Dawn has a point about LP entertainment
LP wrestling in particular. Dwarfs are more prone to fractures and are therefore at a more vulnerable position in wrestling. I see how it condone tossing a dwarf without permission.
shareBut the people participating in these events choose to do it. It's up to them to look after their personal safety.
Dwarf tossing "without permission" would just be assault, wouldn't it?
Battery.
Wondering why you quote 'without permission'. There are dozens of things people do without permission especially in the ring. There was this scene in which a 2 feet something was kicked by an AP. And since micro-wrestling is a form of entertainment and explicably that in most cases (being that micro-wrestling or any other type of wrestling is barely mentioned in a non-comedic context), it may be taken less seriously and therefore percieved as something to get away more easily with.
Not equating all LP with kids, but they are the size of normal-sized kids so micro-wrestling could pose more concern for injury due to a threat which is unseen by the one of the participant in many cases, thus posing more danger.
Would you condone wheelchair boxing, or cripple-fighting under the guise of their own willingness to do so? Would you condone indentured servitude or a below-minimum wage paying job all under the guise of someone choosing to do so? Would you condone the use of asbestos in factories all under the guise of choosing to work with it? Would you condone lead being used in a home all under the guise of the buyer choosing to do so? Would you condone Agent Orange all because soldiers chose to do so? And would you not report a kidnapping all because someone chose to meet with the culprit?
My point is that there a number of choices we make because of our underestimation of consequences, possibly more when you are disabled or more likely to become disabled (either because one was not taught about the disability or because the disability is thought to least likely occur). So things are not automatically right simply because one chooses to do them. Is anyone on this site an LP? If not, what gives you the right dismiss or criticize disagreement with issues that do not even involve you? Every minority or systemically oppreseed group poses this question. Not just Dawn.
I think doing so when you are not disabled also stems from the prejudment that those who are in any way disabled are inferior, so people tend to think it should only be up to the able-bodied person to speak on disability-related issues. And even though disability should not be a taboo, it would be asinine to 'forget about their disability' and always treat them as if their non-disabled, esp when the disability is visible.
This isn't a personal attack, but a mission. A mission to write about what is beneath the surface of our words and the possibilties behind them. Awareness is the key, not persecution. And with that awareness may we manipulate our lives with action or passivity, because with either there are advantages and consequences (perhaps more or less). Knowledge leads to awareness, and ignirance leads to persecution.
Knowledge is the meaning of life.
Wouldn't battery have to include the use of some kind of weapon on the person, not just harm to the body?
I put the phrase "without permission" in quotes because it is the specific term used by the poster I was responding to.
Whether it is exploitation or not or poses greater risk to the participants, it is their choice. Indentured servitude (are you seriously comparing a practice that's a step above slavery to a profession voluntarily entered into?) and blatantly dangerous working conditions aren't the same thing. The mere possibility of injury during a sport isn't comparable to a dangerous working condition overall. There are ways to avoid injury in wrestling, a person can't avoid the lung damage caused by breathing in asbestos. Ignoring that something's unsafe, like having asbestos, isn't the same as having a risky situation despite safety precautions.
People can get concussions playing football--but they are provided with protection and medical services to prevent the damage of these injuries. It is still up to the player to choose to play this sport, knowing the risks.
You can't dismiss the viewpoints of others simply because they lack a particular condition or circumstance.
The situation is this--little people wrestling is exploitative in that it uses little people as a spectacle. Like any sport or wrestling, it poses greater risk of injury than a desk job. Little people choose to participate in this sport. Like any person entering any profession, it is up to them to assess the risks and benefits.
In this case, it's not a matter of not realizing the consequences--they are glaringly obvious. The size of the participants is a gimmick--you can see it in the advertising, the names of the wrestlers, the events, the calling of the events, the size of little people division, the venues they play. It's not a serious sport, it's a spectacle. When you train to be a wrestler, you train to fight other people (in simulated, but potentially dangerous ways)--these people aren't being pulled off the street and thrown in a ring, they sign contracts and go through weeks to months of training to get the stage of being in a ring. This is an informed decision made by a consenting adult.
No. Battery could or could not be done without a weapon. And indentured servitude was a 'voluntary profession' b/c they have contracted to work for a certain amount of years. They were also allowed to walk out of work whenever they wanted to, unlike a slave, but I'd still speak against that. No one is arguing that it is not their choice or that they're not consenting adults. I can't dismiss your opinion, but you can't dismiss mine or anyone else's opinion on a controversy either. Even with training, enabled people have died of wrestling, so it's a pretty serious sport to me as well as football, esp involving someone that is much more likely prone to bodily injuries than the average person-trained or untrained.
share