CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > Community > Stuff and Nonsense
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Stuff and Nonsense For off-topic chatter. Keep it PG-13; no sex, politics or religion!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-02-2011, 05:35 AM   #51
Darryl Shaw
Member Darryl Shaw is offline
 
Darryl Shaw's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manchester  England
Posts: 1,925
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Traeger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash Smith View Post
So what about the pregnant handstand in the recent Fast Company article? This was linked on the main page a couple days ago (WFS):

http://images.fastcompany.com/upload...l-pregnant.jpg

Like I said earlier, I think this is equally stupid but I've never seen much commentary apart from encouragement for women doing potentially dangerous CF work when pregnant.
I could say that whilst pregnant they're not endangering another life yet. But that'd probably get too many angry comments from the believers.
"A 24 week old embryo is not a human being. You're not a human being until you're in my phone book." - Bill Hicks.

Last edited by Darryl Shaw : 09-02-2011 at 05:37 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 10:58 AM   #52
David Cooke, Jr.
Member David Cooke, Jr. is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Macon  GA
Posts: 61
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

Can we at least agree that WOD's should not needlessly endanger the lives of infants? Is that really too much to ask? And is it really too much to ask HQ not to endorse and glorify parents who intentionally endanger their infants?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2011, 02:40 AM   #53
Dave Traeger
Banned Dave Traeger is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Perth  WA Australia
Posts: 1,810
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

There has been one since then of a guy doing pullups with his kid on his back. That one disnt seem to get any comments. He could have slipped and landed on him which wouldn't have been pretty.

Its absolutely no where near as dangerous as the overhead squat one but it seems like more parents are trying to join in on the craze. Wont be long til someone pushes the boundaries too far. Oh well natural selection I guess.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2011, 03:06 AM   #54
Struan Potter
Member Struan Potter is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Gloucester  UK
Posts: 712
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Traeger View Post
There has been one since then of a guy doing pullups with his kid on his back. That one disnt seem to get any comments. He could have slipped and landed on him which wouldn't have been pretty.

Its absolutely no where near as dangerous as the overhead squat one but it seems like more parents are trying to join in on the craze. Wont be long til someone pushes the boundaries too far. Oh well natural selection I guess.
It's HQ's way of trying to diffuse the situation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 01:04 AM   #55
Charles Applin
Member Charles Applin is offline
 
Charles Applin's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yokosuka 横須賀  Kanagawa 神&#2
Posts: 437
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

I'd still say its people letting emotions dictate reality. Freakonomics put it best when it compared the statistical death of a child going to a house where a gun was stored compared to a house that had a swimming pool. The statistically more dangerous act, sending a child to a house with a swimming pool would be emotionally chosen over sending the child to a house that had a stored gun.

People see a baby, child, pregnant woman, elderly person and immediately think any activity is dangerous without any further investigation of the situation.

I'm reminded of the Steve Irwin controversy where he was feeding a crocodile while holding his child. Trained man, very skilled in his job, keeping the child on the far side, and no harm came to either. Yet calls of child endangerment ensued. It's like every other letter to the editor in the Stars and Stripes commenting on a photo that was dangerous because x could use the information to do y. Nothing more than kneejerk over emotional reaction with not even a percentage of actual knowledge on the situation at hand.

As stated: Trained man, fully capable of movement at hand, photo-op. There was more danger taking the baby in the car than was in the creation of that photo.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 08:16 AM   #56
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Applin View Post
I'd still say its people letting emotions dictate reality. Freakonomics put it best when it compared the statistical death of a child going to a house where a gun was stored compared to a house that had a swimming pool. The statistically more dangerous act, sending a child to a house with a swimming pool would be emotionally chosen over sending the child to a house that had a stored gun.

People see a baby, child, pregnant woman, elderly person and immediately think any activity is dangerous without any further investigation of the situation.

