probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings r

probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes. Found myself in a perplexing discussion not long ago that-after a lot of words that seemed to operate similarly to what you're describing here. The topic was over banning plastic bags versus something with more politically loaded outcomes like Brexit, though. The argument the other person brought up was to equivocate banning plastic bags with banning plastic straws and how this constituted a real harm to the disabled community and those who may have a valid need for straws--forcing me to ask if a better outcome for someone with a physical impairment would be to promote durable, fabric bags that are less like to suffer to sudden structural failure (overfilling a plastic bag that rips open unexpectedly), and where the logical limit was in comparing the harm of removing plastic straws and removing plastic bags. They clung to the comparison that banning bags was equivalent to robbing the physically disabled from needed resources but couldn't really articulate any position beyond that emotional appeal to a community who-I conceded-should be considered more than they probably are. Comparing bags to straws on the grounds presented didn't feel like it was very outcome oriented, though. It's an endlessly interesting phenomenon of thought to watch take place in real time.