> In the group of 100 people, even if 99 people will ban something, 1 person will still use it. This is the nirvana fallacy. We don't expect people not to dri

> In the group of 100 people, even if 99 people will ban something, 1 person will still use it. This is the nirvana fallacy. We don't expect people not to drink and drive ever again, but we still ban it. And like drinking and driving, not only can we ban something, but we can find how we can defend against it (such as education and making it easier to get taxis home). So, the question: > Isn't it better to find how you can defend against something can be easily answered with: "Why not both?" > What sort of thinking is this? Reasonable, logical thinking that has succeeded in the past. Does this mean it's the correct solution here? I don't know. But this isn't illogical by any means.