Come on, Tankmaster-san
, that was pretty lame.
I guess, only rule-loving “Germans” with authoritarian thinking can come up with such strange ideas.
One can come to a reasonable decision all by oneself with some experience and with common sense.
For the experience part, one could for example take a look at the history of prohibition (ban of booze) and its failure. Experience says, you can’t enforce rules on people ignoring them. Rules need to be backed by the people willing to follow them because they find them convincing. Even convicted criminals agree that criminals in some cases should be send to prison, even though they don't like it for themselves. Rules that are hovering in free space unconnected to the people, die out soon or later.
Prohibition also had a fallacy involved: “Booze damages “people’s” health. Therefore it is dangerous, expensive and must be banned.”
Booze damages “some people’s” health, of those who abuse it. Others can enjoy themselves with booze and don’t come down with it.
Common sense does not necessarily tell you what is right or wrong and what should be done but to think within reasons certainly helps within the decision making process.
To practise common sense, there is nothing better than to study the old masters, the ancient Greek logicans. They are unsuspicious because they never even heard of “political correctness” and its extremes like speech codes and sensitivity training etc., when sometimes rules go too far and prohibit legitimate debates on sensitive subjects.
Those strange people dressed in black coats, who are hanging around in places like “courts” to practise very old rituals, some of them even wear wigs made of horse-hair and call the other part "my Lordship", actually pass on -or try to- the ultra-secret knowledge of common sense from generation to generation of new disciples of their kind for some thousand years now. That makes them conservatives, but in a non-political sense. "Political correctness? What is that?"
Here comes an example: the famous ancient Greek “crocodile - conclusion”.
It is said that Chrysipp wrote 6 books about it and Philetas lost his mind.
So, one should think this through with utmost caution
“Mother saves her baby from crocodile-or not?”
A crocodile snatches a baby from its mother and pledges to give the baby back to her, if she can tell the truth about what is going to happen with her baby.
The mother says: “You won’t give my baby back to me.”
The crocodile replies: “Either you said the truth or not. If you said the truth, then -you said it yourself!- I am not to give the baby back to you. But if you did not say the truth, then you won’t get the baby back, because of the contract we made.
The mother replies: “Far from it! I get my baby back in either case. If I said the truth, you have to give it back to me because of the contract we made. If I did not tell the truth, you have to give it back to me more than ever, because otherwise I have said the truth after all.”
On a more practical side: What if, the crocodile refuses to give the baby back? Then you need the crocodile police to haunt the crocodile down so it can be given appropriate treatment.