Welcome back in the last few lectures we talked about some of the basic concepts in which we started we recognized arguments and we could recognize arguments only when there are some premise indicators or conclusion indicators. Suppose if these premise and conclusion indicators are missing then we are looking for some kind of factual claim if it is there it is well and good and then we said that for identifying or recognizing an argument what is most important is the inferential claim. So if you can find the inferential claim then can say that there seems to be some kind of argument present in a given English language passage and once we identified the arguments then we identified that based on how the conclusion follows from the premises we identified that a particular kind of argument is a deductive argument in which conclusion necessarily follows from the premises and there is no new information in the conclusion which is not stated in the premises and then it is not considered to be applicative etc and all and we identified some of the other arguments in which the conclusion only probably follows from the premises and there is always some kind of new information in the conclusion which is not there in the premises and all. So these are what we call it as inductive arguments and then we also said something about non arguments such as you know somebody is giving just a piece of advice or suggestion or is just giving some kind of explanation or expository passages etc they are all non inferential passages hence we treated them as non arguments. So then we talked about one example with which one method with which we could find out whether a given argument is invalid etc and all that method is called as counter example method. So then we spoke about one particular model of argumentation which is due to Stephen Tulmin and with which you could find out what constitutes what is what do you mean by an effective argument and all. So there is a model which we have presented and then there we have seen that there are at least a few components of an argument or a layout of an argument which are important that is data and a claim and data and claim are supported by some kind of warrants and warrant needs to be supported by further backed up statements and then suppose if you come up with any claim each claim needs to be having some kind of qualifier and then it will have it every argument should have some kind of a rebuttal. So this is what we have done so far and then now what we will do is this that once we identified that they are deductive and inductive arguments and then both deductive and inductive arguments can be fallacious. So in this lecture we will be talking about what we mean by fallacy and what kind of fallacy is that we commonly come across in day to day discourse or when the arguer is said to be making some kind of mistakes in the argumentation after all fallacy is nothing but a mistake or error or defect in the argumentation and all. So why the arguer does this mistakes and all because simply because of this that all these fallacies are some kind of persuasive mechanisms and all. So we all the time want others to accept our claims and all in the process sometimes will be logical sometimes we may not be logical or we make some mistakes etc and that is what we are going to study in this lecture and all. So in this lecture I will be focusing on two kinds of two different kinds of fallacies so that is formal fallacies and informal fallacies and then I will talk a little bit about formal fallacies first and then we will move on to informal fallacies, informal fallacies arises because of some kind of problem of relevance and then I will talk about fallacies of weak induction and apart from this thing there are some kind of fallacies which arises out of ambiguity in the language because English language is vague because for example a simple word such as a predicate like tall can be represented in so many different ways and also Ram is tall for example if you say that thing and the next question that comes to us is how tall he is this is the case that 6.8 is considered to be should be considered to be tall or 5.8 is to be considered to be tall or what will happen to those cases in which falls between 5.8 definitely we consider that they are definitely taller and all and those cases in which they fall between 5.8 and 6.2 etc. So English language is a little bit vague and also we might make some mistakes in the argumentation especially when we shift the meaning of the words that we use in the argumentation then we talk about some kind of fallacies which arises out of grammatical errors etc. and all so these kinds of fallacies come under the category of fallacies arising out of ambiguity of language. So then we will discuss about detecting and avoiding fallacies this is the program this is the agenda for under this fallacies so in this lecture I will be focusing on formal fallacies and the informal fallacies especially the fallacies of relevance. So before I continue then let us talk about what we mean by a fallacy. So it is used as a synonym for any kind of position that is falls are sometimes even deceptive or sometimes it is even applied to some kind of narrow sense to some kind of faulty process of reasoning. So we talked about different kinds of reasoning inductive and deductive reasoning etc. So if both such kind of reasoning is defective then that is considered to be some kind of faulty process of reasoning or sometimes it an arguer might want to trick use some kind of tricks and all especially to persuade the reader or listener are mostly these are all some kind of spacious persuasions and all. So what is these are all persuasive kind of mechanisms and all so but logically speaking they are all considered to be mistakes in the argumentation and all and hence they are called as fallacies. So they might not be considered to be fallacy in a sense of in a psychological sense etc. All these fallacies might be of some importance there but as far as logic is concerned they are all considered to be fallacies in all. So one must note that there are many arguments which are very persuasive and all they are all not good arguments and all. So how to distinguish good argument from a bad argument etc. This is the question that we will be we have asked in the last few lectures as well as we will be asking this lecture even we will be asking this question even in these lectures as well. So mere persuasive mechanisms will not serve as a good or effective kind of argument so they might be some kind of errors or defects or mistakes in the argumentation sometimes arguer deliberately makes it sometimes arguer might make it out of ignorance or sometimes you know you just want to persuade is reader or listener to accept his claims. So fallacies in a sense it is nothing but some kind of mistake in the argumentation this mistakes might arise in many different ways that is what we are trying to look into in a greater detail in all. So a fallacy is a defect in an argumentation other than merely false premises. So just because an argument has a false premise there does not mean that it is a it is it is considered to be a fallacy and all there are many arguments which have false premises but it these kinds of arguments are valid and all. For example if you say all squares are circles all circles are parallelograms all squares are parallelograms and all. So the conclusion seems to be obviously okay for us but the premises are obviously false there does not mean that there is a mistake in that argumentation but yet this argument is considered to be valid and all since we do not want these kinds of arguments in deteriorate discourse. So we do not use these kinds of arguments so we invoke another kind of property which we have seen in the last few lectures under basic concepts that is the concept of soundness a sound argument is a deductive argument in which it is a valid as well as it has true premises. So fallacy is a term the term which is used for fallacy is non sequitur it means it does not follow other means it is an invalid kind of argument is another name for fallacy and all mostly it is used in the context of formal kind of fallacies. So there are two kinds of fallacies that we commonly come across so one particular kind of fallacy is a little bit straight forward and all just by seeing the form itself we can make out that there is a mistake in the argumentation and all. So once you extract the form and all if it is an invalid form obviously it is an invalid argument and all and hence it is a fallacy automatically all invalid arguments are automatically considered to be fallacious arguments. So what is a formal fallacy? A formal fallacy is an again error or mistake in the reasoning that involves the explicit use of an invalid form for example instead of a implies b a and b follows that is a modus ponens rule which we have seen earlier instead of that we use a implies b and b and it leads to a then that is considered to be a mistake in the argumentation and mistake in the way very way use the forms now you have not used in a valid you have not used in a correct sense so that is why it is called as a formal fallacy. So formal fallacies can be identified just by seeing the form itself if you find invalid form obviously it is a fallacious argument and it is called as a formal fallacy informal fallacies on the other hand are not that easy to identify so they do not have a fixed form form etc and all. So informal fallacies are errors in reasoning that do not involve the explicit use of an invalid form in the day-to-day argumentation it is not it is not easy to extract form all the time and all it is not easy to identify what exactly the arguer is trying to argue or intend to claim etc the claim is considered with the conclusion. So those kinds of fallacies in which I mean you can make out that there is a mistake in the argumentation only by seeing are analyzing the content of an argument they are called as informal fallacies for example you know the lots of examples we have seen already in the last few lectures for example if you say this room is made up of atoms atoms are invisible so this room is invisible enough suppose if you say that particular kind of thing unless and until you analyze the content of the argument that means the words that you have used in your argument there is no way in which you can identify mistake in the argumentation. So detecting an informal fallacy requires an examination of arguments content in all unless until you analyze the content of an argument there is no way in which you can identify the mistakes in the argumentation. So these kinds of fallacies are called as informal fallacies to be simple in simple terms formal fallacies can be identified by somewhat some mistake in the form and informal fallacies can easily be identified by not easily but it can be identified by analyzing the content of the argument and all. So how did we get into this particular kind of some kind of interest in this fallacies and all we are saying that all fallacies are persuasive kind of mechanisms and all at the same time we are saying that not all persuasive kind of arguments are good arguments are efficient or effective kind of arguments and all. So what are the characteristics of a good argument or effective argument? So we already said about this thing so it has to be deductively valid it is well and good if it is deductively valid or at least it should be inductively strong in the case of inductive arguments you can only talk about strength of the argument. So that is why it has to be strong and of course if it has true premises it is called as in the case of inductive argument it is called as a cogent argument in the case of deductive argument it is called as a sound argument a sound argument is a valid argument with true premises if that is the case then it seems to be a good and effective kind of argument or it has validity and truth of the premises be evident as far as possible to the parties involved suppose two people are arguing with each other they know that some of the statements that an arguer has used also happen to be factually true as so that makes this argument sound and all of course validity does not require that the truth of the premises to be actually true and all but if there is an inferential claim that is well and good enough for talking about the validity and all. So both parties that means those over whose ever is engaged in argumentation should be able to find out that argument is valid as well as it has true premises it is well and good so that will constitute a good argument and the premises should be stated clearly using some kind of understandable language and making clear what the premises and the conclusions are etc it has to nicely that means it the argument has to be some kind of well crafted kind of argument. So if that is the case then if you know what premises are what conclusions are then you will automatically know what seems to be supporting what etc and you need to avoid for a good argument you need to avoid circularity ambiguity and sometimes you will be using lot of emotional language into the arguments and then basically our purpose is to make the reader or listener accept your claims and all. So one is to ensure that there is no circularity in the argument one simple example could be for example somebody is arguing that I believe that God exist is true and all. Suppose if you ask him why you believe that God exist is true and all. So then you will say that this is what Bible says so then the next question that you will come across is what is the guarantee that what Bible says is true or what Quran or Gita says is true. Then you will argue that God is true he talks of only truths and whatever he has written it is the Bible is written Gita or Quran or written by God only God's words only they are obviously true etc. Then again you ask what is the guarantee that these words are true I mean these statements that you are that are there in the Bible is true again you will say that God exist etc. Now this leads to it begs some question at each and every stage you are there it leads to some kind of circularity in an argumentation as far as possible it should ensure that there is no circularity in your arguments and all. Hence it has to be relevant to the issue at hand and all for example if you say 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 and then and the moon is made up of green cheese and you will infer 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 there is no relevance between moon is made up of green cheese and 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 and all although it looks like that from A and B you are deriving B but it does not make any sense to we do not make such kind of claims in logic in particular but although it is formally valid and it follows and all but usually you know that is not considered to be a good argument 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 and moon is made up of green cheese hence moon is made up of green cheese from A and B follows. So the next question that arises in our mind is that how these fallacies arises so people are often more interested in convincing rather than seeking the truth of the matter. So we might be impatient or we might be we want others to accept our claims and all so somehow we want to convince others in all you will forget about what whether the conclusion is true or whether conclusion follows from the premises or is there any support of premises to the conclusion all these things we will set it as said and then we will mix up these arguments with lot of emotions etc and all. So maybe because of that these fallacies might arise or otherwise we often find in the argumentation these are the some of the arguments that you will often find it in the arguments of advertisers in particular an advertising agency wants its customers to buy some particular kind of thing I mean people to buy some particular kind of item they will use some good solid advertisements and all etc and all advocates use it in the courts politicians try to who the customers who the voters in particular so then they might use this fallacies as a persuasive mechanism or political pundits might use it in analyzing who is going to I mean political pundits might use it in some sense in a broad sense fallacies any argument that involves some kind of faulty reasoning as far as logic is concerned. So they may be they may follow psychological they might be psychologically relevant in all but as far as logic is concerned they are they are all they are considered to be mistakes in the argumentation. So now let us go into the details of formal fallacies first and then we will move on to informal fallacies little bit later so two commonly these are the two commonly found kind of fallacies in logic that is when these rules are used in not in a proper way then it leads to formal kind of fallacies in all so these fallacies are like this the first one is if a implies b and then b then if it leads to a then there is a mistake in the argumentation that I will talk about it later and the other one which you will commonly find is a implies b and not a and not b so this is called as a fallacy affirming the consequent affirming the consequent we will talk about some examples related to both these things so these are called as formal fallacies and this is called as fallacy which arises because of denial of consequent denial of antecedent. So these are all invalid forms obviously they are invalid arguments so we said that all invalid arguments are automatically fallacies and all so now why where is what is the valid form of this one this is the one which we should use an alpha a implies b is the case this is an hypothetical situation and then if a is indeed true then we can infer that b follows from these two things and the other the correct usage of this one is this a implies b and you deny the consequent and then you need to deny the antecedent so first of all so this is called as antecedent so this is a conditional statement and a is called as antecedent and b is called as a consequent and then that makes this a implies b some kind of hypothetical statement if it rains the grass is wet so if this is assumed to be true and then b is also assumed to be true then we need to see whether a is to our faults so the correct forms are these two things but as you see here clearly instead of using this valid form where we have used invalid forms in all invalid forms are automatically invalid arguments so that is why they are all fallacies and all it is pretty straight forward and simple to identify these kinds of fallacies so formal fallacies usually grouped into two kinds of fallacies one is fallacy of affirming the consequent instead of affirming the antecedent you are affirming the consequent and all of course you might say that in day to day argumentation we will this seems to be some kind of valid argument there is a kind of reasoning which we did not discuss in this particular kind of code we do not discuss in this particular kind of course so that kind of reasoning is called as abductive reasoning so this abductive reasoning so in that what we will do is this that this kind of principle a implies b and b and then from that it seems to be the case that a follows from this particular kind of thing so these kinds of reasonings reasoning is the one which we are not going to talk about and abductive inferences are also called as inference to the best explanations in all so it is like for example detectives or doctors who are diagnosing some kind of disease they use this kind of reasoning in all in day to day discourse so there of the view I mean of course a detective is trying to find out whether or not murdered took place etc in a certain place etc and all so you might find you will just hypothetically state a particular kind of statement a implies b if murdered took place then there will be some kind of blood stains etc so then detective first you will