Shouldn't Auto Racing Be Banned ?

I really wish people would stop trying to control what consenting adults do.

 

So?

You were the one who have proposed an authoritarian restriction on the behavior of adults, without any rational other than 'auto racing has more deaths than major league baseball'.

And you can't deal with anyone challenging the shallowness of your argument.

Thats all right- continue to advocate whatever authoritarian restrictions on adults that you want to impose. Luckily no one has imposed restrictions on shallow arguments.

 

The Nazis were Great Car Racers with World Championship winning Drivers & Cars like Mercedes-Benz & Auto-Union , so I say BAN !

 

You can based conclusions upon speculation.

Seriously- look how you assumed that the poster was a liberal, even though it turns out he is a Conservative in the vein of those certain Conservatives who would impose their beliefs on the behavior of adults.

There are certain things that most liberals believe in, but certainly not all. Same is true with Conservatives. Most liberals believe marijuana should be legalized- some do not. Many Conservatives feel marijuana should be legalized. Most do not. Most who advocate legalization say it should be regulated similar to alcohol and that includes drunk driving/intoxicated driving laws.

However, I have not seen any evidence that any majority wants to ban auto racing. Auto racing is a very popular sport and is not going away.

 

It was his choice to go into the auto racing business. He knew the risks better than any of us. I can't see why it should be banned.

 

What about Air Races & Skydiving ?

 

So should we also outlaw commuting in traffic? How about police work? After all, policemen die in the line of duty as well.

Mr. Wheldon knew the risks. He chose to take them. It was his life. I just hope that he had good enough life insurance to take care of those boys. I will admit, it's not a risk I would take, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

If you want to do those, go for it.

 

Do you somehow think that if car racing was banned, that 16 yr old boys would stop speeding? Why do they do that? It's fun.

 

Same with smoking.



Just remember about the dangers of tyranny from central planning. It depends on whether you want to live free or not.

 

Funny, I can find a dozen incidents of panhandlers being hit by cars in intersections (google panhandler hit by a car). You can't tell me that panhandling is necessary (for others besides the panhandler), so why would you be against car racing but not panhandling? The observers of car racing are there of their own free will, but when I get subjected to a panhandler, I can't avoid it.

 

Because one claims to be conservative does not make it so

 

I read it. The situation sucks, I totally agree on that point. No kid should have to grow up without a father. It still doesn't change the fact that he made his own conscious decision. The realization that his kids could possibly grow up without him would have been part of that choice.

Perhaps one can argue that he was being a bit selfish, but when it comes right down to it, it was his life he can do with it as he pleases, even if the loss of his life affects others.

Aren't we hostile?

And why would that be? I never do anything to hurt others. I am completely and absolutely entitled to do with my life as I wish. I am an adult and I can make my own decisions, as well as be responsible for the consequences. I neither need nor want the government to protect me from myself.

 

Excellent point.

The truth is, despite the speed, racers are safer than you are while driving down the highway. They have extensive training, and the vehicles are designed to sustain much more damage more safely than a standard automobile.

Just compare the statistics between the two.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). this is exactly what I was talking about in my first post in this thread. Where is the personal responsibility? It's always someone else's fault, huh? None of the blame rests with the car companies. The drivers are who make the choice to drive recklessly, and the fault lies solely with them.

 

"The people" have no right to ban anything that is optional and does not affect them without choosing to make it so.

 

This type of gross generalization helps nothing, and is unfortunately prevalent.

For example, obviously you are not a liberal. My views in this thread coincide with yours, even though under many circumstances I would be considered a liberal (although I do not identify myself as such).

Personally, I take a more libertarian view that adults should be able to do literally anything they want, as long as it either doesn't affect anyone else or only those who choose to participate.

 

Holding races on tracks that are not designed for the class of race car should be banned...

... the problem with the Weldon crash is that the track was designed for slower NASCAR races...

... allowing cars capable for going 50mph faster than the track is designed for is only inviting the result we witnessed Sunday and is the ultimate in dumb ideas.

 

This reply is for both of the replies talking about consenting adults. Consenting adults are involved, but so are non-consenting children, like Dan Wheldon's 2 baby boys, age 3 and 6 months, who had nothing to say about this, and because it was legal and done badly, they will now spend their whole lives without their father.
If anyone was raised with both parents, and this means anything to them, think about the prospect of being without your father (especially a very decent man like Dan Wheldon) for your whole life.

 

So now we should ban things because of how it makes others feel?

How about you nanny staters keep out of our business and just don't do things that you don't like?

 

Think about this -- Dan Wheldon died doing something he loved. We should all be so lucky...

 

I notice you immediately drop your principle that the government needs to protect us from ourselves and then go on to the "what about the children?" argument -- the most frequent argument in politics. First, you need to decide whether or not consenting adults should be handcuffed and caged for taking a risk they decide to take. You seem to be suggesting that children's safety is not the responsibility of the parents, but rather a monopoly on coercion ran by bureaucrats we know as the state. I would like to know what you think the government should do if a parent does decide to do something a bit on the risky side but fun with their kids. Should the kids be taken away from their parents and put in the hands of the institutions appointed by politicians? Is that better for the children -- to tear them away from their parents? Thousands of children die a year in regular car accidents -- let's outlaw taking your kids in a car. Heck, even about 20 children drown in buckets every year -- let's outlaw buckets, too. The fact of the matter is that the government is not a magical entity that knows what's best for everyone, and children are the responsibility of the parents, not the charismatic politicians.

 

The thread should have ended on this post.

 

Although the safety element should be neglected for reasons well stated by BullsLawDen, how about a sport where people race to open as many cans of chlorofluorocarbons as possible and empty them into the atmosphere? How about a sport sanctioned by the movie Jackass where people drop as many terds as possible into water reservoirs? When does riding in a circle real fast and releasing a bunch of carbon dioxide in front a bunch or drunk idiots intersect with environmental conservatism? For the safety record, one should research the mortality rate of ironworkers and convenience store workers and compare that to auto racers.