even if the parties are minors?

Posted by Diarm (194.125.148.88) on December 02, 2002 at 04:48:31:

In Reply to: Re: that's dumb posted by Matches (66.219.150.78) on December 01, 2002 at 10:21:51:

You've already agreed that it's okay for a parent to give consent for his son to engage in one potentially life-threatening pastime (football). But if a parent were to give consent to allow his child to play RR, he would surely be jailed. Should he?

If not, how can you rationalize it?

To be entirely clear here, I'm NOT arguing for banning football.

> Russian Roulette? If both/all parties freely choose to engage.. well, that's their problem. Suicide is "illegal" too but.. what can you do? They're dead.

> How fun is Russian Roulette, really? I don't know and will probably never find out.

>
> >
> > > Don't be petulant. It doesn't make sense to say that since the ideals I espouse are based on the ideals of someone else, that they are therefore somehow invalid or unworthy of mention. To say so is ridiculous. Of course, we've been here billions of times before, and all you've ever resorted to is saying "libertarianism sucks."

> > I'm sure I've been more specific than that in my chats with Isaac

> > > Even when you say more than just those words, you've never really gotten beyond that. So I find it more than acceptable for me so respond and say "statism sucks" or "environmentalism sucks." We never get anywhere so..it's always a waste of time.

> >
> > > I didn't really try to conflate the two arguments into one. I couldn't care less who YOU think is an asshole or not. I guess the knowledge of what makes you consider someone an asshole DOES make it easier for me to determine whether or not YOU are an asshole, but that wasn't really what I was striving for.

> > >
> > > You ignored the point. Here you seem to me making the argument "Since SUVs are more dangerous than cars they should be banned or penalized in some way" (I know you haven't explicitly said this but the venom of your remarks on the subject makes me assume this.) My point is - how is that any different than saying "Since playing real football is more dangerous than playing video-game football, then playing real football should be banned, or taxed heavily." ESSENTIALLY, (not just arbitrarily based on whatever whims you might have) the reason we don't ban football, even though kids have died playing it, is that football is FUN. We enjoy it. We know it's dangerous but playing it makes life more enjoyable.

> > You're evading the point. Russian Roulette is FUN too. But it, unlike football, is illegal. So are you saying it should be legalized? If not, how can you rationalize that without being inconsistent regarding your stance on football?

> > Are you, in fact, accepting my point that you've got to draw a line somewhere; that a fun/danger trade-off exists?

> > > It cracks me up the crusades some people take up for the simple sake of having an opinion and the perverse pleasure they get from being indignant.

> > > That said, it DOES also crack me up that some people get some sort of perverse pleasure from driving around in a big old pickup truck or SUV... But that's all it does.. I find it amusing and vaguely disappointing. I don't think that the person is an asshole or that it should be banned...

> > >
> > > If they're driving around in one of those in and have a tendency to wear a cowboy hat as well, then all bets are off - I consider them to be an asshole.

Follow Ups:

• Re: even if the parties are minors? Mikko (193.234.247.51) 13:24:09 12/02/02 (1)
  • exactly Diarm (194.125.148.175) 08:37:06 12/05/02 (0)
• Re: even if the parties are minors? Matches (207.54.187.2) 10:30:50 12/02/02 (0)

Post a Followup