You got the appeal to authority backwards; it's not people automatically distrusting authority, it's the opposite. It's when people trust someone blindly *because* they're considered an authority on a subject, ignoring that they could be wrong.
I think what Pat was trying to describe is the case where people try to not fall for this fallacy, and take it to the opposite extreme to never trust authority.
Composition Fallacy encompasses basically all the isms in society. Division Fallacy is like when a company makes a crappy decision and people blame the individual employees, as if they had a say in it.
@@BeppppI don't think it's inherently wrong to bring up hypocrisy when you see it. At least, I think the point is to not bring hypocrisy as an excuse to dismiss the argument.
actually, you can defend against knives, but the idea is less to not get slashed and more to make sure that when you get slashed it happens on an area of your body that can handle it, then disarm them
Yeah, it’s awful My mom always said “you can’t have food now it’s too late” or “you can’t have food now it’s too close to last meal” and then never explain WHY! “Just because” SORRY I get full very fast, but I ALSO get very HUNGRY fast!!
@@pemanilnoob they got those infos from people they trust and not because they understood, they simply admitted defeat to theyr iwn stupidity and started accepting stuff without critical thinking and they survived therefore that strategy works for survivaland teaching it to your kids is right because they are your genes and as stupid as youare. By SHEER probability you are probably as logically challenged but havent surrendered yet and maybe thats you being already insane and removed from reality ... Its true and scary and i personally try to always consider me being wrong but all it does is all others think you ARE wrong while they dont have proof but i CONSIDER myself potentialky wrong so in theyr eyes i might aswell be, while me considering makes me a huge step ahead yet im considered inferior.... Humans are a headache and yiu cant safe em...
To be clear, the tradition fallacy and the novelty fallacy are about saying something is good because it's old/new. If you just happen to like things that are new, that's fine. But the point is that you like them because they have good properties, not because they're new. A new cancer treatment is good because it helps fight cancer, not because it's new. If you were to say that everything that is new is good, or that something is new, therefore it's good, THAT would be a novelty fallacy. But I'm sure even you can point out new things that aren't good. Also, the thought terminating cliché can be about anything, the point is that it's some kind of saying or catchphrase that will be used to counter an argument even though the argument is sound. Basically, instead of addressing the argument with a sound counterargument, the person will go "Ah, but as everyone knows, [insert random saying or catchphrase]"
I HAAAATE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ONE!! MAKES ME THINK OF FLAT EARTHERS LOL They be talking to fucking scientists like "You say im wrong but can't even prove that the earth is round, you just keep repeating the same stuff, kek, sheep" and i'm over there like "BROOO, WHY DON'T YOU PROVE YOUR OWN THEORY INSTEAD??" 😭
If you were debating the trustworthiness of a man, bringing up an example of him defying somebody's trust would be an attack on the argument that he is trustworthy and is therefore not ad hominen.
I'm actually puzzled on this. It should be an ad hominem, at least in a literal sense, meaning "to the person" in Latin, what it obviously isn't in this context is a fallacy, because the topic is about the person, and therefore, arguments to the person are relevant to the topic. That's how I understand it anyway. Suffices to say, I'm not a native English speaker, so I may miss more subtle semantics.
@JoelHernandez-tz3vk Didn't expect to get a reply to that one. You're right that, in the literal sense, it is ad hominen. However, since we're talking about logical fallacies, I decided to use the relevant definition. It's also worth mentioning that it's only even ad hominen in the technical sense if the person you're debating with is also the one you're debating about. About your English, it's much better than that of most people here in the USA (no kidding, our literacy rates are terrible).
Appeal to tradition and chronological snobbery. Pretty much two the most defining fallacies for the modern politics. Think about how much someone uses "we always did that" or "It's [current year]" as the argument.
