Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[thesyntaxera]

Unless she jams a thumb in your eye and runs away, I say go for it.

Or, you could just wait for "Black Swan" to come out....just a thought...

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/black-swan/trailer

 

[Furcifer]

Do you deny it? What line of "critical thinking" are you employing to suggest that one can absolutely rule out the possibility?

Of course you can't rule out the possibility. The same way you can't rule out dying in a plane crash or getting hit by lightning.

It's a question of when it becomes irrational to default to the "I always worry about getting hit by lightning" setting.

Statistically, a 30 year old woman on a bus has almost zero chance of being raped by a guy asking her out on a date.

Considering everyone that approaches as a possible rapist in this case doesn't seem very effective at preventing a rape. Given the amount of time a person spends on the bus every day, this is an unnecessary amount of worrying for a person to do.

If she's truly bothered by the amount of worrying women do every day perhaps it's better to acknowledge the statistics and simply brush the person off as a harmless creep (like he most likely is) and focus instead on the instances where there is a serious possibility of being raped?

She presents the arguments and the statistics as rape being a worry for "women" on a daily basis. That worry has diminishing return after the age of 24 and shouldn't be a concern for women familiar with the actual statistics.

That being said there's nothing wrong with what she is saying as long as it isn't consuming and doesn't interfere with otherwise healthy relationships. But there's something in the back of my mind is telling me a woman can't have a healthy relationship with a man she secretly thinks could become a rapist at any time.

 

[SatanicSheep]

Do you deny it? What line of "critical thinking" are you employing to suggest that one can absolutely rule out the possibility?

No, but for a rational person the chance can become so small as to longer warrant the same level of concearn.

For the umpteenth time, WHAT'S THE *********** DIFFERENCE? How does her "attitude" injure you or any man on the planet?

I'm sorry, but I'm getting really frustrated at the posters in this thread who keep going on as if this woman's subjective thought process is some kind of thought-crime.

Note that you can't even claim that "this man could rape me" is wrong. It's not as specific as "the probability that this man is a rapist is [very small percentage]," but it's not wrong. And it doesn't reflect "uncritical thought" as you claimed in your original post.

You honestly don't see the difference in precision between those too statements? The Rapture could happen tomorrow. The sun could also rise tomorrow. Should I ignore the probability of either of these happening and prepare for them both with equal amounts of vigor?

You can save the thought crime and injury BS, becuase nobody is saying she's not allowed to feel the way she does. I only question her line of reasoning.

 

[pitbone]

...a woman can't tell with certainty who is a rapist and who isn't, so (1) women have to take that into account; and (2) men -- even nice guys who would never rape -- ought to consider this perspective and think of how they come across.

Who said it's not "open to criticism"? Knock yourself out. But your criticism is open to criticism, too. And when your criticism appears to treat rape as "well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon," while treating "stereotyping men as potential rapists" as some terrible harm even though you've never articulated the negative consequences of it, you're going to receive some criticism.

I never made light of the problem of rape in society, not once. "well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon" are your words, not mine. I've never implied that rape wasn't a problem, I don't think I even addressed the issue, since it's not what this thread is about. I'm happy to continue this discussion, as it's challenging and educational, but will quickly stop being so if you resort to strawmen.

I'm criticizing that she's adopting "potentially a rapist, pending further evidence" as the default position. I don't think it's reasonable, and I don't think she's presented good evidence or reasoning as to why it should be considered reasonable.

You concede that she is, in fact, stereotyping men then? What makes this stereotyping okay and others not okay? Are the consequences of stereotyping not well understood in a social context? Why do have to re-iterate them here? I'm criticizing her claim and you're asking me for evidence/reasoning that my criticism is valid; I ask, what's the evidence/reasoning that her claim is valid? You proposed a syllogism to summarize her argument and I showed it to be fallacious. Do you have a further assertion? You're also adopting an increasingly passive version of her argument with each post.

'Discrimination" isn't a magic word that wins you the argument. I'll ask it again:

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THIS WOMAN DOING THAT IS HARMFUL TO ANYONE?

Is it that she isn't interested in dating strange men who totally miss or ignore her "leave me alone, please" cues? Is that the grave harm to society that we're talking about here?

Please don't type in all caps, it hurts peoples ears.

She's being antisocial. It's antisocial because it promotes division instead of unity. And yes, rape is also antisocial for the same reasons, as well as a whole slew of much worse ones. It's possible for them both to be wrong.

As I said in my original post that I found her advice to be largely good and reasonable. What I object to is it's attachment to the concept of "Schrodinger's Rapist"

 

[Dunstan]

I never made light of the problem of rape in society, not once.
"well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon" are your words, not mine.

I thought that was obvious from the context -- I put your actual words in quote tags -- but I apologize if anyone was actually misled.

I've never implied that rape wasn't a problem, I don't think I even addressed the issue, since it's not what this thread is about. I'm happy to continue this discussion, as it's challenging and educational, but will quickly stop being so if you resort to strawmen.

It's not a strawman. In my opinion, your statements are dismissive of a woman's concerns about rape.

I'm criticizing that she's adopting "potentially a rapist, pending further evidence" as the default position. I don't think it's reasonable, and I don't think she's presented good evidence or reasoning as to why it should be considered reasonable.

Some men commit rape. There is no certain way to determine which men will do this. Therefore, every man is a potential rapist, pending further evidence. I assume that you don't really dispute this part, but instead that you believe that the probability is so low that it should be disregard. To which I say: (1) easy for you to say; and (2) that's a matter of opinion, not a matter of "uncritical thinking" as has been alleged. I'm a little tired of people here trotting out "woo" and "uncritical thinking" as criticisms of every view they disagree with.

You concede that she is, in fact, stereotyping men then?

No, I don't. That was my paraphrase of your description.

What makes this stereotyping okay and others not okay? Are the consequences of stereotyping not well understood in a social context? Why do have to re-iterate them here? I'm criticizing her claim and you're asking me for evidence/reasoning that my criticism is valid; I ask, what's the evidence/reasoning that her claim is valid?

Already provided.

You proposed a syllogism to summarize her argument and I showed it to be fallacious.

No, you haven't. You quibbled with the exact statistics, and then dragged out the tired "but what if we were talking about Muslims" analogy. You haven't identified any fallacy that the author or I have proposed, because both she and I have been talking about possibilities, not certainties. "Some men are rapists, X is a man, therefore X is a rapist" is a fallacy. "Some men are rapists, X is a man, therefore X could be a rapist" is not. Nobody has claimed the former.

Do you have a further assertion? You're also adopting an increasingly passive version of her argument with each post.

I have no idea what you're saying here. I suggest that, rather than quibble over my "version" of her argument, you quote precisely what piece of advice you disagree with.

Please don't type in all caps, it hurts peoples ears.

As I said, I'm getting frustrated with the evasions on this point.

She's being antisocial. It's antisocial because it promotes division instead of unity.

Like this evasion. How is she being antisocial? By not responding positively when strangers chat her up on the subway? How is she "promoting division instead of unity"? You're speaking in vague generalities.

And yes, rape is also antisocial for the same reasons, as well as a whole slew of much worse ones. It's possible for them both to be wrong.

As I said in my original post that I found her advice to be largely good and reasonable. What I object to is it's attachment to the concept of "Schrodinger's Rapist"

And I'm still trying to figure out why.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Of course you can't rule out the possibility. The same way you can't rule out dying in a plane crash or getting hit by lightning.

It's a question of when it becomes irrational to default to the "I always worry about getting hit by lightning" setting.

Statistically, a 30 year old woman on a bus has almost zero chance of being raped by a guy asking her out on a date.

1. And equally statistically, the chances of the guy in front of you slamming the brakes on any given car trip is practically zero, but I hope you do obey the two second rule. Because there's nothing wrong with preparing for the case when someone will.

Statistically on any given sea cruise, the chances of drowning are practically zero, but they still include lifeboats and all. Because look at the Titanic for an example of what can happen when you don't have enough of those.

Statistically the chances of any given user of any given site I've programmed to be a malicious hacker are practically zero. Doubly so since the majority are B2B sites with major corporate customers as users. But I'd be still well advised to validate inputs and think twice about what could possibly go wrong if he were. Because it only takes one.

The chances of getting a lung cancer for any particular cigarette are zero. But people still give up smoking for just that reason. And you wouldn't tell someone he's stupid if he does.

2. Small individual probabilities can add up to large probabilities over a lifetime. All those individually practically zero probabilities add to 1 in 6 in the long term which is immense.

And here's the deal: tiny changes to such tiny individual probabilities also add up. If you can change one of those individual chances from, say, 0.001% to 0.0005%, you will also change your lifetime expectancy of it happening from, say, 1/6 to 1/12.

Basically dismissing the individual chance and missing the way it adds up is IMHO just gross misunderstanding of maths.

3. That 1 in 6 number is already with most women taking those great precautions. Without them, they'd probably be even higher.

Basically it's silly to dismiss a defense as superfluous because of a low risk, when the risk is low in the first place _because_ of the defense.

It's like saying "we haven't had our e-commerce site pwned in years, so we can stop checking inputs and throw those firewall appliances into the bin." Well, no, because those firewalls and checks are _why_ we weren't pwned in the first place. Or like a high security prison going "hey, we have so few successful escapes, so why are we worrying about it anyway? Let's fire those guards and save a bunch of money."

4. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. That's the way she thinks. If you want to approach her, it's only considerate to not trip her alarms.

And, wth, even without that fear, I can tell you first hand that among my collection of weird experiences, I have actually had a guy trying to pick me up. Granted, it was in my period of trolling by sending mixed or wrong signals, though I never thought I'd actually pass a gaydar test so to speak. (Heck, even that some people are actually gay was more of a theoretical thing for me at that point. I mean, I knew it existed, but, you know, somewhere else.) So I can't blame the guy much. But anyway, I'm reading a book in the park in a long pause between classes, and suddenly this guy just sits next to me although there are plenty of free benches and tries to chat me up. I mean, huh? WTH? Even without actually fearing a rape -- I must confess I even was a bit thick and very slow to get it that he actually wants sex -- it's a disruptive and worrying experience. There's someone getting into my personal space out of nowhere and interrupting what I'm doing, and you just have to consider all that could possibly go wrong there. It's the unexpected part that does it.

I see nothing wrong with telling people basically "avoid startling me if you want a good start", because, well, that's the same advice _I_ would give anyone.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As I said in my original post that I found her advice to be largely good and reasonable. What I object to is it's attachment to the concept of "Schrodinger's Rapist"

Oh, geesh, it's just a phrase to express why she's asking you to be nice. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and if you don't object to what she's actually saying, then why does it matter so much what name she puts on it?

 

[Nanny Ogg]

Years ago, at University, this topic came up during a coffee break between classes. Six women and four men discussed the idea that 1 in six women would be raped/sexually assaulted. The women in the group staunchly insisted it was higher, the men said it was lower.

Afterwards, at some point each woman contacted me and told me her own story of how she had been sexually assaulted on campus. One was drunk in her room, and a "friend" had come in while she was passed out. The others were variations on the same theme.

It was six out of six.

Anecdotal, I know. Wish it wasn't.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

I took this article to heart. From now on, when I meet a woman, I'm going to ensure her right up front that I'm not going to rape her. I'll also assure her that I'm not lying. That way she can feel completely comfortable around me. In fact, I think my new pick up line is going to be "I'm not going to rape you. I'm not lying". That sounds like a good way of breaking the ice and getting her over those first couple "is he going to rape me" moments of conversation.

The reason this article had such an impact on me, is that I too have similar fears. Some women have been known to cut off a man's penis. Now, I know that most of you women out there would never cut off a man's penis, but I have no way of knowing which of you is which. So, cute girl at the bar giving me the eyes could very well be planning to cut my penis off. Or she could want to do other things with my penis. I simply don't know. And, as you might expect, having one's penis cut off is a rather traumatic experience, usually changing a man for the rest of his life. So men are taking on a lot of risk by interacting with a woman. And, frankly, I don't think women take this into account when they interact with a guy.

So, women, when you are talking to a man, there's several things you're going to want to do so as to let him know that you're not the kind of girl to cut his penis off.

1. Don't speak unless your spoken to: This lets me know that you're not the kind of girl to act impulsively. The kind of girl who can come up with ideas on her own is the same kind that can come up with the idea to cut my penis off.

2. Avert your gaze: Being stared at is intimidating. If I feel intimidated by you, I will also feel like my penis is in danger.

