3 ms·
>And then we are not really safe. Once you have found yourself in a mental spiderweb where everything that promises safety is actually unsafe, you can break ou
by perl4ever 5y ago
>And then we are not really safe.
Once you have found yourself in a mental spiderweb where everything that promises safety is actually unsafe, you can break out very simply, although maybe not easily.
Just tell yourself that if nothing is safe, then your entire analysis is irrelevant and you can simply follow the herd and get on with your life.
This is, seriously, a coping mechanism for people who are clinically paranoid and aware of it.
- teeray 5y agoThis assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe. If jumping off tall bridges provided a protective effect against death from lightning strikes, by the same reasoning we should jump off the bridge because nothing is safe. Safety is probability-based and thus continuous. We can reason about one action being less unsafe than something else, so the analysis is still relevant.
- perl4ever 5y ago>This assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe I replied to a comment that ended with "we are not really safe". That is not a quantitative statement. It seems indicative of a binary view to me, the comment about a cost-benefit analysis notwithstanding.
- ghoward 5y agoTo be frank, I think that it is more important to be safe from a government, which can decide what is legal for them to do to you, than it is to be safe from a virus that does not discriminate.
- geofft 5y agoYou can rise up against a government with weapons. You cannot rise up against a virus with weapons. Therefore, it is more important to take proactive measures against a malicious virus. Both can threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you have more reactive options against the government (provided that the right to bear arms is not infringed, of course!).