It's actually a double lesson when you show people how easily manipulated they are by people selling products, and hoe unscrupulous those companies are willing to be to trick every last dime from someone.
Facts: 1) any woman with a taco in her purse is statistically not likely to pick up guys. 2) A woman eating Taco Bell is VERY unlikely to look like either of these women. 3) These two women probably rarely (if ever) eat anything that nutritionally even resembles Taco Bell. Moral to ladies: if you think finding a man requires eating fast food, you're going to attract the type of men who think eating fast food is actually a good thing.
Me here so I know when my parents are using logical fallacies when we're arguing with them but never able to say that to them because they'll just write it off as me being disrespectful: 😐
@@StaticBlaster Thank you for the reply. I know the definition, but I don't see how this applies to the ad. What's supposed to be the premise? What's the conclusion?
3 minutes into this video, there is a Sony ad that demonstrates appeals to authority fallacy. The fallacy occurs when the customer is talking to the guy that works at the store as she is trying to figure out the difference between the cameras. It then switches to a panel of celebrities and Nigel suggests that she could get a Sony camera to get the best shot, then Justin then agrees. The customer then asks Justin what he knows about cameras and he responds with “really?”. I think the fallacy occurs here because Justin is no experts in regard to cameras, even though he is photographed a lot and in the media.
And even if he were an expert on cameras, the brand he claims is the best wouldn't be best just because he, being an expert, claims it is; but at least it would be appeal to authority I guess.
@@kwakugyebi6705 I see. What I meant with my earlier comment was that even if the authority has expertise on that specific field, just quoting them still shouldn't be justification of any arguments. To me, it literally sounds like "This is true because X said so." instead of revealing *why* that X says so, X being the authority with expertise on the topic. I think people are confusing between providing the reasons that make the experts support a claim, with only stating that some experts support a claim. It became quite annoying for me especially during the covid pandemic, where people just throw misinformation around claiming some expert said it without even attempting to give any scientific explanation or any explanation for that matter.
@@ilke3192 true, just because an authority claimed it to be doesnt mean we always have to believe in it, we should always look for proofs rather than "someone"
yet Obama's reply is not a logical fallacy ad hominem because he does not dismiss the claim attacking the person but he dismisses the claim on the ground of a specific lack of knowledge in that specific field, your statement is instead a logical fallacy: Obama never dismissed Sarah's claim on the ground of his expertize he never said that. . Besides, Sarah's claim was NOT SPECIFIC so it was impossible to confutate specifically. If Sarah' s accusation would have been specific, than Obama would not be forced to give a general answer questioning Sarah's expertise. Obama, in short, did not specifically reject Sarahs' argument because Sarah DID NOT put across any argument.
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment. Fallacy may be some advertisement, political clip, add, drama clip, movie scene anything
2:20 you made a mistake, Obama's response is not an ad hominem, that is because Obama is not attacking the person but he is questioning the expertize of that person in that precise field. If someone refuse to discuss quantum physics with an illitterate person, that is not a logical fallacy
I disagree. I believe Palin made a valid deductive argument using a metaphor, the premises of which were stated and the conclusion implied. She is arguing that IF you say that you will not retaliate to violence THEN people (and by analogy -nations) will attack you. Obama didn't counter her argument - perhaps by suggesting that she has made a Hasty Generalization fallacy or a Faulty/Weak Analogy. Instead he suggested that the argument is flawed because of an intrinsic property of the arguer, an Ad Hominem.
Ben Smith I disagree. The overwhelming evidence is Palin is a tool, & President Obama pointed that out precisely, that relates directly to her response.
if they're monsters you wouldn't have to say their monsters to discredit them and prove your point though right? do you think America should have dropped the atom bomb on Japan?
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment. Fallacy may be some advertisement, political clip, add, drama clip, movie scene anything
Your choice for an ad hominem was pretty good. I like Obama, but he did use an ad hominem there. It wasn’t to dodge the question though, because I’m sure Obama could talk about that policy decision for three hours, but Sarah Palin doesn’t deserve three hours of television time. If the PM of the UK had said it - it would probably merit a proper response. Obama can’t spend all his time explaining policy to people who can’t understand anyway. He was actually being restrained because Sarah Palin has no interest in foreign policy other than what others tell her. The only way Palin would even understand the explanation is if she had a decent grasp of history - which she doesn’t.
