on further reflection i agree. anything that prevents morons from reproducing and creating more morons is a good thing imo.

Aerogram said:

Man, do i love it when someone makes my point for me. Your bust stop suicide example is a case in point. The reason that's a problem is because it takes place in a public place, and represents both a health hazard and as well as a psychological risk for any unwilling witnesses. I argue that you should be free to slit your own writst in your own home. It's your life - or lack of one.



Really, they do, all things considered.



I think you've done it again. In your example, THE EMPLOYER is responsible for SOMEONE ELSE"S SAFETY. Therein lies the difference. In this case the employer owes it to the employee to provide a safe and smart working environement. If you want to operate your table saw in your garage without safety glasses, that's your own business.



Exactly. Where DO you draw the line? And since nobody really knows, we need to draw it right where people like Ice9 and myself have clearly defined: the line is crossed when YOUR STUPIDITY UNWILLINGLY ENDANGERS SOMEONE ELSE. Beyond that, it's your life baby.

"Buy the ticket, take the ride." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

[This message was edited Wed Sep 18 18:14:01 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]
[/quote]

herbthe4 said:

Yeah... those Darwin Awards people pretty much deserve what they get. There is no need to be concerned about people doing really fucking stupid things like they do... My god, if the government tried to protect that kind of people from themselves, they would have to create a massive agency filled with morons of the highest order in order to even envision the stupidity that needed to be protected against... well... I guess that the house and senate are a good start for that panel...

TheMax said:

Well, there's a little activity called "demolition derby", as well as the occupation of "professional stuntman", the latter of which exists for other reason than to entertain theater patrons with firey car wrecks and spectacular, death-defying explosions. As safe as they try to make it, occasioanally, someone is badly injured or killed. Now how "pointless" is that. Evil Kneivel (and his sone) are two of the craziest, stupidest sons a bitches to ever live, but I would never argue that they were criminals nor would I attempt to legally restrict their careers.



What about baseball? Different sport, and nobody's arguing that baseball is infinitely less dangerous than boxing. What about hockey, where many players DON'T WANT THE HELMETS, the object of the game (aside from scoring goals) is "check" the other players - or, in laymen's terms, to knock the holy crap out of them as hard as you can. Occasionally, a fight even breaks out, and players will tell you to a man that the reason they allow it is because if they don't those guys will settle shit with their sticks. In hockey, guys drop their gloves before swinging, unlike boxing. And what about my example of scuba diving? A "sport" with no real point except to defy the laws of physics and biology. Or skydiving?



In some ways yes, in some ways not. Let society figure it out for itself, if we want to be free, or let well-iintentioned law writers and beauruacrats (sp?) with bad ideas figure it out for us.



Well, let's follow that logic and outlaw all of these dangerous things (from my above post):
smoking, drinking, eating at McDonalds, DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY, swiming, guns, archery, parachuting, swimming with sharks, drag racing, football, hang gliding, being a stuntman, bungee jumping, scuba, unprotected sex or raw oysters.
Just for starters.



We do. It's called war, and it's the most heavily governed, scrutinzed, and most widely participated in "sport" on the planet. Look around. And it's legal as hell. Has "rules" and everything.



Boxing safety has been advanced, from requireing headgear for ametures. rigorous pre-fight health screening and drug testing, weight requirements and physician and referee discretion. Fights are stopped quicker than they've ever been if one fighter is determined to be unable to defend himself, and doctors keep a very close eye on cuts and injuries. Most retired football players have trouble getting out of bed in the morning, Dale Earnhardt died, Dave Dravecky's arm exploded on national TV while pitching for the Gaints and the ski jumper on the infamous Wide World of Sports intro died (I believe).

Conversely, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Oscar De La Hoya, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano are considered heros in their communities - people who exemplify the courage to rise up from their circumstances, face adversity with courage and determination, and sacrifice for their dreams.

What you are really arguing here is mainly a matter of taste, which should rarely, if ever, be regulated.

In your opinion, we can do better. Maybe we can, but passing endless waves of increasingly meaningless laws is not the way.

Excellent post and points, herb!

YES, honey - I think EVERYTHING should be outlawed, except for prayer in school at all times! Where the decency??? WHERE??

herbthe4 said:

[/quote]


Hold the victory cheers.

I was giving this example and the one about the employer to illustrate that we do not allow adults to do certain dangerous things as a matter of principle. I don't think it proves any of your points that they are in a public place or that safety is the responsibility of the employer.

