History Main / PerfectSolutionFallacy

7th Jan '17 6:59:35 PM SantosLHalper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->''"The perfect is the enemy of the good."''

to:

->''"The perfect ->''"Perfection is the enemy of the good."''
24th Dec '16 8:27:13 AM LentilSandEater
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

-->'''Daeva''':...But it's the struggle that matters. It's easy for a being of pure Law and Good to live up to these ideals, but you're a mortal. What matters is when you blow it, you get back up on the horse and try again.
8th Dec '16 9:56:07 PM DavidDelony
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AndADietCoke is one PlayedForLaughs; while it won't make you lose a noticeable amount of weight, drinking diet soda ''does'' cut some empty calories and if you don't eat fast food too often, getting a diet drink, unsweetened tea or water the times you do isn't actually a bad idea. That's not even getting into the fact that nobody really thinks a Diet Coke will help them lose weight if they don't eat other healthy food.

to:

* AndADietCoke is one PlayedForLaughs; while it won't make you lose a noticeable amount of weight, drinking diet soda ''does'' cut some empty calories and if you don't eat fast food too often, getting a diet drink, unsweetened tea tea, black coffee or water the times you do isn't actually a bad idea. That's not even getting into the fact that nobody really thinks a Diet Coke will help them lose weight if they don't eat other healthy food.
4th Oct '16 10:45:23 PM PsychoGecko
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Despite laws to eliminate the Glass Ceiling, women still make, on average, a dollar less than men. Therefore the laws don't work and we still need to campaign against the Glass Ceiling. ''On average'' ignores that men and women take different jobs at different hours, and at a personal level they make about the same.

to:

* Despite Those opposed to gender equality in the workplace cite this, claiming that that laws to eliminate the Glass Ceiling, women still make, on average, a dollar less than men. Therefore the laws don't work and we still need to campaign against the Glass Ceiling. ''On average'' ignores that men and women take different jobs at different hours, and at a personal level they make about the same.subject are the perfect in opposition to a currently good system. This fails to account for the well-documented loopholes involving hiring discrimination, discrimination in promotions, and just the continued practice of women making less even when all factors other than gender are accounted for.
29th Sep '16 1:57:02 PM DavidDelony
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AndADietCoke is one PlayedForLaughs; while it won't make you lose a noticeable amount of weight, drinking diet soda ''does'' cut some empty calories and if you don't eat fast food too often, getting a diet drink or water the times you do isn't actually a bad idea. That's not even getting into the fact that nobody really thinks a Diet Coke will help them lose weight if they don't eat other healthy food.

to:

* AndADietCoke is one PlayedForLaughs; while it won't make you lose a noticeable amount of weight, drinking diet soda ''does'' cut some empty calories and if you don't eat fast food too often, getting a diet drink drink, unsweetened tea or water the times you do isn't actually a bad idea. That's not even getting into the fact that nobody really thinks a Diet Coke will help them lose weight if they don't eat other healthy food.
11th Aug '16 5:17:49 PM Argon2
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* In the ''WesternAnimation/MiraculousLadybug'' fic ''[[http://archiveofourown.org/works/6564625?view_full_work=true How Not To Propose]]'', [[ThinksLikeARomanceNovel Adrien]] refuses to propose to his girlfriend because he wants the moment to be absolutely perfect when he does: scenery, food, music, everything. Naturally, the universe conspires to ruin all his attempts at setting up such a moment, and Adrien's inability to compromise ends up prolonging the situation so badly that Adrien's girlfriend begins to wonder if he's serious about their relationship at all.
-->'''Plagg:''' Adrien! You have to be kidding me! That was the third custom jeweler we visited. Do you even know what you want?
28th Jul '16 12:50:21 PM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


A subcategory of FalseDichotomy, the PerfectSolutionFallacy is arguing that a course of action is no good because it isn't ''perfect''. This essentially assumes the opposite of the GoldenMeanFallacy; rather than assuming the extremes cannot exist and the middle is correct, it assumes the middle cannot exist and a solution is either absolutely perfect or entirely without worth. This is then used to argue that the hypothetical perfect solution must be used, or that a solution is useless because some part of the problem will remain after it has been implemented.