15:55 there is actually a martial art that will save you from guy with knife, it's called kenjutsu, the reason why this martial art will save you, is because it teaches you how to use a katana... so if you have a katana or a bokken (wooden katana), and there is a guy with knife, well, you know who get stabbed first lol
There are a few martial arts that work well against someone with a Knife. Tai Chi especially, as it's whole thing is redirecting the momentum of your opponent to pacify them as quickly as possible. Due to how short a concealable knife typically is, a remotely competent user of Tai Chi can typically fend off an attacker armed with a knife. Now if it's a gun it won't help at all unless you manage to be close enough already, but that comes with it's own risks that it'd just be more efficient to not have much money on you, and/or potentially keep a burner wallet if you're able to.
this type of stuff is great to know so that you can bring it up when somebody does it and call them out... only to realise those people don't care when you point it out and then do it even more lmfao
That's some nice vacuous truth fallacy. Yes, martial arts technically can teach you how to disarm a knife-wielding attacker, but it's still a very bad idea to attempt to fist fight a knife-wielding attacker.
I kind of hate how fluid language can be, imo words should have more authority in their definition to avoid redefining fallacies. The way it works now there's nothing technically wrong in me changing the definition of any word on the fly. Also one excruciating example is when enough people use a term wrongly for a certain amount of time the definition of this word changes into that. The language adapts to people stupidity.
Just because 99% of the people agree on something makes it ANY more true or false. If there's 9 people who haven't directly observed an event and claim x about it is false and there's one person who did directly observe it and says that's nonsense, who are you going to believe?
22:22 - No, that’s not true. You’re always entitled to your own opinion. It’s just that sometimes, your opinion is _wrong_ or, worse, get screamed in the face at for making a logical opinion.
It's probably too late for the us to ban gun as a right because most people have already gotten their hands on it, whether it be a criminal or not. And criminal doesn't care about abiding the law, unless the punishment is very heavy on it.
@@epiccarrot88 that is a very ambiguous sentence, you could get sent to jail for defending your property almost everywhere, even in the us. That is if your defending of the property is deemed excessive.
@@rein_k. If you smack someone around the head with a cricket bat who is currently ransacking your place and you don't know they have a weapon, and that blow leads to their death? Then it's a crime. Even though they could be wielding and may just shoot you or your family on sight, the law is still on the intruder's side. Heck, there was a case where a pensioner was taken to court after he st@bbed an intruder with the knife that the intruder st@bbed him with first, and would have continued to do so if the pensioner didn't successfully take it from him. He didn't get jailed, but the years of legal process and the affect it had on his life ruined him.
Man I do love me some slippery slopes, haha, just kidding they suck massively. The Slippery Slope has basically defined my views on life and studying ever since like middle school to this very day (college) and most of the times it lead me to the conclusion of dying sad, alone and hungry. Even when I manage to step back a little and think logically, all it takes is one little slip up and down the slope I go again.
Bro if anyone in the comments get offended because of using gay in its old form then they need to get off the internet so you ok @cloverfinderboygamer3573
I hate the characterization of centrists. Centrists aren't fence sitters, we hold both right wing and left wing views. Also, the fallacy is about *always* saying the solution is in the middle. But there are many scenarios in which a solution IS in the middle
What country do you live in? Because most European conservatives are different from American conservatives for example, also generally anyone who calls the self centrists are generally conservative
@@StrikeBolteafc I'm American. And I do have far more conservative beliefs than I do liberal ones, however, I do still hold them. For example, I'm strongly against restricting guns, but I'm very much pro-abortion. It's not that I'm an equal split between both belief systems, but I still do have just enough differences to not fully subscribe to one political belief system.
@@iMAOusuc do you believe in the conservative belief of denying the election when they lose and raiding the Capitol? What about the 20% tariffs in all imports that trump wants which would cripple the economy?
1:31 Reminds me of the time I made a comment about my dad (complete deadbeat who refuses to get and/or keep a job and just leeches off of everyone else) not having a job. He turned it right back on me by pointing out that I'm 21 and have never had a single job in my entire life. Well...funny story...I'm on disability because I have autism. My disability money is even sometimes one of the biggest things paying for them to have food since whenever I'm over there my mom will take me to the store and buy a bunch of food with my money (I'm not good with money so she's in charge of it) so that I'll have things to eat because whenever I'm not there they usually don't have much of anything since my mom usually doesn't use my money unless I'm there to benefit from it (since that's how it's supposed to be...but honestly I wouldn't mind if she used it some just so that there was a bit more food). Yeah, so I just countered with "I may not have a job but I'm currently making more money than you are!" My father promptly shut up and my mom's only response was "I mean, she's right. She is technically making money unlike you."
