"If X, then Y" doesn't mean "If Y, then X". So "If it's summer, children eat ice cream" does not mean "If children eat ice cream, then it's summer". But "If and only if X, then Y" does mean "If Y, then X". So "If and only if it's summer, then children eat ice cream" does mean "If children eat ice cream, then it's summer".
A few years ago, I borrowed a friend's bike one morning to ride across campus. It was returned safely, locked up, an hour later. That night, someone threw a television from an 8th story window, which landed directly on half of said bike. Must've been me that broke the bike.
More precisely, it is that correlation does not mean causation. It is an ironies conclusion that does not account for the actual variations which occur in any given situation.
What kind of logical fallacy is this? Feminism is on the rise Depression is on the rise Therefore, the rise of feminism is responsible for the rise in depression. Gavin Mcinnis makes this argument a lot and it's definitely a fallacy but I'm not sure what kind it is.
It's a correlation-causation fallacy. It's saying that because one thing increased/decreased as another thing increased/decreased, the first thing's increase/decrease caused the second thing's increase/decrease.
An example of this is as follows: P1: In May, June, July and August, ice cream sales increase. P2: In May, June, July and August, sunburn rates increase. C: Therefore, ice cream causes sunburn. The argument is clearly fallacious, and the conclusion is nonsense.
That example perfectly lays out how in your day to day PHEPH is a pretty good shorthand, it may be a fallacy to assume causation from Alex riding your bike but unless he has a good excuse he's probably paying for your bike chain regardless
Why was 'negligence' brought into the Alex's scenario? Alex was a factor in the breaking of the bike, so was the owner for letting him ride it. Would the bike have been broken if it wasn't ridden? Alex broke the bike. A fallacy is something that isn't true.
+DonswatchingtheTube You are 100% right. The bike is a very poor example of this fallacy, because the bike would not have broken if Alex had not ridden it, so he is, indeed, responsible. And virtually all business and law is based on this fact! The cat scratch fever example, or sun coming out after the rain example are better. Paul should consider pulling this down - it makes Duke University look bad :)
The thing is that Alex is your friend, and you are not 100% sure he broke it. I dont think Alex would feel good if you make him pay for something he may have not done... what if the bicycle was just waiting for someone to crack down? Is it fair to blame Alex for breaking it? "And virtually all business and law is based on this fact!" Everything???
I agree that the bike example is a poor one. The issue raised in this video isn't whether Alex "broke" the bike, in the sense that he was a causal factor. Alex undoubtedly was a causal factor, but we don't know what other causal factors were in play such as a weak link in the bike chain, rust in the bike chain, etc. Rather, the issue is whether Alex exhibited negligence or malice that caused the bike to break, and that's why the question is an ethical one of moral responsibility and not a metaphysical one of causation.
I had jury duty yesterday. They gave examples of situations during jury selection and I brought this argument up, and he said, “Come on, sometimes things are just obvious.” I still got selected. But it ended in a mistrial, the cop lied about his previous disciplinary record. Shame, I thought the guy was guilty after listening to arguments for most of the day, but the cop lied by omission on his record, and overtly on his report. The judge wasn’t thrilled. The defendant’s alleged victim didn’t get justice.
In the first example, you're confusing "cause" with moral responsibility. Alex DID cause the break (even if it was defective, or due to wear and tear).
Not really because you're conflating "Alex rides the bike" with "anyone rides the bike". If the bike is sufficiently worn and someone rides the bike, then the bike will break. If the bike is sufficiently abused, then the bike will break. The bike breaks. The affirmative consequence of the bike breaking cannot be used to justify the antecedent of either condition. That's the fallacy of _affirming the consequent_ and is a misuse of _modes tolens_. Normally, using _modes tolens_, you *deny* the consequent in order to disprove the antecedent. If the bike *doesn't* break, then you can conclude both that it was not sufficiently abused *and* that the union of it being ridden as well as sufficiently worn (which could mean that it either a) sufficiently worn but wasn't ridden, b) was ridden but wasn't sufficiently worn, or c) was neither sufficiently worn nor ridden). Here's a simpler example; if the weather is clear, then I will go to the store. I go to the store. Therefore, the weather is clear. This is a fallacy because stating that I would go to the store if the weather is clear says nothing of what I would or wouldn't do if the weather isn't clear. The antecedent could be false (the weather *isn't* clear) but I still go to the store because I didn't phrase it as an exclusive condition (if and only if).
