1
00:00:00,700 --> 00:00:02,800
Welcome to Keith's night. 
Don't track down anyone. 

2
00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:03,800
Today. 
We're going to talk about 

3
00:00:03,800 --> 00:00:06,800
logical fallacies with James 
Corbett of the Corbett. 

4
00:00:06,800 --> 00:00:10,100
Report.com. 
Make sure to check out his video

5
00:00:10,300 --> 00:00:16,100
WTC. 1993 was an FBI job at 
corbettreport.com., Check him 

6
00:00:16,100 --> 00:00:18,300
out a bit shoot for just one 
dollar a month. 

7
00:00:18,300 --> 00:00:21,400
You can fund, his excellent 
Archive of research. 

8
00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:23,400
James. 
Thank you so much for taking the

9
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:26,200
time to discuss. 
One of my favorite topics. 

10
00:00:27,000 --> 00:00:29,200
Thank you for having me on and 
thank you for plugging that 

11
00:00:29,200 --> 00:00:32,800
particular video which has got 
to be pushing what 11 years old.

12
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:35,800
Maybe 12 years old at this point
that's digging deep in the 

13
00:00:35,800 --> 00:00:37,400
archives. 
Oh, yeah. 

14
00:00:37,400 --> 00:00:39,800
It's that. 
That's what first drew me in. 

15
00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:43,100
So I thought we discussed 10 
fallacies. 

16
00:00:43,100 --> 00:00:46,900
Each of us would do five. 
So James start us off with one 

17
00:00:46,900 --> 00:00:50,500
of the fallacies you think is 
most important for us to know 

18
00:00:50,500 --> 00:00:54,400
about in order for us not to be 
manipulated by politicians 

19
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:58,900
priest bosses and media. 
Like Exactly, even Independent 

20
00:00:58,900 --> 00:01:02,500
Media because you can employ 
these fallacies to so don't ever

21
00:01:02,500 --> 00:01:05,300
turn the critical thinking 
switch off, but I actually 

22
00:01:05,300 --> 00:01:07,300
wanted to start this 
conversation because it is an 

23
00:01:07,300 --> 00:01:10,700
important conversation to have 
to be able to identify and name 

24
00:01:10,700 --> 00:01:12,800
logical fallacies. 
So, you know when someone is 

25
00:01:12,800 --> 00:01:15,300
making a fallacious argument so 
you can point that out. 

26
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:20,100
But I want to start by Framing 
this conversation by talking 

27
00:01:20,100 --> 00:01:24,200
about the fallacy fallacy which 
for people who have never heard.

28
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:29,100
This is the idea that it Well, 
let's let's point out. 

29
00:01:29,100 --> 00:01:32,400
First of all, there are a 
million different sites where 

30
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:36,000
you can get different lists of 
logical fallacies and often they

31
00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:39,300
have different names for some of
the same Concepts or some of the

32
00:01:39,300 --> 00:01:41,900
same Concepts have slightly 
different definitions. 

33
00:01:41,900 --> 00:01:43,300
Everyone has a sort of their own
debt. 

34
00:01:43,300 --> 00:01:46,100
There is no single Master list 
of logical fallacies. 

35
00:01:46,100 --> 00:01:49,300
So that's one of the issues you 
encounter when you start trying 

36
00:01:49,300 --> 00:01:52,700
to nail some of these down. 
But let's go for your your 

37
00:01:52,700 --> 00:01:56,000
logical fallacy is.com for the 
definition of the fallacy 

38
00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:59,200
fallacy, which is You presumed 
that because the claim has been 

39
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:03,700
poorly argued or a fallacy has 
been made that the claim itself 

40
00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:06,400
must be wrong. 
And it says it is entirely 

41
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:08,699
possible to make a clean that is
false. 

42
00:02:08,699 --> 00:02:12,600
Yet argue with logical coherency
for that claim just as it is 

43
00:02:12,600 --> 00:02:15,900
possible to make a clean. 
That is true and justify it with

44
00:02:15,900 --> 00:02:18,400
various fallacious and poor 
arguments. 

45
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:22,000
And I think this is an important
fallacy in order to set the 

46
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:25,800
table for this conversation. 
Because sometimes the impression

47
00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:29,600
can be given That all you need 
to do is be able to identify. 

48
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:32,400
Is this a logically valid claim 
or is this a logically 

49
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:34,700
fallacious claim? 
And if it's, if there is a 

50
00:02:34,700 --> 00:02:36,400
logical fallacy, you just point 
out. 

51
00:02:36,400 --> 00:02:37,900
Oh look you made a fallacious 
argument. 

52
00:02:37,900 --> 00:02:39,500
Therefore you're wrong. 
Therefore. 

53
00:02:39,500 --> 00:02:41,100
Your conclusion is wrong. 
Therefore. 

54
00:02:41,100 --> 00:02:44,500
I'm right essentially. 
It's almost like a type of game 

55
00:02:44,500 --> 00:02:47,400
or a magic trick that you pull 
out of a bag when you're 

56
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:52,000
debating someone, and that is in
and of itself a fallacy just 

57
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:54,700
because someone has employed a 
fallacy in their line of 

58
00:02:54,700 --> 00:02:56,700
thinking does not mean that 
their conclusion is wrong. 

59
00:02:56,800 --> 00:02:58,000
Wrong. 
Their conclusion could be 

60
00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:01,000
completely correct. 
They're just not making it valid

61
00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:04,500
argument for that conclusion. 
So you have to go back to brass 

62
00:03:04,500 --> 00:03:06,900
tacks and figure out. 
Well, what is the argument that 

63
00:03:06,900 --> 00:03:09,600
can be made for this conclusion?
So that's the way I want to 

64
00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:11,200
frame. 
What we're talking about today, 

65
00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:13,000
just being able to identify 
that. 

66
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:17,700
If a claim an argument is valid 
or invalid is fallacious, or not

67
00:03:17,700 --> 00:03:21,200
is not in and of itself, 
something that will arrive at 

68
00:03:21,200 --> 00:03:22,600
truth. 
All by itself. 

69
00:03:22,600 --> 00:03:25,900
Do you still need to actually 
construct a valid and coherent 

70
00:03:25,900 --> 00:03:27,400
argument based on? 
I would promise. 

71
00:03:27,400 --> 00:03:30,400
He's that follow one from 
another that lead to a valid 

72
00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:33,400
conclusion. 
And then you have to verify that

73
00:03:33,400 --> 00:03:34,600
were those premises. 
Correct? 

74
00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:35,800
Is that conclusion? 
Correct? 

75
00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:38,900
There is no again. 
As I keep coming back to in so 

76
00:03:38,900 --> 00:03:39,500
much. 
My work. 

77
00:03:39,500 --> 00:03:43,300
There is no shortcut to truth. 
You have to go through the 

78
00:03:43,308 --> 00:03:45,700
critical thinking process and 
you have to interrogate every 

79
00:03:45,700 --> 00:03:49,100
assumption and just because of 
claim is fallacious, does not 

80
00:03:49,100 --> 00:03:51,300
mean that it's the conclusion is
incorrect. 

81
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:56,600
Oh, yes at excellent one. 
The first one that came to mind 

82
00:03:56,600 --> 00:04:00,500
was one that I'm Rand actually 
introduced me to called the 

83
00:04:00,500 --> 00:04:03,500
argument from intimidation. 
This is anything that shows 

84
00:04:03,700 --> 00:04:06,400
disapproval in one idea or 
another. 

85
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:08,400
We see this a lot on social 
media when someone just 

86
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:10,000
response. 
Ha ha, ha! 

87
00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:14,100
Good luck with that idea. 
Or how's that working for you? 

88
00:04:14,100 --> 00:04:18,000
Or someone just will respond 
with a gif or a sigh or they'll 

89
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:21,600
say, you really don't think that
do you or they'll oh, come on 

90
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:24,400
your Part of that. 
And then that it's anything to 

91
00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:27,300
show disapproval. 
She says that it's a means of 

92
00:04:27,300 --> 00:04:30,100
for stalling debate, and 
extorting and opponents 

93
00:04:30,100 --> 00:04:33,300
agreement with one's undiscussed
Notions. 

94
00:04:33,300 --> 00:04:35,600
It's a sense of psychological 
pressure. 

95
00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:40,100
So someone I heard George Bush 
on his discussion with Peter 

96
00:04:40,100 --> 00:04:44,300
Robbins, and say, only in a 
historical utopian. 

