11/23/24
February 20, 2011
Teen Bull Rider Dies in Florida: Brooke Ann Coats, a 16-year-old bull rider from Florida, collapsed at a Brandon rodeo Friday night after she was thrown from a bull and kicked in the chest. She died during surgery at Tampa General Hospital. Coats was wearing a helmet and vest during the amateur competition.
I agree a sad tale, but there was so much outrage about the teens sailing around the world and how the parents were negligent to allow such an activity, why is nobody saying those things now with regard to allowing a teen to ride a bull?
posted by Atheist at 02:39 PM on February 21, 2011
The activity seems crazy to me, but Coats had ridden that particular bull 30 times.
Here's some perspective on the number of teens riding bulls. It was not unusual for a teen her age to be riding one, but apparently a lot of amateur rodeos won't let girls do it.
posted by rcade at 03:20 PM on February 21, 2011
why is nobody saying those things now with regard to allowing a teen to ride a bull?
Might have something to do with the simple factual distinction between the two cases. Might also be because the argument has been played out (although that's never really stopped us before). Might be because it's a holiday weekend and people are doing other things; they may pleasantly surprise you by jumping all over your baited hook when the work week starts anew.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:25 PM on February 21, 2011
why is nobody saying those things now with regard to allowing a teen to ride a bull?
Because you were the second comment? Give people a chance to work up some righteous indignation.
posted by yerfatma at 04:56 PM on February 21, 2011
Might have something to do with the simple factual distinction between the two cases.
Naw, screw factual distinctions. That never stopped Atheist before. Here's a guy that brought up what he once saw at an MMA fight to prove something or other about girls being allowed to wrestle.
Just sit back and be in awe of his logistic gymnastics.
posted by justgary at 11:17 PM on February 21, 2011
How's the bull doing?
posted by JJ at 06:35 AM on February 22, 2011
justgary, What's your beef with Atheist? This is two times in a week you attack him personally. I'm sure he can speak for himself but you seem to have an axe to grind. What's your problem?
posted by gfinsf at 07:36 AM on February 22, 2011
Might also be because the argument has been played out (although that's never really stopped us before).
That. I mean, what's the point of repeating it? The action isn't any more damnfool now than it was then (and in answer to the question "how much", if you can't figure out for yourself that the answer is "plenty", there's no point in discussing it).
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:35 AM on February 22, 2011
Gary, an axe to grind...nah, never happen.
Anyway, I actually thought the same thing when I first read this post...wasn't sure if we were supposed to attack it from the "Girls shouldn't be doing the same things as boys" angle, or from the "Parents should be held accountable for not preventing their minor children from getting hurt in dangerous activities" angle. Doing both simultaneously seemed overkill.
May also be that this girl died. The girl in the sailing incident was saved. Easier to be righteous if no one actually got hurt.
posted by dviking at 10:24 AM on February 22, 2011
I am a little surprised with the "what is the point of discussing" something attitude on a internet forum. I always thought the point of discussing something was the pleasure of discussing something. Otherwise why read or contribute in an otherwise meaningless public discussion?
posted by Atheist at 12:19 PM on February 22, 2011
What is the "pleasure" in saying the same thing over and over again? Either you got it last time, or you're not gonna get it this time either.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:37 PM on February 22, 2011
Do you really think Atheist said the same thing over and over, at least in how it relates to this thread? I don't, I think his question was completely valid.
posted by dviking at 01:18 PM on February 22, 2011
Do you really think Atheist said the same thing over and over, at least in how it relates to this thread?
Yes, his position is pretty well explained at this point: any suggestion parents might keep their children from dangerous solo sports is an infringement of liberty that causes the Founding Fathers to roll over in the graves. Except for Franklin and Jefferson who get stuck rolling over due to their permanent erections.
posted by yerfatma at 01:33 PM on February 22, 2011
Do you really think Atheist said the same thing over and over, at least in how it relates to this thread?
