I've been viewing comments from both Rafael Cruz, the man who fraudulently claimed to be fighting alongside Castro, since Castro started his revolution in 1957, where Cruz was in the U.S. at the time, so it appears that Rafael Cruz is nothing more than a con artist, and religion is the best trade for con artists to make lots of money and gain power.
So it is so extremely obvious that Rafael is desperate to make the United States into a Christian Theocracy and wants Christians to become politically active.
Ted is playing a con game as well, pretending to be a little more liberal than his dad, but, it is also very obvious that he is his father's deliverer for the Theocracy his father dreams of.
If you do a Rational Critical Analysis of Rafael's speech, you will notice at least a fallacy a minute.
Rafael is one of the most ignorant people I've ever heard speak.
He has no idea that everything he argues is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Essentially, he comes across as a fallacious confidence trickster.
He is only fooling the extremely naive, which is his entire following.
No knowledge exists in his congregation.
This idiot Rafael, is worse than Ken Ham! Ted is only marginally better, but at least Ted has a better education. Which makes his position actually worse, because to have such beliefs remaining after receiving a reasonable education, only makes him appear even more ignorant and idiotic.
Dyslexic's DOG, thanks for this video and your comments. I started to listen and see that it is over an hour. So I will watch it tomorrow and get back to you.
If you have the time, could you list the fallacies you observe and we can compare notes with what I find. I hope others will join in.
One you cannot miss is the slippery slope/slide fallacy, he uses this often.
He makes claims that with the current administration that they will lose all their liberty like happened in Cuba, so essentially stating the decline (going down the slide/slope) of freedom and morality. That is what is defined as a slippery slide/slope fallacy.
He often uses False Association/Causation Fallacies to sway the audience, such as stating statistics such as the rise in teen pregnancies and other social problems, evils, as if they were caused by removing prayer from public schools, simply because the statistics were taken from the following year. He ignores the fact that more teen pregnancies occur in Christian strongholds than secular regions.
He seems to ignore the fact that correlation does not indicate causation, thus he is deliberately using fallacy to sway opinion his way. By the way the audience clapped, they don't understand this either. So he is preaching to a bunch of incredibly dumb ignoramuses.
Another fallacy is the false ad-populum fallacy, in that he falsely claims that the majority of Americans want their vision of a Christian nation where decisions are Bible based, he pushes this in a couple of his lectures I've viewed, stating that the current government is ignoring the people.
Forgetting that it was the people who unanimously elected the Obama regime.
Thus,he is appealing to False (or misleading) Statistic Fallacies. He appears to invent his own statistics.
That is just a few I've got time for at the moment.
I'll list a few more when I've got more time, it's past my bed time here!
I'm certain others on A/N who are far more knowledgeable than myself at Logical Fallacies can find a lot more fallacies in Rafael's sermon.
Ted Cruz lets his dad campaign for him, so he obviously supports his dad's views.
Here are Rafael's views on atheists.
Notice the Slippery Slope/slide Fallacy Rafael presented in that last video from "The Young Turks", the slippery slide caused by atheism leading from a starting point of moral relativism, deteriorating to sexual perversion and crimes.
I'm a fan of "The Young Turks" coverage, especially of Cenk Uygur, who is a straight shooter, who tells it exactly how he sees it. He's one of the most rational and honest presenters, alongside Matt Dillahunty that I've seen so far.
I once disliked an attack Cenk made on my favourite American comedian at the moment in Bill Maher, (due to my own bias) yet, when I sat back and reviewed it, Cenk was absolutely correct, Bill had gone to far and his opposition at the time to Islam, and his opponent in the debate, who was Ben Affleck was actually more correct.