Can you outsmart the fallacy that divided a nation? - Elizabeth Cox

[@roshango125ab]

"I'm gonna cut both your legs off!" "I don't want you to cut any of my legs off" "Ok, we will compromise by only cutting one leg off". Is the most Blunt way I've described this one in the past.

[@lonestarr1490]

It's a good one. I'll remember it.

[@TheAlps36]

Sounds kinda like the Judgement of Solomon

[@blanksymortimer4088]

My favorite is "Eating a whole bar of soap would be crazy, so to comprise I'll only eat half"

[@Galifamackus]

@Thanos it’s necessary for immediate, short-handed peace, but the more and more you compromise, the more you alienate and dissatisfy both sides and build tension, until you end up with a schism, such as the American Civil War

[@Terrkas0]

How about they both cut 1 leg off?

[@valentinmitterbauer4196]

Reminds me of the marketing trick where you've got a product that normally costs 12€ and you put three different versions next to each other: one for 12€, one for 15€ and one for 18€. People will see the different prices and will assume a different quality. So they will pick the "medium" option, because it seems like a compromise between price and quality. And you sold your product for 3€ above market average.

[@Tippix3]

If you assume youre 3 Produktes make up the whole market, you would have sold your product exactly on the market average.

[@Gamesaucer]

​@@Tippix3 Why would 3 products make up the entire market? That's not really a reasonable assumption.

[@Tippix3]

@@Gamesaucer kind of overread the first part. My bad.

[@valentinmitterbauer4196]

@@Tippix3 If my 3 products made up the entire market i have a monopoly. In a monopoly i could increase the price as much as i want, as long as my product is well established.

[@alparslankorkmaz2964]

exactly

[@ayoengel-halfkenny433]

“Compromise is not a virtue unto itself” is a powerful reminder

[@pedropradacarciofi2517]

Most of the time it is, however, as most of the time neither side is perfectly in the right or the wrong

[@Pingwn]

@@pedropradacarciofi2517 When we say virtue unto itself, it means that the act of compromising is inherently virtuous which it isn't. Hearing the opinions of others, willingness to change one's position, caring about others and acknowledging nuance (when it is there) are virtues in my opinion, but trying to find the middle way is not a virtue unto itself. It is often is needed, but only because there usually good points on both sides and we need to find a solution that would address both. But if one side is clearly wrong and the other is clearly right or a compromise will give a worse outcome there is no good in it, unlike a virtue which is good by itself and not because it just happened to be the best solution we have in most cases.

[@TiffyVella1]

I like this saying, and have never heard of it before. It succinctly makes me rethink some assumptions. It makes me think of when there are two political sides, and one intends to reduce human rights by creating a new law. Lets call this group Party A. Party B wishes to maintain the level of rights for the populace and vote against the law. So party A, predicting this, extends its new proposition to be doubly as restrictive. When Party B continues to argue against the law, Party A can now argue that a compromise ought to be drawn, and in fact Party B is morally obliged to do so as that is what such a so-called "virtuous" organisation would and should do, and to refuse to compromise would be grossly unfair.

[@laurenlewis5907]

@@TiffyVella1 Beautifully saidr

[@anoobyproaz5616]

Good luck getting nothing done.

[@Inkay257]

Love how savage the Demon of Reason is, especially that part: "even well-intentioned people - which rest assured - I don't mistake you for" 😂😂

[@Jaechhetai]

🤣🤣

[@brett4264]

That was "savage"??? I guess I have to look up "savage" again.

[@Baronnax]

@@brett4264 well then, what did you find?

[@Jaechhetai]

@@brett4264 yea look it up again, maybe u misunderstood

[@thecat293]

The sarcasm is savage

[@spoonb9544]

i love this way of teaching instead of beating a concept over your head, you explain how concepts have affected history before.

[@San-lh8us]

or after, in some of the demon's visits, sometimes he will show people news of times that are yet to come, like in this video where he showed them 1861 news when they were in 1819

[@klikkolee]

I think it's important to recognize that in political history, compromises were often not proposed because someone thought it was the best option per se for the country but because it had a chance to pass the vote. The vote often turned the definitively-best options into non-options.

[@curranfrank2854]

Yeah, the middle ground fallacy is a real thing but what's best for the country and what can be passed are almost never the same things. I have views that I feel strongly about morally but I'd propose a middle ground with them if I had political influence because it could actually pass. Abortions and immigration for example. My personal positions are more to the left than the positions I would publicly advocate for, because the majority of the country is more conservative on the issues than me, and as a result would not support proposals based on my own personal views.

[@Echo81Rumple83]

@@boombam9611 no, that's reverse, at a much higher amount, and done by the elites most of the time. have you heard about the three strikes law? worst law ever.

[@tonykristhiofan1113]

I think the middle ground fallacy is flawed in that it assumes that all the decisions made between two extremes is based upon moral justification that the middle ground is good. No, obviously the other "good" extreme is better than the middle ground, but i can assure you 95% of the time reaching that state is impossible and thus the aim moves from "trying to reach the good extreme" to "moving away or minimizing the bad extreme". To take example from the video, the bad extreme is stealing and the good extreme is not stealing with the middle ground being stealing half. Obviously, stealing can be still called wrong here, but if the aim is to reduce the amount of things stoled or stealing occurences, than the middle ground aka stealing half, is still good. Anything to move away from the bad extremes Another point i can make, is that the aim of making a middle ground is not to make the most superior moral decisions or justify it with moral, but rather to reduce conflict, get an agreement, or making a concensus while still trying to get as much out of your opponents. For example, immagine a pro-vax and anti-vax got into an argument wheter vaccines cause autism. The anti-vax is a hardline believer that ALL vaccines are bad and cause autism while the pro-vax is arguing against that. After a few bouts of back and forth, the anti-vax person is willing to concede with the statement that SOME vaccines cause autism. Personally, if i was the pro-vax person, i'll take that concession and go home happily. Obviously, the fact that the anti-vax is still against vaccine to a certain extent means that they won't actively vaccinate and will be a lot slower and more resistant to vaccination program compared to a fully pro-vax person, but atleast now they will be more open to some type of vaccines

[@jacobnoelle8428]

@@boombam9611 because it doesn't fix the root cause.