97
00:04:44,300 --> 00:04:47,500
Isolationist, could really think
that we could leave the Middle 

98
00:04:47,500 --> 00:04:49,000
East. 
It's like, we're really of 

99
00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:52,700
anyone throwing stones at this 
guy in like the glassy House 

100
00:04:52,900 --> 00:04:57,200
that that has ever been created.
You'll get this a lot when 

101
00:04:57,200 --> 00:05:00,700
you're asking for definitions. 
So when you say, okay, so before

102
00:05:00,700 --> 00:05:04,300
we you know, criticize 
government corporation, 

103
00:05:04,300 --> 00:05:07,300
socialism capitalism, the free 
market, let's just Define our 

104
00:05:07,300 --> 00:05:09,900
terms of real. 
I'm not going to, you know, to 

105
00:05:09,907 --> 00:05:12,100
of course, I know what I'm 
talking about when I say, 

106
00:05:12,400 --> 00:05:17,300
socialism government capitalism 
free markets, like you won't get

107
00:05:17,300 --> 00:05:19,900
them to really narrow down their
focus. 

108
00:05:19,900 --> 00:05:23,200
It I really saw this. 
Oh, this really Pissed me off, 

109
00:05:23,200 --> 00:05:27,400
when Pam Anderson of all, people
was talking to Meghan, McCain, 

110
00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:31,200
whose by the way, her father was
a hero in case you haven't 

111
00:05:31,200 --> 00:05:34,200
heard. 
She said, when Pam Anderson was 

112
00:05:34,200 --> 00:05:36,900
saying, yeah, it's important 
that Julian Assange exposed. 

113
00:05:36,900 --> 00:05:40,700
These war crimes, Meghan, 
McCain, goes and Putin agrees. 

114
00:05:41,000 --> 00:05:43,400
The argument from intimidation 
is anything that shows 

115
00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:46,900
disapproval. 
It's anything that means to say.

116
00:05:47,100 --> 00:05:50,400
Oh, but people won't like you. 
Oh, you're not par popular. 

117
00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:53,200
You're not part of the cool club
and a thing like that is the 

118
00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:56,400
argument from intimidation and 
it is fallacious. 

119
00:05:58,300 --> 00:06:02,800
So, you're saying that posting a
reaction GIF, or reaction image 

120
00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:06,200
of Picard doing the facepalm is 
not an adequate response to 

121
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:08,900
someone's argument and is not an
adequate response. 

122
00:06:08,900 --> 00:06:12,300
It's funny and it gets a lot of 
people to say. 

123
00:06:12,500 --> 00:06:15,500
Oh, well if I want to be cool 
and popular, oh this has 1000 

124
00:06:15,500 --> 00:06:18,100
likes but I guess it doesn't 
need addressing. 

125
00:06:18,100 --> 00:06:21,400
I can just oppose this without 
actually thinking yes, that 

126
00:06:21,400 --> 00:06:23,700
doesn't what I'm saying. 
Yeah. 

127
00:06:23,700 --> 00:06:27,000
Well again, it's also important 
to differentiate the types of 

128
00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:30,200
The people are engaging in and 
not everyone is always trying to

129
00:06:30,200 --> 00:06:33,300
make a logical argument for what
they believe again. 

130
00:06:33,300 --> 00:06:36,300
Sometimes you do just react with
a reaction image or something 

131
00:06:36,300 --> 00:06:39,400
like that, but something. 
Yeah, but it is not an argument.

132
00:06:39,500 --> 00:06:41,100
That's the important part. 
Okay. 

133
00:06:41,900 --> 00:06:43,900
Okay. 
My next one is the appeal to 

134
00:06:43,900 --> 00:06:47,700
Authority, which, of course, 
will be familiar to everyone in 

135
00:06:47,707 --> 00:06:50,100
the audience because everyone 
employees it all the time. 

136
00:06:50,100 --> 00:06:54,900
In debates endlessly, whether 
you are a conspiracy theorist or

137
00:06:54,900 --> 00:06:59,000
conspiracy realist or not, you 
We'll have encountered this and 

138
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:02,700
probably employed at yourself. 
I am no exception to this. 

139
00:07:02,700 --> 00:07:04,500
I have employed it before as 
well. 

140
00:07:05,000 --> 00:07:07,500
It is very tempting. 
It's very easy. 

141
00:07:07,500 --> 00:07:09,800
It's very lazy to do. 
Essentially the argument the 

142
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:14,900
appeal to Authority is saying, 
well, this respected Source says

143
00:07:14,900 --> 00:07:18,400
this information, therefore we 
must believe this conclusion, 

144
00:07:18,700 --> 00:07:20,900
which of course isn't 
fallacious, line of argument 

145
00:07:20,900 --> 00:07:23,800
just because a respected Source 
believes or said propounds. 

146
00:07:23,900 --> 00:07:26,600
A certain idea does not 
logically follow that. 

147
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:30,700
Their Asians are correct. 
So for example, when we look at 

148
00:07:30,700 --> 00:07:33,500
the collapse of the World Trade 
Center buildings that they 

149
00:07:33,500 --> 00:07:35,700
collapse. 
The kind of three judges things,

150
00:07:35,700 --> 00:07:39,200
doesn't it? 
The the demolition event of 

151
00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:41,200
World Trade Center building 7 on
9/11. 

152
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:44,900
It did that building did not 
fall because dr. 

153
00:07:44,900 --> 00:07:47,000
Leroy. 
A whole sea, at the University 

154
00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:51,100
of Alaska, Fairbanks has a, you 
know, a lot of letters after his

155
00:07:51,100 --> 00:07:53,600
name, and he's a respected 
professor of civil engineering. 

156
00:07:54,300 --> 00:07:57,600
No, it fell because of this. 
And this, and This in this 

157
00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:00,700
particular reason and we can say
that the nist report was wrong 

158
00:08:00,700 --> 00:08:03,300
about this and they got this 
factually Incorrect and you can 

159
00:08:03,300 --> 00:08:06,300
go through hundreds of pages of 
documentation. 

160
00:08:06,900 --> 00:08:12,600
I believe there's now almost a 
terabyte of data that the uaf 

161
00:08:13,300 --> 00:08:16,600
team led by dr. 
Wolsey has released on their new

162
00:08:16,600 --> 00:08:18,800
World, Trade Center, 7, collapse
investigation. 

163
00:08:19,100 --> 00:08:21,100
If you haven't heard about that,
please check into it. 

164
00:08:21,100 --> 00:08:24,300
I'll put the link in the show 
notes, but they've released all 

165
00:08:24,300 --> 00:08:27,000
this data and their report and 
it's open for public. 

166
00:08:27,100 --> 00:08:29,700
Comment, and all of this. 
That is what people should be 

167
00:08:29,700 --> 00:08:33,299
concentrating on not the fact 
that this respected professor at

168
00:08:33,299 --> 00:08:37,000
this University Senate and vice 
versa, for all sides of argument

169
00:08:37,000 --> 00:08:39,200
just because someone has 
credentials or letters, after 

170
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:42,600
their name does not logically 
follow that, they are correct 

171
00:08:42,600 --> 00:08:43,900
about what they're speaking 
about. 

172
00:08:45,100 --> 00:08:46,100
Oh sure. 
Sure. 

173
00:08:46,600 --> 00:08:50,200
Excellent points there. 
My God, my next follow fallacy. 

174
00:08:50,200 --> 00:08:54,300
Sorry is referred to as avoiding
the root and this occurs. 

175
00:08:54,300 --> 00:08:58,300
When the argue our critiques, an
arbitrary accidental or trivial 

176
00:08:58,300 --> 00:09:01,900
aspect of an argument in place 
of addressing the primary 

177
00:09:01,900 --> 00:09:04,200
concern. 
So when Bill Ayers is on the 

178
00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:07,900
Alex Jones, Show, and Alex Jones
says, hey, you know, maybe we 

179
00:09:07,900 --> 00:09:11,100
shouldn't give, you know, this 
group of people so much power. 

180
00:09:11,100 --> 00:09:14,400
Look, here's a picture of the 
OSS funding, Ho, Chi Minh. 

181
00:09:14,900 --> 00:09:17,600
Painting them excetera, you 
know, maybe we should be 

182
00:09:17,600 --> 00:09:20,100
anti-government. 
He's skeptical and Bill Ayers 

183
00:09:20,100 --> 00:09:22,600
responses. 
So so you don't like roads. 

184
00:09:22,900 --> 00:09:26,900
Well, obviously that is not what
he's trying to address in his 

185
00:09:27,100 --> 00:09:29,000
criticism. 
This all this always comes 

186
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:30,700
across, you. 
You don't like the CIA. 

