Hooray! I found a reason! Then I can have an opinion!

Strangely enough human discussions often follow a boolean pattern. Everything tends to be black or white, true or false, for or against.

"Smoking is bad for your health, so therefore I want to ban it in public restaurants", for example. The argument is catchy. It is good. It is convincing. And it is so simplified that it is wrong.

If man had been able to have serious discussions, the argument would have gone more like this: "I realise that smoking makes life much more pleasant for a lot of people, that it brings money to restaurant owners, that it can be the reason for two people to find each other for a perfect life-long marriage, that plenty of people do not get sick from it, that some tourists get attracted to our fair city if they are allowed to smoke in restaurants, that few things can bring as much happiness as a cigarette after a good meal. I realise all that, but in spite of that, I think the health risks are so serious that I want to ban it in public restaurants."

However, such balanced arguments are as rare as penguins on the slopes of the Cheops pyramid. And why? Because most listeners fall asleep, before the speaker gets to the point. That's why.

The curse of man is that we fall asleep rather than think.

Wake me up if you find any argument against that.