De Blasio to end horse drawn carriages in NYC

Yes it does matter when this non-issue IS being focused on.

@airshocker: Again, we have two different implicit claims going on. And you're kind of mixing them up.

1) "This isn't an issue and should not be focused on."

2) "This should not be focused on because it is taking away from important issues."

And...which one is it, dude? If you're going with #1, then it really DOESN'T matter whether or not there are more important issues. #1 implies that it wouldn't be worth wasting time on even if the people involved with it literally had no other way to spend their time. They could literally be sitting on their asses while twiddling their thumbs, and they still shouldn't focus on this issue because this issue is not a problem and nothing about the situation should be changed. Remember, saying that something is not an issue suggests that things are ideal as they currently are. From that point of view, the problem is change itself, not the fact that there are other things that are more in need of change.

Alternatively, if you're going with #2, then my previous point still stands. For comparison, look at how this kind of argument typically gets used. It'll be something like, "why are we talking about gay rights when the economy is still in the gutter?" The language employed is a means of presenting "I don't want this changed" as "well, I would want this changed but there's other stuff that we should do instead." And...that usually ends up being bull$hit, because it assumes that we could have fixed the big problems if we had just stopped paying attention to the small ones. Big problems often tend to be complex problems with complex causes, and addressing some simple trivial $hit such as horse drawn carriages isn't gonna really take away from that. It's like saying, "why bother ironing my clothes when I have cancer?" Yeah, the cancer thing is a much bigger problem than looking slightly unkempt, but it's not like dressing like a hobo gets you any closer to solving your cancer problem. Regardless of how simple or trivial the minor problem is, it's something that you can fix really easily, so go ahead and fix it.

Don't pretend like you haven't noticed this. The "but there are more important things to address" issue is VERY often (but not always) a way of trying to prevent change without having to outright say that they don't want change. No doubt we've all used some variation of this ourselves ("Sorry, I can't drop you off at the mall because I have chores to do", despite the fact that we aren't going to start our chores for another 2 hours and in fact have ample time to drop the dude off at the mall without the two issues infringing on each other).

I don't believe either of those statements are mutually exclusive. It isn't an issue and it shouldn't be focused on. The fact that it is being focused on IS taking away from important issues.

I have noticed such a thing but I don't believe that is actually the case in this regard.

Oh, I agree, they're NOT mutually exclusive. However, clarity of argument is an important factor when expressing an idea, and mixing these sort of things up just sort of muddles things up. It's usually better to express an argument as simply as possible. For example, if there is a strong case for this actually being a non-issue (as in, things are ideal the way they are and nothing should change), then that should be enough. You probably shouldn't use the second statement until necessary, because that actually complicates things and introduces more questions and requires more explanation.

See, if you had ONLY said "there's no problem with horse drawn carriages, there's nothing that needs to be changed", and then stated your reasons for that, then you're keeping it simple. I've got no stake in that. I don't live in NYC, I don't know if there's a problem, and I don't even particularly give a $hit about horses. You say that there's not a problem and leave it at that, then I take it at face value and move on. But the second that you invoke the second claim, you've got my attention. Because now you've brought up CONFLICT, you have introduced a battle of issues. And...conflict breeds interest. Now I'm looking at this more closely because I'm seeing a fight happening. And that brings up questions that I need concrete answers to. If focusing on relatively trivial $hit like horse drawn carriages is taking away from the big important issues, then HOW? What are the precise issues that would have been closer to being solved if these horse drawn carriages hadn't gotten in the way? What are the exact issues that we're talking about? Poverty? Drugs? In what SPECIFIC way did the horse issue affect the other issues, and how far back has progress in important areas been set back because we were too busy thinking about horse drawn carriages?

And that's the kind of thinking that you probably don't want to start, because a lot of it is probably highly speculative at best, with no clear answer. Why even muddy the waters like that if you don't have to? If you really think there's no problem, and if you think you have a solid reason for thinking there's no problem, then just flatout keep it simple and stick to "not a problem". By introducing both of these arguments from the beginning (things are currently ideal, and change is taking away from important issues), you're introducing questions that people probably wouldn't have ever brought up if you hadn't over-complicated the issue. If you then fail to have answers to those specific questions, then you've got a problem.

The list of things Bloomberg didn't ban much have gotten short.