While most reasonable people understand why abstinence-only education isn’t the best idea, there are those who remain in favor of it - or, if they aren’t staunchly in favor, they are at the very least apologists for it. Often these people have religion as the basis for their POV, and debates with them using logic and reason rapidly degenerate into yelling at a wall. Part of the reason for this is that sex is such a touchy (pardon the unintentional stupid pun) subject. So, let’s remove sex from the equation and replace it with something a lot less controversial - but the argument’s logic remains the same.
The only surefire way to guarantee that you won’t die in a motorcycle accident is to not ride a motorcycle. However, if you do ride a motorcycle, you should wear a helmet. It might not save your life if you get in an accident - but it’ll increase your chances a hell of a lot more than otherwise.
If one chooses to ride a motorcycle, one does so with an understanding of the inherent risks involved. The motorcyclist chooses to accept those risks, because to him or her, the benefits justify the risks. For some, however (like yours truly!), the risk is not one worth taking, so they choose to stay off motorcycles.
But how often do you hear people who don’t ride motorcycles making a big stink about how no one should do so? If we want to rid the world of motorcycle accidents, we’d better spread the word that no one should ride one! No, no, don’t say anything about helmets and reflective clothing - that will only encourage people to ride motorcycles!
Much like a parent forbidding a child from watching certain TV shows, or a document stamped “Confidential”, all the “Stay off motorcycles!” noise is bound to get peoples’ curiosity up. The verboten becomes desirable - especially for teenagers, those naturally rebellious rapscallions. And so, suddenly you’ve got a bunch of kids climbing on motorcyles, unaware of the need for protective measures such as a helmet, much less how to operate the darn thing - getting themselves killed.
You might argue that this analogy is ludicrous - if someone doesn’t want to get on a motorcycle, talking about motorcycle safety isn’t going to suddenly make them want to. You could talk to me until you’re blue in the face about anything and everything motorcycle-related, and I still wouldn’t want to drive one.
Sure, there might be people out there who are ambivalent about the whole motorcycle issue - they think it might be fun, but they also don’t want to go crashing to their death. For these people, learning about motorcycle safety might convince them to try it - or not. In either case, it’s not going to make them run wildly for the first motorcycle they see, jump on it, and take off into the sunset.
Any rational person would agree that not telling people to wear a helment when they ride a motorcycle is irresponsible, dangerous, and reprehensible. So why is it suddenly a topic for debate when the issue is sex education?
READ ME: Disclaimer
34 Responses to "Let’s Beat This Analogy ‘Til It’s Dead"
I did not find this analogous.
There is nothing irresponsible, dangerous, or reprehensible about not wearing a helmet if one is trained to avoid versus react. But I know, that is another argument and not what you are trying to coax from readers.
I don’t trust anybody who won’t ride a motorcycle. Sorry about that; not that I need apologize or you (or readers) to need one.
To throw tequila on your fire: what happens if you get hit in the crosswalk by an errant motorcyclist. You are crossing the street when you don’t have the WALK sign. Motorcyclist has to avoid Ms. Passat b/c she can’t get her cellphone to work. He swerves, in avoidance of the car and hits a pedestrian who does NOT have ROW. What’s that analogous to?
People who don’t motorcycle are just like people who don’t fuck:
they know not of what they speak.
Shit, I think you just proved your point. Damn these blogs!
If it’s a religious person, the answer is that God told them nothing about helmets, but did tell them about sexual relationships. Something doesn’t have to be logically consistent if “God told me to do it”.
I mean, spending money on palatial, zillion-dollar churches, arresting pornographers, and sacrificing children don’t make the best “logical” sense, but they’re all things God has called people to do. So why not ignorance-laden abstinence education?
I think that actually makes it LESS ludicrous. It’s actually parallel. Learning about condoms had exactly as much effect on my desire for sex as learning about helmets had on my desire for a motorcycle–little.
Ken, your points about your mistrust of non-bikers are irrelevent. Amber’s analogy could have been about oxygen masks in a plane. (Wearing one helps, but not flying is the best way to not die in a plane crash.)
