Winry Rockbell

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:

• A = "something is a good idea"
• B = "you need a reason to not try doing more of it"

The original post asserts [A ⇒ B]. But a true implication only gua... (read more)

, "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.