Your idea that it should be ok in a private space is ludicrous, because these spaces are inhabited by other people who have rights How are you going to predict that what you do on your own isn't going to hurt others? Just read the odd news -- full of people who ended up hurting others while exercising their individual rights in the privacy of their basement, bedromm, kitchen, etc. I'm not going to let my roommate slith his damn wrists in his room 99 % of the time, this person suffers from an illness that is exceedlingly well documented - depression.

As for the employer being responsible, that's only half the truth. It is a shared responsibility, and it means that even if you are out there on your own and the only person that could get hurt is you, it's still irresponsible to disobey safety rules.

People who just go for blanket rules like "adults should do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't hurt others" are a little too infatuated with individuality. It's not just you out there. Sometimes the common good -- or public interest -- forces us to limit our freedoms, as is the case with seatbelts. We don't care that you think it's cool to run 100 mph without your seatbelt on. In general we don't want to find someone's brain on their windshield. There's collective thinking here, and I think it's healthy that we still care.

Now boxing, unlike vehicle accidents, doesn't to my knowledge hurt a significant percentage enough to warrant a ban. If there comes a time where boxing proves to be consistently and significantly harmful for the people who take part in it, I think we should at least be able to discuss it

Why? Same reason you don't see Russian Roulette parlors at the corner of the street.
[This message was edited Thu Sep 19 16:20:31 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]
[This message was edited Thu Sep 19 16:37:15 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

No, No, No and No! As long as the participants are willing, why should we stop them? I boxing, it is an excellent 'controlled', safe sport.
Throw in some more bloody sports instead of poncy football and cricket. Too many people die, in other ways, so stop focusing on a sport that some wimpy assed shit doesn't like. Where will it stop, no horse racing, no rally driving, hell why not no swimming - someone might drown! running, all olympics, someone might fall over and hurt themselves...
My ex boyfriend was a boxer and I kinda talked him into going professional, I loved it. The matches were great and real exciting! These people train really hard to fight, they know what they are doing and the risks they are taking. They are very disciplined.
Ok, so some boxers are brain dead, sad yeah, but they didn't give two stuffs when they were getting the prize money.
Who gives a flying fuck? Only the people who don't understand the sport, thats what makes me soo

IceNine said:

This is kind of a grab bag, isn't it? People have different reasons for acting dangerously. My first partner turned out to be bipolar with extreme risk-taking. Are we just going to say "Oh he's an idiot. If he kills himself, good riddance!"? I know that is not what you are suggesting, but you know they study why some people take extreme risks. They stand more chances of being hurt, but most do not end up significantly and permanently debilitating themselves. Besides we do need people who are fearless. Lots of occupations are inherently dangerous, and the people who end up acting irresponsibly are a minority, meaning that overall it's still a huge success and there is no need to intervene.

Some activities have high fatality rates and are illegal for that reason. There's plenty else to do than playing games of chicken like in Rebel without a cause. Boxing isn't one of those cases, but I still don't believe in the blanket "adult should do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else".

that's true, aero. the ones who act riskily and against all odds and somehow prevail are numbered among some of our heroes, aren't they? it's true the reckless gene could be considered a gift. and i hear you about people with chemical imbalances. we all do have a certain amount of responsibility for our brothers and sisters, in a sense.

but whether or not the government should be involved. . . i dunno. i'm not so impressed with our uncle sam and i do NOT want men of george w. bush's calibre determining my lifestyle limits. there has to be a reasonable middle ground

what you said

do you think government could evolve enough to accurately and responsibly put some of these issues up to the people for popular vote? we actually have the technology to bypass our corrupt system of partisanship and representation, although.. . .look at florida for pete's sake! but, wouldn't it be cool if we could all come home from work to our computers and find ballots for various local and national issues ??

i said in a thread i started earlier today...
It should be against the law to say a PARENT cannot
chastise their kid (whoop that ass) when it is the apropriate thing to do, but it isn't. andit's quite legal
for someone to tell a parent to give drugs to their kids
as long as the money goes to the PHARMICUTICAL COMPANIES.
it's documented that kids are on more medications than
adults, including seniors. wtf.
and the funny thing is all this drug shit seems to coincide with that 'time out' shit...
DANGEROUS ACTIVITY ain't just about SPORTS...
whut about the little girls whos parents dress them like hookers and parade them in front of OBVIOUS PEDIPHILES
in hopes that they may one day be miss. america.
If one seeks to find all the DANGERS that laws should
protect people from, then you would have none of the things
that are enjoyed by most people in the real world.
movies= stuntpeople
music=fans
so on and so forth...
First and Foremost should come the kids... DRUG FREE!!!

herbthe4 said:

I'd like to say that I enjoy exchanging ideas with you, but in actuality, I don't. I find your responses in this thread to be needlessly condescending. Even more annoying, you don't seem to really understand what it is that I am trying to say. Too bad, we might have had an interesting exchange.

