What type of fallacy is this? In February 1992, a preresentative of the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico gave a radio interview (broadcase on National Public Radio) in which he said that the Church was against the use of condoms. Even though the rate of AIDS infection in Puerto Rico is much higher than on the U.S. mainland, the spokesman said that the church could not support the use of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing the spread of the disease. "If you could prove that condoms were ab solutley dependable in preventing a person from contracting AIDS, then the church could support their use."
Isn't it a red herring? Having some proven prevention of AIDS does not stop an action to reduce AIDS transmission. Having to prove absolutely prevention by use of condoms is a red herring to avoid the subject of reducing the transmission of AIDS.
http://www.kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
There probably is some diversion here also, the church is against the use of condoms for another reason....
A red herring isn't one of my choices I thought maybe it was straw man or misplaced burden of proof, possibly a Genetic fallacy
Be sure to read through the fallacies website given to you by SraJMcGin.
Also -- isn't the banning of birth control the Catholic Church's sole reason for banning condoms? It wouldn't matter if condoms could or couldn't prevent the transmission of AIDS, the Church would still not approve their use. Am I right? Or have I misinterpreted this all these years?
??
The fallacy in this scenario can be identified as a "fallacy of inconsistency" or a "causal fallacy."
The fallacy of inconsistency occurs when someone's argument contains contradictory or inconsistent statements. In this case, the representative of the Catholic Church states that the Church opposes the use of condoms because they are not absolutely reliable in preventing the spread of AIDS. However, the inconsistency arises when the representative also states that if condoms were proven to be absolutely dependable, the Church could support their use. This implies that the Church's opposition is not solely based on reliability but on other factors as well.
This fallacy can also be considered a causal fallacy because it conflates the issues of reliability and support. The representative argues that if condoms were proven to be 100% reliable, the Church could support their use. However, the issue of reliability is not the only factor influencing the Church's position. It oversimplifies the complex reasons behind the Church's stance on contraception and fails to acknowledge other considerations such as doctrinal beliefs and moral values.
To identify this fallacy, one must carefully examine the statements made and identify any inconsistencies or contradictions within the argument. Additionally, it is important to consider whether the argument oversimplifies complex issues or fails to acknowledge other relevant factors.