Welcome to Keith's night. Don't track down anyone.
Today. We're going to talk about
logical fallacies with James Corbett of the Corbett.
Report.com. Make sure to check out his video
WTC. 1993 was an FBI job at corbettreport.com., Check him
out a bit shoot for just one dollar a month.
You can fund, his excellent Archive of research.
James. Thank you so much for taking the
time to discuss. One of my favorite topics.
Thank you for having me on and thank you for plugging that
particular video which has got to be pushing what 11 years old.
Maybe 12 years old at this point that's digging deep in the
archives. Oh, yeah.
It's that. That's what first drew me in.
So I thought we discussed 10 fallacies.
Each of us would do five. So James start us off with one
of the fallacies you think is most important for us to know
about in order for us not to be manipulated by politicians
priest bosses and media. Like Exactly, even Independent
Media because you can employ these fallacies to so don't ever
turn the critical thinking switch off, but I actually
wanted to start this conversation because it is an
important conversation to have to be able to identify and name
logical fallacies. So, you know when someone is
making a fallacious argument so you can point that out.
But I want to start by Framing this conversation by talking
about the fallacy fallacy which for people who have never heard.
This is the idea that it Well, let's let's point out.
First of all, there are a million different sites where
you can get different lists of logical fallacies and often they
have different names for some of the same Concepts or some of the
same Concepts have slightly different definitions.
Everyone has a sort of their own debt.
There is no single Master list of logical fallacies.
So that's one of the issues you encounter when you start trying
to nail some of these down. But let's go for your your
logical fallacy is.com for the definition of the fallacy
fallacy, which is You presumed that because the claim has been
poorly argued or a fallacy has been made that the claim itself
must be wrong. And it says it is entirely
possible to make a clean that is false.
Yet argue with logical coherency for that claim just as it is
possible to make a clean. That is true and justify it with
various fallacious and poor arguments.
And I think this is an important fallacy in order to set the
table for this conversation. Because sometimes the impression
can be given That all you need to do is be able to identify.
Is this a logically valid claim or is this a logically
fallacious claim? And if it's, if there is a
logical fallacy, you just point out.
Oh look you made a fallacious argument.
Therefore you're wrong. Therefore.
Your conclusion is wrong. Therefore.
I'm right essentially. It's almost like a type of game
or a magic trick that you pull out of a bag when you're
debating someone, and that is in and of itself a fallacy just
because someone has employed a fallacy in their line of
thinking does not mean that their conclusion is wrong.
Wrong. Their conclusion could be
completely correct. They're just not making it valid
argument for that conclusion. So you have to go back to brass
tacks and figure out. Well, what is the argument that
can be made for this conclusion? So that's the way I want to
frame. What we're talking about today,
just being able to identify that.
If a claim an argument is valid or invalid is fallacious, or not
is not in and of itself, something that will arrive at
truth. All by itself.
Do you still need to actually construct a valid and coherent
argument based on? I would promise.
He's that follow one from another that lead to a valid
conclusion. And then you have to verify that
were those premises. Correct?
Is that conclusion? Correct?
There is no again. As I keep coming back to in so
much. My work.
There is no shortcut to truth. You have to go through the
critical thinking process and you have to interrogate every
assumption and just because of claim is fallacious, does not
mean that it's the conclusion is incorrect.
Oh, yes at excellent one. The first one that came to mind
was one that I'm Rand actually introduced me to called the
argument from intimidation. This is anything that shows
disapproval in one idea or another.
We see this a lot on social media when someone just
response. Ha ha, ha!
Good luck with that idea. Or how's that working for you?
Or someone just will respond with a gif or a sigh or they'll
say, you really don't think that do you or they'll oh, come on
your Part of that. And then that it's anything to
show disapproval. She says that it's a means of
for stalling debate, and extorting and opponents
agreement with one's undiscussed Notions.
It's a sense of psychological pressure.
So someone I heard George Bush on his discussion with Peter
Robbins, and say, only in a historical utopian.
Isolationist, could really think that we could leave the Middle
East. It's like, we're really of
anyone throwing stones at this guy in like the glassy House
that that has ever been created. You'll get this a lot when
you're asking for definitions. So when you say, okay, so before
we you know, criticize government corporation,
socialism capitalism, the free market, let's just Define our
terms of real. I'm not going to, you know, to
of course, I know what I'm talking about when I say,
socialism government capitalism free markets, like you won't get
them to really narrow down their focus.
