Observation: Bandwagon + Appeal to Force. Why: Uses majority and threat to intimidate. Significance: Critiques “tyranny of the majority.”

Observation: Ad Hominem attack on character. Why: Uses past mistakes to prove current guilt. Significance: Distracts from actual evidence.

Observation: Argument from Ignorance – “no one proved him innocent = guilty.” Why: Violates “innocent until proven guilty”; weakens reasoning. Significance: Exposes public misunderstanding of basic legal logic.

( ~ 18:00)

Dr. Kurt regurgitates second Peter 3:3-4 where there are "scholars" who knowingly reject creation and the Bible on the merits of the past, absolutism; what happens now is how it has always been.

This is a logical fallacy also described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in "The Black Swan"... Absence of Proof does not mean Proof of Absence. And also the fact that one cannot predict the future based on the past in all situations, especially Black Swan's... The Flood was actually a Black Swan (it was impossible to predict, and had catastrophic consequences)

Strickland, J. C., Stoops, W., Banks, M., & Gipson-Reichardt, C. D. (2022). Logical Fallacies and Misinterpretations that Hinder Progress in Translational Addiction Neuroscience. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/frd5e

Everytime I hear Trump say "trust me", I think of this.

This seems hackish. It seems to me the Democrats have a very clear solution to this issue and would love to put it to rest. The Republicans, however, won't allow it.