[@dynawesome]

The problem is with people like centrists who tout compromise as the goal rather than a means to an end, and then don’t understand when people on one side see them as part of the other If your goal is to bring about compromise with something bad, you are upholding that bad thing

[@nicklindberg90]

The Demon of Reason absolutely makes my day

[@cocacola4blood365]

Mine too. He's quite heroic in his critical thinking. (As are his writers and creators😉)

[@lolhead7127]

He's the best, or since he's a demon, maybe the worst would be appropriate

[@luxcrim6893]

Me too

[@keneilwepooe4464]

@@cocacola4blood365 q

[@keneilwepooe4464]

@@cocacola4blood365 q

[@Xman34washere]

"Even well intentioned people- which, rest assured, I don't mistake you for" GOD BLESS THE DEMON OF REASON

[@aliciac3123]

Can we just appreciate the fact that Ted Ed posts almost everyday, entertains us, and educates us? Thank you!

[@talalzahid2241]

thank you so much :)

[@FatCatCooper]

@@elle4702 bro don't be posting these bots on a teded video man it's not right

[@lilpp4791]

No

[@DannyHuanDao]

The demon is absolutely right when he said "some things can't be resolved with a compromise".

[@Newdivide]

Then I like to hear his solution. He didn't give any

[@abdobelbida7170]

@@Newdivide uh.....not allowing slavery at all? It's not that much of a head scratcher.

[@beenviolent]

@@Newdivide the civil war, Jack. Slaveowners were willing to die for chattel slavery. So they did.

[@AnkleBiter3854]

Yea, doing something versus not doing that thing, and I want A versus I want B

[@Truthdefender101]

He just became the Demon of High Horse Morals.

[@jojothewarrior1416]

The beginning part where the Demon of Reason and his pet split the milkshake is such a beautifully crafted example of this fallacy.

[@Zeffarian]

Not really as he could have poured half of it in another container or just shared the glass. Compromise was fully attainable in this situation.

[@Penguinmanereikel]

“In response to your many contorted arguments (all of them wrong),” That was gold

[@catrielmarignaclionti4518]

@Jester he's a demon, and, correct

[@nyongthethird3561]

"Was also bad faith" @Jester ok but to be fair, we are talking about slavery here.

[@Manowarrior1992]

@@nyongthethird3561 but the entire "fallacy" behind this argument is, that there are morally "absolute" values or rules, which is not the case. Just to be clear of course iam against slavery and stuff but the entire argument is based upon the thesis that there are objectively "right" and objectively "wrong" morals and values. But that might be a fallacy in itself, since moral is (as far as we know) a human only concept, which in itself means that there is no objectively-good vs. objectively-bad scale

[@nyongthethird3561]

​@Jester Ok but i'm just saying that weather slavery is legal should not be a debate

[@firstname405]

@Nyong The Third yeah don't worry about these jokers. Anyone who uses slavery as a thought experiment can be written off as intellectually lacking

[@SCP--fj2jr]

"It's only when you begin to compromise that trouble begins." _me trying to substitute missing legos with other pieces:_

[@AnkleBiter3854]

Eyyy, how is curing the plague that is the pestilence?

[@rycegabrielmajor9847]

"To show you the power of logic and reasoning" *breaks milkshake glass" "I SAWED THIS GLASS IN HALF"

[@saquoiafighter]

"That's a lotta damage!"

[@dominickwilder7048]

Political compromise is a much more complicated issue than the video suggests, though I agree with the underlying point it's making, and that slavery was morally reprehensible, obviously.

[@tristangillis7365]

It really _shouldn't_ be a more complicated issue though. There are times when two separate views are equally valid, and a compromise merely ensures both views are permitted. Then there are times where one of the two sides is completely out to lunch, but we still compromise to make them feel heard. If people would stop supporting their political parties even when they make asinine decisions, we'd suffer from this issue substantially less. Political parties would be less inclined to disagree with each other for the sake of disagreeing.

[@dominickwilder7048]

@@tristangillis7365 I agree, political parties are a poison, just as Washington predicted. To your first point, it's nice to think that politics shouldn't be complicated, but we don't really have a say in what things are more intricate that others. Politics is one of those things that's more intricate than others. So whether we think it should or shouldn't, some things are just complicated, period. Politics and the tool of compromise are one of those things.

[@RasmusVJS]

@@dominickwilder7048 Not really. The fallacy stated that the most moral stance isn't always the middle ground between two extremes. If the most good outcome can't be reached, then it isn't a potential outcome. Just because you need to vote a middle ground in, doesn't mean the middle ground is the most moral.

[@chrisprilloisebola]

@@tristangillis7365 I agree with that, but it wasn't about political parties with the MO compromise specifically. It was a dispute about a certain way of living/economy that a certain population relied on. Much more important that disagreements nowadays

[@francesconicoletti2547]

@@tristangillis7365 if two sides are equally valid, that is good, why not do both in full.

[@wordsayer19]

I feel like there is a better example than this for the "middle ground fallacy" In this case, the compromise seems more about how many votes you can get than what is morally correct. I doubt those who universally opposed slavery were "convinced" that compromise was the right thing to do. More that they didn't think they would have enough votes to pass the bill to ban it from all new states.

[@jambec144]

Exactly.

[@AmixLiark]

Wordsayer: you're exactly right! Morality is intangible. The middle ground fallacy is established when there is indisputable evidence supporting one side and the other is inherently flawed. Morality is blurry and often subject to disputes. When it is applied context it relies on concensus, which in itself is FLAWED because the number of people that believe something has no causality relation to the correctness of that something. Before Galileo, it was concensus that the earth was flat lol. I think this was more of an attempt to virtue signal and not a good example of the middle ground fallacy.

[@jambec144]

@@AmixLiark A minor quibble here: in science, the consensus does not establish truth. Rather, it determines where the burden of proof lies.

[@AmixLiark]

@@jambec144 the Burden of proof lies with whomever makes a disputable claim independent of consensus from what I gather.

[@jambec144]

@@AmixLiark I would think that "disputable" simply refers to claims that contradict the consensus. If I say that combustion is caused by heat and oxygen, I normally don't need to support my case. If, however, I claim that it's caused by phlogiston, I rather obviously need to do some massive amount of work to support my claim.

[@sanp2032]

The demon of reason videos are always super entertaining

[@nickbolas3081]

"If one view is wrong while the other is right, a compromise between them is still wrong." Well said!

[@yohanguy8216]

Could only imagine the effects of showing events happening more than 40 years into the future for the politicians in 1819, using technology that wouldn’t exist for another 100 years

[@addymant]

One thing I will say, is that this assumes that the Senate is attempting to be perfectly logical, when that isn't at all the goal. Compromises in politics happen because there isn't a strong consensus for a particular policy, so to reach a majority, one has to make concessions to win over the hesitant legislators and voters.

