I completely agree that if you have changed your mind from September because the reasons you relied on for your position in September no longer seem convincing upon reflection, or some information you didn't have that is pertinent has caused you to change your mind, you absolutely should. Despite many peoples' apparent inclination to the contrary, there's nothing laudable about sticking to your convictions; if you thought something but it turns out you're wrong, stop being wrong.
However, if in response to a horrifying event like this you're reacting out of fear, and let's face it that's all a change of position as a result of this news would be... that's not a rational re-examination of your perspective. It's not considered and it should be discouraged.
And to address your third paragraph, the danger existed before and was weighed as a risk factor in the overall cost-benefit analysis. That risk has not changed simply because it has materialized elsewhere. If this was a good idea before in spite of that risk, however remote or not remote, it's still a good idea. If it wasn't a good idea before, it hasn't become a worse one.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|