[prog2djent]

,,,

[sugar-n-spice]

anarchists lol

u dirty anarchist negging me, dont realise ur system is like fascism it takes away ppls rights

[The_Last_Melon]

I like the idea of fisticuffs to solve feuds, but realistically it's not practical or humane for a modern, civilised society.

[Tommyjw]

I have to admt, if you could pay to see something like in the Death Race film, would probably watch it.

[ESPORTIVA]

Couldnt boxing be considered a bloodsport/deathsport? Lots of people have died even in amateurs either way i love it

[prog2djent]

(Original post by ESPORTIVA)
Couldnt boxing be considered a bloodsport/deathsport? Lots of people have died even in amateurs either way i love it

The intention isn't to kill.

[Dux_Helvetica]

I do not believe that it is civilised to condone death sports in the 21st century.

[ESPORTIVA]

(Original post by prog2djent)
The intention isn't to kill.

True

[TheHistoryStudent]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Lifeted from another thread, "As long as people are consenting, are consenting, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Such as death sports, don't care if it seems distopian, but like a gladiator type thing, where criminals or people who grudges can go into a ring (with the consent of family as well) and just fight to the death with weapons, obstacle courses, weaponized racing courses".

So, libertarians, anarchists or liberals, and others, would you like to see this (OK maybe not like, but tolerate), or would you keep the niche the way it is (no death sports in the extreme sports catagory) or, have it banned if it was allowed?

Discuss.

If all parties are consenting then at the end of the day they're consenting... still dunno though to be honest whether I think it's right or wrong...just doesn't seem right to me for some reason.

On the other hand, what might be entertaining is if for the next General election, rather than TV debates, we simply have a fight to the death between the main candidates - would probably make them more lively anyway!

[prog2djent]

(Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
If all parties are consenting then at the end of the day they're consenting... still dunno though to be honest whether I think it's right or wrong...just doesn't seem right to me for some reason.

On the other hand, what might be entertaining is if for the next General election, rather than TV debates, we simply have a fight to the death between the main candidates - would probably make them more lively anyway!

Haha, MIlliband hits cameron round the face with a wrench "this is what I think of your austerity cameron ...SMACK", Dave gets up, with a nailed baseball bat "Overspend this mother******"

[TheHistoryStudent]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Haha, MIlliband hits cameron round the face with a wrench "this is what I think of your austerity cameron ...SMACK", Dave gets up, with a nailed baseball bat "Overspend this mother******"

And what about Clegg? Or was he knocked out by the crowd on the way into the ring?

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
If all parties are consenting then at the end of the day they're consenting... still dunno though to be honest whether I think it's right or wrong...just doesn't seem right to me for some reason.

On the other hand, what might be entertaining is if for the next General election, rather than TV debates, we simply have a fight to the death between the main candidates - would probably make them more lively anyway!

Unless they're manipulated. For example "sign up for this death fight, inmate, or we'll put you in a cell quarter with these people known for gang-rape and shanking".

[PicardianSocialist]

The only problem I would have with this is what happens when someone withdraws their consent during the match?

[Greenlaner]

I think we should bring back dueling. Maybe with just painball guns to start with though, so as not to offend the "oh but we are a civilised, 21st century society" brigade.

[Aoide]

As long as they are consenting (of course there would need to be some tight precautions to ensure people do consent) I wouldn't have a problem- there are many current niche sports/activities with high death rates and they are legal. There would obviously need to be a clear limit on when consent can and can't be withdrawn. I probably wouldn't watch as I would find it a bit savage (I would be interested in life threatening sports but not oes where the sole aim is to kill) but that should't make it illegal, it is their life so it's their choice.

[DontWantYourBloodMoney]

As long as there is continued consent, I'd be fine with it. They'd have to be able to allow people to withdraw consent during the matches though, as it would still count as a win for the other guy. I'm in favour of this but not executions of those who know they're xompletely outmatched.

[Darkphilosopher]

I really wouldn't trust humanity with death sports. Inevitably there will be those forced/pressured into participating in such activities without their consent. (I.e. Fight to the death for my entertainment or I kill your family)

[JollyGreenAtheist]

I think in theory, it's acceptable. I don't think it should have spectators or be broadcasted, because that would glorify the violence. However, I think if two consenting adults really wanted to fight, it's wrong for the state to stop them. I wouldn't enjoy it, and certainly would never partake - I'm a pacifist - but I think it's an essential liberty.

However, I think there are too many problems with this. I can't see the legality of it being carried out properly, and I'm confident that there would be blackmailed or forced consent. As another poster pointed out, not with humanity.

[Pitt1988]

Yeah why not. People say 'not in a civilised society in the 21st century', when really we haven't moved on much from the barbaric ways of old. Go for it, if they consent.

[Jack93o]

Like with everything, in my opinion if you have two consenting parties of adult age, why should outsiders have any right to stop them doing their activity. As long as it affects no-one else, things like public 'outrage', 'disgust' and personal dislike are not strong enough reasons to rule on someone's lifestyle choices.