RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by tully

18 December 2000 13:22 UTC

At 04:34 AM 12/18/00 -0800, David A wrote:
>But it tells me you either choose to purposely ignore, or have little
>understanding of, the relative risks involved.

Because my benefit to risk ratio may be different in this case than what 
others may choose?  I would also risk jumping off a mountain with a 
hang-glider around me because the enjoyment to me would be worth the 
risk.  Most people would not agree the benefit was worth the risk in that 
case.  Yet most people take one particular risk that I would never take: 
signing long term loans.  Is it because they "purposely ignore, or have 
little understanding of, the relative risks involved."  No, its because 
they see the benefit as worth the risk.  How can we equate our personal 
judgements against others' judgement calls?  We really can't.  We can only 
find what works for us and hope (or become an activist) that others might 
agree (or be accepting) when it becomes controversial.

>(Which in this case must
>be orders of magnitude apart.) And that, therefore, your opposition to
>GM food is emotional or guided by some other factor, not a true
>reflection of health concerns. It makes it very difficult to take your
>opposition seriously.

That's okay.  I'd like to think my arguments could stand on their own, and 
not be influenced by personal prejudice.  But you certainly have the right 
to make any judgement call you choose to make about me or my arguments.