David Mitchell Rants at Rhod Gilbert Over Whether Dogs Enjoy Eating Marmite | Would I Lie To You?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- #WILTY #WouldILieToYou #BBC
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall claims that he puts Marmite on his face so that his dog can lick it off as a treat.
In this episode, the guests joining Lee Mack and David Mitchell are Rhod Gilbert, Miranda Hart, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Rufus Hound, from Series 4 Episode 6 (S04 E06).
Would I Lie to You? is the hit BBC panel show where two teams of celebrity guests try to figure out whether their opponent's ridiculously far-fetched statements about themselves are true or, in fact, a lie.
Featuring inimitable host Rob Brydon with lightning-quick team captains David Mitchell and Lee Mack.
Like Us on Facebook 👉 / wouldilietoyoutv
Follow Us on Twitter 👉 / wilty_tv
Would I Lie to You? is brought to you by Banjiay Rights in partnership with Zeppotron and the BBC.
The cat-in-the-fridge was wasted not being on a card.
card writer in the back died a silent death when she said that...
I'm of the opposite opinion. I think the whole "Cats don't like baked beans" was a set-up to get her to tell the cat-in-the-fridge story, which set up Lee's "Where's the cat?" line. There's no way David pulls out "Cat's don't like baked beans", and then Miranda hits him with her story.
I so wish that she'd turned her card over next and read 'my cat got stuck in a fridge for 2 hours'
@@nicholasjagneaux In that case David Mitchell is a better actor than I thought, because his face when his baked beans example instantly got shot down was one of a man who just died inside! 😄
I think Rhod just likes pushing David's buttons. And he's smart enough to know where they are. AND David knows when to express a little false outrage... for a laugh. Brilliant.
TBF Rhod likes pushing everyone's button, on Taskmaster he both continuously embarassed Greg and peeved off James Acaster.
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is smiling with pleasure throughout this as his initial assertion gets forgotten amongst all the arguing and he gets off the hook for a few minutes.
@@finwefingolfin7113 it was false so technically he was never hooked.
I wish Rhod all the best and can't wait to see him back💜
What’s wrong with him?
@@gwauk205 he has some health issues at the moment
Me too man 😢, was heartbroken when I found out he had cancer
Rhod Gilbert really gave David a run for his money there. Not many people could do that. Great chemistry.
best part of this is David's reaction on sexual tension. "Is THAT sexual tension?? "
I wonder if David was thinking about how dogs can't eat certain things like chocolate. Either way, I think this is the first time I've disagreed with one of David's rants.
I also disagree with David about peacock farms.
Dogs can't look up big Al says so
I think it's more they shouldn't eat chocolate rather than they can't - because they'll definitely eat chocolate if given the chance
I mean, dogs *shouldn't* eat chocolate, but this doesn't stop them from trying. Had a dog eat one of our Christmas presents, which was a box of chocolates. Straaaight to the vet!
"Can't eat" is different to "don't like" or even "Shouldn't eat" Dogs can and will sometimes eat things they shouldn't, as do humans of course.
As much as I respect David, I’m with Rhod on this one.
Absolutely
Me too. Plus Rhod is clearly no mental midget.
100%. First time I've seen David with flawed logic. I'm slightly unsettled.
Rhod all the way
To be fair, his logic wasn't flawed (except regarding whether all cats hate baked beans- my old cat was quite fond of them. She'd clear the room immediately afterwards, though), rhod either misheard or misinterpreted what he was saying.
He did well to not elaborate. I believed him because he didn't make up crazy excuses.
As someone allergic to dogs(and therefore immune to their charms) I would believe any disgusting dog-related claim by a dog owner, up to and including them letting their dog lick food out of their actual mouth...
I had a cat that liked baked beans, and several cats that liked marmite too.
I hope Rhod is doing ok
Maybe the only time David was wrong
@@Hankblue Even without that stuck in a fridge scenario, it is overwhelmingly likely there may be at least one cat, somewhere in the world, that likes beans. It is overwhelmingly David is wrong.
@@CA-ee1et Yes, and it doesn't even matter whether it's likely.