[@CraftyF0X]

Yea you just found a limitation of many in politics.

[@TheFinalChapters]

@ They did, under the guise of "states' rights". There was absolutely no reason for this compromise to ever happen. It only kicked the can down the road until it eventually ended in civil war.

[@metazoxan2]

@@TheFinalChapters except the civil war happened over way more than slavery. What the real Fallacy in this video. There was a lot of political tension between the north and the south. larguely due to the capital and a lot of industry being in the north while the rural and farmers were more in the south. The Fallacy this video itself pushes for the sake of it's own argument is that the issue over slavery was the sole reason for the civil war but in actuallity slavery practices were on teh decline in the south even before the civil war due to inventions that helped make farming easier and thus there was becoming less need for so many workers. This is also WHY slavery was specifically allowed in the south as the compromise because it kept farming costs down since you needed A LOT of people and not having to pay said people kinda helped with that. Note I'm not saying that justified it. Just saying there was a practical but cruel reason for it.

[@fulcrum2951]

@@metazoxan2 so basically the whole thing was over slavery then

[@grassgeese3916]

You are assuming too much about each senator's decision making process. For example, do Democrats intentionally choose to behave meek and conciliatory, in Congress, or do Republicans intentionally choose to promote wildly extreme ideals? Democrats may be forced to compromise, but zero Democrats start their bargaining from a "progressive" or "leftist" position. Republicans, as seen during the Tea Party years, have a strong tendency to push as hard as possible, forcing Democrats to "compromise" at a neutral-Conservative compromise. To the Democrats, who wanted only status quo, this is a great success. But to everyday people who have no social mobility, healthcare, no housing stability, it is all just theater.

[@ryanwelborn1609]

This video suffers from a logical fallacy. It assumes that the people who forged the Missouri Compromise of 1820 did so because they believed that the middle ground between a pro-slavery and an anti-slavery position would be morally justified or even superior to the extremes. But this is false. Both sides saw this compromise as a morally reprehensible political necessity. The compromise itself was not a moral question at all. It was political. Neither side possessed the political power to impose its moral and political vision upon the other. Of course this fundamental contradict eventually resulted in the Civil War.

[@lighthouse6543]

It's not really a fallacy, it's more a historical inaccuracy, but yeah neither the pro nor anti slavery side saw the middle ground as morally correct, but merely necessary

[@rs-gv1nt]

lol ok buddy

[@circle4602]

​@@rs-gv1ntdid you know that if you put saturn in a bathtub it wouldn't work because saturn is way bigger than a bathtub

[@addalittlebam]

​@lighthouse6543 the fallacy is correlation does not mean causation. The video implies the compromise caused the Civil War, when in fact slavery did. The compromise was seen as better than war, but was futile.

[@lighthouse6543]

@@addalittlebam yes you are absolutely right I did not read the parent comment that way. So basically the compromise was created to avoid war but eventually they realizes stopping slavery is more important than avoiding war, right? I think?

[@vido7027]

There are people who try to compromise on things that are wrong, there are people who will not compromise when it is fair, and then there's the neverending mire of what is wrong or right and where the line should be drawn. The hope is that humanity survives long enough to write things down, and not burn it.

[@yeseniarobles4289]

Everything gets destroyed eventually. The only important thing is the right here right now.

[@machinedramon3532]

@@yeseniarobles4289 Is it? "Eventually" could be anywhere from a hundred years to a hundred thousand. The things we do will fade into irrelevance eventually, but a lot of people will live their lives between now and then, and we have a chance to affect those people's lives for the better. Those lives are what matters, not just what's happening right here, right now. When people started relying on fossil fuels, they were thinking about the here and now, and look where it got us today. We're still cleaning up that mess, and at this point we may not even be able to. Suppose we can't stop it, and humanity goes extinct as a result. That's infinite lives that could have been saved if people had just stopped to think about the future instead of what was in front of their faces.

[@yeseniarobles4289]

@@machinedramon3532 do you think that a few million years ago those people were thinking about us right here right now? Probably not, yet here we are. I highly doubt my neighbor ever makes decisions with me in mind. You can’t live your life worrying about everything and everyone, that’s not living, that’s being paralyzed in your decision making.

[@machinedramon3532]

@@yeseniarobles4289 No, but if you're going to do something that effects people a few million years in the future, you should at least consider how that's going to affect them, and if your neighbor is going to make a decision that affects you, like playing loud music at night, the courteous thing to do would be to keep those effects in mind. Most people don't make decisions that affect people millions of years in the future, but we do routinely make decisions that can affect people 10-80 years in the future, even subtly, and things we write down or create can affect people for much longer. There is such a thing as decision paralysis, and we do need to stop and think about ourselves every once in a while, but acting as though the future simply doesn't matter is foolish, short-sighted, and selfish. Like it or not, our actions do have an effect on people, now and in the future, and we have a responsibility to make sure that effect is a positive one whenever possible, at least within reason.

[@yeseniarobles4289]

@@machinedramon3532 your decision paralysis is not everyone’s problem. If you don’t like your environment then move out of it, selfish of you to try to change everyone just for your own personal redemption. The world is vast, you are not chained, what’s keeping you?

[@ed_cmntonly]

the fact that theres not even a ending with the tv showing the good news

[@danielyuan9862]

There is no good news. In fact, he showed the _bad_ news right before he returned to the present.

[@alexray230]

So my issue is this: If the nation was left with the options of compromise and limit slavery, or do nothing, or allow slavery, which is the best option? It would have been nearly impossible to pass any legislation favoring either side, so is compromise still bad? In the case of slavery, I think doing nothing would have done more harm than good and banning slavery at that point was all but impossible.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

Compromise didn’t work did it ? The Southern States saw anything less then unrestricted growth of slavery as a threat, the rest of the republic should have realised this and acted before things got to where they did.

[@cbpd89]

I think the issue is that instead of finding a path forward that all could agree on, legislators focused on maintaining the status quo. It may have been a compromise of sorts but really the only ones who compromised their values were the abolitionists. If instead enslaved people had been given expanded rights that increased slowly over time, that would have been a compromise in the true sense of both parties giving some and gaining some.

[@zyaicob]

If you asked the slaves they would tell you the solution. It's not a hard puzzle to solve.

