Point c) is anon sequitur worthy associated with the good physician’s commentsabout Russian roulette; it confers no advantages on theneighbors and therefore is wholly 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 finally extinguish the humanspecies. A couple of also urged me to publish a retraction forprecisely that reason. Put differently, they argued thatideas should always be suppressed because someone mightmisunderstand them. That is a situation with a lengthy and sordidhistory of which I would instead maybe not be part.
Here are a few more questions that came up frequently enough tomake it well well worth recording the responses:
Matter 1: You state that a little more promiscuitywould lead to less AIDS. If that were real, wouldn’t it notfollow that an increase that is enormous promiscuity could defeatthe illness entirely? And is that summary notmanifestly ridiculous?
Response: The “conclusion” is definitely manifestlyabsurd, however it is maybe not just a conclusion that is legitimate. Large changesand little modifications do not will have comparable effects. Ibelieve that I would live a bitlonger if I ate a bit less. But i really do maybe maybe not genuinely believe that I would live forever if I stopped eatingentirely.
Concern 2: into the terms of 1 audience, “a spoonfulof promiscuity will just slow the illness; 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? Continue reading “I with all this space that is much my physician-correspondentbecause their remarks had been echoed”