@@FieryMeltman Oooooh you don't know, do you 😂 there's a clear difference there bud, very clear even if you never watched his videos. I'm shocked you think it's all the same because last time i checked everyone cared when MatPat left, that's a big difference between a normal youtube channel uploading for fun.
@@zah_old_accI've watched Matpat's videos for many years. Why did you assume my ignorance? I've simply seen this rodeo many times. The fact that he's a popular content creator doesn't make his exit any more significant to me.
@@MorePatterrz Everybody reacted already, it's probably too late anyways lol plus you've seen the video already but it was weird to me how he gave you good content to react to and you reacted to you reacted to alot of his other videos but never reacted to arguably the most important one.
17:14 well, US problem with guns is not so simple for "just ban them" to solve it The fact is that those types of laws have been failing them for long time US has had guns for way too long for "just ban them" to do any good instead of just creating more criminal elements It is pretty nuanced and hard to solve problem Not to mention the places that are so open for banning the guns are also the places that want to abolish the police which is a speedrun strat to get the highest crime rates in the country Yes, their gun problem needs to be solved but no, it's not that simple
Exactly. Saying that the solution to the gun crisis is to ban them is either a fallacy of the single cause, a Nirvana fallacy, or both. Yes, it's true that America has a very bad gun problem that is greatly exacerbated by the easy access to guns, but this is a complex, multifaceted problem that can't be solved with a single action. A better answer would be to look at the causes of violent crime and attempt to solve those, such as social inequality, poverty, poor physical and mental health, etc. Would America be a better place if no one had guns? Almost certainly, yes. However, that's not a realistic goal.
Okay, the gun thing... That's not the full counter-argument we have against gun control at all. See, the problem _isn't_ that we're conflating "reducing" with "eliminating". Rather, the implications aren't being thought out. Think about it this way: do ordinary people cause mass shootings? No, of course not, only intentional criminals do! So any such laws would _maybe_ reduce ability to get guns for criminals, but _definitely_ do so for your average citizen! Now riddle me this: would you feel safer in causing a mass shooting if you _did,_ or _did not_ know how many opposing guns were in the vicinity? To put it another way: the everyday Joe having a gun is a much better deterrent of gun crimes than trying to make owning guns criminal. The data _does_ correlate to that hypothesis, since it's the places with gun-control measures that have worse gun crime rates, even compared to their pre-control conditions. Besides, the 2nd Amendment already says the right to own guns "Shall not be infringed", meaning all gun-control laws are unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) to begin with. Any counterargument based on the word "militia" being used overlooks the fact that, back then, the word just meant "armed citizenry" or the like, and not some specific type of organization. Now, if you think the Constitution is _wrong_ to have that Amendment... that's fine! Just follow the rules placed in the Constitution for rewriting it, and you'll be perfectly legal! ...Except no one ever actually _tries_ that, because they know they cannot get the required support to pull it off.
Okay, that is a _horrible_ example of "Inflation of Conflict". The most common comparison isn't "4.5B versus 4.6B", it's "4 or 5B versus 6 or 7K", which is quite the significant gap! Not to say that Inflation of Conflict isn't a fallacy, rather that the example provided is a bit of a Strawman of the subject referenced (as opposed to a purposeful exaggeration of the fallacy itself for descriptive purposes).
Being gay *is* a choice though. The appearance of the feelings may not be, but the acts are a choice. And the plasticity of the brain allows a willing mind to rewire itself to not get those feelings anymore. You were just wrong there. And on the flip side, someone can rewire their brain to make feelings for people of the same gender arise. This is why many people have such an issue with the school system encouraging it. If their kid chooses to follow their feelings, or even change their feelings, then fine. But schools encouraging it as a good thing, as something you should be, could be the reason their kid doesn't choose to change their feelings, or choose to change their feelings so they become a sexual minority themself. I know that it was exposure to sex ed at a young age that made me choose to be asexual. As I got older, I chose to rewire my brain because I didn't like that a part of my life that was no business of the school system was changed by the school system. This is why people with cultural or religious beliefs are so against it's teaching in school. They can never tell if it was truly their kid's choice, or if it was the influence of the school.
