I refuse to allow myself to be drawn into debate, again. I've been warned by Steve about defending my positions, and I will not. I'll simply state them.
My position is not clear, apparently. I do not advocate that people should do or not do things that they think inappropriate, after careful consideration. Many people do not give careful consideration.
I rebel against people telling people "what they should do", in terms of CHOICES. "I don't feel safe without XXX, so YOU should not go out without XXX either" is the typical sentiment.
It is simple to contrive scenarios or quote examples of things that go wrong that might have been salvaged by some technology or other.
I am not a Luddite, rejecting all technology. But I understand that there are those who feel that people who live under a continual safety blanket have not actually lived. I may not entirely agree now that I'm older, but I understand the point of view. What I disagree with is the position that those people (commonly called Adventurers) are illegitimate in their viewpoint.