187
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:32,800
What's wrong with collecting 
information? 

188
00:09:33,100 --> 00:09:35,800
Collecting information is not 
the problem. 

189
00:09:35,800 --> 00:09:39,000
With the Central Intelligence 
Agency one, their coercively 

190
00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:42,000
funded to they get away with 
mass murder. 

191
00:09:42,700 --> 00:09:46,300
Another great example is. 
Whenever you say yeah, I don't 

192
00:09:46,300 --> 00:09:49,200
think the state should be 
involved in funding schools in 

193
00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:51,300
the same way. 
You know, I don't believe that 

194
00:09:51,300 --> 00:09:54,000
you should be forced to fund the
Catholic Church, even though a 

195
00:09:54,000 --> 00:09:56,300
lot of priests have some great 
teachings. 

196
00:09:56,300 --> 00:09:58,400
A lot of great. 
Rabbis have some great 

197
00:09:58,400 --> 00:10:00,700
teachings, but I don't think you
should be forced to fund them 

198
00:10:00,800 --> 00:10:02,900
just like I don't think you 
should be forced to fund State 

199
00:10:02,900 --> 00:10:05,800
schools. 
You're always met with so you 

200
00:10:05,800 --> 00:10:10,300
don't care about education. 
No, I got like 400 videos trying

201
00:10:10,300 --> 00:10:13,600
to educate people for free and 
these people are asking me. 

202
00:10:13,800 --> 00:10:15,500
Oh, you don't like it. 
Occasion. 

203
00:10:15,700 --> 00:10:18,500
Or if you say I don't think 
people should be kidnapped for 

204
00:10:18,500 --> 00:10:21,000
victimless crimes. 
Oh, so you just want everyone to

205
00:10:21,000 --> 00:10:23,000
be a prostitute. 
You just want everyone to use 

206
00:10:23,000 --> 00:10:24,900
drugs. 
Well, of course not. 

207
00:10:24,900 --> 00:10:28,100
No, I'm saying it's wrong to 
initiate violence against 

208
00:10:28,100 --> 00:10:31,600
peaceful people and the other 
person is avoiding the root 

209
00:10:31,800 --> 00:10:36,500
concern that I'm trying to 
address by by mentioning 

210
00:10:36,500 --> 00:10:37,700
something. 
So ridiculous. 

211
00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:41,300
The most obvious example is 
Russell Brand saying, you know, 

212
00:10:41,300 --> 00:10:44,500
communism and socialism are just
really words for sharing. 

213
00:10:44,900 --> 00:10:48,500
No, sharing can exist under any 
society when someone gives 

214
00:10:48,500 --> 00:10:51,500
someone something, what makes 
socialism unique is the 

215
00:10:51,500 --> 00:10:54,100
institutionalized aggression 
against private property and 

216
00:10:54,100 --> 00:10:56,700
individuals. 
So avoiding the root is, when I 

217
00:10:56,700 --> 00:10:58,900
see all the time. 
That's why I thought it would be

218
00:10:58,900 --> 00:11:02,300
of value to mention. 
Hey, James, what's next for us? 

219
00:11:02,300 --> 00:11:03,500
Yeah. 
Well, thank you for that. 

220
00:11:03,500 --> 00:11:06,500
And yeah, just another word for 
sharing. 

221
00:11:06,500 --> 00:11:09,900
That's hilarious. 
Here's a theorem for you. 

222
00:11:10,300 --> 00:11:14,700
People's adherence to socialist 
ideology is in exact inverse. 

223
00:11:14,900 --> 00:11:17,400
Listen to their understanding of
what socialism is. 

224
00:11:19,600 --> 00:11:22,100
And I, that's that's something 
I've encountered throughout my 

225
00:11:22,100 --> 00:11:24,500
life. 
Anyway, all right, that's a very

226
00:11:24,500 --> 00:11:27,600
good point. 
Well, let me approach another 

227
00:11:27,600 --> 00:11:30,700
fallacy that I see employed all 
the time and that I will say, 

228
00:11:30,700 --> 00:11:33,400
Mia culpa. 
I do use this from time to time 

229
00:11:33,700 --> 00:11:37,800
when I should be checking 
checking what I'm saying, and 

230
00:11:37,800 --> 00:11:39,800
certainly not putting it forward
as an argument. 

231
00:11:39,900 --> 00:11:43,200
This is the genetic fallacy. 
Essentially, this fallacy. 

232
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:46,500
Is that? 
Because this This Source said 

233
00:11:46,500 --> 00:11:49,700
that this particular thing, this
this information comes from this

234
00:11:49,800 --> 00:11:53,600
particular Source. 
Therefore it is to be trusted or

235
00:11:53,600 --> 00:11:57,600
it is not to be trusted and we 
can conclude, you know, okay. 

236
00:11:57,600 --> 00:12:00,500
So this is true because this 
Source, this Source said it. 

237
00:12:00,700 --> 00:12:04,300
And so the idea here is, for 
example, I'm sure you've had 

238
00:12:04,300 --> 00:12:06,000
this argument a million times 
with normies. 

239
00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:08,500
Yeah, but the New York Times 
says that the Russians 

240
00:12:08,500 --> 00:12:12,200
interfered with the election or 
something like that and you 

241
00:12:12,200 --> 00:12:14,100
could say, yeah, the New York 
Times. 

242
00:12:14,100 --> 00:12:15,400
Well, they're wrong. 
But everything. 

243
00:12:15,400 --> 00:12:18,000
So I guess we can conclude that 
the Russians didn't do it, of 

244
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:22,500
course, both of those are there 
kind of mirror image logical 

245
00:12:22,500 --> 00:12:25,300
fallacies because one is saying 
because the New York Times says 

246
00:12:25,300 --> 00:12:26,900
it, it must be true. 
And you're saying because the 

247
00:12:26,900 --> 00:12:28,400
New York Times, says it, it must
not be true. 

248
00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:31,800
Well, neither one is correct. 
Because, of course, the New York

249
00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:34,100
Times, does publish factual 
real? 

250
00:12:34,100 --> 00:12:38,200
True verifiable information. 
And it does post publish a lies 

251
00:12:38,300 --> 00:12:43,000
and slander and misinformation. 
So again, the onus is on the 

252
00:12:43,000 --> 00:12:45,400
person who is using that 
information to verify that 

253
00:12:45,400 --> 00:12:48,700
information and sometimes that's
impossible from a third-party 

254
00:12:48,700 --> 00:12:50,200
perspective. 
Sometimes you have to just throw

255
00:12:50,200 --> 00:12:52,600
your hands up and say well, I 
don't know, but they are 

256
00:12:52,600 --> 00:12:56,300
reporting this and that's fair 
enough and you are saying in 

257
00:12:56,300 --> 00:12:58,300
your premise there. 
Well, this may not be true. 

258
00:12:58,300 --> 00:13:00,100
But if it is true then blah blah
blah. 

259
00:13:00,300 --> 00:13:03,400
Okay, fair enough, that's one 
way to proceed but to dismiss 

260
00:13:03,400 --> 00:13:06,000
information or to accept 
information simply because of 

261
00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:08,700
the source of that information 
is, of course, a logical 

262
00:13:08,700 --> 00:13:10,900
fallacy. 
And as I say, I find myself 

263
00:13:10,900 --> 00:13:13,700
slipping into that, and I do 
employ that from time to time. 

264
00:13:13,700 --> 00:13:16,200
Oh, you know, the lying. 
Hours of the MSM said, blah, 

265
00:13:16,200 --> 00:13:18,300
blah, blah. 
Therefore it's not true. 

266
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:20,300
Again. 
That is a logical fallacy. 

267
00:13:20,300 --> 00:13:23,200
That is not a valid argument. 
We should not be lazy. 

268
00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:25,600
In actually putting that forward
as an argument. 

269
00:13:25,600 --> 00:13:28,100
If we are trying to argue in a 
logically coherent and 

270
00:13:28,100 --> 00:13:32,900
consistent way. 
Oh, yes, that is definitely a 

271
00:13:32,900 --> 00:13:36,000
common one. 
My next one is the logical 

272
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:41,100
fallacy of the golden middle. 
This one is so exhausting, just 

273
00:13:41,100 --> 00:13:43,600
because of how often you come 
across it, long story, short, it

274
00:13:43,600 --> 00:13:47,300
claims that, that which is true 
and moral is that which is a 

275
00:13:47,308 --> 00:13:49,700
middle ground between two given 
positions. 