I'll try to respond to part of your reply to me, the one I copied above. I would like to point out that we have, in fact, tried as a society to regulate activities that are dangerous, including the ones that you listed here.

Smoking is HIGHLY restricted because of it's dangers, both to oneself and to others. Bans on smoking are everywhere, and they should and will increase. With 400,000 people in the US alone dying prematurely from tobacco-related diseases each year, such regulations are needed. Have you noticed that for 30 years there have been warning labels attached to cigarrettes? When was the last time you saw a TV ad for tobacco? Is smoking "illegal" - no, nor can it be without creating 100,000 addicted "criminals." It's too late for that. But never imply that EFFORTS that we as an enlightened society make to curb tobacco use don't or shouldn't exist. Look around. We're trying reduce the epidemic of disease related to smoking.

Drinking. Similar discussion with even more laws restricting the unsafe consumption of alcohol. Where do I start? Try walking around in my city with an open bottle of gin, enjoying your personal freedom to consume alcohol, and see what happens. Better yet, drink to excess at home and take a drive or appear in public. Attempt to order a drink at the bar after you've had a few too many - it's illegal for the bartender to serve you. Will all consumption of alcohol be made illegal - it was tried and failed, appropriately. But do not suggest that we have not made efforts to improve PERSONAL SAFETY associated with alcohol consumption.

Eating at McDonald's. Hmmm. Do I really have to try to defend places like McDonald's which have contributed to our epidemic of obesity? Well, eating there is probably not as dangerous as boxing, and certainly far less dangerous than smoking. This is a controversial target. If you are starving, a meal at McDonald's might save your life. Hard to believe, but true. I think that McDonald's is TRYING to improve the safety of their products. For example, they have recently changed the oil used to prepare their fries, decreasing the reliance on trans fatty acids. Now, you can even buy a green salad there. Here again, my point would be that even McDonald's evaluates their risk to individuals and tries to improve the safety of their product.

Driving on the freeway. Ever heard of speed limits? Unsafe lane change violations? Tailgating? There are scores of laws that address the safety concerns associated with driving a motor vehicle. Next...

Swimming. Have you ever been to a beach with very large surf? Have you seen signs warning swimmers to stay out of the water? In pools with shallow bottoms, have you seen signs warning swimmers not to dive? Have you seen other warnings saying "No Lifeguard on Duty"? Is swimming illegal - in most places no, but a responsible society has an interest in protecting swimmers from unnecessary risk.

Guns. Please, don't get me started. We have too many of them in the hands of the wrong people. How many people (non law-enforcement) do you see walking around the streets with sidearms on their belts? Ever wonder why? Frankly, the whole gun discussion deserves its very own thread.

Blah, blah, blah. Let me jump to the good one - Unprotected Sex. Seems that you've heard it's dangerous. How did you hear about it? Were the dangers publicized? Was that a bad thing for a medical community to do - EDUCATE you about the dangers of unprotected sex - or were they a bunch of "bleeding heart" wimps out to spoil your good time? Are you aware that the bath-houses of San Francisco were "banned" in the late 80's because of concerns regarding unsafe sex? Have you noticed that it is "illegal" to pay for sex in stripclubs? Obviously, such laws are complex, and address many of society's concerns. Is sex at risk of being made "illegal"? Don't be ridiculous. But don't insult our collective intelligence by denying that efforts have been made to PROTECT those who participate in unprotected sex.

Boxing is one of many dangerous activities. When I see a genuine effort of the part of those who both profit from it AND enjoy it work towards improving education about it's inherent dangers AND improving it's safety, then I'll reconsider my views. Some here have already shown that they are truly unaware of the well-researched dangers associated with boxing related head injuries. There's still the issue of whether or not I'd choose to enjoy a sport that has the synonym "fighting."

