Predatory lending practices are often illegal and usually considered immoral, even though nobody is forcing 'the marks' into signing the contract. One party in this agreement is clearly taking advantage of the situation of another.
Isn't this the very definition of exploitation? Taking advantage of a desperate situation for your own personal gain? How else would you define exploitation?
The question isn't should they be legal just where they stand on the moral Highground New Yorker - are you saying you see nothing immoral about the bumfights? You are saying . . in any situation . .dealing with humans. . . if one takes advantage of the other. . . it is ok. . because tha human put themselves in a vunerable position . . through choices they made . .. i.e. If a boss tells a woman gimmie sex or you fired that is ok . . because she has a choice. . . . there is nothing immoral about that Is that what you are saying? In the bumfights. .the choices are very similar Fight or starve Rocket River
Well, or get off your lazy ace and get a job like the rest of functioning society. Nice try though. And who else saw Whoopi Goldberg defending Michael Vick yesterday on tv? WOW. The depths to which people will stoop to blindly defend actions of their own race. Double murder (OJ), steroids (Bonds), dog fighting/killing (Vick). Does anyone else find this consistent pattern interesting in the least?
That the fact that two people enter into an agreement is not proof that it is a valid 'moral' or legitimate agreement. This is in response to the argument that because both parties entered into the contract of free will that there is nothing morally wrong with bumfighting as seen in several of New Yorker's posts.
Oh, I thought I was just arguing whether it was coercion. In regards to moral aspect, I think it is immoral as well. While I believe that the agreement between the producers and bum seems pretty legit, the immoral part is how the producers subject the bums to danger with no intention of remedying the damage.
No. I find the rich honkies that defend one another in national crimes that affect our entire nation more interesting.
I'm not sure where the moral barrier is crossed. Standard of care? When someone dies playing football? Or how about all the brain damage boxing causes? Does boxing pay them compensation for that? Does the NFL run a special hospital for the players after they retire and develop arthritis? A bum suing for injuries is silly. If you die in skydiving, the chances of your survivors suing on your behalf is pretty close to nil. You take a known risk in life, and then people love to try to cry about it. Sorry I don't buy it.
To exploit someone, you have to take advantage of their ignorance or lack of knowledge. For instance, making someone do something unsafe without them knowing the risks. Or paying someone less than they deserve. Look, you can make an argument that workers everywhere are exploited. They add more value than they provide, otherwise how could investors get so rich....you're sounding a lot like Karl Marx ya know.
I would suggest that BumFight people are doing all three of these. 1. The bums involved have a lack of knowledge of in terms of the market for this site and what their labor is going towards. 2. They are certainly doing something unsafe - I doubt they are fully understanding of the risks; some of these people are likely to have mental illnesses given the number of homeless that do, and I seriously doubt BumFight.com makes serious efforts to screen their participates or make sure they are fully aware of what they are getting into. 3. I seriously doubt the bums are being paid "fairly" however we could define that. The company knows they are desperate and will do anything for money.
1. No, they are being video-taped. They are fully aware that they are doing something for commercial purposes. Unless they were intoxicated when they signed the contract, there is no legal basis for this. 2. None of the four homeless people had mental illness. If they had, I'd agree with you that they were being exploited. But this is not the case. I do not think it's Bumfights responsibility to ensure the mental health of the entertainers they use, but if the bums were clearly mentally ill, that would be a different story. however, that was not the case. 3. There is no such thing as "fair" pay unless you are a paid a wagely rate in which case minimum wage laws apply. So long as they are aware of their pay and aggree to it, then that's enough. Desperation is not a defense for the choices you make. Are dating sites exploiting people's desperation for love or sex? Does McDonald's exploit people's desire for a quick lunch? I mean, it's just too much of a gray area. Unless you can make the case the bums were not mentally sober than I don't think bumfights is in the wrong. If people choose to risk harm upon themselves for money, then i'm all for it. If someone wants to jump out an airplane, or whatever, that's perfectly fine so long as it doesn't endanger anyone else against their will. For example, paying someone to throw rocks at cars. But these guys were willing at every point of the way. They choose to make fools of themselves for entertainment, and that's their own stupidity. I think people shouldn't be allowed to sue for stupidity. Smokers, bums, or people who spill hot coffee in their laps. Yeah, you can make excuses and we're a blame society....but freedom has a responsibility to take care of oneself and not depend on other people to protect you from unwise decisions. The bums weren't scammed or promised x and instead delivered y. They were offered money to fight, and they accepted it. Simple as that.
I don't think it's a lack of knowledge about the earnings potential for their taped fights, but rather the large supply of desperate bums who will competitively lower the market price for run of the mill fighters. Econ terminology for bumfights lol....
In both boxing and football, there are doctors standing by in case of emergency. If the boxing federation does not provide a safe circumstance for the sport and injury resulted from that, they are certainly liable in law. The same goes for football. While I don't think NFL runs a special hospital, they have one of the best retirement packages you can find anywhere. If a skydiver was hurt or killed due to negligence on the behalf of the service provider, they would most definitely sue. While there are no express promises that the participants will not be hurt, there is an implied promise that the producer has a duty of care for the participants to make sure they are not seriously hurt. I cannot cite specific cases, but I am 99% sure that this is established in American common law. In addition, I personally find it unethical that you can pay someone so you can see them get hurt.
Have you ever been skydiving? You are forced to watch a video of people dying in some places with a statement saying, "You can die doing this, and you will that you acknowledge this and that you will not be able to sue". I disagree that football and boxing do all they can to prevent injuries. Much of what you see to day has evolved over the history of the sport, but they had plenty of decades to go through that evolution. Finally, I don't see that these bums are being paid to get hurt. They are getting paid to fight and perform. I don't see any of the marketing as "see bums get hurt". The site isn't "Bum pain" it's "bumfight". I mean, boxing and football generates 100's of millions in revenue, I think they can afford to have doctors standing by. These guys are trying to make a few bucks, it's not like they walked away with a billion dollars.
Hey, if the bums want to form a union and demand better wages and protections, just like every other group, then that's what they can do. THey should be thankful that they had a job. Beggers can't be choosers after all!
look, I get your point, bums are human beings, they have choices, but these arguments are impracticle in reality. the idea that homeless guys are gonna get together and form a union is pretty ridiculous and because its ridiculous its the reason they are being exploited. because anyone knows that homeless people probably don't have the means to form a union, especially when they need immediate satisfaction. you have a point, but making these silly analogies are examples doesn't strengthen it.