[@zyaicob]

@@cbpd89 What is so good about a path forward that all can agree on? Some of those "all" wanted slavery to continue, idk about you but i don't want a path they can agree on

[@cbpd89]

Go reread my comment yaicob. The only people who actually compromised were the abolitionists. Pro slavery folks got their cake and ate it too. A compromise would have been offering the south some form of government aid so they could transition away from a slavery dependent economy and expanded rights for enslaved people. Instead they opted to give the south everything they wanted and the north got the consolation prize of nothing changing. That isn't a compromise.

[@roguishpaladin]

The Demon of Reason needs to be introduced to the all-or-nothing cognitive distortion, itself a major problem in these times. I think that bringing up middle ground fallacy without discussing all-or-nothing thinking is dangerous for this channel to have done. All this does is to encourage people to double down on whatever opinion they hold - after all, by their own values, they are in the right. A book burner in Tennessee could be encouraged by this, because they think the contents of the books they're burning are morally wrong.

[@jambec144]

Exactly.

[@chrisprilloisebola]

true, this "middle ground fallacy" is nonsense as portrayed here

[@jambec144]

@@jessepowellr4 You're quite right: this is a matter of determining what is TROO! Book burning is a good thing, and that's a true fact. They don't just contain bad ideas, but they occupy too much space and are made of dead trees. ALL books should be burned. I'm absolutely certain of this.

[@roguishpaladin]

@@jessepowellr4 You're literally the audience who should go read about all-or-nothing thinking.

[@danielyuan9862]

@@roguishpaladin I'm don't know much about the all or nothing cognitive distortion, but this video isn't about that. It's about the fact that _some_ conflicts can't be solved with a compromise. The all of nothing cognitive distortion sounds like _everything_ is either right or wrong, which isn't what this video suggests.

[@ammonite400]

Saying that some things are too morally reprehensible to have any sort of middle ground or compromise is all well and good when you’re using YOUR morals, but consider how you’d feel if the people you disagree used the same logic…for example, many conservative people are anti abortion because to them it is murder. They could argue that there is no acceptable compromise, the only solution they’ll accept is to ban abortion in all circumstances. And if the other side says the same, now we’re never going to get anywhere. How does shutting down the conversation under the guise of there being no acceptable compromise help solve anything?

[@cortster12]

Exactly. This is why politics is so nuanced, and using slavery as an argument for no compromise for TODAY'S politics is a blatant strawman.

[@jambec144]

@@cortster12 Completely agreed.

[@jambec144]

Yup.

[@JD-gk7eh]

This is exactly the issue: both sides believe themselves to be correct and moral. So it comes down to how much you're willing to stand your ground on your issue, and whether you're willing to cancel the game entirely rather than play ball with alternate rules. There are times to do that and other times you think "Ok, I'll let this go because I think I can fix it later."

[@zyaicob]

It doesn't bring you any closer to a solution, but it is the only way for people to act in true accordance with their morals and beliefs.

[@yepitisnathan]

This channel truly inspires me on numerous levels. The animation, the performance, the writing, the mission. I was unaware of this demon character until today and what a fantastic premise. Thanks to everyone who helped put this together!

[@siddharthsircar1815]

it's amazing how we recognize these fallacies accurately only whenever politics are involved

[@kaelisprime9087]

TED-Ed truly shows how learning and education can be both interesting and engaging without it feeling boring. I wish my school did more of this, but I'm happy that even they have shown this channel to us.

[@phogeysquatch]

The problem is, politicians can be arguing about whether to fold your napkin horizontally or vertically and view the other side as morally indefensible.

[@basilofgoodwishes4138]

That is a poor analogy. This point of the video was that when someone is wrong, they are wrong and need to change their view in accordance with reality but many do not do it and instead compromise between a wrong belief and a right belief, which results in conflicts (ironically) and doesn't solve the issue. At best, it becomes lesser, but isn't gone from the world and will still cause trouble. You should look at the merit of the arguments, not the fact that people are arguing, because this caused this fallacy to rise.

[@emberhermin52]

@@basilofgoodwishes4138 I think you're missing the point they were making which is that people accuse others of this fallacy all the time when really they're not doing it at all

[@josephrusso4828]

Couldn't agree more. When we get desperate, even the most trivial, meaningless thing becomes a world ending issue that will determine whether other people are worthy of anything good and beautiful.

[@miguelpadeiro762]

@@basilofgoodwishes4138 There's the clash of the wrong party more often than not seeing the right party as the wrong one, and in need of admitting as such. It's a paradox that if done nothing about just leads to political stagnation. "Compromise? YOU'RE THE WRONG HERE!" "ME? NO NO YOU ARE!" "No-no-no YOU ARE!" Either that or education should actually start being the n1 focus in democracies like it should with emphasis on philosophy, democracy relies on educated citizens capable of critical thinking to survive, otherwise it's nothing more than an oligarchy in the hands of cheap demagogues And once you have a competent democratic crowd, debate. Grab these squabbling buffoons and put them on camera, national debate. Who's right? Present logical, valid and true arguments and the educated people can decide for themselves who's right and therefore who to vote for. But that's lala-land democracy, real democracy is more on the demagogy

[@masteroftheart5548]

When one person says to drink a gallon of bleach and another says not to drink any the correct stance Isn’t “I’ll just drink half a gallon.”

[@XOPOIIIO]

Should we stop butchering animals for meat? It's obviously wrong. Complete and immediate ban, no compromises, right?

[@debymello4756]

You breath and a vegan comes to play holier-than-thou

[@Hrishtam]

@@XOPOIIIO jumping to conclusion is also a fallacy , just so you know. That too with a topic this complex

[@XOPOIIIO]

@@Hrishtam Conclusion to what? To that slavery is wrong? It's quite modern thought, wasn't obvious for about the entire human history.

[@suitcaseofsmarts]

@@XOPOIIIO no compromises, so we should keep butchering animals and outlaw vegans

[@mickmaster1478]

I've watched your other videos like this, and I'm surprised you haven't tackled the straw man fallacy yet. For those who don't know, the straw man fallacy is one person takes another person's claim, and distorts it into one that is more extreme. The person then refutes the extreme claim without refuting the original argument.

[@wynautvideos4263]

I think thats more of an argumentative fallacy than a logical one; people who use the strawman fallacy usually do on purpose

[@mickmaster1478]

@@wynautvideos4263 That does make sense, but I think it may still warrant a video.

[@homosapien5156]

Wouldn't that be the red herring fallacy?

