Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
12-03-2012, 09:59 AM
Join Date: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by
His point is that it's ridiculous to classify everything as risk.
If you do want to do that, then at least you should categorize risk.
Someone going for a walk at midnight does not take the same risk as someone deciding to invest 30K in a stock. Not comparable.
What isn't comparable? financial risk to health risk, or the level of risk?
i didn't classify everything as risk, i said that there is risk behind every choice you make, no matter how low the probability.
Your "life choice" is just you computing what choice has lower level of risk/higher upside. doesn't make the "risks" disappears.
Basically, if i understood correctly, your stance is that players made a "life choice" and should not ecounter any risks, and should not bother dealing with/looking for potential risks as oposed to investors, who make choices based on risk calculations, and not a "choice". it's the same thing.
You make a choice, it can go your way, or another, wethere it's "stocks" or "going for stroll at night". The upside is there, and the downside is there too; both are exactly the same. When one makes "life choices" it's usually because you tend to ignore possibilities of risk, or just decide beat the "risks", and just "go for it". Kind of like an instinctual analysis of risk/benifit ratio.
Which brings me to the same point yet again, risk on either side, should not be used as an argument into what each side should rightfully get. Argument should/is about whos responsible of bringing in what % of revenues, and that it reflects in either side's income.
Last edited by uiCk: 12-03-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by uiCk