This thread is full of an appalling amount of false equivalence; hotdogs, fires, escalators. It shouldn't need to be explained to some of the idiots in this this thread why the 'hot dogs are dangerous we should ban hot dogs and also muslims and children' arguments undermine any of the actual logical reasons people can argue against the introduction of nets. But here goes.
Saying you don't like something because a completely different something represents a completely different outcome is a fallacy; if you're doing it on purpose you're an idiot. If you're doing it by mistake you need to further explain some basic things like, for instance, why hot dogs and netting can't both be made more safe. Or, why you think hot dogs have never been made safe and therefore spectator safety shouldn't be made safe either. Or, why escalators need more safety or not and why that is in any way applicable to netting on the field.
There are real, emotional arguments to be made about netting at Fenway; my then-two year old may or may not have had the experience of a young lifetime last year sitting on the fence pre-game near the Sox dugout and getting a high five from Papi. Losing a chance for that memory or other parents to have that memory is sad. And when I weigh that up it's probably about 2 per cent of the level of importance in my overall decision making on why I think the nets, if they help save one life or stop one injury, are already a win. Either way, that's an emotional personal decision. Not one based on awful logical idiocy.