276
00:13:50,100 --> 00:13:53,600
The problem is, is that so often
to of the given positions are 

277
00:13:53,600 --> 00:13:56,500
completely manipulated and 
unjustified in the first place. 

278
00:13:56,800 --> 00:14:00,600
It's the equivalent of saying. 
Well, there's the And then 

279
00:14:00,600 --> 00:14:03,100
there's the Republicans. 
We don't want to be on either 

280
00:14:03,100 --> 00:14:04,100
extreme. 
Therefore. 

281
00:14:04,100 --> 00:14:08,000
Let's meet in the middle this 
way everyone sort of gets what 

282
00:14:08,300 --> 00:14:09,900
what they want, and what they're
interested. 

283
00:14:09,900 --> 00:14:12,000
And that's probably the right 
thing to do. 

284
00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:15,900
I'm sorry. 
What Mitt Romney - Mitt Romney. 

285
00:14:15,900 --> 00:14:18,500
Yes, the the kind virtuous 
moderate. 

286
00:14:19,200 --> 00:14:21,900
So what we need to get rid of 
the extremists. 

287
00:14:21,900 --> 00:14:26,500
Well, calling a position extreme
is totally dependent on what 

288
00:14:26,500 --> 00:14:29,100
time. 
They're saying it, and why they 

289
00:14:29,100 --> 00:14:31,500
are saying it in. 
What geographical area? 

290
00:14:31,500 --> 00:14:35,700
They're saying it at what time? 
So of course the fact that 

291
00:14:35,700 --> 00:14:39,000
something is a middle ground 
between two terrible ideas. 

292
00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:42,500
It's the equivalent of me 
saying, I want to steal a 

293
00:14:42,500 --> 00:14:46,300
hundred dollars from Mark, you 
want to steal zero dollars from 

294
00:14:46,300 --> 00:14:48,600
Mark. 
So the right thing to do is to 

295
00:14:48,600 --> 00:14:51,500
steal 50 dollars from Mark, 
because you know, what, we don't

296
00:14:51,500 --> 00:14:53,500
want, either of us to win. 
We kind of want to find a 

297
00:14:53,508 --> 00:14:56,500
middle. 
Ground compromise is the essence

298
00:14:56,500 --> 00:14:58,800
of that which is right. 
It's that which is virtuous, 

299
00:14:59,100 --> 00:15:02,200
they constantly. 
Do this so they'll just have 

300
00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:05,100
George Bush running against John
Kerry. 

301
00:15:05,400 --> 00:15:07,800
Just debating. 
How many troops should be in 

302
00:15:07,800 --> 00:15:09,000
Iraq? 
No, no. 

303
00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:12,600
No, is it okay to invade a 
country and kill civilians while

304
00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:14,400
coercively funding the 
operation? 

305
00:15:14,500 --> 00:15:18,000
Classifying all the documents. 
That's the primary issue here 

306
00:15:18,300 --> 00:15:22,000
not what is the technicality 
Carrie at one point proposed 

307
00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:24,300
sending forty thousand more 
troops to Iraq. 

308
00:15:24,400 --> 00:15:28,600
It's such a joke. 
Yeah, so they'll call you a gun 

309
00:15:28,600 --> 00:15:30,800
extremist. 
If you If the state shouldn't 

310
00:15:30,800 --> 00:15:33,800
have a monopoly on gun, 
something totally ridiculous, or

311
00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:35,900
they call you far, right? 
Or the far left. 

312
00:15:35,900 --> 00:15:37,900
You don't believe in 
intellectual property. 

313
00:15:37,900 --> 00:15:41,000
You don't believe ideas can be 
owned your far left. 

314
00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:43,900
You know, you don't believe the 
state should monopolize Weaponry

315
00:15:43,900 --> 00:15:46,800
your far, right? 
It's just so ridiculous. 

316
00:15:46,800 --> 00:15:51,500
That's why the fallacy of the 
golden middle is so dangerous. 

317
00:15:51,700 --> 00:15:52,900
James. 
What's our next one? 

318
00:15:53,300 --> 00:15:55,800
Excellent point and let me just 
say I would remind you that 

319
00:15:55,800 --> 00:15:59,000
extremism in the defense of 
virtue of Liberty is no Vice and

320
00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:01,600
let me remind you all. 
The moderation in the pursuit of

321
00:16:01,600 --> 00:16:04,300
justice is no virtue. 
Of course, Barry Goldwater from 

322
00:16:04,300 --> 00:16:08,800
his 1964 Republican presidential
candidate, acceptance speech and

323
00:16:09,300 --> 00:16:12,600
very true words. 
So yes, let's avoid the golden 

324
00:16:12,600 --> 00:16:17,100
middle fallacy. 
My next fallacy is moving the 

325
00:16:17,100 --> 00:16:20,500
goal posts, which is when you 
make an argument and you 

326
00:16:20,508 --> 00:16:23,700
establish that if such and such 
a condition is met, then this 

327
00:16:24,100 --> 00:16:26,800
but then that condition is not 
met and so you say well, that's 

328
00:16:26,800 --> 00:16:30,300
okay because we let's change the
the argument and oh no, Now it's

329
00:16:30,300 --> 00:16:34,100
okay again. 
Now the very specific example 

330
00:16:34,100 --> 00:16:37,500
that immediately leaps to mind 
with so many of these types of 

331
00:16:37,500 --> 00:16:39,000
argument that fellas. 
He's actually. 

332
00:16:39,000 --> 00:16:41,400
But specifically with moving, 
the goalposts is, of course, 

333
00:16:41,800 --> 00:16:44,400
global warming up. 
Oh wait, no, not global warming 

334
00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:47,800
climate change. 
No, not climate change, climate 

335
00:16:47,800 --> 00:16:49,000
weirding. 
Sorry. 

336
00:16:49,000 --> 00:16:50,800
Wait know. 
What's what are they calling it 

337
00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:52,500
this week? 
Oh, that's right, because they 

338
00:16:52,500 --> 00:16:56,800
keep moving the goal posts. 
Oh, it was fairly 

339
00:16:56,800 --> 00:16:59,000
straightforward as it was 
presented to the world in the 

340
00:16:59,000 --> 00:17:01,700
1980s. 
Global average temperature is 

341
00:17:01,700 --> 00:17:03,800
rising. 
This will lead to warmer Summers

342
00:17:03,800 --> 00:17:06,200
and warm warmer Winters. 
There will be less. 

343
00:17:06,500 --> 00:17:09,000
They're less ice. 
Let us know in the in the 

344
00:17:09,000 --> 00:17:11,000
winters and blah blah blah, etc,
etc. 

345
00:17:11,000 --> 00:17:12,500
But that of course, didn't pan 
out. 

346
00:17:12,500 --> 00:17:13,800
So, of course, it starts to 
change. 

347
00:17:13,800 --> 00:17:15,099
Well. 
No, I mean it means that there 

348
00:17:15,099 --> 00:17:18,900
will be climate variations, that
there will be just change. 

349
00:17:18,900 --> 00:17:23,300
That will be change in climate 
and, oh, well, okay, so it's not

350
00:17:23,300 --> 00:17:25,099
changing enough. 
Well, alright, then climate 

351
00:17:25,099 --> 00:17:27,700
weirding. 
It's it's slightly strange this 

352
00:17:27,700 --> 00:17:28,900
week. 
So we'll call it climate 

353
00:17:28,900 --> 00:17:31,800
weirding. 
Again, people can see the goal 

354
00:17:31,800 --> 00:17:35,300
posts have been moved over and 
over and over with regards to 

355
00:17:35,300 --> 00:17:36,400
Global. 
Well. 

356
00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:38,100
Again, what do you call it? 
Climate change. 

357
00:17:38,100 --> 00:17:41,100
I guess is probably the one most
people know it as and that's 

358
00:17:41,100 --> 00:17:44,400
something that I pointed out in 
many different aspects including

359
00:17:45,400 --> 00:17:47,500
video that I don't have queued 
up. 

360
00:17:47,500 --> 00:17:49,300
So I don't remember the exact 
title. 

361
00:17:50,700 --> 00:17:55,100
I believe it was global warming 
is unfalsifiable 

362
00:17:55,100 --> 00:17:56,300
pseudo-scientific. 
Whoo. 

363
00:17:56,300 --> 00:17:58,200
Whoo. 
Something like that. 

364
00:17:58,300 --> 00:18:00,400
I'll put the link in the show 
notes in case you See that. 

365
00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:04,800
But that gives a good example of
how the arguments in favor of 

366
00:18:04,800 --> 00:18:06,800
global warming. 
The things the predictions have 

367
00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:11,800
been at times flatly 
contradictory, absolutely 

368
00:18:11,800 --> 00:18:14,100
contradicting each other. 
This will lead to rising sea 

369
00:18:14,100 --> 00:18:15,500
level. 
This will lead to lowering sea 

370
00:18:15,500 --> 00:18:17,000
level. 
This will lead to more droughts.

371
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:19,300
This will lead to more floods. 
This will lead to more of snow. 

372
00:18:19,300 --> 00:18:21,800
This will need two lists know. 
This will lead to Dart read or 

373
00:18:21,800 --> 00:18:23,900
leaves in the winter. 
This will lead to a lot lighter 

374
00:18:23,900 --> 00:18:28,100
leaves and and blah blah, blah. 
As I say it's documented in that

375
00:18:28,100 --> 00:18:29,700
particular video that I did 
wear. 

376
00:18:30,600 --> 00:18:33,200
Essentially is unfalsifiable. 
And that's again. 

377
00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:35,600
I that's, that's an aspect of 
this moving the goalposts. 

378
00:18:35,600 --> 00:18:38,300
Although, this crosses over into
a few different ft Fela Seas. 

379
00:18:39,900 --> 00:18:42,900
Oh, yeah, to Tony Heller and Jan
hell. 

380
00:18:42,900 --> 00:18:47,000
Felled have done so much, great 
work on the climate change hoax,

381
00:18:47,000 --> 00:18:49,700
how it's gone from cooling, to 
global warming, to climate 

382
00:18:49,700 --> 00:18:53,100
change to something so, vague 
and unfalsifiable. 

383
00:18:53,200 --> 00:18:56,200
Like, we've gone from an ice 
age, to not an Ice Age over 

384
00:18:56,200 --> 00:18:58,200
time. 
Okay, that's global warming. 

385
00:18:58,800 --> 00:19:00,900
That that was an excellent 
point. 

386
00:19:01,000 --> 00:19:02,900
I almost feel bad. 
Introducing my next one. 

387
00:19:03,500 --> 00:19:08,100
So that my next fallacies, the 
fallacy of non anticipation, it 

388
00:19:08,100 --> 00:19:11,800
consists of supposing that Worth
doing or saying, has already 

389
00:19:11,800 --> 00:19:15,600
been done or said any? 
New idea is rejected on grounds 

390
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:19,100
that if it were any good, it 
would be part of current wisdom,

391
00:19:19,800 --> 00:19:24,600
the way I get this all the time,
as 0, if x were true, don't you 

392
00:19:24,600 --> 00:19:28,200
think we would know about it? 
It's like, first of all, a lot 

393
00:19:28,200 --> 00:19:32,300
of stuff is true and it's just 
not part of popular mainstream 

394
00:19:32,300 --> 00:19:34,200
culture. 
It's like what I always ask 

395
00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:36,400
people is, if they've read the 
intimate papers of Colonel 

396
00:19:36,400 --> 00:19:40,100
house, you know, maybe page 432 
regarding the Lucinda. 

397
00:19:40,100 --> 00:19:42,900
India, I don't know. 
And then and then they're just 

398
00:19:42,900 --> 00:19:45,200
have this look on their face or 
I asked him about the McCullen 

399
00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:47,400
memo. 
That is a it's amazing that when

400
00:19:47,400 --> 00:19:50,100
people say if it were true it 
would have gotten out. 

401
00:19:50,100 --> 00:19:53,200
I mean, yeah, we have General 
Michael Flynn on al-jazeera. 

402
00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:54,800
Pretty much saying that yeah, 
the u.s. 

403
00:19:54,800 --> 00:19:58,300
Funded al-Qaeda in 2011, to 
fight Assad. 

404
00:19:59,000 --> 00:20:02,400
If it were true. 
It would be out is not an actual

405
00:20:02,400 --> 00:20:05,900
response. 
To what the argue are is saying 

406
00:20:05,900 --> 00:20:09,000
another time we get this as 
well, if applying the 

407
00:20:09,000 --> 00:20:11,200
non-aggression. 
In principle consistently was 

408
00:20:11,200 --> 00:20:14,000
such a good idea. 
Why hasn't any society done. 

409
00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:17,200
So well because people value 
initiating aggression against 

410
00:20:17,200 --> 00:20:19,300
peaceful people and they don't 
value admitting. 

411
00:20:19,300 --> 00:20:22,700
They've been wrong for the 
previous whatever number of 

412
00:20:22,700 --> 00:20:26,500
years they've been alive. 
It's not a valid argument. 

413
00:20:26,500 --> 00:20:29,600
It's often used when people 
can't argue against new ideas. 

414
00:20:30,000 --> 00:20:33,400
It is The Logical extension of 
saying. 

415
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:36,700
Well if that song movie or 
invention was worthwhile. 

416
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:40,200
It would have been. 
It would have a one already. 

417
00:20:40,200 --> 00:20:42,400
It would have come to fruition 
already. 

418
00:20:42,400 --> 00:20:46,600
So nothing new is ever good. 
It's just a defense of the 

419
00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:50,800
statist illogical irrational, 
status quo. 

420
00:20:51,200 --> 00:20:55,600
Progress happens in philosophy 
just as it happens in inventions

421
00:20:55,600 --> 00:20:59,400
and any other format that human 
beings interact. 

422
00:21:01,100 --> 00:21:04,700
Yeah, it's a very good point and
interestingly brings to my mind.

423
00:21:04,700 --> 00:21:08,200
The obverse, which is something 
to the effect of. 

424
00:21:08,200 --> 00:21:11,500
Well, this isn't new. 
We already knew this 

425
00:21:11,500 --> 00:21:13,200
information. 
Therefore does not important. 

426
00:21:13,200 --> 00:21:16,600
I'm not sure that necessarily 
qualifies as a fallacy, but it 

427
00:21:16,600 --> 00:21:20,500
is certainly a disinformation 
tactic that people, I think 

428
00:21:20,500 --> 00:21:23,900
unwittingly a lot of the time 
employee when you report some 

429
00:21:23,900 --> 00:21:26,000
information about some 
government spying program or 

430
00:21:26,008 --> 00:21:27,500
something. 
Yeah, but we already knew they 

431
00:21:27,500 --> 00:21:29,400
were spying on us, so it doesn't
matter. 

432
00:21:29,700 --> 00:21:32,400
Well, no, actually, it does 
matter to know the details of 

433
00:21:32,400 --> 00:21:35,500
various things and it is a 
disinformation tactic to try to 

434
00:21:35,500 --> 00:21:37,900
sweep things under the rug by 
simply saying it's not new. 

435
00:21:38,400 --> 00:21:40,300
And as you say that, of course, 
is a fallacy. 

436
00:21:40,300 --> 00:21:44,000
When you say, well, it is, if it
if it was worth anything, it 

437
00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:46,000
would have already been here. 
We would have already known 

438
00:21:46,000 --> 00:21:48,100
about it. 
We would have already tried it. 

439
00:21:48,300 --> 00:21:51,500
Okay. 
Well, my next fallacy, actually,

440
00:21:51,500 --> 00:21:55,700
my next thing is an example and 
I think there are a few 

441
00:21:55,700 --> 00:21:59,300
different ways that you could 
parse this for fallacies. 

442
00:21:59,300 --> 00:22:03,000
I mean, Clearly a fallacious 
argument, but which type of 

443
00:22:03,000 --> 00:22:05,200
fallacious argument. 
I think is up for some degree of

444
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:07,300
debate. 
And I want to use this as an 

445
00:22:07,300 --> 00:22:12,300
example to show, that it is not 
always clear, cut and dry 

446
00:22:12,500 --> 00:22:17,400
exactly what the argument is, 
because no one speaks in logical

447
00:22:17,400 --> 00:22:21,700
syllogisms or anything, you 
know, all men are animals are, 

448
00:22:21,700 --> 00:22:24,600
all men are mammals and, you 
know, Socrates is a mammal there

449
00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:27,300
for him, whatever, you know, 
those types of logical. 

450
00:22:27,300 --> 00:22:29,100
Silica. 
No one speaks like that, they 

451
00:22:29,100 --> 00:22:31,300
speak. 
In natural language, that has 

452
00:22:31,300 --> 00:22:34,800
often implied premises, and 
you're supposed to infer various

453
00:22:34,800 --> 00:22:36,400
things and you come to a 
conclusion. 

454
00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:39,000
But sometimes even the 
conclusion isn't plainly stated.

455
00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:42,700
So my example comes from, I've 
mentioned this several times 

456
00:22:42,700 --> 00:22:47,400
because it's still astounds me 
how ridiculous this is, 

457
00:22:47,500 --> 00:22:52,600
especially coming from Michael 
Shermer, who, of course wrote, 

458
00:22:52,700 --> 00:22:56,200
as we've talked about before, 
why people believe weird things 

459
00:22:56,200 --> 00:22:59,600
and he's the guy who's written 
entire book. 

460
00:22:59,800 --> 00:23:02,500
About logically fallacious 
arguments and things like this 

461
00:23:02,800 --> 00:23:06,000
and yet has employed the 
stupidest argument. 

462
00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:10,800
I have ever seen to uphold the 
findings of the Warren 

463
00:23:10,800 --> 00:23:13,500
Commission in the JFK 
assassination, that comes from 

464
00:23:13,500 --> 00:23:16,700
an article that was originally 
published back in 2010. 

465
00:23:17,600 --> 00:23:23,200
It's up on HuffPost.com my day 
in Dealey Plaza why JFK was 

466
00:23:23,200 --> 00:23:27,000
killed by a lone assassin. 
So that is what he setting out 

467
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:29,300
to prove. 
JFK was killed by a lone 

468
00:23:29,300 --> 00:23:31,200
assassin. 
Essen and yes, of course, he's 

469
00:23:31,200 --> 00:23:33,000
going to say it was Lee Harvey 
Oswald. 

470
00:23:33,200 --> 00:23:36,800
So here's his argument on 
Tuesday, December 7th. 

471
00:23:36,800 --> 00:23:38,500
I walked through and around 
Dealey Plaza. 

472
00:23:38,500 --> 00:23:41,500
In Dallas, where JFK was 
assassinated by a lone assassin,

473
00:23:41,500 --> 00:23:45,900
Lee Harvey Oswald, lho or was he
a lone assassin? 

474
00:23:45,900 --> 00:23:48,800
That is, yes, he was, but that 
is not what? 

475
00:23:48,800 --> 00:23:51,100
Anyone giving informal tours of 
the plaza will? 

476
00:23:51,100 --> 00:23:53,100
Have you believe if you give 
them a few minutes and a few 

477
00:23:53,100 --> 00:23:56,000
bucks blah blah blah. 
He goes around talking about the

478
00:23:56,000 --> 00:23:58,100
crazy conspiracy people handing 
out flyers. 

479
00:23:58,100 --> 00:24:01,300
He talks about, you know, the 
Various aspects of Dealey Plaza 

480
00:24:01,300 --> 00:24:04,100
being there in person, but then 
he says the most striking thing 

481
00:24:04,100 --> 00:24:07,400
about being in Dealey Plaza for 
me was how small it is. 

482
00:24:07,900 --> 00:24:10,300
Perhaps because the 
assassination itself was bigger 

483
00:24:10,300 --> 00:24:13,000
than life. 
We expect the geography to match

484
00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:14,900
the eventuality, but that is 
certainly not the case. 

485
00:24:14,900 --> 00:24:18,400
Here, two x's on the street 
Marc, where JFK was hit first in

486
00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:21,300
the throat causing his arms to 
move up in splay out and S where

487
00:24:21,300 --> 00:24:23,900
the bullet found its cranial 
Mark and let literally blew his 

488
00:24:23,900 --> 00:24:26,500
brains out. 
And according to one conspiracy 

489
00:24:26,500 --> 00:24:29,500
that conspiracies, there sent 
the skullcap flying across the 

490
00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:33,500
Eat and onto the adjacent Lon. 
What is astounding is, how close

491
00:24:33,500 --> 00:24:36,800
both X's are to the snipers 
next? 

492
00:24:36,900 --> 00:24:39,700
I think that's a typo sniper's 
nest in The Book Depository 

493
00:24:39,700 --> 00:24:42,200
building, both from the street 
level looking up. 

494
00:24:42,200 --> 00:24:43,800
And from the window looking 
down. 

495
00:24:43,800 --> 00:24:45,900
There is a museum on the sixth 
floor from which you can gain 

496
00:24:45,900 --> 00:24:49,400
the perspective of the Assassin.
It seems clear that Oswald could

497
00:24:49,400 --> 00:24:52,800
hardly have missed given the 
fact that he was a designated 

498
00:24:52,800 --> 00:24:55,200
Sharpshooter by the Marines 
during his time, in the service 

499
00:24:55,500 --> 00:24:57,900
and the fact that Kennedy's car 
was traveling less than 10 miles

500
00:24:57,900 --> 00:24:59,500
per hour after making the sharp 
left. 

501
00:24:59,700 --> 00:25:02,900
Onto Elm Street, one is left 
Whispering under one's breath. 

502
00:25:03,100 --> 00:25:06,800
Kennedy was a Sitting Duck. 
Look at the two photographs, at 

503
00:25:06,800 --> 00:25:09,200
the end of this post. 
Each taken from one of the x's 

504
00:25:09,200 --> 00:25:12,200
on the street, the window from 
which Oswald fired is the square

505
00:25:12,200 --> 00:25:13,900
window on the far. 
Right of the building second 

506
00:25:13,900 --> 00:25:17,300
from the top. 
Is it really necessary to invent

507
00:25:17,300 --> 00:25:19,800
additional assassins when it is 
obvious. 

508
00:25:19,800 --> 00:25:21,700
That one could have done the 
job. 

509
00:25:22,100 --> 00:25:30,000
No, lho acted alone in killing 
JFK QED, which is that Is the 

510
00:25:30,000 --> 00:25:33,800
argument that is the stupidest 
most logically fallacious 

511
00:25:33,800 --> 00:25:35,900
argument. 
I have ever encountered let 

512
00:25:35,900 --> 00:25:39,200
alone by the self-proclaimed 
King of the Skeptics who's going

513
00:25:39,200 --> 00:25:42,700
to tell you about logically 
fallacious reasoning and it is 

514
00:25:42,700 --> 00:25:47,700
so logically fallacious and I 
can't really decide which 

515
00:25:47,700 --> 00:25:50,900
logical fallacy. 
I would pin this down to I think

516
00:25:50,900 --> 00:25:53,700
personal incredulity has 
something to do with it. 

517
00:25:53,700 --> 00:25:58,100
For example, the idea that I 
cannot understand or I cannot 

518
00:25:58,100 --> 00:26:01,500
believe that Happened. 
Therefore, it didn't happen. 

519
00:26:01,700 --> 00:26:04,000
In this case. 
I can't understand or believe 

520
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:05,900
how this could be a conspiracy. 
Therefore. 

521
00:26:05,900 --> 00:26:08,200
It isn't a conspiracy, but that 
doesn't seem to capture the 

522
00:26:08,200 --> 00:26:10,100
essence of schirmer's argument 
here. 

523
00:26:10,300 --> 00:26:13,200
Perhaps it's jumping to 
conclusions, which he clearly is

524
00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:18,500
doing or over simplification or 
this may be an either or type of

525
00:26:18,500 --> 00:26:23,400
argument where either the X. 
The x is on the street are close

526
00:26:23,400 --> 00:26:27,900
enough to The sniper's Nest or 
Lee Harvey, Oswald didn't kill 

527
00:26:27,900 --> 00:26:29,500
JFK or something like that, 
which of course. 

528
00:26:29,600 --> 00:26:34,100
This is a false dilemma or it's 
the simple truth fallacy. 

529
00:26:34,100 --> 00:26:37,400
Sometimes called the plain truth
fallacy that the truth must be 

530
00:26:37,400 --> 00:26:39,600
simple. 
Must be the simplest possible 

531
00:26:39,600 --> 00:26:42,000
explanation and the simplest 
possible explanation. 

532
00:26:42,000 --> 00:26:45,900
Is that we have real Oswald did 
it therefore he did it? 

533
00:26:46,000 --> 00:26:48,800
Which of course, I mean, all of 
these and whatever way you 

534
00:26:49,000 --> 00:26:52,300
choose to frame that argument it
is, it is clearly fallacious. 

535
00:26:52,500 --> 00:26:54,600
I could even almost call it a 
non-sequitur. 

536
00:26:55,500 --> 00:26:58,600
I mean, the the window is not 
far from the X. 

537
00:26:58,600 --> 00:27:01,000
Therefore Lee Harvey. 
Oswald killed JFK alone. 

538
00:27:02,200 --> 00:27:05,200
There's just so many things 
missing from that line of 

539
00:27:05,200 --> 00:27:07,400
argumentation that. 
How do you even do? 

