[steve_adams_86]

> becomes worth it to risk the ship

There are a lot of human beings on those ships. It strikes me as awful that their lives would be risked under these circumstances, and that happening wouldn't really be a proper solution to the overarching problem. It would be something of a tragedy if things got so severe that the risk was assumed worthwhile and presumably, people on board were exposed to it outside of their will or control. I suspect many of them don't have a lot of options.

[foxglacier]

People kept sailing past the Houthis even though some ships got attacked. They sailed past Somali pirates too. So ships obviously tolerate some level of risk from violence.

[megous]

Yeah, Ansar Allah were quite nice even when attacking the civilian ships. Not a lot of victims.

Iran is not very nice to the ships, judging from videos and results of attacks.

There's a very noticeable difference. There are no parties, music videos, ship tours to abducted ships... with Iran, etc.

With Iran, the ships end up like this https://t.me/QudsNen/216170 or this https://t.me/presstv/179430

[throwawaytea]

100 people will die on American roads today, and another tomorrow. Most of them die because they commute to work because a lower paying job closer, or a smaller dwelling near their job, isn't that appealing. Another portion will die because driving aggressively and fast seemed fun. Another portion will die because they like alcohol more than safety.

[steve_adams_86]

Yes, but I don't think we should accept these deaths either, and I see them as worth preventing and avoiding as well.

I also see false equivalence here in that the risk of death doesn't seem fungible. You're taking an aggregate death toll distributed across hundreds of millions of people, involving totally different voluntariness and causal structures.

[genxy]

Thank you for your service. I mean it.