Monday, October 1, 2007

I'd Rather Know

Do you ever have those times where you learned something that you think you were perhaps better off not knowing?

For example, let's say you knew about a tremendous calamity before it occurred. Such as, say, the exact date and time a meteorite will strike Earth and wipe out all life on it. Well, not all life, but all life excluding some micro-bacterial life living in rocks at least a kilometer down in the Earth's crust. At any rate, it's probably safe to say nobody will be making it to your birthday party (which, by the way, is canceled due to inclement weather. And magma. Lots of magma).

Anyway where was I? Oh, yes. So the question is; assuming you could do nothing to prevent it, and that you would not be able to ignore the information, would you want to know about it or not?

Now let's say it's not something that's so black-and-white. For example, let's say somebody close to you has a secret that you probably don't want to know, but maybe should know because it might help you or that friend in some way. Vague enough for you? It might be something as simple as the person smoking but not telling anybody except you, or it might be something far more important and intensely personal than that. At any rate, where do you draw the line between wanting to know and not wanting to know?

Next time you're on the toilet, think about it. --But not now. No. Right now there's more pressing matters for you to think about.

3 comments:

Mr. Shiny and New said...

<pedantic>
If it's going to affect your birthday party, and you're not spelunking, then you birthday party should be cancelled due to lava, not magma.
</pedantic>

Daryl said...

It's not going to affect my birthday party, because it's going to be before the comet...

But the reader whose party I was referring to was going to take place beneath the Earth's crust.

Mr. Shiny and New said...

That's fine then. Is this reader named Krang, perchance?