chops for it.

@lurocp8 In courts the expert testimony establishes the credentials for the expert to discuss the facts and evidence of the case intelligently. Expert testimony is NEVER used to establish truth or falsehood of a prosecutorial or defense argument. i.e. there are no instructions to the jurors from the judge that they will accept testimony of an expert as incontrovertible due to credentials. Logical fallacies ABOUND in courtrooms. That's why you hire a lawyer.

Yes! During my first year of college the University was going to required everybody to take an English 101 that h heavily focused on making good arguments and it was honestly one of the most useful classes I've ever taken. People talk about learning how to fill out job applications and do your taxes in a class but I think even more important than that is teaching people how to make a good argument because a lot of other adulting skills wouldn't necessarily benefit from a classroom setting but learning to argue logically definitely would.

Governments don't want critical thinking citizens.

Who are you to question the experts in public education (see what I did there)?

catiedoesit great idea

catiedoesit public education is specifically formed to stop people from developing critical thinking. If it was teaching logic then people ,as adults, wouldn't be thinking fallaciously to the extent that they are.

I think that was her last point...

@@TheOmegaXicor Literally, yes, you're right, the fallacy fallacy. Just because the method is wrong, the conclusion may be correct or incorrect. The problem with fallacies isn't that they ensure you're wrong. It's that they make your thinking unreliable and therefore usually wrong. (Since there are more incorrect conclusions than correct ones, etc.) And literally, a fallacious argument cannot be valid. By definition, it's invalid. It may have the correct conclusion but you should junk the argument and look for a valid one.

But usually someone who commits basic fallacial reasoning frequently doesn't _have_ a valid argument. It's hard to take someone seriously when all their online comments lead with read herrings, tu quoqe, or appeals to authoritiy.

@@Caseytify Agreed. Fallacies are a strong indicator that the person using them doesn't have anything worth listening to but not a guarantee that they're wrong. Such people may get things right by coincidence, rare but possible. Worth remembering that valid arguments may still be entirely wrong, because the premises are wrong but the form is correct, while sound arguments must be correct.

@@Caseytify The issue is that the internet has lead to an era of absurd pedantry, where people will try hard to find any basis that someone is technically wrong, with the explicit intent of invalidating what they have said regardless of relevance. In my own merely anecdotal cases I've rarely seen someone call out a fallacy by name for any other reason. Aside from that any form of hyperbole or straw man is an area to be careful about, because often even if the exaggeration is removed the point remains. People love to add emphasis.

Cognitive dissonance.

It is frustrating in our current political atmosphere when you hide "prove me wrong" behind #changemymind.... Most of the time someone will say something outrageous and expect others to object and defend their position on the matter. But ya know, trolls be trolling.

Confirmation Bias

This reminds me of a few discussions I've had with flat-Earthers recently. They were mostly civil conversations, and I did enjoy them, but they did make it quite evident that the degree to which some people are convinced of a thing does largely determine whether it's possible for their mind to change, regardless of new information. No proof is proof enough because of some other misunderstanding. One of the conversations did boil down to "If space is real, there should be tons of real pictures of Earth from up there. Since there aren't, I cannot believe it." It didn't matter what else was said. A tad frustrating, but very interesting as far as human behavior is concerned.

It's so silly because the burden of providing proof to your argument is one you should carry yourself. Not force onto someone else. If you can't prove your point then it is invalid.

Yes, plus: Civics so people know how the government happens etc. The math of percentages even though 63% of all statistics quoted on the internet are just made up numbers and that is 130% true.

Just take debate or a debate club

At one time it was, but the course was very unpopular, except for philosophy fans, so it was replaced by "modern rhetoric," which is not nearly as rigorous, allowing many members of the education community to pawn off on unsuspecting students.

Should read, "pawn off on unsuspecting students their political and social wishes and theories. (Why the ending was omitted I don't know).

It is. At least to us.

Let me see if I got them right: Hasty generalisation - Your mom concluded generally that all unions are bad based on the limited experience she had with this (probaly) very few unions Fallacy of composition - Believing the entire union was bad based off of a single individual who was part of it Ad hominem - Attacking the woman based off of her traits ('lazy' and 'mean') rather than arguing for why her actions were bad

I've always wanted to use this whenever people praise all-natural products. Yeah, well so are many poisons.

@@Rognik Yup.

It doesn't get more natural than arsenic, lead or mercury.

@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 Or poison hemlock.

@@twoninety Elements are fundamental particles... yer hemlock and belladonna poisons are molecules that required metabolic processes.

The incredulity fallacy is related too

Yes. The fallacy fallacy doesnt imply one is wrong. It implies they simply talk to hear themselves talk

Da Koos ••• My favorite logical fallacy is the questionable or false premise. All of the great State sponsored lies rely upon this fallacy . For example, nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened. It's very hard to properly support a lie with reliable evidence .The Moon landing hoax was only possible because the science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

@@williamspringer9447 There is no evidence of the lunar landingsthat you'll accept due to your personal emotional investment as being seen as an intellectual even though you have done none of the work , or received any education that would qualify you as an " intellectual ". Where do you think those Saturn 5 rockets were going with all that fuel. Why would they engage in that " hoax ". Hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the moon landings and not one has ever broken ranks? When you say the moon lands are a hoax, you just sound stupid. All six landing sites and decent stages are visible from the lunar orbiter. But you probably don't find that " reliable ".

Hard to imagine people still believe that we didn't go to the moon.But thats life there's always a surprise at every turn.

I think it classifies as Begging The Question because their argument is essentially "My opinion is right because it's my opinion."

honestly, you being a ghost doesn't hurt anyone so sure be a ghost, I'll respect that

I'm happy that the youtube community is finally getting some education.

2. That depends on how many men thinks it's 4.5 and how many women thinks it. We should rely on the minority really, so the womens choice should matter more.

@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable I'm not like saying this to be anti-feminist or anything (because people on the internet assume lots of things, and I'm like 100% feminist)... but why should the minority opinion matter more than the majority unless we know for a fact the majority is stupid (most men I've met don't think 2+2 = 4.5).

Devin Cory ••• (1) It hard to lie to people who have been taught to effectively use the science of classical logic to understand real-world deceptive arguments. (2)The State used lies to control the population . (3) State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century.

I now have the answer to that question. Of course they can still kill you after but if they do then they were going to anyway.

I’m using that next time on my teachers

why is it that every time i hear anything about the military it sounds like the people you work for hate you

@@solarprogeny6736 Cos you're not stupid? 😝 Mostly it is a bit like pack animals where the alpha in the pack never lets an opportunity go by to assert dominance. Those people are the worst leaders. They're insecure and actually afraid of everyone else beneath them, with good reason.

@@veniankween130 Do let us know how that goes :)

Why do I have to do this? Because I said so.

@@davidkippy101 as aggravating as the "because I said so" of childhood is, it's a cake walk compared to dealing with delusional/conspiracy-nut parents for multiple decades until they pass away :(

ahahh.. yup! and my favorite one " because it's just the way it is" it's the way it was, and there fore it should be the way it is.

Why do so many people think their parents are idiots and that they know everything? I am not saying this because you prove it to be true I’m just asking because your comment inspired the thought and reminded me of it.

I feel the same about your parents.

you don't really need to argue with them, you simply need to make them speak to their intentions.

This is an example of appeal to authority fallacy, just because mark twain said it, doesn't make it true

@@cv4809 thanks, we never really understood what a quote was.

He just said that because he didn't want people to argue with him.

@@dtkedtyjrtyj Did it work?

Preach

"because someone is using a fallacy, doesnt automatically make their argument wrong. " Yes, that makes the argument wrong (invalid). That just means that it does not make "the conclusion" wrong. Conclusion and argument are two different things. Equivocation fallacy. ;-) Ex: John is tall. John is human. Tony is human so Tony is tall. Well, Tony may in fact be tall but that does not make this argument valid at all. It is still a bullshit argument. Because argument and conclusion are different things.

But how can you separate an argument from its logical fallacies? Like I’m not hating I just don’t understand, it the reasoning is flawed, doesn’t that make the premise invalid? Maybe up to discresion and “severity” of the fallacy?

@@dylanschang6386 I gave one example in my original post. But to maybe take a different approach, in mathematics, someone may be able to find the answer to simple problems, while not understanding the proper method of reaching that answer. Obviously with more complex problems later on, this can come back to bite them. Similar can be said about the fallacy fallacy. Someone may have reached the right conclusions. While not working that conclusion out themselves with proper logic. . This is common among children. A child could argue that the sun sets in the west... with their reasoning being that their parents said so.

@@anthonyfaiell3263 Again. Conclusion and argument are two different things. Since conclusion is correct. The argument does not become valid at all.

And the appeal to gender insecurity - this is what proper men/women do/look like etc. I've got a feeling there are or will be LGBQT examples too.

@@simonhumby323 What... that's not a fallacy?

@@Nana-wi4gi Really it's kinda a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy. "No true man/woman would do/look like that."

@@Nana-wi4gi it's basically the opposite from the op from what I'm understanding. The need to fit in, per se

Ive nicknamed that one the 'not like other girls' fallacy

I totally abuse the sunken cost fallacy to have people stay longer in the casino I work in.

@@Squeekysquid It isn't always insidious though. It has its moments.

@@Squeekysquid All good.

This is a hard one to apply sometimes. It’s only fallacious if it’s actually worth it to abandon your current strategy and that’s difficult to measure in a lot of situations.

This is the best response to people that say, "Never give up." In my opinion, if you take piano lessons once a week and practice 10 hours a day everyday, but still play the piano poorly, then you should quit. You spent too much time, energy, and money into something and you aren't getting a good return on investment. If people say that you already spent so much time practicing and it would be a waste to quit now, you can tell them that they are using the sunk cost logical fallacy.

Never debate - the Gish-gallop is real. The better debater wins, not the facts.

Fake news! Thats my response to all your perfectly logical argument.

@Solitaire and left wingers

@Solitaire that’s a fallacy lol

@Sentinel Those who do have something to say are not true ones! ;)

I dislike this fallacy because it keeps people miserable like staying in a job or relationship that's killing them on the inside, but they don't want to leave because they've invested so much time and energy into it already.

So another words you mean the government, lol

I swear that's how it is, though the government's justification bailing out the post office was literally because they said it wasn't working properly, and " fellow Americans have paid into it too much to let it down "

Good call! It's too bad she missed that one since it's so common, especially in board rooms and commitee meetings.

This is one the main justifications for most of the United States major military acquisition projects.

punny

"How many people work here?" "About half"

@@janlarsen7138 "How many dead people are in that graveyard?".........

You saved me a few seconds there, thanks!

Well... it has a medical use in certain quantities. At least back in the day, when they cured fevers with mercury and such :D

I was going to say: "But... How will the trolls have any fun?" But, then I was like: "Naaah. They know exactly what they're doing." -_^

There would be no people left. Good idea.

Then no one would watch it

Except some fallacies are pretty finicky. Someone who doesn't understand the debate could easily call for a Strawman when what they're doing is a Steelman. It's better to let YT videos and the debaters themselves to point the fallacies out.

@@milpy1257 I disagree. Why should we leave the responsibility of thinking to anyone else?

Ah yes, the good old my fallacy is bigger than your fallacy.

@@funkyflames7430 Sometimes you have to beat people with their own weapons. E.g. yesterday my boyfriend conplained about me using an English word in a sentence in our language and he said "We have such a beautiful language. Why do you have to use English words??". Afterwards, he went gaming and talked to friends on Discord and gamer language is full of English words in I guess all languages. So I memorised all the words derived from other languages (mostly English of course) that he used to tell him later. Also, I told him about all the normal words in our language that are actually derived from e.g. Latin that he used. Yeah, maybe childish, but now he probably learnt quite a bit about our language and hopefully will refrain from calling me out when I use English words in the future.

@@solar0wind Do you happen to be Greek, btw?

@@yunarukami14 No, but the first two letters are the same😂 I'm German. We have language purists as well😅

@@solar0wind Oh, Germany is one of my favourite countries. Cheers! A friend from Indonesia

Kids brains are not done growing. They literally can't handle most critical thinking.

It is.

@@williamjenkins4913 they can be taught. Like you teach them music and chess in early age. Same as logic

Because the world runs on appeal to emotion.

Here, in the US, critical thinking is generally taught in the home, or not at all it seems. Sigh.

I imagine that could be fun, for about 15 minutes.

One evening Rene Descartes went to relax at a local tavern. The tender approached and said, "Ah, good evening Monsieur Descartes! Shall I serve you the usual drink?". Descartes replied, "I think not.", and promptly vanished.

Law of man vs law of nature. One is established, one just is.

@@ronumpleby3517 "therefore" ...

@@ronumpleby3517 no reply to the best joke? Surely, they're joking. Sorry for calling you Shirley. Here's another one: What do you call a school superintendent without any subordinates? A man without principals.

Finally, a political party I can get behind!

Check out Ragnarok on Netflix.

@Popocot Popocot _arrrrrrr, off to the pirate bay we go, matey_

Is odin running for congress?

Nah I’ll vote for the Loki Party.

Same thing with prove god does exist

@@FirstnameLastname-bx4zk sorry, what do you mean?

@@ryry854 They mean the fallacy works in both directions. Theist: “God is real.” Atheist: “Then prove it!” Theist: “Can you prove that he isn’t? No, you can’t. So he must be real.”

The problem with Double Standards is that the people holding them are usually completely aware of the hypocrisy and absolutely do not care.

Or one super uncle in 3 minutes.

It's 8 minutes

Twitter and reddit in three minutes

@@zzzcocopepe I don't see many fallacies on Reddit. People there usually just say you're wrong and downvote you. That's not a logical fallacy, it's saying shut up and conform to the hive mind.

@@borucharnold9406 lol don't be contradictory

@@optimisticwhovian1726 And who are you, someone with 0 likes, to say that Hitler would have gotten thousands of likes. Therefore he wouldn't have gotten thousands of likes!

Is that a drole attempt at a logical fallacy? 23,000 people can definitely be wrong about something, anything.

lol Do you wana try that sentence again dipshit cos I know what's 0 at the moment, your sense. @@woodronald1758

"It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing is further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing whatsoever on reason or mental health. Just as there is a folie à deux there is a folie à millions. The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same mental pathology does not make these people sane." - Erich Fromm

I see what you did there ;-) Ad populum! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

You seem to be right but I think there are a reasonable amount of people who use it to mean either. I'm fascinated that the wikipedia article says that the reverse straight up isn't a fallacy. People very rarely believe in "streaks" with a big enough sample size that we should readily assume a die is not fair or a coin is biased etc.

That sounds like a begging the question fallacy.

HoldTightAndPretendItsAPlan 🤣

HoldTightAndPretendItsAPlan Clearly wrong. You should not eat cake. You should send it to me to eat it on your behalf.

I need to think about that ... ... while I eat this cake.

@@grumpyoldman3458 Here, have my piece of cake too, so you can think about it longer, lol. While you're doing that I will be baking a second cake.

@@purplepeopleperson3815 Thanks.

Yep. She avoided the ad hominem fallacy there!