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment. Fallacy may be some advertisement, political clip, add, drama clip, movie scene anything
The slippery slope example is not correct. Slippery slope fails to join the dots, allows listeners to do the joining by referring to their prejudices, and does not establish a causal link between beginning and end. However the advert established every single point. Thus, not a slippery slope.
The example is a slippery slope as the first action does not lead to the conclusion ultimately. The connection between the concepts in the middle can, and usually will connect from one thing to the next, which is why people tend to believe this logic even though it is clearly errored.
This video would be much better if the sound worked properly. The icon has two positions: silent and mute. The examples need the sound balanced; some are almost silent while others are too loud. Thank you.
This font is a fallacy
Like your face
an ad homienem
ads are a wonderful example of logical fallacies.
It's actually a double lesson when you show people how easily manipulated they are by people selling products, and hoe unscrupulous those companies are willing to be to trick every last dime from someone.
The only video that is full of ads. I can't skip it.
the slippery slope was awesome though, so it is licit :)
KRealm IAmVeryBadass
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment
I thought the first one was a youtube ad because I did not expect ads to be in this video.
Facts:
1) any woman with a taco in her purse is statistically not likely to pick up guys.
2) A woman eating Taco Bell is VERY unlikely to look like either of these women.
3) These two women probably rarely (if ever) eat anything that nutritionally even resembles Taco Bell.
Moral to ladies: if you think finding a man requires eating fast food, you're going to attract the type of men who think eating fast food is actually a good thing.
RedShipsofSpainAgain
Bacon, man.
It's about the bacon.
I'd say that is a pretty good example.
But this is how I found my wife
This was a perfect example of a slippery slope and Hasty generalization combined.
Sheldon did it twice then( BigBang theory), once for the Nobel prize then for the church group
"The fact that I am home safe does not prove that it [praying] worked": Isn't that begging the question?
for fk sake what is that font..
Only ads are playing.
Me here so I know when my parents are using logical fallacies when we're arguing with them but never able to say that to them because they'll just write it off as me being disrespectful: 😐
Keep these coming Nicole. It's wonderful
Could someone elaborate on the non-sequitor ad? I'm not sure I actually followed the idea. Thanks.
Because you sniff this deodorant, lizards will bite your legs off
That's non sequitur I think
A Non-sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow from the given premises.
@@StaticBlaster Thank you for the reply. I know the definition, but I don't see how this applies to the ad. What's supposed to be the premise? What's the conclusion?
3 minutes into this video, there is a Sony ad that demonstrates appeals to authority fallacy. The fallacy occurs when the customer is talking to the guy that works at the store as she is trying to figure out the difference between the cameras. It then switches to a panel of celebrities and Nigel suggests that she could get a Sony camera to get the best shot, then Justin then agrees. The customer then asks Justin what he knows about cameras and he responds with “really?”. I think the fallacy occurs here because Justin is no experts in regard to cameras, even though he is photographed a lot and in the media.
And even if he were an expert on cameras, the brand he claims is the best wouldn't be best just because he, being an expert, claims it is; but at least it would be appeal to authority I guess.
@@kwakugyebi6705 It is, isn't it?
@@kwakugyebi6705 I see. What I meant with my earlier comment was that even if the authority has expertise on that specific field, just quoting them still shouldn't be justification of any arguments. To me, it literally sounds like "This is true because X said so." instead of revealing *why* that X says so, X being the authority with expertise on the topic. I think people are confusing between providing the reasons that make the experts support a claim, with only stating that some experts support a claim. It became quite annoying for me especially during the covid pandemic, where people just throw misinformation around claiming some expert said it without even attempting to give any scientific explanation or any explanation for that matter.
@@ilke3192 true, just because an authority claimed it to be doesnt mean we always have to believe in it, we should always look for proofs rather than "someone"
It highlights how advertising deadens critical thinking and promotes the herd mentality.