I'm reminded of the Steve Irwin controversy where he was feeding a crocodile while holding his child. Trained man, very skilled in his job, keeping the child on the far side, and no harm came to either. Yet calls of child endangerment ensued. It's like every other letter to the editor in the Stars and Stripes commenting on a photo that was dangerous because x could use the information to do y. Nothing more than kneejerk over emotional reaction with not even a percentage of actual knowledge on the situation at hand.

As stated: Trained man, fully capable of movement at hand, photo-op. There was more danger taking the baby in the car than was in the creation of that photo.
Ok, how about sending your kid to a house where the parents have guns and like to use them in photo opportunities with their kids? That's an accurate analogy to what we're looking at in this picture.

Just like there's nothing inherently dangerous about going to a house that has barbells and plates, there's nothing inherently dangerous about going to a house that has guns stored in a safe or in another place completely inaccessible to children. The context is what matters--those "safe" barbells suddenly become dangerous when someone decides to hold them over a kids head for no good reason.

And again, the comparison to driving is a completely different issue. We've been over the risk/reward thing several times. There's a risk of choking or getting food poisoning every time we eat but we choose to keep doing that anyways.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 08:38 AM   #57
Michael Kelley
Member Michael Kelley is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Virginia Beach  VA
Posts: 317
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

I guess the best comparison involving guns would be to have someone point a loaded gun at a child, move the safety to "fire," and place his finger on the trigger stating "I am trained and competent with this weapon so there is no risk to the child." That's pretty much what this guy did with the weights in this picture. One slip and the child could be killed or maimed for life. It isn't about freedom or choice or anything other than a stupid decision on that guy's part. Everyone has an "oops" moment with weights from time to time, even with a weight that is normally handled with ease. They come down a bit off, they get a little nerve pinch that keeps the shoulder from locking in properly...whatever. This was just a foolish move.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 11:55 AM   #58
Struan Potter
Member Struan Potter is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Gloucester  UK
Posts: 712
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

Charles, you have already dug yourself a hole, for your own sake, stop digging deeper. You're trying to defend the undefendable. Please stop.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 08:02 AM   #59
Charles Applin
Member Charles Applin is offline
 
Charles Applin's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yokosuka 横須賀  Kanagawa 神&#2
Posts: 437
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Montgomery View Post
Ok, how about sending your kid to a house where the parents have guns and like to use them in photo opportunities with their kids? That's an accurate analogy to what we're looking at in this picture.

Just like there's nothing inherently dangerous about going to a house that has barbells and plates, there's nothing inherently dangerous about going to a house that has guns stored in a safe or in another place completely inaccessible to children. The context is what matters--those "safe" barbells suddenly become dangerous when someone decides to hold them over a kids head for no good reason.

And again, the comparison to driving is a completely different issue. We've been over the risk/reward thing several times. There's a risk of choking or getting food poisoning every time we eat but we choose to keep doing that anyways.
Sorry, seen too many kids sent out to play soccer, football, horse riding, riding a bike, walking on a sidewalk by the street, using the train system alone, to still play the "I know when it's too dangerous when I see it" game with others. Neither side can win cause each can bring anything about and justify by redefining acceptable risk.

Let me ask you. Person A did a risky photo like above ONCE, but feeds their child a healthy diet and encourages exercise everyday till he's 18. Person B did not do the risky photo, but feeds their child ice cream and pizza everyday and discourages exercise. Person C does the risky photo op every day till the child is three. In ranking I'd put it c, b then a. The photo op is a risk that might create immediate death so in our mind it's bad, very bad. The pizza and ice cream is something that only reveals itself over time. Neither compare to constantly doing something risky with no justifiable reward.

In my mind, what happened in the photo is so much less risky than a child riding a motorcycle with his dad. Last I checked, the latter is not against the law off public streets. Hell, consider the bicycle example that was blown off earlier. All three can result in horrific results in event of an unlikely accident. Hell, justify the reason a house needs a swimming pool and the enormous risk that brings to children in the house.

