Now he's hit about that right time and I don't know if he even still has the desire. Age changes a lot of that. Still, it does seem like he made the responsible choice to me.
I'm not certain if this is an argument for or against, given how much I'm in the same "too tired" boat.
I've discovered that I now get too fearful while climbing, too scared something bad might happen and I'd leave my children without me in the world.
It breaks my concentration, makes my actions erratic, and most crucially, makes me not enjoy it.
Who knows how I'll feel once they're older, but I suspect it won't ever change back. And that's OK.
That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks.
And yes, I know many cases are a lot less than desirable.
(When did people start to think money is a good substitute for everything?)
I didn't say it was. See my response to wfunction.
> That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks.
Yeah, because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.
You clearly have a belief system which is risk adverse and that's fine but i find it a little judgemental on other people's family lives to be saying what's reasonable and not reasonable to do as a father.
Well, I'm not the one who said what the father did was unreasonable, so you might have meant to reply to someone else. I merely said I thought the argument provided for that stance was reasonable. Happy to say the same about an argument for the opposite stance as well when I see it too. The fact that I might find an argument reasonable that doesn't mean I find it convincing and necessarily agree with the conclusion.
No, the poster you're responding to does not 'clearly' have that. That's your opinion, and nothing more.
That's not what I said. What I said was that it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. You have to balance the risk against the potential cost. That is perfectly compatible with there being a cost that can't be made good with money. And it's also perfectly compatible with minimizing the cost--yes, you can't replace a father with money, but you can make the impact as bearable as possible by ensuring that money is not a problem.
Says the guy who translated "actively go around risking your life" into "taking risks"?
You should probably avoid things that cause life insurance rates to jump up. That's a good barometer for excessive risk.
>Even if you have life insurance?
Parents and money are not substitute goods. Life insurance is helpful for financial security, but it doesn't account for the detriment to being raised by a single parent.
That's at least a reasonable criterion. I would be interested to see data on the impact of cave diving on life insurance rates.
> Parents and money are not substitute goods.
I already agreed with that upthread.
Without actually taking a stance on the topic, it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents, i.e. it's not just your life you're messing around with. When they stop being your dependents, do whatever you want, it's just your life now (and I guess your spouse's, who is presumably fine with what you do).