For instance:<\/p>\n
Freedom of speech: are you for or against it?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u2026 (just enough time for your immediate answer.)<\/p>\n
OK.<\/p>\n
Until recently, I would hesitate a bit, then say yes.<\/p>\n
Now let\u2019s put \u2018freedom of speech\u2019 versus \u2018the intention behind freedom of speech\u2019.<\/p>\n
If a blatant madman gets \u2018freedom of speech\u2019 on the Internet (as he does)<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
then the intention behind freedom of speech is clearly violated. So, what is more important: freedom of speech or the intention? From a humane standpoint, according to me it\u2019s clearly the latter. Choosing for the madman\u2019s freedom of speech, is also choosing for his \u2013 possibly disastrous \u2013 influence on many others. Among many other things, this eventually diminishes the freedom of speech of these others.<\/p>\n
Are you for or against X? Some logic.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If X is clearly incompatible with Y, then you are, by being for X, also against Y.<\/p>\n
The issue is, in such case:<\/p>\n
Are you (for X) XOR (for Y)?<\/p>\n
\u2018XOR\u2019 = either this or that, not both at the same time.<\/em><\/p>\n
As always, this logic is quite simple. IF you are for both, then at least one of the premises should be revised. You have to change your X or your Y, or both.<\/p>\n
\u2018To X or not to X\u2019, a big divider<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u201cAre you for us or against us?\u201d Put this way, it has quite a chance to divide people. Compare this to \u2018for X\u2019 or \u2018for Y\u2019. This admonishes the comparer to look more into what \u2018X\u2019 and \u2018Y\u2019 are, or stand for. There is more chance to get the comparer \u2018for X\u2019 and not altogether \u2018against Y\u2019, thus also a bit \u2018for Y\u2019. It can make him think a bit more \u2018for Y\u2019.<\/p>\n
For example, I\u2019m definitely \u2018for freedom of speech\u2019\u2026 but even more \u2018for the intention behind it\u2019. Without X\/Y-ing the issue, \u2018freedom of speech\u2019 looks more sacred than after. So, after, I can manage \u2018freedom of speech\u2019 with more nuance.<\/p>\n
\u2018X or not X\u2019 precludes an overlap with Y, easing the road to show things as a zero-sum game: either X wins or X loses. \u2018The other\u2019 is only important in making X lose.<\/p>\n
Still, I often encounter this confusion<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Being \u2018for or against something\u2019 is frequently a fight where the issue should be reframed as to this blog. It\u2019s a trap that is easily fallen into, but also easily gotten out of. It takes in many cases just a bit of patience, criticism and, well, logical thinking.<\/p>\n
Yes or no?<\/p>\n