Forbes proposes REAL death matches

[redstar2000]

What can "late" capitalism do to recapture the interest of the masses?

Well, there's this...


Originally posted by Forbes Site
So to what end does this all lead? Should we encourage fights to the death? Perhaps. Allowing willing participants to risk life and limb should be accepted if it is the informed decision of all participants. There's a legal principle called volenti non fit injuria—"to a willing person, no injury is done." It holds true for athletes as well. If a person wants to risk death in the pursuit of fame, they should be allowed to do so.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/04/1...8gladiator.html (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/04/15/blood-sport-gladiator_cx_de_06slate_0418gladiator.html)

The real "Return of the Gladiators". :o

What a "terrific opportunity" for the unemployable!

And imagine the ratings!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chaval]

aggressive acts we see on the field are in fact healthy expressions of base emotions

so if i have an impulse to go out and rape and kill someone its okay?

i think the western empire has reached its peak and is gonna slide down pretty soon. theres always the fall after the rise

[Severian]

It's already here: it's called NASCAR.

[VonClausewitz]

Brilliant brilliant. We could have convicts on death row fight each other, the winner has his sentence downgraded to life instead.

[red team]

The real "Return of the Gladiators". :o

With gladiators there also comes gladiator revolts. I'm looking forward to the modern equivalent of the Spartacus revolt.

[VonClausewitz]

With gladiators there also comes gladiator revolts. I'm looking forward to the modern equivalent of the Spartacus revolt.

It'd last all of ten seconds unfortunately, after all, the Roman legions never had machine guns :P

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:47 AM
Brilliant brilliant. We could have convicts on death row fight each other, the winner has his sentence downgraded to life instead.

The Running Man&#33; <_<

[Tungsten]

It&#39;s a joke, people. Like reason magazine&#39;s "In defence of police states" article a few years ago.

Although there are a few psychos around who readily look for any excuse to start preying on their fellow men and women. For some people, this excuse could be found in the realm of blood sports, for others, &#39;revolution&#39; fulfils the same urge.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:50 PM
Although there are a few psychos around who readily look for any excuse to start preying on their fellow men and women. For some people, this excuse could be found in the realm of blood sports, for others, &#39;revolution&#39; fulfils the same urge.
Others don&#39;t have to directly do any killing ... they just support economic policies that will undoubtedly kill the poor and vulnerable indirectly. Capitalism can just as easily be characterised as an urge to hurt and kill people as violent revolution.

[Tungsten]

patrickbeverley

Capitalism can just as easily be characterised as an urge to hurt and kill people as violent revolution.
If you managed to somehow hurt and kill someone without initiating force against them, I&#39;d be interested to hear how you did it.

[overlord]

QUOTE (Forbes Site)
So to what end does this all lead? Should we encourage fights to the death? Perhaps. Allowing willing participants to risk life and limb should be accepted if it is the informed decision of all participants. There&#39;s a legal principle called volenti non fit injuria—"to a willing person, no injury is done." It holds true for athletes as well. If a person wants to risk death in the pursuit of fame, they should be allowed to do so.


A way to deal with striking workers perhaps? This sounds cool :) . I am looking forward to it and will definitely be subscribing for the cable service. People in a capitalistic society shouldn&#39;t have to put up with either striking workers or that dodgy TV wrestling anymore. :ph34r:

i forgot to add, anyone seen "Last days of Pompei?". That is one of my all time favourite movies. Lead character is a slave-trader for the Roman games: "Making money is easy ... all you have to do is kill people".

[Oh-Dae-Su]

cool, what else does Forbes proposes? that we go and save the princess from the Dragon&#39;s den lol :lol: :rolleyes:

[cyu]

If you managed to somehow hurt and kill someone without initiating force against them, I&#39;d be interested to hear how you did it.

Let&#39;s say when the victim comes into your store, you refuse to sell him any food. No matter where he goes, nobody gives him any food, no matter what he offers. When he tries to take food, you say, "Hey, you&#39;re initiating force&#33; No food for you&#33;" and force him away. The guy starves.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:27 PM

If you managed to somehow hurt and kill someone without initiating force against them, I&#39;d be interested to hear how you did it.

Let&#39;s say when the victim comes into your store, you refuse to sell him any food. No matter where he goes, nobody gives him any food, no matter what he offers. When he tries to take food, you say, "Hey, you&#39;re initiating force&#33; No food for you&#33;" and force him away. The guy starves.
that is the most unlikely thing ot happen ever. the idea that you coudl somehow organize the whole wrold to not give one guy food is absurd

[Tungsten]

cyu

Let&#39;s say when the victim comes into your store, you refuse to sell him any food.
How is that initiating force?

[TC]

QUOTE (Forbes Site)
So to what end does this all lead? Should we encourage fights to the death? Perhaps. Allowing willing participants to risk life and limb should be accepted if it is the informed decision of all participants. There&#39;s a legal principle called volenti non fit injuria—"to a willing person, no injury is done." It holds true for athletes as well. If a person wants to risk death in the pursuit of fame, they should be allowed to do so.