[@cristian-bull]

@@wynautvideos4263 In my experience, I don´t think they do it on purpose, they genuinely think they are saying something smart

[@San-lh8us]

he talked about the slippery slope fallacy, which in some cases have the same effect of this fallacy you mentioned

[@geoffreydowdle5751]

Though I completely agree that compromise isn't the answer when something morally indefensible is on the table, I've seen this used to an extreme going the other way. I know many who can hardly hold a conversation about politics because they are convinced all opposition to their ideas are wrong to the point it shouldn't be tolerated. Also state rights have been lumped together with these reprehensible ideas so anyone who is against increased federal power is often reminded and treated as if racism is the only motive for state rights.

[@josephrusso4828]

I agree. This video is stating the obvious and making a major problem even worse.

[@emilypiens9900]

absolutely amazing video, incredibly relevant as well. This fallacy comes up all the time in today's politics it lays the basis for ridiculous idea's such as horseshoe theory and for discriminatory legislation to pass all over the world people need to learn about this and have 0 tolerance for stances that cannot be backed up with actual evidence

[@loki2240]

I didn't know about Horseshoe Theory. Thank you. Along those lines, it's very frustrating that so many Americans value being in the "center," a "moderate," etc. As one side of the political spectrum becomes more and more extreme, the "center" moves with them. People trying to position themselves in the "center," while the right wing is attacking voting rights, elections in general, actual history being taught in public schools, COVID-19 vaccines, masks, social distancing, etc. does not make them more reasonable. Some positions and some people just need to be opposed.

[@Worthless1010]

@@loki2240 A centrist in a country where Nazis are half the population is an accomplice

[@airdroid2]

Except Horseshoe Theory is not an entirely ridiculous concept when you consider the end-points of actual far-left and far-right regimes have similar mechanics to achieve different goals.

[@firstname405]

@loki2240 yeah the US' overton window is so skewed to the right that even their 'left party' is conservative

[@loki2240]

@@firstname405 - Don't I know it. I classify myself as a "progressive," but I would probably be a "centrist" in a lot of other countries. lol Listening to people (including mainstream media) characterize Bernie Sanders and AOC as "the far left" is infuriating. Social democracy isn't a far left ideology, and it only seems extreme to many Americans because they're so indoctrinated into right wing ideologies.

[@abdellahhallaoui6146]

It's a shame there are only a handful of episodes of this series. We need far more of this

[@gavinhenry8671]

At 1:01 of the video is the only reaction anyone should have when there is any justification of slavery.

[@hridaan722]

“Flawed is putting it mildly” has officially become my new favorite way to counter an argument.

[@oktayyildirim2911]

That doesn't counter the argument, though. It's just the equivalent of saying "you're wrong".

[@nikoniortnike]

@@oktayyildirim2911 agreed. Without further explanation of why said argument is wrong, the statement is rendered null and void. It become the intellectual equivalent of a snarky: “no u” response.

[@danielyuan9862]

I agree with the repliers, but this can give a really hard hit if you actually have the reasoning behind why one's argument is "flawed putting it mildly"

[@kirbymarchbarcena]

@4:11 "Some things can't be resolved with compromise" Yeah, that's a lot of truth to that one quote.

[@jp4431]

The compromise between insanity and sanity is still insane.

[@maymiller3639]

I love the voice acting! There is such a sass to it and a tone of authority. He really makes the video special:D

[@Mystixor]

I don't get where the fallacy is supposed to be? I don't think the people thinking slavery is wrong thought this compromise to be satisfying. They just wanted to stop it in as many states as they could manage, which this compromise did, right? Without the compromise, it would probably have been back to every state decides for themselves or something like that.

[@Gamesaucer]

The fallacy is that a compromise is better _because_ it sits in the middle of two extremes. That logic is flawed. As the video points out, it assumes both positions to be valid, because going for the "middle road" only makes sense if there are legitimate arguments in favour of both. It also assumes that the compromise is better than at least one of the options, and usually both of them. The latter is almost never true, and the former is still often wrong. It _also_ assumes that a compromise was necessary in the first place, which may not always be true. There could have been enough support or evidence for one of the extremes, but if you're going to focus on the compromise, you lose track of that possibility. It's a tactic often used by people in lieu of offering actual evidence for their position.

[@joan1609]

Without this compromise, civil war over slavery would've broken out sooner and the outcome of slavery being illegal would've been reached sooner. As the demon implied, the compromise delayed the inevitable. The middle ground fallacy is a fallacy because there is no legitimate middle ground in these situations. The wrong continues to exist as wrong until it's completely removed.

[@jessical4866]

The fallacy is in believing that both sides are equally valid options. Like choosing between vanilla or chocolate, everyone has their own opinion, and it doesn’t hurt anyone, right? Wrong. When there’s a clear moral right and wrong, you can’t even have half of what’s wrong or it will spoil the whole thing. If I’m trying to decide whether to put sugar or cyanide into the cookies I’m going to feed you, I can’t “find a middle ground” and do half of each. That’s still half cyanide, and you will still die. You can only find a middle ground on things that don’t have a moral right or wrong. If you can’t choose between vanilla and chocolate, you can get the swirl so you have half of each. But you can’t say “it’s illegal for half of us to have slaves, but legal for the other half” when having any slavery be legal means the United States still allows slavery.

[@ninasimpson6639]

The fallacy is A: I'm going to cut both of your legs off B: I want both of my legs C: Let's compromise! One leg Even one leg getting cut off is bad

[@Mystixor]

If you're gonna pretend like it is only about morally wrong and morally right then yes, this is a fallacy. But as stated in my original argument, I still think the compromise was better than having nothing. Giving up and saying "they were delaying the inevitable" (the civil war) is a very pessimistic and impractical point of view, as nobody knew it was going to happen "either way"

[@meejinhuang]

Two extreme opposing positions will never truly compromise. This will empower the center who should take advantage and take power.

[@drmujtabashaikh8]

We can all agree that Ted Ed never disappoints us

[@kevinboros7427]

Yes

[@Firemon6000]

Yep

[@ender691]

Since no one seems to have pointed this out; unlike the other videos with this guy where, after he finishes explaining and goes home, his tv then shows how the issue has been solved. This video just goes straight to the outro as you can't really try to say that solving this one problem would have solved slavery in america.

[@TheFinalChapters]

The reason it doesn't show "how the issue has been solved" is because it hasn't. There is a very clear parallel here with the current politics, and the video wasn't bold enough to call it out. Obviously, I'm referring to the anti-democratic election rigging going on by Republicans as we speak.

