What difference does it make? His examples are logical when explaining the subjects - I think this is what matters, not how he picks them. Also, what is exactly wrong with him choosing examples from his point of view or ideas? (assuming his examples really reflect the way he thinks; he doesn't state they do so there is no evidence for that).
I agree... That’s not to say that anything said here isn’t true. But you could have used other examples that weren’t so politically biased. As he said, it’s kind of a let down for those of us who came here for with the expectation of objectivity.
Good explanations. However It seems to me that circular logic, special pleading and arguing from ignorance should be amongst the top 5 common logical fallacies.
Ad Hominem and equivocation are the most frequently encountered logical fallacies. Red Herring and Strawman are also very frequent. Same is the case with Ad Populum/ Vox Populli and Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 --Just as long as any of the fallacies you mentioned are different than mine, implying all the fallacies on my list are totally wrong, correct?
@@casparuskruger4807 Not wrong. We do encounter these fallacies too very often, and they are different than the ones which I have mentioned and not just another names for them. But I haven't encountered them very often as like Ad Hominem or Red Herring.
They teach this in law and in public relations because lobbyists and lawyers more commonly use the techniques. All politicians have a background in law. What do you do if you're in court and the party you're arguing with is using logical fallacies to defend their claims?
But why are fallacies there in the first place? Is it because people want to create them through what they say or do we do it unknowingly? And what is the point of fallacies anyway
It isn't illogical to point to someone's character, as demonstrated by their personal actions, as a means to point to whether they are trustworthy or not. Particularly a politician, who, as we know, have at best a complicated relationship with the truth, and often take certain policy positions under the guise of nefarious political goals. It's clear that a modus operandi of the political Right is to assume 'logic', and 'unemotional common sense', even as it is clear at almost every instance that the vast majority of their assumptions and arguments are intensely illogical, emotional and disingenuous.
Keith wrote, _"It isn illogical to point to someone's character, as demonstrated by their personal actions, as a means to point to whether they are trustworthy or not."_ If the topic under discussion is trustworthiness of the person, I may be persuaded to agree. But, if the topic under discussion is a particular issue, then the trustworthiness if the individual is irrelevant to the actual topic under discussion. 'Trustworthiness' isn't an all-or-nothing proposition because people aren't flawless. A person could be mostly trustworthy in some areas while being less trustworthy in others. For example, it may be that an employee is trustworthy enough to be given keys to close a store at night, but not trustworthy in matters of obeying traffic laws. As well, pointing to whether a person is trustworthy when another topic is being explored may be ad hominem or red herring.
I agree with everything you said and I’m conservative, but for some reason I feel that you didn’t point out fallacies that the conservative side makes sometimes. You only pointed out fallacies made by the left. This video is biased. I completely agree with all of it though 😂 it’s just biased.
You have used a logical fallacy within your own comment~ i.e the biased one direction of his examples have nothing what so ever to do with anyone being able to learn what a logical fallacy is. Or indeed what the 5 most common types are. What you use for an example is irrelevant, just so long as it shows the construction and deconstruction of a logical fallacy.
@@caldwellfisher5288 well if that's the case, and I'll take it on board and investigate, it doesn't disprove the point of bias, bias destroys all critical points of thought from the get go, now that's a fact from any angle
The red herring is more like a straw man, arguing from a position not related to the original argument. The ad hominem is an attack on the person's character to try & discredit their argument! At least that's the way I see it, I could be wrong! 😉
1. Genetic Fallacy, as well as ad-hominem. 2. Appeal to emotion. 3. Abusive ad-hominem 4. Not even a flaw in reasoning, just a conversational tactic. 5. Abusive ad-hominem If you're gonna make a video on logical fallacies, at least make sure that those selected fallacies are unique to each other.
@@trumpgaming5998 A Red Herring is an intentional tactic to make someone think about things that aren't relevant: Barking up the wrong tree, as they say. To be a logical fallacy, it has to do with *reasoning*. While red herrings are bad for conversation and debate, they don't technically count as a logical fallacy.
There is no such thing as the PC fallacy. There is a wage between men and women, to say otherwise is stupid and inaccurate. The real question is what causes it.
