|
|
(My previous post was split up by the notice board...not my decision)
"However, I'll accept your point that you DO mean it as it shows quite clearly that you are NOT the sort of person who should be ALLOWED to decide what is safe or not! Period! Hence your shocking poor judgement over the TT!"
Ian...let me borrow one of your own analogies here. I would object strongly to your being allowed to roam through Tesco's waving around a loaded shotgun. However, I am quite in agreement with you doing so in your own kitchen. ( I guess you can afford the re-plastering!) Nothing is safe....even staying in bed. We all have our own personal level of risk we are prepared to accept. I will not tell you you should not drink 10 year old single malt because it might destroy your liver, if you refrain from telling me I can't walk over striding edge in a gale. You have repeatedly told us that 'Sun readers' should not be allowed to vote, because they have no knowledge of politics. Since you have no experience of Motorcycle road racing, then do not presume to enforce your views upon those that do.
"Let's run that through.....
Does the same logic "they are all adults, let THEM decide" also apply to helmets on the ROAD?"
Yes. I was opposed to the helmet law when it was first introduced, and I remain so. However, since it is the LAW, I accept it. I can see reasoning behind having such a law for (say) up to 18 year olds...but that would be rediculous to enforce, so it follows a reasonable path for it to apply to everyone, even though I object to it in principle.
"Does it apply to SEAT BELTS on the ROAD?"
Yes, for the driver. Kids in a car is another matter, but adults should be able to make their own decisions.
"Does it apply to being allowed to take any DRUGS that they choose???"
Yep. After all, we ALREADY allow two HIGHLY dangerous drugs to be used by any adult. Tobacco is responsible for MORE deaths per user than extasy. Alchohol ruins as many lives as canabis. Also, salt, saturated fats, white flour, have their own dangers....but we allow people the choice.
"Does that allow me to watch a crash on the road and just walk-bye a burning car with people trapped inside....?"
As far as I am aware, you ARE allowed to. Whether you WOULD or not is a different matter.
"Does that allow the Lifboat crews, mountain rescue teams, pit safety offices to simply LET the people in difficulties DIE?"
Ah...now there's an interesting point. These people are volunteers. They volunteer to participate in a dangerous activity. If the fatality figures were as high as those in the TT, would you BAN lifeboat crews?
"After all, in ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of those example:- "they are ALL ADULTS, they know [knew] the risks" applies PERFECTLY!
Possibly, you are the sort of person who feels that ANY/ALL adults are allowed to take ANY/ALL risks no matter WHAT the outcome without lifting a FINGER to help protect them..... I am NOT!"
Clearly. However, having such a strong social concience does NOT give you the right to control another adults life, unless their actions adversly affect other people. Such an attitude is the same as those of the religious cranks...'you must be saved from hellfire...even if we have to kill you to do it'
"As kid, I believed that Drink Driving, at levels that today would be illegal, was ACCEPTABLE! I was an ADULT, I THOUGHT I knew the risks, I drove after drinking the equivalent of 2 pints because I WRONGLY thought it WAS safe. Wiser men than I, ENFORCED the law on me until I was MATURE enough realised how STUPID my view had been! I suspect YOU had the same sort of views as I did AT THE TIME because MOST of us did until it became illegal! Had society not dfecided that I could not be TRUSTED to make that judgement, there's a reasonable chance I nould not have SURVIVED.... So... that's ANOTHER example where I thank 'society' for REMOVING my PERMISSION to 'decide'!"
An irrelevant argument. Alchohol use by a driver (or rider) increases the risk to OTHER road users. Again, you are trying to confuse the issue.
"Taking your peculiar view to its limit; you end up with the situation where no Kart Racer should be allowed to use a National Health ambulance..... becasue.....(sic)
".....your are an adult and you knew the risks before you STARTED the race......""
Ah...now you bring the NHS into it, you open up a whole new line of argument. I will be brief...I WOULD support compulsory extra insurance for anyone who takes part in a dangerous sport. To remove the extra burden from the NHS. However, this end of the wedge is thin...do we take the same view with people who smoke? People who drink? People who don't excercise enough? People who eat bacon? The list goes on and on, and is, I repeat, a whole new argument....which I will not persue at this point.
"To remain consistent, you now have to explain why ALL the abover examples do NOT fall under5 your:-=
'they are all adults, they know the risks'.
I suspect that you CAN'T....... we'll see!"
As you see...I have shown that they DO in fact fall under the same heading.
"So.... if we are ALL adults and 'we know the risks.... then please explain to me why you WOULD object to 'Gladiatorial Combat to the DEATH'"
PLEASE stop assuming you know what I think!!! You increasingly show that you are totally unable to see anything from another viewpoint than your own. As it happens I WOULD NOT object to GC...even to the death. I would not want to take part though!
"The final nail in the coffin for your argument will be CONTAINED in that answer. No matter WHAT you answer, your postion will be untennable....
So....
Simple question.... would YOU allow Combat to the DEATH for public consumption in this country?
Yes or NO! No ifs, no buts!"
YES. Clear enough for you? However, your question has the rider " for public consumption". If by that you mean it could be televised, I would object to the coverage. NOT because it covered deaths...but because it contains the INTENT to harm. I have stated this before, but you seem to have the uncanny knack of not actually reading what people write; only what you want to see.
"Your CLAIMED stance on the right of informed adults to make that decision to compete or not has NO other outcome but for you to say "YES, I WOULD allow it!"
My bet is that you WON'T answer that one.... for reasons we can both see WHY you won't ..... even if my GOADING makes you WANT to answer it!"
So...wrong again..I have answered it.
Now, I have answered your questions...let me ask you something. Do you think it is OK for the TV to cover something as likely (or even more so) to result in death as the TT does? And actually show those deaths occuring? Can I take it that you don't?
Note, I will wait for your answer...I am NOT going to do your trick of putting words into your mouth (keyboard!)
|
|
|
TT...for Ian by 'vic' (12 Jun 2010 @ 21:26)
