> 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.