MrGoblin1000 your right, what he calls the pc fallacy, is actually the fallacy of dogmatic defense, which is when you say you can’t say that cause someone might get offended, Christians use it to try to stop atheist by telling them that it’s offensive to some not to believe in god, the pc people are doing the same as well, and it’s typically a last ditch effort to try to stop criticism, the wage gap doesn’t take different hours into account, which does have a effect because of fraternity leave, and it also doesn’t take different job positions into account
Andrew Olson except there not, that’s call a loud majority, and they talk about it only because religion has implications outside of belief, it affects politics and bigotries. Atheist don’t want a world without religion, they want a world where they won’t be ostracize for not believing, there are kids being disowned for there atheism, you can’t get into office without atleast pretending to be religious. This forces most atheist into closets, if you don’t know, closets are not good for the mind, the loud ones are the once who comes out of the closet swinging so there ideas would be normalized enough for others to come out safely
Andrew Olson yeah fair enough that it’s more dangerous in Islamic lands. But most atheist in America are still in the closest about it for a reason. And the entire point of the loud minority (which a lot of the silent minority hate btw) is to desensitize the religious to the concept so less atheist get socially ostracized for coming out, which they are in America. Your point is really just putting a problem next to another colossal problem, then say the first probably doesn’t exist. It’s still a issue that needs to be brought up
Andrew Olson tell that to the people who got disowned by there families for not being Christian winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/mobile/gay-atheist-international-student-disowned-by-family-1.2690389 www.quora.com/My-parents-disowned-me-because-I-told-them-that-I-am-an-atheist-I-am-situated-in-Pakistan-and-I-have-nowhere-to-go-What-do-I-do www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/03/disowning-a-daughter/475824/?page=1&oldest=true And finally this fucked up post telling you to disown your kids www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=1018922
Because the video is not trying to depict the gender of population in the US. The majority of people in the world is Asian, yet there are no Asians depicted in the video. The point of the identity of the cartoons is irrelevant.
It's unfortunate that experts in logic don't participate in political discussions to point out politicians' logical fallacies.
Really loaded examples. Your own political leanings shouldn't be so obvious if you're trying to build a channel with an theme of objectivity.
What difference does it make? His examples are logical when explaining the subjects - I think this is what matters, not how he picks them. Also, what is exactly wrong with him choosing examples from his point of view or ideas? (assuming his examples really reflect the way he thinks; he doesn't state they do so there is no evidence for that).
Bollocks, There were mixed.
raptorchicken you should be able to name the logical fallacy you’re making if you watched the video 😬
I agree... That’s not to say that anything said here isn’t true. But you could have used other examples that weren’t so politically biased. As he said, it’s kind of a let down for those of us who came here for with the expectation of objectivity.
Good explanations. However It seems to me that circular logic, special pleading and arguing from ignorance should be amongst the top 5 common logical fallacies.
Yeah I think arguing from ignorance should definitely be mentioned
Brexit is necessary because the Europeans aren't like the British (?)
Ad Hominem and equivocation are the most frequently encountered logical fallacies. Red Herring and Strawman are also very frequent. Same is the case with Ad Populum/ Vox Populli and Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
@@vidyanandbapat8032 --Just as long as any of the fallacies you mentioned are different than mine, implying all the fallacies on my list are totally wrong, correct?
@@casparuskruger4807 Not wrong. We do encounter these fallacies too very often, and they are different than the ones which I have mentioned and not just another names for them. But I haven't encountered them very often as like Ad Hominem or Red Herring.
The two most common fallacies I see on Facebook are the composition fallacy and the straw man fallacy.
pro tip : watch movies at Flixzone. I've been using them for watching a lot of movies lately.
@Noah Jagger yea, I've been using flixzone} for years myself =)
@Noah Jagger Yup, been watching on flixzone} for months myself :)
Wow, great start for a first video!
Not really sure how I feel about the political undertone of this video.
Awesome! Thank you for your work.
It's not awesome, he mentioned the same fallacy 3 times, and one of them wasn't even a fallacy.
They teach this in law and in public relations because lobbyists and lawyers more commonly use the techniques. All politicians have a background in law. What do you do if you're in court and the party you're arguing with is using logical fallacies to defend their claims?
But why are fallacies there in the first place? Is it because people want to create them through what they say or do we do it unknowingly? And what is the point of fallacies anyway
It isn't illogical to point to someone's character, as demonstrated by their personal actions, as a means to point to whether they are trustworthy or not. Particularly a politician, who, as we know, have at best a complicated relationship with the truth, and often take certain policy positions under the guise of nefarious political goals. It's clear that a modus operandi of the political Right is to assume 'logic', and 'unemotional common sense', even as it is clear at almost every instance that the vast majority of their assumptions and arguments are intensely illogical, emotional and disingenuous.
Keith wrote, _"It isn illogical to point to someone's character, as demonstrated by their personal actions, as a means to point to whether they are trustworthy or not."_
If the topic under discussion is trustworthiness of the person, I may be persuaded to agree. But, if the topic under discussion is a particular issue, then the trustworthiness if the individual is irrelevant to the actual topic under discussion.
'Trustworthiness' isn't an all-or-nothing proposition because people aren't flawless. A person could be mostly trustworthy in some areas while being less trustworthy in others. For example, it may be that an employee is trustworthy enough to be given keys to close a store at night, but not trustworthy in matters of obeying traffic laws.
