Individual Rights, and other Myths

[DCBC]

I think most legal systems would provide workable definitions on terms such 'reasonable' and 'prudent'.

Yes, but the fact remains that the law is not applicable here (no legal regulation). Even if it did apply, it would depend upon what was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. If the person had received training to do the activity he was engaged in, it would likely end there.

 

[DennisS]

I just wish people would stop saying "You have the right ..." and replace it with " you have the privilege and the responsibility ...". And I think Dennis summed up my feelings perfectly when he said: "Please don't screw it up for the rest of us."

In my view, that is the message we should be conveying to those who are proposing to "set a new personal depth record", or whatever. Telling them they have the "right" to do it is just going to hasten the day when those privileges are taken away.

I'm not going to worry whether it's a right or a privilege. I'm going out and shoot some fish and catch some lobster. I have the right to jump in the water in any scuba configuration I please. I have the privilege, that I have to pay a license fee and follow the rules, to be able to hunt fish and lobster in FL waters.

 

[DCBC]

Yes, I said I thought the ARGUMENT was childish, etc. I didn't call any human being a name. Acually, I did, twice, in post #1. This thread is about whether a diver has the "right" to dive recklessly. I say "no".

Society does not object to anyone undertaking risky activities (such as those under discussion). Several diving certification agencies sanction programs in deep-air and certification cards are issued. I suggest that diving activities such as deep-air, cave and wreck diving (all with an increased level of risk) have been sanctioned as common practice (certainly not unlawful). As such, people doing such activities are exercising their personal liberty, which is protected by law in many countries. Unless they are otherwise breaking a regulation by doing so, they have a "right" to do so in a free country.

I support a person's ability to do stupid things. I like this far better than the alternative. Hopefully however, people will use common sense and apply good judgement.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Society does not object to anyone undertaking risky activities (such as those under discussion). Several diving certification agencies sanction programs in deep-air and certification cards are issued. I suggest that diving activities such as deep-air, cave and wreck diving (all with an increased level of risk) have been sanctioned as common practice (certainly not unlawful). As such, people doing such activities are exercising their personal liberty, which is protected by law in many countries. Unless they are otherwise breaking a regulation by doing so, they have a "right" to do so in a free country.

I support a person's ability to do stupid things. I like this far better than the alternative. Hopefully however, people will use common sense and apply good judgement.

Note: Your quote mistakenly runs two of my sentences together, so I edited my previous post #90 for clarity.

You seem to be using a classic strawman argument by indicating that the alternative to doing stupid things is intrusive government regulation.

In fact, the alternative to doing stupid things is to NOT do stupid things.

And doing stupid things CAUSES intrusive government regulation.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

Standards that we ... as an industry that wants to self-regulate ... define for ourselves. Granted, that's broad, but consider the brouhaha 20 years ago about the recreational use of nitrox. What broke the impasse, and made the industry as a whole finally decide that it was OK? I submit it was an agreed-upon set of standards that we ... as a dive industry ... imposed upon ourselves. That doesn't mean that individuals don't exceed those standards ... but it does mean that we, as an industry, promote those standards as acceptably safe.

Same logic applies with ...

Perhaps there was a buck to be made. Like you said, it was the industry that decided.

....

No one is promoting unsafe diving practices, or creating threads to promote short-cuts. Is that what you are suggesting is being done here?

I have quoted this Nitrox History before, and nobody has challenged it's validity ... I submit that DCBC has more than a clue ...

In my most recent started thread, no one was allowed to answer the question "Do you think the many deep air / light deco (bounce?) threads are promoting deep air / light deco (bounce?) diving?"

In 1985 Dick Rutkowski, a former NOAA diving safety officer, formed IAND (International Association of Nitrox Divers) and began teaching nitrox use for recreational diving. This was considered dangerous by some, and met with heavy skepticism by the diving community.

In 1991, in a watershed moment, the annual DEMA show (held in Houston, Texas that year) banned nitrox training providers from the show. This created a backlash, and when DEMA relented, a number of organisations took the opportunity to present nitrox workshops outside the show. In 1992 BSAC banned its members from using nitrox.

In 1992 the name was changed to the International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers (IANTD), the T being added when the European Association of Technical Divers (EATD) merged with IAND. In the early 1990s, the agencies teaching nitrox were not the main scuba agencies. New organizations, including Ed Betts' American Nitrox Divers International (ANDI) - which invented the term "Safe Air" for marketing purposes - and Bret Gilliam's Technical Diving International (TDI) gave scientific credence to nitrox.

Meanwhile, diving stores were finding a purely economic reason to offer nitrox: not only was an entire new course and certification needed to use it, but instead of cheap or free tank fills with compressed air, dive shops found they could charge premium amounts of money for custom-gas blending of nitrox to their ordinary moderately experienced divers. With the new dive computers which could be programmed to allow for the longer bottom-times and shorter residual nitrogen times which nitrox gave, the incentive for the sport diver to use the gas increased. An intersection of economics and scientific validity had occurred.

In 1993 Skin Diver magazine, the leading recreational diving publication at the time, published a three part series arguing that nitrox was unsafe for sport divers.[21] Against this trend, in 1992 NAUI became the first existing major sport diver training agency to sanction nitrox.

In 1993 Dive Rite manufactured the first nitrox compatible dive computer, called the Bridge.[22]

In 1996, the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) announced full educational support for nitrox.[17] While other main line scuba organizations had announced their support of nitrox earlier,[23] it was PADI's endorsement that put nitrox over the top as a standard sport diving "option."[24]

Nitrox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately, due to unregulated internet forums, Hyper Dick should probably change his famous quote to ...

Science used to win over Bull $hit.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

Same logic applies with ...

Not allowing divers to have adult conversations about diving below the agencies "recreational training standards" on air ...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

No one is promoting unsafe diving practices, or creating threads to promote short-cuts. Is that what you are suggesting is being done here?

So you think doing dives in excess of 200 feet on single aluminum 80's is a perfectly safe practice ... and should be promoted on a recreational diving forum as something that "a lot of people are doing every day"?

Because a certain poster on ScubaBoard has created no less than four such threads in the past month ... with a handful of people who think it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

If you want to do those dives, go ahead. If you want to promote them on ScubaBoard, then I will express my freedom to disagree with the idea that it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

Please don't confuse regulation with expression ... and please don't demand freedoms you're not willing to allow to others who might disagree with you.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Same logic applies with ...

Not allowing divers to have adult conversations about diving below the agencies "recreational training standards" on air ...

... in order to have an adult conversation you have to behave like an adult ... insulting people who disagree with you doesn't qualify as adult behavior ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[knowone]

Pity bob you post here as representative
of todays standard of training agencies
exercising your rights over the truth

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Pity bob you post here as representative
of todays standard of training agencies
exercising your rights over the truth

I'm only representing my opinions.

What is the truth?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)