It I really saw this. Oh, this really Pissed me off,
when Pam Anderson of all, people was talking to Meghan, McCain,
whose by the way, her father was a hero in case you haven't
heard. She said, when Pam Anderson was
saying, yeah, it's important that Julian Assange exposed.
These war crimes, Meghan, McCain, goes and Putin agrees.
The argument from intimidation is anything that shows
disapproval. It's anything that means to say.
Oh, but people won't like you. Oh, you're not par popular.
You're not part of the cool club and a thing like that is the
argument from intimidation and it is fallacious.
So, you're saying that posting a reaction GIF, or reaction image
of Picard doing the facepalm is not an adequate response to
someone's argument and is not an adequate response.
It's funny and it gets a lot of people to say.
Oh, well if I want to be cool and popular, oh this has 1000
likes but I guess it doesn't need addressing.
I can just oppose this without actually thinking yes, that
doesn't what I'm saying. Yeah.
Well again, it's also important to differentiate the types of
The people are engaging in and not everyone is always trying to
make a logical argument for what they believe again.
Sometimes you do just react with a reaction image or something
like that, but something. Yeah, but it is not an argument.
That's the important part. Okay.
My next one is the appeal to
Authority, which, of course, will be familiar to everyone in
the audience because everyone employees it all the time.
In debates endlessly, whether you are a conspiracy theorist or
conspiracy realist or not, you We'll have encountered this and
probably employed at yourself. I am no exception to this.
I have employed it before as well.
It is very tempting. It's very easy.
It's very lazy to do. Essentially the argument the
appeal to Authority is saying, well, this respected Source says
this information, therefore we must believe this conclusion,
which of course isn't fallacious, line of argument
just because a respected Source believes or said propounds.
A certain idea does not logically follow that.
Their Asians are correct. So for example, when we look at
the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings that they
collapse. The kind of three judges things,
doesn't it? The the demolition event of
World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11.
It did that building did not fall because dr.
Leroy. A whole sea, at the University
of Alaska, Fairbanks has a, you know, a lot of letters after his
name, and he's a respected professor of civil engineering.
No, it fell because of this. And this, and This in this
particular reason and we can say that the nist report was wrong
about this and they got this factually Incorrect and you can
go through hundreds of pages of documentation.
I believe there's now almost a terabyte of data that the uaf
team led by dr. Wolsey has released on their new
World, Trade Center, 7, collapse investigation.
If you haven't heard about that, please check into it.
I'll put the link in the show notes, but they've released all
this data and their report and it's open for public.
Comment, and all of this. That is what people should be
concentrating on not the fact that this respected professor at
this University Senate and vice versa, for all sides of argument
just because someone has credentials or letters, after
their name does not logically follow that, they are correct
about what they're speaking about.
Oh sure. Sure.
Excellent points there. My God, my next follow fallacy.
Sorry is referred to as avoiding the root and this occurs.
When the argue our critiques, an arbitrary accidental or trivial
aspect of an argument in place of addressing the primary
concern. So when Bill Ayers is on the
Alex Jones, Show, and Alex Jones says, hey, you know, maybe we
shouldn't give, you know, this group of people so much power.
Look, here's a picture of the OSS funding, Ho, Chi Minh.
Painting them excetera, you know, maybe we should be
anti-government. He's skeptical and Bill Ayers
responses. So so you don't like roads.
Well, obviously that is not what he's trying to address in his
criticism. This all this always comes
across, you. You don't like the CIA.
What's wrong with collecting information?
Collecting information is not the problem.
With the Central Intelligence Agency one, their coercively
funded to they get away with mass murder.
Another great example is. Whenever you say yeah, I don't
think the state should be involved in funding schools in
the same way. You know, I don't believe that
you should be forced to fund the Catholic Church, even though a
lot of priests have some great teachings.
A lot of great. Rabbis have some great
teachings, but I don't think you should be forced to fund them
just like I don't think you should be forced to fund State
schools. You're always met with so you
don't care about education. No, I got like 400 videos trying
to educate people for free and these people are asking me.
Oh, you don't like it. Occasion.