find some kind of blood stains etc and all that will make him infer that there was some kind of murder took place in that particular kind of room and all it seems to be little bit sensible in the actual day to day situations and all but this kind of reasoning is a kind of fallacious reasoning term as far as logic is concerned since it is not used in a valid form and all you can always come up with a counter example in which a implies b is true and b is true but a can be false and all but in day to day discourse you might find some examples where this seems to be convincing for you a detective might use this particular kind of thing in all he has an hypothetical situation a implies b and then b is indeed the case in all at least in all that evidence confirms that this is the case and then from this you will explain that probably a might be the best explanation for these two things to be true in so this is called as inference to the best explanation so this is one not what we are trying to use here and all objective reasoning is not the one which we are going to talk about so but here so these are the two fallacies in which you know logically invalid forms in all so that is why they are automatically invalid kind of arguments but the correct forms of this one is these things a implies b and a and b follows this is called as modus ponens rule and this is called as modus tolens so these are somewhat Latin names in all but usually it is represented as empty and MP modus ponens and modus tolens so so these are the correct forms these are the incorrect forms that is where they are invalid arguments are automatically fallacious so now we can come up with lots of examples for these particular kind of arguments that are there on the top of this thing so one example could be if 2523 is divisible by 9 then it has to be divisible by 3 and all so that is seems to be little bit acceptable to us in all anything divided by 9 it should be divided by 3 also and then you are saying that 2523 is divisible by 3 so it also happened that 2523 is divisible by 3 so then it is also divisible by 9 it may not be the case that it may be divisible by 9 and all the better examples which you can take into consideration so this is like fallacy of affirming the consequent of consequent and all so this comes under the category 2 sorry first one so you are affirming the consequent and then you are affirming the antecedent and all here the best example could be like this suppose if you are in Kanpur then you are in Uttar Pradesh because Kanpur is in Uttar Pradesh only you have to be in Uttar Pradesh only so if I am in Uttar Pradesh so that is also considered to be the case then it follows that you are in Kanpur and all you might be in any part of Uttar Pradesh and all but does not mean that you are in Kanpur and all the first one I am in Kanpur is represented as a I am in Uttar Pradesh is represented as B and then I am in Uttar Pradesh is represented as B uniformly represented with the help of some symbols then I am in Kanpur is the one which is which follows from these two one is the hypothetical statement and the other one is I mean the statement that I am in Uttar Pradesh you might be in Uttar Pradesh but you might be in Agra or you might be in some other part of the city may be some other place and all or Bareilly or some other place and all but you need not have to be in Kanpur and all so that is a single counter example which shows that this argument does not follow and all. So all the fallacious arguments are obviously there all invalid arguments are automatically fallacious they are formal fallacies and all so other examples could be the same example can be represented in different way if I am in Kanpur then I am in Uttar Pradesh so I am not in Kanpur then you are not in Uttar Pradesh in all so that is the one which follows from this particular kind of thing or you can take another example to establish this thing that fallacy of denial of antecedent and fallacies of affirming the consequent leads to mistake in the argumentation so they are all invalid arguments and all.  So what is important here is that invalid form means an invalid argument and invalid arguments are automatically fallacious so when an argument is invalid it is always with the case that you know you can always come up with premises true and a conclusion false and all. So it is possible that you know you could come up with premises true and a conclusion false that makes this argument invalid and all for example if you say grass is wet if it rains the grass is wet so then you are saying that grass is wet and all. So just because the grass is wet does not mean that if you infer that it rained and all and there seems to be some mistakes in the argumentation grass might be wet in several other ways as well the sprinkler might be on or may be somebody throw out some water there etc. There is some leakage of water from tap some somewhere etc. All these things might be reasons for grass being wet and all. So these are some of the formal there is some problems with the form usage of the form so that leads to the mistake in the argumentation they are pretty straight forward to identify all the things which I mentioned it here are will come under the category of categorical syllogisms which I am going to talk about it little bit later. Categorical syllogisms are special kind of arguments in which it involves only categorical propositions and categorical propositions are just their propositions but they have a special feature that all these propositions begin with all know some etc. Every all these things comes under the category of categorical propositions for example if you say all men are mortal some men are mortal all men are not mortal some men are not mortal all these things are called as categorical propositions. So now the ones which I have stated here all these things are invalid arguments because it has invalid form and all as I said in the counter example method whenever you have an invalid argument suppose if you start with some set which has all the things that you are obviously know that they are true or false etc and all for example if you say all cats are dogs in the statement is false and all anyone would be able to believe that the particular kind of thing is false and all cats are animals seems to be acceptable to us that is true statement. So there are certain things which are obvious to us which nobody could deny and all so those things which take into consideration and then substitute it for a b c's etc and all and see whether you could come up with any counter instance a counter example and all counter example in a sense that you have true premises and a false conclusion. Suppose if you say all a's are b's all c's are b's so all a's are c's in all so the actual valid form is all a's are b's all b's are c's and all a's are c's but here it is not used in that particular kind of form so that is why this is considered to be an invalid form so that is why these are called as fallacious argument. So what seems to be the valid arguments are this thing all a's are b's a's b's can be anything you can substitute for a you can substitute for b donkey cat it does not matter all b's are c's so then all a's are c's so this is a kind of valid kind of argument in all so valid form so that is why it is called as a valid kind of argument we might ask how do we know that this is a valid argument etc. So then for the definition of validity is this that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises in all that means you cannot come up with a counter example in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false in all whatever you substitute for a's b's etc and all b's c's etc then if these two are assumed to be true then the second one at the whatever follows from these two things should also be true in all so it is a deductive argument is a truth preserving conclusion necessarily follows from the premises in all so the one which we have used here are all a's are b's it is like all a's are b's somewhat like all c's are all c's are what all c's are b's so all that is all a's are c's so if you compare these two things this is considered to be a valid form and this is not an invalid form in all suppose if you are not convinced with this particular kind of thing that when I say that this is an invalid form that is why it is an invalid argument it is a valid form and it is a valid argument then there are certain things which we are which we know that they are obviously true obviously false etc. So instead of in this one you substitute a for cat or b for animal or c for some kind of rat or something like that then you will see whether these follows are not so the example here is this that for a's we have taken into consideration dogs that is all dogs are animals which is obviously the case in all a dog cannot be some other thing in all a fish or something like that so that is that is satisfying the first statement and all c's are b's here c's considered to be cats so all cats are also animals so from that you infer that all a's are c's for example all a's means a means dogs and all dogs are cats suppose if you say that particular kind of thing although the premises the first two premises are true that is all dogs are animals all cats are also animals but it if you infer that all dogs are cats then that the conclusion is false given the premises are true and all that means you could easily come up with some kind of counter example for that particular example the counter example is that you have come up with the true premises you come up with a false conclusion all dogs are cats so at least all of us will be easy it will be easy to say that all cats are dogs are obviously false so like this whenever you come across an invalid form you can always come up with a counter instance where your true premises and a false conclusion that makes that argument invalid arguments are automatically fallacious by virtue of the form itself because it we used in invalid form so that is why