No it is not a choice. Going from a sexual to straight is much different than going from straight to gay…… I don’t even know how your making that comparison . Your sexual orientation is likely determined by hormones from when you were developing in the womb.
@@kkandola9072 Nope, and I've even spoken to people who have experienced being able to change their sexuality. The whole "it's not a choice" thing is lies.
A gay person is not able to change his/her sexuality as much as a straight person is able to change theirs, it's not a friggin hobby. This counts in general too, you aren't able to pick your interests. Now sexualities are somewhat fluid, they can change a bit over time. But don't think for a moment that an individual has consious control over these entrenched desires.
You got the appeal to authority backwards; it's not people automatically distrusting authority, it's the opposite. It's when people trust someone blindly *because* they're considered an authority on a subject, ignoring that they could be wrong.
Ironically he described "Entitled to my opinion"/Anecdote
I think what Pat was trying to describe is the case where people try to not fall for this fallacy, and take it to the opposite extreme to never trust authority.
Composition Fallacy encompasses basically all the isms in society.
Division Fallacy is like when a company makes a crappy decision and people blame the individual employees, as if they had a say in it.
Tu quoque was honestly shocking to hear about. I'm pretty sure I've used that fallacy a lot more than I care to admit😅
Ya same
@@BeppppI don't think it's inherently wrong to bring up hypocrisy when you see it. At least, I think the point is to not bring hypocrisy as an excuse to dismiss the argument.
What do you call a dinosaur that can’t think right?
A “Fallacyraptor”
Thank you for this joke; I’m using this later, here: take a like and a comment as payment
Philosoraptor's evil and/or stupid doppelganger?
actually, you can defend against knives, but the idea is less to not get slashed and more to make sure that when you get slashed it happens on an area of your body that can handle it, then disarm them
Good point regarding No true Scotsman and how they relate to fandoms!
Gods circular reasoning was the bane of my existence growing up it drove me insane that no actual reasons were given 🙃
Yeah, it’s awful
My mom always said “you can’t have food now it’s too late” or “you can’t have food now it’s too close to last meal” and then never explain WHY! “Just because”
SORRY I get full very fast, but I ALSO get very HUNGRY fast!!
@@pemanilnoobSame!
@@pemanilnoob they got those infos from people they trust and not because they understood, they simply admitted defeat to theyr iwn stupidity and started accepting stuff without critical thinking and they survived therefore that strategy works for survivaland teaching it to your kids is right because they are your genes and as stupid as youare.
By SHEER probability you are probably as logically challenged but havent surrendered yet and maybe thats you being already insane and removed from reality ... Its true and scary and i personally try to always consider me being wrong but all it does is all others think you ARE wrong while they dont have proof but i CONSIDER myself potentialky wrong so in theyr eyes i might aswell be, while me considering makes me a huge step ahead yet im considered inferior.... Humans are a headache and yiu cant safe em...
To be clear, the tradition fallacy and the novelty fallacy are about saying something is good because it's old/new. If you just happen to like things that are new, that's fine. But the point is that you like them because they have good properties, not because they're new. A new cancer treatment is good because it helps fight cancer, not because it's new. If you were to say that everything that is new is good, or that something is new, therefore it's good, THAT would be a novelty fallacy. But I'm sure even you can point out new things that aren't good.
Also, the thought terminating cliché can be about anything, the point is that it's some kind of saying or catchphrase that will be used to counter an argument even though the argument is sound. Basically, instead of addressing the argument with a sound counterargument, the person will go "Ah, but as everyone knows, [insert random saying or catchphrase]"
I HAAAATE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ONE!! MAKES ME THINK OF FLAT EARTHERS LOL
They be talking to fucking scientists like "You say im wrong but can't even prove that the earth is round, you just keep repeating the same stuff, kek, sheep" and i'm over there like "BROOO, WHY DON'T YOU PROVE YOUR OWN THEORY INSTEAD??" 😭
If you were debating the trustworthiness of a man, bringing up an example of him defying somebody's trust would be an attack on the argument that he is trustworthy and is therefore not ad hominen.
True but like you said its not ad hominem.
I'm actually puzzled on this. It should be an ad hominem, at least in a literal sense, meaning "to the person" in Latin, what it obviously isn't in this context is a fallacy, because the topic is about the person, and therefore, arguments to the person are relevant to the topic.
