There seems to be an illogical argument that is put forward by activists as a rationalisation of certain controversial actions. Politicians criticised for certain policies will shoot back saying that people must get elected and put the record straight. Industrialists criticised for certain unfair practices will turn around and state that people must set up industries and then criticise. Activists criticised for their approach towards the Regional Plan or mining or human rights conveniently justify themselves by claiming that at least they are doing something. Instead of criticising, people should demonstrate by doing something better. When the spectators criticise players, is it necessary that all of them get onto the field and start playing? When one criticises a peice of art does it mean one should redo the same type of art work in a better way? When we criticise a literary peice does it mean we have to rewrite the peice in a better way? >From where has this argument originated if not from scamsters Because someone undertakes to do something for society, should others who do not contribute to this action just sit back and accept what is being done even if the outcome is going to have an adverse impact? If this is the case then people better don't do it rather than do something and mess up things even further. In that case even anti-socials and terror groups are doing good according to their understanding and we have no right to criticise.
-Soter