540
00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:10,800
I'm not even sure you can call 
it a logical argument at any 

541
00:27:10,800 --> 00:27:12,000
rate. 
It is fallacious. 

542
00:27:13,200 --> 00:27:15,400
Oh, schirmer's, an absolute 
nightmare. 

543
00:27:15,800 --> 00:27:18,600
My Maya. 
Oh, I'm sorry. 

544
00:27:18,800 --> 00:27:19,900
Did you have any more? 
No. 

545
00:27:19,900 --> 00:27:22,800
No, that was it. 
I just I wholeheartedly agree 

546
00:27:22,800 --> 00:27:25,100
that nightmare was a good word 
for them. 

547
00:27:26,100 --> 00:27:30,300
My, my final one is 
unattainable, perfection. 

548
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:36,200
This is when someone says any 
imperfections in your claim 

549
00:27:36,200 --> 00:27:38,900
argument? 
Theory are grounds for total 

550
00:27:38,900 --> 00:27:42,700
dismissal, another words, you 
tell me exactly what happened. 

551
00:27:43,000 --> 00:27:48,100
On 9/11 with all individuals 
involved and institutions or the

552
00:27:48,100 --> 00:27:50,600
official story is true. 
It's like they've had the same 

553
00:27:50,600 --> 00:27:51,800
Source since day. 
One. 

554
00:27:51,800 --> 00:27:54,700
And nothing really has. 
Nothing else has come to 

555
00:27:54,700 --> 00:27:58,100
fruition, really. 
So any questions about this 

556
00:27:58,100 --> 00:28:00,800
says? 
So you tell me, ask you, give me

557
00:28:00,800 --> 00:28:05,600
a source, questioning 911. 
That's 100% totally accurate and

558
00:28:05,600 --> 00:28:08,000
then I'll consider you. 
Well, of course, I can't give 

559
00:28:08,000 --> 00:28:12,100
you something 100% accurate, but
the problem is, is that's 

560
00:28:12,100 --> 00:28:14,300
unattainable. 
Well, it applies to every other 

561
00:28:14,300 --> 00:28:17,400
person or individual. 
It applies to a hood. 

562
00:28:17,500 --> 00:28:20,500
Barack who on day one said we 
know who's behind this. 

563
00:28:20,500 --> 00:28:23,200
We know it was Bin Laden. 
So yes, it applies to every 

564
00:28:23,200 --> 00:28:26,600
person and every organization. 
It's often seen when someone 

565
00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:30,800
says well, yeah person X said 
that but person X is biased 

566
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:33,400
name. 
One person or group of persons 

567
00:28:33,400 --> 00:28:36,300
who is not biased by choosing 
one topic over. 

568
00:28:36,300 --> 00:28:39,800
Another means you're biased 
towards one topic or another. 

569
00:28:39,900 --> 00:28:45,300
It's absolutely impossible 
because Um, long story short 

570
00:28:45,300 --> 00:28:49,900
even every alternative has the 
same flaws as what you point out

571
00:28:50,000 --> 00:28:53,100
in your argument against, 
whatever the argue. 

572
00:28:53,100 --> 00:28:55,400
Our is claiming. 
You'll often see this when 

573
00:28:55,400 --> 00:28:59,200
someone says, what is the 
guarantee that your Source or 

574
00:28:59,200 --> 00:29:03,000
your claim is 100% correct? 
What is the guarantee that in 

575
00:29:03,000 --> 00:29:06,600
the absence of a coercively 
funded Monopoly state that every

576
00:29:06,600 --> 00:29:12,700
judge will give a fair trial. 
Well, there is no guarantee in a

577
00:29:12,800 --> 00:29:15,600
A volunteer Society also, 
there's no guarantee. 

578
00:29:15,600 --> 00:29:18,300
Now, they cage people for 
victimless crimes Edward 

579
00:29:18,300 --> 00:29:20,300
Snowden. 
So obviously knows he can't get 

580
00:29:20,300 --> 00:29:23,700
a fair deal that he's just 
staying oversees, the guy who 

581
00:29:23,700 --> 00:29:27,800
blew the drone on who blew the 
whistle on the Drone project is 

582
00:29:27,800 --> 00:29:30,500
getting a terrible deal now, so 
of course when it always 

583
00:29:30,500 --> 00:29:34,200
applies, but they say no it 
uniquely applies to your 

584
00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:36,200
position. 
It's an absolute logical 

585
00:29:36,200 --> 00:29:39,300
fallacy. 
You see this today, you know, if

586
00:29:39,300 --> 00:29:41,500
the u.s. 
Leave Syria, bad things might 

587
00:29:41,500 --> 00:29:44,700
happen in Syria. 
Well, bad things also happened 

588
00:29:44,800 --> 00:29:48,700
when the u.s. 
Funded Isis in Syria and 

589
00:29:48,700 --> 00:29:50,300
Al-Qaeda. 
So if the u.s. 

590
00:29:50,300 --> 00:29:53,600
Leaves, our rack bad, things 
might happen in Iraq, if the FDA

591
00:29:53,600 --> 00:29:56,700
doesn't monopolize, giving 
permission to everything human 

592
00:29:56,700 --> 00:29:59,600
beings can consume bad. 
Things might happen, people 

593
00:29:59,600 --> 00:30:02,700
might fall ill and we'll people 
fall ill because they stop 

594
00:30:02,700 --> 00:30:05,300
things from coming forward 
because they have no incentive 

595
00:30:05,300 --> 00:30:08,500
to approve things that will make
the populace healthy because 

596
00:30:08,500 --> 00:30:10,600
they're coercively funded for 
heaven's sakes. 

597
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:14,900
So, again, the biggest one, In 
here is well, you know, if the 

598
00:30:14,900 --> 00:30:19,800
state doesn't monopolize AR-15s,
people might engage in violence.

599
00:30:20,500 --> 00:30:22,200
I'm sorry. 
Do governments engage in 

600
00:30:22,200 --> 00:30:25,600
violence against disarmed 
populace. 

601
00:30:25,600 --> 00:30:29,700
Has that ever happened? 
So unattainable Perfection or 

602
00:30:29,900 --> 00:30:34,000
the always applicable. 
Fallacy is a very important one.

603
00:30:34,300 --> 00:30:39,800
James you got any more ammo for 
us against the fallacious status

604
00:30:39,800 --> 00:30:42,100
and irrational? 
Michael shermer's of the world 

605
00:30:42,500 --> 00:30:43,500
night. 
Nice segue. 

606
00:30:43,500 --> 00:30:46,200
I see what you did there. 
No, let me just Echo that last 

607
00:30:46,200 --> 00:30:47,700
one. 
I think that is a very important

608
00:30:47,700 --> 00:30:49,900
one. 
Either you tell us how we will 

609
00:30:49,900 --> 00:30:53,300
completely eliminate all all 
problems in the world and make 

610
00:30:53,300 --> 00:30:56,600
everyone absolutely happy or we 
just have to go along with the 

611
00:30:56,600 --> 00:31:00,400
status quo is it is is such a 
such a stupid argument when you 

612
00:31:00,400 --> 00:31:03,700
break it down like that, but it 
is employed all the time, 

613
00:31:03,700 --> 00:31:07,900
especially by statist. 
So arguing for why we need the 

614
00:31:07,900 --> 00:31:11,400
government. 
You tell, you show me exactly 

615
00:31:11,400 --> 00:31:15,000
how every person In the world 
will be perfectly taken care of 

616
00:31:15,000 --> 00:31:17,900
without government, or we have 
to go with government. 

617
00:31:17,900 --> 00:31:20,300
Wait, is everyone in the world 
perfectly taken care of with 

618
00:31:20,300 --> 00:31:22,400
government? 
No, I don't think I don't think 

619
00:31:22,400 --> 00:31:23,700
so. 
So maybe there's a problem with 

620
00:31:23,700 --> 00:31:24,200
that. 
Are you? 

621
00:31:24,600 --> 00:31:27,500
Okay, excellent. 
And I think, I think that we 

622
00:31:27,500 --> 00:31:30,600
have demonstrated here even in 
the examples that we're talking 

623
00:31:30,600 --> 00:31:32,500
about. 
The fact that these lines 

624
00:31:32,500 --> 00:31:35,500
between different fallacies are 
not always so clear cut there 

625
00:31:35,500 --> 00:31:37,700
are there are very many examples
where you could say. 

626
00:31:37,700 --> 00:31:40,300
Well it is that type of fallacy.
Well, you could also say it's 

627
00:31:40,300 --> 00:31:43,200
that type of fallacy. 
There are subsets of Policies. 