Logically, the statement is ∀x(Dx→¬Mx), in other words, "It is true of every x that if x is a dog, x does not like marmite" or even simpler, "all dogs dislike marmite." The problem is, of course, that such a statement can only be empirically disproved, i.e. by finding a single Dx that Mx, a dog that likes marmite. It cannot be proved without investigating every single dog that ever lived or will ever live and determining they do not, in fact, like marmite. (At which point you could just investigate the dog in question and skip the universal statement.)
This is the kind of formal logic taught in high school or the very first university courses, so it's uncharacteristic that David fell for it.
Mitchell is frequently wrong, but he says things with such conviction that he is very convincing.
I love how this comment section is used to continue the debate between Rod and David and clarify each pov so articulately. I think there is a special place for you all in heaven. It might also be the place where they play Bridge or enjoy discussing all the possible different interpretation of all British classic literature, so ... There's that too 😉
There's no cats I can confirm that...8 billion other people can't confirm that either😳
I think the confusion arose from David's weird phrasing. He initially asked "Do dogs like marmite?" in an incredulous tone. That suggests he meant "Is there any dog in the world that can possibly like marmite?". The way he put it actually means "Do all dogs like marmite?". That's what Rhod criticized as an unhelpful line of inquiry, and rightfully so. Whatever the answer to this question is, it doesn't help. Then David made it clear that he really meant to ask "Do all dogs hate marmite?". That isn't just the other side of the coin (not the negation of the other question). If the answer is yes, then they know the story is made up. So David was correct about the significant difference between the two questions, logic-wise. But he didn't realize that it was he himself who created the confusion.
"Do all dogs hate marmite" would be a helpful question IF it could possibly be answered. A probabilistic line of inquiry would of course be easier to answer, but they don't really have data for that, either.
Logically, the statement is ∀x(Dx→¬Mx), in other words, "It is true of every x that if x is a dog, x does not like marmite" or even simpler, "all dogs dislike marmite." The problem is, of course, that such a statement can only be empirically disproved, i.e. by finding a single Dx that Mx, a dog that likes marmite. It cannot be proved without investigating every single dog that ever lived or will ever live and determining they do not, in fact, like marmite. (At which point you could just investigate the dog in question and skip the universal statement.)
This is the kind of formal logic taught in high school or the very first university courses, so it's uncharacteristic that David fell for it.
There are three possible scenarios. A) All dogs like marmite. B) Some dogs like marmite. C) All dogs hate marmite.
Options A) and C) cannot be definitively proven to be true* but can be falsified. Another panel member knowing that a particular dog likes marmite would disprove option C), while knowing a dog that hated marmite would disprove option A).
However, no matter how many anecdotes you have option B) remains a plausible option. Therefore, asking whether A) or C) is true are mere inversions of each other. Neither can be proven and disproving one doesn't prove the other true, ie: they are two sides of the same coin.
*Granted, they could be proven if you tested every dog alive. But you'd have to control for hunger level, trust in the feeder, comfort, health conditions and many other insane factors.
@@adamrobinson6951 It could just be a general consensus of scientists that somebody might know as a trivia. It is indeed very unlikely that such knowledge exists. But I have heard much more weird trivia before. Also, it might be that marmite is making dogs sick, like chocolate does (famously). If one of David's teammates were a dog-owner, they might have known about it. They might have been advised not to give their dog certain types of food, including marmite. Once again, unlikely, but not impossible. It is not an utterly stupid line of inquiry. The "fight" that followed was hilarious, though.
@@adamrobinson6951 You are correct if we are focusing on the purely logical aspect of the question. Yet linguistically, it's more complicated, because "do dogs like marmite" has far more reasonable interpretations. For one, the subject of chocolate has been brought up and while it doesn't say anything about the taste of it - it is unhealthy and therefore "dogs don't like chocolate" is akin to "wasps don't like ground coffee" meaning just purely that it's unhealthy to them. This context is legitimate for this question because if it happened often as a treat, marmite can't have anything in it that would be harmful to a dog.
And this is where we can do some research and figure out that marmite has a lot of salt. For a springer spaniel (as in the story), even a single teaspoon of marmite has the daily allowance of salt. This fact which no-one is expected to know, if we're being real here, in conjunction with a question about the amount he supposedly used would have lead an easy identification of this being a lie.
In short: David asked the exactly right question though he may have phrased it imprecisely.
I disagree, the way he said it does not mean 'do *all* dogs like marmite?'. It is pretty basic communication, if someone says 'Do X like/eat/do/etc Y' it is either disingenuous or a silly mistake to insert an 'all' anywhere in there as a listener. What David said should've been correctly interpreted as 'Do dogs (generally speaking) like marmite?,' because that is what people mean when they say it like that. The reason why is because there is pretty much always an exception to the vast majority of rules, so generally speaking absolutists statements with 'all' in them are wrong. Therefore it is unkind/unintelligent to assume absolutism when it isn't explicitly stated, as it will usually lead to pointless miscommunication arguments that do not go anywhere, frustrating the speaker when done disingenuously and frustrating both when done as a mistake, like what happened here. Bar directly insulting someone, misintepreting them by hearing 'nevers' or 'alls' when they weren't intended nor explcitly said is one of the fastest way to escalate and derail any pleasant conversation, it is one of the biggest communication sins there is. If someone finds themselves in a lot of pointless arguments, this (interpreting absolutism) is probably one of the more communication mistakes they make.
"All dogs hate marmite" remains a valid hypothesis in the limited format of the show, but the effort required to pursue this hypothesis can be saved by asking around the room, as David is attempting to do. If at least one person in the room testifies to knowledge of at least one dog that likes marmite, the hypothesis can safely be abandoned with no further wasted effort. David is right.
In the same way his statement "all cats hate baked beans" has to be jettisoned instantly when Miranda Hart makes her statement.
however... if nobody says their dog likes marmite (which seems likely), then we are none the wiser
Ah, but one person in the room has testified that at least one dog likes marmite, and in any case, it's unreasonable to assume that all dogs could possibly have the same taste when it comes to a foodstuff that at least some of their masters enjoy.
The only reasonable assumption is that at least some dogs are offered marmite and that among those at least some like it.
Rhod better survive
Do you know what kind of cancer it is? I see it’s stage IV but not the type.
@@kuruman1 they said that when he was on tour he had a weird cough so thats all i know
@@canadianmoth very sad. I hope he makes it.
Oh no! This is the first I'm hearing of it!
@@kuruman1 Shit
Our Westie loved vegemite on toast
Rhod Gilbert is the antithesis to David Mitchell. Interesting.
I think they are two sides of the same coin!
When my dog is crook and won't drink, I will add some vegemite to some water for her. She loves it. However Vegemite is far superior to Marmite, which is only good for filling gaps in bricks.
Vegemite has a lot less salt, far superior (Sainsbury's is my favourite, though)
Then you haven't tasted REAL Marmite, ie that which hails from the shores of New Zealand, not that weak, wimpy Aussie crap.
Get ‘em Rhod
Rhod is just the G.O.A.T.
My dog loves Vegemite😂
Nice to see a new video
I think what David meant is “is Marmite a dangerous food for dogs to eat”, rather than if they like it. But if he genuinely meant whether dogs all liked or all hated Marmite, I’m on Rhod’s side.
Lee trying so hard to distract everyone knowing that David is wrong 😂
Anyway, anyway, anyway... You do not fly off the top of an escalator that is switched off...
Oh God, don't go there!
@@davidhoward4715 😂😂😂
My cat loves baked beans. The spicier the better.
Have we tested this out yet? Now I have to know.
My cats like Marmite. If an animal does, we call them a 'Marmite Baby'. My dog does not like Marmite. He likes almond butter (as does one of my cats) and peanut butter, but only the crunchy types. He does not like cashew or hazelnut butter. I have not tried him on pistachio as thats too expensive to waste on an animal that likes eating shit.
I was wondering why I was reading this comment until I got to the pay-off at the end and it was all made worthwhile!
probably sh** all over the place if you did that to my dog.
