I dunno. In my books the ability to disregard emotional biases is the definition of clear-headedness.
I get that people aren't rational. But that's not a good reason to waste money and inflict social damage in the process of placating them.
Your argument could just as well be used to advocate for the "inconvenience" of promoting intelligent design in public science education.
> I dunno. In my books the ability to disregard emotional biases is the definition of clear-headedness.
When it's your own emotional bias you disregard we can talk of clear-headedness[1]. But here we are talking about taking other's emotional state into account.
In other words:
the ability to disregard other's emotional biases is not the definition of clear-headedness.
[1] but we are not machine and we have to take our own emotional state into account sometimes.
In any case, is it a flaw of our government that our legislators write laws that the majority of people happen to want? The fact that the majority want something irrational is incidental; people want it, and that's why politicians do it.
Either way, a majority outcry to implement X doesn't mean an alternative solution Y should be disregarded.