4 ms·

What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injur

What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. This is not an assertion of fact, simply a position of likelihood and a judgement that doing a physical and emotional punishment to a person is generally harmful and that doing so must be balanced against ensuring a just outcome. This is not an unreasonable stance. You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. Down that road lies such human rights abuses that holding such views should be considered unconscionable.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I agree with this statement. Assume a risk. > I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. > You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. I am not saying that.
- justinjlynn 4y ago
  > Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. What null hypothesis would you prefer? > I am not saying that. Then what are you saying?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > What null hypothesis would you prefer? "It has no lasting effects", probably. And you need to make sure you're looking for both positive and negative effects. "It's harmful" is a huge bias for a null hypothesis. > Then what are you saying? That you shouldn't assume it is harmful. I didn't say anything about what parents should be "able to do". I didn't even give an opinion on the candy thing. I just think your justification is a big overreach. But also a null hypothesis implies you're currently doing the testing, so that's a different scenario too...

Dylan16807 4y ago

> What's less harmful when it comes to human health and safety in non-essential activities, to assume no risk of harm or injury or to assume risk of harm or injury? I agree with this statement. Assume a risk. > I assert that the null hypothesis is that it does not have a benefit and is harmful. Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. > You, on the other hand, if I understand properly, are saying that we should be able to do whatever we like to a punish person unless we show it directly causes harm. I am not saying that.

justinjlynn 4y ago
> Why did the word 'risk' disappear here? I don't think that's a good null hypothesis at all. What null hypothesis would you prefer? > I am not saying that. Then what are you saying?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > What null hypothesis would you prefer? "It has no lasting effects", probably. And you need to make sure you're looking for both positive and negative effects. "It's harmful" is a huge bias for a null hypothesis. > Then what are you saying? That you shouldn't assume it is harmful. I didn't say anything about what parents should be "able to do". I didn't even give an opinion on the candy thing. I just think your justification is a big overreach. But also a null hypothesis implies you're currently doing the testing, so that's a different scenario too...