Hacker News Reader

Comment by triceratops | Hacker News Reader

You only need one athlete that's willing to. The others will have no choice after that.

It's no different than asking if workers should be allowed to work without PPE.

If workers want to work without PPE, then let them. Just ensure that they sign releases acknowledging that the PPE was made available to them and they chose of their own volition to not use it, and that by doing so they release everyone from any liability about what happens to them from not using the PPE.

And whats to stop the industry from only hiring those people and firing everyone who wants protection under the guise of 'They aren't as productive" and going back to 19th century working conditions where people die on the regular to save pennies?

Foreman: "You want to work today, or go home and tell your family you're broke? No? Then sign the fucking form. We don't pay for PPE here."

Your comments go to show either a concerning lack of thought towards second-order effects, or a disturbing lack of empathy towards your fellow humans.

If everyone else is using PPE, but you choose not to wear PPE, there's no empathy to be given. You may think the need for PPE is a hoax, but that's not anyone else's problem if there's a direct repercussion for your actions.

The problem was not offered as your sibling comment as a forced decision. Some people choose to juice, others do not. That same logic applied to if you want to do it, here's the waiver to acknowledge it was your decision. I can feel sorry for someone's family for being related to a dunce, but no empathy is required on my part for the dunce.

You're still only thinking about direct effects, not second-order effects. Keep workin' that noggin you'll get there.

okay, so one guy can choose to do it, and have his career burn bright but for a smaller amount of time than the ones that don't juice and extend their careers and life after playing. The ones that juice, will just get little asterisks next to their names in whatever records are kept. But you keep thinking your noggin is the end all be all.

It's a slippery slope from there to "the children yearn for the mines".

You mean like deport those that do jobs that nobody else wants so we're not trying to lower the ages restrictions for those jobs? Not sure why the hypothetical slope is even necessary. We're doing it to ourselves

Reply on news.ycombinator.com