[palata]

I'm honestly not sure what you are saying.

My point was really just to say that it's good to say "If this brings X at the cost of Y, then it may be worth it" (that raises great questions), but it is wrong to conclude just from that that it actually is worth it.

I see many people jump to this conclusion, and the logic is flawed. I mentioned Trump because I've heard many people justify their voting for Trump like this.

The correct way of doing it is:

1. "If this brings X at the cost of Y, then it may be worth it"

2. Investigate whether it would actually bring X.

3. Investigate whether it would actually cost Y.

4. Decide whether it's worth it or not.

[spwa4]

In your previous post you were making the argument that the cost was not even worth looking at, much less comparing, because that by itself, any compromise, would be bad (and lead to trump)

[palata]

I wasn't, sorry if I was confusing.

My point was that the logic "I can imagine that it may be worth doing X even if there is a cost Y, so it must be worth it" is wrong. If it may be worth it, it means that you need to investigate.