"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
>> >> >> instinctive in all organisms.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia
>> >> > meter
>> >> > is
>> >> > just going off the scale.
>> >> >
>> >> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an
>> >> > imagine
>> >> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
>> >>
>> >> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
>> >> carefully
>> >> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>>
>> Then stop trying so hard.
>>
>> > Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
>> > unlikely to be different.
>>
>> Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.
>>
>> > What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the
>> > likelihood
>> > of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
>> > act more likely to happen?
>>
>> Absolutely incoherent.
>>
>> > Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
>> > reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
>> > chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of
>> > us.
>>
>> All righty then...
>
> I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.

I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance, which
I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.