to:

A subcategory of FalseDichotomy, the PerfectSolutionFallacy '''Perfect Solution Fallacy''' is arguing that a course of action is no good because it isn't ''perfect''. This essentially assumes the opposite of the GoldenMeanFallacy; rather than assuming the extremes cannot exist and the middle is correct, it assumes the middle cannot exist and a solution is either absolutely perfect or entirely without worth. This is then used to argue that the hypothetical perfect solution must be used, or that a solution is useless because some part of the problem will remain after it has been implemented.
28th Jul '16 12:49:49 PM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Used in several episodes of Series/PennAndTellerBullshit. When discussing the American Disabilities Act, P&T take a man and his iron lung for a walk through town, noting several ADA-compliant shops and facilities that cannot accommodate him. No matter what accommodations a business implements, they state, somebody will always be left out, so why should the government be allowed to set and enforce an arbitrary standard?

to:

* Used in several episodes of Series/PennAndTellerBullshit.''Series/PennAndTellerBullshit''. When discussing the American Disabilities Act, P&T take a man and his iron lung for a walk through town, noting several ADA-compliant shops and facilities that cannot accommodate him. No matter what accommodations a business implements, they state, somebody will always be left out, so why should the government be allowed to set and enforce an arbitrary standard?



* {{Discussed}} [[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html this strip]] of Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick, when Roy is getting evaluated by a daeva. The daeva says humans should just accept that they are not infallible and just try to be the best they can.

to:

* {{Discussed}} [[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html this strip]] of Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick, ''Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick'', when Roy is getting evaluated by a daeva. The daeva says humans should just accept that they are not infallible and just try to be the best they can.
28th Jul '16 12:49:11 PM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Discussed at length when it comes to game design by [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjrOaoHz9s Extra Credits here]].

to:

*** %%*** Discussed at length when it comes to game design by [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDjrOaoHz9s Extra Credits here]].
26th Jul '16 1:06:28 PM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!! Examples:
* Thereís that old saying: if a thing is not worth being well done, then itís not worth being done at all. Which itself is an inversion of an older saying that [[DefiedTrope defies this trope]] -- "If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
* The ultimate example is rejecting anything you feel like on the basis that it has been imperfectly proven; for example, rejecting the existence of China on the basis that you have never seen it.[[note]]Or if you have seen it, rejecting the certainty that your own memories aren't lying to you, or if you are seeing it right now, rejecting the certainty that what you're seeing reflects some external reality.[[/note]] This inevitably results in a philosophical concept called UsefulNotes/{{solipsism}} since it is impossible to prove beyond all ''possible'' doubt anything barring your own mind (maybe not even that).

to:

!!! Examples:
----
!!Examples:

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder:Comic Books]]
* Thereís In ''ComicBook/{{Irredeemable}}'' the FatalFlaw behind the Plutonian's FaceHeelTurn was the criticism he received from the population after all his acts of heroism. It is implied that old saying: if he has a thing pathological desire to have everyone love him, and simply couldn't tolerate any criticism whatsoever, no matter how justified.
* From Neil Gaiman's ''ComicBook/TheSandman'':
-->"They are using reason as a tool. Reason. [[ScienceIsBad It
is not worth being well done, then itís not worth being done at all. Which itself is an inversion of an older saying that [[DefiedTrope defies this trope]] -- "If no more reliable a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
* The ultimate example is rejecting anything you feel like on the basis that
tool than instinct, myth, or dream. But it has been imperfectly proven; the potential to be far more dangerous, for example, rejecting them.]]"
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Fanfics]]
* As far as ''Fanfic/KnowledgeIsPower'' is concerned,
the existence of China on the basis fact that you have never seen it.[[note]]Or if you have seen it, rejecting the certainty that your own memories aren't lying Dumbledore's plan to you, or if you are seeing it right now, rejecting the certainty that what you're seeing reflects defeat Voldemort had some external reality.[[/note]] This inevitably results in a philosophical concept called UsefulNotes/{{solipsism}} since it is impossible to prove beyond all ''possible'' doubt anything barring your own mind (maybe not even that).flaws makes him as evil as Voldemort himself.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Internet]]



