1. Home
  2. Detail

@ken237321: Thèm vị quê nhà? Đây rồi – kẹo chuối tươi nước cốt dừa nhà làm!” Chuối xiêm chín dẻo, rim cùng nước cốt dừa béo ngậy, thêm chút mè rang thơm nức… từng miếng kẹo mềm dai, ngọt thanh chuẩn hương vị truyền thống. Kẹo nấu thủ công mỗi mẻ, không phẩm màu – không chất bảo quản, ăn yên tâm, biếu tặng cũng sang. Gói một miếng thôi là thấy mùi Tết ùa về liền! Hợp để: ăn vặt, đãi khách, mang làm quà. Ai mê kẹo chuối là đảm bảo “dính” ngay từ miếng đầu tiên! ⸻ #KeoChuoiTuoi #KeoChuoiNuocCotDua #DoNhaLam #KeoTruyenThong #AnVatTuNhien

Ken23
Ken23
Open In TikTok:
Region: VN
Thursday 04 December 2025 07:10:38 GMT
203
4
0
0

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (6.19MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (6.19MB) Watermark .mp4 (6.45MB) Music .mp3

Comments

There are no more comments for this video.
To see more videos from user @ken237321, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

improve brain health 🧠 #blowthisupforme #Science #improvement #Lifestyle #xyzabc
improve brain health 🧠 #blowthisupforme #Science #improvement #Lifestyle #xyzabc
#paratii #fyp #identificarse #triste #novios
#paratii #fyp #identificarse #triste #novios
4K 120FPS EDIT
4K 120FPS EDIT
Não caiu nessa conversa de que existe alienígenas... #geopolitica #daniellopez #alienigenas #viral #fyp
Não caiu nessa conversa de que existe alienígenas... #geopolitica #daniellopez #alienigenas #viral #fyp
Portugal will win the World Cup || last dance || World Cup 2026 || today || #r#ronaldop#portugalc#cristianoronaldow#worldcup
Portugal will win the World Cup || last dance || World Cup 2026 || today || #r#ronaldop#portugalc#cristianoronaldow#worldcup
You're talking with your friend Lizzy, and she says that ‘all men are bad at dealing with their emotions.' And so you push back with a few counterexamples and within the space of a single sentence, her claim morphs into something like, 'Well, just the ones I've dated.' She hasn't lost the argument, per se, but she's done something far sneakier, and the philosopher Nicholas Shackel called it a ‘motte and bailey fallacy.’ The motte and bailey fallacy is when somebody makes a bold and outrageous claim, which is the bailey, and they live there happily until somebody attacks it, at which point they retreat to a much smaller and much more defensible claim — the motte — and pretend that that is what they were saying all along. We've all seen this happen a hundred times. It's when somebody makes a bold claim, like 'all politicians are corrupt,' or that 'science has disproven God.' And the moment somebody pushes back, their claim changes into something far narrower. 'Well, I mean, some politicians are corrupt,' or 'I was only talking in a strict empirical sense.' They abandon the front lines, and they retreat to a position that is far more defensible. This is why so many of our political discussions can feel impossible to win. Whole political movements live in the bailey when there is no opposition, and then sprint back to the motte the moment anybody challenges them. A provocative claim whips up a crowd and pulls in support. But a mature claim requires evidence, argument, and can withstand scrutiny. So, the next time somebody says something outlandish, call them out on it. It often only takes the slightest bit of resistance for somebody to change their claim into something far more reasonable, defensible, and nuanced.
You're talking with your friend Lizzy, and she says that ‘all men are bad at dealing with their emotions.' And so you push back with a few counterexamples and within the space of a single sentence, her claim morphs into something like, 'Well, just the ones I've dated.' She hasn't lost the argument, per se, but she's done something far sneakier, and the philosopher Nicholas Shackel called it a ‘motte and bailey fallacy.’ The motte and bailey fallacy is when somebody makes a bold and outrageous claim, which is the bailey, and they live there happily until somebody attacks it, at which point they retreat to a much smaller and much more defensible claim — the motte — and pretend that that is what they were saying all along. We've all seen this happen a hundred times. It's when somebody makes a bold claim, like 'all politicians are corrupt,' or that 'science has disproven God.' And the moment somebody pushes back, their claim changes into something far narrower. 'Well, I mean, some politicians are corrupt,' or 'I was only talking in a strict empirical sense.' They abandon the front lines, and they retreat to a position that is far more defensible. This is why so many of our political discussions can feel impossible to win. Whole political movements live in the bailey when there is no opposition, and then sprint back to the motte the moment anybody challenges them. A provocative claim whips up a crowd and pulls in support. But a mature claim requires evidence, argument, and can withstand scrutiny. So, the next time somebody says something outlandish, call them out on it. It often only takes the slightest bit of resistance for somebody to change their claim into something far more reasonable, defensible, and nuanced.

About

Legal