Perfectionist Fallacy--But Worse!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids

Notice that the Vatican, under a very charitable interpretation, is saying something like this:

P1: Condoms won't stop AIDS in all cases.
___________________________________
C : Condoms shouldn't be used at all (abstinence is the only reasonable alternative).

This is an example of a sub-case of False Dilemma entitled the Perfectionist Fallacy where the false choice is between: (1.) having condoms work perfectly or (2.) not using them at all.

Obviously, the third and highly reasonable alternative given the human lives at stake in Kenya, etc. is to endorse the use of condoms fully knowing that their use will not be perfect--but still much better than unprotected sex.

Circular Reasoning

Notice that the individual in the following clip is advancing the following two pseudo-arguments.

P1: The Bible is Divinely Inspired.
_____________________________
C : The Bible is Infallible (i.e., everything it says must be true).

and

P1: The Bible specifically says that is Inspired by God.
____________________________________________
C: It must be Inspired by God.

Please check out the clip from :50 to 1:39.

Notice in the first "argument" the claim that 'the Bible is Divinely Inspired' is logically equivalent to the claim that 'the Bible is Infallible' since it is only upon the assumption of the existence of God that either claim/both claims goes/go through.  But the existence of God is precisely what is in dispute.  Hence the argument is circular, i.e., assuming precisely what it is trying to prove.

The second "argument" is perhaps even more transparently circular.  It is roughly equivalent to saying that one knows a source is telling the truth because they have asserted that they are telling the truth.  So, accepting that what they are saying is true rests upon the assumption that they are telling the truth--but that is precisely the issue in question.

False Dilemma Example #2

False Dilemma Example #1

Ad Hominem Attacks

Proof Surrogate: Some People Say

Appeal to Anger

At 3:50 O'Reilly exlaims "See I'm more angry about it then you are!" in a classic appeal to anger. At 2:08 O'Reilly engages in a reverse argument from popularity (i.e., your view is unpopular therefore it is false) calling Glick's position "far left." In the full clip he goes on to call Glick's position "a marginal position in this society." Also notice the blatant red herring at 4:01. The clips from later days show O'Reilly straw-manning Glick's views.

At 1:40 Glick says "our current President now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically and situating geo-politically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and murder of my father and countless of others..."

In case you doubt this you may want to read this interview with one of Obama's current advisors and Carter's previous National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski where he discusses how the CIA trained radical Muslims in Afghanistan in order to lure the Russians into "the Afghan trap" to give "the USSR its Vietnam war."

At the end of the interview he is asked; "do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?"

To which he replies: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Stirred-up Moslems... Needless to say this interview was conducted prior to 9-11.