Yet another lawsuit rant.

[Softpaw]

Actually, I'm inclined to be on their side this time. If MEHTUL bats are more dangerous than other bats, I say, why keep 'em?

If that were true, I'd say the same thing. But overall wooden bats are just as, if not more dangerous than the aluminum bats. There's no danger of an aluminum bat shattering and sending nasty splinters everywhere. I now see this point has been brought up by Ibun as well. Ah it's just like me to start something and let it get good and hot and not respond back till the next day. I'm not completly agaisnt lawsuits. There are times when they are justified. This is not one of those cases.

Am I the only one here who thinks that the idea of wooden bats shattering when used by little league players is utterly ridiculous? Granted, I know little about baseball, and I could see bats shattering every once in awhile in the major leagues, but this is the children's league we're talking about. Short of dipping said bat in liquid nitrogen prior to use, I can't imagine a kid hitting a leather ball hard enough to even crack a bat made of some of the hardest woods available.

[Bocaj Claw]

I'd like to see you add the element of drama the crack of the bat brings without dipping the bats into nitrogen before the game.

[Tom Flapwell]

Anybody remember "The State" on MTV?

"I don't care what it is -- I wanna dip my balls in it!"

[klimt]

Seriously, get over it, you pansies.

Comrade K: The fact is that the government is out to protect as many of its people as possible.

it shouldn't be.

if your populace is stupid enough to require the legislation of common sense then...your country could use some Darwinism in action

[Comrade K]

Comrade K: The fact is that the government is out to protect as many of its people as possible. It takes very little effort to wear a bicycle helmet - this can also be applied to seatbelts - and it saves thousands of lives*. This, obviously, reduces the stress on the health services, and more importantly reduces the number of people - productive (or potentially so) members of the workforce - dying.

Plus, nobody wants cyclist brains all over their windscreen. It's pretty traumatising and a bugger to wipe off.


*Not a real statistic.

Regardless of motives, I just think it isn't the government's job to tell me what I can and can't do with my own life. Sure, it has some side effects, but like klimt said, I prefer that common sense not be legislated.

I mean, I could make the case that deep friers cause obesity, that they are unnecessary, and show that cooking with them increases health risks significantly, but does that mean the government should ban them? If you choose to use one, that is your choice, not the body politic's.

Remember, I'm not pushing to have smoking allowed everywhere, since that would infringe on the rights on non-smokers who don't want to inhale the fumes, but I think there's a limit on how far you can restrict people's smoking habits without trampling their right to make their own choices regarding their health.

[rabid_fox]

The classic question - do the parents of fat children deserve jail time for child abuse? It's happened in the UK, you know.

[Priest_Revan]

Hmm... too bad the kid didn't die. That might've shut the parents up for a while...

[nickspoon]

Remember, I'm not pushing to have smoking allowed everywhere, since that would infringe on the rights on non-smokers who don't want to inhale the fumes, but I think there's a limit on how far you can restrict people's smoking habits without trampling their right to make their own choices regarding their health.

I don't care what people smoke in their own homes, provided they do so in their own homes with the consent of whoever the home belongs to. I'd like to say that we should deny smokers state healthcare, but that would be a breach of the rights of the individual regardless of their life choices.

Regardless of what you think, it is the government's job to tell you what you can and can't do. To an extent. That's what the law is for.

[Comrade K]

Regardless of what you think, it is the government's job to tell you what you can and can't do. To an extent. That's what the law is for.

Perhaps, but I believe laws should be meant to protect individuals from having their rights infringed upon by other individuals or organizations (read: businesses), not make personal decisions for them.

For example, if I lucidly decide that I want to do something incredibly stupid, say...chop my own arm off, the government and the law has no right to stop me from doing so, regardless of how daft the action is. The Government shouldn't refrain from trying to convince me that this is a stupid idea (if possible, it could offer counseling), but in the end, it is my choice, and nobody else's what I do to me.


And again, when you say people who smoke should not receive state healthcare, I again bring up the point that many other unnecessary and unhealthy things are regularly consumed by Westerners, and again, the case could be made that we should deprive those that consume these toxins, or fattening substances, along with smokers. And, at least in North America, obesity far outweighs smoking as the major health risk that costs the taxpayer.

[Mista_B]

Regardless of what you think, it is the government's job to tell you what you can and can't do. To an extent. That's what the law is for.

Mmm, so, for example, statements like:

The government should tell you what education you will have.
The government should tell you who you marry.
The government should raise your children.
The government should decide what you have for breakfast.
The government should decide what books you read.

are statements that you would agree with?

I would rather not have my life controlled by beurocrats, and politicians, but that might just be me.

[rabid_fox]

He said 'to an extent'.

[nickspoon]

He said 'to an extent'.

That he did.

[GeorgiaCoyote]

Am I the only one here who thinks that the idea of wooden bats shattering when used by little league players is utterly ridiculous?

Not a bad point. I don't think many little leaguers will be brining the heat like Nolan Ryan did but still, if the bats are made cheaply enough, they sill break in to jagged halves. Maybe shattering is not the best word to describe what wooden bats do. That would be the appropriate term for glass bats.

[nickspoon]

That would be the appropriate term for glass bats.

That sounds like a bloody good idea.

[Tom Flapwell]

if your populace is stupid enough to require the legislation of common sense then...your country could use some Darwinism in action

But stupid people don't cause trouble just for themselves.