Again, I'm a liberal. I'm ok with the nanny state to a point but the statements in this thread just sound excessive. Others in this thread saying that CPS needs to be called? Sorry, I've dealt with the idiocy that is the CPS and I would not wish that on others.

All that said, again, if given a vote in the matter I'd say no to doing an overhead squat while a baby is attached to your chest.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 08:20 AM   #60
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
Re: I don't even know what to title this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Applin View Post
Sorry, seen too many kids sent out to play soccer, football, horse riding, riding a bike, walking on a sidewalk by the street, using the train system alone, to still play the "I know when it's too dangerous when I see it" game with others. Neither side can win cause each can bring anything about and justify by redefining acceptable risk.

Let me ask you. Person A did a risky photo like above ONCE, but feeds their child a healthy diet and encourages exercise everyday till he's 18. Person B did not do the risky photo, but feeds their child ice cream and pizza everyday and discourages exercise. Person C does the risky photo op every day till the child is three. In ranking I'd put it c, b then a. The photo op is a risk that might create immediate death so in our mind it's bad, very bad. The pizza and ice cream is something that only reveals itself over time. Neither compare to constantly doing something risky with no justifiable reward.

In my mind, what happened in the photo is so much less risky than a child riding a motorcycle with his dad. Last I checked, the latter is not against the law off public streets. Hell, consider the bicycle example that was blown off earlier. All three can result in horrific results in event of an unlikely accident. Hell, justify the reason a house needs a swimming pool and the enormous risk that brings to children in the house.

Again, I'm a liberal. I'm ok with the nanny state to a point but the statements in this thread just sound excessive. Others in this thread saying that CPS needs to be called? Sorry, I've dealt with the idiocy that is the CPS and I would not wish that on others.

All that said, again, if given a vote in the matter I'd say no to doing an overhead squat while a baby is attached to your chest.
Or how about they feed their kid a healthy diet and encourage them to exercise and don't take a picture like this? Wouldn't that be the best option? Or how about I feed my 8 year old a healthy diet, make him exercise, yet I let him smoke a pack of cigarettes every now and then--is he more or less healthy than the non-smoking kid who eats McDonalds and doesn't exercise? Wouldn't it just be smarter to not give him the cigarettes instead of trying to split hairs over which is more or less healthy?

You keep bringing up this "feeding a baby Dr. Pepper" and other strawmen, then making the conclusion that getting thrown into a stupid photo without any ability to consent is just part of the price you pay for growing up with healthy parents. Your bicycle example didn't get blown off--it's just not any different than the car example. Risk versus reward. Can you get somewhere faster on a bike than by walking, and will it be easier to park a bike than a car once you're there? Is the kid in a proper seat, strapped in, with a helmet on? Is the mom/dad following applicable bike traffic laws, staying in a bike lane, riding intelligently, etc.? If the answer is yes to those things, then the risks are being mitigated. What risks are being mitigated in the baby OHS picture? The fact that it's "only" 135lbs?

It's not about being a nanny state--I'm the last person in the world to recommend anything that would take us further down that path--but advocating on behalf of people who can't make their own decisions is quite a different thing. That's why police/CPS get mad at pesky little things like parents not putting their kids in a car seat, or leaving them home unattended, or leaving things like tools or weapons within their reach.

Your posts would make sense if you'd just stuck with the last line of this one--that's all that really needs to be said. Everything else is nonsense.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thread title change? John B Gardner Technical Support 0 01-15-2011 06:27 PM
I'm Really Not Sure Of A Good Title... Justin Ellsworth Stuff and Nonsense 41 03-24-2009 11:02 PM
Change Thread Title Andy Gann Technical Support 6 10-16-2008 07:33 PM
Mods, changing thread title in workout logs? Greg Privitera Technical Support 1 02-05-2008 08:46 PM
Cant think of title for this post. Roy Taylor Fitness 29 10-19-2004 04:38 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.