Amber, it is the same idea that the nut-jobs that reject ideas and funding for needle exchange programs use to substantiate and validate their own notions of how people “should” act. People place ideas of a certain form of morality and certain “ideals” on human behavior, and what they neglect to consider is the ramifications of their actions. Not having needle exchange programs is retarded. FUCKING RETARDED. It doesn’t cause people to use drugs; it allows them the opportunity to use them safely IF THEY ARE ALREADY USING THEM. Same with sex. Kids are having sex. James is a teacher, and there are 4 kids in his class right now that are pregnant with their 2nd or 3rd child; but, if we teach abstinence only, they will stop, and that will prevent HIV and the spread of other STI’s. BULLSHIT. It is a “standard” of thinking that people place on others, where they do not consider how those people think, act, or react to societal pressures and situations; and most importantly, they don’t care: those people are not THEIR problem.
Working in HIV prevention really makes me jaded to things like this, mainly because it is bullshit. I am a trained behavioral scientist, and I must say that the most important lesson that I believe I have ever learned from any of it, is that people are going to do whatever they want, regardless of how you spin it to them; the only thing that you can hope for, is for them to alter their behavior to be less risky than it was before (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SOMETHING THAT FEELS AS GOOD AS SEX!!!!!!). Telling them to use condoms just increases the chances that they will do it safely; like riding with a helmet. Sorry to go off… I will calm down now. But it is shit like this that really infuriates me; especially because those with “power” are the ones that hand these ludacris orders to teach this nonsense to our nation’s youth. Teach them that abstinence is an OPTION; not the ONLY WAY. Some kids will go for it; but the ones that weren’t going to in the first place will at least have condoms to protect themselves.
I knew you’d have something to say about it, Ken… Look, I’m not trying to say anything about motorcyclists. I just thought it was a decent analogy. Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, but Jesus, gimme a break okay?
I almost made the analogy about seat belts in cards, but changed my mind.
I know. SO true. That’s a problem with arguments about a lot of things with some religious people - a fundamental point of disagreement that you’ll never get past. Even so, I felt like writing this just for the hell of it.
More later. I’m on 4 hours of sleep.
Oh my god. There are needle exchange programs? Um, does anyone know where I can score some heroin? Cuz… That really makes me want to try it.
And duane, I’ve got nothing against you, but one day I will meet Ludacris in person and have some very harsh words for him and his efforts to make people misspell “ludicrous” on such a grand scale. ;)
Garrett, LMAO! I spell checked it and that is what it changed it to; no lie! Maybe he has scored a deal with Microsoft, or the Google spell checker, or something. I see his career getting bigger by the second.
Having had significant experience with sex and motorcycles in my youth, I wish I had stayed away from both. Nonetheless, I don’t find any flaw with your logic on this point, Amber, although the Marxist in my training wants to look toward who benefits economically for each prospective alternative:
No motorcycles: Insurance companies (actually are the biggest lobbyists for helmet laws, but they would benefit more from a complete ban)
Motorcycles plus helmets: Motorcycle suppliers.
Sex plus condoms: Condom makers and abortion providers (when those things fail)
Abstinence: Nobody?
Strangely this is the logic used by the NRA. We should allow youth to have guns, but also give them gun locks and gun training, because we don’t want people that don’t understand firearm safety to be enticed by the sexy prohibition against handguns. Where to you stand on that issue?
I suppose abstinence is “teh r0x” because it is truly 100% safe sex (as in none). Condoms aren’t 100%, pulling out, the pill, the morning after pill, the morning after the morning after… you get the point.
I will agree that abstinence is that 100% but I won’t agree on the marketing technique. People will do whatever they want as previously suggested but I find that there is a HUGE disconnect between the act of sex and the consequences of sex. The act of sex: feels really wonderful, most righteous, etc. The consequences of sex: 18+ years of taking care of someone else by force of society, one’s morals, or you can just pawn them off. Of course that consequence can be eliminated through various means of perceptive reality but the truth of the matter is that consequence stays with you regardless of whether or not the life produced does.