You're spot on. In reply to another person, I wrote, "I agree that the bike example is a poor one. The issue raised in this video isn't whether Alex 'broke' the bike, in the sense that he was a causal factor. Alex undoubtedly was a causal factor, but we don't know what other causal factors were in play such as a weak link in the bike chain, rust in the bike chain, etc. Rather, the issue is whether Alex exhibited negligence or malice that caused the bike to break, and that's why the question is an ethical one of moral responsibility and not a metaphysical one of causation."
This is why you ask Alex a lot of questions about his bike ride and how the chain broke. Dose Alex have a history of being hard on bikes? When did it break? Were did it break? How did it break?what did you do after it broke? ect
What's the chance of Problem Exists Between Handlebars being the cause? What's the base rate of PEBHAS? What's the chance of it breaking given that PEBHAS vs. not PEBHAS? P(P|B) = P(B|P) / (P(B|P) + P(B|¬P)) = P(B|P) / P(B) Divide the probability of Alex riding badly and that actually causing the breakdown by the probability of the breakdown happening anyway.
Doesn't adding a second premise to the argument make it an abductive one? We have a rule (Usually, the person who rides the bike before it's broken causes the bike to break) and an effect (The bike broke after Alex rode it) and we are trying to find a cause ( Alex broke the bike). You know, Sherlock Holmes style lol
Okay, so Alex didn't break the bike. Okay, it's a fallacy to assume he broke it. 1. The loaner was doing Alex a favor. 2. The bike wasn't broken BEFORE Alex used it. (Alex was the last guy to use the unbroken bike). 3. Since it broke under Alex's care (he was responsible to return the bike just as he borrowed it), at the very least, he shouldn't he pay a portion for the repair?
The chain did not break or was broken AFTER Alex rode it. It broke WHILE Alex was riding it. It really is a poor example since bike chains don't fail without being in use at the time of the failure. The stress of using it made it fail (no matter how hard it was used at the time). A few missing teeth on the chainring would have been a better example. Was the chainring totally fine before Alex loaned the bike? Did Alex hit something while riding it or was there an unknown damage already? You cannot ride a bike without a chain, so it being torn off after the ride, makes the rider responsible for this damage. They literally caused it to break by using it (even if lousy maintenance may have accelerated the deterioration). Not much breaks on a bicycle without the user causing the damage at the time of the event.
nice job breaking the bike, you knew it wasn't ridden for a while, you saw the chain wasn't lubed, and was rusted. you powered through the gear and it snapped the chain because you rode it when it needed maintenance thus breaking it way more, when before it just needed to be lubed and tightened. NICE JOB ALEX you owe me a new SE BIG RIPPER D BLOCKS edition
post hoc ergo propter hoc is basically a wrong reasoning, so I wouldn't say that anything can make itself more reasonable. But Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle explores 19 causal relationships from correlation itself, after ruling out spurious relationships with additional evidence the actual causal relationship may surface
4:36 But what about if I find a study that says that in 75% of the cases, when a bike is broken is because of the someone who rides it before? Would it be a valid argument?
Don't know if you want answer now but here's my take. 75% chance still doesn't guarantee the statement: "If a person rides a bike before it breaks, then rider broke the bike" to be True. And this statement needs to proven True for the argument to be True.
75% means likely but not a guarantee. Causation requires a mechanism (a series of logical events) and then a linkage of these logical events to the action. For example if the bike was a road bike, but was used on a BMX track, then the bike was not used in its natural environment. If you can show that the constant rumbling and chaotic nature of a dirt track leads to greater damage of the road bike, then you have grounds for causation through negligence. So, your premise of "75% of cases" could be true and is interesting, but if you cannot propose a mechanism leading the premise to the conclusion more concretely, one can always argue that they are the "25%" that did not lead to the bike breaking.
Global Warming is a natural cycle of ice age melting, says evidence and not a direct result of industry of man. In addition further evidence suggest a conflict of interest on behalf of charlatan scientists and bribed polititians who create a narrative of purpose propoganda. Yes pollution is bad, but we aren't stopping ice age cycles of Billions Years with 30 years of climate data. Get a grip. An inconvenient truth is a ploy to sell books and fraud speeches...and so is String Theory!
@@KevinRossLikins lol ..its funny when uninvited people with their futile efforts , who don't understand the abcd of science are making "smart" assertions about scientific data and discoveries ... just do us all a favour and stay out of our way , while we prepare for the worst and try to save our species.
