Started By
Message

re: If you choose to expose yourself to risk, don't you deserve the consequence?

Posted on 5/9/16 at 12:05 pm to
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
85396 posts
Posted on 5/9/16 at 12:05 pm to
quote:

So much in politics and current political thought is based on the idea of "enforcing Karma." It seems that there is a need in certain risk averse people to see people who take risks suffer the bad consequences of taking the risk. They just never to see themselves suffer any such consequences.

After all, if you choose to drive your family to Florida instead of flying, don't you "deserve" to get in a wreck, lose them all, survive and suffer a spinal injury, remaining a quadraplegic for the remainder of your life?


Well put. Similarly, do you deserve to die if you join the military?

The bottom line is that people should be sympathetic within reason - there is no black and white answer. You cannot equate having all your investments in penny stocks to walking down the sidewalk in a bad part of town. In one situation you are taking on a risk/reward decision that should compensate you accordingly over the long run, but you can get burned as well. That is an acceptable trade off. In the other, there are no acceptable outcomes that end with murder, assault, or being mugged. No one who is innocently walking down an American street deserves that, ever.

If you heard the story about the Tulane student and thought "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", then you should probably see a psychologist.
Posted by lsunurse
Member since Dec 2005
129047 posts
Posted on 5/9/16 at 12:12 pm to
I just think you are a sociopath if you think other people's true suffering (violence, disease, debilitating conditions, etc) is a source of comedy to you. You clearly lack the capacity to feel compassion and empathy towards others.

I mean I get that many on here act "hard" cause it's a message board and they want to elicit approval and attention from others. But I really hope many of them don't ACTUALLY feel that way.

Posted by Kujo
225-911-5736
Member since Dec 2015
6015 posts
Posted on 5/9/16 at 12:25 pm to
quote:

That is an acceptable trade off


and what's the industry standard for acceptability?

I only use this as an example:

Say only 30% of a certain demographic is actively involved in first 10 years of their child's life and another demographic is at 75%....if you were to choose a demographic to have a child with, which logically would you choose?

If you become a single parent and you chose someone from the lower probability demographic should I have more/less/equal sympathy for you if you were to have chosen someone from the higher probability union?

Was there an acceptable trade-off...or just the assumption of an unnecessary risk?

Also, if demand for the lower probability investment decreased...wouldn't that investment need to yield a higher rate of return to have logical people re-invest in them?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram