Debates
25 Oct 09
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by quackquackI think batting helmets have had a greater impact on safety than the banning of spitballs. Plenty of batters are still hit in the head, but the helmet does a good job of protecting them.
I think if you stretch your argument to cover Donnie Moore and Ray Chapman then you can actually ban EVERYTHING because everything is potentially dangerous. Donnie Moore after a bad performance in 1986 became a drug user and ended up dying. You can ban all sports (because there are loser) or all evaluations (college admissions, job interviews, country c ...[text shortened]... ar more dangerous than playing at the ball park. Perhaps you advocate banning the wrong thing.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by FleabittenIsn't it about time that all driving of automobiles are banned? How is it that a concientious society can allow such a large segment of its members to be exposed to serious and unnecessary risk, all in the name of convenience for that society? The Romans did this very thing in the form of riding their horses and carriages too quickly through the streets. Wouldn't it be nice to think that modern societies have evolved beyond the point of the more unnecessarily dangerous traits of a culture whose heyday was two milennia ago?
Isn't it about time that all professional sports were banned? How is it that a concientious society can allow a certain segment of its members to be exposed to serious and unnecessary risk, all in the name of entertainment for that society? The Romans did this very thing in the form of the gladiatorial games. Wouldn't it be nice to think that modern s ...[text shortened]... ved beyond the point of the more savage traits of a culture whose heyday was two milennia ago?
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by rwingettHelmets do have more of an impact. But helmets did not start right away Chapman died; banning the spitball did.
I think batting helmets have had a greater impact on safety than the banning of spitballs. Plenty of batters are still hit in the head, but the helmet does a good job of protecting them.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGood to see that you and the rest of the respondents are okay with the exploitation of others, so long as it's enjoyable and not that expensive. Maybe if we could find a way to make the exploitation of the poor funnier, everyone would be okay with that, too.
Who cares? People find sports enjoyable, they're not that dangerous or expensive.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by FleabittenWhat "exploitation"? The athletes do what they do of their own free will for money. Cab drivers, movie stuntmen, miners and window washers all do dangerous thing for money. People want services. People are willing to pay for those services. The service providers are willing to provide the services for money. That's life. Being a professional athlete is much more safe than being a coal miner or construction worker, or, for that matter, a high strung litigation lawyer (if you include the dangers of alcoholism and suicide, which you must to be consistent with the Donnie Moore example).
Good to see that you and the rest of the respondents are okay with the exploitation of others, so long as it's enjoyable and not that expensive. Maybe if we could find a way to make the exploitation of the poor funnier, everyone would be okay with that, too.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76Athletes do what they do solely for the entertainment of society. Window-washers do what they do to provide a useful service to society (as do cab drivers, miners, etc). Society functions without the former, but not without the latter. It's exploitation, no two ways about it.
What "exploitation"? The athletes do what they do of their own free will for money. Cab drivers, movie stuntmen, miners and window washers all do dangerous thing for money. People want services. People are willing to pay for those services. The service providers are willing to provide the services for money. That's life. Being a professional athlete is much mor ...[text shortened]... rs of alcoholism and suicide, which you must to be consistent with the Donnie Moore example).
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by FleabittenTo differentiate between people's desire to have clear windows to look through and people's desires to have a ballgame they can watch after dinner is to split hairs.
Athletes do what they do solely for the entertainment of society. Window-washers do what they do to provide a useful service to society (as do cab drivers, miners, etc). Society functions without the former, but not without the latter. It's exploitation, no two ways about it.
26 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FleabittenChess websites and forums like this one exist solely for the entertainment of its users. Society would function without them. So am I (and you) exploiting the people who provide this service?
Athletes do what they do solely for the entertainment of society. Window-washers do what they do to provide a useful service to society (as do cab drivers, miners, etc). Society functions without the former, but not without the latter. It's exploitation, no two ways about it.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesDoes running a chess site expose the operators and users to a significantly increased physical risk? No? There's your answer.
Chess websites and forums like this one exist solely for the entertainment of its users. Society would function without them. So am I (and you) exploiting the people who provide this service?
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by FleabittenI'm sure it involves lots of time spent sitting in front of a computer and-or typing stuff -- with all the attendant risks of back injury and carpal tunnel syndrome.
Does running a chess site expose the operators and users to a significantly increased physical risk? No? There's your answer.