these arguments are invalid so like this we can come across the valid form is that one this is our valid form and all we have used in different ways in all so that is why it is invalid form that is why it is invalid all A's or B's no C is A and no C is B and all so whether this particular kind of argument is valid or invalid then again you know there are certain things which are quite obvious to us you substitute A for cat and B for animal and C for dog and all and then see what happens here so all A's are B's instead of all every they are all same in one of the same so you say all in every cat is an animal as good as saying the same thing all cats are animals so that is the first preposition and the second one is no C is A that means no dog is a cat dog can be different from the cat and all so that satisfies the second preposition in the this thing and then from that no C is B that is no dog is an animal so you could easily come up with a counter example where the premises every cat is an animal is true no cat no dog is a cat is also true but the conclusion no dog is an animal is false and all so like this whenever you have an invalid arguments I do not want to go into the details of other arguments and all they are all invalid forms and all invalid arguments and hence they are invalid arguments and all whenever you come across an invalid argument you can substitute these instances etc instead of A's B's C's etc and all you substitute dogs cats animal etc without disturbing the truth value of the prepositions and see whether you could come across with a counter example I mean you could come across with a false conclusion true premises should not lead to false conclusion a valid deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the term premises to be true and the conclusion is false even if you could come up with a single instance where your premises are true and the conclusion is false then that particular kind of argument is invalid so far we have seen that you know arguments are invalid just because of the fact that you know they are having invalid forms in life is not that simple and all so we need to we need to analyze the content of the argument to see whether there is any mistake in the argumentation and all so these kinds of fallacies are called as fallacies of relevance sorry fallacies informal fallacies and one particular kind of fallacy which arises very frequently in day to day discourse especially when two argues are engaged in some kind of a debate or when an arguer presents some kind of thing to convince the reader or listener you will find these kinds of fallacies which arises out of the problem of relevance and I will talk about what we mean by relevance etc little bit later but so this fallacies of relevance arises in involve the use of premises that are logically irrelevant to their conclusion for an argument the basic structure is that your premise and then premise should lead to premise should have some provide some kind of adequate support to believe that your conclusion to be true and all but it does not provide any adequate reasons to believe the conclusion to be true then there seems to be some kind of problem here the problem arises because the premises are not logically relevant to their conclusions in all there are some other relevant factors which comes into picture in all so these relevant factors may be psychologically relevant factors in all it might be pity it might be anger it may be frustration all these things are psychologically relevant factors in all sometimes we do you we do take into consideration all these factors and sometimes the argument may be a good argument as well sometimes we invoke some kind of patriotism and then we will infer some kind of thing but it that argument may be maybe convincing for all of us but it might turn out to be fallacious for us. So here the most important feature that you need to look for is that are they logically relevant or psychologically relevant in all I am not saying that psychological reasons are not important or useless etc and as far as logical reasoning is concerned as far as possible a good argument should be free from all these psychological psychologically relevant factors in all but in day-to-day discourse we do take into consideration these particular kind of factors etc psychological reasons in all. So here is a list of fallacies which come under the category of fallacies of relevance you should note that there is no way in which you can classify these fallacies into one group or another group and all different text books have different classifications in all so the book that we are following is concise introduction to logic by Patrick Hurley it seems that you know these things are classified in a very nice way and all in this book. So we are referring to that particular book in which you know things are classified in a very nice way so we believe that this is the very good kind of classification and also we follow this particular kind of thing. So what are fallacies of relevance there are different names in all mostly you know these kinds of fallacies are already there right from antiquity and what that means right from the Greeks period onwards you will find you might have come across from Greek period onwards these fallacies exist and these exist even in day-to-day is even now also. So the first one is appeal to force this is also called as argumentum add baculum there are Latin names and the second one is instead of arguing the argues argument you will attack him in person so ad hominem argument when you invoke pity it leads to appeal to pity kind of fallacy the other kind of fallacy which will commonly come across is appeal to people and fallacy of accident missing the point strawman fallacy and red airing fallacies in all these fallacies what is the problem is that the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion but premises may be psychologically relevant to the conclusions. So let us look into each one of these fallacies in some detail some greater detail the first one is simple kind of fallacy which is called as appeal to force appeal to force or it is called as ad baculum fallacy which occurs when a conclusion is defended by some kind of threat to the well-being of those who do not accept it so this threat can be sometimes express it sometimes it can be even implicit in all. So this argument has this particular kind of structure so you can draw the diagram for this particular kind of fallacy then you will come to know where lies the who is who seem to have committed this particular kind of fallacy. So now here is an arguer is presenting some kind of argument in all so this is what is called as appeal to force so what a does is here is your reader or listener r stands for reader or sometimes it can be listener also that means you are reading a text or you are listening to someone's argument in all. So now this arrows are important so a threatens a threatens reader or listener and he poses this particular kind of conclusion so a threatens reader and listener and all and he poses a conclusion ultimately his purpose is that he wants the reader or listener to accept his claims in all. So in the process now you might do it in several ways in all to persuade the reader or listener to accept his claims in all so one way which he does in this case is that he threatens the reader or listener if you do not accept whatever he says to be true in all then you will say that there is some kind of consequence which follows in all. So this particular kind of thing is called as appeal to force kind of fallacy in all so basically this threatening can be some kind of physical threat you will directly say that I am going to beat you or something like that or he might say that some kind of pose some kind of mental threaten you will invoke some kind of fear in you you might say that you will leak your information etc. So this kind of thing is called as appeal to force in all here what you will see here is that the premises may not be relevant to the conclusion and all so since he has incorporate threaten threatening into picture and all so there all may be psychological factors etc and all sometimes he might use it for the well-being of the reader or listener or a person who is whom the argue is trying to persuade but in not in all the cases it might be used for the well-being of a reader or listener so the structure of this argument is that of course these are premises and conclusions premises could be this you can avoid harm by accepting this particular kind of statement so that is why the statement is true so what he says is that he threatens the reader or listener why he threatens the reader or listener he says that you are going to avoid some kind of harm etc and all if you do not do this thing you will you have to face the music and all so you have to attract some kind of fine or it may be you will be punished etc and all so this is the one which we commonly come across in day to day discourse also so where what the argue is trying to do is is that you can avoid harm by accepting this particular kind of statement so what is the statement that he wants his reader or listener to accept and all that is a conclusion is posing some kind of conclusion if you do not accept the conclusion then he says that there is some harm is going to happen to that particular kind of person so out of fear the reader or listener might accept his claim and all but here the premises are nothing to do with the conclusion and all so only threat is what is making him to believe the conclusion to be true so some examples which he take into consideration and then we will see we will understand this kind of fallacy in greater detail now here the argument is threatening the reader or listener and then ultimately what the intention of an argument is that reader or listener accept whatever the conclusion that is making an all yes to accept this particular kind of statement which is there in the conclusion so now who is said to have committed the