Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

You do realize that this attitude will lead to ignoring the one time when there is real danger. Is that what you want?


sort by: page size:

There will always be some level of danger. Insisting on eliminating danger is irrational.

We learn and improve when accidents happen, but there is no reason to wish harm on innocent people.

>Until there are victims, threats tend to be ignored.

If you can't convince someone to address a threat, you need to get better at convincing, rather than creating victims to prove a point.


I don't understand this attitude. It's not about fear it's about precaution. Why does everything have to be so extreme?

You're neglecting the danger caused by starting the raid in an escalated state.

It doesn't happen more often because in an environment like that, the mere threat is enough.

As one great man said: you need to have the capacity for danger, but you need to learn how to not use it except when it's necessary.

My personal pet peeve is when people say things like "we live in a dangerous world now". No, we don't. At least, not more dangerous than before (which is the implication). We might be breathlessly focused on some dangers, but those dangers are LESS than before, not more.

I don't want anyone to suffer, and definitely don't want anyone to die. I'm not calling for turning our backs on every idea to improve safety. Just don't apply this safety under the false premise that things are more dangerous than they were.


If you’re surrounded by dangers, you literally have to ignore some of them while you fight off the others. There is no way to fight every problem at once.

No, it's part of human nature to be concerned about threats to ourselves above almost everything else. It's not only natural, but it's probably not possible to fully turn off this tendency.

Claiming that people should automatically be as concerned about being a danger to others as they are about danger to themselves is a nice thought... the world would be a good place if that was the way things worked... but it's not. Even the most educated and enlightened people put their own safety first and the threat to others second, because we're all human.


Agree, but it's just the human nature -- we want to know about all dangers and take preventive actions. One example is news -- almost all news are about some dangers, because media companies know well what their audience pays for.

In nowadays world there a too few dangers, so we exaggerate what we have, and imagine dangers we don't have.

The question is what should we do about this, and should we?


I make this type of argument pretty often and it is more to counteract the psychological impact of terrorism than anything else. We should feel that our safety is in jeopardy only relative to the likelihood of a given threat. Any more so only empowers the the people who are threatening us.

We can be more vigilant to start with and for that mindset needs to change.

I remember as a child I used to follow the security instructions like looking under the seat while riding a bus.My friends and people around me used to laugh on my cautiousness.

Similarly while driving if you try to stay in my lane and follow the rules and precaution, often friend and family members laugh at me for this extra cautiousness.

In India "what is destined will happen eventually" attitude is prevalent and that needs a change.


There is something to be said for not being safe all the time.

You can't. Most people will choose safety over freedom every single time.

This misguided notion that the public can't handle the danger also applies to other things like terrorism. With the right mindset I think people could learn to live with the occasional plane being blown out of the sky. Life was far more dangerous 100 years ago & as our creature comforts have increased we have have forgotten how to live with danger day-to-day.

You accept the danger or stifle it with more speech.

We live our lives. Danger will always be present. I could be hit by a car crossing the street from my office to the parking lot. I could be shot in the grocery store near my house.

Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.


That is true. Thank you. But is that the totality of the danger, then?

That's the vast majority of the problem, to be specific, as that perception is far out of proportion to the actual risk. So address the fearmongering and contextualize how rare these incidents are, insteading of blaming gun owners and further eroding civil liberties.
next

Legal | privacy