Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JRandomFreeper

I almost put in the caveat about whether or not you agree with OSHA’s charter is another discussion. The fact is, under the charter they do have, right or wrong, this is a no-brainer and not some act of political oppression.


13 posted on 11/12/2013 7:35:00 AM PST by kevkrom (It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: kevkrom

If it was really that dangerous there would have been a lot more people killed.


15 posted on 11/12/2013 8:02:43 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: kevkrom

I have a job as a halloween haunt monster. Now, I am unlikely to be killed in this job. However, my job is to scare people. Sometimes, people who are scared lash out. Several times a weekend, the scare-actors might get punched by a guest. This is a known workplace hazard, and we are all warned about it and trained how to minimize it.

But why could not OSHA simply claim that the risk of being hit by a guest outweighs any benefit of putting haunt monsters into that situation? It is hard to argue that the world needs people scaring other people for money. It is hard to say that it is essential that the haunt monster get close enough to a guest to be in a position to get punched.

But I can tell you that a LOT of people are entertained, and receive enjoyment, from that interaction.

Would a SeaWorld show be as enjoyable without the interaction between the trainer and the animal? I don’t know. But someone has probably done a cost-benefit analysis, and I’d think Sea World would not be doing this if they didn’t have evidence that more people will enjoy the show with the interaction (which is why it would be more money for them).

Are people’s enjoyment of a show worth the risk of harm? Well, people die playing pro football, and you could make illegal the actions that take place in a football game that lead to those deaths, but it would make the game less enjoyable. We clearly have a concept that enjoyment is worth risk of life. Same with many other sports, like car racing, which has no real purpose but to entertain, but which kills people.

I can’t imagine how you would run a circus without the trainers ever being in a position where a potentially deadly animal might be able to attack the trainer. Or whether people would really like a high-wire act if there was no chance of the person falling to their death (caveat: I personally don’t like watching other people risk their lives, and would enjoy the act more if I knew there was safety equipment, but that doesn’t appear to be true for most people).

I probably could support OSHA issuing safety guidelines that required trainers to be properly taught and to sign off on the risks. Informed consent is key.


26 posted on 11/12/2013 9:51:57 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson