[wfunction]

>> it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents

> That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks.

Yeah, because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.

[rbg246]

That's a bit out of order.

You clearly have a belief system which is risk adverse and that's fine but i find it a little judgemental on other people's family lives to be saying what's reasonable and not reasonable to do as a father.

[wfunction]

> You clearly have a belief system which is risk adverse and that's fine but i find it a little judgemental on other people's family lives to be saying what's reasonable and not reasonable to do as a father.

Well, I'm not the one who said what the father did was unreasonable, so you might have meant to reply to someone else. I merely said I thought the argument provided for that stance was reasonable. Happy to say the same about an argument for the opposite stance as well when I see it too. The fact that I might find an argument reasonable that doesn't mean I find it convincing and necessarily agree with the conclusion.

[CryptoFascist]

"You clearly have a belief system which is risk adverse"

No, the poster you're responding to does not 'clearly' have that. That's your opinion, and nothing more.

[pdonis]

> because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.

That's not what I said. What I said was that it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. You have to balance the risk against the potential cost. That is perfectly compatible with there being a cost that can't be made good with money. And it's also perfectly compatible with minimizing the cost--yes, you can't replace a father with money, but you can make the impact as bearable as possible by ensuring that money is not a problem.

[wfunction]

> That's not what I said.

Says the guy who translated "actively go around risking your life" into "taking risks"?

[pdonis]

What's the difference?

[hueving]

Your life being the thing on the line.

[pdonis]

Since I talked about life insurance, obviously I'm talking about cases where your life is on the line. So does that mean you should never do anything that might get you killed if you have children? Even if you have life insurance?

[hueving]

>So does that mean you should never do anything that might get you killed if you have children?

You should probably avoid things that cause life insurance rates to jump up. That's a good barometer for excessive risk.

>Even if you have life insurance?

Parents and money are not substitute goods. Life insurance is helpful for financial security, but it doesn't account for the detriment to being raised by a single parent.

[wfunction]

That's more valuably left as an exercise for the reader.

[pdonis]

In other words, you're unwilling to back up what you say.

[wfunction]

Yeah, because I realized it's useless. Thankfully others seem to be doing it anyway. Or perhaps I should say sadly, knowing they're just feeding a troll.