5 ms·

Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? Most people would not be for allowing this. A lot of people are willing to work

Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? Most people would not be for allowing this. A lot of people are willing to work in very risky environments because they feel they have no alternative. Should companies be allowed to have dangerous work environments because there are people desperate enough to be willing to work in them?

Brendinooo 9y ago
I don't think this is a black-and-white kind of area. Plenty of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently more dangerous than sitting at a desk. So, while companies should have workers' comp and provide helmets on the job, it doesn't mean that the risk needs to be zero. Dangerous jobs tend to be well-compensated, so it either comes down to risk tolerance or cultural factors (something like "my father was a miner and I live in coal country") more than desperation.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Plenty of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently more dangerous than sitting at a desk. Could you cite some evidence that this is a widespread attitude? My knowledge of miners, which is very little, says something much different. > Dangerous jobs tend to be well-compensated I'm not sure that's true. In the list of high-paying jobs that money-motivated people aspire to, I usually don't see coal miner (or any miner), soldier, police officer in dangerous neighborhood, logger, deep sea fisherman or drug dealer listed.
  - girvo 9y ago
    Here in Australia, mining is definitely on the list of "high paying jobs people aspire to", especially for those where education is a limiting factor; and even then, the pay can be excellent, and it can be fascinating work and some of the positions require advanced degrees or training as well.
dsacco 9y ago
> Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? Given that scenario as stated? Sure, I'm all for it. Take away the gloves in boxing and we're pretty close to that. I'd be concerned about the negative incentives that could potentially exploit lower income people, but on its own I don't have a problem with it. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't think I'd enjoy watching it, but I'm of the opinion that: 1. If it occurs a lot, there is a market for it, 2. Given a market for it, we should explore allowing and heavily regulating it, including negative externalities, rather than banning it and pushing it to a black market.
- darrenf 9y ago
  AIUI bare knuckle boxing is less dangerous than the big time stuff. Gloves protect the boxer doing the punching from breaking their fingers/hands, enabling them to do more damage to their opponents. You ain't punching a skull with your bare knuckles and hurting the other party much.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Ah, my mistake I suppose. I understood bare knuckle boxing is dangerous for the hands, but I also believed it was dangerous for the other party.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  You'd be OK allowing two people to fight to the death for pay? I'm stunned. You are the only person I know of that would be OK living in a society that allowed two people to fight until one of them dies for pay. I'm glad your view is not a popular one.
  - rplst8 9y ago
    We pretty much already do... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_due_to_injuries_sustained_in_boxing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_due_to_injuries...
    - 9y ago
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? If we are talking where death is a risk but not a definite, then we do allow such jobs. At what point do you consider the harm too bad to allow and would we really consistently apply that standard?

Brendinooo 9y ago

I don't think this is a black-and-white kind of area. Plenty of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently more dangerous than sitting at a desk. So, while companies should have workers' comp and provide helmets on the job, it doesn't mean that the risk needs to be zero. Dangerous jobs tend to be well-compensated, so it either comes down to risk tolerance or cultural factors (something like "my father was a miner and I live in coal country") more than desperation.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Plenty of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently more dangerous than sitting at a desk. Could you cite some evidence that this is a widespread attitude? My knowledge of miners, which is very little, says something much different. > Dangerous jobs tend to be well-compensated I'm not sure that's true. In the list of high-paying jobs that money-motivated people aspire to, I usually don't see coal miner (or any miner), soldier, police officer in dangerous neighborhood, logger, deep sea fisherman or drug dealer listed.
- girvo 9y ago
  Here in Australia, mining is definitely on the list of "high paying jobs people aspire to", especially for those where education is a limiting factor; and even then, the pay can be excellent, and it can be fascinating work and some of the positions require advanced degrees or training as well.

dsacco 9y ago

> Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? Given that scenario as stated? Sure, I'm all for it. Take away the gloves in boxing and we're pretty close to that. I'd be concerned about the negative incentives that could potentially exploit lower income people, but on its own I don't have a problem with it. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't think I'd enjoy watching it, but I'm of the opinion that: 1. If it occurs a lot, there is a market for it, 2. Given a market for it, we should explore allowing and heavily regulating it, including negative externalities, rather than banning it and pushing it to a black market.

darrenf 9y ago
AIUI bare knuckle boxing is less dangerous than the big time stuff. Gloves protect the boxer doing the punching from breaking their fingers/hands, enabling them to do more damage to their opponents. You ain't punching a skull with your bare knuckles and hurting the other party much.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Ah, my mistake I suppose. I understood bare knuckle boxing is dangerous for the hands, but I also believed it was dangerous for the other party.
yequalsx 9y ago
You'd be OK allowing two people to fight to the death for pay? I'm stunned. You are the only person I know of that would be OK living in a society that allowed two people to fight until one of them dies for pay. I'm glad your view is not a popular one.
- rplst8 9y ago
  We pretty much already do... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_due_to_injuries_sustained_in_boxing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_due_to_injuries...
  - 9y ago

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? If we are talking where death is a risk but not a definite, then we do allow such jobs. At what point do you consider the harm too bad to allow and would we really consistently apply that standard?