About 80% of hazing deaths involve alcohol. I was lucky in that my organization was alcohol-free and safety-conscious.
Given that you assert that hazing is a net positive, and you notice that it causes some deaths, this seems to imply that you believe the benefits exceed the cost of those deaths. Is this correct?
I interpreted it to mean that hazing with safety considerations is good, not all current hazing.
About 80% of hazing deaths involve alcohol. I was lucky in that my organization was alcohol-free and safety-conscious.
Given that you assert that hazing is a net positive, and you notice that it causes some deaths, this seems to imply that you believe the benefits exceed the cost of those deaths. Is this correct?
I interpreted it to mean that hazing with safety considerations is good, not all current hazing.