3 ms·
why should it be outlawed if it only affects negatively the people who willingly decide to do it? While the cannonball express is definitely dangerous to other
by 4gotunameagain 4y ago
why should it be outlawed if it only affects negatively the people who willingly decide to do it?
While the cannonball express is definitely dangerous to others, if someone wants to ruin their neck cycling across the globe, be my guest who am I to say no
- paulryanrogers 4y agoA counterargument could be that engaging in certain reckless behaviors will require paying higher insurance or taxes to cover the inevitable permanent disabilities. Much like smoking premiums.
- usefulcat 4y agoTrue but you could make that kind of argument about a lot of things. Like literally anything that could negatively affect one's physical health. So alcohol, sugar, lack of excercise, a non-vegan diet, etc etc. My point being that if you're going to make that argument, then effectively what you really need to do is make an argument for where specifically to draw that line, and that's a much harder argument to make.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoHow is that a counterargument? It seems to me that paying more for insurance is perfectly fine for anyone doing extreme activities. You pay more for travel insurance if you do something as simple as skiing (which is actually quite dangerous).
- paulryanrogers 4y agoSorry if I was unclear. My point was that personal injury can become a burden to others too: friends, family, or community may have to support someone injured badly enough. (Which is generally fine, but if folks are knowingly undertaking activities very likely to be debilitating then others may weigh in via insurance, taxes, or even laws.)