24 ms·
Compare that to society's extreme definition of safety. Vehicles will be allowed on road only if it results in less than 100 deaths per year. Yet, we as a socei
by jumping_frog 2y ago
Compare that to society's extreme definition of safety. Vehicles will be allowed on road only if it results in less than 100 deaths per year. Yet, we as a soceity has decided that certain risks are worth taking compared to the benefit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7Fi8I-qOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7Fi8I-qOk
- delusional 2y agoI recognize that you didn't claim a connection, but the proximity of the arguments could lead a casual reader to conclude that one exists. I very strongly want to distance myself and my argument from the ones put forward in the video. Furthermore, I also strongly shun the rhetoric in that video that mostly reminds me of a Ben Shapiro "owns" video. I do not find that kind wall building useful or good.
- jumping_frog 2y ago> It all comes down to the consequences of failure. If failure means homelessness, avoid failure. I was specifically countering this assumption. Our human mind doesn't have absolute hierarchy of preferences, they might even be circular (A is preferred to B, B is preferred to C and C is preferred to A). If I asked the mountaineer, would he like to be homeless. He would say no. But his context specific wish is to die on a mountain trying to summit which contradicts his desire to not be homeless.