[@firstname405]

@@TheFinalChapters and the fact that slavery is still alive and well in America. You just keep them in prison bars instead of chains

[@matt69nice]

@@TheFinalChapters you could say that about any of the videos; they're all about fallacies used in modern political discourse.

[@chrisprilloisebola]

@@TheFinalChapters The solution was an all out war wym

[@chrisprilloisebola]

@@firstname405 lol nice one

[@stevemartin4759]

Reminds me of how stealing less than $950 was changed to a misdemeanor.

[@danielyuan9862]

I guess the misdemeanor is the actual consequence for stealing, and if it's over $950, it's for stealing _and_ causing significant "damage" to the victim.

[@VaultInteractive]

A middle ground can only really be attempted if one or the other topic/side of an argument is objectively wrong/bad rather than actually wrong/bad. While you could compromise on something like the toppings on a pizza, slavery on the other hand is something that I agree should never have had compromise.

[@angleclique]

You mean subjectively, not objectively

[@metazoxan2]

The thing this video kind of ignored though is that in politics compromises are often reached in an effort to past a law that won't otherwise pass. If you need a certain number of votes to pass and your initial proposal fails to get enough votes then generally one side will compromise to get the needed votes. It's not because of the idea both sides are equal in value but it's just how politics fundementally function. Really these "demon of reason" videos might bring up some good points but tend to ignore certain things in the examples they use to simplify their argument.

[@chrisprilloisebola]

Not really. If one side has an objectively wrong position, and the other side is opposing it. If its 50/50 for and against, the only way to do anything about it is a compromise. Or each side can start killing each other, as we've seen.

[@taracurry5816]

Movie shown in a different classroom: "It's 1861, and a Civil War has broken out over states' rights." Demon of Reason: "Uh oh...here we go again."

[@jjfrenzy789]

I love this series.

[@thescribbleguy8813]

Me too :)

[@semja]

It's quite clear that the pro-slavery side is wrong...but unfortunately this type of alleged compromise is what limits Congress to this day.

[@MesozoicMaiden]

The demon of reason, teaching the world common sense and critical thinking when it is seriously lacking. True legend.

[@glauberglousger6643]

Why is it called common sense? Most people seem to lack it

[@funkydiscogod]

Except that he is a still a demon, and trying to mislead people.

[@joan1609]

@@funkydiscogod how is he trying to mislead people?

[@Truthdefender101]

His arguments for slavery has nothing to do with "critical thinking" and more like appeal to "morals"

[@joan1609]

@@Truthdefender101 The morals were already established by the people making the compromise. This was already addressed in the video. Using critical thinking, it's clear why the compromise is a fallacy when considering agreed upon truths.

[@yukonchung2857]

1:36 this scene is very iconic

[@DragonXBird]

Thank you. I've been aware of this fallacy for years, and many people still try to compromise on some terrible things.

[@TheUndeadslayer221]

Pretty much the same thing is happening with climate change; It's a real issue, yet people say there must be compromise, despite the fact that the issue has to be addressed rapidly. Side note: If you want a prime example of this, please see Pedro Prada Carciofi below (who apparently is just repeating propaganda instead of actually giving solutions that work). Similarly, if you want an example of the strawman fallacy, you can also see Pedro Prada Carciofi and his "bombing the building" solution.

[@pedropradacarciofi2517]

It beeing a real issue does not automaticaly determine wich solutions should be taken

[@TheUndeadslayer221]

@@pedropradacarciofi2517 The threat level determines the response and what solutions must be taken. And the threat is rather severe, so that removes a lot of "compromise" options.

[@pedropradacarciofi2517]

@@TheUndeadslayer221 While the threat is indeed severe, that is far from beeing the only way we must measure the response An armed thieve is a serious problem. That dosen't mean bombing the building is an apropriate response Similarly, many of the proposed solutions to climate change are entierly untested and could be very damaging in the long run Specialy most proposed by polititians, who have a habbit of saying the solution to every problem is doing what they already wanted to do from the start

[@chrisprilloisebola]

climate change? I mean what's the non middle ground, "extreme" change solution?

[@Cyberlisk]

​@@pedropradacarciofi2517 That is not a good comparison. "Bombing the building" would be the equivalent of abandoning all technology instantly. Nobody is requesting that. Proposed solutions ARE tested. Renewable energy works well and is even cheaper as fossil fuels in the long run. Public transportation is way more efficient than cars if you put the same amount of resources into the infrastructure. The only thing that is stalling these objectively better solutions is lobbying and bribery from companies want to keep their profits without investing in innovation.

[@hansduran9462]

"...flawed is putting it mildly" really got me 😂

[@antmagor]

Love this video, all those people out there saying give us a “fair balanced view” need to watch this.

[@teslaromans1023]

I mean a fair balanced view is always the best thing to try to get. It just happens that fair balanced means sometimes “completely against something”

[@loki2240]

@@teslaromans1023 - I agree, for the most part. Beside the fact that Fox News ruined the phrase, there aren't always multiple valid sides to an issue. And often where there are multiple valid sides to an issue, there are more than two valid sides. So, presenting "both sides" of an issue is often very misleading and serves to silence valid perspectives while giving people the impression that they're properly informed and in a position to make an informed decision on an issue.

[@brianhild2519]

@@loki2240 that's absolutely correct. It's not red and blue. There's more than two sides. That reminds me of "There's my story, your story, and then the truth." We need to seek out the full truth. We can't really get there with Red and Blue in a constant battle with spin doctors presenting the news.

[@Mephitinae]

There is no balanced view when you're choosing between parties that have both committed worse crimes than any James Bond villain

[@loki2240]

@@brianhild2519 - Yep. But don't forget the "Green" side, as most mainstream media are ultimately motivated by pursuit of money from advertising, subscriptions, cable and satellite carriage fees, etc.

[@zenedhyr7612]

Palestine: This is my home Israel: This is my home UN: OK, we can just cut it in half, so everyone happy. *They both get angrier*

[@danielyuan9862]

Yup, sounds about right.

[@hidethepainharold4256]

Israel was ecstatic about it

[@zenedhyr7612]

@@hidethepainharold4256 bruh, i'm back to this cuz of your comment, it's a year already 😂

[@diegoromeo7237]

The fallacy is that the compromise is between the two positions and not between the two sides who hold those positions. The morality of either position cannot be adjudicated so long as there are two sides with different moral views. The line of reasoning presented in this video is in service of a good argument and good cause, the elimination of slavery, but it can equally be used to justify intolerance towards those who abide by a different moral code.

