Posted by Diarm (194.125.148.175) on December 05, 2002 at 08:37:06:
In Reply to: Re: even if the parties are minors? posted by Mikko (193.234.247.51) on December 02, 2002 at 13:24:09:
So 1/6 is unacceptable and 1/78,000 is acceptable.
This tells us that the tipping point is somewhere between the two figures.
Matches is arguing from the absolutist standpoint, whereas you argue from the relativist end.
The logical end of Matches' line of reasoning, as applied to this discussion, is an absolute ban on all pastimes that involve some risk, or conversely total freedom, even for kids, to play Russian Roulette.
Applied to the SUV debate, his reasoning demands either a total ban on all forms of transport, including pushbikes or total freedom to drive whatever you please, even if the vehicle is a hundred feet tall, weighs 2000 tons and produces more air pollution than Los Angeles.
Your line of reasoning, if applied to the debate, would tend towards mine: driving the monster vehicle needs banning, but smaller, less polluting vehicles should be okay.
> > 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?
> The odds of dying when playing American football in the USA:
> 1/78,000 (approximitely)
> The odds of dying when playing RR with a normal revoler in a standard setting:
> 1/6.
> The odds of dying in a car in the USA:
> 1/6000 (approximitely)
> So shoukd parents, who let their children drive cars, or indeed drive them around in them, be jailed?