Fallacies are people too.

[EPlTOME]

i wonder if she actually watched this atrocity of a video.

[roflwaffle12321]

SOOO LONG

[tonymacaronivlog]

You sound just like ADAM SANDLER the first 24 seconds of the video

[JohnnyAlpha8]

Are you a fucking jew?

[angel972007]

Are you my professor? your voice sounds so familiar.

[thegrimmreeper]

Great video with well made points but I have a question.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to make a video suggesting that the her use of the word "fallacy" was incorrect in the context she was using it and that she should consult a dictionary for a different word?

[GwydionMapDon]

This video --> face palm. Not only did you entirely miss the point but your deconstruction of very real fallacies was frankly ridiculous.

Fallacies speak to the validity of a specific argument, not the truth value of the conclusion and not the pragmatic value of MAKING that argument (which is a concern of rhetoric, not logic).

You seem to be equivocating rhetoric with logic or at least asserting that the former takes precedence over the latter, or should. I call bullshit.

[jeffsmithluedke]

Since these aren't logical fallacies, focusing on rhetoric is perfectly reasonable.

[GwydionMapDon]

The only reason to focus on rhetoric is if all you are concerned about is convincing an audience (often one not versed in logic) and often regardless of the truth value of your conclusion.

Calling someone out on a fallacy CAN be very useful in rhetorical pursuits, *depending on audience.*

"...these aren't logical fallacies..."

Yes they are in a very real sense. How are you defining "logical fallacies?" Rhetorical and logical fallacies are not mutually exclusive.

[GwydionMapDon]

You seem to be saying that fallacies have great value in communication. Some fallacies can be useful in a strictly rhetorical sense but fallacies actually break down communication. If you are trying to convince someone of something that is useful for them to realize and use a fallacy in doing so, your argument will ring hollow, especially under scrutiny (like when your conclusion is not desired). So, if you argue 'go to sleep or you will eventually become a bum,' the kid will just roll his eyes.

[LanceDirk]

Logos, Pathos and Ethos, the facets of a convincing argument. Not surprisingly, Pathos and Ethos are built on logical fallacies, which is why they are separate. They are likely the two more effective forms though.

[turtlesoup15]

Fallacy = unsound argument.

This whole video seems to have the wrong definition of "fallacy". No one is claiming that just because a claim is a fallacy that automatically disproves the claim...it just makes it weak and unconvincing to the logical mind.

[cosmicterror]

That sir is a Fallacy, if the argument itself is incorrect then it is a fallacy, Az is going through and explaining how many of the examples for the arguments are valid and can be accepted as a legitimate arguments and also that some are not expected to be interpreted as correct. I also think you miss the large point of the video, that Fallacies are ridiculous to concern yourself with.

[LanceDirk]

It seems like fallacies then depend much more on what conclusions are drawn from them and to what ends they are used. If I'm saying gay marriage is wrong because if we legalize it then we'll be legalizing bestiality soon, and I'm trying to seriously present that as a consequence, and my reasoning consists purely of a slippery slope type of paranoia, then that would be fallacious. If I'm just trying to scare people into supporting my position, then the accuracy of the claim doesn't even matter.

[GwydionMapDon]

"Fallacies are ridiculous to concern yourself with."

How can you SAY that? Of course you should concern yourself if you care about making a valid conclusion!

[CousinoMacul]

1. in re non sequitor:

Aren't all fallacies some subspecies of non sequitor?

2. The Azrienoch Fallacy:

It is fallacious to "call fallacy" as a form of argument (and Az will call you on it whenever you do!)

[PerennialLucidity]

was this a stealth pwnage video?

[TheTheifInYourHead]

as i'm sure Az would agree, you totally pwnd gogreen's rant on fallacies

[PeopleNotTalking]

azrie, stop spamming jeff's video. he's going to block u (cause your a bitch)

[Brandt761]

A fallacy doesn't make someone wrong. But it does mean the burden of proof should still be on them...

[azrienoch]

There is no burden of proof. Or if there is, someone won't need to be told they have it--the normative guilt would be too burdensome. If someone doesn't have it but we feel they NEED it, we should engage them.

[Brandt761]

The burden of proof is when you need to prove that you are right. Very simply. It may not be a real thing, but that doesn't make it a valid rhethorical idea.

Again, normative guilt is subjective. Lots of people won't experience it even though they should. And that is why we should engage them.

[azrienoch]

I agree. Conversation, argument, builds normativity. As I said, if we feel they NEED it, we should engage them. (Although I wouldn't advise always feeling they need it.)

