3 ms·

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an argument. "We need to keep life more dangerous in general so that when we hit special cases it'll be easier to dea

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an argument. "We need to keep life more dangerous in general so that when we hit special cases it'll be easier to deal with" strikes me as generally doing more harm than good because our day to day is going to cause more harm and those special cases are always going to be special. Unless you have specific examples that you're thinking of here.

cdot2 4y ago
I don't think he was making that argument. Someone who climbs mountains every week is less likely to be hurt in a given mountain climb than someone who doesn't but that doesn't mean that the best idea for safety is to climb mountains often.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I hope they clarify, because "legislate away any possible source of danger" doesn't seem related to "frequency of mountain climbing" to me.
- the_af 4y ago
  > Someone who climbs mountains every week is less likely to be hurt in a given mountain climb On any given mountain climb, maybe. But overall? I don't know. A coworker of mine who liked mountaineering made lots of acquaintances in that lifestyle, and he told me they are often missing limbs and show lots of ugly scars, and have lots of near-death anecdotes about themselves. I'm talking about people who do this either for a living or as an all-consuming lifestyle, not casuals. He told me of a girl, a pro mountaineer, who was missing several fingers and had plenty of teeth knocked out. Her skin looked terrible, too. And he told me this is common. Her boyfriend was also a mountaineer, because that's yet another common fact: mountaineers band together, it's difficult to be in a couple with one if you don't find that lifestyle fascinating. Another friend who does parachuting (from airplanes) told me he knows lots of people who do BASE jumping (or even worse, those senseless "wingsuit" jumpers) and they tend to die young. They do a lot of it, always chasing a more extreme high, until one day they simply don't make it.
michaelt 4y ago
Hypothetically I'd rather my kid learn her limits by breaking her arm in the playground at age 10, than doing so in the wilderness at age 20.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  What limits are those? The "I shouldn't have fallen off the monkey bars" lesson isn't applicable to the wilderness, is it? What's the carry over? "Broken arms hurt"? I don't think people are unaware of that. Also, what will break your arm at 10 is different than what will break your arm at 20.
  - scruple 4y ago
    Doing risky things in an environment where you can get help vs. an environment where you're on your own. There are good lessons to learn by taking physical risks in more controlled environments. Like learning not to take dangerous and/or unnecessary risks when you're on your own because you know you might get yourself into a situation where you depend on help.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Given this is a story about a woman who repeatedly nearly dies it doesn't seem like it helps.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - scruple 4y ago
        Maybe she should've spent more time at the playground as a child.
giantg2 4y ago
I see it as more of a vicious cycle. The "don't put this plastic bag on your mouth" warnings come about because the public supports those laws/cases. Those people are at the point were they rely on other to be responsible for them rather than using common sense. Those laws/cases create an environment where people come to expect warnings for everything rather than rely on their own common sense. I do think you're right that day to life would cause more harm without any warnings, at least for certain people. The people who are responsible for themselves are generally going to be ok in either situation. The people who are happy-go-lucky and rely on others to think for them and arlt high risk in either situation, sometimes regardless of if warnings are present.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Are those warning labels there because they've been proven to be effective, or because someone sued and that's their way to mitigate that? I have a problem visualizing the venn diagram of people who are so stupid they'll put the bag in their mouth but also people who will listen to the words written on said bag.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I mean, all the time people slip and fall on ice and then sue. You can see it, you walk on it, but you don't assume the risk and force the property owner to pay. I assume that most warnings are just there because someone got sued or doesn't want to get sued.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      People do, it's true. The question I have is would a "Danger! Slippy ice!" actually stop people from hurting themselves? Because I don't think it would, it would just make the sueing harder.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        For some yes, for some no. My point is that having that warning won't help the reckless. It's not needed for the intelligent. It might help those people who have come to expect warnings for things. However, it hurts them overall because it's a common risk and other areas won't have those warnings possible causing then to act without caution and getting hurt there. So the warnings might help in a specific Cass for a very small group of people, but will overall be a negative if the person encounters that risky situation when it doesn't have a warning. I hate to say it since it tends to have political tones, but sheeple - people who just do whatever they're told and don't think for themselves - will increase as we remove the need to think to survive. Supposedly wild animals are more intelligent than similar domestic animals.