That's how I understand it anyway. Suffices to say, I'm not a native English speaker, so I may miss more subtle semantics.
@JoelHernandez-tz3vk Didn't expect to get a reply to that one. You're right that, in the literal sense, it is ad hominen. However, since we're talking about logical fallacies, I decided to use the relevant definition. It's also worth mentioning that it's only even ad hominen in the technical sense if the person you're debating with is also the one you're debating about.
About your English, it's much better than that of most people here in the USA (no kidding, our literacy rates are terrible).
Appeal to tradition and chronological snobbery.
Pretty much two the most defining fallacies for the modern politics.
Think about how much someone uses "we always did that" or "It's [current year]" as the argument.
I love these kinds of videos. They make me feel validated.
15:55 there is actually a martial art that will save you from guy with knife, it's called kenjutsu, the reason why this martial art will save you, is because it teaches you how to use a katana... so if you have a katana or a bokken (wooden katana), and there is a guy with knife, well, you know who get stabbed first lol
There are a few martial arts that work well against someone with a Knife. Tai Chi especially, as it's whole thing is redirecting the momentum of your opponent to pacify them as quickly as possible. Due to how short a concealable knife typically is, a remotely competent user of Tai Chi can typically fend off an attacker armed with a knife. Now if it's a gun it won't help at all unless you manage to be close enough already, but that comes with it's own risks that it'd just be more efficient to not have much money on you, and/or potentially keep a burner wallet if you're able to.
this type of stuff is great to know so that you can bring it up when somebody does it and call them out... only to realise those people don't care when you point it out and then do it even more lmfao
When I saw the Definist Fallacy, I immediately thought of iilluminaughtii's plagiarism defense.
11:28 Nope, strawberries are actually nuts😂😂😂
13:59
*A Jack of All Trades is a Master of None* but is still better than a Master of One.
Sick old and feeble mma fighter vs Bruce Lee
Bruh I literally have a test on logical fallacies next week 🤣
4:59 composition and division fallacy seem to crop up a LOT in politics.
Boy you are going to have a massive egg on your face when the lizard people finally reveal themselves.
11:14
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a grammatically correct English sentence.
Why am I always early to Patterz videos specifically? It’s never any other channels, but always Patterz, idk why
i didnt realize this video was new lol
Composition and Division fallacies are usually used in prejudices (racism being the major one still)
Inflation of conflict is what students would face if their Flat Earther parents argued with the geography teacher for teaching The Globe.
In martial arts you sometimes learn how to prevent being stabed with a knife. So you CAN "martial art" your way out of a knife fight
True 😂😂 I learnt it when I did mma
That's some nice vacuous truth fallacy. Yes, martial arts technically can teach you how to disarm a knife-wielding attacker, but it's still a very bad idea to attempt to fist fight a knife-wielding attacker.
Good luck with that. I wouldn't bet on the chances of the one who lacks a weapon.
@Celestia282 i didn't say it wasn't a bad idea but its not as hopeless as pat says
@@FieryMeltman me neither
I kind of hate how fluid language can be, imo words should have more authority in their definition to avoid redefining fallacies. The way it works now there's nothing technically wrong in me changing the definition of any word on the fly.
Also one excruciating example is when enough people use a term wrongly for a certain amount of time the definition of this word changes into that. The language adapts to people stupidity.
Just because 99% of the people agree on something makes it ANY more true or false.
If there's 9 people who haven't directly observed an event and claim x about it is false and there's one person who did directly observe it and says that's nonsense, who are you going to believe?
You shouldn't listen to this guy about the so-called Ad Hominem fallacy. I heard he punched a baby for $10 and a golf ball.
Love your content🔥🔥🔥
22:22 - No, that’s not true. You’re always entitled to your own opinion. It’s just that sometimes, your opinion is _wrong_ or, worse, get screamed in the face at for making a logical opinion.
No, opinions can't be wrong. You can't have an opinion about something that has an objective truth.
What you don’t understand Patterz is that most gun crimes here in the USA aren’t from people who legally own guns.
It's probably too late for the us to ban gun as a right because most people have already gotten their hands on it, whether it be a criminal or not. And criminal doesn't care about abiding the law, unless the punishment is very heavy on it.