3. Don't smile: If you smile I'll see your teeth, then I'll be reminded of how much damage your teeth could potentially do to my penis. Believe it or not, this is a troubling thought to most men.

4. All in all, just act submissively: You want to act as submissive as possible so that I won't get any impression of aggression from you. Aggression sometimes leads to violence, which sometimes leads to penises getting cut off. If I see you act in any way aggressive, I might assume that you're maybe the type of girl who will get violent, which means that there's some chance that you might be a penis cutter, perhaps. No matter what that chance is, it's not zero. So it's perfectly logical for me to be wary of you.

Now, I know these may seem strange, but is it really so much to ask? After all, you are the one who could potentially cut my penis off. It's my penis that's at risk here. All I'm asking is that you follow these four little rules to set my mind at ease. And, any woman who doesn't respect a man enough to follow these little rules probably doesn't respect him enough to not cut his penis off.

Oh, and I almost forgot the most important rule of all: Don't cut penises off.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Incidentally, if I'm on a hike in the Appalations and stumble upon some guys in overalls with no shirt underneath, teethless grins and banjos, I'm justified in avoiding them, with reason.

What reason would that be?
Do you think "Deliverence" is an accurate representation of behavior among Appalachian communities, on par with the depiction of a group of young men at night in a bad neighborhood as having a propensity for violent crime?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I took this article to heart. From now on, when I meet a woman, I'm going to ensure her right up front that I'm not going to rape her. I'll also assure her that I'm not lying. That way she can feel completely comfortable around me. In fact, I think my new pick up line is going to be "I'm not going to rape you. I'm not lying". That sounds like a good way of breaking the ice and getting her over those first couple "is he going to rape me" moments of conversation.

The reason this article had such an impact on me, is that I too have similar fears. Some women have been known to cut off a man's penis. Now, I know that most of you women out there would never cut off a man's penis, but I have no way of knowing which of you is which. So, cute girl at the bar giving me the eyes could very well be planning to cut my penis off. Or she could want to do other things with my penis. I simply don't know. And, as you might expect, having one's penis cut off is a rather traumatic experience, usually changing a man for the rest of his life. So men are taking on a lot of risk by interacting with a woman. And, frankly, I don't think women take this into account when they interact with a guy.

So, women, when you are talking to a man, there's several things you're going to want to do so as to let him know that you're not the kind of girl to cut his penis off.

1. Don't speak unless your spoken to: This lets me know that you're not the kind of girl to act impulsively. The kind of girl who can come up with ideas on her own is the same kind that can come up with the idea to cut my penis off.

2. Avert your gaze: Being stared at is intimidating. If I feel intimidated by you, I will also feel like my penis is in danger.

3. Don't smile: If you smile I'll see your teeth, then I'll be reminded of how much damage your teeth could potentially do to my penis. Believe it or not, this is a troubling thought to most men.

4. All in all, just act submissively: You want to act as submissive as possible so that I won't get any impression of aggression from you. Aggression sometimes leads to violence, which sometimes leads to penises getting cut off. If I see you act in any way aggressive, I might assume that you're maybe the type of girl who will get violent, which means that there's some chance that you might be a penis cutter, perhaps. No matter what that chance is, it's not zero. So it's perfectly logical for me to be wary of you.

Now, I know these may seem strange, but is it really so much to ask? After all, you are the one who could potentially cut my penis off. It's my penis that's at risk here. All I'm asking is that you follow these four little rules to set my mind at ease. And, any woman who doesn't respect a man enough to follow these little rules probably doesn't respect him enough to not cut his penis off.

Oh, and I almost forgot the most important rule of all: Don't cut penises off.

I think this is my new favorite response to these misandrist articles. Well-said.

 

[SOdhner]

Some women have been known to cut off a man's penis.

Are you being a troll, or do you actually think that that's a fair comparison? I can't imagine that it's the latter.

I think this is my new favorite response to these misandrist articles. Well-said.

Really? You think the best way to respond to someone pointing out that many people are concerned about a specific situation is to mock them and be dismissive about it, implying that the thing they are worried about only happens as rare, isolated events? And how in the world was the article misandrist?

 

[Furcifer]

I see nothing wrong with telling people basically "avoid startling me if you want a good start", because, well, that's the same advice _I_ would give anyone.

