It takes time to weigh the true awesomality of a tradition.
Chasing cheese down a hill has stood the test of time in a way that say, van surfing, has not.
“Kinder Surprise” comes to mind.
Americans do crazy things, but we don’t give our children chocolate-covered toys.
I swear that we are all turning into a bunch of Mrs Kravitz’s. Too many people have decided that rather than butting out, they have every right to question everything that anyone does. Take this basic attitude far enough and you get to the Taliban.
How long before the fun police arrive?
It all depends on how unsafe.
I have a huge problem when people claim religious or cultural protection over harmful practices affecting children or women because even though they say its voluntary, there’s a lot of brainwashing going on with women (to accept polygamy, for instance) and children don’t have the power to say no
Cheese roll chasing, however, is done exclusively by adult males who like to get injured. I see no evidence anyone’s forcing participation. Even if dangerous, the harm only usually lasts a little while, or however long it takes bones to heal. Let them keep it
Circumcision
Arguable whether it’s ‘harmful’, but it’s not helpful and no baby consents to it.
Its helpful in preventing the spread of disease.
There was a story some years ago about a tradition (in India, I believe) of throwing babies from a high tower, to be caught in a big blanket. For luck.
The tradition had been going on for 300 years, and there were no reported injuries from it.
This led to some interesting debates over the definition of “danger.” Some held that tossing babies from a high tower into a blanket is intrinsically dangerous. Others held that, experimentally, it isn’t dangerous, if it’s been done thousands of times with no injuries.
Some people tried to compare it to shaking of babies, which is known to be dangerous and harmful, because it is definitely known to lead to spine and brain injuries. But since the tower tossing doesn’t lead to spine and brain injuries, the physical motions involved would seem to be different than those in shaking.
Some people wanted the practice banned, solely because it appears dangerous. But…is it? If no injuries are involved, how is the danger specifically defined?
I’m against circumcision
Great slogan: the applications are endless, as endless as a slippery slope. I’m wondering what its opposite is.
“Take this basic attitude far enough and you get San Francisco.” Nah, too homophobic.
“Take this basic attitude far enough and you get Van Surfing.” Too tragic.
“Take this basic attitude far enough and you get glue sniffing.” Too war-on-drugs.
“Take this basic attitude far enough and you get that guy from Hogan’s Heros.” Too pathetic.
“Take this basic attitude far enough and you get Cheese Rolling.” Hm, maybe we are on to something.
If you mean AIDS, that study covered a very specific situation.
For most males in the modern world circumcision has no medical value.
Anybody interested can google up far more argument than I can type, so I’m going to just leave it at that.
Didn’t really mean to start a threadjack, and this could really become one. 
Mandatory power armour, 24/7.
0If there’s one thing we’ve learned from history, it’s that people are willing to do horrible stupid shit for thousands of years before they stop. History is not remotely a good guide to awesomeness.
Disagree. Easter Island moai were horribly stupid, yet completely awesome.
If people weren’t allowed to take risks, the world would be an incredibly boring place, and IMO society itself would stagnate.
But the risks taken should be voluntary for the individual, not as a result of say peer pressure, or custom.
And also there should be a differentiation between idiots who go hillwalking with no idea about map reading, hypothermia, weather changes etc
Or putting to sea in home made boats, with no nautical training , and people who take calculated risks, the people who know the dangers, and who are trained in what to do if things DO go wrong.
As a result of the litigation culture the Brit government and the insurance companies are going way over the top in restricting adrenaline fuelled activities .
And our lives will be the poorer for it.
Your litigation culture has a way to go to catch up with ours. 
Holy cow! I read about this in Thomas Pynchon’s Mason & Dixon yonks ago, and found it so hilarious that my username for a while in certain locations (not here) was** Octuple Gloucester**. However, I completely thought Pynchon had made the whole thing up. I guess I should have known better, though, as the stuff you think Pynchon have up made up often turn out to be real, and vice versa.
Although I suspect the grandioseness of Pynchon’s Octuple Gloucester is still exaggerated a bit compared to the real thing:
(By the way, the news story in the OP’s link totally needs posting in the “headlines you don’t see every day” thread.)