* People who advocate abstaining from sex often use this fallacy, with the argument that, since condoms don't prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] ''100% of the time'',[[note]]whether by fault of the material or misapplication by the user,[[/note]] they are useless; never mind that they do so over 98%[[note]]under perfect conditions, 85% under normal use[[/note]] of the time, "not having sex" will prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] 100% of the time. However, this "perfect" solution of abstinence is also BeggingTheQuestion, since the argument assumes everyone who ''intends'' to be abstinent at one time will ''continue'' to have sufficient determination to be so. Sadly, this fallacy causes some people to believe using condoms is a worthless effort and don't use them because they don't see the benefit.
* Used often by anti-vaccinationists. Their reasoning: a particular measles vaccine only protects 95% of the time, so they'd rather take their chances with a potentially fatal disease. In addition to being an instance of this fallacy, this reasoning also ignores that, due to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity herd immunity]], 95% of the time is more than enough.
** Likewise, in many cases the anti-vaccine group uses the potential for side effects to argue against vaccines in their entirety, often failing to do a cost-benefit analysis for the vaccines. For example, the smallpox vaccine carries a very real risk, as it is composed of a live virus (the cowpox virus). If one chooses to vaccinate a country with the smallpox vaccine, some people will get sick with cowpox. However, when the world began vaccinating against smallpox, an estimated two million deaths per year were due to smallpox, with many of the remaining cases becoming disfigured. [[http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0901/p889.html This link summarizes the costs of vaccination (warning: graphic images of disease state).]] The world chose eradication, knowing some people would be adversely affected by the vaccine, over the millions more who would die terribly from smallpox. Furthermore, because of the vaccine, smallpox was ''eradicated'' in 1979; the vaccine would be irrelevant today if it weren't that some nations may attempt to weaponize the virus.
** Penn and Teller explain this fallacy and its relevance to vaccines for laypersons [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo here]]. NSFW due to strong language, as expected from Penn and Teller.
** Opportunistic vendors of quack medicine use this fallacy all the time in the US. US law requires full disclosure of any and all side effects or known problems with any conventional, approved medical intervention. However, if a product makes no specific claims about treating a condition, symptom, or disease, then it is not bound to do so. As long as a product sticks to empty statements like, "Boosts your immune system!" and not specific, testable claims like, "Causes 95% of test subjects to develop Memory B cells capable of a rapid response on second exposure to Pathogen X!", the sellers of these products escape government oversight, regulation, and liability. These folks can point out the shortcomings of science-based medicine, but are under no obligation to provide scientific testing for their product and cannot be taken to task for failing to do so. Naturally, using this fallacy is in the marketing toolbox for these products.
* The responses to a single case of HIV being reported in the American porn industry: dozens of activists screaming that the industry's voluntary testing system was worthless, because it had not prevented someone from contracting HIV in the first place. They ignored the fact that this system was what gave the porn industry an infection rate vastly, vastly lower than that of the general population. Though as in the above example, it also resulted in some members of the porn industry being shocked that the system was not 100% perfect.
* Among people opposed to welfare, it's used thus: "In spite of welfare, there are still poor people, therefore welfare doesn't work."
* This is often used by people who complain about the Tribunal in ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends''. "The Tribunal is supposed to punish trolls. There are still trolls in the game, therefore it doesn't work."
* This is often used by those who oppose animal testing. They cite the fact that animal testing isn't 100% perfect as a reason to do away with it altogether, even though we're still much better off with it than we'd be without it. (For the concerned, the law requires that researchers use non-animal analogs whenever they're available. Animal testing is only used when there is no other option.)

to:

* People who advocate abstaining from sex often use this fallacy, with Commonly used to refute the argument that, since condoms don't prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] ''100% reliability of the time'',[[note]]whether by fault of the material or misapplication by the user,[[/note]] they are useless; never mind that they do so over 98%[[note]]under perfect conditions, 85% under normal use[[/note]] of the time, "not having sex" will prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] 100% of the time. However, this "perfect" solution of abstinence is also BeggingTheQuestion, since the argument assumes everyone who ''intends'' to be abstinent at one time will ''continue'' to have sufficient determination to be so. Sadly, this fallacy causes some people to believe using condoms is a worthless effort and don't use them because they don't see the benefit.
* Used often by anti-vaccinationists. Their reasoning: a particular measles vaccine only protects 95% of the time, so they'd rather take their chances with a potentially fatal disease. In addition to being an instance of this fallacy, this reasoning also ignores that, due to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity herd immunity]], 95% of the time is more than enough.
** Likewise, in many cases the anti-vaccine group uses the potential for side effects to argue against vaccines in their entirety, often failing to do a cost-benefit analysis for the vaccines. For example, the smallpox vaccine carries a very real risk, as it is composed of a live virus (the cowpox virus). If one chooses to vaccinate a country with the smallpox vaccine, some people will get sick with cowpox. However, when the world began vaccinating against smallpox, an estimated two million deaths per year were due to smallpox, with many of the remaining cases becoming disfigured. [[http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0901/p889.html This link summarizes the costs of vaccination (warning: graphic images of disease state).]]
[[TheWikiRule wikis]], usually TheOtherWiki. The world chose eradication, knowing some people would be adversely affected by the vaccine, over the millions more who would die terribly from smallpox. Furthermore, because of the vaccine, smallpox was ''eradicated'' in 1979; the vaccine would be irrelevant today if it weren't that some nations may attempt to weaponize the virus.
** Penn and Teller explain this fallacy and its relevance to vaccines for laypersons [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo here]]. NSFW due to strong language, as expected from Penn and Teller.
** Opportunistic vendors of quack medicine use this fallacy all the time in the US. US law requires full disclosure of any and all side effects or known problems with any conventional, approved medical intervention. However, if a product makes no specific claims about treating a condition, symptom, or disease, then it is not bound to do so. As long as a product sticks to empty statements like, "Boosts your immune system!" and not specific, testable claims like, "Causes 95% of test subjects to develop Memory B cells capable of a rapid response on second exposure to Pathogen X!", the sellers of these products escape government oversight, regulation, and liability. These folks can point out the shortcomings of science-based medicine, but are under no obligation to provide scientific testing for their product and cannot be taken to task for failing to do so. Naturally, using this fallacy is in the marketing toolbox for these products.
* The responses to a single case of HIV being reported in the American porn industry: dozens of activists screaming that the industry's voluntary testing system was worthless, because it had not prevented someone from contracting HIV in the first place. They ignored the
fact that this system was what gave the porn industry an infection rate vastly, vastly lower than there's no way to permanently protect every single page from all [[WikiVandal vandalism]] or absolutely confirm that of every last sentence added in good faith is absolutely true over all scenarios, becomes an excuse to claim the general population. Though as in the above example, it also resulted in some members of the porn industry being shocked that the system was not 100% perfect.
* Among people opposed to welfare, it's used thus: "In spite of welfare, there are still poor people, therefore welfare doesn't work."
* This
wiki is often used by people who complain about the Tribunal in ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends''. "The Tribunal is supposed to punish trolls. There are still trolls in the game, therefore it doesn't work."
* This is often used by those who oppose animal testing. They cite the fact that animal testing isn't 100% perfect as a reason to do away with it altogether, even though we're still much better off with it than we'd be without it. (For the concerned, the law requires that researchers use non-animal analogs whenever they're available. Animal testing is only used when there is no
always wrong. When told [[Administrivia/RepairDontRespond You Could Always Edit It Yourself]], they claim disdain for cleaning up other option.)people's messes.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Live-Action TV]]



* {{Discussed}} [[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html this strip]] of Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick, when Roy is getting evaluated by a daeva. The daeva says humans should just accept that they are not infallible and just try to be the best they can.
* In ''ComicBook/{{Irredeemable}}'' the FatalFlaw behind the Plutonian's FaceHeelTurn was the criticism he received from the population after all his acts of heroism. It is implied that he has a pathological desire to have everyone love him, and simply couldn't tolerate any criticism whatsoever, no matter how justified.



