Thank you for your response :) It seems like I couldn't really convey the point I was trying to make. So, here is one more attempt.
The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. However, people have different experiences and might even have good reasons for their seemingly crazy beliefs. The world could even end from one day to the next (not even that crazy if you believe in something like the matrix or a simulated world). We simply cannot know... anything could be possible. I guess that's nothing new but we often seem to forget the consequences this situation has.
If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy...
So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing.
To connect that to your prior comment, I simply felt that your way to frame religious states as somewhat inherently less not really meaningful for the problem at hand and more a distraction from the underlying problem.
I hope that makes more sense. What do you think? Hope to back that perspective up with some more convincing evidence in the future :)
P.S. Edited a few times to make my rambling more clear :D
>>Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy...
Fine, I don't want them to change; they may continue to believe in whatever (e.g. fairy-tales in Qurans/Bibles, like muhammad flew to heaven on a horse and met allah and came back to tell them his travel story) they choose to believe in. I don't have much problem with what anyone wishes to believe. But the issue doesn't stop there.
>>The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right.
What would you say about the believers in Nazism?
Most religions (including Islam) are like Nazism when it comes to their treatment of non-believers/apostates. The real troublesome are those parts in their scriptures where the believers are commanded (ordered) to wage war against the unbelievers (and non-followers).
It is here the societies which follow the notion of "separation of religion and state" (modern western democracies) and those which don't follow that notion (religious nations) differ in a crucial manner.
>>So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand.
What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending)
What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis?
>>Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing.
Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people.
I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them".
So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies.
>>If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity.
Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack.
So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."
>> Fine, I don't want them to change; they may continue to believe in whatever (e.g. fairy-tales in Qurans/Bibles, like muhammad flew to heaven on a horse and met allah and came back to tell them his travel story) they choose to believe in. I don't have much problem with what anyone wishes to believe. But the issue doesn't stop there.
You seem to have at least some kind of issue with that otherwise why would you feel the need to ridicule some world views in the way you did right now? To me it seems like you are 'fine' with it on a rational level (System 2) but your subconscious (System 1) seems to betray you at least some of the time. I would argue that this is a crucial aspect that makes conflict solving more difficult than it needs to be.
>> What would you say about the believers in Nazism?
Thank you for bringing this up. I think those dark times actually provide a good example for the argument I am trying to make. How many of the people in Germany were 'believers' and how many were just playing along? To be honest, I can't know but neither can you. However, looking at the behavior of the German people after WWII it seems like not too many believers were actually left. Humans are not inherently fanatics nor idealists, most of us are pragmatists who are trying to live a meaningful life and cling to that which provides us some meaning. Hitler was good with that. He told a story that was easy or nice to believe for the Germans. It padded their self-esteem and provided some meaning for everyone (if you were German of course). So I really do believe that Germans were not bad people per se but lead astray by an enticing story that promised something more than what had been there. That doesn't JUSTIFY anything but I think it explains the dynamics that we have observed.
I agree with your sentiment that this story (let's call it: fanatism) was shown to not be aligned with the reality of 'nature'. There is simply too much variety and change in the world for one world view to dominate. Sometimes it takes longer (Roman empire), sometimes shorter (Third Reich) for nature to find a way to tip the scales again. Nothing is forever but change. So I do think we share some ground here.
>> What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending) What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis?
So it seems like you try to view this situation through the lens of game theory and approximate the situation to common prisoners dilemma game. You are choosing the strategy of don't cooperate because you simply can't see that the other side will cooperate. This is all very rational if you accept that it's a single shot game or that there is no way the other side would change. However, you also destroy the potential pay offs of cooperating because the other side is in the similar situation as you, having very similar thoughts. You pre-deterime the outcome.
So what I am suggesting is that - even when it is sometimes very difficult - if we want change to happen we need to stop pre-dertmining the outcome and start to acknowledge that life is not simple, not black or white, and that there is a long history of bullshit on all sides. To make progress we need to focus on highlighting the benefits of cooperating until the non-cooperators understand. Tit-for-tat has been shown to be a very good strategy in general. A first and very important step towards that direction would be the acknowledgement that not all religious states are inherently bad or that religion is the problem that we face. I think it's pretty obvious by now that we mainly face the problem of an unfair distribution of wealth and power. Look at the US and what is happening there right now. Or are you there suggesting a connection with religion as well?
>> Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people.
Why do you limit this hypothetical to verbal discussion? We have the ability to demonstrate the consequences of actions in more convincing ways than verbal arguments can. I think a key ingredient to learning is by experiencing and doing something. Design and execution of simulations is a way better way to explore the consequence of ones own actions.
>> I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them".
Why should I believe you? You made up your mind before I came. I never had a chance to convince you of my ideas or demonstrate how I could be a productive member of society - even with religion.
