Originally Posted by
chipcom
This is one example of why I maintain that cycling is not dangerous...but people's lapses when operating a bicycle can make it dangerous. This is a quandry for me...how do I tell people cycling isn't dangerous in one breath, then in the next tell them that they need to treat it as if it is dangerous, because not doing so can make it...dangerous?
Isn't that one definition of "dangerous," though? Here's what I mean:
I maintain that nuclear power is not dangerous, but people's lapses when operating nuclear power plants can make it dangerous. How do I tell people nuclear power isn't dangerous in one breath, then in the next tell them that they need to treat it as if it is dangerous, because not doing so can make it dangerous?
I don't mean to be crabby or argumentative, more just mulling the issue. I suppose you could dodge the false dualism (dangerous: yes/no) and tell people it's more inherently dangerous than X but less inherently dangerous than Y. After all, is there anything that people
can't screw up in some dangerous way?
I maintain that peanut butter isn't dangerous.