As well, pointing to whether a person is trustworthy when another topic is being explored may be ad hominem or red herring.
Formal logic is valid, it’s not who’s right it’s what’s right.
Well done, entertaining and amusing; a little ax grindy for a video on fallacious argument though.
Wow this is kinda political
Here's a better and more comprehensive video that isn't full of ironic fallacy and politically loaded. ruclips.net/video/Qf03U04rqGQ/видео.html
I agree with everything you said and I’m conservative, but for some reason I feel that you didn’t point out fallacies that the conservative side makes sometimes. You only pointed out fallacies made by the left. This video is biased. I completely agree with all of it though 😂 it’s just biased.
By using written and verbal arguments on your piece that are mainly biased in one direction totally negates your piece, sorry to say.
You have used a logical fallacy within your own comment~ i.e the biased one direction of his examples have nothing what so ever to do with anyone being able to learn what a logical fallacy is. Or indeed what the 5 most common types are. What you use for an example is irrelevant, just so long as it shows the construction and deconstruction of a logical fallacy.
@@caldwellfisher5288 well if that's the case, and I'll take it on board and investigate, it doesn't disprove the point of bias, bias destroys all critical points of thought from the get go, now that's a fact from any angle
video starts in 1:34
I hope it's not too PC to point out he spelled 'misogynist' incorrectly.
The red herring and ad hominem sound to me like the same thing can anyone clarify this
The red herring is more like a straw man, arguing from a position not related to the original argument. The ad hominem is an attack on the person's character to try & discredit their argument! At least that's the way I see it, I could be wrong! 😉
Okay I see what this videos trying to do lol
These logical fallacies were put together in 1984! Bad year!
1. Genetic Fallacy, as well as ad-hominem.
2. Appeal to emotion.
3. Abusive ad-hominem
4. Not even a flaw in reasoning, just a conversational tactic.
5. Abusive ad-hominem
If you're gonna make a video on logical fallacies, at least make sure that those selected fallacies are unique to each other.
red herrings are logical fallacies you got it wrong.
@@trumpgaming5998 A Red Herring is an intentional tactic to make someone think about things that aren't relevant: Barking up the wrong tree, as they say. To be a logical fallacy, it has to do with *reasoning*. While red herrings are bad for conversation and debate, they don't technically count as a logical fallacy.
Palestinian protesters do fly swastika flags.
There is no such thing as the PC fallacy. There is a wage between men and women, to say otherwise is stupid and inaccurate. The real question is what causes it.
Hell the real fallacy is to claim someone is wrong because they are being "PC".
MrGoblin1000 your right, what he calls the pc fallacy, is actually the fallacy of dogmatic defense, which is when you say you can’t say that cause someone might get offended, Christians use it to try to stop atheist by telling them that it’s offensive to some not to believe in god, the pc people are doing the same as well, and it’s typically a last ditch effort to try to stop criticism, the wage gap doesn’t take different hours into account, which does have a effect because of fraternity leave, and it also doesn’t take different job positions into account
Andrew Olson except there not, that’s call a loud majority, and they talk about it only because religion has implications outside of belief, it affects politics and bigotries. Atheist don’t want a world without religion, they want a world where they won’t be ostracize for not believing, there are kids being disowned for there atheism, you can’t get into office without atleast pretending to be religious. This forces most atheist into closets, if you don’t know, closets are not good for the mind, the loud ones are the once who comes out of the closet swinging so there ideas would be normalized enough for others to come out safely
Andrew Olson yeah fair enough that it’s more dangerous in Islamic lands. But most atheist in America are still in the closest about it for a reason. And the entire point of the loud minority (which a lot of the silent minority hate btw) is to desensitize the religious to the concept so less atheist get socially ostracized for coming out, which they are in America. Your point is really just putting a problem next to another colossal problem, then say the first probably doesn’t exist. It’s still a issue that needs to be brought up
Andrew Olson tell that to the people who got disowned by there families for not being Christian
winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/mobile/gay-atheist-international-student-disowned-by-family-1.2690389
www.quora.com/My-parents-disowned-me-because-I-told-them-that-I-am-an-atheist-I-am-situated-in-Pakistan-and-I-have-nowhere-to-go-What-do-I-do
www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/03/disowning-a-daughter/475824/?page=1&oldest=true
And finally this fucked up post telling you to disown your kids
www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=1018922
Too superficial
SORY. TOOMUCH FALLACIOUSNESS
NIce video about an important topic, but why is practically all the art work drawings of men?? 51% of the population of the USA are women.
why, just why...
Because the video is not trying to depict the gender of population in the US. The majority of people in the world is Asian, yet there are no Asians depicted in the video. The point of the identity of the cartoons is irrelevant.
You must hate your life.
Would this be an example of a political correctness fallacy?
argument derailed...
1:40
Leonardo Chiodo ?
#1...religion