The biggest thing I struggled with (and still do) is that connection between the act of sex and the potential consequences. I can deny responsibility all I want (in effect making me a child - for children have none) but that won’t let me escape the reality of the situation. I think if we could ditch abstinence and somehow reinforce the consequences it would be a lot better but still not the holy grail politicians and “people of powah” would rather have. In the end it’s difficult for you to look at someone else and equate those consequences to your own life. THEY have an STD, THEY have a child, but I’M invincible! Rawr. We may not say that in so many words but our actions are screaming that all over the place. I know I’ve thought that way many times and luckily I have been invincible up until now but that isn’t to say the next time I won’t be so lucky because anything can happen.
I found Ken’s take on the analogy to be a bit misguided, at best, or disingenuous, at worst(in the best way possible, I thought it was also fucking hilarious).
The poor unsuspecting pedestrian who gets flattened by the accident-avoiding motorcyclist. Yes, that is one of a hundred unfortunate outcomes of modern transportation. But when applied to fucking, it just doesn’t work.
Observe:
So, a person wanting to have sex (motorcyclist) is trying to avoid having sex with someone (Ms. Passat) and accidentally fucks someone else (pedestrian)?
That actually has nothing to do with helmets or protected sex or abstinence or sex education, lol.
Here’s an analogy:
Nope, I’m fresh out of anaologies.
Okay, some thoughts:
the argument for abstinence-only sex education is based on fundamentally flawed logic. Seriously, its a fallacy of propositional logic called Denying The Antecedent. Wiki that shit if you don’t believe me.
So, their argument goes something like this:
If we teach students about condoms, premarital/risky sex will increase. If we don’t teach students about condoms, they will not have premarital/risky sex.
Let’s reduce this from emotionally charged words to letters:
If A, then B. If not A, then not B.
Logical fallacy. Plain and simple.
Now, we could go on to argue the fact that most people have no problem ignoring logic and reason and clear-thinking if it supports their societial or religious agendas which, in turn, are supported by their emotional agendas for herd mentality/social cohesion, convenience, and their fear of rejection and abandonment. But why fucking bother when already their argument has been proven to be baseless?
Hey, Condom-teaching-about-haters! Bring me a valid fucking arugment and then we’ll talk.
Melissa, I think you completely misunderstood Ken’s use of the analogy. Perhaps you are a little biased to ignore what is both reasonable and logical in what he’s doing. Ken’s not making any kind of argument about hating condoms or not using them at all.
Also, it is easy to recast someone’s argument in the form of a popularizable fallacy so as to discount it. Generally, though, in the process the structure and intent of this person’s argument is undone and replaced with something much easier to make fun of. It is a more difficult thing to do analysis on someone’s given argument as it is given. As a result, in our quest to easily understand other people we ignore what validity there is in their coital arguments, because faking the orgasm is easier than the long process of enjoying the multiple.
Give Ken some credit: he’s actually doing something interesting with Amber’s analogy in a way that not only clarifies it, but reveals something she might have emphasized to better it. I have no problem with Amber’s analogy, so far as analogical reasoning is concerned.
I should have been more clear - only the top portion of my comment was directed towards Ken, and I wasn’t even giving him a hard time, exactly. Well, maybe only a little. I was being slightly facetious when answering Ken’s question, “What’s that analogous to?” If anything, Ken’s comment merely served to point out that analogies and metaphors are quite often meaningless. Amber’s analogy is so/so, but its major detractions were already pointed out by Ken, so I did’t bother.
The second portion of my comment, everything from, “Okay, some thoughts..” is intended only to point out that the prevailing argument for abstinence-only sex education does not measure up to logical standards. Its a simple fact. Its up to the casual observer to decide if they’re willing to buy into an argument that’s illogical. If the structure and intent of the argument for abstinence-only sex education is completely different than what I mentioned, I’d be happy to entertain that one, too. But the one that has been presented - the one of which I made mention in my previous comment - as it stands, is illogical.
So, what you’re saying, essentially, is that by subjecting the argument for abstinence-only sex education to the rules and standards of logic and reason, I have:
a.) taken the easy way out
b.) somehow made the argument impotent in an unfair way
c.) something about coitus and the faking of orgasms or the holding out for multiple orgasms…or something.
I’ll be perfectly honest - “c” was lost on me. I mean…I think its a metaphor, but its too reaching for me to get it, I think. Personally, I’m multiple/staged. I’m pretty lucky in that sense.
a.) Also, it is easy to recast someone’s argument in the form of a popularizable fallacy so as to discount it.
As far as taking a cheap shot at the argument by subjecting it to logical standards - well, I would say out of all of the ways to pull apart an argument, it is highly unlikely that pointing out logical fallacy is the easiest. I think generally attacking ideology and attacking specific people is much easier than thinking an argument through, entertaining it, and seeing in what ways it might fail as a logical argument. An example of the “easy way” might be to say that abstinence is stupid, religion is stupid, and anyone who believes in those things is uncategorically stupid. I’m pretty sure my original comment made no judgement one way or the other towards the merits of abstinence or abstinence-only sex education or its proponents - simply that the argument was fundamentally, logically flawed. I still stand by that statement…because it’s true.
b.) Generally, though, in the process the structure and intent of this person’s argument is undone and replaced with something much easier to make fun of. It is a more difficult thing to do analysis on someone’s given argument as it is given.
I wasn’t making fun of the argument. If “making fun of an argument” means that you expose it’s weakness in terms of reason and clear-thinking, then, I will concede that I was “making fun” of the argument, but then and only then.
I have very few “sacred cows”. Rationality and clear-thinking are very near the top and I am no lightweight when it comes to these things. I’m not carping here - the only thing on which I would pass judgement, contextually speaking, would be the fact that to argue the abstinence-only sex education position requires that the arguer paralogize - something in which I could not abide.
As far as the actual argument itself? Well, hell, how would I know which is better? I’m not an expert on children, education, and I’m sure as shit not an expert on abstinence. I don’t have much of an opinion about the whole thing.
I got tired of having opinions for opinion’s sake awhile back.
Maybe I am too severe. Oh, well.
ha ha…when I was describing one way that a person might attack the actual position of this argument, I said that one might say that “abstinence is stupid, religion is stupid and anyone who believes in those things is uncategorically stupid.”
Ha! Consider ‘uncategorically’ to be a hybrid of ‘unmitigatedly’ and ‘categorically’. Man, neologism is so totally bitchen.
Ya’ll are so touchy sometimes around here. Good post btw.
When was the last time somebody’s argument changed your mind?
The last time somebody’s argument was about three weeks ago.
Now, this may be pretty anti-climactic, but I already told you, I really don’t have many opinions for opinion’s sake.
I am not a software developer, programmer, coder, or in the tech business at all. However, when discussing software architecture, design and development with my software developer boyfriend, I found that we were in disagreement, in theory.
It seemed, to my mind, that iterative development was the way to go, and that BDUF (big design up front) was brittle and wastes time. However, he presented a logical argument for using an approach that is a bit of a hybrid. Plus, he’s an expert on software design and development and he’s done it more than I have (which is to say, he’s done it at all). So, that was the last time an argument changed my mind.
Okay. I have decided not to write a response to Jeremy’s comment here, because upon reading it three more times, I still don’t understand it. I already have a headache this morning, so why make it worse by trying to understand nonsensical things? I don’t think I have enough Advil left for that. And, as previously established, I’d rather not put an ice pick through my temple.
I also do not understand Charles’s “faking the orgasm” comment. I guess he was trying to be clever since this post is about sex? That’s great, but I don’t know what it means.
Melissa, one of the things Charles was (somewhat delicately) trying to point out to you was that, once armed with knowledge of the “logical fallacies” that are out there (most people know nothing of them, but they can actually be learned very quickly), it is easy to make someone else’s argument into one of those fallacies by not really “hearing” what they’re trying to say (or even what they actually did say).