"Sarah Palin isnt much of an expert on nuclear weapons" Neither was Obama.
yet Obama's reply is not a logical fallacy ad hominem because he does not dismiss the claim attacking the person but he dismisses the claim on the ground of a specific lack of knowledge in that specific field, your statement is instead a logical fallacy: Obama never dismissed Sarah's claim on the ground of his expertize he never said that. . Besides, Sarah's claim was NOT SPECIFIC so it was impossible to confutate specifically. If Sarah' s accusation would have been specific, than Obama would not be forced to give a general answer questioning Sarah's expertise. Obama, in short, did not specifically reject Sarahs' argument because Sarah DID NOT put across any argument.
@@andreainzaghi7373 Please feel free to read my statement again. You may wish to make some changes to your statement
Amazing video. Can't wait to use it in one of my classes.
This is superb. Thank you for making this.
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment. Fallacy may be some advertisement, political clip, add, drama clip, movie scene anything
You did very good a very good job, they are all very good examples, thumbs up
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment
I am here for Sheldon Cooper
2:19 Im confused how this is ad hominem. Can someone clarify?
2:20 you made a mistake, Obama's response is not an ad hominem, that is because Obama is not attacking the person but he is questioning the expertize of that person in that precise field. If someone refuse to discuss quantum physics with an illitterate person, that is not a logical fallacy
I disagree. I believe Palin made a valid deductive argument using a metaphor, the premises of which were stated and the conclusion implied. She is arguing that IF you say that you will not retaliate to violence THEN people (and by analogy -nations) will attack you.
Obama didn't counter her argument - perhaps by suggesting that she has made a Hasty Generalization fallacy or a Faulty/Weak Analogy. Instead he suggested that the argument is flawed because of an intrinsic property of the arguer, an Ad Hominem.
Ben Smith I disagree. The overwhelming evidence is Palin is a tool, & President Obama pointed that out precisely, that relates directly to her response.
if they're monsters you wouldn't have to say their monsters to discredit them and prove your point though right?
do you think America should have dropped the atom bomb on Japan?
Absolutely loved the fallacies some super funny thank you
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment. Fallacy may be some advertisement, political clip, add, drama clip, movie scene anything
Your choice for an ad hominem was pretty good. I like Obama, but he did use an ad hominem there. It wasn’t to dodge the question though, because I’m sure Obama could talk about that policy decision for three hours, but Sarah Palin doesn’t deserve three hours of television time. If the PM of the UK had said it - it would probably merit a proper response. Obama can’t spend all his time explaining policy to people who can’t understand anyway. He was actually being restrained because Sarah Palin has no interest in foreign policy other than what others tell her. The only way Palin would even understand the explanation is if she had a decent grasp of history - which she doesn’t.
Hi can you please suggest me some some new and unique fallacy in a video form its my assignment. Fallacy may be some advertisement, political clip, add, drama clip, movie scene anything
you should also mention the shows name or their links ...
agreed
Great video
Lovely
The slippery slope example is not correct.
Slippery slope fails to join the dots, allows listeners to do the joining by referring to their prejudices, and does not establish a causal link between beginning and end. However the advert established every single point. Thus, not a slippery slope.
The example is a slippery slope as the first action does not lead to the conclusion ultimately. The connection between the concepts in the middle can, and usually will connect from one thing to the next, which is why people tend to believe this logic even though it is clearly errored.
Good job!
i know my fallacies i just clicked for tbbt
This video would be much better if the sound worked properly. The icon has two positions: silent and mute. The examples need the sound balanced; some are almost silent while others are too loud. Thank you.
Anybody else in Mr. Robert's class?
Where is Ad Populum,Straw Man,Appeal to Ignorance,False Dilemma,Red Herring and Begging the Question this video doesn't have all the Fallacies
It does not claim to have "all the fallacies". There are many more than that.
Cool Stuff....Love it
Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting
can someone please tell me whats the name of the show with the guy on the phone.
bruh the big bang theory
WHat is the movie in the post hoc?
It's The Big Bang Theory
Horse laugh up front!
But all men love bacon though