Alex should offer to help fix the bike because he was the responsible party who accepted temporary responsibility for having borrowed the bike. I think Alex might be a dick because he tried to escape responsibility for the bike by saying he had nothing to do with it. Bike chains do not spontaneously break. Just by 2 cents based on my own personal values. I would never give a lame excuse just to avoid responsibility.
Didn't Sherlock Holmes use inductive reasoning? At least in fiction the arguments can work well enough to get a confession. BTW a simple contract could solve or eliminate the broke bike problem. A1guy: May I borrow your bike? B2guy: Ok, but if it breaks for any reason, Mr A1guy, you are responsible for returning it to me the way it left or better. Friends usually don't ask for contracts like that. Roommates that aren't close yet should.
What happens when you include the concept of willful blindness into this argument? For example, "Your roommate should have checked the condition of the bike and did everything in their power to preserve it, they did not, and therefore the bike breaking is still their responsibility?"
Let's play a game (if you want). Let's give humorous examples of the fallacy in this video: post hoc ergo propter hoc. I will start. I ate a cherry. Then, I grabbed a girl's boobs. Therefore, eating the cherry caused me to grab a girl's boobs.
Your bike example is terrible....when you borrow something from someone the correct or decent thing to do is to return it in the same condition you received it in. It does not really matter who is to blame (how you Americans love to blame someone or something). With borrowing you automatically are responsible for the item whilst in your care, and therefor its condition. Trying to "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" explain yourself of a damaged borrowed bike is just plain sh!t behavior. Own up and pay up.
Paul Z Eh, I guess then if I borrow my father’s car and a bird craps on it while I was stuck at a traffic light, then it’s my fault. I guess if I borrow my father’s car, an earthquake causes the road to split, the vehicle is trapped due to other falling cars, then it’s my fault that it was totaled. I guess if I borrow someone’s headphone jacks and get hit by lightning or a meteor then I should just have “Don’t trust this guy with your stuff” written on my tombstone. Way to chalk having the sense to understand how much is outside of a person’s control as a fault of Americans. Get that context-doesn’t-matter-and-the-world-bends-to-thy-will shit outta here.
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBkj-AYYg7w/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Appeal to the People [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aF6EHTtyYqw/mqdefault.jpg)
Paul made this video after breaking someone's bike
Children eat ice cream in the summer. Therefore giving children ice cream makes it summer.
Well. Yeah. Duh.
and that's not the generalizaton one?
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet
"If X, then Y" doesn't mean "If Y, then X". So "If it's summer, children eat ice cream" does not mean "If children eat ice cream, then it's summer". But "If and only if X, then Y" does mean "If Y, then X". So "If and only if it's summer, then children eat ice cream" does mean "If children eat ice cream, then it's summer".
A few years ago, I borrowed a friend's bike one morning to ride across campus. It was returned safely, locked up, an hour later. That night, someone threw a television from an 8th story window, which landed directly on half of said bike. Must've been me that broke the bike.
That was an amazing example
Conclusion: Don't break my bike.
Very an uncountable day in my life. Because of the deeply emotional experience and exploration from psychology and philosophy.
Who's here after that IPSIT NAIR speech in Ray
Bruh.. You got me
@@ryanbaruah7555 Mujhe pta tha koi toh hoga
bruhh yess
So in essence, post hoc is making conclusions from correlations?
I think so like saying the other day I saw a girl sneeze now I'm sick from her type thing?
More precisely, it is that correlation does not mean causation. It is an ironies conclusion that does not account for the actual variations which occur in any given situation.
Like manmade global warming :^)
No. Post hoc is making conclusions from pseudo correlations.
Thank you for making this video. It truly helped me understand PHEPH much better! now i feel more confident with this subject for a class I'm taking!
This video could have been 30 seconds long. Not that hard a concept.
I really love your videos, Paul! I have a philosophy course and your video helps me to understand the concepts better. Really appreciated!
Anyone's bike in this case.....
Correlation =/= Causation basically
What kind of logical fallacy is this?
Feminism is on the rise
Depression is on the rise
Therefore, the rise of feminism is responsible for the rise in depression.
Gavin Mcinnis makes this argument a lot and it's definitely a fallacy but I'm not sure what kind it is.
