Quote:
Originally Posted by markharf
My name for this is "wishful thinking."
Two of us have described situations in which we believe we would have done serious damage in the absence of MX boots. Neither involved getting run over.
|
The key word there is 'believe', you cannot prove or indeed know yourself that you would have suffered serious injury had you not been wearing motox boots. It could be viewed that your belief is wishful thinking, justifying the money you spent and discomfort experienced from traveling with your motox boots.
This is the 'debate' that I'm not interested in having, where you assert something that's purely opinion, then I assert a contradictory opinion, then we keep repeating ourselves ad nauseum.
Quote:
In risk analysis, which is what we're doing here, there's an almost universal phenomenon in which the negative event--in this case, absence of foot or lower leg injury--is used to justify continuing to do what's been done in the past.
|
But to an extent you are doing the same thing, by choosing to conclude that when you have had an accident whilst wearing motox boots and not suffered injury, that the boots have prevented an injury you'd have otherwise experienced, and therefore you should continue wearing motox boots in order ensure that you are similarly protected in any future accidents.
|