___
[This message was edited Thu Sep 19 20:09:26 PDT 2002 by TheMax]

XxAxX said:

I'm not at all in favor of a lot of referendums. Every time we survey how much the population knows on things that are supposedly common knowledge, we are shocked (or not) to discover enormous gaps. People are simply not very well informed despite our 400 channels universe. It's too much of a tyranny of the majority when referendums are used left and right. For instance, I'm glad my country abolished capital punishment despite the population being for it. Our politicians showed some leadership that time, instead of exploiting our fears and misconceptions like they so often do.

Well, OK, let me find a brick wall suitably built to withstand repeated and violent impact from my skull. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that you "permit your roomate to slit his wrists". Much of what you describe in your examples can be reasonably called "accidents".What we were discussing here was a question of legality, not morality. I MIGHT be crushed to death by a 747 with engine failure or die of food poisoning in my favorite restaurant, but kn one is suggesting outlawing food or flying. I MIGHT have a tire blowout on I-95 and veer off into a crowd of schoolchildren, but this isn't really what we're talking about...and, in a strange way, is a reinforcement of my argument.

I think your rebuttable to my employer/employee safety standard example was oddly thin, and devoid of any real substantial reasoning about what I was talking about. I cited the example of choosing not to use safety glasses while operating a band saw in your garage, and simply pointed out that doing so should not subject you to criminal charges. Conversely, I used the same example to illustrate the idea that if your employer require you to use the same band saw as a part of your job, then he is (and should be) LEGALLY required to provide with the proper safety equipment specifically because he (or she) is CHOOSING FOR YOU.

How all that got turned around is beyond me.



Agreed. See above. And i never said personal irresponiblity was smart (in fact, quite the opposite), just that it;s not ILLEGAL. Shit, if they outlawed stupidity, we'd all be injail for something. If your child is 2 feet away, watching you saw through an iron rod, then YOU are responsible for that kid's safety. If you're by yourself, and not cutting through plastique explosives or anything that could damage something other than yourself, than feel free to operate the fucking saw with your feet, naked, soaked in gasoline, smoking a cigarette and blindfolded. You are not breaking the law (or shouldn't be). How do these ideas I express get so horribly twisted? It's as if by simply saying something shouldn't be illegal that I am, by definiton, ADVOCATING such beahviour. Please allow me to clarify and emphasize this distinction.

I should also point out that most companies do not implement these safety rules out of anything resembling concern for your health nor your general well being. They do it becasue they HAVE TO, or else they will (rightfully) face lawsuits and criminal prosecution.



The speed limit law I agre with, for reasons that (I ope) are abundantly clear by now, but the seatbelt example is a stretch. So let's write a law COMPLETELY centered around your one in a million chance of psychological damage incurred by the possibility of my brain splashing like so much birdhit on your windshield. I've been subjected to countless examples of "psychologically damaging" information and visual stimuli that I "don't want to find", from pictures of starving children in Africa with flies on their eyes, to Bud Dwyer's nationally televised suicide in 1986, to some idiot on "Jackass" breaking his leg or setting himself on fire, but it never occured to me to suggest that these things were criminal.


[quote]Now boxing, unlike vehicle accidents, doesn't to my knowledge hurt a significant percentage enough to warrant a ban. If there comes a time where boxing proves to be consistently and significantly harmful for the people who take part in it, I think we should at least be able to discuss it {/quote]

We're discussing it now, and there many, many people who disagree with you and think it (boxing) should be banned beacuse it's "dangerous" and "setting a bad example". If we're going to make laws like this centered wholly around the statistical likelihood of death or bodly harm, then we need to begin immediately by outlawing driving, fatty foods and smoking. After all, nobody wants to see my 300 lb, morbidly obese bodily drop dead from a heart attack on the beach do they? Or run my car off the road into a baby deer after suffering a heart attack due to my poor diet? Or listen to me hack up half my lung and spit in anto a hnkerchief while walking down Main Street?

We have more laws designed to keep driving safe than perhaps any other activity, and you know what? People STILL get hurt and people STILL die. You put yourself at risk every day simply by walking out your front door, let alone by strappping yourself into an explosive piece of metal on rubber wheels, and no amount of legislation will EVER remove the potential danger from your life.

How exactly does one define "significantly harmful"? And why won't people who debate me on issues like this address MY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES as oppopsed to verbally peretuating their beleifs?