Or if you say I don't think people should be kidnapped for
victimless crimes. Oh, so you just want everyone to
be a prostitute. You just want everyone to use
drugs. Well, of course not.
No, I'm saying it's wrong to initiate violence against
peaceful people and the other person is avoiding the root
concern that I'm trying to address by by mentioning
something. So ridiculous.
The most obvious example is Russell Brand saying, you know,
communism and socialism are just really words for sharing.
No, sharing can exist under any society when someone gives
someone something, what makes socialism unique is the
institutionalized aggression against private property and
individuals. So avoiding the root is, when I
see all the time. That's why I thought it would be
of value to mention. Hey, James, what's next for us?
Yeah. Well, thank you for that.
And yeah, just another word for sharing.
That's hilarious. Here's a theorem for you.
People's adherence to socialist ideology is in exact inverse.
Listen to their understanding of what socialism is.
And I, that's that's something I've encountered throughout my
life. Anyway, all right, that's a very
good point. Well, let me approach another
fallacy that I see employed all the time and that I will say,
Mia culpa. I do use this from time to time
when I should be checking checking what I'm saying, and
certainly not putting it forward as an argument.
This is the genetic fallacy. Essentially, this fallacy.
Is that? Because this This Source said
that this particular thing, this this information comes from this
particular Source. Therefore it is to be trusted or
it is not to be trusted and we can conclude, you know, okay.
So this is true because this Source, this Source said it.
And so the idea here is, for example, I'm sure you've had
this argument a million times with normies.
Yeah, but the New York Times says that the Russians
interfered with the election or something like that and you
could say, yeah, the New York Times.
Well, they're wrong. But everything.
So I guess we can conclude that the Russians didn't do it, of
course, both of those are there kind of mirror image logical
fallacies because one is saying because the New York Times says
it, it must be true. And you're saying because the
New York Times, says it, it must not be true.
Well, neither one is correct. Because, of course, the New York
Times, does publish factual real?
True verifiable information. And it does post publish a lies
and slander and misinformation. So again, the onus is on the
person who is using that information to verify that
information and sometimes that's impossible from a third-party
perspective. Sometimes you have to just throw
your hands up and say well, I don't know, but they are
reporting this and that's fair enough and you are saying in
your premise there. Well, this may not be true.
But if it is true then blah blah blah.
Okay, fair enough, that's one way to proceed but to dismiss
information or to accept information simply because of
the source of that information is, of course, a logical
fallacy. And as I say, I find myself
slipping into that, and I do employ that from time to time.
Oh, you know, the lying. Hours of the MSM said, blah,
blah, blah. Therefore it's not true.
Again. That is a logical fallacy.
That is not a valid argument. We should not be lazy.
In actually putting that forward as an argument.
If we are trying to argue in a logically coherent and
consistent way. Oh, yes, that is definitely a
common one. My next one is the logical
fallacy of the golden middle. This one is so exhausting, just
because of how often you come across it, long story, short, it
claims that, that which is true and moral is that which is a
middle ground between two given positions.
The problem is, is that so often to of the given positions are
completely manipulated and unjustified in the first place.
It's the equivalent of saying. Well, there's the And then
there's the Republicans. We don't want to be on either
extreme. Therefore.
Let's meet in the middle this way everyone sort of gets what
what they want, and what they're interested.
And that's probably the right thing to do.
I'm sorry. What Mitt Romney - Mitt Romney.
Yes, the the kind virtuous moderate.
So what we need to get rid of the extremists.
Well, calling a position extreme is totally dependent on what
time. They're saying it, and why they
are saying it in. What geographical area?
They're saying it at what time? So of course the fact that
something is a middle ground between two terrible ideas.
It's the equivalent of me saying, I want to steal a
hundred dollars from Mark, you want to steal zero dollars from
Mark. So the right thing to do is to
steal 50 dollars from Mark, because you know, what, we don't
want, either of us to win. We kind of want to find a
middle. Ground compromise is the essence
of that which is right. It's that which is virtuous,
they constantly. Do this so they'll just have
George Bush running against John Kerry.
Just debating. How many troops should be in
Iraq? No, no.
No, is it okay to invade a country and kill civilians while
coercively funding the operation?
Classifying all the documents. That's the primary issue here
not what is the technicality Carrie at one point proposed
sending forty thousand more troops to Iraq.
