Doesn't it seem ridiculous that politicians refuse to answer hypothetical questions? They reply, "Well that's a hypothetical, and I don't answer hypothetical questions," which is b.s., because you know that they do, all the time.

It'd be a lot better for them to just say "I don't want to answer that hypothetical question." That way, you wouldn't be able to tell that they're complete jack-asses. Well, at least not for giving the stupid unjustified (and, really, unjustifiable) "no-hypothetical-questions" non-answer.

Clearly they are willing to answer this hypothetical: what will you do for us if we elect you?

If they're trying to say there's something wrong with hypothetical questions ipso facto, shouldn't they come out and explain themselves? If the explanation is sufficiently convincing, I'll take it up and spread it through the land. That would differ from the status quo only in that I'd be doing the spreading instead of just them, and it'd be to illuminate to all the dangers of hypotheses, rather than just to fertilize the fields of discourse.

In fact, it'd be kinda cool if we could all dodge hypothetical questions. For instance, in the event I take a test for my driver license, I could skip questions like, "What would you do if you began to skid on ice whilst driving?"

No comments: