Lafari

Please don't ask for examples thanks, the question is intended as general :)

For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway):

At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress.

The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality."

Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pursue a better outcome which is seen as absolutely required, rather than accepting a positive yet insufficient outcome? Would that necessarily be a fallacy or possibly just somewhat recklessly ambitious in a way that might be subject to interpretation on whether it was wise or not depending on the circumstances and the importance of meeting a goal?

Also, the phrase "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good" is often associated with the Nirvana fallacy or the perfect solution fallacy.

"The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a realistic solution to a problem because it is not perfect, and they argue that a perfect solution is the only acceptable option. In essence, it's the rejection of a good or adequate solution because it doesn't meet an ideal standard.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy arises when someone rejects possible solutions because they believe these solutions are not perfect or do not solve the entire problem. It involves demanding that a proposed solution must be flawless and comprehensive, or it is deemed unacceptable.

The Nirvana Fallacy is about rejecting realistic solutions because they fall short of an ideal, while the Perfect Solution Fallacy is more about demanding an ideal solution and dismissing anything less."

I struggle to understand the difference between the 2 closely related fallacies, but my understanding is perhaps the Nirvana fallacy involves: "This solution is imperfect, and the perfect solution would be unrealistic, therefore we shouldn't try to improve anything at all." (ignoring that any improvement is better than nothing) whereas the perfect solution fallacy is more like: "This solution is imperfect, therefore we should reject it and only strive for a perfect/adequate or better solution." (ignoring that the perfect solution may be unrealistic and an imperfect solution may be a valid compromise to fall back on.) The Nirvana fallacy seems overly pessimistic/defeatist whereas the perfect solution fallacy seems overly optimistic in an unreasonable way of not accepting a valid albeit imperfect solution even when there's no reason not to i.e. it wouldn't prevent the perfect solution from still being pursued.

What the Greens did in this scenario seems more like the latter, however I feel like there's a slight difference, since they didn't just reject the imperfect solution (and take an all-or-nothing approach to pursue a perfect solution) purely because it wasn't perfect, but because there was reason to believe that only one solution could be pursued and either one would make the other impossible to achieve; in other words if the lesser solution was accepted it may prevent the chance of achieving the greater solution, and vice versa, so they rejected the insufficient solution only as a means to attempt to attain the "sufficient" solution which they viewed as absolutely necessary or non-negotiable.

So does it fall under one of these fallacies, or a different fallacy, or is it not a fallacy?

Keep in mind they're sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don't know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I'm pro-LGBT.

Don't want to endorse Christianity necessarily but hard to get around saying the word Christmas or Xmas, so is Xmas more rebellious? Is there an even more rebellious or irreverent name for it?

Also, should I not even celebrate Christmas? What's an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year but in a way that isn't tied in any way to religion (and ideally doesn't involve killing turkeys)?

Question inspired by the image (see attached)

HELLO amazing helpful Lemmitors (Lemmians... Lemurs. Whatever). I hope I can explain this clearly. I desire a pair (2) of PlayStation 2 controllers which work wirelessly via the SAME wireless dongle stuck into BOTH PS2 controller ports at the same time. This allows me to turn one off while my friend on the other side of the room turns theirs on in order to switch who's controlling player 1 for taking turns in single player games without having to throw one controller back and forth across the room. You may laugh but I have managed to find and purchase a controller that does exactly this off eBay, which is a ProGamer (brand) PS2 wireless 2-controller set with a single dongle that splits into 2 wires and plugs into both controller ports simultaneously and does exactly what I described. The problem is one of the controllers has a faulty analog stick that doesn't activate when going left, and I can't find this brand or this type of controller or anything like it to replace this set up. If you have any thoughts or solutions I would much appreciate it. Thank you 💚

And I should note that I'm unconcerned about the quality of the controller since my main requirement is for it to simply function properly and work in the ways I described. Thanks

humane having or showing compassion or benevolence.

I feel like I would make use of it more if I could do it again. Maybe that's weird, I don't know.

Edit; To ask more of a question. What would you do differently?

Copied from a Reddit post:

Platformer/3rd Person Shooter Hybrids

So I want to discuss about platformer shooter hybrids, and the questions I have about it.

Why aren't there more of these?

Ratchet & Clank is the quintessential Platformer/Shooter hybrid (as well as the Jak and Daxter/Jak games after the first one), but how come there aren't more games like it?

Here are a few guesses:

RAC wasn't always the most popular thing outside of the States, they couldn't surpass the sales of Mario, the charm of sonic, nor the popularity of Crash. They never peaked until they outlived their neighbors: Jak, and Sly, or now with Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart.

It's hard to fuse 2 genres with conflicting themes associated with them: One with colorful characters and cheerful worlds, and another with gritty characters and serious stories. The result would likely result in an "Edge platformer" the likes of Shadow the Hedgehog.

Aside from the big names, platformers were dying in the 6th gen, they were becoming less and less common, making a new platformer IP would definitely be something companies would not really want, on top of that shooters are becoming increasingly multiplayer based, with platformers being a predominantly singleplayer genre.

Here are some other 3rd person Platformer/Shooter Hybrids I know of (other than R&C / J&D):

• MDK and its sequel predated Ratchet & added platforming elements to a 3rd person shooter

• Blasto and Jet Force Gemini mix shooter elements into Mascot-style games

• Later Sly games added gunplay, but not much shooter elements.

• There were a few games that tried to cash-in on R&C, some good, like Metal Arms and others not so much like Ruff Trigger.

• Sunset Overdrive is developed by Insomniac, however is more action-adventure than platforming, like Recore.

• There are also some indie titles like Cloudbuilt and Onirism. I'm looking for more of these.

I have tried every single of these games, and even some others barely scooting into the category like Rayman, Automaton Lung, Splatoon, or Returnal, and mostly unsatisfied (though the two 3D Raymans are good).

Looking for more 3rd person shooter/3D platformer hybrids!

Such as "money can't buy happiness" or "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Generally a false adage or something like that. All I could think of was "fallacious bumper sticker" which just sounds stupid.