[002]
Evilest_Tim
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s part of their argument, though; there\'s no reason why absinence means condoms should \'\'not\'\' be distributed just in case, so instead they attack the effectiveness of condoms as a reason to have either 100% or 0% with no options in between. This is \'\'not\'\' valid reasoning; the fact that there\'s a problem with STD rates in the first place is a good marker of the effectiveness of teaching abstinence as the only method of preventing them.
to:
It\\\'s part of their argument, though; there\\\'s no reason why abstinence means condoms should \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be distributed just in case, so instead they attack the effectiveness of condoms as a reason to have either 100% or 0% with no options in between. This is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' valid reasoning; the fact that there\\\'s a problem with STD rates in the first place is a good marker of the effectiveness of teaching abstinence as the only method of preventing them.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s part of their argument, though; there\'s no reason why absinence means condoms should \'\'not\'\' be distributed just in case, so instead they attack the effectiveness of condoms as a reason to have either 100% or 0% with no options in between. This is \'\'not\'\' valid reasoning.
to:
It\\\'s part of their argument, though; there\\\'s no reason why absinence means condoms should \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' be distributed just in case, so instead they attack the effectiveness of condoms as a reason to have either 100% or 0% with no options in between. This is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' valid reasoning; the fact that there\\\'s a problem with STD rates in the first place is a good marker of the effectiveness of teaching abstinence as the only method of preventing them.