mistake in the argumentation a is said to have committed this fallacy if somebody presents this particular kind of argument and all then we should be in a immediately in a position to say that since a has used threatening and all kinds of things and all that should not be relevant to believing this particular kind of statement so some examples which we will see in greater detail so this is remnant reminiscent of scenes in films about organized crime etc children arguing with the parents or children arguing with each other etc not with the parents one example is like this Mr. Salim you helped us import the drugs somebody is arguing like this somebody is threatening Salim here for this the boss is obviously grateful and all but now you say you are entitled to 45% of the profits and all so now you started claiming share and all now boss is very angry on this particular kind of thing the boss says that you are entitled to only 10% you are claiming excessive and all although you helped us in importing some illegal drugs etc and all okay that is fine well and good and all but now you are asking you deserve only 10% but you are asking 45% and all so your boss is very angry etc this is what you see in the organized crime and all so the next statement is unless you see things in boss way that means you do not under if you do not listen to what the boss is trying to say that is you be happy with only 10% of the share etc so that is what is unless you see the things in boss way you are going to have a very nasty kind of accident you know boss might kill you or you might do something or other some kind of harm is going to happen to you a middle kind of some broker kind of person is trying to convince the reader or listener let you know if you accept you know whatever boss says that is he is happy with the 10% and all no threat is going to happen to him otherwise he is going to face some kind of nasty accident you will come across some kind of nasty accident so you are entitled to 10% only so ultimately saying you got my point or not we do not get my point you are going to be punished and all so so what is happening here is that there is some kind of arguer here is arguing with Salim and all so Salim here is a reader or listener the arguer is someone arguing in favor of in favor of his boss you know big boss don or something like that so who is said to have committed a mistake the arguer who is arguing for this for the boss and all whosoever is arguing that you deserve only 10% etc. so he seems to be committing this particular kind of fallacy why he has committed fallacy because all these things are not relevant for this particular kind of thing that you know that whatever is claiming that is 45% profits etc. and all so instead of here the all the relevant things are like this that you know the broker who is arguing in favor of the arguer is trying to threaten the threaten Salim here so he is saying that you know unless until you accept bosses whatever boss is saying then you are going to invite some kind of problems so here the first one is that the threatened nasty instant has no logical relevance on the conclusion that Salim is entered into only 10% and all there are nothing to do with this particular kind of there only psychologically are relevant to this particular kind of but yet this is used as some kind of persuasive mechanism and all if you are this can still be used as some kind of persuasive mechanism and all a broker who is arguing for some kind of boss and all that you know ultimately is trying to negotiate with Salim that you know it is also only 10% rather than 45% and all if he claims 45% then the broker is saying that you know you will face some kind of problems etc. He is trying to negotiate or persuade the reader or listener by invoking some kind of threat so suppose in this case the arguer is said to have committed this particular kind of fallacy this particular kind of fallacy is called as appeal to force kind of fallacy so the persuasion is that you can avoid harm by accepting this this statement this statement is is that you know you deserve only 10% of the thing you know so his statements are based on threat so and if he says that the statement is true then there seems to be some mistake in the augmentation so this is what happens here premises is that you can avoid harm by accepting this statement the conclusion is that hence that statement is true enough the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion and hence leads to fallacies of relevance and this fallacy of relevance can be further classified into the fallacies of relevance which arises due to appeal to force sometimes this threat arguer threaten the reader or listener and poses a conclusion and this particular kind of threat can be even a psychological threat also it can be a mental kind of threaten so this is what you commonly see in organizations in particular where the secretary is arguing with his boss so he is saying this particular kind of thing I deserve promotions with increments etc all the time you know is worried about his increments etc and all he got somehow is claiming with this boss that he should be promoted this particular kind of year and all so he says till here it is fine and all but his claim is based on some other irrelevant factors in all he goes on and says that after all you know how friendly I am with your wife and I am sure you would not want her to find out what kind of affair has been going on between you and that of yours somehow he had some door of some kind of relations with his wife and that she does not know and all bosses wife does not know so now he is threatening the boss that you know if you do not promote me and all I am going to expose everything to your wife and all so I know you have been lying to your wife about what you are what is where about where you go on on Wednesdays afternoons etc and all these things are irrelevant for the promotion and all unless you want her to know where you really go it is time for you to realize that you have no choice then rising my salary and all you raise my salary or promote me otherwise I am going to leak all the information and all so this is some kind of psychological threat that secretary is trying to some kind of blackmailing is trying to do so here in this case secretary is seems to have committed fallacy and there is a mistake in his argumentation because all these factors whether the boss is having relation with someone else etc all these things have nothing to do with his promotion and all the promotion what is relevant may be yes achieved something some task some some other things might play a crucial role in the promotion and all his performance etc so the threat to expose the lie in no way constitutes evidence for once promotion and all it has nothing to do with this particular kind of thing so this is the problem of relevance and then we will continue with other kinds of fallacies in the next lecture.


Good afternoon, folks, Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of sunny Delray Beach, Florida. This is your 2 p.m. update. And oops, sorry I didn't mean to do that, but I did it. Currently, we'll leave these shirts up on the screen. You've got all the U.S. Intestines trading to the downside, Dow's up 278, S&P 75, NASDAQ 104, 61, Russell's down 23, Semi's up 109. You've got the SpotBall Intestines, which is up 8 and 7 tenths percent to the upside. You want to watch that one-day rate of change come day's end. It's above plus 10 percent expect and anticipate some type of at least bounce, perhaps a bottom. But what we're going to do, normally, we go take a look at the industry charts out here. I thought what we'd do is go take a look at some of the sectors inside the S&P 500, what the index ETF charts are telling us. And that's what you've got up on our screen. So we've got to pull back going on inside of the queues. They pulled back to test the queues, the top of its bearish structure daily profile and a sauce litter and change line. This could be where a bottom would form. If it doesn't, what we'd expect is pricing it back into 350, 263 level. And that's the real key level that price would need to hold. The spies are also pulling back and basically testing the top of its daily profile and very close to its sauce litter and change line. Again, that could be a signal that this is creating the C point of an A to B equal CD to the upside. In the XLK, I was just going to go along the top here. The XLK is testing the top of its profile. So that is still bullish. And we need to close below 159.97 to then suggest to run to 158.75 out there and below that 154.09. But right now support is held. The XLB, the healthcare sector, just inside day, that means that the trend that's in place should continue. Well, then that suggests that the XLB is going to go target 136.35. The Dow diamonds, above the top of their daily profile, well above the red oscillator and change line, it's a stronger index or index ETF than the spies or the queues or the Russell 2000. So it may not get all the way back there if, in fact, we see a bottom in the queues and spies. The Russell 2000 also pulling back and testing its sauce litter and change line. Now, if it fails to hold this level, then price will get back to the 193.93 area. The XLF, kind of an inside-ish day, not a bearish signal out here. So this suggests that it wants to continue to move higher. Yesterday, you had the XLC, which Facebook is a part of. It gets up to but does not cross the breakdown level of 76.83. And today it's falling off the cliff. The XLC looks like it wants to pull back into about 70.22 out there. Folks, stay tuned. Your favorite Bolivar David lights up next. After that, Tom O'Brien will take us on home. If you'd like to listen live tomorrow to the Traders Ed Show, we're going to record that here between eight and nine. We'd love to have you join us. If not, it will certainly be a plate between one and two. Have a terrific Thursday, folks. We look forward to seeing you on fantastic Friday.


