[005]
Kersey475
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I still don\'t see a difference between types II and III.
to:
I still don\\\'t see a clear difference between types II and III. Could someone please enlighten me?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The problem is you\'re using a definition of \
to:
The problem is you\\\'re using a definition of \\\"perfect\\\" \\\'\\\'specifically tailored\\\'\\\' to support your argument, and using it incompletely. Most people would not apply a standard of \\\"perfect\\\" to contraception that consists exclusively of minimum chance of infection; that logically also makes \\\'\\\'\\\'suicide\\\'\\\'\\\' a method of contraception and only having sex with \\\'\\\'\\\'animals and the dead\\\'\\\'\\\' a \\\"perfect\\\" solution.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply while claiming a 100% perfect solution, the alleged 100% solution has to be perfect by any definition of perfection, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one. Since the perfect solution does not exist at all, claiming that the imperfect one is ruled out by it is nonsensical.
Regardless, the logic that only 0% and 100% exist is used in the argument, and in the \\\"secular\\\" version that you keep ignoring (where they don\\\'t mention abstinence at all because they know it\\\'s not considered a realistic option and is likely to make people ignore them) they will \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' attack the effectiveness of condoms, claiming 98% is not sufficient and so nobody should use them.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply while claiming a 100% perfect solution, the alleged 100% solution has to be perfect by any definition of perfection, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one. Since the perfect solution does not exist at all, claiming that the imperfect one is ruled out by it is nonsensical.
Regardless, the logic that only 0% and 100% exist is used in the argument, and in the \\\"secular\\\" version that you keep ignoring (where they don\\\'t mention abstinence at all because they know it\\\'s not considered a realistic option and is likely to make people ignore them) they will \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' attack the effectiveness of condoms, claiming 98% is not sufficient and so nobody should use them.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The problem is you\'re using a definition of \
to:
The problem is you\\\'re using a definition of \\\"perfect\\\" \\\'\\\'specifically tailored\\\'\\\' to support your argument, and using it incompletely. Most people would not apply a standard of \\\"perfect\\\" to contraception that consists exclusively of minimum chance of infection; that logically also makes \\\'\\\'\\\'suicide\\\'\\\'\\\' a method of contraception and only having sex with \\\'\\\'\\\'animals and the dead\\\'\\\'\\\' a \\\"perfect\\\" solution.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply while claiming a 100% perfect solution, the alleged 100% solution has to be perfect by any definition of perfection, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one. Since the perfect solution does not exist at all, claiming that the imperfect one is ruled out by it is nonsensical.
Regardless, the logic that only 0% and 100% exist is used in the argument, and in the \\\"secular\\\" version that you keep ignoring (where they don\\\'t mention abstinence at all because they know it\\\'s not considered a realistic option) they will \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' attack the effectiveness of condoms, claiming 98% is not sufficient and so nobody should use them.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply while claiming a 100% perfect solution, the alleged 100% solution has to be perfect by any definition of perfection, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one. Since the perfect solution does not exist at all, claiming that the imperfect one is ruled out by it is nonsensical.
Regardless, the logic that only 0% and 100% exist is used in the argument, and in the \\\"secular\\\" version that you keep ignoring (where they don\\\'t mention abstinence at all because they know it\\\'s not considered a realistic option) they will \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' attack the effectiveness of condoms, claiming 98% is not sufficient and so nobody should use them.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The problem is you\'re using a definition of \
to:
The problem is you\\\'re using a definition of \\\"perfect\\\" \\\'\\\'specifically tailored\\\'\\\' to support your argument, and using it incompletely. Most people would not apply a standard of \\\"perfect\\\" to contraception that consists exclusively of minimum chance of infection; that logically also makes \\\'\\\'\\\'suicide\\\'\\\'\\\' a method of contraception and only having sex with \\\'\\\'\\\'animals and the dead\\\'\\\'\\\' a \\\"perfect\\\" solution.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply, the perfect solution has to be perfect, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one. Since the perfect solution does not exist at all, claiming that the imperfect one is ruled out by it is nonsensical.
Regardless, the logic that only 0% and 100% exist is used in the argument, and in the \\\"secular\\\" version that you keep ignoring (where they don\\\'t mention abstinence at all because they know it\\\'s not considered a realistic option) they will \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' attack the effectiveness of condoms, claiming 98% is not sufficient and so nobody should use them.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply, the perfect solution has to be perfect, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one. Since the perfect solution does not exist at all, claiming that the imperfect one is ruled out by it is nonsensical.
Regardless, the logic that only 0% and 100% exist is used in the argument, and in the \\\"secular\\\" version that you keep ignoring (where they don\\\'t mention abstinence at all because they know it\\\'s not considered a realistic option) they will \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' attack the effectiveness of condoms, claiming 98% is not sufficient and so nobody should use them.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The problem is you\'re using a definition of \
to:
The problem is you\\\'re using a definition of \\\"perfect\\\" \\\'\\\'specifically tailored\\\'\\\' to support your argument, and using it incompletely. Most people would not apply a standard of \\\"perfect\\\" to contraception that consists exclusively of minimum chance of infection; that logically also makes \\\'\\\'\\\'suicide\\\'\\\'\\\' a method of contraception and only having sex with \\\'\\\'\\\'animals and the dead\\\'\\\'\\\' a \\\"perfect\\\" solution.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply, the perfect solution has to be perfect, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one.
In order to claim the fallacy doesn\\\'t apply, the perfect solution has to be perfect, has to be mutually exclusive with the imperfect one \\\'\\\'without additional qualifiers\\\'\\\', and has to actually \\\'\\\'exist\\\'\\\'. For most people, an ideal method of contraception would be one that allows a reasonably normal sexual act to take place, has the best possible chance of preventing pregnancy and [=STDs=], and does not significantly harm the pleasure of either partner. This rules out abstinence \\\'\\\'entirely\\\'\\\' as a solution, let alone it being a perfect one.
