Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "AMBUSH! Exposing Stefan Molyneux’s Sophistry **Debate Review**" video.

  1. 1. Kind people are socialists 2. Bob is a kind person 3. Therefore Bob is a socialist Maybe I'm missing something but this does NOT seem like a valid syllogism. There is no essential connection between premise 1 and 2. Bob may be kind and be a capitalist as you yourself point out. Therefore 3 is a non sequitur. Had premise 1 said ALL kind people are socialist your definition would be reasonable. This is like the classic dogs argument. 1. Dogs have spots. 2. Bob has spots. 3. Therefore Bob is a dog.. or 1. Dogs have spots 2. Bob is a dog 3. Therefore Bob has spots. You are assuming an ALL where none is stated.
    1