Hey, Tony Gaskins here now y'all got to forgive my lighting forgive my lighting and I'm On the road with the family with the family right now and got us a showcase in Palm Springs, California For soccer, but I want to pop in because I've been shooting some videos and It's been some heavy topics, you know, it's been some heavy topics and we we're going in We're going in and what you got to remember my sound is not always gonna be right. My lighting is not always gonna be right So at the end of the day and I'm gonna tell y'all something too That's a problem with us now We want everything easy. We want everything convenient the same thing That has non blessed tribe members Meaning these these are individuals who do not pay to support the channel meaning The channel is 100% free to them the blessed tribe members paying from Two dollars and something the three dollars and something a month or if you in the blessed business tribe They they pan 10 to 12 dollars a month and so That's a lot. That's a lot of money To be given every single month to support the channel. So that's why I take their Suggestions to heart because if you don't spend your money and and That withdrawal come out and the patreon supporters patreon is from five dollars to fifty dollars a month patreon supporters So that's why I take their suggestions to heart because they investing in the channel But I've been getting all these comments from people who not in either blessed tribe and who not in Not a patreon or supporters saying oh Tony I don't like the sound your sound wasn't good. You're lighting one good. It's like listen close your eyes Close your eyes close ears then But see that's also a lesson Because that's part of our problem We want everything so easy. That's why we can't make relationships work Because somebody passed gas we ready to get a divorce Somebody to get on our nerves somebody to do a pet peeve.  I left her luggage. It was miscommunication I didn't know she had a luggage. I didn't see it So I had to send the driver back to the house and send him inside of my house That's a huge risk to get her luggage and She was mad by that got a little you know she was in a little feeling she got over it once the bag got back there and stuff and She liked to play around, you know, she liked to play a lot But what that tells me if my wife playing with you she love you she happy like if she's playing jokes on you She pranking you she giving you a wedgie Like she be doing me that means she happy and she love you and so What happened is I'm getting text messages in and so hopefully everything good Because my driver he driving for one of my Clients right now and I made a connection so they text and I'm hoping everything good Oh Lord come on now you texted me if I check the text it's gonna cut off the whole video See how you be working and you have stuff going on And maybe if he called I know Y'all forgive me now y'all forgive me and so listen to me so people So think about this. I want you to think about this human nature If people are getting something for free and have the audacity to complain Imagine How much a person gonna complain in a relationship when they giving a body to somebody They giving a time to somebody they giving a heart and they energy to somebody and It's like when I post a video, don't you think I know the sound bad? I could hear the video Don't you think I know the lighting bad? I could see the video But I got to post what I got to post because I don't know how long God gonna give me and I can't wait to every Light is green before I leave the house I got to do the work regardless of what it looked like and you just got to get the message If you got to turn it all the way up and then turn it down when the ads come on Or if you just need to close your eyes, but it's also to Don't worry about the light. Don't worry about seeing my eyes Don't worry about my facial expressions get the message get the message Don't worry about looking at me. Don't worry about hearing it crystal clear. Get the message and This is gonna teach you a lesson in life is Finish the job meaning when you get in relationship get the message So listen to me From what I was talking about on them heavy videos So a lot of women that Want to hear me say give up on black men give up on black men. I'm gonna tell you something I'm a black man. Somebody say oh, I'm biased. No, I'm very real I'm very real on the first one to tell you that the state of men is trash right now And that we trash but one thing that that we acting like trash and that we immature and we need to do I'm the first one to tell you that but at the end of the day.   I mean love is not found love is created People think that it's so many women that thing and men that thing I'm gonna meet this person and love just gonna happen.  It's just gonna be easy or not easy But if it's if it's real it's gonna work or it just supposed to work. No You have to make it work. That's why I titled my book make it work You have to make it work ain't nothing just gonna work And so here's the thing.  You got to be able so with my wife. I learn I've learned that She's sensitive in the sense of She don't like any critique. She don't like any correction She don't like it But anything she hears that she need to do or that you want her to do or that you need from her She'll do it immediately and she'll do it to a tee So I and I've learned I don't have to be harsh with her. I don't have to yell at her I don't have to curse at her My wife is not gonna yell. She's not gonna fight. She's not gonna curse take and turn it down one notch She's not gonna yell fuss and fighting curse so I could just be I could talk to her just like I'm talking right now and She gonna respond if it's something that I need or won't I've also learned that she will go to the end of the earth and back for me.  She would do anything for somebody she loved. I've learned that But what I was doing When my marriage when I'm going through when our marriage is going through is I was trying to hammer a screw and I'm bringing my intensity my bluntness my directness my harshness the way I am I'm bringing that to somebody who is more sensitive who She more she she That stuff is abrasive to her because she come from that She's you're making so she come from people saying stuff the wrong way people being too cold People being too harsh people being too distant like her family is a type of family where it's a lot of ego It's a lot of pride. It's it's to where She her family type of family Blood siblings will fall out and not talk for years not talk for forever And so they got a lot of pride whereas my family You could talk to my family they talk to each other any kind of way Yeah, fuss cuss call names and be talking back the next day But my wife family is not like that You got to come with a hundred percent all the way respect Or you're gonna get cut off and you might not ever hear from them again They won't ask you from them.  They'll they'll die That's the type of pride that her family have my family they have this thing Oh, we blood we blood so get over it like we blood and so my family feel like They could talk to you any kind of way and you supposed to be okay with it. So I brought that in so what's happening is Black men and black women are not communicating and learning each other The man ain't learning the woman the woman ain't learning the man.  I'm done with black men. And it's like how many black men have you dealt with? You have one horrible relationship now you done with the whole race Okay, you had three relationships before I met my wife. I had them dated Meaning every woman that I laid down with was a woman that I could have saw as a wife.  How do you know that's a scam? How you know that's a scam? Like if you answer your phone and they say hello, is this um Jane Doe and you like yeah Can you verify your social security number for me? You like what? Verify my social security number. Who is this? How you know that? Okay, my point exactly so when you meet a man if you don't got the knowledge if you learn When you meet this man then if he He say the wrong thing this man come in and he like a why you wearing that?  You so you care about what I wear man. You care that much. Okay. I'll change. Excuse me And think that that's cute. Oh, he cares Oh, he don't want me to hang out with my friend Oh, he don't want me to go out to the club.   It's that he's controlling And so us men we show these signs and women don't put up pick up on it And then when you get taken through the ringer, then you say, oh, you done with black men It's not even about that. But it's like if you learn men You learn how to talk to a man. You learn how to read a man. Then it's just like season Milan season Milan The dog whisperer it's the same thing Because every and a woman say Tony can you start talking about a good man? There is no such thing as a good man a Man becomes a good man There is no such thing as a good man. The only good man is Jesus Christ Every other man is flawed. So every one of us become when I met my wife I was not a good man.  