“sound” のもう1つの意味を、杉田水脈議員の問題発言を例に解説します | #クィア英会話


Hi there, it’s Masaki it’s been a long time since my last English lesson video I’m sure all of you have heard the word “sound” it’s something you perceive through your ears, right? as a noun, it’s the sonic waves that we hear like, the sound of music as a verb, it describes how something you hear feels for example, someone gives you an idea and you say “oh that sounds good” or someone says something they probably don’t mean and you say, “it sounds like you are defending sexism and there’s another one – an adjective “sound” that’s what I want to talk about today but before we learn the meaning of it I need you to understand what the word “valid” means in everyday conversation, we say valid to mean something is working, like this coupon is valid or something is understandable but it also describes how an argument is logical and an argument, basically, is let’s say you have A, B, C statements when they’re all true, then D is true for example, A: Masaki is Japanese B: Japanese people like wasabi therefore, C: Masaki likes wasabi if both A and B are true then it’s also true that Masaki likes wasabi, right? When the logic of an argument work, we say the argument is valid, it’s a valid argument an argument is a set of one conclusion and and supporting statements that make the conclusion true and when the logical structure is working with reasons logically leading to the conclusion we say it’s a valid argument but, I hate wasabi that means, there must be something wrong but the structure is obviously logical ’cause I’m Japanese, and if Japanese people like wasabi then naturally, I must like wasabi, right? there’s something wrong the problem is, am I Japanese? do Japanese people like wasabi? if these supporting statements are themselves wrong no matter how logical the argument’s structure may be the entire argument turns out to be wrong, right? fyi, I’m Japanese – I have a Japanese passport not all my family and relatives are Japanese, but as far as I know, all my ancestors are Japanese so, A is true – what about B? do Japanese people like wasabi? you see, this is the problem here whether Japanese people like wasabi … some people do, others don’t because B is wrong the entire argument is wrong when any one of the supporting statements of an argument is wrong we say it’s an unsound argument it means it’s not sound so, sound means the supporting statements are all true, and its structure is logical let’s review that with an example a Japanese lawmaker of Liberal Democratic Party, Mio Sugita, publicly made LGBT-phobic remarks she’s under fire online and thousands of people have protesting on the street [TEXT: She supports military, PM’s war shrine visitations, state secrecy laws, hostile diplomacy, nuclear weaponry] [TEXT (cont.): She opposes child care, same-sex marriage, separate surnames for married couples, support for the poor, immigration, respecting rape victims] (that was my understading based on her WikiPedia entry) I want to pick one of the arguments she makes to explain what’s sound and what’s valid she’s made lots of arguments about LGBT people but in TV program Hi izuru kuni yori she talks about whether schools should teach students about LGBT issues I found a short video on Twitter someone made of the program with her talking about just that I’ll put the link in description I want to focus on what she’s saying in that video for the sake of this lesson video these are the points that she makes about education and her conlusion is this “LGBT issues should not be taught in school” in Japanese, conclusion is ketsuron and its supporting statements are… these are called assumptions (or Zentei in Japanese) make sure to make it plural because there are usually more than one assumption and for this conclusion, the assumptions are this, this, this, and this those are her reasonings, the bases – or Konkyo in Japanese so there’s four of them here usually, when someone makes an argument they have a conclusion on top and below that, they have multiple assumpsions but they usually don’t connect one assumption directly to the conclusion in most cases it’s more like this from these two, you get something you can say and when you combine that with this one on the right you can reach the conclusion that’s usually how an argument is constructed it’s rare that you can jump from one assumption to the conclusion right away even if that seems to be the case, maybe below this… you have other stuff or you actually have another assumption beside it but because it’s something most people assume as a matter of fact it’s omitted so, like I said, you usually have multiple assumptions so, this argument of Sugita’s should look like this – for example that’s what an argument should look like but to my surprise, when you analyze her argument this is her logic these two, or these two, or these two or these two, I mean or these two, or these two are totally unrelated they are all separate well, let’s say we’re ok with that let’s accept that it’s like this then this circle is one argument and here’s another one ’cause apparently one assumption is enough but is each of these four arguments valid? or sound? well, for an argument to be sound, it has to be valid first being valid means it’s logical being sound means it’s valid AND its assumptions are all true (if it’s not true, we say false) so, only when all assumptions are true and the logic is valid can we say it’s a sound argument so, is her argument sound? valid? let’s look at her assumption #1 is it valid?