And Patterz of all people criticising the US, when in the UK, you can go to jail for defending yourself from a home invader.
@@epiccarrot88 that is a very ambiguous sentence, you could get sent to jail for defending your property almost everywhere, even in the us. That is if your defending of the property is deemed excessive.
@@rein_k. If you smack someone around the head with a cricket bat who is currently ransacking your place and you don't know they have a weapon, and that blow leads to their death? Then it's a crime. Even though they could be wielding and may just shoot you or your family on sight, the law is still on the intruder's side. Heck, there was a case where a pensioner was taken to court after he st@bbed an intruder with the knife that the intruder st@bbed him with first, and would have continued to do so if the pensioner didn't successfully take it from him. He didn't get jailed, but the years of legal process and the affect it had on his life ruined him.
@@epiccarrot88 deemed excessive by the court doesn't mean that i agree by it, though you could probably not aim for the head?
Man I do love me some slippery slopes, haha, just kidding they suck massively.
The Slippery Slope has basically defined my views on life and studying ever since like middle school to this very day (college) and most of the times it lead me to the conclusion of dying sad, alone and hungry.
Even when I manage to step back a little and think logically, all it takes is one little slip up and down the slope I go again.
Reacting to genshins Fontaine story when?
He said fallacy so many times I liter could only see my poop as a fallacy and could not make it...
Pog
12:55 gay Used to mean "I'm happy"
Edit: Sorry if It offended anyone It's just true.
Bro if anyone in the comments get offended because of using gay in its old form then they need to get off the internet so you ok @cloverfinderboygamer3573
And it somehow got a connection with fruit too, somewhere...
So the conclusion is nothing. Literally nothing.(I am committing a fallacy rn)
I hate the characterization of centrists. Centrists aren't fence sitters, we hold both right wing and left wing views. Also, the fallacy is about *always* saying the solution is in the middle. But there are many scenarios in which a solution IS in the middle
What country do you live in? Because most European conservatives are different from American conservatives for example, also generally anyone who calls the self centrists are generally conservative
@@StrikeBolteafc I'm American. And I do have far more conservative beliefs than I do liberal ones, however, I do still hold them. For example, I'm strongly against restricting guns, but I'm very much pro-abortion. It's not that I'm an equal split between both belief systems, but I still do have just enough differences to not fully subscribe to one political belief system.
@@iMAOusuc do you believe in the conservative belief of denying the election when they lose and raiding the Capitol? What about the 20% tariffs in all imports that trump wants which would cripple the economy?
Just found out i dont got a job guys : (
1:31
Reminds me of the time I made a comment about my dad (complete deadbeat who refuses to get and/or keep a job and just leeches off of everyone else) not having a job. He turned it right back on me by pointing out that I'm 21 and have never had a single job in my entire life. Well...funny story...I'm on disability because I have autism. My disability money is even sometimes one of the biggest things paying for them to have food since whenever I'm over there my mom will take me to the store and buy a bunch of food with my money (I'm not good with money so she's in charge of it) so that I'll have things to eat because whenever I'm not there they usually don't have much of anything since my mom usually doesn't use my money unless I'm there to benefit from it (since that's how it's supposed to be...but honestly I wouldn't mind if she used it some just so that there was a bit more food).
Yeah, so I just countered with "I may not have a job but I'm currently making more money than you are!"
My father promptly shut up and my mom's only response was "I mean, she's right. She is technically making money unlike you."
Cool
How have you still not reacted to MatPat leaving TH-cam?? Its been the top topic for like a week now...
Not a big deal. Content creators quit all the time.
@@FieryMeltman Oooooh you don't know, do you 😂 there's a clear difference there bud, very clear even if you never watched his videos. I'm shocked you think it's all the same because last time i checked everyone cared when MatPat left, that's a big difference between a normal youtube channel uploading for fun.
@@zah_old_accI've watched Matpat's videos for many years. Why did you assume my ignorance? I've simply seen this rodeo many times. The fact that he's a popular content creator doesn't make his exit any more significant to me.
Feels a bit weird to react to a video of him crying and everything. I wish him well but there’s not much I can add
@@MorePatterrz Everybody reacted already, it's probably too late anyways lol plus you've seen the video already but it was weird to me how he gave you good content to react to and you reacted to you reacted to alot of his other videos but never reacted to arguably the most important one.