Nor do I. I think everyone has expressed the same thought on the matter, there's nothing wrong with keeping your guard up.

But the author seems to legitimize constantly worrying where perhaps only caution is warranted. It's a rather extreme position to take, especially because she uses "rape" as the reason. Let's face it, "rape" is a very strong word. Certainly women don't want to be raped, but men don't want to be considered "rapists" either.

Someone in the comments section of the article said she might prefer the term "Schrodinger's Douche Bag". I think that's much more appropriate and less inflammatory while accomplishing the exact same thing.

 

[TraneWreck]

What reason would that be?
Do you think "Deliverence" is an accurate representation of behavior among Appalachian communities, on par with the depiction of a group of young men at night in a bad neighborhood as having a propensity for violent crime?

Maybe I didn't explain it well the first time through.

Once again, if one is alone and vulnerable in an area certain behavior is understandable that would be bigoted and insulting in other contexts. I highly doubt the odds of a toothless yokel lashing a person to a tree and raping them (or just perpetrating a lesser crime, like stealing your stuff) is very high. But it is understandable if someone feels uncomfortable and tries to avoid the situation.

If you meet those same people at a busy market on a Sunday afternoon and treat them poorly, then you're being an ass.

The point is that reactions like crossing a street when one is alone and a group of young black males is approaching, or on the topic of the OP, avoiding situations involving strange men, does not reveal any deep-seated bigotry. It's just a sort of natural survival instinct.

"Odds" are the wrong way to look at this. It's just about taking precautions to avoid worst-case scenarios. The analogy to driving is a good one. One should drive assuming that the people in other cars are inept. What are the odds that the person next to you is actually inept? Likely quite low, but given the stakes, it's reasonable to behave as though the unlikely scenario is true.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

Are you being a troll, or do you actually think that that's a fair comparison? I can't imagine that it's the latter.

Neither. I was pointing out the absurdity in treating the opposite sex as if they were evil because some of them are. And especially how ridiculous it is to tell someone how they should act to avoid coming across as evil. Especially if you're going to go so far as to tell someone with strange tattoos that they shouldn't try to talk to a girl in public, but should stick to online dating. Some people aren't good at taking a hint that you want them to get lost. Some people aren't good at reading body language. Some people like strange tattoos. Some people are rapists. Let's not go mixing them all together.

 

[TraneWreck]

Are you being a troll, or do you actually think that that's a fair comparison? I can't imagine that it's the latter.



Really? You think the best way to respond to someone pointing out that many people are concerned about a specific situation is to mock them and be dismissive about it, implying that the thing they are worried about only happens as rare, isolated events? And how in the world was the article misandrist?

This is the sort of idiotic response feminists have to deal with. It makes me glad I'm not a woman. It's just inchoate, unconsidered reaction to women expressing their view of the world.

And, of course, these two trolls are welcome to approach women as though each is likely to cut off their penis. They, of course, cannot and will not do so because they're just being childish contrarians. They're mocking actual fear and suffering.

The irony of the predictable example, of course, is that John Wayne Bobbit "sexually, physically, and emotionally abused (Lorena) during their marriage. She also stated that John flaunted his infidelities, and forced her to have an abortion." Bobbit denied the allegations, he was found innocent of raping her on the night she performed her infamous surgery, but his testimony concerning the other incidents conflicted with the facts and serveral witnesses confirmed Lorena's story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt

But that's a hilarious example of how women are just as dangerous as men.

In this America where we piss ourselves and change our laws because bearded men in caves thousands of miles away say their going to hurt us (despite lacking any means to do so), I find it ironic that people so casually dismiss the most vile, ancient form of terrorism: men dominating women. A large number of women actually live with the sort of stomach-churning fear representative of a terrorized population.

If you want to experience the same thing, hop on down to the South or West Side of Chicago and walk around at night.

 

[TraneWreck]

Neither. I was pointing out the absurdity in treating the opposite sex as if they were evil because some of them are. And especially how ridiculous it is to tell someone how they should act to avoid coming across as evil. Especially if you're going to go so far as to tell someone with strange tattoos that they shouldn't try to talk to a girl in public, but should stick to online dating. Some people aren't good at taking a hint that you want them to get lost. Some people aren't good at reading body language. Some people like strange tattoos. Some people are rapists. Let's not go mixing them all together.

