10 ms·

Or maybe what he's saying is, "I would rather my kids learn that they should explore and enjoy the world, rather than never take any big risks." There are a lo

Or maybe what he's saying is, "I would rather my kids learn that they should explore and enjoy the world, rather than never take any big risks." There are a lot of parents in the world. Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? People who travel for work for days or weeks at a time? Someone who commutes an hour to work each way in a car that has a poor safety rating? The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family.

Chris2048 9y ago
> rather than never take any big risks With kids at home? specifically?! There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger. > Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? .. Someone who commutes .. in a car that has a poor safety rating? Are those as dangerous? If so, then yes, I think so. > People who travel for work for days or weeks at a time? People agonise about this all the time. But seeing the kids not very often is very different from dying and never seeing them again. > The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family. Oh, great. Does that mean we should also stop judging people about abuse and neglect too? I mean, fuck other peoples kids, right?
- nvahalik 9y ago
  > There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger. Depends on how you look at it. We are fragile creatures and the world is a fairly dangerous place. People die every day driving cars, riding bikes, going for walks—doing things far more mundane than cave-diving.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    I meant taking a risk on a new vacation, or relationship.. But when it comes to mortality, it depends. If taking a walk is as dangerous as cave diving - then yes, I'd consider moving. If you want to reduce the risks in riding a motorcycle, you can drive slower, in dry conditions during the day. I'm not sure exploring uncharted underwater caves is the slow lane..
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Yeah, except it's kinda hard to find jobs/stores/daily-places-that-you-need-to-go that don't require transportation on the road, but it's kind of easy to find jobs/stores that don't require going into underwater caves or jumping off cliffs/airplanes or the like. If only one out of thousands of people ever needed to drive on the road, we'd probably criticize them too. The entire argument is so ridiculous that I can't even believe I have to lay it out like this.
    - fulafel 9y ago
      Order groceries delivered to your home, and work remotely?
      - wfunction 9y ago
        Are you serious?
        fulafel 9y ago
        Just pointing out that it's feasible if you want to minimize transport related risk. Minimizing risk leads to a restricted life.
  - gpawl 9y ago
    what are the actual measured chances of dying at these various activities?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Taken to the extreme, your suggestion would be to never drive a car (or indeed go anywhere near a public road), as that is one of the most dangerous things we do every day. Travelling for a holiday would be a definite no-no, as it's likely more dangerous than staying at home. And so on and so forth.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > Taken to the extreme True, so let's not take to the extreme. Risk-adversion is a quantitative, not qualitative, practise. I'm not saying minimising risk is the only goal in life, but avoiding very high risks is - do you think cave diving is no riskier than driving a car on the motorway?
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      In that case, we have to define "very high risks" - is it literally just anything more dangerous than driving? if so, why do we stop at driving, why couldn't we be safer? - and then compare "number of cave divers" vs "number of deaths", and then figure out the subcategories of cave divers who're most likely to die and figure out whether this theoretical person falls into them, and so on and so forth. Taking a specific incident and combining it with "that sounds dangerous" is not likely to come up with anything meaningful.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Well, that was an example, not a proposal to an official risk limit. But maybe - you'd need a proper analysis of the relative risk. Isn't that done with cars/driving? All sorts of vehicle legislation may be driven (npi) by driving incident data / risk analysis. > Taking a specific incident and combining it with "that sounds dangerous" I'm not. I think it sounds dangerous before this specific incident. But you are right - a meaningful, proper analysis would be appropriate. I'm not saying my suggestion is enough, I am saying, maybe something formal would be appropriate.
        9y ago
wfunction 9y ago
I think the complaint was that the parent had a young child, not merely a child. Without actually taking a stance on the topic, it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents, i.e. it's not just your life you're messing around with. When they stop being your dependents, do whatever you want, it's just your life now (and I guess your spouse's, who is presumably fine with what you do).
- pdonis 9y ago
  > it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    >> it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents > That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. Yeah, because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.
    - pdonis 9y ago
      > because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing. That's not what I said. What I said was that it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. You have to balance the risk against the potential cost. That is perfectly compatible with there being a cost that can't be made good with money. And it's also perfectly compatible with minimizing the cost--yes, you can't replace a father with money, but you can make the impact as bearable as possible by ensuring that money is not a problem.
      - wfunction 9y ago
        > That's not what I said. Says the guy who translated "actively go around risking your life" into "taking risks"?
rdtsc 9y ago
Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick. > The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family. That's a obvious. What I think is being questioned is if they made a good decision. In other I can freely decide not to strap my kid in a car seat but that doesn't mean I won't get a ticket or my child won't be seriously injured or worse in a car accident.
- Mz 9y ago
  You are assuming he is a good father. Capacity to reproduce in no way whatsoever guarantees that one is any good with kids.
- andrewfong 9y ago
  > Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick. Not that it necessarily changes the argument, but the "choice" is probabilistic. That is, it isn't father at home vs. dead, but "probably boring dad but most likely alive" vs. "maybe famous dad but some chance of death".
  - aesh2Xa1 9y ago
    That doesn't sound right. How many cave-going dads are there that you could make the claim? And do a majority of kids believe their fathers are boring? I just don't buy it. And is taking a risk like this the best way to be "not boring?" Definitely don't buy it. You can have fun and be adventurous without taking heavy risks. It's fair to say that someone who continues to put himself at harm is foolish in one capacity or another.
    - throwawaycanada 9y ago
      I don't think it is possible in the literal sense to have adventure without risk.
bane 9y ago
It turns out there's lots of ways of exploring the world that don't put you in imminent danger.
nine_k 9y ago
There's also the mundane question of money. Unless you're already rich, raising a child alone is hard in many counts already; having your income halved does not help.
- jdswain 9y ago
  That is why many people have life insurance. It's probably not common in large parts of the world, and requires a certain income level to pay for, but it can make a situation where a parent dies a lot easier to cope with, at least the financial worries go away, or at least are delayed. In my country (New Zealand) we have a government run, compulsory, insurance scheme for accidents and death. If you die by accident then your family gets a payout based on a percentage of your (former) income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporat... We don't have the right to sue for accidents, relying on ACC for compensation.
  - hueving 9y ago
    When does the risk increase to a point where it becomes suicide and the insurance doesn't pay out?
    - chmod775 9y ago
      Why should it matter whether it was suicide or not? "Heh, I'm going to kill myself so I don't have to work to support my family and they can have insurance money instead" is not a thought many people would have.
    - bb611 9y ago
      Most life insurance policies in the US do pay out for suicide, typically after 12-24 months.
- kbenson 9y ago
  I think the better way to word this is likely "having your primary support halved does not help". It's likely to forestall the obvious insurance rebuttal by not specifically tying itself to financial concerns, as emotional and educational support are at least as important, if not more so, in my opinion.
gpawl 9y ago
Dying at your hobby is #1 form of neglect, partly mitigated only if you've set up quite an insurance payout.
cafebabbe 9y ago
Yep. Good or bad, profitable life lessons or not, this is indeed the definition of selfishness.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. "Judging" is a bit of an overloaded term. I don't think it's OK to call someone human trash for having a risky hobby. I do think people can say, "You're better than this. Make better choices." One version is dehumanizing someone for their behavior. The other is (when phrased well) constructive criticism.
nonick 9y ago
It's kind of the same in reverse - does a parent encourage their children to embrace a risky sport/activity (karting, skiing, diving etc.) or keep them in the safety of home for fear of accident or death? We wouldn't have F1 or IndyCar drivers, ski jumpers, etc. if all parents were too protective. It's difficult to find the right balance and to give a perfect recipe and it would be impossible to eliminate all risk.

Chris2048 9y ago

> rather than never take any big risks With kids at home? specifically?! There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger. > Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? .. Someone who commutes .. in a car that has a poor safety rating? Are those as dangerous? If so, then yes, I think so. > People who travel for work for days or weeks at a time? People agonise about this all the time. But seeing the kids not very often is very different from dying and never seeing them again. > The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family. Oh, great. Does that mean we should also stop judging people about abuse and neglect too? I mean, fuck other peoples kids, right?

nvahalik 9y ago
> There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger. Depends on how you look at it. We are fragile creatures and the world is a fairly dangerous place. People die every day driving cars, riding bikes, going for walks—doing things far more mundane than cave-diving.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Chris2048 9y ago
  I meant taking a risk on a new vacation, or relationship.. But when it comes to mortality, it depends. If taking a walk is as dangerous as cave diving - then yes, I'd consider moving. If you want to reduce the risks in riding a motorcycle, you can drive slower, in dry conditions during the day. I'm not sure exploring uncharted underwater caves is the slow lane..
- wfunction 9y ago
  Yeah, except it's kinda hard to find jobs/stores/daily-places-that-you-need-to-go that don't require transportation on the road, but it's kind of easy to find jobs/stores that don't require going into underwater caves or jumping off cliffs/airplanes or the like. If only one out of thousands of people ever needed to drive on the road, we'd probably criticize them too. The entire argument is so ridiculous that I can't even believe I have to lay it out like this.
  - fulafel 9y ago
    Order groceries delivered to your home, and work remotely?
    - wfunction 9y ago
      Are you serious?
      - fulafel 9y ago
        Just pointing out that it's feasible if you want to minimize transport related risk. Minimizing risk leads to a restricted life.
- gpawl 9y ago
  what are the actual measured chances of dying at these various activities?
vertex-four 9y ago
Taken to the extreme, your suggestion would be to never drive a car (or indeed go anywhere near a public road), as that is one of the most dangerous things we do every day. Travelling for a holiday would be a definite no-no, as it's likely more dangerous than staying at home. And so on and so forth.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > Taken to the extreme True, so let's not take to the extreme. Risk-adversion is a quantitative, not qualitative, practise. I'm not saying minimising risk is the only goal in life, but avoiding very high risks is - do you think cave diving is no riskier than driving a car on the motorway?
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    In that case, we have to define "very high risks" - is it literally just anything more dangerous than driving? if so, why do we stop at driving, why couldn't we be safer? - and then compare "number of cave divers" vs "number of deaths", and then figure out the subcategories of cave divers who're most likely to die and figure out whether this theoretical person falls into them, and so on and so forth. Taking a specific incident and combining it with "that sounds dangerous" is not likely to come up with anything meaningful.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Well, that was an example, not a proposal to an official risk limit. But maybe - you'd need a proper analysis of the relative risk. Isn't that done with cars/driving? All sorts of vehicle legislation may be driven (npi) by driving incident data / risk analysis. > Taking a specific incident and combining it with "that sounds dangerous" I'm not. I think it sounds dangerous before this specific incident. But you are right - a meaningful, proper analysis would be appropriate. I'm not saying my suggestion is enough, I am saying, maybe something formal would be appropriate.
      - 9y ago

wfunction 9y ago

I think the complaint was that the parent had a young child, not merely a child. Without actually taking a stance on the topic, it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents, i.e. it's not just your life you're messing around with. When they stop being your dependents, do whatever you want, it's just your life now (and I guess your spouse's, who is presumably fine with what you do).

pdonis 9y ago
> it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks.
- wfunction 9y ago
  >> it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents > That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. Yeah, because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing. That's not what I said. What I said was that it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. You have to balance the risk against the potential cost. That is perfectly compatible with there being a cost that can't be made good with money. And it's also perfectly compatible with minimizing the cost--yes, you can't replace a father with money, but you can make the impact as bearable as possible by ensuring that money is not a problem.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      > That's not what I said. Says the guy who translated "actively go around risking your life" into "taking risks"?

rdtsc 9y ago

Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick. > The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family. That's a obvious. What I think is being questioned is if they made a good decision. In other I can freely decide not to strap my kid in a car seat but that doesn't mean I won't get a ticket or my child won't be seriously injured or worse in a car accident.

Mz 9y ago
You are assuming he is a good father. Capacity to reproduce in no way whatsoever guarantees that one is any good with kids.
andrewfong 9y ago
> Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick. Not that it necessarily changes the argument, but the "choice" is probabilistic. That is, it isn't father at home vs. dead, but "probably boring dad but most likely alive" vs. "maybe famous dad but some chance of death".
- aesh2Xa1 9y ago
  That doesn't sound right. How many cave-going dads are there that you could make the claim? And do a majority of kids believe their fathers are boring? I just don't buy it. And is taking a risk like this the best way to be "not boring?" Definitely don't buy it. You can have fun and be adventurous without taking heavy risks. It's fair to say that someone who continues to put himself at harm is foolish in one capacity or another.
  - throwawaycanada 9y ago
    I don't think it is possible in the literal sense to have adventure without risk.

bane 9y ago

It turns out there's lots of ways of exploring the world that don't put you in imminent danger.

nine_k 9y ago

There's also the mundane question of money. Unless you're already rich, raising a child alone is hard in many counts already; having your income halved does not help.

jdswain 9y ago
That is why many people have life insurance. It's probably not common in large parts of the world, and requires a certain income level to pay for, but it can make a situation where a parent dies a lot easier to cope with, at least the financial worries go away, or at least are delayed. In my country (New Zealand) we have a government run, compulsory, insurance scheme for accidents and death. If you die by accident then your family gets a payout based on a percentage of your (former) income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporat... We don't have the right to sue for accidents, relying on ACC for compensation.
- hueving 9y ago
  When does the risk increase to a point where it becomes suicide and the insurance doesn't pay out?
  - chmod775 9y ago
    Why should it matter whether it was suicide or not? "Heh, I'm going to kill myself so I don't have to work to support my family and they can have insurance money instead" is not a thought many people would have.
  - bb611 9y ago
    Most life insurance policies in the US do pay out for suicide, typically after 12-24 months.
kbenson 9y ago
I think the better way to word this is likely "having your primary support halved does not help". It's likely to forestall the obvious insurance rebuttal by not specifically tying itself to financial concerns, as emotional and educational support are at least as important, if not more so, in my opinion.

gpawl 9y ago

Dying at your hobby is #1 form of neglect, partly mitigated only if you've set up quite an insurance payout.

cafebabbe 9y ago

Yep. Good or bad, profitable life lessons or not, this is indeed the definition of selfishness.

humanrebar 9y ago

> Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. "Judging" is a bit of an overloaded term. I don't think it's OK to call someone human trash for having a risky hobby. I do think people can say, "You're better than this. Make better choices." One version is dehumanizing someone for their behavior. The other is (when phrased well) constructive criticism.

nonick 9y ago

It's kind of the same in reverse - does a parent encourage their children to embrace a risky sport/activity (karting, skiing, diving etc.) or keep them in the safety of home for fear of accident or death? We wouldn't have F1 or IndyCar drivers, ski jumpers, etc. if all parents were too protective. It's difficult to find the right balance and to give a perfect recipe and it would be impossible to eliminate all risk.