I was abusive. I was controlling. I was toxic I became a good man based on What she stopped What she allowed and what she reinforced For some crazy reason women are thinking that a man is going to come packaged and ready Because you think that you are packaged and ready But when you talk to a man Like myself who is unbiased. I have never met a woman who is packaged and ready I've met several women who think they ready, but still got a jaded mindset still got Being controlled by the ex still is hurt is jaded is is lost but but because she makes six figures or seven figures because she got a job close the computer down Because she got a job because she got a house because she got a car Because she got a degree. She thinks she ready when none of that stuff Relates or equates to a relationship and being ready for a man So the same way a woman has to learn In the relationship based on her man how to be a good wife to that man a Man has to learn how to be a good man to his woman Based on that woman So a good woman to one man is a woman who cooks and Who cleans a good woman to another man? is a woman who works and Helps pay the bills a good woman to another man So it depends on the man you have like my wife She don't have to cook I'm okay eating out It's that's not every man I'm okay going to a nice restaurant and letting that chef who is trained On how to cook food based on temperatures and everything. I'm okay with him or her cooking and Me paying the bill. I'm okay paying a hundred dollars a night To eat from a restaurant. I'm not every man I'm okay paying a house cleaner a laundry person a driver I'm okay with that That's not every man So my wife and her lifestyle and what she has access to She would be seen as a horrible wife to another man who he has this mindset that a wife is this this this this a woman who just want to cook every day and You know just want to be like this is this this will be boring to me. I Get tired of her cooking regardless. I good. She cooked. I Want to taste shelf this shelf that shelf this shelf that woman who frugal and don't like to spend money want to ride old raggedy car and Got that old raggedy purse Happy title. I'd be like child is You something like me. I like to live Like I like to live the Maureen promise. So I had a room at the Fairfield Inn. We had a room at the Fairfield Inn My spirit one sin one sin right with that Fairfield Inn So I counseled it and we had the rich cartoon We had the rich cartoon like plod no vibing at the rich cartoon because my spirit say I need to live I need to scratch my mind. I need and I had to get the desert view room I ain't want the base room. This ain't the highest now. They got three four levels higher But so I know my level now But hey, I had to get my love of you And I had to come to the record and when I walked in here and I see these people I Say these people is out my tax bracket. These people on another level These people ain't even supposed to be in here But that's how I make money Because I stretch my mind if I had old scarcity minded struggle minded woman Who she want to pee in the pan? It'll drive me crazy So that's what I'm saying is It ain't nothing wrong with black men they just mean and They flaw like every other man But what they need is to meet their woman Who's not going to be afraid of them?  You can dress it right then for some man You got to wait 24 hours It's going to be different based on the man. It ain't nothing wrong with the men at large They they living in the world and they operating the way they operate but like what I told y'all black men are forward black men our They're out there Meaning they know worse than white men or Asian men. It's just Other men white men and Asian men. They throw the rock and hide their hand Black men throw the rock and then look at it hit you and say I do it. What?  He got so much fear. He got so much anxiety He got so much trauma He's operating differently, but at the same time. He's still a soft-hearted Person who got a big heart and can love he just got to be reached and if black women are honest Black women are the same way Black women got a heart exterior black women could be very catty could be very Confrontational could take stuff so serious black women walk on it walk on eggshells you say something to a black woman and you could be joking and she'd take offense to it and And then she might lighten up and laugh But when you watch these videos of the black men they going out and they talking to women Whenever they go up to the black women the black women are always kind of like what? Man, what you doing and then she'll laugh and the white women always just from the jump giggling And it's just because of our path is different now Yes, it's not every single one of them is one side. It's not one size fits all its exception to the rule understand that I get tired of having to say that but it people literally come in the comments like the video I was doing the other day a grown lady in her 40s or 50s literally come in the comments Tony you are so off-base on this because I do this and my daughter do this and my mom and it's like ma'am Do you know it is millions of people just cuz y'all do that don't mean that's y'all the norm You are the exception to the rule You don't understand that but so y'all forget when I be saying that So listen now. I'm in a hotel and I'm in a red car So these walls paper thin so that's why this video is lower. I ain't talking as loud as I talk when I'm at home In my own house in my office then somebody to be in the comment Tony I was trying to listen to the video, but it was just so low Can you get a new microphone? like Bishop such and such or like such and such because they microphones is really good Yeah, they're not in they're not in the rich cotton in California With a son who finna plan a showcase for pro scouts Shoot the video on the tripod So yeah, they sound is amazing Cuz they in a stationary place in they home shoot video when I'm on the road So understand that y'all forgive me But that's how they'll be working.  So listen.  We tired of black men Man, why are you watching my videos then shut that mess up?   I'm married I'm doing video for free trying to help you harassing me chasing me all around line tagging me Trying to make your point about how horrible black men is When you see I'm a successful and healthy black man, but I used to be a drug dealer and an abusive man So I know that man could change I know men could grow and that's why I'm doing the work and it was a woman Who stood her ground? Who was not afraid of me who told me what she needed without yelling without cursing without fighting and That reached me That pierced my heart that reached me and that helped me change Every man want to change Now some man I want to take yeah, he do if he don't want to change for you That means you're not the one so understand that and move on. It's another man. That's for you You ain't gonna be able to speak everybody language It was a hundred plus women who I did not change for because they were not the woman for me So get that early understand that early and go about your business Hey, there's Tony gaskin. I Gotta go my wife text me a couple times. I had booked her spa appointment so she get a massage Here cuz this come from a man who used to be you know Toxic and all of that here. I am upgrading the experience for the hotels with my wife I said my wife is a queen.  She didn't ask me for that I Book that for her and then I said hey, we're gonna take a trip to LA Because we two and a half hours from LA and I booked a hotel there and a nice hotel so she could get that experience and Y'all know we just was on that yacht This one I'm trying to tell you this why I carry the message I carry because I know the man I used to be and one thing I'm telling you if you living and breathing you on this video You ain't met no man. That was No worse than me.  I was with her for two years While I was with her I slept with 26 other women I know the number because I thought that that made me a man So so you gonna look at me and tell me to give up on black men when I know the man that I was and I see the man that I am But I know that it was a woman that God gave the key to my heart So if God didn't gave you the key to his heart Realize that and stop trying to pick the lock and gone about your business And when you meet the man that you got the key to his heart You're gonna realize he got the key to your heart and y'all gonna be a fit and y'all gonna ride into the sunset And it's gonna work and if you don't meet that and you happen to meet it in another race then God bless you But don't just wipe out a whole race just cuz you don't been hurt Because that is a clear sign that you are not doing the work and you are not healed That is a clear sign that you're toxic That is a clear sign that you jaded that is a clear sign that you broken if you could curse an entire race And you've only dealt with this much men That is a sign that the devil got you that the devil came in and broke your heart broke your trust broke your love and Stole from you the greatest gift that God has given the mankind Which is love the devil to made you stop believing in love in a whole entire race And then you got the nerve to say you heal When you don't believe that this man is capable of love and being changed and growing That means you don't believe in God and you don't believe in the power of God That men and women can grow and change and if you don't believe in that Then I'm the wrong person for you because I'm a living witness. I'm a living testimony, I'm a living example of a complete change of a 180 degree turn around I'm that person So that's why my message is what it is Hey, this Tony gas and God blessing. I got to see what my wife. She probably sent me a picture from the sponge God bless you. We'll talk soon and y'all forget a volume for giving volume Is there any way that you could get a new microphone the You see the button up under the video it got a little dollar sign in it in a heart click that right now click that right now Since you want to make demands and you want to have suggestions click that right now and Help me get what I need to be at Since I ain't on the lower that you want me to be on like the rest of the life coaches you listening to click the button Does he some people that some people is bishops and all that and they get to take up ties on every Sunday I don't get to take up ties. So, you know, we're gonna have all the equipment and everything you need Cuz I'm not a youtuber. I'm a person who does YouTube Understand that and to those y'all who Knew you you get it y'all forgive me.   Just ignore them. Don't know. I got to pay on some tension I know I could ignore them But I don't want to cuz I want them to learn a lesson to understand they hindering the spirit When they operate outside the spirit stating the obvious that if I could do it better I would and And only certain situations will provide that and they they're always gonna be that case cuz I shoot running and gunning So a God bless you. We'll talk soon