It's such a joke. Yeah, so they'll call you a gun
extremist. If you If the state shouldn't
have a monopoly on gun, something totally ridiculous, or
they call you far, right? Or the far left.
You don't believe in intellectual property.
You don't believe ideas can be owned your far left.
You know, you don't believe the state should monopolize Weaponry
your far, right? It's just so ridiculous.
That's why the fallacy of the golden middle is so dangerous.
James. What's our next one?
Excellent point and let me just say I would remind you that
extremism in the defense of virtue of Liberty is no Vice and
let me remind you all. The moderation in the pursuit of
justice is no virtue. Of course, Barry Goldwater from
his 1964 Republican presidential candidate, acceptance speech and
very true words. So yes, let's avoid the golden
middle fallacy. My next fallacy is moving the
goal posts, which is when you make an argument and you
establish that if such and such a condition is met, then this
but then that condition is not met and so you say well, that's
okay because we let's change the the argument and oh no, Now it's
okay again. Now the very specific example
that immediately leaps to mind with so many of these types of
argument that fellas. He's actually.
But specifically with moving, the goalposts is, of course,
global warming up. Oh wait, no, not global warming
climate change. No, not climate change, climate
weirding. Sorry.
Wait know. What's what are they calling it
this week? Oh, that's right, because they
keep moving the goal posts. Oh, it was fairly
straightforward as it was presented to the world in the
1980s. Global average temperature is
rising. This will lead to warmer Summers
and warm warmer Winters. There will be less.
They're less ice. Let us know in the in the
winters and blah blah blah, etc, etc.
But that of course, didn't pan out.
So, of course, it starts to change.
Well. No, I mean it means that there
will be climate variations, that there will be just change.
That will be change in climate and, oh, well, okay, so it's not
changing enough. Well, alright, then climate
weirding. It's it's slightly strange this
week. So we'll call it climate
weirding. Again, people can see the goal
posts have been moved over and over and over with regards to
Global. Well.
Again, what do you call it? Climate change.
I guess is probably the one most people know it as and that's
something that I pointed out in many different aspects including
video that I don't have queued up.
So I don't remember the exact title.
I believe it was global warming is unfalsifiable
pseudo-scientific. Whoo.
Something like that.
I'll put the link in the show notes in case you See that.
But that gives a good example of how the arguments in favor of
global warming. The things the predictions have
been at times flatly contradictory, absolutely
contradicting each other. This will lead to rising sea
level. This will lead to lowering sea
level. This will lead to more droughts.
This will lead to more floods. This will lead to more of snow.
This will need two lists know. This will lead to Dart read or
leaves in the winter. This will lead to a lot lighter
leaves and and blah blah, blah. As I say it's documented in that
particular video that I did wear.
Essentially is unfalsifiable. And that's again.
I that's, that's an aspect of this moving the goalposts.
Although, this crosses over into a few different ft Fela Seas.
Oh, yeah, to Tony Heller and Jan hell.
Felled have done so much, great work on the climate change hoax,
how it's gone from cooling, to global warming, to climate
change to something so, vague and unfalsifiable.
Like, we've gone from an ice age, to not an Ice Age over
time. Okay, that's global warming.
That that was an excellent point.
I almost feel bad. Introducing my next one.
So that my next fallacies, the fallacy of non anticipation, it
consists of supposing that Worth doing or saying, has already
been done or said any? New idea is rejected on grounds
that if it were any good, it would be part of current wisdom,
the way I get this all the time, as 0, if x were true, don't you
think we would know about it? It's like, first of all, a lot
of stuff is true and it's just not part of popular mainstream
culture. It's like what I always ask
people is, if they've read the intimate papers of Colonel
house, you know, maybe page 432 regarding the Lucinda.
India, I don't know. And then and then they're just
have this look on their face or I asked him about the McCullen
memo. That is a it's amazing that when
people say if it were true it would have gotten out.
I mean, yeah, we have General Michael Flynn on al-jazeera.
Pretty much saying that yeah, the u.s.
Funded al-Qaeda in 2011, to fight Assad.
If it were true. It would be out is not an actual
response. To what the argue are is saying
another time we get this as well, if applying the
non-aggression. In principle consistently was
such a good idea. Why hasn't any society done.
