FBXL Social

I watched the video when it came out, and a bunch of the way through, I came to realize that the question is wrong. There's an implicit fallacy built into it.

The logical fallacy is as such:

V has property W
X has property W
Therefore, X must also have property Y.

This can be proven with the ideologically neutral comparison between an automobile and a rail car.

An automobile is called a car
A rail car is called a car
Therefore, a rail car can drive on the highway.

Of course, that's not true at all. The fact that two things arguably share one attribute does not necessarily mean it shares all attributes.

The sophists use the logical fallacy to win losing arguments. If they can get you to accept one arguable link, they argue that you must then accept every other potential link.

We have a word for it that the people making such arguments should know: "Stereotype". Sometimes stereotypes are a useful heuristic to reduce the complexity of infinitely complex problems, but something being a useful heuristic doesn't necessarily make it a good argument.

That's true. I probably could have left that part out, but given the irony of such people relying on them so strongly and the baggage of the term I couldn't help myself.