[Brandt761]

So, wait: If you know you're not wrong, you shouldn't argue with anyone? If someone is totally egregiously wrong, they need to be ignored?

[azrienoch]

That's right. If you know you're not wrong, why would you argue? Things that are automatically correct don't need to be argued for. Likewise, people won't need to be told that something is automatically wrong. If it's automatic, they already know it. (Of course, I don't believe in anything being automatically right or wrong, and I'm pretty willing to argue that.)

[Brandt761]

"ikewise, people won't need to be told that something is automatically wrong."

ummm....I don't know if you've met Republicans.

I wonder if this applies to things which are simply factual, such as "the earth is round"

[azrienoch]

I've plenty of republicans. None of them were automatically wrong about anything regarding their republicanism.

And let's not forget that "The earth is round" had to be argued. And it will be argued again.

[Brandt761]

Not automatically. But sometimes they say things that are quite obviously false. Like claiming that WWII was a pre-emptive strike by the US. Or that there was an insurgency in occupied Germany. Both of which are appeals to sentiments about the second world war to get Americans behind the Iraq Invasion without giving them a decent rationale, and being totally false.

[azrienoch]

Reinterpretation happens all the time, and necessarily so, in order to apply the past to the present, or to the possible future. Some reinterpretations live, some die, but neither happens before some memetic evolution, or without a sort of natural selection. This is true of all understandings, including this one, and including our understanding of what "really" happened in WWII. So be careful with what seems "obvious"... if it really was obvious, we wouldn't have to defend it. Yet we do.

[Brandt761]

So give me an example of something that doesn't need to be defended.

Anyway, regarding WWII, there is simply no record by anyone of any insurgency, but we do know where the claim comes from (basically, Hitler made plans, but none of them were carried out).

[azrienoch]

"So give me an example of something that doesn't need to be defended."

Exactly.

[Kierketaard]

Then again, if there is nothing exempt from the need of defense and interpretation, then Faith at some point becomes an unavoidable necessity.

[Brandt761]

But there are gradients of how easy something is to defend.

[Kierketaard]

That may not be going in the direction that you want it too. It may be easier to defend the idea of a powerful God that wants things to work out for someone then to explain to them the intricacies of string landscape theory, or the prospect of thermodynamic equilibrium a trillion or so years from now.

[Brandt761]

Easier perhaps, but not real. And a valid theory has to not only explain the past, but predict the future, to a certain degree.

To return to my previous point, it's easier to demontrate that historically, Germany was the agressor than it is to back up the claim that skipping school leads to being infected with aids (via having to give blowjobs for crack).

[Kierketaard]

I'm assuming that by "easier" in this instance you mean that there is more evidence.

I don't think anyone would dispute the desire to get the best cause and effect description. The interpretation considerations are more of a reflection on how we go about it.

I could back up the school claim by suggesting that there is a relative vacuum of blow jobs in class, and that is why one ecounters them less, thus avoiding disease. This is an interpetation that is not true or false.

[Brandt761]

But there is such a thing as good reasoning. Thing like experience also come in...

But of course, I can't "unreason" your theory. At best, I can demonstrate by data gathering whether or not it holds in practice.

[Brandt761]

Regarding Ad hominems, it is assumed that their intention is to discredit an argument by making the proponent look bad. After all, no one wants to agree with a bad or ugly person _too_ much. With the possible exception of Eric Cartman...

[Brandt761]

The point being that "therefore you are wrong" is implied, with the intention that any audience to comes to this conclusion on their own _or_ are at least distracted from the validity of the opposing argument.

[Brandt761]

To use your "Please don't find me guilty" example: It is not wrong, but also has nothing to do with wether he is guilty. However, the rephrasing of the appeal as a fallacy is intended to imply just that.

[azrienoch]

Right. It's convenient to make up examples that fit your conclusion. It's much harder, especially in this fallacy's case, to find examples that actually apply.

[Brandt761]

The point being that "don't find me guilty" is just like " I have a wife and kids" or the like. It proves nothing about the subject at hand, unless the question is about whether somone has a wife and kids.

[azrienoch]

If the point of saying it isn't to prove innocence, I don't see what the problem is. Even in her convenienced example, the person saying it isn't arguing that they aren't guilty.

[Brandt761]

Yes, but it holds no water all by itself.

[azrienoch]

Who cares?  It wasn't supposed to.

