3 ms·
I am one of those people. I'm more willing to accept a more stringent requirement if I also perceive it as fair and can see an actual improvement in something.
by mihaic 4y ago
I am one of those people. I'm more willing to accept a more stringent requirement if I also perceive it as fair and can see an actual improvement in something.
A restriction is fair for instance if it draws a cost/benefit line, and just bans all things on the wrong side of that line. Even if I don't agree, the conversation is at least around where to draw the line, and not on absurdities.
Banning plastic straws without banning plastic cups is mostly useless and inconvenient.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoBut it wouldn't be inconvenient if they banned more stuff? Talk me through your thinking here, because it's not obvious to me and seems like a very poor post-hoc rationalization.
- mihaic 4y agoIt would be more inconvenient, but at the same time it would feel more self-consistent. It you'd want to limit alcohol consumption (just an example), you don't want to ban tequila but allow gin for instance. You can say ban anything with more than 15% alcohol by volume -- that would feel harsh but more fair. I'm really not rationalizing, for me and some others there needs to be a perceived fairness in the restrictions.