[@Twisttheawesome]

"Humans view compromise as an inherent virtue" is pretty good.

[@Ubersupersloth]

My issue with this thinking is how can you know whether a side is bad enough that it shouldn’t be compromised with? Your intuition? Your intuition will tell you that anything opposite to what you want is untenable. As you have an opinion in the debate, your intuition is biased and cannot be trusted.

[@TheKYLEdavid]

The point is that you shouldn’t compromise just for the sake of compromising. It’s not that you should never consider compromise at all. The world is complicated, there isn’t 1 rule that you should follow in every scenario.

[@pranaypallavtripathi2460]

I am sure that when the demon said at 1:50 that "...flawed is putting it mildly." he had strong history reference 😂

[@goosehonkernot5201]

Except you're forced to compromise in this type of scenario assuming you, perhaps, don't want an extremely destructive war.

[@narutosgirl613]

I just love the Demon of Reason so much! Especially the bit where he switches clothes with the defender of the fallacy 😂

[@parkerjarrell1137]

I have a message for the Demon of Reason: if your cat wants some of your milkshake, why not pour half of it into another glass instead of splitting the entire glass in half.

[@pcarrierorange]

This represents how compromise can be achieved in different ways, not all of them equally terrible.

[@MegaLokopo]

Sometimes the cost of the compromise is less than the cost of a lack of compromise. Who knows how different our world would be today, if the north was more aggressive and attacked sooner, or allowed the south to leave the union.

[@JD-gk7eh]

Exactly. This video really ignores the concept of a "poison pill," which while not quite the same as a middle-compromise, is related. An example in modern days might be that everyone wants universal health care but one side says "It can't pay for birth control and we won't vote for if it it does. Otherwise, we're ok with the rest of it." While that is a good fight to have, if the choices are no healthcare of any kind or healthcare without birth control, the second one is a lot better and does help more people. Then you can work on finding a way to fix the defect. When the choices become don't play the game at all or play with some rules you don't like, you really have to sit and figure out if the game itself has enough benefit. If it doesn't, don't compromise. If it does, figure out a way to make the game happen even if you don't like parts of it and then work on that.

[@MegaLokopo]

@@JD-gk7eh Yea, and often times the solution suggested by one side, isn't the only thing that would work.

[@timothygrashaw5233]

@3:22 A compromise between stealing and not stealing? Sounds like taxes lol

[@alexandradelliou]

We stan the Demon of Reason! Keep it up, Ted-Ed!

[@dosadoodle]

We have the benefit of 20/20 vision when looking at how the Civil War turned out. But it was not a certain outcome. Had it turned out the opposite, we (well, those of us who are anti-slavery) would have then praised the virtues of compromise today on this topic rather than what the outcome would have been then -- an establishment of a separate union of states where slavery would have remained in place indefinitely.

[@SenhorAlien]

Indeed.

[@Hrishtam]

No man, that is a big slippery slope fallacy, its not certain and definitely subjective. Completely speculative, admitting it could have happened but this is a fallacy nonetheless, for it not to be a fallacy more sound basis is required.

[@milk_bath]

Absolutely wrong. As correctly expressed by many in 1800s and now, there was no virtue in compromising on slavery before the Civil War, and it wouldn’t change how those people felt about it then nor now if the Union was broken. You sound like a slaver sympathizer.

[@chrisprilloisebola]

@@Hrishtam What? How is that slippery slope at all? Just bc you watched that one ted ed video on the "slippery slope fallacy" clealy shows you don't understand it. If the civil war went the other way, slavery would 100% continue and probably for a good while too.

[@chrisprilloisebola]

@@milk_bath Sounds like you don't have the brain capacity to engage with that hypothetical. So you're saying if the civil war went the other way, slavery would still not exist?

[@heatchills4093]

But the demon himself is guilty of a fallacy himself, because he calls the positions "morally indefensible", when in fact the morality of it was being vigorously defended by many, many people. Hence the impasse, and therefore the need to resolve it, either by democratic compromise, or by conquest. People today seem remarkably oblivious to the fact that people 200 years ago had different perspectives to what we have today. Moralities we are forbidden from questioning today were contested via extensive arguments and counter-arguments back in the day. "Right" and "Wrong" were impossible to objectively discern, because the issue was morally so complex, and the only instruments capable of evaluating the matter - human minds - were all biased in one way or another. The fallacy is the mistaken claim that "right" and "wrong" exist as impartial universal constants. They don't "Right" and "Wrong" are concepts that humans invented, and have never, ever been able to agree upon.

[@Pineapply_Queen]

"Even well intentioned people- which, rest assured, I don't mistake you for" Damn, he woke up and chose violence!

[@AlphaPizzadog]

when one side is asking for the bare minimum, trying to compromise is saying you can't even afford that.

[@donj2222]

I can agree that it is a logical fallacy and that it is a moral compromise, but sometimes half is better than none as it can take time to move from 100% wrong to 50% wrong to 0% wrong and the 50% wrong provides a stepping stone that allows for further improvement.

[@Supremebubble]

Sadly politics often move at such low speed that a compromise at the wrong place and time can be dangerous. Like saying we should only do 50% of our climate goals that we need to fulfill to save us from irreversible damage. If we agree to that because it's "better than nothing" then we'll never get to 100% because whenever we try to negiogiate the opposition can just say that they already compromised and we already agreed to a lighter goal.

[@01jbeals]

Can you please make more of these!!!!?? Seriously!!!!

[@ethandew1768]

This feels like the most common fallacy in American politics. Reps use it, Dems use it.

[@tristangillis7365]

Yep. In my own country, we have people who fly the flag of a political party like it's a sports team to be cheered for, so you end up with people condoning some utterly idiotic stances, simply because it's what their "team" said is right.

[@wilberwhateley7569]

The Reps and Dems are effectively the same party - they are both bought and owned by the same corporate interests.

[@ethandew1768]

@@wilberwhateley7569 yup

[@josephrusso4828]

@@tristangillis7365 That's one of my biggest problems with politics, people just repeat what some party leadership stated and don't think about the issues at all. It's so weird how people who claim to have free will behave like this.

[@myoung3411]

Hey buddy! I missed you. It’s been a while since I could find any new videos with you in them. Glad to see you back. Also, thanks for handily covering a lot of the material I need to remember for my History exams. You are very helpful.

