Should it be against the law to participate in dangerous activities?

This debate started on a boxing topic, but I would like to get some other viewpoints on this issue.

Do you favor personal freedoms or do you favor government restrictions on freedom? Please explain the reasons for your answer as well.

---

Here are some unedited excerpts from the other conversation:

IceNine said:

herbthe4 said:

You are 100% right, Herb... as usual. It never ceases to amaze me how some people will sit around and condemn boxing... as far as I know, the boxers are willing participants and actually CHOSE to be boxers. As far as injuries go in boxing, sure there are some minor injuries, some serious injuries and rarely someone dies. People have been seriously injured, paralyzed or died in Football too...

A question for the bleeding heart types: should all activities in which the willing participants have the possibility of being injured be outlawed, or should these participants be allowed their human right to freedom of choice and be allowed to do as they please?

I, for one, am sick of hearing people call out for restrictions on our basic human freedoms and rights...

...
[This message was edited Wed Sep 18 5:04:20 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

TheMax said:

See ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) all for your "entertainment."

Quick, bleeding hearts... outlaw quantum physics and cosmology before someone else ends up like Stephen Hawking.

EDIT: Stephen Hawking is one of the most brilliant people who has ever lived and he is a hero of mine. No disrespect is meant to professor Hawking.
...

From TheMax:

IceNine said:

...
[This message was edited Wed Sep 18 5:06:35 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

From herbthe4:

herbthe4 said:

IceNine said:

herbthe4 said:

Where does everyone else stand on this?

IceNine said:

I think a sport whose summum consists of injuring the brain of your opponent to the point of rendering him unconscious is open to criticism in this day and age. As beautiful and skilled as boxing can be, It doesn't make me feel good that some of these guys retire with debilitating neurological conditions. Therefore, I personally choose not to be an avid spectator of boxing.

As for the economic argument, it is an understandable but hollow one. Becoming a hitman can be a way out too, but you don't see people go "Man.. It was either this or POVERTY!"
[This message was edited Wed Sep 18 5:41:37 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

Aerogram said:

Actually, a mafia hitman for the Gambino crime family named Richard Kuklinski said exactly that... and he killed approximately 125 people for the family.

Does this mean that I agree with it? No. He was doing harm to others who were not willingly involved in mutal sportsmanship. At least boxers know what they are getting into and are aware of the risks associated with it.

Certain natural consequences occur no matter what the hell u do. Riding without a helmet... if your in an accident there are very strict insurance laws that prohibit claims. Plus u bust u r fuckin head wide open on the pavement.

Riding without a seatbelt... most policies refuse to pay out over 5,000 - 10,000 in damages for your injuries. Having my internal organs implode into a steering wheel does not sound like fun either.

With any extreem sport there are specific clauses in life insurance policies that will not allow accidental death claims. I had to buy a seperate policy for me cause i climb. It is considered an extreem sport even though one is moving at a snails pace. Unless ofcourse one falls.


I like boxing because its an adrenaline rush...such as with any fast moving sport. Its not going to get outlawed.

I dont think it should be outlawed...heck, i think *all* illegal drugs should be legalized...

however, i dont watch, support or find boxing interesting...maybe one day boxers will see the risks and be less inclined to participate...maybe one day people will look at the sport for what it is, mindless brutality...

i doubt it, but a boy can dream...right?

In related news:

Senate Committee Set To Pass Boxing Commission Bill
By Eddie Goldman (September 18, 2002)

---
The next step towards the establishment of a national boxing commission in the U.S. will be taken on Thursday, Sept. 19, when the Senate Commerce Committee votes on the Professional Boxing Amendments Act, S. 2550. This bill, which would create the United States Boxing Administration to oversee professional boxing, is sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and co-sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND). The bi-partisan sponsorship and lack of any organized opposition make the bill's passage by the Senate Commerce Committee a virtual certainty.

Less clear, however, is what priority the entire Senate will give this bill. If it is brought up for a vote in the Senate and passed, it will then need to be introduced in the House of Representatives, passed there, and then signed by the President in order to become a law.