[Brandt761]

Except sometimes it is. Sometimes these kind of appeals are designed to replace a valid point, by circumventing logic.

[Brandt761]

What's false about it? Nothing from the PoV of whoever is using it. However, most fallacious arguments are poor reasons, by themselves, to agree with the person using them.

[hoplahey]

I clicked this one by a mistake. Please adjust view count by -1.

[turboskanker]

sometimes just hearing you ramble like this not only makes me smile but helps me realize that i'm not quite so retarded or insane as i think i am. or maybe i am, but it helps remind me that it's not a bad thing. or something. either way, thanks for this.

[torrisrox]

That was WAY too long.

[NLPNVC]

Autonomy is one need I value greatly and being aware of strategies people use to get what they want which could come at my expense is useful information. We can see the limitations of punishment if we ask two questions, what do you want me to do, and what do you want my reasons for doing it to be.

Believing in God to avoid pain and suffering is very different from valuing purpose and satisfying through a genuine connection to something larger than self. Cheers.

[PeopleNotTalking]

unsubscribed

[azrienoch]

Gonna say why?

[PeopleNotTalking]

you're not jeff, mind your own business

[awerner2007]

i give that comment of the day!

[PeopleNotTalking]

i give you retard of the day

[azrienoch]

lol, are you joking?

[PeopleNotTalking]

no, and stop trying to butt in. this is between me and jeff (the homo in this video)

[azrienoch]

d00d, check my profile.

[PeopleNotTalking]

d00d, stop spamming

[Trollschool]

r u Richard Kearn's son?

[PeopleNotTalking]

seems unlikely, i'm one of those people you read about with "vaginas"

[Trollschool]

your own or someone else's?

[PeopleNotTalking]

my own, as well as someone else's sure

[azrienoch]

I'm not signing out of this account just to hear you say why you're unsubbing.  I don't actually care. It's just odd that someone would bother to say they're unsubbing and not say why.

[PeopleNotTalking]

stop trying to butt. what are you jeff's lover? i knew he was a homo

[Trollschool]

homo erectus or homo sapiens?

[PeopleNotTalking]

homofaggus

[Brandt761]

Umm...you do know that Azrienoch = Jeffsmithluedke, right?

Jah, das is so ne sache.

Und schwul isser auch net (soweit ich weiss)

[noblesavagery]

I would say that there is a fact being put forward with the Christian claim of damnation and hell, even if that Christian possesses the privilege of consciousness surrounding the doctrines and morality of the Christian faith that say a agnostic who never seriously delved into Christianity doesn't have; a fact actually presupposes both of them and all of us; neither actually knows what lies beyond after death b/c they have not and cannot simultaneously be there while on this world

[noblesavagery]

Therefore, there is no way that each of their human minds can comprehend what lies beyond death by the means of terrestrial deduction of that unknown.

[noblesavagery]

and therefore, the Christian's claim cannot and should not be taken as legitimate because of the implausibility of its desired end (hell).

[azrienoch]

That's all fine and good, but it has nothing to do with appeals to fear.

[noblesavagery]

I understand, but that is not what I was getting at; it has something to do with "if you accept the Christian doctrine, I don't see why that is not a perfectly legitimate thing to say"

If you accept the Christian doctrine then thay may be a legitimate thing "to say", but is the doctrine itself legitimate in the universal sense that any religious supplicant wishes it to be? No, therefore falsity presupposes their very entrance into the doctrine that they object to.

[azrienoch]

Well, there is no "universal sense." Nothing is ever said without context. As far as the person saying it knows, it's correct, just as as far as the person disagreeing knows, it isn't correct. Again, this is a starting point for debate, something that needs to be argued, not a conclusion. The person says it because they believe it. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that.

[noblesavagery]

There is no universality with the claim of damnation? Well, it seems that when a Christian (or any religious individual) rhetorically condemns someone to hell, it would be because their morality, which they take to be the principals of "reality", has been violated by this other; this is the context. Now whether it is wrong or not is a matter of moral judgment; I'm alright with it as long as I won't be burnt on a cross for my atheism.

[noblesavagery]

How is it though, that there is no universality? Each religion claims jurisdiction over everything in this world and beyond; how is this not universal?

[azrienoch]

Well, it's a claim of universal consequence, but it's not universally meaningful or true, and that was my point. If this were another time, another place, you might have been crucified, but this is here and now, and claiming that you'll burn in hell for your atheism isn't the same as being killed for your atheism. At any rate, thanks to the contextual meaningfulness of the claim, you don't have to believe it.

