On a world without zero risk...

[BLueRibbon]

Decriminalizing AMSC should not require zero risk of harm.

https://www.brianribbon.com/short-takes ... -zero-risk

[FairBlueLove]

Great article, Brian.

Risk-taking might seem bad on the surface, but it's actually super important for growth. These days, we're basically coddling kids in 'developed' countries by shielding them from all risks. It's not helping them learn to handle even small problems as adults: resilience is dying out fast. My parents had way more resilience than me; I'm a little better than my kids, but still... It's a sad trend that's gonna make a whole generation of crybaby adults. Meanwhile, kids in developing countries might be growing up tougher and are probably destined to take over the world.

Logic won't easily get around that, but by dealing with these issues logically, and still failing to persuade, at least we can shine a light on what the prohibition of AMSC really is.

Crucially, it is revealing that logic fails to persuade even those who act rationally in any other respect.

[Kierkegaard]

When people say minors can't consent because sex with adults entails too great a risk of harm, I like to ask them if they think minors can consent to playing high-school football. Unlike sex, being a football player is guaranteed to result in lasting physical harm no matter what precautions are taken. It's like smoking cigarettes. There's no safe amount. Less time spent playing football will result in less damage overall, but even a single season of football is harmful to some degree. There is not a single person who played football for 4 years in high-school who came out of it without any brain damage whatsoever.

The intrinsic risk of harm entailed by playing highschool football is greater than the extrinsic, potential risk of harm involved in willingly having sex with someone, but nobody ever questions if minors are capable of consenting to play football, because it's a culturally acceptable pastime which people place positive value on.