I don't know if he did or not, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about why I wasn't getting into it: because to do so would be simply repeating what I'd already said. And, again, if someone didn't get it then, they won't get it now, so why bother?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:37 PM on February 22, 2011
What is the "pleasure" in saying the same thing over and over again? Either you got it last time, or you're not gonna get it this time either.
People change their minds as more facts and arguments are brought forth and ideas are left to gestate. Also, this is a different situation along the same theme of the acceptable risk we allow children (parents) to take. There's so much grey in these discussions I don't know how you can think it's played out already. Though, I do understand being frustrated with it.
On edit: Sorry, misread your comment, lbb.
posted by tron7 at 01:48 PM on February 22, 2011
I don't think age or gender matter much when you are kicked in the chest by a 2,000(+/-) pound bull.
posted by steelergirl at 02:25 PM on February 22, 2011
LBB - when you say someone didn't get it then and won't get it now, what do you mean. I think you mean they don't agree with you. Because I do get it, just not maybe the way you get it which implies you think only your opinion is valid.
You are not explaining a scientific principle for which there is only one way to get it. Get it?
The question "why bother" is one only you can answer as I know why I bother, and that is just for the fun of it and to express my opinion. Why you bother when it is obvious you need to get someone to agree or get it as you get it, is puzzling to me.
posted by Atheist at 02:48 PM on February 22, 2011
FWIW when I said why " is nobody saying those things now with regard to allowing a teen to ride a bull" of course I was the second post, but I was referring to all the news articles. When the teen sailor or mountain climber were in the news, the parental negligence discussion was a part of all the stories I read. In this story, people were accepting this as a tragic accident without the same focus on the parental consent issues. To me it seemed like an activity with similar levels of potentially danger for a teen. I felt it was a legitimate question as to what was the difference.
posted by Atheist at 02:57 PM on February 22, 2011
People change their minds as more facts and arguments are brought forth and ideas are left to gestate.
I'm beginning to change my own mind on incidents like this. The more kids engaged in extreme sports that occasionally kill them, the less extraordinary it is for parents to let them take that risk.
I do wonder how many kids like this girl -- and that 13-year-old motorcyclist -- truly understand the level of risk in the activity they're undertaking. It's easy to believe yourself indestructible in your youth.
But in our hyperlitigious society, it's a safe bet that any recklessness on the part of organizers is being moderated by liability lawsuits and the heightened insurance requirements they foster.
It's a shame this girl died. Her pursuit of bull-riding at a young age is the kind of thing that produces future legends. Trevor Bayne began racing at age 5. Luck and talent were on his side, and now he's made Daytona 500 history at age 20.
posted by rcade at 03:26 PM on February 22, 2011
LBB - when you say someone didn't get it then and won't get it now, what do you mean. I think you mean they don't agree with you. Because I do get it, just not maybe the way you get it which implies you think only your opinion is valid.
Atheist, I don't really care what you call it. If you want to say "agree with" rather than "get it", I'm fine with that, it all boils down to the same thing. If you didn't agree with my view before, you're not going to agree with it now (although you do seem awfully determined to pick a fight over it).
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:54 PM on February 22, 2011
I think anybody reading this thread from the beginning would be hard pressed to find where I have tried to pick a fight over anything. Had you acknowledged you disagree with anything I wrote, I can respect it, but I did not even state an opinion regarding the issue. I only posed a question as to why there did not seem to be the same level of outrage over this incident as compared to the others. I am still puzzled as to why you have a bone to pick with anything I have written other than the fact your opinion differed from mine in other posts. I haven't stated an opinion regarding this incident.
posted by Atheist at 07:04 PM on February 22, 2011
Had you acknowledged you disagree with anything I wrote, I can respect it, but I did not even state an opinion regarding the issue.
And I didn't say anything to you or about you until you specifically took issue with me.
I only posed a question as to why there did not seem to be the same level of outrage over this incident as compared to the others.