628
00:31:43,200 --> 00:31:46,400
As I say there is no there is no
master list. 

629
00:31:46,400 --> 00:31:49,600
This is the list of fallacies 
and every fallacy will neatly 

630
00:31:49,600 --> 00:31:52,200
fit into one of these. 
Now there's there's overlap. 

631
00:31:52,200 --> 00:31:55,000
There's there's subsets. 
There's questions about what to 

632
00:31:55,000 --> 00:31:57,200
call this fallacy and how to 
label that one. 

633
00:31:57,200 --> 00:32:00,500
But at the end of the day, 
hopefully, at least people can 

634
00:32:00,500 --> 00:32:02,400
identify the fallacious 
arguments. 

635
00:32:02,400 --> 00:32:05,800
And as I say, we have different 
modes of communication where 

636
00:32:05,800 --> 00:32:06,800
we're trying to do different 
things. 

637
00:32:06,800 --> 00:32:11,400
We are not always trying to make
a logical argument to convince 

638
00:32:11,400 --> 00:32:15,500
someone of our And sometimes we 
are trying to make fun of 

639
00:32:15,500 --> 00:32:18,100
something to signal to our 
people who believe what we 

640
00:32:18,100 --> 00:32:20,800
believe that you know, this 
guy's being silly or whatever 

641
00:32:21,000 --> 00:32:23,600
and we're not always trying to 
make a logical argument. 

642
00:32:23,600 --> 00:32:27,300
But when we are, when we are 
trying to convince someone it is

643
00:32:27,300 --> 00:32:30,900
important to be able to identify
and remove logical fallacies 

644
00:32:30,900 --> 00:32:33,200
from our argument when and if 
possible. 

645
00:32:33,200 --> 00:32:35,700
And I think that's the point of 
this conversation and I hope we 

646
00:32:35,700 --> 00:32:38,100
did a job of at least 
stimulating that I would love to

647
00:32:38,100 --> 00:32:39,600
see some input from the people 
out. 

648
00:32:39,600 --> 00:32:41,900
There. 
Please contribute your ideas 

649
00:32:41,900 --> 00:32:45,100
what fallacy? 
Do you particularly enjoy? 

650
00:32:45,300 --> 00:32:47,300
Enjoy spotting or enjoy 
employing? 

651
00:32:47,500 --> 00:32:48,800
If you're trying to have been 
Boozled? 

652
00:32:48,800 --> 00:32:51,600
Someone, I don't know, but just 
give us some examples that you 

653
00:32:51,608 --> 00:32:54,300
see out there. 
There are no lack of examples of

654
00:32:54,300 --> 00:32:57,500
that in Daily discourse, 
unfortunately, so we'll keep 

655
00:32:57,600 --> 00:33:01,700
hammering at topics like this 
until we eliminate all logical 

656
00:33:01,700 --> 00:33:03,400
fallacies from the face of the 
planet, right? 

657
00:33:03,400 --> 00:33:05,400
Keith. 
Yes. 

658
00:33:05,500 --> 00:33:09,400
Yes, and and of course, I've 
also always my audience loves 

659
00:33:09,400 --> 00:33:12,600
when I play the gotcha, question
with James Corbett at the very 

660
00:33:12,700 --> 00:33:14,200
And I try to throw him a curve 
ball. 

661
00:33:14,400 --> 00:33:18,000
So my final question to you 
James, if you could interview 

662
00:33:18,300 --> 00:33:22,100
one historical person, no longer
living, who would it be? 

663
00:33:22,500 --> 00:33:24,600
And what would you talk to them 
about? 

664
00:33:24,900 --> 00:33:27,000
Wow, that is a good one. 
I like that. 

665
00:33:27,400 --> 00:33:29,600
I thought you were going to give
me the book question again, 

666
00:33:31,500 --> 00:33:33,900
please Kitt. 
Can you not insult me with being

667
00:33:33,900 --> 00:33:36,100
that unoriginal? 
Ha ha ha. 

668
00:33:36,700 --> 00:33:40,700
I just want to say by the way. 
I think you interviewed David 

669
00:33:40,700 --> 00:33:42,000
Friedman, right? 
And you asked him the book 

670
00:33:42,000 --> 00:33:44,400
question. 
His answer was the best question

671
00:33:44,400 --> 00:33:46,300
answer. 
Oh, no, his answer was a 

672
00:33:46,300 --> 00:33:48,500
non-answer different people 
want, but it was the best 

673
00:33:48,500 --> 00:33:50,700
answer. 
I, it cannot be answered. 

674
00:33:50,700 --> 00:33:53,300
So what I did was I plugged one 
of his dad's books and then I 

675
00:33:53,308 --> 00:33:55,900
met and then I knew that would 
ignite him to plug one. 

676
00:33:56,000 --> 00:33:58,600
So I got it. 
Getting him in the end. 

677
00:33:59,500 --> 00:34:01,200
All right? 
Okay, I'm not dodging the 

678
00:34:01,200 --> 00:34:02,800
question. 
Who would I interview if I can 

679
00:34:02,800 --> 00:34:05,000
interview? 
Absolutely any historical 

680
00:34:05,000 --> 00:34:07,400
figure? 
Oh man. 

681
00:34:07,400 --> 00:34:09,500
Oh man. 
Now you're putting me on the 

682
00:34:09,500 --> 00:34:12,600
spot because it can't just be 
anything it. 

683
00:34:12,699 --> 00:34:15,600
It has to be something really 
momentous portentous. 

684
00:34:15,600 --> 00:34:18,600
Something really important. 
Sure. 

685
00:34:18,600 --> 00:34:21,400
How about the historical figure 
Jesus of Nazareth. 

686
00:34:21,400 --> 00:34:23,000
Nazareth? 
That would be an interesting 

687
00:34:23,000 --> 00:34:24,300
interview. 
Don't you think? 

688
00:34:25,000 --> 00:34:27,699
Yes. 
Yes, it would finally answer 

689
00:34:27,699 --> 00:34:32,400
some questions and the two sides
of my family need more to fight 

690
00:34:32,400 --> 00:34:36,900
about so yeah that all right. 
Yeah. 

691
00:34:36,900 --> 00:34:39,400
Well, okay, let's go with that. 
I think that's as good an answer

692
00:34:39,400 --> 00:34:41,900
as any of you know, and then 
there will be people in the 

693
00:34:41,908 --> 00:34:45,400
audience of those a There was no
historical figures so, you know,

694
00:34:45,900 --> 00:34:48,100
but anyway, assuming there was 
an historical figure. 

695
00:34:48,100 --> 00:34:50,000
Yes, sir. 
I need to read Jesus. 

696
00:34:52,199 --> 00:34:54,900
Excellent. 
Well, James, thanks so much for 

697
00:34:55,100 --> 00:35:00,300
coming on and I thought I would 
do the quote at the end as I've 

698
00:35:00,300 --> 00:35:04,600
started to this is from Mo's. 
I a philosopher from the fifth 

699
00:35:04,600 --> 00:35:07,000
century before Christ. 
Allegedly. 

700
00:35:07,200 --> 00:35:10,400
The murder of one person is 
called unrighteous and encourage

701
00:35:10,400 --> 00:35:13,500
one death penalty for Following 
this argument. 

702
00:35:13,500 --> 00:35:17,800
The murder of ten persons will 
be ten times as unrighteous and 

703
00:35:18,000 --> 00:35:20,200
therefore should get 10 times. 
The death penalty. 

704
00:35:20,200 --> 00:35:24,400
The murder of 100 persons will 
be 100 times as unrighteous and 

705
00:35:24,400 --> 00:35:27,100
therefore should be 100 death 
penalties. 

706
00:35:27,300 --> 00:35:30,700
All Gentlemen of the world know 
that they should contempt 

707
00:35:30,700 --> 00:35:32,800
condemn. 
These things calling them 

708
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:36,700
unrighteous, but when it comes 
to the great unrighteousness of 

709
00:35:36,700 --> 00:35:40,600
States attacking States, they do
not know they should condemn it 

710
00:35:40,600 --> 00:35:44,800
on the contrary they applauded. 
Calling it righteous James. 

711
00:35:44,800 --> 00:35:46,600
Thanks so much for joining me on
Keith Knight. 

712
00:35:46,600 --> 00:35:48,600
Don't tread on anyone and thank 
you for watching. 

713
00:35:49,800 --> 00:35:51,000
Thank you. 
Always enjoy it. 

714
00:35:51,000 --> 00:35:51,900
Take care. 
Bye.