It’s hard to apply this specifically to your claim that abstinence-only education arguments utilize the fallacy of denying the antecedent, because we don’t have any actual examples here (in this conversation thread) of anyone actually arguing for abstinence-only education. What we have is Amber venting her own thougths on the subject (I do not use “venting” as a pejorative). She gave an analogy, people (all of whom, I think, basically agree with her position about sex education) have discussed whether it is an adequate analogy. But then you have added a new wrinkle to the conversation (this is good: new wrinkles are always fun)–the claim that the REAL problem with abstinence-only arguments is not rooted in their analogous relationship to anti-motorcycle arguments, but rather in the fact that they simply commit a very basic logical fallacy. So you have said, but Charles has his doubts (and so do I).
The reason we have our doubts is because….who exactly are you talking about here? Which abstinence-only argument? All of them? Really? Or are you only talking about “the one that has been presented”, as you say in a more recent comment? But which one is that? Who presented one? Are you responding to the hypothetical argument that might be reverse-constructed based on Amber’s analogical counter-argument? It simply isn’t clear what the argument is that you have in mind when you claim the Fallacy of the Denied Antecedent.
It is certainly true that someone who reasoned thusly, If P then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q, would be committing the Fallacy of DA. But whether any abstinence-only people actually argue that way, you haven’t shown. And so Charles is suspicious that you have simply “put words” in someone else’s mouth, rather than take their argument seriously. It is hard to believe that THE major arguments for abstinence-only education commit such a blatant fallacy. But feel free to give an example of some actual person making an actual argument for abstinence-only education, and we can consider it together.
Want examples? Try visiting this site.
I have some other links bookmarked at home, but I’m at work right now so I’ll have to get them later.
The page I linked to starts off with this utterly ludicrous claim: “Only relatively recently has the act of sex commonly been divorced from marriage and procreation.” Also puzzling is: “When adhered to strictly, marital fidelity has always protected individuals and society.” That last one is downright dangerous - because, if you can show me a society that has always strictly adhered to “marital fidelity,” I’ll show you a fairy tale.
Xon, I think Melissa specified which argument she was logically analyzing right here:
It seemed pretty clear to me. As to whether or not you can find this argument used by AOE-supporters in the wild, I’ll leave that to the more fervent linkers here. Anecdotally, this is precisely the argument I’ve heard from several abstinence-only education proponents, though it’s usually weakened to “should/can/is likely to XYZ” rather than “will XYZ”.
…especially since all the research shows that the opposite is true.
Time-reversal invariance is useful in astrophysics. I’m not sure if its universally useful (ha, what a pun.)
It was implied that the “presented” argument was presented by those who pushed the AFLA…….o…m…g.
So, I was looking for links, because I have very little interest in sex education, in general, and even less interest in abstinence-only sex education, so, naturally, I don’t have a stockpile of links on which to refer.
holy funny shit, batman.
jesus, mary, mohommed and vishnu, this is hilarious.
ok, when my jaw returns from its current slackened state, I’ll resume this. I gotta go read about how copulation is totally lame and homo.
Uh, so where exactly is an example of someone actually using the fallacious argument that Melissa accuses AOE advocates of using? Melissa just cited some (quite) humorous satirical sites, because she has “very little interest” in sex education and “even less” in AO-eductaion. Except, Melissa, that you claimed to know enough about AO-education arguments to accuse them all of committing the Fallacy of the Denied Antecedent. If you know that they commit that fallacy, then you have to know something about the actual arguments that are in use out in the real world. I don’t mean to be snippy on this point, but we’re just not going to accept that such-and-such people use a clearly fallacious form of argumentation because you say so.
Garrett, you said:
“Xon, I think Melissa specified which argument she was logically analyzing right here:
So, their argument goes something like this:
If we teach students about condoms, premarital/risky sex will increase. If we don’t teach students about condoms, they will not have premarital/risky sex.
It seemed pretty clear to me.”