[thingthingy]

Wow, the Irish love them some leudke.

[smotviddy]

Fallacies exist in the world/plane of factualisation Az! True though that Laci's examples weren't all that appropriate. I do agree with your judgment that people (lazily) over-use fact appraisal criteria for facts they did not aesertain (a new word I have coined) themselves.

[Brandt761]

Actually, a slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It occurs, when someone lists a chain of possible consequences as inevitably resulting from the original cause when they are not inevitable.

[ASithTheyCalledEmo]

No, they're the ones watching his videos.

[katafraktus]

good one

[awerner2007]

that little cutie talks to fast for me!!! ;)

[Leekilicious]

I'm sorry, I can't watch this in one sitting. 37 minutes? Fucking badass. I'll watch it tomorrow morning, like Saturday cartoons.

[FreePrometheus]

For some reason I like this channel more than your original one. I guess you separated your contemplative philosophical videos from your artistic ones.

[stuart250]

Jeff--go back to school. Get your PhD and teach. There are probably 10 or 15 YouTube users that are making decent money making videos. They all want to be stars on t.v. Is that really your goal?

Don't waste your time making videos. Go be a writer and teach others to do the same.

Just my thoughts.

[666lordbyron666]

he is in school..it funny that u are giving suggestions to a person u barely know

[Trollschool]

yeh ... he is in tha fool school ... we no him

[InfectedDaemon]

What is false about the argument of going to hell if you don't believe in something... is the premise that you are going to Hell, or Niflheim, or Hades. Its false because its not the truth.

What makes something true is its correlation with reality, not the effectiveness of the argument.

[azrienoch]

I'm an atheist, so hey, I'll give you that. But again, it's not the appeal to fear that renders it so.

[TheLovePizza]

Good video, azrienoch.

[StevenErnest]

Reminds me of the Marshall McLuhan quote, "You mean my whole fallacys wrong?"

[StevenErnest]

D'oh! I left out the apostrophe, so the fallacy IS wrong, lol.

[LeafInTheStream]

I enjoy the new Azrienoch but I'm glad you've kept the old-style videos alive with this channel. I found this really engaging, and have no complaints at all about its length.

[NwZ2]

haha @ 21:00 I started listening to your mocking comments and was going in my mind "that's an ad hominem" right as you said it. :P

But yea, I'd have to say the comment where you said "I think your hair is making you misguided" constituted an ad hominem, SOLELY because you linked her hair style to a premise who's implications could impact the validity of her argument. That said, point well taken and it probably wasn't.

[NwZ2]

It seemed like, at last up till the first 15 minutes, a lot of what you've said boiled down to a sense of relativism, at least in so far as if a person does not agree with the premise of "Logic" and "truth-functional value", then by all means their argument doesn't automatically become fallacious when they use rhetorical fallacies (for lack of a better word).

[azrienoch]

No, not relativism, simply a description of how these things go in real life, generally minding our own business. We don't approach and interact with people as if everyone was using strict, logocentric language. IF my argument here was that fallacies don't hinder truth, then yes, it'd be relativistic. But what I'm arguing is that these things have nothing to do with truth, are not used for truth, and it is a mistake to presume they are.

[NwZ2]

"No, not relativism, simply a description of how these things go in real life, generally minding our own business"

Yea, I used "relativism" for lack of a better way of phrasing it without repeating what you said. That said, although I understand that what works = what's practical and *has* meaning and may not be false, I still (and this is just personal) value the rules of reason and logic over > every day use. Being an introvert doesn't help that, I'm sure.

Also.....

[NwZ2]

Also, I find it delicious that you're posting on your other account, thus enabling anyone to down-vote you on your own video.

So...tempting. =3

[azrienoch]

Do it.

[NwZ2]

I lol'd.

Thanks!

[NwZ2]

So if I'm to understand you correctly, (taking the Christian example of the "fallacy of fear tactics") if what this person values is not truth, then the fallacy serves a functional purpose (ie if it's important to stay squared with God, then the claim has metaphysical and behavioral consequences)?

So then "logic" only works for those who care about truth. I knew I was a nerd.

[azrienoch]

That's a bit of a misappropriation. Nobody is concerned with truth all the time, and everyone is concerned with truth sometimes. The issue is this: this christian fear tactic is not used to persuade us of truth. It is an argument of pathos, not logos.

[NwZ2]

Pathos? Don't make me whip out Wikipedia.

