My claim is

that

because maybe you should fight it and make it worse. But my point is just it's pretty likely that fighting it will make it worse. So I wasn't argue about whether it was good or bad I was just saying that if fighting it made it worse and then whenever somebody makes the demand you have the choice to give in order to fight then under both responses it would be worse. So that means anytime anybody makes it the demand that becomes worse therefore the question is what other scenarios are there other than people making demand. I think it's worth typically have a lot of other options people just only see this

too. So

in general like you can for instance get the person to change their mind that's another demand that's another approach. Okay that doesn't sound very plausible in this case though right. Maybe not I mean it may well be that these sort of high profile cases are not like the most important cases

in

terms of like but let me switch over because I think we're jumping aside with the solution I wanted to get that point in which is to say it's just not at all obvious that fighting it has the has the desired effect. I think that's important to point that out. But you should do that's a separate question but let's talk about the cause. So my favorite the cause is related to the end of his paper. So the end of his

paper says that we

live in a society that doesn't treat its members as equals.