Originally Posted by schoy
Your examples are different. No one can control the weather. Here, there was an engine fire, and someone (i.e. the cruise company) is clearly at fault. Are we supposed to just suck it up and let cruise companies get away with poor maintenance? Again, just wondering ...
Sure, accidents happen, but this wasn't an accident. This was likely the result of negligence. Does that change your analysis? Would your analysis change if this was the result of arson?
No it doesn't. Government and companies can't plan for and prevent every possible situation. The individual however, can mitigate as much or as little risk as they want.
So your in depth investigation has determined that the fire was due to negligence, huh? Sure about that? Could it have been a part failure? Could it possible have been a brand new faulty part the cruise line decided to change in the name of preventative maintenance? People are crazy enough to shoot up theaters, why not set fire to a ship with intentions of it sinking?
The fact of the matter is that the fire could be the result of any number of reasons, including arson. People chose to take a cruse and the more time passes the more people forget that life involves risk everyday. The more time passes the more people think that companies and governments have made a completely safe world for them to live in and enjoy. That's NOT life.
Call me crazy, paranoid or what you will but when i travel i take items with me that i may need should the situations take a nose dive. The less control i'll have during that vacation and the more remote the destination, the more contingency i prepare for.
You call it what you want, i'll call it being responsible for my actions and decisions. The less people do this the more disappointed they will be when things turn south. If i take a cruse, i know the weather may not be good, the seas may not be kind, the ship may have mechanical difficulties, and i know the other passengers will be floating along in their own little false utopian world.