A discussion in the covid thread got me thinking about this.
Generally, if there's a bonehead thing that you can do to hurt yourself or others, it gets legislated to be illegal, regardless of whether it's strongly enforced or not. For example, you're not allowed to drive drunk or not have balcony rails or climb power poles.
But there are some things that I think are dangerous, but they're not illegal. For example, you can legally hurtle yourself off a cliff into the ocean for recreation, which seems dangerous to me. That one guy a while back jumped out of a plane without a parachute, which was apparently not illegal at all.
There are some things that are dangerous, but they're an occupation. You can launch yourself into space on a rocket and that's fine as long as you get launch permits. Or you can go be a fuel truck driver in Iraq. Apparently a lot of risky stuff is legal if it supports the economy. Or maybe it's just not risky to the extent that the risk outweighs the rewards.
It's not illegal to stick a fork in your breaker box, or at least I don't think it is. So there's another category that's pretty much rampant stupidity, and that's mostly legal because apparently our society doesn't mind a little Darwinism. And if you make it illegal to stick forks in breaker boxes, it's probably not going to stop the people who do it.
Stuff like skydiving seems dangerous and it's legal, but statistically it's not very dangerous.
So I'm not sure how to ask the question other than to just ask it. What's the most dangerous thing that you do that's not illegal? And do you do it because you have to do so to earn a living, or is it something recreational, or is it something where you're just a knucklehead? [Reply]
We see those videos of Russian people standing on high towers and ledges, and I think the act itself is not illegal. It's usually trespassing, but that's a different crime. I don't think they'd get arrested for "illegal precipice standing", or would they? Maybe it's also not illegal because society's not really concerned about the 100 people nationwide who do that sort of thing.
Oh, and I guess it's not all that different than that guy who free-climbed up that cliff face in Yosemite. That guy did something dangerous and he was a hero for 12 minutes. So what's the difference? Is it because he did something to stretch the boundaries of human accomplishments? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
We see those videos of Russian people standing on high towers and ledges, and I think the act itself is not illegal. It's usually trespassing, but that's a different crime. I don't think they'd get arrested for "illegal precipice standing", or would they? Maybe it's also not illegal because society's not really concerned about the 100 people nationwide who do that sort of thing.
Oh, and I guess it's not all that different than that guy who free-climbed up that cliff face in Yosemite. That guy did something dangerous and he was a hero for 12 minutes. So what's the difference? Is it because he did something to stretch the boundaries of human accomplishments?
Arent the people on towers trespassing?
But yeah I see the point of the comparison. I respect those people who can do that but I dont feel the need for that thrill haha [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
We see those videos of Russian people standing on high towers and ledges, and I think the act itself is not illegal. It's usually trespassing, but that's a different crime. I don't think they'd get arrested for "illegal precipice standing", or would they? Maybe it's also not illegal because society's not really concerned about the 100 people nationwide who do that sort of thing.
Oh, and I guess it's not all that different than that guy who free-climbed up that cliff face in Yosemite. That guy did something dangerous and he was a hero for 12 minutes. So what's the difference? Is it because he did something to stretch the boundaries of human accomplishments?
Part of it is because he was extremely experienced and though the act itself is crazy, for him it wasn’t reckless at all. He had every move memorized and was doing something where he was basically in control the whole time. It’s also clear it wasn’t just a social media stunt like those other crazy things you referenced. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
Part of it is because he was extremely experienced and though the act itself is crazy, for him it wasn’t reckless at all. He had every move memorized and was doing something where he was basically in control the whole time. It’s also clear it wasn’t just a social media stunt like those other crazy things you referenced.
Oh, that's an interesting point. Maybe society disapproves of recklessness as opposed to disapproving of danger.
I really like that as a judging criteria. You may have nailed it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Oh, that's an interesting point. Maybe society disapproves of recklessness as opposed to disapproving of danger.
I really like that as a judging criteria. You may have nailed it.
Wouldnt recklessness be subjective though as far as society would be concerned? I think stuff Travis Pastrana does is reckless and dangerous but also highly skilled and people love him haha.
Occupational though I'd throw in those guys who change bulbs on cell towers.... holy cow! [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lprechaun:
Wouldnt recklessness be subjective though as far as society would be concerned? I think stuff Travis Pastrana does is reckless and dangerous but also highly skilled and people love him haha.
Occupational though I'd throw in those guys who change bulbs on cell towers.... holy cow!
There's probably some subjectivity, but I think it's also a more clear line. There's planning involved to not hurt yourself or others, and it's happening ahead of time and in a clear-headed manner. That doesn't mean that it's not high risk, but it's managed risk.
I'm sure we could find some gray areas, but I think the gray areas will be more constrained than defining "dangerous". [Reply]
