3 ms·
Yes, he took "unnecessary" risks. I understand his goal was not to "minimize unnecessary risks". If that's your goal, fine. It's mine, too. It wasn't his goal.
by tasuki 6y ago
Yes, he took "unnecessary" risks. I understand his goal was not to "minimize unnecessary risks". If that's your goal, fine. It's mine, too. It wasn't his goal.
- EdwardDiego 6y agoYes, but he didn't exist in a vacuum - someone had to find his decomposing body, someone had to remove it, someone had to clean the public shelter he died in. His chosen risks inflicted downsides on others.
- tasuki 6y ago> someone had to find his decomposing body Well, yes - is this an argument against dying in general? Fully agreed - it sucks! > someone had to remove it Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies! > someone had to clean the public shelter he died in The abandoned bus? Well no one had to clean it, but I suppose someone cleaned it? Yes, cleaning up after dead people is a nuisance. So preferably he shouldn't have died, ever? To spare the people finding his body, removing it, and cleaning up?
- EdwardDiego 6y agoThe abandoned bus that had been converted into _shelter_ for other back-country users. Shelter is vital, so not sure why you're minimising it. > Yes, that's what people do with dead bodies! Entire point is, his death was easily avoidable. He chose not to avoid it, thus impacting other people needlessly.