It is written in More Dakka:
If something is a good idea, you need a reason to not try doing more of it.
Taken at face value, it implies the following:
If something is a bad idea, you need a reason to not try doing less of it.
I like this post, but the logic here troubles me a bit. Let me lay out why I think the implication might be invalid and the original statement is also a little questionable.
If we formalize it:
The original post asserts [A ⇒ B]. But a true implication only gua...
, "The purpose of the screwdriver is to drive screws"—as though this were an explicit property of the screwdriver itself, rather than a property of the designer's state of mind.
This reminds me of the "affordance theory" . An object can afford to do varies of activities that its designer did not design it to do. Like screwdriver can afford to be used as a kitchen tool to open coconuts.
Your passion and dedication warmed my heart, though the reality really cooled my blood.
“No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible”
No.
The snowballs and even the drifts feel no more accountable than the flakes do.