Friday, August 23, 2013
Here's a question.
Say there's this problem, and there's a possible solution to the problem, but that solution comes with a lot of other problems and would hurt some specific groups of people. Say I decide to go with the solution anyway; obviously the problem is significant enough that it's worth all the negative side effects, right? But then, let's say we find out that the first problem is actually really insignificant—not even worth addressing in the first place, and certainly not worth any negative side effects—so then it turns out that the side effects of the solution are much worse than the original problem was. If I keep insisting on enacting that solution, despite the total lack of a need for it and all the negative side effects that come as a result, doesn't it then seem that I must have some other reasons for wanting to do it? It kind of does, doesn't it?