* This comes up all the time in politics, usually in the form of refusing to support certain candidates or laws because they don't completely solve our problems. It's a major cause of WeAreStrugglingTogether, as factions push for their perfect solutions.
* Commonly used to refute the reliability of [[TheWikiRule wikis]], usually TheOtherWiki. The fact that there's no way to permanently protect every single page from all [[WikiVandal vandalism]] or absolutely confirm that every last sentence added in good faith is absolutely true over all scenarios, becomes an excuse to claim the wiki is always wrong. When told [[Administrivia/RepairDontRespond You Could Always Edit It Yourself]], they claim disdain for cleaning up other people's messes.
* AndADietCoke is one PlayedForLaughs; while it won't make you lose a noticeable amount of weight, drinking diet soda ''does'' cut some empty calories and if you don't eat fast food too often, getting a diet drink or water the times you do isn't actually a bad idea. That's not even getting into the fact that nobody really thinks a Diet Coke will help them lose weight if they don't eat other healthy food.
* The UnpleasableFanbase phenomenon stems largely from this type of fallacy, as do Fan Dumb, Hatedom, Hate Dumb, etc. - basically, if the thing you like [[TheyChangedItNowItSucks changes even a slight bit]] and/or has so much as ''one'' flawed episode/book/issue/level/etc, it is RuinedForever, and [[FanHater nobody is permitted to like or enjoy things ever again]].
* As far as ''Fanfic/KnowledgeIsPower'' is concerned, the fact that Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort had some flaws makes him as evil as Voldemort himself.
* Several instances of TooAwesomeToUse are generated by this sort of thinking: ''Even though I'm out of Potions and I don't have a healing spell, I can't use my Elixir now! I may be low on Hit Points but I've still got most of my Mana.''
* From Neil Gaiman's ''ComicBook/TheSandman'':
-->"They are using reason as a tool. Reason. [[ScienceIsBad It is no more reliable a tool than instinct, myth, or dream. But it has the potential to be far more dangerous, for them.]]"



[[/folder]]

[[folder:Video Games]]
* This is often used by people who complain about the Tribunal in ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends''. "The Tribunal is supposed to punish trolls. There are still trolls in the game, therefore it doesn't work."
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Webcomics]]
* {{Discussed}} [[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html this strip]] of Webcomic/TheOrderOfTheStick, when Roy is getting evaluated by a daeva. The daeva says humans should just accept that they are not infallible and just try to be the best they can.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Other]]
* Thereís that old saying: if a thing is not worth being well done, then itís not worth being done at all. Which itself is an inversion of an older saying that [[DefiedTrope defies this trope]] -- "If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
* The ultimate example is rejecting anything you feel like on the basis that it has been imperfectly proven; for example, rejecting the existence of China on the basis that you have never seen it.[[note]]Or if you have seen it, rejecting the certainty that your own memories aren't lying to you, or if you are seeing it right now, rejecting the certainty that what you're seeing reflects some external reality.[[/note]] This inevitably results in a philosophical concept called UsefulNotes/{{solipsism}} since it is impossible to prove beyond all ''possible'' doubt anything barring your own mind (maybe not even that).
* People who advocate abstaining from sex often use this fallacy, with the argument that, since condoms don't prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] ''100% of the time'',[[note]]whether by fault of the material or misapplication by the user,[[/note]] they are useless; never mind that they do so over 98%[[note]]under perfect conditions, 85% under normal use[[/note]] of the time, "not having sex" will prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] 100% of the time. However, this "perfect" solution of abstinence is also BeggingTheQuestion, since the argument assumes everyone who ''intends'' to be abstinent at one time will ''continue'' to have sufficient determination to be so. Sadly, this fallacy causes some people to believe using condoms is a worthless effort and don't use them because they don't see the benefit.
* Used often by anti-vaccinationists. Their reasoning: a particular measles vaccine only protects 95% of the time, so they'd rather take their chances with a potentially fatal disease. In addition to being an instance of this fallacy, this reasoning also ignores that, due to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity herd immunity]], 95% of the time is more than enough.
** Likewise, in many cases the anti-vaccine group uses the potential for side effects to argue against vaccines in their entirety, often failing to do a cost-benefit analysis for the vaccines. For example, the smallpox vaccine carries a very real risk, as it is composed of a live virus (the cowpox virus). If one chooses to vaccinate a country with the smallpox vaccine, some people will get sick with cowpox. However, when the world began vaccinating against smallpox, an estimated two million deaths per year were due to smallpox, with many of the remaining cases becoming disfigured. [[http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0901/p889.html This link summarizes the costs of vaccination (warning: graphic images of disease state).]] The world chose eradication, knowing some people would be adversely affected by the vaccine, over the millions more who would die terribly from smallpox. Furthermore, because of the vaccine, smallpox was ''eradicated'' in 1979; the vaccine would be irrelevant today if it weren't that some nations may attempt to weaponize the virus.
** Penn and Teller explain this fallacy and its relevance to vaccines for laypersons [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo here]]. NSFW due to strong language, as expected from Penn and Teller.
** Opportunistic vendors of quack medicine use this fallacy all the time in the US. US law requires full disclosure of any and all side effects or known problems with any conventional, approved medical intervention. However, if a product makes no specific claims about treating a condition, symptom, or disease, then it is not bound to do so. As long as a product sticks to empty statements like, "Boosts your immune system!" and not specific, testable claims like, "Causes 95% of test subjects to develop Memory B cells capable of a rapid response on second exposure to Pathogen X!", the sellers of these products escape government oversight, regulation, and liability. These folks can point out the shortcomings of science-based medicine, but are under no obligation to provide scientific testing for their product and cannot be taken to task for failing to do so. Naturally, using this fallacy is in the marketing toolbox for these products.
* The responses to a single case of HIV being reported in the American porn industry: dozens of activists screaming that the industry's voluntary testing system was worthless, because it had not prevented someone from contracting HIV in the first place. They ignored the fact that this system was what gave the porn industry an infection rate vastly, vastly lower than that of the general population. Though as in the above example, it also resulted in some members of the porn industry being shocked that the system was not 100% perfect.
* Among people opposed to welfare, it's used thus: "In spite of welfare, there are still poor people, therefore welfare doesn't work."
* This is often used by those who oppose animal testing. They cite the fact that animal testing isn't 100% perfect as a reason to do away with it altogether, even though we're still much better off with it than we'd be without it. (For the concerned, the law requires that researchers use non-animal analogs whenever they're available. Animal testing is only used when there is no other option.)
* This comes up all the time in politics, usually in the form of refusing to support certain candidates or laws because they don't completely solve our problems. It's a major cause of WeAreStrugglingTogether, as factions push for their perfect solutions.
* AndADietCoke is one PlayedForLaughs; while it won't make you lose a noticeable amount of weight, drinking diet soda ''does'' cut some empty calories and if you don't eat fast food too often, getting a diet drink or water the times you do isn't actually a bad idea. That's not even getting into the fact that nobody really thinks a Diet Coke will help them lose weight if they don't eat other healthy food.
* The UnpleasableFanbase phenomenon stems largely from this type of fallacy, as do Fan Dumb, Hatedom, Hate Dumb, etc. - basically, if the thing you like [[TheyChangedItNowItSucks changes even a slight bit]] and/or has so much as ''one'' flawed episode/book/issue/level/etc, it is RuinedForever, and [[FanHater nobody is permitted to like or enjoy things ever again]].
* Several instances of TooAwesomeToUse are generated by this sort of thinking: ''Even though I'm out of Potions and I don't have a healing spell, I can't use my Elixir now! I may be low on Hit Points but I've still got most of my Mana.''




to:

[[/folder]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 123. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.PerfectSolutionFallacy