Do I look cute? It's just so I can put it together. But do I look cute? Huh? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm, it's not a good answer. We're wincing time. Okay. Well, I don't know if this is the best angle.  I don't even have my ring on. It's just for the audio. I know, but I'm not prepared. Where's my ring? Shannon! Baby. Just focusing. So, we're engaged. We're engaged. You wouldn't know that because I don't have a ring on because I'm not prepared for this moment. But... You're not. I'm joking! Jesus! Just relax. We are getting married. Yeah. Does that serious, Hayden? Are you afraid when you hear that? Mm-hmm. No? Mm-hmm. Okay, so, Jared, break it down. Why? Why did you go get the ring? I created my professional personal site with Squarespace, and one of my fav features is their secret link option. So, I made a secret little private link for all my lovers out there with some photos from myself and Jared's engagement shoot that I didn't post anywhere else. So, after watching this video, go to shanbudram.com slash private. And, if you just want to go play around and make your own Squarespace site on a risk-free no-credit card entering two-week free trial, go to squarespace.com slash shanbudy. I went and got the ring because it was just Tom. Like, we lived together. Like, I already knew that I wanted to, you know... I'd already chose you forever. So, he's like, huh? When? Mm-hmm. I like it year-end. I feel like you have been leading us. So, I was actually just reading, because you know how I was on my Android yesterday? I was just reading through our old text messages. That's cute, I know. I do that kind of stuff. But, it was the... I love your conversation that we had. Do you remember that? You still have that? I tweeted, because at that time, I was dating a lot of different dudes. Not a lot, maybe two other ones than Jared. But, like, just like way less serious than Jared. Jared and I were sexual. Jared and I saw each other frequently. They were just people who lived in different cities. And so, I was like, man, I'm learning so much about love, not being in Aeros love. Do you even know what Aeros means? I googled it. So then, I get this text while I'm on the plane from Jared that said, it's our love not romantic. And then, I just text back like, but do you love me? Because, like, he had never said that before.   And your say means everything, because you mean the most to me. And then, you said, I know, that's why I don't early trip, because I know how you feel about me. Which is a weird thing for someone to say who's never said, I love you before. Actually, you didn't know how I felt about you. I did. You're not too hard to read. You think you're so clever. You're so sneaky. You're not. And then, we went on a trip together to New York maybe a few months later. And then, we were at the MTV party. And then, I would make a comment about just, like, how great we get along. And then, you said, that's because I was made for you. And even at that time, that was a bold statement to make. And the final thing is, when you and me and Stefan went to that palm reader, Stefan made some kind of comment like, oh yeah, but like, you guys aren't a forever thing.  And you were like, no, this is it for me. And I was like, really? Really? I think marriage is less about love and more about more about like, the perfect partner. Yes. Rather than like, Disney. I think you could have all those feelings and those magical things, but the label that you choose shouldn't be the heart of what you would feel. I'm not saying this well. Sound like me. Facts. No, I wouldn't marry you because you just make me better. And I've never really met another human that I trust as much as I trust you. I feel like my view on marriage is that, you know, it is a title that automatically demands respect. People kind of respect you and your relationship a little bit more. And so I feel like with marriage, the relationship between me and Shannon is not really going to be different. However, when we introduce each other, that's when things get a little bit more respect. A little bit more of like, you know, put some respect on a relationship. It is a label that expresses to other people how much somebody means to them and what their partnership means. What is the difference to you between a relationship and marriage? I don't think there's a difference. I think there's a difference in symbolic. Like marriage is like, hey, we're moving forward as a unit. But that's what I think you just played out perfectly. There actually isn't a difference. I think there's a difference to y'all. That's why marriage, I'm choosing marriage with you because I want every time that I introduce you to people, they understand this is not a temporary person. This isn't just a person. Like this is a big part of me. I live with you. I love you. I share my body with you. I share my inner thoughts and my fears with you. So I already have a life with you. I already know your family. I already know my family. We've already built a life together. We have shared friends. All that has already happened. So there's nothing greater that I have to share with you through marriage. There's no parts of me that I've been holding back until we get to that step. But marriage is about creating a legacy together. It's been way easier than any of my other relationships. I never, I mean, we have arguments, but if it was an argument of scale, the one to 10 of like, 10 being the worst argument I've ever been in, it's probably like a three. Like majority of them at the time, like I think, I mean, 80, 20 is your thing, right? Can I always use that? You know, I mean, if you're in a relationship, you should be getting along and seeing eye to eye 80% of the time.  That's where growth happens. So growing pains is called up for reasons. It might be difficult in those spaces of time. So I think that we do have times where we don't see eye to eye, but I don't know, I always feel that I merge out of those feeling closer and, you know, understanding you more. The answer is qualities about me that make me marriage material for you. You have the strange ability in heat of a moment. And maybe not in the very heat of the moment, maybe like soon after to recognize, oh, I'm being driven. And then you have a natural, what can I do? And this is going to sound weird to a lot of feminists, but you're going to have, you have a natural ability of saying, like, what can I do to serve? And you're very, very, very, very, very, very good at being social. Like I'm huge on that because I'm not good. So I needed a partner that was like very good at being in the public. Your ability to take criticism is massively number one, because I feel like marriage is saying yes to who someone may become. And I know with you that you're always going to evolve. And so if I have something that Jared does that bothers me, if I communicate that to him, don't get me wrong in the moment, I'm not going to get the response I'm looking for, but the next day he'll put that into action. I've seen you do that time and time again. The second thing for you is that you make everything around me better. And you give me space to make things better if you're not directly involved. That means my work, my friendships, my relationships with my family, my relationship with myself. So like you facilitate an environment where I get to grow. And sometimes of course, like work-wise, we own a production company together and share entertainment, but work-wise, you directly help me and you're in there.   Thanks to Squarespace, I am rebranded and rebooted to make my business run smoother and the user experience for all of you more seamless. Now, if like me, you weren't ready to hand over a wad of cash for someone else to build your professional site, then Squarespace is the solution. It's a one-stop shop for your portfolio, online store, or legit, whatever you need. They have a ridiculous selection of stunning templates catered towards every profession or purpose. It's easy to customize. And for me, who's not a coder, there was definitely no back-end drama. And the best part of all she didn't even mention to you guys, you can get a free two-week trial. And no, you do not have to give over your credit card information. But when you are ready to make it official, you can open up a brand new domain website with Squarespace or transfer over your existing domain to them. Squarespace empowers millions of websites across thousands of different industries for people, just like you and me. Go to squarespace.com slash Shanboody for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, make sure you go back to squarespace.com slash Shanboody because that's how you save 10% off your first purchase of a website or of a domain. Baby, drop it down. I'll be in your town. Ready when you see me, baby, rolling through your city. I'll be living ready. I'm just trying to get as plenty. Mama getting pretty when I see her throwing fitties. Baby, he got the flame. Had to get the rain.