[Homosexuals are not productive (childless)] does this assumption lead to the conclusion? honestly, I don’t think it directly leads to the conclusion I think there’s a hidden assumption that’s required it must be something that Sugita believes and other right-wingers also believe what goes here is probably “spending tax money for unproductive persons is not justifiable” when and only when these two are combined can we reach this conclusion even though this one is omitted she’s talking with other right-wingers who probably believe in this additional assumption let’s give her a bonus and say this is valid This first argument is valid moving on to assumption #2
[it will be extra burden on teachers] does the fact that teaching about LGBT issues will put an extra burden on teachers actually lead to the conclusion that they should not do it, directly? if there’s another assumption here that anything that is an extra burden on teachers should not be part of school education, then we can connect these and get to the conclusion, maybe but wait, this new assumption here even within right-wing circles is not really a common sense, is it? ’cause teachers already have more and more tasks every year so I’m not sure if we can say this is omitted without this new assumption this second argument is totally not valid or “invalid,” we say in English moving on, her 3rd assumption is that teachers may give students wrong information well, if that’s true, does that directly lead to the conclusion? for this one, too, we need to add another assumption it’s something like “it should not be taught in school if there’s a possibility that teachers may give wrong information about it” with that new assumption, we can probably say this argument is valid if teachers may give students wrong information about LGBT issues, and if they should not teach anything that they may have wrong information about then of course LGBT issues should not be taught in school, huh? but for this one, too, this new additional assumption here is it really omitted i.e. commonsense? ’cause in everything, there’s always a possibility that a teacher may be wrong, right? even math etc. – what else would be left? even within conservative circles, it’s not commonsense then, we can say this argument is invalid, too #4 [kids who could otherwise return to ‘normal’ would become homosexuals] Sugita says in her girls only school she used to write love letters to ‘cool’ girls and stuff and argues that young kids like that would be homosexuals while they could otherwise return to ‘normal’ if LGBT issues were taught in school let’s put aside how sound or unsound this is, and test this argument’s validity one required assumption is that sexual orientation can be changed at will oh this may be a rare case where one assumption leads to the conclusion right away I don’t know, there may be something else but let’s say we have a smaller argument here and also, there’s another one that’s hidden “the government must not do anything that leads to an increase in the number of homosexual people” then, we can connect these two and go to the conclusion if we say these two new assumptions are so commonsense that they can be omitted we can be generous enough to say this is a valid argument now, this new assumption here about the government it’s probaby what most conservatives believe I guess we can say it’s omitted and about sexual orientation, I guess many people think it can be changed, or even ‘cured’ so I guess these assumptions we just added can be said to be omitted i.e. commonsense at least in their circles yeah I’m being nice and generous here I say this is a valid argument so we have two valid arguments now we can test their soundness I’m gonna delete #2 & #3 because they’re invalid they’re bad arguments ok, so this argument, valid argument here about productivity its first assumption is that gay people are unproductive and the second is that tax money spent for unproductive persons is not justifiable let’s call them Assumption A & Assumption B respectively in Japanese, true is shin, and false is gi now if Assumpsions A & B are both true, that means this argument is sound are they true? hmm first of all not so many gay people have spent their life with their partners till ‘death do them apart’ rather, many gay people my parents’ generation or older typically got married to the opposite sex and had children, and have had family so historically this productivity argument here where Sugita argues that gay people don’t engage in sexual activities that can lead to reproduction is not true if we look at the history, at least for now even among young queers some start identifying as gay after having children so there are gay people who have children, even in younger generations so, to say gay people are unproductive (by this Sugita means childless) is simply wrong besides, if we look at productivity from a different angle for example, in biology well I don’t like biology-based discussion, but anyway we have the theory of evolution where animals evolve in order to adapt to environments so that they can preserve their species so animals have evolved in the most effective way for the sake of the preservation of their species and that includes humans so, if a certain number of individuals show same-sex sexual activities or intimacy then, one can argue that that also contributes to the preservation of the species their existence may be contributing to the species I mean, I don’t care if gay people are biologically useful or not but in evolutionary thinking gay people probably have their own biological reason to exist for example, hypothetically we have a heterosexual couple here with a child and one of their siblings is single and lesbian or gay that sibling is probably involved in raising that child there are many gay and lesbian people like that, right? it’s possible that that’s how gay and lesbian people may be contributing to the species if homosexuals were not contributing, let alone a hindrance to the preservation of the human species in the theory of evolution, their number must be on decline but that’s not the case – then one can argue that homosexuals are necessary