So well because people value initiating aggression against
peaceful people and they don't value admitting.
They've been wrong for the previous whatever number of
years they've been alive. It's not a valid argument.
It's often used when people can't argue against new ideas.
It is The Logical extension of saying.
Well if that song movie or invention was worthwhile.
It would have been. It would have a one already.
It would have come to fruition already.
So nothing new is ever good. It's just a defense of the
statist illogical irrational, status quo.
Progress happens in philosophy just as it happens in inventions
and any other format that human beings interact.
Yeah, it's a very good point and interestingly brings to my mind.
The obverse, which is something to the effect of.
Well, this isn't new. We already knew this
information. Therefore does not important.
I'm not sure that necessarily qualifies as a fallacy, but it
is certainly a disinformation tactic that people, I think
unwittingly a lot of the time employee when you report some
information about some government spying program or
something. Yeah, but we already knew they
were spying on us, so it doesn't matter.
Well, no, actually, it does matter to know the details of
various things and it is a disinformation tactic to try to
sweep things under the rug by simply saying it's not new.
And as you say that, of course, is a fallacy.
When you say, well, it is, if it if it was worth anything, it
would have already been here. We would have already known
about it. We would have already tried it.
Okay. Well, my next fallacy, actually,
my next thing is an example and I think there are a few
different ways that you could parse this for fallacies.
I mean, Clearly a fallacious argument, but which type of
fallacious argument. I think is up for some degree of
debate. And I want to use this as an
example to show, that it is not always clear, cut and dry
exactly what the argument is, because no one speaks in logical
syllogisms or anything, you know, all men are animals are,
all men are mammals and, you know, Socrates is a mammal there
for him, whatever, you know, those types of logical.
Silica. No one speaks like that, they
speak. In natural language, that has
often implied premises, and you're supposed to infer various
things and you come to a conclusion.
But sometimes even the conclusion isn't plainly stated.
So my example comes from, I've mentioned this several times
because it's still astounds me how ridiculous this is,
especially coming from Michael Shermer, who, of course wrote,
as we've talked about before, why people believe weird things
and he's the guy who's written entire book.
About logically fallacious arguments and things like this
and yet has employed the stupidest argument.
I have ever seen to uphold the findings of the Warren
Commission in the JFK assassination, that comes from
an article that was originally published back in 2010.
It's up on HuffPost.com my day in Dealey Plaza why JFK was
killed by a lone assassin. So that is what he setting out
to prove. JFK was killed by a lone
assassin. Essen and yes, of course, he's
going to say it was Lee Harvey Oswald.
So here's his argument on Tuesday, December 7th.
I walked through and around Dealey Plaza.
In Dallas, where JFK was assassinated by a lone assassin,
Lee Harvey Oswald, lho or was he a lone assassin?
That is, yes, he was, but that is not what?
Anyone giving informal tours of the plaza will?
Have you believe if you give them a few minutes and a few
bucks blah blah blah. He goes around talking about the
crazy conspiracy people handing out flyers.
He talks about, you know, the Various aspects of Dealey Plaza
being there in person, but then he says the most striking thing
about being in Dealey Plaza for me was how small it is.
Perhaps because the assassination itself was bigger
than life. We expect the geography to match
the eventuality, but that is certainly not the case.
Here, two x's on the street Marc, where JFK was hit first in
the throat causing his arms to move up in splay out and S where
the bullet found its cranial Mark and let literally blew his
brains out. And according to one conspiracy
that conspiracies, there sent the skullcap flying across the
Eat and onto the adjacent Lon. What is astounding is, how close
both X's are to the snipers next?
I think that's a typo sniper's nest in The Book Depository
building, both from the street level looking up.
And from the window looking down.
There is a museum on the sixth floor from which you can gain
the perspective of the Assassin. It seems clear that Oswald could
hardly have missed given the fact that he was a designated
Sharpshooter by the Marines during his time, in the service
and the fact that Kennedy's car was traveling less than 10 miles
per hour after making the sharp left.
Onto Elm Street, one is left Whispering under one's breath.
Kennedy was a Sitting Duck. Look at the two photographs, at
the end of this post. Each taken from one of the x's
on the street, the window from which Oswald fired is the square
window on the far. Right of the building second
from the top. Is it really necessary to invent
additional assassins when it is obvious.
That one could have done the job.
No, lho acted alone in killing JFK QED, which is that Is the
argument that is the stupidest most logically fallacious
argument. I have ever encountered let
alone by the self-proclaimed King of the Skeptics who's going
to tell you about logically fallacious reasoning and it is
so logically fallacious and I can't really decide which
logical fallacy. I would pin this down to I think
personal incredulity has something to do with it.
For example, the idea that I cannot understand or I cannot
believe that Happened. Therefore, it didn't happen.
In this case. I can't understand or believe
how this could be a conspiracy. Therefore.
It isn't a conspiracy, but that doesn't seem to capture the
essence of schirmer's argument here.
Perhaps it's jumping to conclusions, which he clearly is
doing or over simplification or this may be an either or type of
argument where either the X. The x is on the street are close
enough to The sniper's Nest or Lee Harvey, Oswald didn't kill
JFK or something like that, which of course.
This is a false dilemma or it's the simple truth fallacy.
Sometimes called the plain truth fallacy that the truth must be
simple. Must be the simplest possible
explanation and the simplest possible explanation.
Is that we have real Oswald did it therefore he did it?
Which of course, I mean, all of these and whatever way you
choose to frame that argument it is, it is clearly fallacious.
I could even almost call it a non-sequitur.
I mean, the the window is not far from the X.
Therefore Lee Harvey. Oswald killed JFK alone.
There's just so many things missing from that line of
argumentation that. How do you even do?
I'm not even sure you can call it a logical argument at any
rate. It is fallacious.
Oh, schirmer's, an absolute nightmare.
My Maya. Oh, I'm sorry.
Did you have any more? No.
No, that was it. I just I wholeheartedly agree
that nightmare was a good word for them.
My, my final one is unattainable, perfection.
This is when someone says any imperfections in your claim
argument? Theory are grounds for total
dismissal, another words, you tell me exactly what happened.
On 9/11 with all individuals involved and institutions or the
official story is true. It's like they've had the same
Source since day. One.
And nothing really has. Nothing else has come to
fruition, really. So any questions about this
says? So you tell me, ask you, give me
a source, questioning 911. That's 100% totally accurate and
then I'll consider you. Well, of course, I can't give
you something 100% accurate, but the problem is, is that's
unattainable. Well, it applies to every other
person or individual. It applies to a hood.
Barack who on day one said we know who's behind this.
We know it was Bin Laden. So yes, it applies to every
person and every organization. It's often seen when someone
says well, yeah person X said that but person X is biased
name. One person or group of persons
who is not biased by choosing one topic over.
Another means you're biased towards one topic or another.
It's absolutely impossible because Um, long story short
even every alternative has the same flaws as what you point out
in your argument against, whatever the argue.
Our is claiming. You'll often see this when
someone says, what is the guarantee that your Source or
your claim is 100% correct? What is the guarantee that in
the absence of a coercively funded Monopoly state that every
judge will give a fair trial. Well, there is no guarantee in a
A volunteer Society also, there's no guarantee.
Now, they cage people for victimless crimes Edward
Snowden. So obviously knows he can't get
a fair deal that he's just staying oversees, the guy who
blew the drone on who blew the whistle on the Drone project is
getting a terrible deal now, so of course when it always
applies, but they say no it uniquely applies to your
position. It's an absolute logical
fallacy. You see this today, you know, if
the u.s. Leave Syria, bad things might
happen in Syria. Well, bad things also happened
when the u.s. Funded Isis in Syria and
Al-Qaeda. So if the u.s.
Leaves, our rack bad, things might happen in Iraq, if the FDA
doesn't monopolize, giving permission to everything human
beings can consume bad. Things might happen, people
might fall ill and we'll people fall ill because they stop
things from coming forward because they have no incentive
to approve things that will make the populace healthy because
they're coercively funded for heaven's sakes.
So, again, the biggest one, In here is well, you know, if the
state doesn't monopolize AR-15s, people might engage in violence.
I'm sorry. Do governments engage in
violence against disarmed populace.
Has that ever happened? So unattainable Perfection or
the always applicable. Fallacy is a very important one.
James you got any more ammo for us against the fallacious status
and irrational? Michael shermer's of the world
night. Nice segue.