Of course there need to be some rules but there are many things we should not restrict simply because we feel uncomfortable with some ideas. For example, in Germany there is a discussion about forbidding the nikab by law because it is a symbol of the oppression of the woman and offense against the western way of living. This is madness if you actually want people to change because it's an highly symbolic act of aggression and supremacism. The nikab is only a piece of clothing that some women wear because they feel they need it. It's true that some women might be forced to wear it but that problem is not going to be solved by forbidding the nikab. Wouldn't those women would then simply be staying at home - they are forced and oppressed after all? There are even some women who only started to wear the nikab after this discussion started simply to rebel against the symbolism. If we are so superior why do we feel the need to exert this kind of show? It's hypocracy at it's finest.
>> So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies.
As I hope to have made it evident by now that you will not be perceived to be wanting to start a dialog but be part of a wicked, hypocratic and unjust world that has materially favored a few over the many, a world where nobody can honestly say: I deserve to be where I am. You are not perceived to be open for change but a person from a long line of supremacists who have waged war against my country on an idealogical, economic and physical level. You are not seeing me as a person with insights and values to contribute maybe even capable of greatness but as one from millions of irrational believers that are threatening your very way of living and existence that is nothing but build on decades of subjugation and misery of others.
>> Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack.
Yes, you personally may have not physically attacked anyone but realizing that individuals are not like a stereotype is difficult, isn't it?
>> So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."
For 'they' to learn you have to be willing to appreciate, understand and engage with him or her.
On that note... I really want to thank you for this great discussion, it is always interesting to see and engage with problems from different view points. I am looking forward to your reply :)
>>So it seems like you try to view this situation through the lens of game theory and approximate the situation to common prisoners dilemma game. You are choosing the strategy of don't cooperate because you simply can't see that the other side will cooperate. This is all very rational if you accept that it's a single shot game or that there is no way the other side would change. However, you also destroy the potential pay offs of cooperating because the other side is in the similar situation as you, having very similar thoughts. You pre-deterime the outcome.
>>Why should I believe you? You made up your mind before I came. I never had a chance to convince you of my ideas or demonstrate how I could be a productive member of society - even with religion.
No, I am not predetermining the outcome. Also I have not made up my mind about you. Yes, a person (including you) could be a productive member of society - even with his/her belief in his/her religion - but the person has to be content with just believing things said in his/her religion and must be content with following only those commands that are not illegal in this country and that means such a person should not start acting on the evil commands given in his/her religion. So as long as a Muslim person agrees and adheres to this humane code of conduct, I don't have any problem with him/her believing anything he/she likes and I don't have much problem with him/her following harmless commands (like, uttering the words 'insha allah' sometimes while speaking, or praying to their allah or on certain day slaughtering those animals that this country legally allows to be slaughtered to please their allah because they believe that their prophet muhammad, who claimed that he is the last prophet of their god allah, said that their god allah said that allah will be pleased and will send them to jannaht and will give them 72 virgin girls to enjoy sex-orgy forever in the heaven after their death if Muslims slaughter animals on some festival day and will be displeased and will send them to hell and burn them forever if they don't). See [1] for why this clarification.
I don't have problem with you or anyone believing such things and following such commands if it pleases you.
But if the person's "even with religion" qualification brings some evil elements of his/her religious beliefs like "waging jihad against the non-believers/apostates and killing them because their prophet said that their allah said to him on some hotline that 'hey muhammad my last messenger, tell your follower Muslims that non-believers/apostates are enemies of Islam/allah and hence it is a duty of every muslim to first try to convert them by trying to verbally convince them about the greatness of islam and then if they don't seem to get convinced wage war (jihad) against them in order to kill them and that if they fulfil this duty I (allah) will give them 72 virgin girls to play with forever in the heaven after their death and if they don't then I will rot them in the hell forever" and then if such a religious person acts according to such evil beliefs/commands then I have an objection to it. For the simple reason that this means my own life will be in danger because I am non-believer in Islam and I know I will not get convinced by the 'davaah'(invitation) a believer Muslim will first try with me.
The point is as long as you or any person does not physically attack and harm other people just because they don't take your/his/her religion seriously enough for you/him/her or make fun/ridicule of your/his/her religion or your/his/her prophet or your/his/her gods/allahs then I don't have any problem in accepting your proposition that you can be productive member of society - even with belief in religion.
>>Yes, you personally may have not physically attacked anyone but realizing that individuals are not like a stereotype is difficult, isn't it?
How my ridiculing a scripture turns someone into a stereotype?
People in the Europe,US have been ridiculing Bible, prophet jesus and trinity/god for quite a lot of time, has this caused any stereotyping of the Christians here? Hardly.
Similarly, ridiculing Quran, Hadiths, prophet muhammad and allah does not turn someone into a stereotype.