That thing is nasty.

[azrienoch]

Oh, I've got a better site for you. Search "Silva Rhetoricae."

[NwZ2]

That's site sittin on 18's

Bling Bling.

[azrienoch]

I'll give you an analogy. Suppose we analyze the truth of: "What time is it?" I know, we'd sit there in confusion! It's a question, not a claim, so what does it have to do with truth? Nothing at all. Likewise, these fallacies are not concerned with truth whatsoever. If my argument was relativistic, I would have said of "What time is it?" that the truth of this depends on each individual, and that's not what I'm (analogously) saying.

[gogreen18]

Again, no, the fallacies themselves do not refer to the truth. I think we've exhausted that point. Does the inference not provide support for a claim? If I make a claim and say it's right because you're really, really hot...what does that do to the support system? Perhaps I'm missing something, it seems like we're running in circles around eachother.

[azrienoch]

Wait, view all comments. That wasn't posted for you. NwZ2 was asking if I was putting forth a relativistic argument.

[NwZ2]

So it's *not* relativist in that it serves a specific function(s) but it's *not* concerned with the truth.

Then it's coercive, dominating, and highly unsexy. I think the point still applies, albeit indirectly.

[azrienoch]

Well, that's a matter of preference, isn't it?

[mikecampochiaro]

I really enjoyed this Jeff. I agree with most of what you said. It sort of bothers me that so many people think they understand argumentation from watching a video on youtube or a wikipedia article.

[dackjaniels555]

Kitchen!

[NwZ2]

ffs, 30 mins long. I wanted to see this video as a quickie but that's impossible now!

Damn you.

[Blews4Blesus]

I disagree slightly with your argument about going to hell is not false. I say it could be false, but there is no way to prove it. BTW did you see the movie Religulous?

[reflectionist]

I watched you record this! teehehehe

[reflectionist]

Although, the slippery slope fallacy... is kind of interesting. Usually what makes it a fallacy is that there is a distinction between effect a and effect b: "If we let our teenagers smoke pot, then next they'll be smoking crack off of a hookers ass!" There's the distinction between the effects of marijuana and the effects of cocaine, and certainly the appeal of them.

but that's only an example, and the distinctions are varied given the specifics of the argument....

[Brandt761]

Wow...have to watch the rest tomorrow...

[gogreen18]

Jeff! Thanks for the response bro. I'm watching as I comment. I'm about 8 mins in. First off, I like the idea of "instructions". It's an interesting approach. Second, what I'm noticing thus far is an assumption you're resting on which essentially...false. Fallacies don't make the argument WRONG by any means, and I don't think I ever said they did. Perhaps I was ambiguous. Fallacies refer to the inference of the argument, as I stated at 0:50 in the video. Continuing!

[gogreen18]

Okay, further in, it sounds like you're questioning the validity of each of fallacies on the whole. This is kind of a different issue than what the video addressed. Personally, I feel that fallacies are important in the pathway to rational and logical exchange of ideas. In reference to 13:25, I think evidence is VERY important. Appealing to this or that without any evidences on the truth value doesn't really further the search for correctness. Contd...

[gogreen18]

Of course, the value placed on evidence varies by individual.

Appeals to popularity--I disagree, popularity doesn't necessarily make something right. It may be "worth looking into", but the popularity of x has nothing to do with the validity of x.

Further on, I'm noticing again and again, that this comes back to the false assumption again. The argument isn't rendered wrong, the inference is.

Ad hominem-I don't think that a "successful" ad hominem makes it right.

Contd...:]

[gogreen18]

About truth/ego--yes, I absolutely agree. People do argue to save face. However, using ad hominem doesn't validate it.

About politicians--yes, this has been disputed. I don't think how their voice sounds has ANYTHING to do with politics. I've realized though, that (unfortunately) some people do think how the voice sounds affects their abilities. Non-sequiturs aren't hard to spot. If you're following from their premises, and you're left with a weird, unrelated conclusion...tadahh.

[gogreen18]

27:48, agreed, and I'll take it further--I dont think they think their arguments are fallacious in any sense most the time.

28:05, again, back to the original false assumption.  Fallacy=/=no argument, a fallacy refers to inference.

I disagree about engaging in the other person's reasoning. It kind of reminds of the "eye for an eye" philosophy. There's no productivity in that, imo.

Interesting about the false analogy--yes, it's good to compare. However, you can't equate two things..contd

[gogreen18]

...that aren't equal in value.