I think it's always a fallacy. But it's a formal fallacy, not an informal fallacy (see Wikipedia). If I'm an 8 year-old and say that Einstein was wrong about relativity, then formally, being an 8 year-old versus Einstein doesn't prove that I'm wrong. But informally, everybody knows that I'm wrong. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

@@pashadyne 1:57 she mentions it right here :)

@@pashadyne click the timestamp.

@@pashadyne I did. That's how I found it. :)

​@@pashadyne she only mentioned "fallacious appeal to authority" by name but basic comprehension skills that we all learn as children allow you to read between the lines, appealing to an authority on a subject (e.g. what a doctor says about a medical issue) is one thing, what makes it fallacious is when you appeal to an authority on a subject that is completely different to the topic on hand, e.g. what a doctor says about music theory. although she did not use the words "appeal to authority" precisely the only place in this section where she makes a distinction is alluding to the fact that it is reasonable to defer to someone who is an authority on a particular subject, therefore utilizing basic comprehension we can assess this is what OP was referring to when they praised Jill for making a distinction. i entered this discussion trying to be completely civil, giving you a timestamp in case you missed something, but i have to say i really do not appreciate your condescending tone.

I think is post hoc ergo propter hoc, she should have included it

Holy shit. This is why the whole picture is so important

Cherry picking

👌👌👌

You're really trying to lather on the Israel Palestine thing here

@@jarahfluxman20 Well, you're the one who made that connection. So obviously, there's some truth to my point, then.

@@countdamoney8128 it wouldn't matter either way, it's still 50/50

@@countdamoney8128 the law of averages is only a way to predict possible outcomes. Even if you get 15 heads in a row that says nothing about the possible outcomes as the math doesnt change.

Ultimate Gambler's Fallacy - C-3PO: The odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720:1! Han: Never tell me the odds!

@@countdamoney8128 nope because you are dealing with conditional probabilities : "what is the odd of the coin falling on head if the previous 15 toss ended in a head ?" is not the same question as "what is the odd of the coin falling 16 times on heads ?". In fact it would be more rational to put it on heads, the coin tosses could be biased.

​@@countdamoney8128 For a fair game, The probability of getting heads at the 16th throw is 1/2, no matter what the previous sequence was. The full sequence of 16 heads has the same (low) probability of occurring than the full sequence of 15 head followed by a tail (one in 65536). But at this point, with the limited information available, the initial assumption that the game is fair becomes quite unlikely : assuming trows remain independents, the more heads you get the more you should play heads.

take a shot everytime a politician uses a logical fallacy during a debate

Aaron Shan but I don’t want to die!

Damn Whigs

@@aaronshan51 we'll be wasted in minutes lol!

Ben Shapiro

@Chris Jones I never thought of that.

I recommend against robbin' a bank.

@Chris Jones build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. Heh.

Are you really going to take advice from a convicted criminal??

@@Xiph1980 dont be a bigot

Yeetus Self Defeetus 🤣

Self destructivus

YOLO: You Only Die Twice

here take some glowy frog poison

'dies laughing' would be a more efficient, and pointed, use of words.

This one should have been included as well

chronological snobbery is newer and therefore more valid

@@feanorofsunspear2320 if newer, more recent is ALL you got, it's still a fallacy.

That's just a non-sequitur, we don't really need to get more specific than that.

@@dontmisunderstand6041 Ok, Chronological Snobbery is newer, is more valid just because it's newer, hence a fallacy, gotcha

Yeah, but somewhere IS Not very specific and I rather Not start then go way to far when IT comes to Things Like childabuse, pushing peoples bounderies, discrimination and coming Up with justifications to treat someone thats a Bit different Like subhuman. There are some slippery slopes where escalation IS proven to BE very likely and very detramental

yeah like the saying " always find my keys in the last place i look" well of course you are not going to continue looking for your keys once you have found them it is always in the last place you look --- is one of the saying i hate the most