Smasharoo wrote:
The point was that if force was as effective as you suggest, there would be far less strife.
And if force was as ineffective as you suggest, there would be far more strife. I'm not the one dismissing the middle here. You are.
Quote:
For example: If someone argued that penicillin was an effective treatment for flubacterial infections, I might state "If that were true, we'd live in utopia where no one died of bacterial infections"
And you'd still be wrong. Because nothing is 100% effective all the time. Your entire argument fails because the standard you use is impossible to obtain, thus failure to obtain it (ie: perfection) does not prove that the proposed action is useless. It doesn't even prove that the proposed action isn't the best action to take out of all the available actions.
Quote:
It would require a radical lack of understanding to counter with "I can't believe you are using utopia for the standard of how well penicillin works to cure flu!"
Good thing that's not what I'm countering with. I'm showing that the logic you are using fails even if we assume the action we're considering taking is the absolute best choice. Ergo, it cannot be used to assess any choice we might have before us. Do you understand that this is how you test logic?
Quote:
Or, you know, cognitive impairment or physical neurological trauma, but we're working on the assumption that it's only about 50/50 that you've suffered a massive head injury.
Or I actually understand logic, and you don't. Yeah. I'll go with that last one.