And I did not respond to you. I responded to tahoemoj, who gave you several possible responses, one of which explains pretty well why I chose not to address this incident, although I have an opinion on it. Having now made that statement several times, I'm done making it, and this conversation is over.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:47 PM on February 22, 2011
I remember when I first joined this site it was fun, lively and yes, argumentative but in a good way. Now, maybe 5 years later, it's becoming grumpy "older" people nit-picking and twisting the smallest innuendo to rag on someone. This is sports and life, people do have different opinions and thankfully they do. Let's listen (or read) and learn that other opinions have merit, sometimes, and not be the end all judge of what you disagree with. Lighten up!!
posted by gfinsf at 04:33 AM on February 23, 2011
Technically it's 5 years and 5 months later.
posted by yerfatma at 08:45 AM on February 23, 2011
Who are you calling "old"?
Why, in my day we used to take care of sassy whippersnappers like you...
But, yes, the grasping on to some minor detail of post, and then twisting that detail in a way that the poster never intended, has gone a bit over-board lately.
posted by dviking at 10:09 AM on February 23, 2011
Yes, his position is pretty well explained at this point: any suggestion parents might keep their children from dangerous solo sports is an infringement of liberty that causes the Founding Fathers to roll over in the graves. Except for Franklin and Jefferson who get stuck rolling over due to their permanent erections.
yerfatma -
I don't know where you would get this idea but obviously you have no idea as to my position on the issue is or you have certainly misrepresented it in your above statement. I have no issue with parents who choose to prevent their children from engaging in sports they may consider to risky. I encourage it and would do the same if it were my child involved. For the record, even though I never mentioned my position in this thread but did in the other threads regarding sailing and racing, the position was that I felt it was a decision that was best left to the parents, and their children not to the government. That is completely different than what you said I said. I am quite capable of expressing my own opinions, and would not dream of trying to explain yours, please offer me the same courtesy.
posted by Atheist at 11:11 AM on February 23, 2011
" I'm done making it, and this conversation is over. "
Another proclamation?
posted by Atheist at 11:19 AM on February 23, 2011
I don't know where you would get this idea but obviously you have no idea as to my position on the issue is or you have certainly misrepresented it in your above statement.
I'm not sure you do either though. You told us it was ok for a 13 year-old to climb Everest because he wouldn't be molested by a priest while up there and that some 13 year-olds are mature enough to be adults, closing with:
"Personally I would rather leave the decision up to the young man and his family then any government agency or strangers."And you told us all about how some 16 year-olds are more mature than 18 year-olds, which is why it was ok for a girl to sail around the world unattended getting huffy about insinuations the parents were pushing her for fame right up until it turned out they were getting a reality show out of it. There again you asked "Do we really want government making judgement calls about what is right for our children?" in re: a minor competing in a life-threatening contest.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong but, my hyperbole and insulting of the Founding Fathers aside, I don't think I misrepresented your point.
posted by yerfatma at 02:04 PM on February 23, 2011
it's becoming grumpy "older" people nit-picking and twisting the smallest innuendo to rag on someone
You can get off my lawn now, gfinsf. I may be old, but I'm not grumpy. A little crochety and perhaps curmudgeonly, but certainly not grumpy.
Now where the hell did I put my Geritol?
posted by Howard_T at 02:26 PM on February 23, 2011
You can get off my lawn now, gfinsf
posted by tommybiden at 03:11 PM on February 23, 2011
Yertfatma - well aside from taking some phrases out of context and neglecting to recognize the tongue n cheek comment regarding the risk to children in the hands of priests, (similar to yours regarding the founding fathers which I found humorous) I would say that it does sum up my position to say that I feel the government should not be deciding if a minor can sail offshore, climb a mountain, race a vehicle or ride a bull. I feel strongly that whether or not I would allow my child to participate in any of the above, it is not the place of the government to do so. Which is not what you said I said previously.