[@Ghost_Of_SAS]

Not all compromises are created equal: compromise is usually a temporary solution towards a more permanent one. The problem I find in this video seems to be the assumption that the middle ground that is found is always a permanent arrangement, rather than a stepping stone towards a far more satisfactory deal or reform.

[@TheFinalChapters]

The video was talking about a very specific type of compromise, not compromise in general. Namely, a compromise between right and wrong.

[@alx9r]

@TheFinalChapters I agree that the video _ought_ to have been talking about a very specific type of compromise. It sounded to me though that it was making the argument about compromise in general.

[@Ghost_Of_SAS]

@@alx9r Exactly

[@elliotstahlmann7589]

I like how he steals their clothes. The Demon of Reason is clearly more civilized than these folk.

[@narrativegatherer3128]

I see. A compromise between right and wrong cannot be established. But how to decide what's right and what's wrong?

[@lizardguyNA]

Ask yourself this, "Who does this benefit and who does this hurt?" It can be really easy to figure it out there.

[@l0lLorenzol0l]

That is the hard question

[@genericjoe4082]

We can define wrong as "something that hurts someone" and right as "something that benefits someone and doesn't hurt anyone" and for something amoral (neither right nor wrong) "something that doesn't effect anyone" or "something that hurts someone but is not avoidable". Yes by these definitions we are making punishing criminals seem immoral, and tbh I believe it is. When rehabilitation is an option why punish someone? Sorry if my grammar is bad as I am not a native English speaker.

[@lizardguyNA]

@@genericjoe4082 Slight problem, that's absolutely not at all the case. Let me clarify. If it hurts many people, helps only an elite few, and does not benefit anyone but those elite few, then it's absolutely wrong.

[@mrmimeisfunny]

Whatever hurts others is wrong.

[@sj32172]

This kinda reminds me of one of Mark Robers videos. Player: Hey Coach! Ima steal second base. Coach: Be careful! I don't want you to steal it. Player: Okay, Ill steal HALF of it. *THATS NOT POSSIBLE!*

[@dudebladeX]

A compromise like this should be used for when you and your friend can't agree on a pizza topping, so you get half and half. It should *_NEVER_* be used for things that could determine the lives of millions of people.

[@RajivKumar-xp9qn]

I disagree with this bro... The only reason Israel Palestine war is happening is because hamas doesn't agree to the middle ground two state solution... Millions of lives could have been saved if middle ground was adopted... The opposite of moderacy is extremism... And just seeing the connotation regarding both words, we know which one is a virtue... With that said, I am no middle ground supporter.... I am apparently a hypernationalist (as someone in another KZbin comment once said 🙃)

[@thelosttomato4020]

I wouldn't say it should never be used..... sometimes two different positions are equally valid

[@ethanpetersen810]

Compromise-When neither side gets what it wants and both sides are left unhappy

[@hridakshipareek1418]

Every time I see this demon, I feel immensely joyous.

[@Countdown420]

Bot

[@Greybutwitha3]

@@Countdown420 wdym bot

[@022107]

It's a demon.

[@hridakshipareek1418]

@@Countdown420 I'm literally not a bot lmao

[@The.Nasty.]

It’s a demon.

[@Em-id4xn]

These videos bring me so much joy and comfort.

[@buildertherobloxian4731]

I love the Riddles and the Demon of Reason Videos. I like other stuff, but those are the ones I watch the Most.

[@pedrosso0]

If I had argued this, some people would say that "oh, but a compromise in the right direction leads to another compromise leads to eventually the right outcome" annoying.

[@nicolasvillasecaali7662]

Long live the Demon of Reason, shall his wisdom guide us against fallacy of our times

[@mewoosh]

You can always trust a dragon watching TV in his underpants.

[@ermytanio7111]

“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”

[@just-trying-my-best-everyday]

I love that he is the Demon of Reason yet he still tries to split up his milkshake by breaking the glass in half 🤣

[@prometheus7387]

In the world of chaos, the demon of reason is the only reason for calm

[@Staingo_Jenkins]

These are my favorite videos from Ted Ed

[@sator6754]

This Logical Fallacy Demon is by far my favorite recurring series/character, amazing voice actor too. Do more of him, TedEd!

[@iRazenrak]

Rarely are things are obviously wrong as slavery. Most of the debates happening today are for things that can be defended on both sides.

[@jemima5136]

I love the demon of reason. The moment I see him, I click and comment. Please I need more of this

[@adamgreene9938]

Person A wants to eat a bar of soap, person B doesn’t want to eat a bar of soap. They compromise and eat half a bar of soap

[@lorenzombolis]

2:20 who wrote that governments and states exist only to serve the people clearly has idea whatsoever of how states work.

[@hourofberries]

I’ve actually been learning about this in school this week. I’m going to share this video with my teacher because honestly it’s pretty cool

[@richardroberts6021]

this video didn't really outsmart the fallacy so much as simply point out it's existence

[@_MARC0_40]

The demon of reason is now my favorite character in the ted-ed multiverse.

[@darkness_master7194]

As it seems some of you are missing the point The mg fallacy is about compromise things that CANNOT be compromised, that's why it's a fallacy It's a argument that is false by definition Here A is wrong B is the opposite of A C is the "middle" of A and B Since c is still doing A, C is still wrong It's not to say that compromise things is BAD, instead it is about taking the middle-ground in things that CAN'T have one After all, there IS things that can have a middle ground (better saying, having a 3rd opinion) Take the golden mean by Aristotle, A is a extreme behavior B is the opposite of A but also a extreme behavior C is the mean of A and B Since both A and B are extremes (and normally not what one would call a virtue), C is naturally a virtue since it can't be as bad as both A or B And it's not necessarily a fallacy (some think it's debatable, but anyways) And for those who think this one have its uses, using a false argument for whatever sake is still a false argument Take the 🧂

[@TheFinalChapters]

The difference between your two examples is up for interpretation. That's what makes this fallacy so dangerous. One person's "extreme" is another person's "reasonable".

[@darkness_master7194]

@@TheFinalChapters i agree on that The difference in perspectives can lead to ignore the characteristics of the discussion itself And even indefensible things, like slavery, may even suffer from the middle-ground fallacy because of that Just as a side note, that's only if there's dissonance in opinions about a subject that is been discussed. Sadly the outcome of this casen if not a mg fallacy, could end up with the sides getting in war because of it anyway and the new victorious would have their opinions as standard (Which is part of a culture creation process tbh)

[@raphaelchan7574]

If the Demon of Reason had taken half his clothes he would have achieved comedy