in human evolution anyway, even if you don’t believe in evolution saying gay people are unproductive is simply wrong because there are many gay people who have kids that was Assumption A – I’m gonna change the color Assumption A is not true – it’s false now, even one false assumption makes the whole argument unsound, but let’s look at Assumption B, too “tax money spent for unproductive persons is not justifiable” I think this is the most criticized part of her argument well, if tax money shouldn’t be used for unproductive persons… that… betrays the point of tax, doesn’t it? tax is for equality tax is, for example, used for roads we don’t let rich people buy all the roads, right? ’cause most streets are for public use so yeah, Assumption B is clearly false so they are both false, so it’s totally… I mean, one false assumption is enough but she has two here, and therefore this argument is unsound we added a new asssumption here as a bonus, right? so that the argument will be valid well, it may be valid now, but it’s unsound, so it’s BAD! now this red one here – it’s valid, but is it sound? [the government must not do anything that leads to an increase in the number of homosexuals] this is… simply… (lol) Sugita’s belief, or a conservative belief (lol) it’s a matter of values so it’s not true – is it false? I don’t know but in logic, anything that’s not true is false, so, it’s false next – “sexual orientation can be changed through education” well, sexual orientation or sexuality in general CAN CHANGE but mostly on its own not at will (one’s own or other people’s) I mean, homosexuality has been considered bad, so homosexual people, I mean not limited to the kind of people we now call gay and lesbian people but also inclusing those who would be called transgender today have a history of forced reorientation not only through education/therapy but also through lobotomy and electroshock and all those attempts to ‘cure’ homosexuality have FAILED it was never cured – I mean, it’s not something to ‘cure’ in the first place anyway so basically, sexual orientation or sexuality in general it’s never possible for other people to change so if Sugita believes school education can change one’s sexual orientation she must be understanding human sexuality as a very fluid, flexible thing well, it’s not THAT fluid, so this one’s false and of course, this one’s false, too and this one about the government and the number of homosexuals was false, so so this argument here may be valid if we generously give Sugita these two additional assumptions but these are all wrong, all false like I said, one is enough – but she’s got three false assumptions so this argument is unsound bad, very bad so what’s happening here is – let me delete all this oh there’s lots of short strokes…. this should do so, this one is unsound, this one is invalid this one is invalid, and this last one is unsound these are all…(lol) all bad (lol) all wrong – not valid, not sound I really admire her for shamelessly sharing this kind of bullshit on a TV program there’s another thing that’s interesting about her logic I mean, interestingly, astonishingly bad, that is it’s that box in the top right corner she says “it (education about LGBT issues) low-priority” but… low-priority things… are OK to do, right? see, my point is in her conclusion over here she says it should not be taught in usual use of that expression, it means you should teach no LGBT issues, right? she’s not saying, “it’s better not to teach it, but it’s ok to teach it,” right? she’s saying we should teach no LGBT stuff now, isn’t it weird that she thinks it’s “low-priority”? when you have a priority list, there’s no room for things that you shouldn’t do, is there? if something is not OK to do, then it’s not high or low priorit— I mean, it should not be on the list in the first place but she uses the word “low-priority” does she think it’s ok to teach LGBT stuff in school? but in the entire rest of her argument she’s arguing that no LGBT stuff should be taught in school so there’s a conflict here it’s really confusing and I think the reason why she’s so confusing is because perhaps she’s not even thinking seriously about education her motive has nothing to do with children or education ’cause if she really cared about children and thought that they should not be taught LGBT stuff she wouldn’t be talking about priority ’cause for her, teaching LGBT stuff is bad her calling it low-priority makes me wonder, “is it ok then if teachers have more time and energy?” why call it low-priority if she thinks it’s must be avoided? so what she’s trying to achieve is not better education but a certain position in the convervative community that’s why she is not consistent at all and in order to acquire that position, she has to make such a flawed, bullshit argument by gathering pseudo-evidence like these it’s conclusion first, followed by this patchwork mess oh shoot, you can’t see this is all she wants to say, and by doing that she’s showing the world that she’s that kind of conservative (because the general population in Japan has become quite conservative in the past decade=more votes) so yeah, that was my English lesson on the word “sound” as an adjective as you can see clearly, I didn’t make this video to really teach you the meaning of “sound” I wanted to talk about how bad Sugita’s argument was and so, I tried to make it an English lesson video so yeah, anyways, Sugita’s argument is really, really bad [TEXT: oh no, there’s something on my glasses] that’s it for today thank you very much for watching if you liked this video, give me a thumbs-up and subscribe and it would be great if you could share this video on Twitter etc. so, please do 🙂 also, I started posting my illustrations on Instagram so please go check them out as well alright, that’s it, bye~ Japanese people are wasabi

