Point c) is anon sequitur worthy associated with the good physician’s commentsabout Russian roulette; it confers no advantages on theneighbors and so is totally off-topic.
By a number of other people whoexpressed concern that naive visitors would misunderstand theargument therefore totally they’d all become highlypromiscuous Maxwells and fundamentally extinguish the humanspecies. A couple of also urged me to publish a retraction forprecisely that reason. Put another way, they argued thatideas must certanly be suppressed because someone mightmisunderstand them. That is a place with a lengthy and sordidhistory of which I would instead maybe perhaps not become a component.
Check out more concerns that came up often enough tomake it well worth recording the responses:
Matter 1: You state that a bit more promiscuitywould lead to less AIDS. If that were true, would it not notfollow that the increase that is enormous promiscuity could defeatthe infection completely? And it is that summary notmanifestly ridiculous?
Response: The “summary” should indeed be manifestlyabsurd, however it is not a conclusion that is legitimate. Large changesand little modifications never always have consequences that are similar. Ibelieve that if We consumed a little less, i might live a bitlonger. But i actually do maybe maybe maybe not genuinely believe that I would live forever if I stopped eatingentirely.
Concern 2: when you look at the terms of 1 audience, “a spoonfulof promiscuity will just slow the condition; self-restraint can stop it. ” In view of this, is itnot reckless to tout the merits of promiscuity withoutalso emphasizing the merits of self-restraint?
Response: this is certainly like arguing that traffic lights canonly lessen the quantity of car accidents, whilebanning automobiles can stop car accidents; consequently, itwould be reckless to tout the merits of traffic lights. Continue reading