• jve@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    So if you value the fellow passengers, best move is not to risk it

    There’s a lot of big assumptions built into how you think about risk if the only possible outcomes you can conceive of are negative.

    at least not on the plane

    Oh yes the plane. Because of the implication, right?

    I just feel bad that your outlook is so sad for all of this.

    • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Well you won’t negatively affect them by not interacting with them. They are still free to talk to you, after all. The implication is a good one because they don’t know what sort of creep or angry person you might be and how you would react to rejection. You’re almost insisting on talking to the people on a situation you know might negatively affect them and where they are stuck in the situation and that just seems odd.

      • jve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I feel like you’re just reiterating your last comment as though you didn’t read mine.

          • jve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            Would you care to address any of the articles with research and numbers that I claim back me up?

            I see you don’t understand the mindset. I don’t believe you are trying to.

            • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              I don’t get how the articles “back you up” in this point

              You’re almost insisting on talking to the people on a situation you know might negatively affect them and where they are stuck in the situation and that just seems odd.

              What do the articles have to do with that?

              • jve@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                That’s because you haven’t read them.

                They have to do with the positive outcomes, which you continue to ignore, or treat as inconsequential.

                A small chance of a negative outcome does not generally outweigh a good chance of a positive outcome.

                youre almost insisting on talking

                You insist on mischaracterizing my position. Asking somebody a question ir two is hardly as insisant as you keep making it out to be.

                and that just seems odd

                To you

                  • jve@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    44 minutes ago

                    I suppose so.

                    And you have no notion about gambling theory or risk reward whatsoever? Am I inferring that correctly?