Thursday's Senate Commerce Committee hearing will begin at 10 AM EDT, and is open to the public. The location is room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in Washington. According to the press office of Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), the Commerce Committee's chairman, consideration of the Professional Boxing Amendments Act is expected to take place during the first hour of the hearing.

This hearing will also be webcast live. The audio can be heard on the web site CapitolHearings.org. Real Player is needed to be able to listen to it.

Below is a press release issued by Sen. McCain's office about this hearing and the bill.

MEDIA ADVISORY
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
Contact: Pia Pialorsi 202-224-2670

Committee to Vote on Boxing Bill Establishing Federal Administration

Washington, DC - The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will vote on S. 2550, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act on Thursday, September 19. The bill creates a federal entity to work with state and tribal commissions to oversee the boxing industry.

"I am very pleased this important bill is on the agenda for Thursday," McCain said. "We need this legislation to ensure that rules are enforced to protect athletes and the sport as a whole."

In a September 16 letter to Senator McCain, Muhammad Ali said, "Promotional agreements remain largely unregulated, uniformity of standards has not been fully achieved and some commissions refuse to assume jurisdiction over violations of the Act. Fortunately, there appears to be an emerging consensus within the professional boxing community that such reform is necessary, and that the time has come for the creation of a federal presence in the sport in the form of the United States Boxing Administration."

The proposed federal entity, the United States Boxing Administration (USBA), would be headed by an Administrator appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. USBA's primary functions would be to protect the health, safety and general interests of boxers.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Ranking Republican of the Committee, introduced the bill on May 22. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is an original co-sponsor.

NASCAR,SKIING,shit... THE OLIMPICS, FOOTBALL,etc.etc.
if i was sited for all the dagerous activities i participate in, i would never see the lite of day.
I Don't Like to see the unnessisary death of anyone,
however, SHIT HAPPENS and that's in any walk of life.
we are free to take our chances at anything we want...
and so shall it be!!!

00769BAD said:

Damned right again, BadLad! You are always on point.

IceNine said:

Hitmen often kill other mobsters, who certainly knew what they were getting into and were aware of the risks associated with the business. Almost all the murders in The Godfather are mobster on mobster crimes.

Aerogram said:

Kuklinski killed a random man walking his dog in order to get in with the Gambino crime family... he also killed people just to test out new ways of killing... innocent people...

Kuklinski is not a nice guy... you are right about many of his hits being mafia-related, but he would do contract work for anyone who wanted someone killed. He didn't care about the reasons...

shouldn't be against the law. but it should be against the law for anyone to sue over injury or death from dangerous activity.

nothing gives me more glee than to hear when people doing stupid shit die from it.

DORA said:

This tickles my fancy. Surely I'm not the only one that finds this hilarious?

Icenine, I'm with you on this. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want of their own free will (when the risk is to themselves).

There perhaps should only be laws preventing children from exrtreme sports etc until they are old enough to make an informed decision.

bkw said:

Exactly. Children should be protected but adults should be responsible for themselves!

IceNine said:

You mean like changing a light bulb while standing in a basin of water?

Why, yes. Yes it should.

some adults are too stupid to think above a child's level, and maybe should be protected from themselves too. check out the darwin awards for some examples.

but, i think people should be able to do what they want, as loong as they aren't infringing on anyone's enjoyment of life, and as long as they take full responsibility for their won actions. government is not our parent

IceNine said:

Well, there a few things we try to stop everyone from doing, no matter their age.. and even if it only hurts them. Like we try not to let people slash their wrists at the bus stop, right? Here in Canada, someone who hurts himself/herself has to go to a publicly-funded hospital, so it's not really in the public interest to let all adults do what the hell they please. There are some safety laws that I think are totally justified, such as wearing your seat belt or an helmet. I don't think these laws limit personal freedom significantly, all things considered. I'm also not in favor of employers letting their workers operate without observing safety regulations. They may only hurt themselves, but I don't care -- we owe it to ourselves to do things as smartly and safely as we can.

The problem is where do you draw the line? I have no problem with boxing, but to simply say "Let all adults do what they want" is not really a smart option, if only for the fact that people who engage in unsafe activities often have no way of predicting they will only hurt themselves, and not others.
[This message was edited Wed Sep 18 18:14:01 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

Boxing still sux.

I agree that adults should be able to do stupid dangerous things if they want to.

I do think there can be tricky ares. For instance, I think people should be allowed to drug themselves into oblivion if they want. The thing is, certain activities, like drug use, inherently cause bad judgement, which can easily lead to things that are harmful to others, ie. drunk/stoned people getting into cars. If there were a pill to take that was lots of fun, and a side effect was to make you into a murderering psycho, should it be legal? Nah. But what if it only makes 50% of people into murdering psychos 50% of the time? Still no? What about 5% of the time? You see the problem.

My personal feeling is that we should err on the side of letting people be free. Life is dangerous.

Doves,
mel!ssa

An interesting thread derived from the recent boxing discussion. As I've mentioned before, there will always be a spectrum of risk tolerance that varies by individuals and societies. I don't post here to try to change the minds of people like IceNine - a seemingly impossible task. Rather, I use the org as a forum for the exchange of ideas - if I'm able to learn from you, then maybe you can learn from me.

I also engage in some dangerous activities, like driving, as a matter of necessity. Other hazardous activities, like snowboarding, attract me for the thrill factor. At work, some of the things I do are also dangerous, but it's how I make a living. So how can I make sense of a seemingly arbitrary ban on boxing? How is a private participation in a dangerous activity different from a more public activity that involves the desire to hurt another person?

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the goals of professional boxing (to hurt or disable one's opponent) and the sport's disregard for personal safety (the absence of protective helmets) are features that set it apart from other sports.

Some have mentioned auto-racing - it can be VERY dangerous too. But unlike boxing, auto-racing embraces safety improvements. Compared to years ago, drivers now wear helmets and fire-proof clothing, and the cars are being continuously improved to protect the drivers. If the rules were more like boxing, drivers would be unrestrained, and the goal would be to run competitors off the course with the hope of hurting or killing them. Would anyone stand for that today? Would we laud the drivers for being especially skillfully dangerous to their opponents?

What about baseball? What if the batter did not wear a protective helmet? How many direct hits to the head with a 100mph fastball would we as a society tolerate before we demanded protection from senseless injury? Would it matter if the participants were willing to play under such circumstances? What if fighting among players was encouraged because the fans "liked it"? Who are we as a society? Think of how many ways we are different, hopefully more enlightened, than past societies.

So in my personal life, I take precautions. When I drive, I wear a seatbelt. When I snowboard, I now wear a helmet (I didn't always, until I learned more about the risks of serious head injuries). And at work, I take special steps to avoid dangerous situations. For those who are willing to take chances in their personal lives, how many of those activities are legal: drug abuse, speeding, driving without a seatbelt, or bungee-jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge? Would we really be better off as a society "legalizing" these sorts of dangerous activities? In my opinion, no.

If it's okay for two people to beat one another up in a boxing ring, why don't we allow them to face off with weapons? Where do you draw the line? For me, professional boxing is needlessly dangerous in an era when we are better informed than ever before regarding the risks of repetitive head injuries. In my opinion, we can do better. We can advance the state of the art for safety in boxing, just as we have done in virtually all other sports.

___

IceNine said:

Yes, and let's try not to confuse 125 acts of murder with 2 men (or women) facing off in a boxing ring. I find the comparison invalid. Murder is illegal. So is assault, which I guess you could argue pertins to boxing, but so is speeding except in a sanctioned road race. We're not talking about a fight to the death here.

XxAxX said:

I would argue, quite seriously, that those people had it coming and probably spared the a few innocent people from their dangerous behaviour by taking themselves out of the mix. I feel better knowing that they're not driving next to me on the freeway or working at an airport.