cdot2 4y ago

I don't think he was making that argument. Someone who climbs mountains every week is less likely to be hurt in a given mountain climb than someone who doesn't but that doesn't mean that the best idea for safety is to climb mountains often.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
I hope they clarify, because "legislate away any possible source of danger" doesn't seem related to "frequency of mountain climbing" to me.
the_af 4y ago
> Someone who climbs mountains every week is less likely to be hurt in a given mountain climb On any given mountain climb, maybe. But overall? I don't know. A coworker of mine who liked mountaineering made lots of acquaintances in that lifestyle, and he told me they are often missing limbs and show lots of ugly scars, and have lots of near-death anecdotes about themselves. I'm talking about people who do this either for a living or as an all-consuming lifestyle, not casuals. He told me of a girl, a pro mountaineer, who was missing several fingers and had plenty of teeth knocked out. Her skin looked terrible, too. And he told me this is common. Her boyfriend was also a mountaineer, because that's yet another common fact: mountaineers band together, it's difficult to be in a couple with one if you don't find that lifestyle fascinating. Another friend who does parachuting (from airplanes) told me he knows lots of people who do BASE jumping (or even worse, those senseless "wingsuit" jumpers) and they tend to die young. They do a lot of it, always chasing a more extreme high, until one day they simply don't make it.

michaelt 4y ago

Hypothetically I'd rather my kid learn her limits by breaking her arm in the playground at age 10, than doing so in the wilderness at age 20.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
What limits are those? The "I shouldn't have fallen off the monkey bars" lesson isn't applicable to the wilderness, is it? What's the carry over? "Broken arms hurt"? I don't think people are unaware of that. Also, what will break your arm at 10 is different than what will break your arm at 20.
- scruple 4y ago
  Doing risky things in an environment where you can get help vs. an environment where you're on your own. There are good lessons to learn by taking physical risks in more controlled environments. Like learning not to take dangerous and/or unnecessary risks when you're on your own because you know you might get yourself into a situation where you depend on help.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Given this is a story about a woman who repeatedly nearly dies it doesn't seem like it helps.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - scruple 4y ago
      Maybe she should've spent more time at the playground as a child.

giantg2 4y ago

I see it as more of a vicious cycle. The "don't put this plastic bag on your mouth" warnings come about because the public supports those laws/cases. Those people are at the point were they rely on other to be responsible for them rather than using common sense. Those laws/cases create an environment where people come to expect warnings for everything rather than rely on their own common sense. I do think you're right that day to life would cause more harm without any warnings, at least for certain people. The people who are responsible for themselves are generally going to be ok in either situation. The people who are happy-go-lucky and rely on others to think for them and arlt high risk in either situation, sometimes regardless of if warnings are present.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Are those warning labels there because they've been proven to be effective, or because someone sued and that's their way to mitigate that? I have a problem visualizing the venn diagram of people who are so stupid they'll put the bag in their mouth but also people who will listen to the words written on said bag.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I mean, all the time people slip and fall on ice and then sue. You can see it, you walk on it, but you don't assume the risk and force the property owner to pay. I assume that most warnings are just there because someone got sued or doesn't want to get sued.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    People do, it's true. The question I have is would a "Danger! Slippy ice!" actually stop people from hurting themselves? Because I don't think it would, it would just make the sueing harder.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      For some yes, for some no. My point is that having that warning won't help the reckless. It's not needed for the intelligent. It might help those people who have come to expect warnings for things. However, it hurts them overall because it's a common risk and other areas won't have those warnings possible causing then to act without caution and getting hurt there. So the warnings might help in a specific Cass for a very small group of people, but will overall be a negative if the person encounters that risky situation when it doesn't have a warning. I hate to say it since it tends to have political tones, but sheeple - people who just do whatever they're told and don't think for themselves - will increase as we remove the need to think to survive. Supposedly wild animals are more intelligent than similar domestic animals.