Memory safety is:

1. Foundational for other forms of safety

2. Has an objective definition, when some other forms of safety are either subjective or inter-subjective.

That said, I don't understand why your parent brought this up to you, you are talking about memory safety in your original comment here, so that's what Rust's safety is about.

> Why do we want a very specific form of safety instead of wanting safety in general?

Because a “very specific form of safety” is a useful tool in achieving “safety in general”

Because a “very specific form of safety” is tractable for a compiler and language runtime to achieve, “safety in general” isn’t

> safety in general

This is impossible. General words like "safe" and "good" are subjective, and useless in a technical context unless you ground the discussion by giving them specific definitions. Otherwise everyone ends up talking past each other.