Yet one may ask, but still why ridicule?
Because ridicule is a good way to bring out fallacies, inconsistencies and injustices in a system/situation/ideology to the notice of general public. Ridicule and satire have played an important role in engaging meaningful and educative discussions in the world. e.g. George Orwell's Animal Farm, 1984
>>You seem to have at least some kind of issue with that otherwise why would you feel the need to ridicule some world views in the way you did right now?
I believe to the core of my heart (as you have also pointed out) that most Muslim people are good and humanists but many of them are blinded by their faith and by their leaders' incessant efforts to keep them blinded and use them to wage wars.
Will a Islamic society ever allow people to openly claim they are homosexuals and then to live peacefully and to work/travel at public places?
I want the Muslims to take a notice of the fallacies, the inconsistencies and ultimately the evil found in Islam's core. I wish to bring out the evil aspects of Islam, so that Muslims can get rid of those aspects from their religion and reform it.
>>A first and very important step towards that direction would be the acknowledgement that not all religious states are inherently bad or that religion is the problem that we face. I think it's pretty obvious by now that we mainly face the problem of an unfair distribution of wealth and power. Look at the US and what is happening there right now. Or are you there suggesting a connection with religion as well?
I disagree with few points here. I take issue with religions. Religions have known to cause a lot of human suffering essentially because they harbour/encourage a lot of hatred towards the unbelievers/apostates. Another issue I have with religions is that they encourage/coerce people to believe in various superstitions and evil things. Beliefs in themselves are not so much of a problem for a society. The real problems caused by religions are when they encourage/coerce believers to act according to those evil beliefs to force the non-believers to toe the line or to get rid of the non-believers/apostates.
Distribution of wealth and power is an important issue too but not the only issue. Also many religions finally boil down to political-power-games, and hence can be exploitative in this respect too. Christianity was very adept at this game, and was very exploitative and it was only after Christianity was rendered toothless the western world became more just and humane. Islam is also very adept at this power game and unfortunately even today is not rendered as toothless as it should have been.
No doubt the current situation in US bad for some people from a financial viewpoint, but still life in US is much better than that in religious societies.
Again I wish you to consider the case of homosexuals.
But I am seeing that the Islamists are making more and ever more demands to accommodate their barbaric/ridiculous Islamic law (sharia) in the western democracies. This is scary. I hope the people realize this and stop succumbing to the demands of Islamists and instead engage in dialogue with those Muslims which are open to dialogues.
Thank you for being so open. You articulate and argue your uneasiness and even fear very convincingly. You have presented me with some very good reminders of how wicked our current situation really is. And just to make a few things clear: Of course I am all for an open society. I think it has become clear that I see a very urgent need to create more tolerance and openness in our very own lives. So we are both 'on the same side'. Moreover, if you were asking yourself whether I was religious myself: I would say I am not, at least not in the traditional sense.
I am facing a conundrum though. I have really thought long and hard about how we can actually move forward from this current state of affairs and I simply could not come up with a better perspective than the one I am proposing. I think it is hard to refute on a logical level if you are willing to distance yourself from emotion and really allow yourself to view the situation from both sides. As a recent article on hacker news shows a main theme of it, seems also to be validated empirically [1]. Still, I actually do understand your point and reasoning. It is perfectly reasonable and logical. So in a sense I think we are both right. But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to believe that my approach is actually worth trying out?
>>But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to believe that my approach is actually worth trying out?
I'd like you to give some details of your approach, as I am not yet very clear about it.
In essence, I hope to have argued the point that one can reasonably conceive of any person as living in their own reality. A reality that is shaped by the need to survive in a given environment. To reach someone in there, you have to speak in a language they understand - not only verbally - but also on a (let's call it) knowing level. For example, concepts can mean different things in different cultures (e.g., family, country/state). If there are strong differences in understanding a productive conversation is going to be almost impossible. So there are a few options here (list not necessarily exhaustive):
1. Force someone to 'change' by action and either don't care about the other or hope that they come to realize the benefit of your actions, but that will likely be an edge case.
2. Ignore the lack in understanding and expect the other side to figure it out on their own (maybe guided by some actions, norms, etc.). I guess this is what has happened for a long time. It can work, but it seems a little bit like gambling.
3. If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow. We realize that we don't yet know everything. That we even can't know everything because everything can change. So we engage with each other in a quest to discover how we can overcome the problems we face. One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding. But I also think that we can facilitate this with technology. A (global) translation network if you so will. I have the feeling a lot of people are already working on this... they maybe just don't know it yet :) We live in interesting times!