12 Replies to ““sound” のもう1つの意味を、杉田水脈議員の問題発言を例に解説します | #クィア英会話”

  1. 今回もとても面白くて勉強になりました!論理的思考と英語が身につく動画ですね。あと10回ぐらい観ようと思います。

  2. mio sugita is a fucking nazi cunt. shinzo and akie abe, aso, suga, etc. are fucking war criminal fascists. jpn people, PLEASE GET RID of these rightwing fascists or jpn will become an invading fascist state again…!

  3. めちゃめちゃ、説明がわかりやすかったです!!日本語字幕も英語字幕も付けられたのですか?すごい!

  4. 編集が見やすく、内容も判りやすく、いかに杉田水脈の論理が破綻してるか改めて理解できました!ありがとうございます!

  5. 安倍ちゃんの取り巻きはことごとく論理性がなく、支持者もまた論理性がないので、こういった論理的な批判がちっとも効果をもてないでいる。普通なら、そんな政権は維持できないはずなのだが、ジャッジをする国民がまたそれを景気と計りにかけて許容してしまっている。ハリボテの好景気であるにも関わらず。

    すでに手遅れと言われている日本経済が、本当にどうしようもなくなってから、やっと国民は気付く。いや、ひょっとするとそのときの総理の責任にするかもしれない。安倍ちゃんの責任でダメになったことを国民に思い知らせるには、安倍ちゃんを総理でいさせ続ける必要がある。

    さて、この自説はsoundだろうか。自分でチェックすることは可能なのかな?

  6. 杉田水脈議員の番組での発言でもそうですが、
    件の寄稿文においても、「生産性」という一部分だけでなく
    全体的に論理が破綻していたり……

    「切り取りの印象操作、全文見れば分かる」と言われ、
    ならばと思い全文読みましたが破綻していない箇所を探す方が大変だったり。
    それもマサキ氏がこの動画で示した図に酷似しております。

    分かり易い動画解説ありがとうございます。

  7. とても面白かったし解りやすかったです!チャンネル登録したのでこれからも楽しみにしています👍もっとたくさんの人に見てほしい~!

  8. 恐らく「優先順位は低い」と「教員の負担増加になる」が合わされば「valid かつ unsound」くらいにはなると思います!
    あくまで unsound なことに変わりはないですけどね😇🍖🔥

    sound は楽器と奏者が揃って初めて演奏できるみたいなイメージなんですかねー。

  9. i went into this to listen to your thoughts on her, i didn't expect a logic lesson lol but thanks for refreshing my knowledge of it too! the only thing i knew about the issue (as i have seen on twitter) was just the unproductive part and the becoming normal part :0 i didn't expect her statements and her actual claim to be much worse,,,, i feel strongly about her statement on growing out of the phase since i also went to an all girls high school,,, i've felt attraction towards the same sex even in a mixed school before i entered high school and now that i'm in college (also mixed), my gender orientation hasn't changed !!! either way i hope the lgbt community in japan is doing okay and i'll be supporting you guys from outside japan !!

  10. I really enjoy your content and how you methodically take down Mio Sugita's dumpster-fire of an argument. It's interesting to see how different conservative attitudes are in Japan. I don't think in most English-speaking countries that you could claim that sexuality can be "taught" without being laughed at. It was a common piece of propaganda during the 1950's McCarthyism that homosexuals would "recruit" people. I guess collectively we all laugh at how ridiculous the assertion is! Keep up the great work mate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *