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. 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. 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. 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.