I think the quicker and more unpredictable change is going to be, the more we'll realize the benefits of option 3. If you don't know where you will end up in life, you gain a different perspective of what should and should not be. I guess the obligatory reference on this topic would be [1]. But I am also very intrigued by [2]. Sadly, I did not have time to read the book yet but I have had the time to read a summary paper he published in another textbook. If you are interested in the topic, it might be worth checking out :)
>>3. If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow. We realize that we don't yet know everything. That we even can't know everything because everything can change. So we engage with each other in a quest to discover how we can overcome the problems we face.
I have a small doubt about it. On its face, your proposition seems quite attractive (in fact, as a liberal I always try to live by it) but in some circumstances it is outright dangerous.
To elaborate: Yes, we don't know everything, yes, we may not even know everything but still we have to manage our existence and our survival. So we cannot just indefinitely and naively apply the above mentioned principle of "If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow". To some extent we may allow the opposition to expand and we (as liberals) will accommodate some of their demands. But there has to be a recoprocating response of accommodation from the other side. We can wait for "certain amount of time" for the opposition to respond to our calls, but if our very survival and our very values are at stake, we cannot keep on waiting and accommodating the opposition indefinitely.
So, I suggest the following, to continue with your suggestion:
>>One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding.
I agree that causing unnecessary conflicts is bad. But raising points regarding doubts about something is not only not bad it is required.
So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion:
Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals?
We can begin by asking these questions, and let us see if the other side at least allow these issues to be discussed publicly?
>> To elaborate: Yes, we don't know everything, yes, we may not even know everything but still we have to manage our existence and our survival. So we cannot just indefinitely and naively apply the above mentioned principle of "If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow". To some extent we may allow the opposition to expand and we (as liberals) will accommodate some of their demands. But there has to be a recoprocating response of accommodation from the other side. We can wait for "certain amount of time" for the opposition to respond to our calls, but if our very survival and our very values are at stake, we cannot keep on waiting and accommodating the opposition indefinitely.
Yes, reciprocity is certainly required. I would argue it is actually what our existence is about. And yes, you have every right to fight for survival... I am just saying the other person has as well. I think what makes it difficult for you to understand me is that you still view yourself on the 'right' side and then only see a big large group of people demanding you to 'lower' yourself. You are fighting tooth and nail to stop that. As I said before it is understandable, it is your right and it is the same thing everyone on 'the other side' is doing. Stalemate again.
>> So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion: Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals?
I get that you are freaked out by some passages in the Quran and believe that it is making believers less tolerant, less worthy, less whatever you wanna have it. But if you look at it without any values the Quran is 'just' a book. A very revered and at the same time hated book with the power to move people. How we behave or what we do does not depend on the book but what we make of it, how it fits to our lives and experiences. It is not the book or the religion that leads to the outcomes that we observe today but our interactions over generations. Of course we need to discuss things. But why not try it this way:
Who is considered as innocent in Islam? => who is considered innocent?
Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? => How much do we need to respect the other persons world view?
What about abrogated verses in the Quran? => How should we deal with conflict?
What is Islam's view on homosexuals? => What is our view on people with different orientations? What is even our view of women in the society?
If you were really open to discuss those issues you would see that there is arguably much wickedness going on both sides... I could give you lengthy examples relating to non-religious examples in the West where the answers to these questions seem - let's call it - inconsistent.
Anyway, that is just my view and it is necessarily incomplete. You have already enriched it with me being more aware of some of the wickedness in the literal interpretation of the Quran and the feelings that this might cause on both sides. I don't think that this a showstopper, though, it makes things more difficult - as a first step we would still need to demonstrate that 'infidels' are not a threat anymore. That we respect the religion and acknowledge and appreciate the insights in the Quran and also that allah does exist (in their reality)... As I write it like this I know it must read to you that I have lost my mind or that I am very naive. But then again, isn't also naive to think that things will magically get better if we keep on doing what we have been doing? Why not give it a chance? The result might surprise you. :)
>>I get that you are freaked out by some passages in the Quran and believe that it is making believers less tolerant, less worthy, less whatever you wanna have it. But if you look at it without any values the Quran is 'just' a book.
The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right. However, people have different experiences and might even have good reasons for their seemingly crazy beliefs. The world could even end from one day to the next (not even that crazy if you believe in something like the matrix or a simulated world). We simply cannot know... anything could be possible. I guess that's nothing new but we often seem to forget the consequences this situation has.
If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity. Any argument you make, a fundamentalist will reject because from their point of view you are the fool... and they have a point, you simply don't understand their reality. And why should they change? Are we doing so much better? Would you change your identity to conform someone elses view of reality? The world is simply full of hypocracy...
So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand. Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing.
To connect that to your prior comment, I simply felt that your way to frame religious states as somewhat inherently less not really meaningful for the problem at hand and more a distraction from the underlying problem.
I hope that makes more sense. What do you think? Hope to back that perspective up with some more convincing evidence in the future :)
P.S. Edited a few times to make my rambling more clear :D