Also if the government wants to make certain activities illegal for minors well then at least that would be something subjected to the legislative process as opposed to the notion that a child protective agency of the government could just deem something they do not have experience or knowledge regarding, to be too dangerous, and cite it as a reason to accuse a parent of neglect or child endangerment.
The question in this case I would pose is bull riding an activity too dangerous for minors? Do parents who consent to this deserve government scrutiny? What standard should be used to determine what can and cannot be done by your children and who should decide? My entire position is really not based on any activity in particular as some I would allow and some I would not for my own kids, it is about who should make the decision. Reasonable people can disagree about what is acceptable or not for young people. The crux of my position is that the gray area is immense and IMO that the determination is not the job of government.
posted by Atheist at 04:02 PM on February 23, 2011
Is this really a problem? I would think most people would be enlightened enough to not require legislation to keep their multitudes from the slaughter of underage rodeoing. No chance of danger over here, I can tell ya.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:59 PM on February 23, 2011
I feel the government should not be deciding if a minor can sail offshore, climb a mountain, race a vehicle or ride a bull.
The government decides whether minors can drive cars, consent to sex, smoke, drink and own handguns. What is the distinction you make between those activities and the ones you maintain the government should not interfere with?
posted by rcade at 07:29 PM on February 23, 2011
What is the distinction you make between those activities and the ones you maintain the government should not interfere with?
Only white people do them?
I am king of the cheap shots today!
posted by yerfatma at 07:34 PM on February 23, 2011
Wait, only white people consent to sex? I'm way confused.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:24 PM on February 23, 2011
The distinction is this (at least in my view) as a society we legislate specific requirements for the consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, driving of cars etc. The hand gun issue goes way beyond legal age and also restricts ownership to adults in many cases. I really do not have an issue if legislators (as representatives of their constituents or in other words the people) want to declare certain sports illegal for participants under a particular age. I do believe Americans as a whole are tired of the ever growing government intrusion into their lives. As it now stands there is no standard for child protective services, so some agent may consider bull riding too dangerous for a teen and accuse the parents of neglect or endangerment.
What sports are too dangerous? Rodeo, sailing, mountain climbing, football, baseball, big wave surfing, who decides? Can there be mitigating factors? Personally I think so. A 17 year old sailor may have much more skill and experience than a 50 year old. A lot of the dangers associated with these activities have very little to do with age and more to do with the odds or circumstance. Kicked in the chest by a bull or hit in the chest with a line drive? Do we need a study to assess the odds of death in every sport and then determine what odds are acceptable for young people (and or adults for that matter)?
There is a price people pay for freedom. I agree the government can take steps to protect citizens from each other but how far do we want to go protect people from themselves. America has always been a place where people are permitted to pursue their dreams, and their pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by the constitution. Also in the pursuit of freedom we have always been willing to pay the price. We allow criminals to get off on legal technicalities rather than infringe on their rights even if this has a cost to society. It is a fundamental principle and cornerstone of the personal freedom that is the basis of our country. If due process determines that sailing offshore is illegal for anyone under the age of ? I could live with it. If some bureaucrat makes a decision that a parent is unfit because they allow their own exceptionally skilled teen to pursue their happiness, I would object.
We may not want a 16 year old to try to sail a boat to Hawaii, but 24 months later we have no problem putting a AR15 in their hands and send them to a war zone. Where is the logic in that?
So a kid who has raced cars since he was 5, wins the Daytona 500 at age 20. I guess that only happens in a country where he has the freedom to attempt it and the family support to allow it.
posted by Atheist at 11:05 AM on February 24, 2011
"Only white people do them? I am king of the cheap shots today!"
How would one respond to that statement? If you want to play a race card at least have the decency to do it in where it has some relevance? Substitute the word black for the word white in your statement and ask yourself if the same statement would be acceptable to you regarding a multitude of activities had it been made by someone else.
posted by Atheist at 11:13 AM on February 24, 2011
Sad tale.