Third
17:14 well, US problem with guns is not so simple for "just ban them" to solve it
The fact is that those types of laws have been failing them for long time
US has had guns for way too long for "just ban them" to do any good instead of just creating more criminal elements
It is pretty nuanced and hard to solve problem
Not to mention the places that are so open for banning the guns are also the places that want to abolish the police which is a speedrun strat to get the highest crime rates in the country
Yes, their gun problem needs to be solved but no, it's not that simple
Exactly. Saying that the solution to the gun crisis is to ban them is either a fallacy of the single cause, a Nirvana fallacy, or both. Yes, it's true that America has a very bad gun problem that is greatly exacerbated by the easy access to guns, but this is a complex, multifaceted problem that can't be solved with a single action. A better answer would be to look at the causes of violent crime and attempt to solve those, such as social inequality, poverty, poor physical and mental health, etc. Would America be a better place if no one had guns? Almost certainly, yes. However, that's not a realistic goal.
Okay, the gun thing...
That's not the full counter-argument we have against gun control at all.
See, the problem _isn't_ that we're conflating "reducing" with "eliminating". Rather, the implications aren't being thought out.
Think about it this way: do ordinary people cause mass shootings? No, of course not, only intentional criminals do! So any such laws would _maybe_ reduce ability to get guns for criminals, but _definitely_ do so for your average citizen!
Now riddle me this: would you feel safer in causing a mass shooting if you _did,_ or _did not_ know how many opposing guns were in the vicinity? To put it another way: the everyday Joe having a gun is a much better deterrent of gun crimes than trying to make owning guns criminal. The data _does_ correlate to that hypothesis, since it's the places with gun-control measures that have worse gun crime rates, even compared to their pre-control conditions.
Besides, the 2nd Amendment already says the right to own guns "Shall not be infringed", meaning all gun-control laws are unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) to begin with. Any counterargument based on the word "militia" being used overlooks the fact that, back then, the word just meant "armed citizenry" or the like, and not some specific type of organization.
Now, if you think the Constitution is _wrong_ to have that Amendment... that's fine! Just follow the rules placed in the Constitution for rewriting it, and you'll be perfectly legal! ...Except no one ever actually _tries_ that, because they know they cannot get the required support to pull it off.
Okay, that is a _horrible_ example of "Inflation of Conflict". The most common comparison isn't "4.5B versus 4.6B", it's "4 or 5B versus 6 or 7K", which is quite the significant gap!
Not to say that Inflation of Conflict isn't a fallacy, rather that the example provided is a bit of a Strawman of the subject referenced (as opposed to a purposeful exaggeration of the fallacy itself for descriptive purposes).
Being gay *is* a choice though. The appearance of the feelings may not be, but the acts are a choice. And the plasticity of the brain allows a willing mind to rewire itself to not get those feelings anymore. You were just wrong there. And on the flip side, someone can rewire their brain to make feelings for people of the same gender arise. This is why many people have such an issue with the school system encouraging it. If their kid chooses to follow their feelings, or even change their feelings, then fine. But schools encouraging it as a good thing, as something you should be, could be the reason their kid doesn't choose to change their feelings, or choose to change their feelings so they become a sexual minority themself. I know that it was exposure to sex ed at a young age that made me choose to be asexual. As I got older, I chose to rewire my brain because I didn't like that a part of my life that was no business of the school system was changed by the school system.
This is why people with cultural or religious beliefs are so against it's teaching in school. They can never tell if it was truly their kid's choice, or if it was the influence of the school.
No it is not a choice.
Going from a sexual to straight is much different than going from straight to gay…… I don’t even know how your making that comparison .
Your sexual orientation is likely determined by hormones from when you were developing in the womb.
@@kkandola9072 Nope, and I've even spoken to people who have experienced being able to change their sexuality. The whole "it's not a choice" thing is lies.
A gay person is not able to change his/her sexuality as much as a straight person is able to change theirs, it's not a friggin hobby. This counts in general too, you aren't able to pick your interests.
Now sexualities are somewhat fluid, they can change a bit over time. But don't think for a moment that an individual has consious control over these entrenched desires.