It's a correlation-causation fallacy. It's saying that because one thing increased/decreased as another thing increased/decreased, the first thing's increase/decrease caused the second thing's increase/decrease.
An example of this is as follows:
P1: In May, June, July and August, ice cream sales increase.
P2: In May, June, July and August, sunburn rates increase.
C: Therefore, ice cream causes sunburn.
The argument is clearly fallacious, and the conclusion is nonsense.
Some comical examples of how correlations can be meaningless are available here: www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Thanks!
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
its very amazing and i feel better for watching this video,I said thank you HENNE.....
Do the right thing, Alex... You know you broke dude's bike.
Aliyah has it in for Alex.
That example perfectly lays out how in your day to day PHEPH is a pretty good shorthand, it may be a fallacy to assume causation from Alex riding your bike but unless he has a good excuse he's probably paying for your bike chain regardless
Why was 'negligence' brought into the Alex's scenario? Alex was a factor in the breaking of the bike, so was the owner for letting him ride it. Would the bike have been broken if it wasn't ridden? Alex broke the bike.
A fallacy is something that isn't true.
+DonswatchingtheTube You are 100% right. The bike is a very poor example of this fallacy, because the bike would not have broken if Alex had not ridden it, so he is, indeed, responsible. And virtually all business and law is based on this fact! The cat scratch fever example, or sun coming out after the rain example are better. Paul should consider pulling this down - it makes Duke University look bad :)
The thing is that Alex is your friend, and you are not 100% sure he broke it. I dont think Alex would feel good if you make him pay for something he may have not done... what if the bicycle was just waiting for someone to crack down? Is it fair to blame Alex for breaking it? "And virtually all business and law is based on this fact!" Everything???
I agree that the bike example is a poor one. The issue raised in this video isn't whether Alex "broke" the bike, in the sense that he was a causal factor. Alex undoubtedly was a causal factor, but we don't know what other causal factors were in play such as a weak link in the bike chain, rust in the bike chain, etc. Rather, the issue is whether Alex exhibited negligence or malice that caused the bike to break, and that's why the question is an ethical one of moral responsibility and not a metaphysical one of causation.
Well, maybe or maybe it would broke anyway...What makes this flawed is about that there are not enough supporting evidence for this claim
You can be fallacious and still be true. Being fallacious mean your argumental form doesn't lead to conclusions.
His explanation reminds me of my physics class back in 12 standard
I like the Richard Dawkins cat.
Shoutout to my english teacher mr cabahug who is making us watch this rn
Big up.
some prosecuting attorneys hate this video
I'm a prosecuting attorney. I don't hate the video. Oh wait, you did say "some."
"Sir, there's video of you murdering this person"
"Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, bitch"
I had jury duty yesterday. They gave examples of situations during jury selection and I brought this argument up, and he said, “Come on, sometimes things are just obvious.” I still got selected. But it ended in a mistrial, the cop lied about his previous disciplinary record. Shame, I thought the guy was guilty after listening to arguments for most of the day, but the cop lied by omission on his record, and overtly on his report. The judge wasn’t thrilled. The defendant’s alleged victim didn’t get justice.
In the first example, you're confusing "cause" with moral responsibility.
Alex DID cause the break (even if it was defective, or due to wear and tear).
Not really because you're conflating "Alex rides the bike" with "anyone rides the bike". If the bike is sufficiently worn and someone rides the bike, then the bike will break. If the bike is sufficiently abused, then the bike will break. The bike breaks. The affirmative consequence of the bike breaking cannot be used to justify the antecedent of either condition. That's the fallacy of _affirming the consequent_ and is a misuse of _modes tolens_. Normally, using _modes tolens_, you *deny* the consequent in order to disprove the antecedent. If the bike *doesn't* break, then you can conclude both that it was not sufficiently abused *and* that the union of it being ridden as well as sufficiently worn (which could mean that it either a) sufficiently worn but wasn't ridden, b) was ridden but wasn't sufficiently worn, or c) was neither sufficiently worn nor ridden). Here's a simpler example; if the weather is clear, then I will go to the store. I go to the store. Therefore, the weather is clear. This is a fallacy because stating that I would go to the store if the weather is clear says nothing of what I would or wouldn't do if the weather isn't clear. The antecedent could be false (the weather *isn't* clear) but I still go to the store because I didn't phrase it as an exclusive condition (if and only if).
