Sure. And the other baby-eaters look at that and stop eating babies where the wide-eyed idealist can find out about it, because the idealist has made a credible threat. (A slightly more idealistic idealist might look for nonfatal ways to make a credible threat, but they might not be available.) This happens all the time; much of our civilization is built on it. What’s the problem?
Sure. And the other baby-eaters look at that and stop eating babies where the wide-eyed idealist can find out about it, because the idealist has made a credible threat.
Well, if the wide-eyed idealists are a lot more powerful than the baby-eaters, probably. But if the wide-eyed idealists are less powerful than the baby-eaters, then the baby-eaters may instead be provoked into a war on wide-eyed-idealists, because even if they lose out more in the short term by waging such a war than by putting an end to their baby-eating, they’d be sending the signal that they won’t let extremist minorities dictate values to the majority.
Yup, that’s possible. And if the idealists are more powerful, the baby-eaters might still “be provoked into” (aka “initiate”) a war to make imposing majority preferences too expensive and encourage the majority to accommodate to them. And many other outcomes are possible. Narrating them all might be an entertaining way to spend an afternoon, but I’m still not sure what the point is. Were you disagreeing with wedrifid? Can you clarify your disagreement if so?
EDIT: Whoops! I just noticed you’re not the same poster. Never mind, then...
Sure. And the other baby-eaters look at that and stop eating babies where the wide-eyed idealist can find out about it, because the idealist has made a credible threat. (A slightly more idealistic idealist might look for nonfatal ways to make a credible threat, but they might not be available.) This happens all the time; much of our civilization is built on it. What’s the problem?
Well, if the wide-eyed idealists are a lot more powerful than the baby-eaters, probably. But if the wide-eyed idealists are less powerful than the baby-eaters, then the baby-eaters may instead be provoked into a war on wide-eyed-idealists, because even if they lose out more in the short term by waging such a war than by putting an end to their baby-eating, they’d be sending the signal that they won’t let extremist minorities dictate values to the majority.
Yup, that’s possible. And if the idealists are more powerful, the baby-eaters might still “be provoked into” (aka “initiate”) a war to make imposing majority preferences too expensive and encourage the majority to accommodate to them. And many other outcomes are possible. Narrating them all might be an entertaining way to spend an afternoon, but I’m still not sure what the point is. Were you disagreeing with wedrifid? Can you clarify your disagreement if so?
EDIT: Whoops! I just noticed you’re not the same poster. Never mind, then...