Post
The 16 Oct edition of The Elephant covered the controversy over allowing under-14s in contact sports;
When you get to the Mum justifying the regular knocks to the head her son's sport involves, I want you to imagine that she's talking about letting the same under-14 year old son drink alcohol. Would those same rationalisations and whattaboutisms fly in that case?
(1/2)
#podcasts #NZHerald #TheElephant #ContactSports #prohibition
Some people don't want to let adults 18-20 buy alcohol, because under-25s brains are still developing. Some people are fine with letting kids play sports where they routinely hit each other in the head, which also causing lifelong brain injury. Probably some of the same people.
Some of the same people probably oppose allowing adults 18+ to buy cannabis, even though it doesn't cause lifelong brain injury. Although there is disputed evidence it may trigger mental illness in some people.
(2/2)
@strypey Well, I think a problem with this comparison is it doesn't take into account the utility of those various activities.
@joshbuddy
> it doesn't take into account the utility of those various activities
Finish your point, and then I'll know what I'm responding to.
@strypey Oh well, I guess its just that, and I'm guessing here, to the parents of the kids participating in sports, they probably value that a lot more than their kids drinking etc.
Not defending or attacking any particular position, nor do I value these rough sports, but just more thinking it resolves the seeming hypocrisy of letting kids get brain injured via sports but not alcohol.
It's kind of similar I find in the discussion about how "any amount of alcohol causes injury". We accept risk and injury for things we value, and that has to be part of the conversation.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