You're spot on. In reply to another person, I wrote, "I agree that the bike example is a poor one. The issue raised in this video isn't whether Alex 'broke' the bike, in the sense that he was a causal factor. Alex undoubtedly was a causal factor, but we don't know what other causal factors were in play such as a weak link in the bike chain, rust in the bike chain, etc. Rather, the issue is whether Alex exhibited negligence or malice that caused the bike to break, and that's why the question is an ethical one of moral responsibility and not a metaphysical one of causation."
This is why you ask Alex a lot of questions about his bike ride and how the chain broke. Dose Alex have a history of being hard on bikes? When did it break? Were did it break? How did it break?what did you do after it broke? ect
After hoc therefore something else hoc.
Josh, weren't you warned about responding to internet comments?
when you just bought a new chain and you know that the bike was in perfect order then the situation is slightly different.
Agreed .. but there is another possibility there ... the new chain could have been faulty . So it doesn't make fallacy committed any less sensible.
What's the chance of Problem Exists Between Handlebars being the cause? What's the base rate of PEBHAS? What's the chance of it breaking given that PEBHAS vs. not PEBHAS?
P(P|B) = P(B|P) / (P(B|P) + P(B|¬P))
= P(B|P) / P(B)
Divide
the probability of Alex riding badly and that actually causing the breakdown
by
the probability of the breakdown happening anyway.
Doesn't adding a second premise to the argument make it an abductive one?
We have a rule (Usually, the person who rides the bike before it's broken causes the bike to break) and an effect (The bike broke after Alex rode it) and we are trying to find a cause ( Alex broke the bike). You know, Sherlock Holmes style lol
Dammit, Aliyah. She's STILL pissed that Alex dumped her for Marsha.
Conclusion chains are not reliable :) !
Nice video Thx!
Reg
g
Is the inductive argument at 3 minute mark considered valid, but not sound?
Okay, so Alex didn't break the bike. Okay, it's a fallacy to assume he broke it.
1. The loaner was doing Alex a favor.
2. The bike wasn't broken BEFORE Alex used it. (Alex was the last guy to use the unbroken bike).
3. Since it broke under Alex's care (he was responsible to return the bike just as he borrowed it), at the very least, he shouldn't he pay a portion for the repair?
The chain did not break or was broken AFTER Alex rode it. It broke WHILE Alex was riding it. It really is a poor example since bike chains don't fail without being in use at the time of the failure. The stress of using it made it fail (no matter how hard it was used at the time). A few missing teeth on the chainring would have been a better example. Was the chainring totally fine before Alex loaned the bike? Did Alex hit something while riding it or was there an unknown damage already? You cannot ride a bike without a chain, so it being torn off after the ride, makes the rider responsible for this damage. They literally caused it to break by using it (even if lousy maintenance may have accelerated the deterioration). Not much breaks on a bicycle without the user causing the damage at the time of the event.
nice job breaking the bike, you knew it wasn't ridden for a while, you saw the chain wasn't lubed, and was rusted. you powered through the gear and it snapped the chain because you rode it when it needed maintenance thus breaking it way more, when before it just needed to be lubed and tightened. NICE JOB ALEX you owe me a new SE BIG RIPPER D BLOCKS edition
Is this fallacy related to correlation and causation?
Sort of. But some correlation can be causation
What do we NEED in order to make the POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC more reasonable?
post hoc ergo propter hoc is basically a wrong reasoning, so I wouldn't say that anything can make itself more reasonable.
But Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle explores 19 causal relationships from correlation itself, after ruling out spurious relationships with additional evidence the actual causal relationship may surface
Drugs.
I am new to driving. And so if anything goes wrong with the vehicle. My father blame me. He commit the ' post hoc ergo proper hoc.
muy buenas noches lastima que no tiene subtitulos en español gracias
First he broke your bike. Then he broke your health . Ergo, Alex is a shitty room mate.
Amazing.well explained
4:36 But what about if I find a study that says that in 75% of the cases, when a bike is broken is because of the someone who rides it before? Would it be a valid argument?
Don't know if you want answer now but here's my take. 75% chance still doesn't guarantee the statement: "If a person rides a bike before it breaks, then rider broke the bike" to be True. And this statement needs to proven True for the argument to be True.
75% means likely but not a guarantee.
Causation requires a mechanism (a series of logical events) and then a linkage of these logical events to the action. For example if the bike was a road bike, but was used on a BMX track, then the bike was not used in its natural environment. If you can show that the constant rumbling and chaotic nature of a dirt track leads to greater damage of the road bike, then you have grounds for causation through negligence.
