Someone shouldn’t say that mounting climbing should be banned for only a few deaths here and there, when you have literally any other sport causing more harm.
I’m all for keeping mountain climbing legal, but I don’t think the logic behind this holds up.
Russian Roulette has a far higher rate of death in participants than fishing, but probably results in less yearly deaths. By this logic, Russian Roulette should be legal because it causes less overall harm.
Applying the same logic to your animal example - I found a study saying tigers kill on average 1-2 people in the US per year, less than 1/10th the number killed by cows. Does that mean people should be allowed to own tigers?
Russian Roulette has a far higher rate of death in participants than fishing, but probably results in less yearly deaths. By this logic, Russian Roulette should be legal because it causes less overall harm.
Are you saying that something designed to have a fatal outcome is comparable to something that does not, yet still results in a tremendous number of preventable death? Because that seems like a straw man.
Applying the same logic to your animal example - I found a study saying tigers kill on average 1-2 people in the US per year, less than 1/10th the number killed by cows. Does that mean people should be allowed to own tigers?
Well… tigers are banned for a different reason, so that logic can’t be applied. But let’s take dogs, bully breeds… some places DO ban them because of how dangerous they are, even though cows kill more people.
But in the context of sport, people who understand and consent to the risks they pose to themselves should be permitted to do it. If not, then nearly every sport would be banned on the basis of them being too dangerous. Heck, cheerleading causes something like 20,000+ injuries a year. LOL
I’m all for keeping mountain climbing legal, but I don’t think the logic behind this holds up.
Russian Roulette has a far higher rate of death in participants than fishing, but probably results in less yearly deaths. By this logic, Russian Roulette should be legal because it causes less overall harm.
Applying the same logic to your animal example - I found a study saying tigers kill on average 1-2 people in the US per year, less than 1/10th the number killed by cows. Does that mean people should be allowed to own tigers?
Are you saying that something designed to have a fatal outcome is comparable to something that does not, yet still results in a tremendous number of preventable death? Because that seems like a straw man.
Well… tigers are banned for a different reason, so that logic can’t be applied. But let’s take dogs, bully breeds… some places DO ban them because of how dangerous they are, even though cows kill more people.
But in the context of sport, people who understand and consent to the risks they pose to themselves should be permitted to do it. If not, then nearly every sport would be banned on the basis of them being too dangerous. Heck, cheerleading causes something like 20,000+ injuries a year. LOL