Things should be done because they are fun, and for no other reason besides. Especially in a case where I am not literally at work, getting paid.
If we can do it, we don't need compelling reason to do it. That's what liberty means. That's where we live, and that's where we are at. We are at liberty. To do a thing needs no sufficient cause! To reject a thing, to refuse a person's liberty to do it, must show compelling cause. That demonstration must be far more than a wan hypothetical, far more than to just say, "well, I don't know, looks like there's nothing wrong with it but I'm concerned it might be taken the wrong way." Get behind me.
Not "get behind me" because you're like, Satan or anything. "Get behind me, Satan!" Haha, no, not at all (but see next paragraph), it's just that you clearly aren't equipped to take lead, if that's your attitude. If you think "people might possibly take it the wrong way" is a reason to reject a course of action? Come on. A better way than that: have confidence in your own good will, and trust in your judgment and the capacity of others to be at least as tolerant as you. You have an open mind, when presented with something that you can see "looks like there's nothing wrong with it." Why not give others the same chance?
It's the devil who wants to reject a course of action because insufficient cause for doing it had been demonstrated. Go look it up. This was Lucifer's specific beef. Lucifer was Light, and he was like "wait, WHAT? No, I want to see reasons. I mean, this 'reality' business, yes I know You saw it and You said it was good, and it looks like there's nothing wrong with it to me, but I'm concerned it could be taken the wrong way." To which God said, "awww man. c'mon pal. if anythn happens u think I can't heal u all up ltr? Ppl be so happy they ll cherish the memory of their emotional scars <3. I say realitys a pretty sweet lark, and I'm GOING AHEAD WITH IT." Then the devil insisted on seeing God's tits, and God was like, "LTR GTFO."
That's practically a verbatim transcript, we just didn't have teh vocabulary in olden times to quite get the sentiment being expressed. Angelic text.
Now, hypotheticals are not the devil, even if the devil is so often in the hypotheticals. Of course we should watch out for specific and forseeable problems along the way! And specific obstacles. But the worst obstacle we must be ever on guard against are: the hypothetical obstacles that would spoil harmless, random, absurd, meaningless, purposeless fun - just by raising a hypothetical possible problem that may happen.
And we must be ever on guard for those who raise hypotheticals in order to ruin actuals.
They truly believe they mean well. They believe they're cutting out the possibility of problems. But their method is to reject a lot of stuff that could have many amazing outcomes as well! They are not running a valid cost/benefit analysis. And they exaggerate the risk they claim to see.
Because they and we must realize, their attempts do not leave us better prepared to deal with actuals. When actuals occur - when an actual problem does occur - we are prepared. We have strong and courageous, fearsomely competent, compassionate people thronging around, eyeing each other awaiting the opportunity to save the day. We have well-developed response strategies, we have emergency support within call, we also have the ability to raise a perceived wrong, and engage each other at its basis: like fucking adults.
So: if you are a hypothetical-raiser, and you are sincere, think about how it would feel to try this possible approach? "We should do this thing you propose. It looks like nothing wrong with it to me. Could be a lot of possible outcome, potentially, some good outcomes! And I can see only 1 possible bad outcome - we should go ahead with your plan, and just add in a plan B if this happens: What do we do to answer anybody who says 'blah, blah blah'?"
You have then taken steps to strengthen the proposal, by requesting it address the flaw you say you saw.
Does that work?
How do you feel about that approach?
That's a sincere way of dealing with it, if you're honest about there being a proposal that's truly all good, "nothing wrong with it," except for a MAYBE that might never occur! Would you feel good, going the support-its-enactment-with-amendment-to-redress-perceived-possible-bad-outcome?
I mean, why not? Because if not, if you're saying to yourself, "well no, still I don't support it!" - then maybe you should ask yourself whether it is true that you can't see anything wrong with it except the hypothetical you raised. Maybe you just do not like the proposal AT ALL, and were trying to hang it up or shoot it down with a passive-aggressive objection that doesn't really touch the substance of what you don't like?
Just a thought.
In the meantime: be suspicious of those who demand a "why." Beware of people who ask "why," when you are not actually at work, getting paid. In my experience, before-the-fact "why" is too often used as a cop-out. "Why" may allow people to reject to something good (or possibly only harmless), on the rather b.s. basis that if you think real hard and provide them with a "why," they can then milqetoast up a pragmatic objection: "Oh, well then, if that's why, then I think we shouldn't do it, because it isn't a realistic way to achieve that goal."
Do you want to know MY ULTIMATE GOAL IN ANYTHING I EVER DO?
It is: BECAUSE
If they insist on elaboration, it is because I have liberty to do so, and because I have sincerely asked if anyone can see compelling cause that I should not do so, and none has been shown.
In other words:
BECAUSE, was sufficient.