As someone who appreciates the angry logic of Mitchell, he is literally missing the Black Swan Theory.
Rhod is 100% correct, no one can make a statement of fact that all dogs love/hate marmite and either one is the same dichotomy (besides, my dog likes marmite, I wish he didn't because I need to keep my toast out of stealing range)
I think what he meant was are dogs unable to eat marmite, like with onion and chocolate or do all dogs not like the taste as for example all humans probably dont like the taste of shit but could technically still eat it etc lol
You could if marmite killed dogs.
Like grapes. Grapes shut down their livers. But humans can eat as many grapes as they like.
@@georgeb9388 he made exactly your argument in reverse. Dogs regularly love the smell, taste and sensation of eating stuff that they shouldn't e.g. grapes
It is just that their kidneys fail soon after.
He explicitly stated that he believed dogs may be revolted by it ubiquitously when given the out you have eloquently stated
@@EarnestVictory I agree with you that grapes are dangerous to dogs, but that doesn't stop them from attempting to eat them.
He was offered the out in the show of toxic, but he made a point of being revolted by marmite.
The fact dogs go into Liver and Kidney failure due to grape consumption does not mean the dog does not want to eat the grape not knowing the side effect. They are two separate statements.
@@Relisysification But it *would* make the statement definitely a lie if either were true.
O.C.D. demanded I google it.
"Dogs can enjoy a little bit of Marmite as a special treat, but they can't eat a lot of the sticky spread because it has a lot of salt which can cause illness."
So, there's that.
Well, what dogs like and what's healthy for them are not automatically the same thing.
Is that "all dogs" though?
That doesn't tell you whether the like it. Just that whoever wrote that imagines it is not harmful in small quantities.
@@ProuvaireJean Hahahaha! Strirrer!
Can dogs eat chocolate? Definitely no. Do ALL dogs LOVE to eat chocolate and proceed to projectile vomit right after? Ask any dog owner 🤦♀️
Imagine if he said it was a lie ... Because he was using the marmite in other places instead 👀🤣
I've been on the fence but now I'm over it, go to brits
If it were true - he wouldn’t have referred to the dog as “it”.
He referred to the dog as a 'she' at least twice.
Clearly, David has never cared for more than one extremely finicky dog in his entire life.
we once owned a beagle (12" about 20 lbs max) whom enjoyed eating:
- pickled jalapeno peppers,
- any vegetable including Broccoli stalks
- wood
- his own feces, but only when frozen in winter (poop-cicles)
- Apple bitters anti-chew spray (He treated it like gravy. It's basically sour-patch kids but cranked up to 11; think technically edible battery acid in spray form, it's really that bad.)
- a live bird
- an entire truckstop sized slice of pizza... whole...crust end first!!! (quite certain his great-grandfather was a python as he literally unhinged his jaw to get it down in about 1.3 sec flat!!).
Any animal, will eat anything that will not kill them, and even eat somethings that will kill them, if they are in the proper mood/temperament/level of hunger/etc.
I just watched a 'Game Changer' show clip where the competitors bid for French kissing a dog for the lowest price. They ended up paying the host for the privilege, rather than the host paying them. U.S.A, U.S.A., ….
I enjoyed that
he has a funny face
Salt is terrible for dogs!
Huge Furry Whippingstool is a liar?
Why do they both look twelve in the thumbnail?!
Well, my taste guides are the Japanese, after seeing what they eat, if they don’t like it, it definitely won’t be for me.
am I the only one who cant really stand Rhod Gilbert and find him just intensely unfunny and annoying? Cause it seems like most people love him for some reason
Yeah probably just you
Bring back the dislike numbers, you cowards.
I don't hate him but I get what you mean, he is kinda annoying at times. He is a pretty poor listener, eager to ignore nuance and find absolutism, and then immediatly responds with an abrasive attitude to that perceived absolutism concealing it as flippant humour. I imagine he is pretty exhausting to deal with on a daily basis.
@@Quetzietse nice try alt account
@@Home-u6g Who are you?