Yes, it was very clear what argument she was attributing to AOE folks. What is not clear is who actually uses such an argument? I was challenging her to show that AOE people actually use that argument, which you yourself acknowledge she hasn’t done. You (and Melissa, so far anyway) will “leave it to the more fervent linkers here” to settle the question of whether any such AOE people are actually found in the wild. But this is precisely my point! You cannot just “inform” all of us that AOE people commit a certain fallacy without having any actual examples of them committing that fallacy .
If I came on here and said the following,
Seriously, you guys, pro-choicers all commit the is/ought fallacy. They say, essentially, that “Abortion is legal. Get over it.” Now, let’s look at this, shall we? They are saying “A is the case, therefore A should be the case.” This is a fallacy, y’all! Wiki it if you don’t believe me…,
how convinced would you be? Forget how convinced you would be, how odd would you think my argument is. I look up some fallacy, show its form, claim that this is what “all people” on some particular side of a controversial debate do when they argue, and then leave it at that. Um, okay…
Amber, the site you posted is rather large, but at the very least it is obvious that nothing you have mentioned on that site is the kind of argument Melissa has brought up. None of the two ludicrous or puzzling claims you quoted have anything to do, at all, with the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. They are highly questionable factual claims about the history of pre-marital abstinence. (And, to be fair, they are from the introductory paragraph on the homepage of the site. I imagine the purpose of all the articles on the site is to try to back these claims up. Whether they do a decent job of that or not, I don’t know.) But it is certain that, if they are indeed ludicrous and puzzling, it is not because they commit the fallacy of DA.
So, still waiting on some examples, I guess. (Garrett anecdotally provided some, so I guess I can go away now, too.)
Here’s one example, look at the FAQ #4.
Here’s an example of their argument, albeit presented factually and not as an if/than statement.
The “myth” of “safe sex”? That’s about as condescending as Xon’s implied impression of me. Luckily, it takes a lot to offend me, especially by an incidental. In fact, its nearly impossible. I don’t mind the part where we parry and joust about logic and semantics, but c’mon Xon - rude. Subtly attack the insouchiant tone I take, if it gives you wood, but don’t imply that it, in and of itself, makes my argument any less convincing. I expect more from you.
Now, if you’re any good at all at dialetics, you’ll say that based on those links that I’ve provided that I am making generalizations. It’s what I’d do, anyway. I guess I’ll go dredge up more.
Oh, Heritage Foundation, I can always rely on you..
The emphasis is mine.
Okay, now this is not unrelated, but it doesn’t bolster my argument, contextually speaking. However, it does point out that there, are, in fact, logical problems with my argument. Xon - you were right…there are other arguments for AOE and I should’ve provided links to specify which argument to which I was referring or at least accounted for them. Because I wasn’t addressing arguments like this…much more sinister and, quite frankly, whackadoo arguments.
Strictly speaking, most of my knowledge and understanding of the AOE camp is anecdotal, also. I devote approximately no minutes per week researching sex education. But it doesn’t take an unbridled passion in a topic to seee its weaknesses. Anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as circumstantial evidence, and to imply that they two are synonomous is myopic. Or perhaps duplicitous.
Melissa, I’ll be the first person to apologize to you, publicly, for being rude to you. I won’t cover it up, excuse it, or hide behind semantics. People shouldn’t be rude, and that includes me. But I’m honestly at a loss as to why you are saying that I was rude. I’ve questioned your claim that AOE arguments commit the fallacy of DA. You’ve now provided some examples of arguments that you think do this. We’re making progress here! :-)
You cite two sources, and you speak of anecdotal evidence. The first you take to task for being “condescending”, which doesn’t have anything to do with the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. Perhaps you think the first site (Choosing The Best) you linked to in your most recent post also commits that fallacy of DA, but you also went off on it for being condescending. If so, then you’ll have to say a little more about your thinking to help me out, because on my first reading I don’t see anything in that article or at the CTB site that commits that fallacy. (This doesn’t mean I agree with these sites, obviously; but we’re talking about a particular kind of fallacious argument, and I’m not seeing it.)
