jwray: Thanks for pointing that out.

And I agree with you. The need for logic instruction is dire.

Man...sometimes sarcasm can be more profound than anything.

I would have been so thoroughly creeped out if that had ever happened to me and my mother gave that speech.

Totally sweet.

Something about its gesticulation strikes me as unnatural.

If you click "links" beneath a YouTube video you can see the top five referring URL's to a video. I have you to thank for about half of the traffic it's received. Many thanks to you.

I'll start looking into doing a video about the Baloney Detection kit.

In reply to your comment:
“ok, but which video was it?

Edit:oh, nm, found it, it was the logical fallacies one. good one! How did you know it was posted here? For future posts you might consider doing something on Sagan's baloney detection kit or something. all the current videos on that blow goats.

Very nice. Adam Carolla couldn't have given more appropriate answers.

It's a British variant. If you think about it, it's more consistent. You don't go around saying cris-chan-ity.

Dignant: Neither, as such. If God could be argued without resorting to fallacies such as these, I don't think anyone could be against a god. I'm against bullshit.

Memorare: gluonium is right, of course, except that some of them do have Latin names that I simply didn't know at the time. The finest example of this is the "confusing association with causation" fallacy which is known in Latin as "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc".

And yes, these fallacies are law, assuming that I've made no mistakes in their presentation.

Sorry gwiz. I got lazy and didn't want to re-record many of them. I'll do better next time.

I agree with Gluonium. Logic and rhetoric are two distinct components of language.

I wondered if I ought to've mentioned it by name. The video about logical fallacies is mine.

Thanks for posting my video. With any luck, I'll be able to create videos meriting similar interest in the future.