[mentor2k]

"There are all sorts of dangerous sports that teenagers engage in. Skiing, waterskiing, playing football, biking. Heck, even riding a plain old horse is dangerous"

From Occupied GA wrote:
"See the stats in post 10 and then tell me that skiing, etc are anywhere NEAR as dangerous as bull riding. Oh and you can skip the false dichotomy. Teenagers aren't limited to chosing between bull riding and watching tv. This is a tragedy, and any attempts to soft sell it are just blowing pink smoke up everyone's backside."

You're probably one of those who think people have to be protected from themselves or their desires to do dangereous things. Your solution probably involves some sort of regulation. Rodeo is and has been as American as apple pie. You'll never take that from rural America. These animals are cared for better than most humans. Unlike the days of Lane Frost, these riders today have the option of wearing a helmet and required to wear a specially designed impact vest. They love the sport and know the risks or they wouldn't be doing it. Yet it's attitudes like yours would have everyone believe you know what's best for them.

[from occupied ga]

Where to begin

You're probably one of those who think ... Your solution probably involves

You're probably one of those people who when unable to find something specific to disagree with, invents a position for someone else, and then argues against it. If you don't like what I said, stick to refuting what I said, not your half witted assumptions of my position. But just to clarify, I think CHILDREN (and only Children - not adults) should be protected from themselves somewhat, because children do not have the experience or knowldege to accurately assess the risks of their behavior.

About the animals. I could give a crap. I'll eat them at MacDonalds when the rodeo is finished with them, so the retard who called me a Peta person can shove it.

Attitudes...

Au Contraire. It's attitudes like yours where you rush to condemn without having a single solitary clue as to what the other person is talking about are what leads to problems. Now what do I consider children. Hmm we send 18 year olds into combat, so 18 is a good cutoff under that wear protective gear like kids being required to wear bicycle helmets over that do whatever you want. Now does that give you something to argue against without having to fabricate a false position for me and then attack it?