This Is Why You Can’t Spit in Singapore #shorts 99%

3/2/2026, 9:01:08 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 71.9% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 664 faulty-reasoning hits from 135 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.3% and a BS Rank of 99% (324 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 98.10% of the video peer group.

There are the anti-spitting laws. 
Spitting was actually common among early Chinese immigrant communities and was believed to help spread diseases like tuberculosis, which is interesting because the Chinese migrants themselves believed that keeping flem in the throat was unhealthy and that spitting could ward off bad luck or ill will. 
Anyway, in the 1980s, the government launched a stop spitting campaigns, plastering posters everywhere and warning that spit could transmit serious respiratory illnesses. 
And when SARS hit in 2003, anti-spitting enforcement ramped up again because Singapore recorded about 238 SARS cases and 33 deaths. 
So people started getting fined and publicly named for spitting in public spaces because in a dense tropical city like Singapore, a single bad habit could turn into an outbreak. 
The 
Confirmation Bias
34.1%
Anchoring Bias
3.7%
Availability Heuristic
22.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
34.1%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
45.9%
Loss Aversion
22.2%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
56.3%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
34.1%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
15.6%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
34.1%
Appeal to Authority
17%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
22.2%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
71.9%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
22.2%
Begging the Question
6.7%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
15.6%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
34.1%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

135 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.