I don't think people are reacting primarily to the danger of the sport. There are many other activities that are truly dangerous that we have no inclination to ban.
I'm a complete libertarian. I think it's very, very dangerous. I really mean that. I think the smoking ban is a tip of an iceberg of society - the leaders of society telling us how to be. I think it's not their business. It's an attitude where the governors think, 'We know what's best for people, and they're so stupid that they would only not do it if we ban it.'
Formula One was a very dangerous sport. It still is dangerous. But the danger factor is also the exciting part.
I know that the Communists are atheistic and godless, but I don't think that that's what's primarily the matter with them. What's primarily the matter with them is that they worship a false god. That's much more dangerous than when people don't believe anything; they may be confused, they may not have a sense of the meaning of life, but they're not dangerous.
I'm very proud that some people think that I'm a danger for the intellectual health of students. When people start thinking of health in intellectual activities, I think there is something wrong. In their opinion I am a dangerous man, since I am a crypto-Marxist, an irrationalist, a nihilist.
I don't actually think boxing is a particularly dangerous sport, I wouldn't even put it in the top ten of dangerous sports, but that's only if you take it seriously. Whenever I stepped into the ring I was well hydrated, I was at the right weight and I was prepared. It wasn't a dangerous sport for me.
I'm not over-reacting, but I do think people have to be a bit cautious when they say all kind of activities associated with witchcraft are harmless.
What's up, I'm DJ Danger. Some people might think it's dangerous to have an unbrella inside, but i am dangerous!
Do we need to tighten restrictions on people coming into the country? I think there's a good argument for that, but a kind of broad ban is a bad idea, and, of course, many American Muslims are great sources of information as we seek to look for domestic folks who might be engaged in trying to promote terrorist activities.
If the Internet, ubiquitous as it now is, proves too dangerous in the hands of the psychologically fragile, perhaps access to it ought to be restricted. We ban drunks from driving because they're a danger to others. Isn't it time we did the same to trolls?
If the government is to try and ban private consumption of alcohol and tobacco, it must surely ban such activities as hang-gliding, skiing, rock-climbing and so on. Where should it stop? Rugby? American Football? Ice Hockey?
Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives.
We have a duty to warn on an individual basis if we are treating someone who may be dangerous to herself or to others - a duty to warn people who are in danger from that person. We feel it's our duty to warn the country about the danger of this president. If we think we have learned something about Donald Trump and his psychology that is dangerous to the country, yes, we have an obligation to say so.
A dangerous book will always be in danger from those it threatens with the demand that they question their assumptions. They'd rather hang on to the assumptions and ban the book.
If you have to ban something, ban products which are actually harmful for us, like cigarettes. Smoking also affects the health of people standing around you. But we won't ban such things. We're told don't eat fish, don't eat meat, don't wear miniskirts and other such things.
I'm just a man. I think people are reacting to something else when they see me. They're not reacting to me, Eddie Murphy. They don't even know me. It's just luck and the God in me they're reacting to.
Liberals talk about how evil it is, and they talk about how deadly it is. They won't ban it. If it's so bad, if it's so deadly, if it's so dangerous, if it's so harmful, if it's so mean, why don't they ban it? Just ban the product.
We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law.