Actually, i agree that nothing done to a consenting person should be considered criminal as it would amount to prosecution for victimless crimes. However, one of the aspects of consent is that, it can be withdrawn at any time and in situations where it can&#39;t be withdrawn or reasonably infered it can&#39;t be taken as consent.

Fights to the death between non-suicidal people couldn&#39;t possibly be consensual, since even if they consented to engaging in the fight, they would withdraw consent when it became evident that they were losing and would be killed, and even if they didn&#39;t, it would have to be infered that they would not consent to any specific lethal injury even if they consented to the risk.

So, really i think, its a moot point. Roman gladiatory games even between free roman citzens didn&#39;t involve victimless crimes with consenting participants because while they might have consented at the begining the losers certaintly didn&#39;t consent at the end.

[cyu]

Let&#39;s say when the victim comes into your store, you refuse to sell him any food.
How is that initiating force?

It&#39;s not. You wanted an example of how to kill someone without using the "initiation of force" and I gave you an example.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

dude , why not just poison the damn person? by the way, yes that is a pretty dumb example, i mean unless your doing it purpously, but if not, i doubt out of 10 people that pass by they are all going to be soooo inhumane that they will not try to help you and give you some food.....

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:50 AM
The real "Return of the Gladiators". :o
If they bring back Lightning then I&#39;m all for it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:28 PM
So, really i think, its a moot point. Roman gladiatory games even between free roman citzens didn&#39;t involve victimless crimes with consenting participants because while they might have consented at the begining the losers certaintly didn&#39;t consent at the end.

Alright then, so what if two people agree to fight to fight to the death knowing that one of them will end up fighting for their life as you described?

It&#39;s called informed consent. Like I realise that my smoking habit has a great chance of of killing me through cancer or heart disease, one should also be informed of the consequences of a fight to the death before consenting to such an act.

[Dyst]

If you managed to somehow hurt and kill someone without initiating force against them, I&#39;d be interested to hear how you did it.

Let&#39;s say I pay a friend of mine to shoot you.

Lucky for you, that&#39;s an example and not a threat. Many are not so lucky.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:02 PM
Alright then, so what if two people agree to fight to fight to the death knowing that one of them will end up fighting for their life as you described?

The principle of not recognizing &#39;crimes&#39; done to consenting &#39;victims&#39; includes the ability to withdraw consent though...even if they consented to knowing that *one* of them would die, their consent would be withdrawn (either implicitly or explicitly) when it became aparent *which* one of them would die...

the only scenario where a "fight to the death" could go through to its conclusion without lack of consent at some point would be if they consented to *both* parties dying and understood that there was *no way* to survive, in which case, it wouldn&#39;t be a fight it would be double suicide.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The principle of not recognizing &#39;crimes&#39; done to consenting &#39;victims&#39; includes the ability to withdraw consent though...even if they consented to knowing that *one* of them would die, their consent would be withdrawn (either implicitly or explicitly) when it became aparent *which* one of them would die...

If I&#39;m base jumping and something goes wrong, then do I not "withdraw my consent" by not wishing to fall to my death even if it happens anyway? Every time someone performs a risky act, whether it is smoking, extreme sports or a duel, then they accept that there is a chance they might die. If someone goes into a duel knowing that there is a chance they might die, then by entering into that duel they de facto accept the possibility that they will end up at the mercy of their opponent. On the other hand, they might win. As long as somebody is aware of the consequences of their actions and is willing to go through them, even to point of beggin for their life, I do not see why they shouldn&#39;t be prevented from the opportunity.

If you don&#39;t want to die, then don&#39;t do activities which might result in your death, such as dueling, base jumping and smoking.


the only scenario where a "fight to the death" could go through to its conclusion without lack of consent at some point would be if they consented to *both* parties dying and understood that there was *no way* to survive, in which case, it wouldn&#39;t be a fight it would be double suicide.

Is going into mortal combat with someone else then not a suicidal act, due to the non-trivial chance of being killed?

[Tungsten]

cyu


How is that initiating force? It&#39;s not. You wanted an example of how to kill someone without using the "initiation of force" and I gave you an example.
Read your post again and tell me what&#39;s wrong with your statement. If I&#39;m not initiating force, then how am I responsible for someone else&#39;s death?
Keiza

Let&#39;s say I pay a friend of mine to shoot you.
You&#39;d be initiating force (accessory to murder) by asking someone else to do it.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

lmao, he doesn&#39;t know what 2nd and 3rd degree murders are :D

[cyu]

How is that initiating force?
It&#39;s not. You wanted an example of how to kill someone without using the "initiation of force" and I gave you an example.
Read your post again and tell me what&#39;s wrong with your statement. If I&#39;m not initiating force, then how am I responsible for someone else&#39;s death?

Now you&#39;re adding responsibility into the question, which you didn&#39;t add before. It depends on what you mean by responsibility. If a person dies because no one will give him food, then there&#39;s a cause and effect relationship between the not giving of food and the death. That sounds like the definition of responsibility to me. But if the real question you&#39;re after is whether you&#39;ll have a legal responsibilty for the death and should be punished, that&#39;s a different question. Discussion of that would have to be based on things like whether you believe people have a right to live and whether you believe the taking of food is justified if your survival is at stake.

Anatole France famously wrote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."