Well for starters it wasn't an official safari, she was on an unofficial tour with an unofficial tour guide, whose been charged.
The charge seems to be not operating with a license. So your theory is that she could have gone with a licensed tour operator, but that she knowingly went with one who wasn't "to prove that she wasn't racist"?
Secondly, other women have done bike trips, or hikes in places with dangerous places to show a lack of danger
I know people claimed that afterwards. But if this was their actual motivation.
I don't have a motivation at all. I don't know anything about her case. I said the commenter is making an assumption.
Other people have claimed to take dangerous routes, or gone to dangerous places for stated reasons akin to showing dangerous areas are safer than advertised.
If the plan is unnecessarily going off the beaten path to prove a political point, then announce this on social media it's not assumed.
Other people have claimed to take dangerous routes, or gone to dangerous places for stated reasons akin to showing dangerous areas are safer than advertised.
Not quite. Or you have seen different things than I have. Are you sure that this wasn't people claiming this after their deaths? The right has this problem of believing anything posted by anons on social media.
If the plan is unnecessarily going off the beaten path to prove a political point, then announce this on social media it's not assumed.
If. But I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with a 'poltiical point'.
I would too. I suspect it's got nothing to do with that either though. These are just people out for adventure, also a modern pathology.
Hell, I concede that you might even be able to find them saying "it's not as unsafe as they claim". I've been to (way safer) places that my very safety-conscious family criticized for me, and my response was: it's not as unsafe as you think. That is me covering my ---. Not trying to prove a point. So to assert that the whole motivation was "to prove that it's not unsafe" is a bit much.
People are selfish and self-interested (even if that is a thrill for novelty). They don't put their own lives at risk to prove some sort of weird point. They may dress up their self-interest as humanitarianism or defend it, but that's very different from that being the actual reason.
The charge seems to be not operating with a license. So your theory is that she could have gone with a licensed tour operator, but that she knowingly went with one who wasn't "to prove that she wasn't racist"?
I know people claimed that afterwards. But if this was their actual motivation.
I don't have a motivation at all. I don't know anything about her case. I said the commenter is making an assumption.
Other people have claimed to take dangerous routes, or gone to dangerous places for stated reasons akin to showing dangerous areas are safer than advertised.
If the plan is unnecessarily going off the beaten path to prove a political point, then announce this on social media it's not assumed.
Not quite. Or you have seen different things than I have. Are you sure that this wasn't people claiming this after their deaths? The right has this problem of believing anything posted by anons on social media.
If. But I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with a 'poltiical point'.
I suppose they wouldn't call it a political point, but a mission of humanitarians or something. But I'd call those political.
I would too. I suspect it's got nothing to do with that either though. These are just people out for adventure, also a modern pathology.
Hell, I concede that you might even be able to find them saying "it's not as unsafe as they claim". I've been to (way safer) places that my very safety-conscious family criticized for me, and my response was: it's not as unsafe as you think. That is me covering my ---. Not trying to prove a point. So to assert that the whole motivation was "to prove that it's not unsafe" is a bit much.
People are selfish and self-interested (even if that is a thrill for novelty). They don't put their own lives at risk to prove some sort of weird point. They may dress up their self-interest as humanitarianism or defend it, but that's very different from that being the actual reason.