I see what you did there. No, let me just Echo that last
one. I think that is a very important
one. Either you tell us how we will
completely eliminate all all problems in the world and make
everyone absolutely happy or we just have to go along with the
status quo is it is is such a such a stupid argument when you
break it down like that, but it is employed all the time,
especially by statist. So arguing for why we need the
government. You tell, you show me exactly
how every person In the world will be perfectly taken care of
without government, or we have to go with government.
Wait, is everyone in the world perfectly taken care of with
government? No, I don't think I don't think
so. So maybe there's a problem with
that. Are you?
Okay, excellent. And I think, I think that we
have demonstrated here even in the examples that we're talking
about. The fact that these lines
between different fallacies are not always so clear cut there
are there are very many examples where you could say.
Well it is that type of fallacy. Well, you could also say it's
that type of fallacy. There are subsets of Policies.
As I say there is no there is no master list.
This is the list of fallacies and every fallacy will neatly
fit into one of these. Now there's there's overlap.
There's there's subsets. There's questions about what to
call this fallacy and how to label that one.
But at the end of the day, hopefully, at least people can
identify the fallacious arguments.
And as I say, we have different modes of communication where
we're trying to do different things.
We are not always trying to make a logical argument to convince
someone of our And sometimes we are trying to make fun of
something to signal to our people who believe what we
believe that you know, this guy's being silly or whatever
and we're not always trying to make a logical argument.
But when we are, when we are trying to convince someone it is
important to be able to identify and remove logical fallacies
from our argument when and if possible.
And I think that's the point of this conversation and I hope we
did a job of at least stimulating that I would love to
see some input from the people out.
There. Please contribute your ideas
what fallacy? Do you particularly enjoy?
Enjoy spotting or enjoy employing?
If you're trying to have been Boozled?
Someone, I don't know, but just give us some examples that you
see out there. There are no lack of examples of
that in Daily discourse, unfortunately, so we'll keep
hammering at topics like this until we eliminate all logical
fallacies from the face of the planet, right?
Keith. Yes.
Yes, and and of course, I've also always my audience loves
when I play the gotcha, question with James Corbett at the very
And I try to throw him a curve ball.
So my final question to you James, if you could interview
one historical person, no longer living, who would it be?
And what would you talk to them about?
Wow, that is a good one. I like that.
I thought you were going to give me the book question again,
please Kitt. Can you not insult me with being
that unoriginal? Ha ha ha.
I just want to say by the way. I think you interviewed David
Friedman, right? And you asked him the book
question. His answer was the best question
answer. Oh, no, his answer was a
non-answer different people want, but it was the best
answer. I, it cannot be answered.
So what I did was I plugged one of his dad's books and then I
met and then I knew that would ignite him to plug one.
So I got it. Getting him in the end.
All right? Okay, I'm not dodging the
question. Who would I interview if I can
interview? Absolutely any historical
figure? Oh man.
Now you're putting me on the
spot because it can't just be anything it.
It has to be something really momentous portentous.
Something really important. Sure.
How about the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth.
Nazareth? That would be an interesting
interview. Don't you think?
Yes. Yes, it would finally answer
some questions and the two sides of my family need more to fight
about so yeah that all right. Yeah.
Well, okay, let's go with that. I think that's as good an answer
as any of you know, and then there will be people in the
audience of those a There was no historical figures so, you know,
but anyway, assuming there was an historical figure.
Yes, sir. I need to read Jesus.
Excellent. Well, James, thanks so much for
coming on and I thought I would do the quote at the end as I've
started to this is from Mo's. I a philosopher from the fifth
century before Christ. Allegedly.
The murder of one person is called unrighteous and encourage
one death penalty for Following this argument.
The murder of ten persons will be ten times as unrighteous and
therefore should get 10 times. The death penalty.
The murder of 100 persons will be 100 times as unrighteous and
therefore should be 100 death penalties.
All Gentlemen of the world know that they should contempt
condemn. These things calling them
unrighteous, but when it comes to the great unrighteousness of
States attacking States, they do not know they should condemn it
on the contrary they applauded. Calling it righteous James.
Thanks so much for joining me on Keith Knight.
Don't tread on anyone and thank you for watching.
Thank you. Always enjoy it.
Take care. Bye.