I love apples. I consider them the sweetest fruit to yet be discovered by humanity.
I don't care as much for pears, but I understand how others might have a taste for them.
Say you have an apple orchard and pear orchard. A disease has infected both orchards, and 5-10% of all the fruit has become rotten.
Say also that your orchards provide fruit for enough people that there is very little fruit left over on a yearly basis.
This means somebody HAS to get rotten fruit. There's no two ways about it.
If I prefer a fresh pear over a rotten apple, does that mean I hate apples now? Does it mean I love uninfected apple orchards any less? Does it mean I value pears over apples in general?
If all I have access to are rotting fruits of either variety, doesn't it makes sense that I would seek out a new orchard altogether, not being a fan of rotting fruit?
If you're amongst the 90-95% of orchard goers whose fruit needs are being comfortably satisfied, are you going to look down on those being left out for refusing to bite into rotten apples from the same orchard?
Say there are no alternative orchards available.
Are you going to begrudge those stupid/undisciplined/uncouth/untalented (or unlucky, depending on perspective) 5-10% for being pissed off because all they're getting are rotten apples?
Say I find a group of people working on planting a new orchard. But I notice them making the same mistakes that caused the original two orchards to become infected in the beginning. In the end, most people are going to apathetic to that, because their fruit has always been fresh. Does a warning that the fruits might become infected again in the end game constitute an attack on apples?
I don't think it does. But I'm in the minority on that here. I just wanted to state my peace. After this thread I'm not going to comment on this subject anymore.
Please note: Civil discussion is more likely to change an open mind than accusations and finger pointing.
Topic: Apples and Pears (Read 1382 times)
