Yes or No: 'Gladiator' games would be human rights violations

Would gladiator games be human rights violations? (Read post first)

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • No

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Total voters
    8
N

Norsefire

Salam Shalom Salom
Registered Senior Member
If we were to revive gladiatorial games in the old Roman sense, that is to the death, then would they be human rights violations?

Keep in mind most matches were not to the death because that would have been too expensive; instead, most matches were to first blood (until one opponent bleeds), with occasional death matches.

Now, here is the question: would gladiator games be human rights violations? It is important to make this single distinction: in Rome, slaves were forced to fight. If gladiator games were brought back, people, like with any other sport, would voluntarily and consensually agree to fight; they wouldn't be forced to, and they would be informed fully of the responsibility and risk beforehand so as to not make an uninformed decision.

So, if gladiator games are consensual, are they human rights violations? My opinion is no, though what is yours?
 
There is no reasonable expectation of death in a boxing match, which is why weighted gloves and various other techniques are against the rules.
 
spidergoat said:
There is no reasonable expectation of death in a boxing match, which is why weighted gloves and various other techniques are against the rules.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the point is people are consenting. That alone means that it is not a human rights violation.
 
Norsefire said:
Yes, but the point is people are consenting. That alone means that it is not a human rights violation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but all the mamby-pamby liberal doo-gooders have to do is make claims that the participants are "obviously insane", so they'd have the matches stopped and the volunteers locked away in a mental institution.

Norsefire, you keep forgetting about all those fuckin' mamby-pamby, liberal doo-gooders who run our very lives ....all the goddamned time! The UN is full of those damned people.

Baron Max
 
We don't lock up boxers or people who do karate or people who go whitewater rafting. We don't lock up rugby players or racing car drivers.

Go figure.
 
Norsefire said:
Yes, but the point is people are consenting. That alone means that it is not a human rights violation.
Click to expand...
In the US you can't legally consent to your own assault. Of course, that doesn't actually cover the "human rights" question that you originally asked - but you definitely shouldn't expect to stay out of trouble if you start sword fighting etc. simply because the other guy agreed to it.
 
I voted other, although I think that allowing such combat might be closer to my true POV.

The problem for me is the matter of informed consent.

I find it difficult to believe that a sane person would willingly engage in a fight to the death if he thought he might lose. This POV makes me want to vote against such combat.

On the other hand, I do not believe in trying to protect fools from the consequences of their folly. This POV leads me to a conclusion opposite to the above.
 
BTW: I often wondered if it might be a good idea to allow suicide under controlled conditions.

For example: Allow a person to jump out of an airplane with a parachute. If the ripcord is not pulled, the person really wanted to die & it is okay.

Another example: Give a person a knife & tie him with strong twine to the bottom of a swimming pool. Start him with an oxygen supply that lasts about 5 minutes. If the knife is not used to cut the twine: So be it !!

The above might have the long term result of fewer deaths due to suicide.
 
Norsefire said:
If we were to revive gladiatorial games in the old Roman sense, that is to the death, then would they be human rights violations?
Click to expand...
If there was no financial gain from participating then I might think it was OK. But as long as there are very poor people or people who need money, for example, for expensive medical treatments for their children, this kind of thing would be vampiritic abuse by the not poor.

Getting off on the needs and suffering of others.
 
Baron Max said:
Yeah, but all the mamby-pamby liberal doo-gooders have to do is make claims that the participants are "obviously insane", so they'd have the matches stopped and the volunteers locked away in a mental institution.

Norsefire, you keep forgetting about all those fuckin' mamby-pamby, liberal doo-gooders who run our very lives ....all the goddamned time! The UN is full of those damned people.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
Well, you're not around BM, but you are contradicting yourself nonetheless. You claimed earlier, in response to me in another thread, that it was the liberals who emptied the mental institutions.
 
Dinosaur said:
I voted other, although I think that allowing such combat might be closer to my true POV.

The problem for me is the matter of informed consent.

I find it difficult to believe that a sane person would willingly engage in a fight to the death if he thought he might lose. This POV makes me want to vote against such combat.

On the other hand, I do not believe in trying to protect fools from the consequences of their folly. This POV leads me to a conclusion opposite to the above.
Click to expand...
I think people should not always be protected from their folly, and I like the way you put this. On the other hand I think we should have limits on other people making money off their folly, especially if this folly will lead to them killing or dying or both in sucessive TV shows.

And folly might not be the only motive. Financial need might drive some people to try this. They borrowed money from the mob. Their kid needs an operation. They are homeless and can't find work and winter is coming.

Having a bunch of people sitting home and wanking while watching the mentally ill and the desperate get killed is something I consider beyond what should be legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top