It's simply not good enough to have an attitude of "Oh, well if they're that stupid then they deserve to get hurt." That's crap. You don't see anyone ragging on Tom Patton or Johnny Wadell or Renee Junga and saying that they deserved to get hurt because they were doing a sport which was potentially hazardous. Do you consider every dirt jumper or downhiller deserving of being seriously injured?
....
Yes, if you do stuff that's dumb, it's your responsibility. Encouraging others to do something dumb or marketing a cool image of doing stuff that's dumb is also your responsibility. I for one would prefer that we didn't do it.
I think that your post serves to itself highlight the central flaw in this argument, please allow me too elaborate.
People get hurt riding all the time: IT IS A DANGEROUS SPORT.
Yet we continue to worship the elite riders we see in vids and at the races. Why? Because they can do stuff that is more advanced and more dangerous than the rest of us. Hell, at races, the express intent is to ride as fast, and as close to the edge of catastrophe as possible! We reward the people that get the closest with accolades and trophies!
Maybe it's just me, but the mtb community hardly seems like one that shies away from danger!
So far, I've picked up two arguments for the banning of pics called for by this thread:
1) it would remove depiction of illegal activity.
2) it'll set a better example for the community, by not encouraging dangerous activity.
I believe that we've all had a good run with number 1, and covered both its innacuracy, and the horrendous double standards it would raise.
So again, I'll go to point 2.
Everyone seems to argue for the banning by bringing with phrases like "good example" and "responsible", and other
subjective phrases. Sure, these reasons sound good in theory, but they all require making value judgements as to what is a "good" example, and what is "responsible".
The people who argue for the ban seem to have made this judgement and decided that the line should be drawn at helmet-less riding, which I understand, but what makes their idea of a "good" example any more valid than the rabid conservatives?
With my first paragraph in mind, mtbing hardly seems to be the sport you take up if you want to do everything possible to protect your personal safety. There's plenty of people who would rather that we didn't depict any dangerous activities at all, as it encourages people to put themselves in unnecessary risk that can lead to an increased load on the health system.
They have a valid point too, yet I'd imagine that most members here would cry foul if we decided that their view was a good one to adopt.
What people are calling for here is censorship of other people exercising their right to choose how they partake in their pass-time, with no reason other than they think it sets a "good" example, and is more "responsible".
In general, I despise censorship and regulation of actions that don't affect others and as far as I can see this situation is no different.
If you really want to make farkin more socially responsible, campaign for the banning of POSM.