The second article you cite is from the Heritage Foundation, which says that certain non-vaginal-intercourse activities (showering together, oral and anal intercourse, and the use of erotic materials together) are “likely to increase the incidence of sexual intercourse” (which I take to mean ’standard’ vaginal intercourse). A couple of comments about this citation:
1. This is simply a brute factual claim, not an argument. In other words, this claim (that certain less-than-full-sexual activities can lead to ‘full’ sexual activity) might be wrong. It might be grossly wrong. It might be that there are no good arguments for accepting this claim. But, the claim itself is not an argument. And since it is not an argument, it cannot commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
2. Perhaps you want to say that this claim rests upon an argument that commits the fallacy of DA. So, when the Heritage Foundation says that things like showering and erotic materials are likely to lead to a higher incidence of sexual intercourse, they have an unspoken argument (maybe it is spoken somewhere else, which is plausible) that has the following form: “If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.” Is this what you are saying? I’ll put off a response until I get confirmation one way or the other.
Finally, about anecdotal evidence, you said, “Anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as circumstantial evidence, and to imply that the two are synonomous is myopic. Or perhaps duplicitous.”
Okay. Except I never said I had a problem with anecdotal evidence. I even think that anecdotal evidence can be used to form a fairly sweeping generalization. I am not one of those people who thinks that “all generalizations are false, except this one.” And I enjoy good anecdotal evidence.
All you (or Garrett, since he got in on this action too) had to do was say, “A person I was talking to about this said such-and-such, which clearly committed the fallacy of DA.” But you didn’t say that. You said that AOE advocates, in general, commit that fallacy, and then you offered no examples of what you were talking about. Now we have a couple of examples (though I do think they’re pretty weak), which is a start. And I accept at face value your anecdotal observations. I have no doubt you have encountered people who use blatantly invalid argument forms in their ordinary conversation. I certainly know I have encountered such people.
I “left it to the more fervent linkers” because I am not the one trying to inform anyone of the commission of a fallacy!
A: Melissa brought a fallacy in an AOE argument.
B: Xon said “Which abstinence-only argument?”
C: Garrett said “Y argument. I’ve heard it before but am not going to back it up here.” [I should have added "Because this was not the point I was trying to make in the first place. I just wanted to clarify for Xon which argument she meant."]
D: Xon says “Garrett isn’t backing up his accusations of fallacy in the least.”
My clarification doesn’t mean I wish to defend Melissa’s accusation.
But since we’re talking about it now, Xon, I am interested in this…
If “not teaching about [condom use/masturbation/etc] should decrease [premarital sex/risky behavior]” isn’t a primary justification for AOE, why not? And what is?
I understand that if we’re going to “cry fallacy”, there’d damned well better be examples of the fallacy in play.
These facts seem clear:
A) many teenagers have many kinds of sex, all the time
B) AOE generally doesn’t teach kids how to use condoms, masturbation, etc.
and C) public health is a common justification of AOE, and is an obvious financial justification considering the great public funding of late.
And implicit in those facts seems to be the argument that the alternatives to AOE are more risky. Am I misrepresenting what you see as the “mainstream justifications for abstinence only education”?
No I didn’t. Melissa did. Stop that. ;)
You got me, Garrett. I apologize!
Actually, I thought at first that you were somehow “attached” to Melissa, and I read the two of you as operating in a sort of tandem. But this is just some crazy thing that popped into my head out of nowhere, and somehow got into the party without checking in at the gate first. Please accept my apology for attributing to you that which was not yours.
As to your question,
“If “not teaching about [condom use/masturbation/etc] should decrease [premarital sex/risky behavior]” isn’t a primary justification for AOE, why not? And what is?”,
Oh, I think that probably is a primary justification people have for AOE. But it’s only a fallacious justification (along the lines Melissa asserted) if it is deduced from a syllogism that commits the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. But there are lots of ways a person might try to get “not teaching about x should decrease y”.
For instance, a person might (and I think this is likely) just think they are applying a basic canard of popular economics–you get more of what you subsidize, and less of what you penalize–to sex education. Perhaps the implied authority of a schoolroom setting ends up going beyond teaching about certain practices (condoms, etc.) to actually encouraging them. And if you encourage a large number of American school children to do a certain behavior, at least a few more of them will probably do it than would have if you hadn’t encouraged them.
Or something. I don’t really know. But the point is that some sort of argument like the one above would have nothing to do with a Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
Or, perhaps what AOE people are doing is asserting a biconditional. They believe that teaching about certain things inreases sexual activity, and they believe that not teaching about it won’t increase it. They aren’t arguing for the second part of that proposition; rather, the entire proposition is (If P then Q AND If notP then notQ) simply one of their premises. We would have to look at what their argument was for that premise, of course, but clearly they wouldn’t be committing the fallacy of DA simply because they said If not P then not Q.
Any clearer? Didn’t think so. :-)
No, I understand completely what you’re saying.
[re: the biconditional]
I learned about DA in whichever PHIL class you learn the fallacies, and I never heard this warning. I guess it’s a good point. If both statements are part of the premise, what is the conclusion? And do you think it’s too fine a distinction for us to divine from the public statements and generally accepted theses of AOE proponents?
[re: economics]
I know this was a theoretical argument on your part, but anyone learned enough to apply economics should also see that the demand for sex among teenagers isn’t elastic enough for this to be a dependable model for risk mitigation.
…isn’t elastic enough for this to be a dependable model for risk mitigation.
Now that’s some sexy commentin’! Talk nerdy to me, Garrett!
Okay, there’s a lot of fun semantics and jargon going on there. However, your average teenager doesn’t know - or care - the difference between an argument and a “brute factual claim.” A BIG problem I have with abstinence-only programs (aside from the whole discussing only abstinence thing) is that with many of them, the present AS FACT claims that are completely false - and utterly ridiculous. This is one such claim - and it’s one of the tamer ones. If shit like this is getting printed in textbooks and taught AS FACT in schools, well, don’t you see a problem with that?
Public health is also a big justification of comprehensive sex education. I’m sure Duane, who works in public health, can have more to say on that matter if he wants. But really, any idiot can see it’s true. If we don’t teach kids about ways to reduce their risk during sex (because, like it or not, some of them are going to have sex no matter what you say or do), that presents a public health threat. All the studies back this up and show that kids who go through AOE programs are more likely to have unprotected sex, more likely to contract an STI, and so on and so forth.
Garrett, I know in your case I am preaching to the converted with this. I’m not really speaking to you or anyone in particular - just in general.
“However, your average teenager doesn’t know - or care - the difference between an argument and a “brute factual claim.”"
Maybe not, but I think Melissa does. And she’s the one I’m talking to here, not teenagers.
To put my cards on the table (sort of), I’m not an advocate of AOE, per se. When my libertarian dream of complete dissolution of all government-run education finally comes to fruition (sometime around Nevruary), all the privately-run schools can do their own thing regarding this subject. Whatever seems best to them. If I were headmaster (a pun? Don’t you wish you knew!) of a Christian school, and I were in charge of addressing the issue of sex education, I’m actually not sure how I would approach it. Honestly. No idea.
I’m so going to get called a cop-out for this. I’m going out of the country tomorrow and after a few cursory searches for links that said ver batium what I suggested was the argument of AOE proponents, I’ve given up. Someone who was willing to look diligently would find it. Most of the AOE links I’ve seen imply it to a degree - some more egregious than others.
I did a bit of digging and found more stuff from our buddies over at the Heritage Foundation. I am exhausted and I need to start packing. I plan on returning to this though, tonight or when I return, perhaps through email alone, to prove that the prevailing argument, spelled out as closely to my summary of the their argument, is fallacious in the DA sort of way and not merely implied. It’s out there, I’m sure of it.
Sorry to have to cut and run but debating the logical strength of the AOE argument is not one of my top priorities today. Or ever, probably, but certainly not today.