Why it should be LAW that people should get certified

[Sas]

And you generally do.

Yea it's pretty fun. And my opinions will change depending on what audience I have.

 

[aquaregia]

Lighten up on the guy, so he hasn't read 1984, he's only 15. I read it somewhere around then, but I wouldn't expect people to read it much earlier. I failed to propoerly understand quite a few books by reading them at too young of an age, and had to go back and reread them in my later teens and early 20s.

Animal Farm's much more accessible and has completely different motivations, but imho leads to similar conclusions today. I really enjoy reading, and I'd recommend it to anyone. Can't SCUBA all the time

 

[miketsp]

What about learning how to SWIM in elementary and high school physical education?

Drowning is the second-leading cause of injury-related death among children under the age of 15.

We force our children to take those ridiculous DARE courses --at huge taxpayer expense-- from police officers with absolutely ZERO background in mental health, drug rehabilitation, or education... and yet most kids can't swim, don't have access to pools, and don't need to learn it in school.

There is an often ignored fallacy in this argument related to risk vs. exposure - Although non-swimmers may be more at risk of drowning near or in water because of their inability to swim, their exposure is much less, simply because they don't put themselves into situations that a swimmer would.
So statistically a non-swimmer has much less chance of drowning than a swimmer.
So in fact, if you taught everyone to swim you would actually see a massive increase in deaths from drowning (exception being those countries where most drowning deaths are not accidental eg suicidal).

Edit- I attached a statistic from regulated facilities in the US and you should remember that many non-swimmers would not even frequent such a place.

 

[DevonDiver]

I just saw this thread. I thought it was going to be a debate about whether scuba divers should legally be certified to dive, rather than free to dive without training. oh well......

 

[Walter]

The Constitution has not given the federal government the authority to regulate SCUBA diving. It has also not given the federal government the authority to mandate buying anything. Your proposal is unconstitutional for more than one reason.

 

[DevonDiver]

It's not unconstitutional for me...

But I suppose in the land of the free, it would generally be frowned upon that Legal Law should supercede Darwin's Law....

 

[TigerKnee]

Ok Man I have a topic for you that is very debatable and can be fluffed to ten minutes quite easily!

Try the Pros and Cons of using decommissioned U.S. Navy ships as artificial reefs.
Some Pros would be:
New habitat for sea life
Will most likely bring more tourism to the area where the ship was sunk
etc...
Cons:
It cost a lot versus scrapping
It can be dangerous
etc...

You can argue this subject as a naturalist and diver, as wrecks are especially attractive to divers and argue against this as a concerned citizen against more government spending. It shouldn't be too hard to research, look into the USS America, sunk off Pensacola, FL I think?

And you should definitely read 1984! Start by watching V for Vendetta it's sort of similar the ending is kind of dumb but it gets you in the neighborhood. Also I most definitely believe 1984 is relevent in todays society. The underlying message still holds true.

Good Luck Sir!

 

[knowone]

There are current on going studies regarding the culture of some Western police organisations building a case around A man, rather than finding THE man, or woman.


MASH is still relevant.

How did they get away with setting it in Vietnam.

 

[Avonthediver]

well this has been a fun read!

And I do like the idea of teaching kids to swim as early as posable. I know a lot of people who can not swim but go to lake's and wear float's! My mother n law being one of them and she grew up on a lake in texas.
But I'm not saying force!

1984 was a good book, the movie was eh to me even when it came out. It would be great if the lord's of HollywoodyLand remake it and I guess update the title to 2084.

 

[vladimir]

It has also not given the federal government the authority to mandate buying anything.

As I'm sure you know, there have been three rulings on the constitutionality of the mandate to buy health insurance, two of which have found it constitutional. US District Judges Steeh in Detroit and Moon in Lynchburg, both appointed by Clinton, ruled it constitutional, and Judge Hudson in Richmond, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled it unconstitutional. The question will wend its way through the appellate courts, where it will be decided one way or the other depending upon whether the judges were appointed by Democrats or Republicans. Then it will go to the Supreme Court, where it will be decided in a five-to-four vote, with Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas on one side, all of whom were appointed by Republicans, and Kagan, Sotomayer, Breyer, and Ginsburg on the other side, all of whom were appointed by Democrats. Kennedy will be the deciding vote. The nine Supreme Court justices, all of whom attended Harvard or Yale Law School, will be as evenly divided as they can be, as will the dozen or more judges who see the case before them, yet the (un-) constitutionality is as plain as day to all of us laypeople, few of whom could write a binding contract if our lives depended on it.