war of philosophies

Just recently, me, joey, tere and tin were having a bout of debate. The question, would you rather be a risktaker or stay on the sidelines?

My side:

I would rather be a risktaker. I want to know how things are done, and I want to expereince them myself, so that I'll really know my stand/judgement regarding a certain situation. I don't want to judge a thing/matter based on hearsays from others. Curiosity will itch me to try a thing. Its like, to get a feel if water in a pool is cold, I just don't like to ask, "is it cold?", and when a person says "yes", I won't hesitate not to dip my feet in the said cold water and have a feel of it. Or when you ask if it's too deep for you, then when a person says it is, I won't go out, dive in the water to know if it's really deep.

Would it be stupidity if you jump into the water and have a feel if it's really cold, or if it is deep? I'd say, it's getting to know firsthand if it's really what the person described it to be. I need to try. I just can't go on and believe. I need to have my own stand. What if it's not deep? What If I can do it. We have different capabilities, different opinions, and just mere knowing another person's stand on thing will not convince to accept it the way he/she sees it.

Joey's stand: At the first stance, when people tell me about something and they have described how it is, and it doesn't appeal to me, I would much rather not attempt to do it myself. kasi, sinabi niya nang ganun, susundin ko pa. You've already known the consequences, then why attempt to do it? It is conformity, but atleast you are safe

My stand: We all know life's an adventure, it would be plain boring if you just adhere to what other people say, and accept, without you not knowing what the consequences are. For all we know, that one thing can have an adverse/negative effect, but for you, it's just okay, it seems nothing.

Ok...to explain things in simple matter, can anybody give me concrete examples, please?