Now THAT is the single best argument I've heard, and one that really made me think. I suppose i could argue that this should remain illegal because there are other individuals around that are very likely to catch a bullet from your gun. Having said that, the idea of a law that makes it illegal to commit suicide is, by any reasonable definiton, patently absurd.

TheMax said:

I'm sorry. I 've actually enjoyed this discussion.



How so? I re-read it and didn't see anything like that, unless you consider citing specific examples of the consequences of your logic (which I've admitted are noble and well-intentioned, more than you've said of mine) as "condescending".



I'm finding this very interesting, and again, I'm sorry that you don't. Perhaps my lack of "understanding" can be attributed to your confusion regarding "agreement" with "understanding" (and don't fret, this is a very common mistake made by many people who are certain that they are "right", myself included on occasion). I think I understand you perfectly.



I want to thank you, first and foremost, for helping me express my point so easily. Who is misunderstanding whom here? Let me hit these, one by one.

Smoking: the examples you listed here are EXACTLY WHAT I'm TALKING ABOUT. All of the laws passed surrounding this issue have been created specifically with the unwilling, non-smoking, innocent victim in mind (re: smoking in restaraunts, public bans, etc.), and I wholeheartedly support these measures, since they center around the protection of OTHER PEOPLE to the dangers of MY BEHAVIOUR. In a Utopian society, no one would smoke at all, but people do, and they occasionally do other things that are "bad" for them, yet they should (and for the moment are) free to smoke whatever they want in their living room.




Nope, but again, what I'm saying (and what you agreed with) is that THE LAW itself made things worse, and you keep citing examples of people "walking down the street" or "going out in public", which negate your argument. What exactly are we talking about here. I thought the question was one of LEGALITY and peronal resonsibility, not PUBLIC behavoir or unwise endeavors.



I'm not asking you to "defend" MacDonalds, I'm just asking you if they should be labeled "criminals". And, please, let's cut the shit. More people died of cholesterol related heart attacks as I was writing this than have died in a boxing match in the past 5 years. I CHOOSE not to eat at MacDonalds, based on the information I have, and wish that no one ate there, but would I allow for legislation that would label them as criminals? Again, of course not. and that's really what we're talking about, right?



GODAMMIT! I've said I wholeheartedly support speed limits, along with the other things you listed, because they ENDANGER OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES. Your life is YOUR business. "Next", indeed...



Yes. In fact, I've seen so many signs just about everywhere I've gone warning me of the dangers of every fucking thing I could think of to the point that I've considered the idea that ONE SIGN should be created that reads simply "HAVE NO FUN" or "DO NOT INGEST" in an effort to save the taxpayer dollars spent on manufacturing signs. I've also seen idiots swimming and surfing in hurricane addled waters who were immediately arrested for endangering THEIR OWN SAFETY (in spite of all those beloved signs) and wondering to myself why that is.



Yeah, you're right. I don't like guns, but I do own one, and don't feel like I should be a jailed or fined for it.



mmm hm...uh huh...

What are you getting at? That nobody is trying to make boxing safe? This is simply not true. I never said that educating the public was a bad thing. In fact, read it again and you'll see that I stated precisely the opposite: that education as opposed to legislation and prosecution is the specific answer to this question.

My God, you're touchy. I never insulted anybody, nor their "collective intelligence". I guess an opposing and well thought out opinion is deemed insulting to individuals who have their minds made up in the face of any opposing logic to the contrary. Did I suggest that your ideas, which I obviously oppose, are "insulting"? When have I been rediculous? What we're discussing here are LAWS, not decisions, and what I am opposed to, on every level you can think of, is the idea that there should be a LAW against unprotected sex between two consenting adults, based soley on the risk involved. In many ways, I AM ON YOUR SIDE, if what your prescribing here is education rather than punishment. Shit, I always fall on that side of the fence, so why the argumentative tone and defensive posture? I don't think there should be a LAW which mandates that people make intelligent personal decisions. By this logic, virtually no one would be permitted to have a child.

And prositution should be legal also, but we'll put that one in the "gun control" thread, if you like.



I'm inclined to doubt it.



Therfore: outlaw it. Am I understanding THAT correctly? I never asked you to enjoy it, simply to decriminalize it. LEGALITY and ADVOCACY are 2 different things, and don't make me send a petetion around to outlaw snowboarding. I saw a kid bust his spleen wide open on a rock once after a wicked 360.

___
[This message was edited Thu Sep 19 20:09:26 PDT 2002 by TheMax]
[/quote]