So, your premise of "75% of cases" could be true and is interesting, but if you cannot propose a mechanism leading the premise to the conclusion more concretely, one can always argue that they are the "25%" that did not lead to the bike breaking.
@@sarahcarter3245 Well thought out answer :)
@@ashutoshmahapatra537 Thank you
“Suppose one day I chose to work from home.”
Ha! 2020 sends its regulars.
Alex rode my bike while having the flu.... my bike caused the fever
Have fun trying to explain this to a furious bike owner. How does one defend themself against this without delving this deep into logical terms.
Or simply put: Association does not mean causation.
Anyone after ray
Sometimes less is more. :)
The rooster crows then the sun rises, therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. Farmer logic
~commits Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc~
Police: YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!
thanks
I don't get it? Is this not common sense? Not being obnoxious, I genuinely just feel & wonder that? It's (sort of) correllation is not causation, no?
Hi sir, your making my brain go to malaise.
Cool video.
Global Warming is a natural cycle of ice age melting, says evidence and not a direct result of industry of man. In addition further evidence suggest a conflict of interest on behalf of charlatan scientists and bribed polititians who create a narrative of purpose propoganda. Yes pollution is bad, but we aren't stopping ice age cycles of Billions Years with 30 years of climate data. Get a grip. An inconvenient truth is a ploy to sell books and fraud speeches...and so is String Theory!
@@KevinRossLikins lol ..its funny when uninvited people with their futile efforts , who don't understand the abcd of science are making "smart" assertions about scientific data and discoveries ... just do us all a favour and stay out of our way , while we prepare for the worst and try to save our species.
Alex should offer to help fix the bike because he was the responsible party who accepted temporary responsibility for having borrowed the bike. I think Alex might be a dick because he tried to escape responsibility for the bike by saying he had nothing to do with it. Bike chains do not spontaneously break. Just by 2 cents based on my own personal values. I would never give a lame excuse just to avoid responsibility.
So basically, this fallacy is connected to the placebo effect.
Didn't Sherlock Holmes use inductive reasoning? At least in fiction the arguments can work well enough to get a confession.
BTW a simple contract could solve or eliminate the broke bike problem.
A1guy: May I borrow your bike?
B2guy: Ok, but if it breaks for any reason, Mr A1guy, you are responsible for returning it to me the way it left or better.
Friends usually don't ask for contracts like that. Roommates that aren't close yet should.
❤
I see this logical fallacy used all the time these days. I recognize it a lot being by conspiracy theorists and the like.
Alex owes you a new bike!
Nerd!
The first lifeboat that bumped into the Titanic didn't cause it to sink.
What happens when you include the concept of willful blindness into this argument? For example, "Your roommate should have checked the condition of the bike and did everything in their power to preserve it, they did not, and therefore the bike breaking is still their responsibility?"
Nick Campbell Destroys
Let's play a game (if you want). Let's give humorous examples of the fallacy in this video: post hoc ergo propter hoc. I will start.
I ate a cherry. Then, I grabbed a girl's boobs. Therefore, eating the cherry caused me to grab a girl's boobs.
And this is why I don't lend my stuff to people...
Jumping to conclusions?
The fucking chain was 20 years old, could have killed Alex.
Your bike example is terrible....when you borrow something from someone the correct or decent thing to do is to return it in the same condition you received it in. It does not really matter who is to blame (how you Americans love to blame someone or something). With borrowing you automatically are responsible for the item whilst in your care, and therefor its condition. Trying to "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" explain yourself of a damaged borrowed bike is just plain sh!t behavior. Own up and pay up.
Paul Z
Eh, I guess then if I borrow my father’s car and a bird craps on it while I was stuck at a traffic light, then it’s my fault. I guess if I borrow my father’s car, an earthquake causes the road to split, the vehicle is trapped due to other falling cars, then it’s my fault that it was totaled.
I guess if I borrow someone’s headphone jacks and get hit by lightning or a meteor then I should just have “Don’t trust this guy with your stuff” written on my tombstone.
Way to chalk having the sense to understand how much is outside of a person’s control as a fault of Americans. Get that context-doesn’t-matter-and-the-world-bends-to-thy-will shit outta here.
I learned this watching West Wing.
All Aristotle and shit.
Fucking Alex.
it would've been true if alex was fat