It's amazing how completely you missed the point of the article. She explained why, if you had a bunch of tattoos, a woman may not respond to your advances. If she does, then it's not a problem.

Your characterization of the article either shows lack of reading comprehension or some intentional twisting of the words to feed a preexisting bias.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

Maybe I didn't explain it well the first time through.

Once again, if one is alone and vulnerable in an area certain behavior is understandable that would be bigoted and insulting in other contexts. I highly doubt the odds of a toothless yokel lashing a person to a tree and raping them (or just perpetrating a lesser crime, like stealing your stuff) is very high. But it is understandable if someone feels uncomfortable and tries to avoid the situation.

If you meet those same people at a busy market on a Sunday afternoon and treat them poorly, then you're being an ass.

The point is that reactions like crossing a street when one is alone and a group of young black males is approaching, or on the topic of the OP, avoiding situations involving strange men, does not reveal any deep-seated bigotry. It's just a sort of natural survival instinct.

"Odds" are the wrong way to look at this. It's just about taking precautions to avoid worst-case scenarios. The analogy to driving is a good one. One should drive assuming that the people in other cars are inept. What are the odds that the person next to you is actually inept? Likely quite low, but given the stakes, it's reasonable to behave as though the unlikely scenario is true.

I see your point, but I disagree with you. If you cross the street when you're alone and get approached by a group of people you're using your own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If you cross the street because you're approached by a group of black people, you're being prejudiced. If I always drive like the people around me are inept, I'm using my own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If I treat the drivers around me who are female as if they're inept, I'm being prejudiced.

 

[TraneWreck]

I see your point, but I disagree with you. If you cross the street when you're alone and get approached by a group of people you're using your own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If you cross the street because you're approached by a group of black people, you're being prejudiced. If I always drive like the people around me are inept, I'm using my own judgment to try to avoid a bad situation. If I treat the drivers around me who are female as if they're inept, I'm being prejudiced.

If you want to use pejoratives to describe that reaction, then fine. We all do it when we feel vulnerable. It means very little.

That, in fact, was one of the points in the OP: if you think a woman not wanting to stop and chat with you when she's by herself at night is bigoted and prejudiced and assumes you're a rapist, you're welcome to think that. Just don't continue harassing her.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If you want to just have a generic insult, sure Schroedinger's Douchebag is just as good as any. But it fails to convey what she's trying to avoid there. She's not just trying to not meet a douchebag, she's trying to not get raped.

Plus, I still don't see the problem. She didn't say every guy _is_ a rapist, and even calculates a 1 in 60 number for actual rapists. So exactly what's the problem? Sure, I'm in a group where 1 in 60 might commit one particular criminal act. But I also know the fallacy of division. I don't have to form some kind of phalanx in defense of the kingdom of manhood when I can just say, "well, not me." Seems enough to me.

"Potential rapist" or in her expression "Schroedinger's Rapist" isn't even saying much. Sure, and she's a potential hooker, this bag of grapes I'm eating was a potential bottle of wine, and you're a potential hacker each time the site validates your login instead of just taking your word. And let's just say I threw away a perfectly good potential baby in that condom last night Some modifiers are important. You can't just take one word out of it and get in a fuss over it.

And whether or not it's worth worrying, well, that's exactly where we disagree.

If a brand of cigarettes had a 1 in 6 (or even 1 in 10, or 1 in 20) chance to give an average smoker a cancer, not only everyone would understand why one would be worried, but the majority would actually try to get them banned. Even though the risk from one individual cigarette would be rather infinitesimal.

In fact, we understand people who quit out of fear of cancer even with existing cigarettes, although the last time I saw a calculated probability it was something like 1.72% over the lifetime of a smoker.

So exactly why would we think that a 1.72% risk is understandable to worry about, but a 15% (or even 10% or 5%) risk is irrational fear?

And generally, most of the supposed reasons not to worry I've seen in this thread boil down to essentially some variant of the Sorites Paradox or rather the related fallacy of the heap. Everyone is so focused on why an individual small grain of danger shouldn't even be given a second thought that they implicitly or explicitly deny the heap of danger that's accumulated even just from 16 to 24 years old, one grain at a time. It's that heap that worries her.