I disagree about the broken car/human. I really don't think those are applicable. It's dehumanizing.

Concerning 36:05, it is something wrong with the reasoning, though. If I'm in my logic class engaging in a debate, allowing fallacious argument to withdraw me from seeking truth value would be unproductive. I agree, though, context definitely plays a role in handling it.

WOW I made it. Overall, very insightful video, though I feel like perhaps...contd.

[gogreen18]

It was more of a claim about semantics and whether or not fallacies are legitimate than the actual fallacies themselves (as was the video). The legitimacy of fallacies comes in more under discussions about WHY fallacies are fallacious to begin with. This is a much, much more intricate part of logic and does require the semantics you've called in. But, right now, going to school and studying logic, my interest lies with the hard facts, evidences, and proper reasoning. Give me truth value.

[gogreen18]

One more thing, a question. I've gathered an "if it works, then it's valid" philosophy from you. Is that correct or am I mistaken?

[jeffsmithluedke]

I promise I'm not assuming you mean that fallacies render a conclusion false, but that the argument is false. I'm not stupid. I'm trying to point out that these fallacies are almost never made in arguments of logos. When fallacies APPEAR to be in an argument of logos, it means that more needs to be said, which should be fine since conversation is linear and takes time to develop. (It's no coincidence that you thought I was making a fallacy--there was more understanding to be had.)

[jeffsmithluedke]

Your video propagated the use of calling fallacies to discredit arguments. I think, therefore, a video denouncing that use of recognizing fallacies is entirely justified.

No, I don't think that if something works, it's valid. I think that if something works, there's a reason that it works, and it should be seriously investigated, not dismissed.

Off topic: I'm a little curious as to why you're learning rhetorical fallicies in a logic class. Is it not the minding your p's and q's logic?

[gogreen18]

Hahaha, I never said you were stupid, Jeff. Far from it. I have to disagree that I've propagated discrediting arguments because, again, I've clearly stated at the beginning of the video that it refers to inference.

The issue that I have with the "if something works" thing is that...it doesn't work. Inferring a statement by, for example, moral equivalence, isn't a valid way to support your claim. <contd)

[gogreen18]

When truth value counts it takes a bit more. There's a reason why they're called fallacies, I think. It's not just a way to say "YOU'RE WRONG!!!" in a more proper sense, because it's NOT saying "you're wrong". Sure, investigate it. That's fine. That's what it's all about...investigating. But you can't just throw fallacies in argument out the window and say..."well, those don't matter."

These fallacies are for my argumentation course.

[azrienoch]

Laci, PLEASE assume that I'm talking about inferrence, because I am. Inference is essential to any argument. If I say that it propagates discrediting these inferences, will that make you happy? It shouldn't matter. Arguments of the sort you're speaking about don't exist without inference, and thus, you are propagating the discredation of certain arguments.

[gogreen18]

Have you re-enabled comments again or am I experiencing a glitch?

Okay, so, I'll assume you're speaking of inference. Inference and the claim are not one and the same right? And you're saying truth A relies on B and without B, truth A cannot exist. But truth A DOES exist, and therefore B isn't fallacious/flawed/whatever.

I claim that A CAN exist; A must rely on C.

[azrienoch]

Here we go, THIS is where the misunderstanding is happening. What I'm arguing about fallacies is that the arguments where they are most often used have nothing to do with truth. When I ask, "What is false about that?" I'm asking why valid inference even matters, since inference only ever matters regarding truth. A doesn't rely on C when A is not a truth. Fallacies are at home in other areas of language, not argumentation. And if we think we've found one in an argument... cont.

[azrienoch]

.. I think that we should approach it not as a faulty inference, but as a place that needs to be explored. It signifies a lack of understanding on our part--perhaps not by our own fault--that simply needs to be talked about and understood.

[jeffsmithluedke]

By the way, would you approve this video response?

[gogreen18]

Of course I've approved the response. I value your insight, though I do feel it misrepresents the video. I hadn't checked my mail until you mentioned it, it's not as if I'm at my computer checking up all day...haha.

[NwZ2]

"it's not as if I'm at my computer checking up all day...haha. "

Wait, what?

[acies37]

holy shit, 37 minutes!

[JinxedBohemian]

Damn....I'll have to watch the rest when I get back home from work. I'll 5 star what I've seen.

[randyhelzerman]

You said the "n" word.

[TheTalentedAgnostic]

I'll make a real comment in 37 minutes.

[TheTalentedAgnostic]

Not first?