4 ms·

Because in the real world the consequences of your actions aren’t confined to yourself. Reckless behavior increases the impact on anyone involved in an acciden

Because in the real world the consequences of your actions aren’t confined to yourself. Reckless behavior increases the impact on anyone involved in an accident with you, mentally impacts anyone that might see your brains splatter, increases insurance premiums, uses hospital resources, etc.

gameswithgo 7y ago
None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people, which has the same sorts of consequences if you did some sort of long term impact analysis, which normal people don't do on the spot. As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. Plus I'll have less diabetes and heart disease since I'm not sitting inside watching CNN and Fox news all day getting fat and being "safe"
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Should people really be eating junk food? I do kind of think it's unfair that in a world with universal healthcare I'm going to have to be paying for their diabetes in 50 years. If I'm going to be paying for the consequences then you bet I'm going to want to make your decisions. Likewise I wouldn't mind it if you went climbing, but then I would demand that you pay for your own solo climbers insurance.
- reroute1 7y ago
  > None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. How do you know this? Have you interviewed everyone ever on why they got angry? There are a variety of reasons and it's very highly unlikely that you are correct.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people" I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. There's plenty of anger and disdain for all those things. There's plenty of "fuck fatties", "fuck rich fat cats", and "fuck drunks" sentiment, and I don't go out of my way to engage in communities I know to be hateful or particularly negative. (Unless HN counts??)
- everdev 7y ago
  A few ideas on why people get angry: 1. Public health campaigns - They don't get outraged by junk food, sports cars, etc. because there isn't advertising telling them it's unequivocally bad. Government will tell you that not wearing a helmet, smoking a cigarette, etc. is universally bad so it's easier for people to see someone "doing a bad thing". People get angry when other people "break the rules". 2. They know someone who was affected. I'm guessing if your cousin got hurt because they weren't wearing a helmet, you might carry some emotions that could be released when you see someone else taking the same risk. 3. Human nature. Back in tribes, if our Uncle was trying to scale giant cliff faces for fun, we'd be at greater risk of less food / losing a war if the tribe let him risk his life for little to no tribal gain. Especially if the young kids thought it was cool and wanted to try it too. People are persuadable and can be influenced. It's not unreasonable to think that glorifying death defying sports or financially rewarding them will result in more people risking their lives. 4. Bullying. If you see someone doing something different or not fitting in, some humans feel compelled to yell at that person to increase conformity and cohesion. 5. Low self confidence. They might be highly critical of themselves and see an opportunity to criticize others. For me, #3 is the most common answer. People in strong, healthy communities feel safer so they probably don't want what they consider a "risky" behavior to spread.
  - OutBriefCandle 7y ago
    I had a negative reaction to his free solo, but I wouldn't say I'm angry about it. I agree with the idea that he is his own person and can ultimately make his own decisions, but there are a couple things that bother me about the free solo that aren't covered here. While Alex may not have been known by the general public before this event he was pretty well known in the climbing community, and is obviously still well known. Therefore he wields an influence over others and particularly kids. Kids do stupid and risky things, because their brains aren't developed enough to judge the consequences of their actions. They want to emulate the pros, which in this case, climbing unroped, could be deadly. Another thing that bothers me about it is the sort of stigma it puts on the sport. Now, free soloing like what Alex did is what a lot of people think climbing is. I've been climbing for the past 12 years, 10 of those outside and on a good day it's nearly a spiritual experience. I love this sport and I find it incredibly rewarding. It is a dangerous sport, but there is a lot you can do to mitigate those dangers. I think when a lot people see the spectacle of 'free solo' they are awed by it, but may also think "I could never do something like that" and so never try to climb. This is why I think I have a negative reaction to the film.
- ken 7y ago
  > As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. No, please stop. This canard has been repeated by the anti-helmet crowd for decades, despite having been disproven countless times. Even if you're a number-crunching robot and care for nothing except how much cash it will cost today, helmets are a huge win. > Also, yes internet I understand that falling from a mountain bike at a slow speed can impact your head just as hard as falling from a high speed, that isn't the point, or even entirely true. You're riding so slowly that a fall won't impact your head much, but merely kill you?

gameswithgo 7y ago

None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people, which has the same sorts of consequences if you did some sort of long term impact analysis, which normal people don't do on the spot. As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. Plus I'll have less diabetes and heart disease since I'm not sitting inside watching CNN and Fox news all day getting fat and being "safe"

whatshisface 7y ago
Should people really be eating junk food? I do kind of think it's unfair that in a world with universal healthcare I'm going to have to be paying for their diabetes in 50 years. If I'm going to be paying for the consequences then you bet I'm going to want to make your decisions. Likewise I wouldn't mind it if you went climbing, but then I would demand that you pay for your own solo climbers insurance.
reroute1 7y ago
> None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. How do you know this? Have you interviewed everyone ever on why they got angry? There are a variety of reasons and it's very highly unlikely that you are correct.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people" I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. There's plenty of anger and disdain for all those things. There's plenty of "fuck fatties", "fuck rich fat cats", and "fuck drunks" sentiment, and I don't go out of my way to engage in communities I know to be hateful or particularly negative. (Unless HN counts??)
everdev 7y ago
A few ideas on why people get angry: 1. Public health campaigns - They don't get outraged by junk food, sports cars, etc. because there isn't advertising telling them it's unequivocally bad. Government will tell you that not wearing a helmet, smoking a cigarette, etc. is universally bad so it's easier for people to see someone "doing a bad thing". People get angry when other people "break the rules". 2. They know someone who was affected. I'm guessing if your cousin got hurt because they weren't wearing a helmet, you might carry some emotions that could be released when you see someone else taking the same risk. 3. Human nature. Back in tribes, if our Uncle was trying to scale giant cliff faces for fun, we'd be at greater risk of less food / losing a war if the tribe let him risk his life for little to no tribal gain. Especially if the young kids thought it was cool and wanted to try it too. People are persuadable and can be influenced. It's not unreasonable to think that glorifying death defying sports or financially rewarding them will result in more people risking their lives. 4. Bullying. If you see someone doing something different or not fitting in, some humans feel compelled to yell at that person to increase conformity and cohesion. 5. Low self confidence. They might be highly critical of themselves and see an opportunity to criticize others. For me, #3 is the most common answer. People in strong, healthy communities feel safer so they probably don't want what they consider a "risky" behavior to spread.
- OutBriefCandle 7y ago
  I had a negative reaction to his free solo, but I wouldn't say I'm angry about it. I agree with the idea that he is his own person and can ultimately make his own decisions, but there are a couple things that bother me about the free solo that aren't covered here. While Alex may not have been known by the general public before this event he was pretty well known in the climbing community, and is obviously still well known. Therefore he wields an influence over others and particularly kids. Kids do stupid and risky things, because their brains aren't developed enough to judge the consequences of their actions. They want to emulate the pros, which in this case, climbing unroped, could be deadly. Another thing that bothers me about it is the sort of stigma it puts on the sport. Now, free soloing like what Alex did is what a lot of people think climbing is. I've been climbing for the past 12 years, 10 of those outside and on a good day it's nearly a spiritual experience. I love this sport and I find it incredibly rewarding. It is a dangerous sport, but there is a lot you can do to mitigate those dangers. I think when a lot people see the spectacle of 'free solo' they are awed by it, but may also think "I could never do something like that" and so never try to climb. This is why I think I have a negative reaction to the film.
ken 7y ago
> As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. No, please stop. This canard has been repeated by the anti-helmet crowd for decades, despite having been disproven countless times. Even if you're a number-crunching robot and care for nothing except how much cash it will cost today, helmets are a huge win. > Also, yes internet I understand that falling from a mountain bike at a slow speed can impact your head just as hard as falling from a high speed, that isn't the point, or even entirely true. You're riding so slowly that a fall won't impact your head much, but merely kill you?