Re taking arguments to the extreme. You choose supposedly more & more brutal sports that kill and use those as justification for the banning of the IOM TT. However, you don't consider less brutal sports that kill and see if the same logic applies. Doing this would show that the argument is not a logical one and is purely subjective. i.e. How brutal does the sport have to be to be banned?
The same applies when you look at the number of deaths. If 230ish deaths in 100ish years is too many, what about 229 deaths? 100? 50? 10? Doing this, again, shows that the argument is not a logical one and is purely subjective. i.e. How many deaths are too many?
Now, you have still to answer my question. If there were no spectators at the IOM TT, does that somehow make those deaths acceptable? That is where your potential moral inconsistency lies.
Further, do you not agree that there is quite a difference between sports where death and injury are a risk, and sports where death and injury are the intent?
Finally, my Max Mosely comment. I don't want to spend too much time on this as it's not a particularly interesting aside, but I will subtly alter your post and request your comment:
"Had he been choosing to go to the IOM and perform those acts to consenting spectators for the gratification of himself, then I WOULD have objected."
|
|