Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:55 pm If you are suggesting that we ban all contact sports, then you are talking like a liberal left wing politician who wants to protect everyone from cradle to grave but that also includes telling everyone what to do and when to do it. The participants and the spectators have chosen that course of action and they must accept the consequences of those choices. I strenuously oppose any attempt to tell others what to do and when to do it everyone should be allowed to make the choice of what they do to themselves, but I agree that there should be limits on what they can do to others or how much control they should have over others.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:16 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:55 pm If you are suggesting that we ban all contact sports, then you are talking like a liberal left wing politician who wants to protect everyone from cradle to grave but that also includes telling everyone what to do and when to do it. The participants and the spectators have chosen that course of action and they must accept the consequences of those choices. I strenuously oppose any attempt to tell others what to do and when to do it everyone should be allowed to make the choice of what they do to themselves, but I agree that there should be limits on what they can do to others or how much control they should have over others.

In weighing the benefits and the detriments, what do the participants have to gain versus being harmed (not only to themselves, but to other family members due to mental health issues from a news broadcast I've just heard)? Is it worth risking harm just to have some freedom in contact sports?

I do lean to the left, but even if I were an arch conservative, I still find it disturbing that participants are putting their lives and others at risk. So if you wish to confuse me with liberalism, please by all means do so if it makes you happy. As far as limits go, how would that apply in football e.g.? How would you specifically protect the players and others? I submit there's only one way you can guarantee you can keep harm from occurring.

PhilX

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:32 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:16 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:55 pm If you are suggesting that we ban all contact sports, then you are talking like a liberal left wing politician who wants to protect everyone from cradle to grave but that also includes telling everyone what to do and when to do it. The participants and the spectators have chosen that course of action and they must accept the consequences of those choices. I strenuously oppose any attempt to tell others what to do and when to do it everyone should be allowed to make the choice of what they do to themselves, but I agree that there should be limits on what they can do to others or how much control they should have over others.

In weighing the benefits and the detriments, what do the participants have to gain versus being harmed (not only to themselves, but to other family members due to mental health issues from a news broadcast I've just heard)? Is it worth risking harm just to have some freedom in contact sports?

I do lean to the left, but even if I were an arch conservative, I still find it disturbing that participants are putting their lives and others at risk. So if you wish to confuse me with liberalism, please by all means do so if it makes you happy. As far as limits go, how would that apply in football e.g.? How would you specifically protect the players and others? I submit there's only one way you can guarantee you can keep harm from occurring.

PhilX

Oh well. Just stop children from climbing trees while you are about it. Or having fun on challenging and cooperative playground equipment (oh dear, risk of 'litigation' here, hence the pathetic PC excuses we now see that pass as playground equipment ). Or getting dirty (germs). Or walking to school. Or doing ANYTHING without their parents hovering around like annoying, over-protective gnats. Hang on. You yanks already do all that.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:58 am If anything there should be an age limit for the contact sports you are referring to but once a person has reached the age of consent they should be allowed to make their own mistakes, and I'm not really sure how one person participating in a contact sport effects another person, as long as they can take care of their own medical expenses.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:32 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:16 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:55 pm If you are suggesting that we ban all contact sports, then you are talking like a liberal left wing politician who wants to protect everyone from cradle to grave but that also includes telling everyone what to do and when to do it. The participants and the spectators have chosen that course of action and they must accept the consequences of those choices. I strenuously oppose any attempt to tell others what to do and when to do it everyone should be allowed to make the choice of what they do to themselves, but I agree that there should be limits on what they can do to others or how much control they should have over others.

In weighing the benefits and the detriments, what do the participants have to gain versus being harmed (not only to themselves, but to other family members due to mental health issues from a news broadcast I've just heard)? Is it worth risking harm just to have some freedom in contact sports?

I do lean to the left, but even if I were an arch conservative, I still find it disturbing that participants are putting their lives and others at risk. So if you wish to confuse me with liberalism, please by all means do so if it makes you happy. As far as limits go, how would that apply in football e.g.? How would you specifically protect the players and others? I submit there's only one way you can guarantee you can keep harm from occurring.

PhilX

Oh well. Just stop children from climbing trees while you are about it. Or having fun on challenging and cooperative playground equipment (oh dear, risk of 'litigation' here, hence the pathetic PC excuses we now see that pass as playground equipment ). Or getting dirty (germs). Or walking to school. Or doing ANYTHING without their parents hovering around like annoying, over-protective gnats. Hang on. You yanks already do all that.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:33 am Not flippant at all. All of it is true. You must be living under a rock to not know it.
Why stop at 'contact' sports? Gymnastics is really dangerous. Ballet dancers can get terrible injuries. Swimmers get ear problems. Wrestling. Trampolining. Diving. ............... Heck, you should be happy when your fat children want to do any activity at all that doesn't involve the internet or television. Let's just outlaw ALL activity that carries ANY kind of risk of injury whatsoever. Like.....

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:29 am If you don't want anyone to offer counterarguments to you silly threads then don't post them.