Boxing should be Banned

[Infected Mushroom]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3135928/Cheerleaders-are-risking-serious-injury-and-death-to-support-their-teams.html

Don't ban boxing, ban cheerleading instead. It is clearly anti-feminist too.






See? Right there, thats how you sound IM ^

I never said it

you can start a thread and argue for that policy in a different thread

[Infected Mushroom]

Maybe cheerleading should be banned too, maybe it shouldn't

not seeing how that changes anything with respect to boxing

Is your argument that [sport] causes deaths, therefore should be banned?

No. My argument is what is written in the OP; assume a broader scope at your own peril

[Washington Resistance Army]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3135928/Cheerleaders-are-risking-serious-injury-and-death-to-support-their-teams.html

Don't ban boxing, ban cheerleading instead. It is clearly anti-feminist too.






See? Right there, thats how you sound IM ^

I never said it

you can start a thread and argue for that policy in a different thread

I really want an answer Kefka, how do you expect the police to be able to enforce this dumb as shit ban should it ever get passed?

[Galnius]

Maybe cheerleading should be banned too, maybe it shouldn't

not seeing how that changes anything with respect to boxing

Is your argument that [sport] causes deaths, therefore should be banned?

Yes, that is his argument. That is his entire stance on this it seems. It causes deaths and injuries, thus should be banned.

[Infected Mushroom]

Is your argument that [sport] causes deaths, therefore should be banned?

Yes, that is his argument. That is his entire stance on this it seems. It causes deaths and injuries, thus should be banned.

No. Find the quote in the OP where this is stated as an absolute principle that always overrides the totality of all the relevant factors (hint: it's not there)

[Whuossau]

How are you going to stop me from training by myself and having a person or two come over and train with me?

I can't do anything as I am not in the police

the police would be the ones who would be tasked with tracking down violations, arresting people, that sort of stuff

The police honestly couldn't do a whole lot. Look at marijuana users, there are tons of middle schoolers who use it and the police can't even catch them. It would be even harder for boxing, since you couldn't do a random drug test to see if they have boxing in their system or something.

[Galnius]

The evils of Boxing cannot be understated. Since 1980, around 200 people involved in boxing have died during training or battle in the ring. Contrary to popular belief, protective headgear does NOT prevent the long-term and short-term high risk of brain damage.

It is abhorrent that we have gotten rid of the Colosseum but maintain boxing. The fact that it ''entertains'' people is a very dark commentary on what Western society has devolved into. Society should not allow profiteers (match hosts, corporations, advertisers etc) to make big bucks by encouraging and promoting people to fight each other as a spectacle. People have gotten hurt and will continue to get hurt; it is also a shameless promotion of violence and physicality, tasteless in all respects.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/54187 ... of-boxing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Medical_concerns
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dangerous/

I believe that boxing should be banned. It would be for the boxers' own good.

What do you think?

That is the OP. It brings up how people die and people get hurt, therefore, should be banned. You also state that people other than the boxers shouldn't get payed large amounts for the matches. THAT much I agree with. However, the rest is purely about the deaths and injuries.

[Galnius]

Yes, that is his argument. That is his entire stance on this it seems. It causes deaths and injuries, thus should be banned.

No. Find the quote in the OP where this is stated as an absolute principle that always overrides the totality of all the relevant factors (hint: it's not there)

The entire OP is the quote xD

[Infected Mushroom]

No. Find the quote in the OP where this is stated as an absolute principle that always overrides the totality of all the relevant factors (hint: it's not there)

The entire OP is the quote xD

I hope this won't be your approach to the SAT Reading Comprehension sections...

[Washington Resistance Army]

I never said it

you can start a thread and argue for that policy in a different thread

I really want an answer Kefka, how do you expect the police to be able to enforce this dumb as shit ban should it ever get passed?

Still waiting...

[Infected Mushroom]

The evils of Boxing cannot be understated. Since 1980, around 200 people involved in boxing have died during training or battle in the ring. Contrary to popular belief, protective headgear does NOT prevent the long-term and short-term high risk of brain damage.

It is abhorrent that we have gotten rid of the Colosseum but maintain boxing. The fact that it ''entertains'' people is a very dark commentary on what Western society has devolved into. Society should not allow profiteers (match hosts, corporations, advertisers etc) to make big bucks by encouraging and promoting people to fight each other as a spectacle. People have gotten hurt and will continue to get hurt; it is also a shameless promotion of violence and physicality, tasteless in all respects.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/54187 ... of-boxing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Medical_concerns
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dangerous/

I believe that boxing should be banned. It would be for the boxers' own good.

What do you think?

That is the OP. It brings up how people die and people get hurt, therefore, should be banned. You also state that people other than the boxers shouldn't get payed large amounts for the matches. THAT much I agree with. However, the rest is purely about the deaths and injuries.

So if there was an SAT or multiple choice and a question asked for a ''reasonable inference'' you would circle the one that says

''all sports that are violent and/or cause death should be banned''?

You wouldn't in any way be mindful that this might be an over-generalisation of a principle that's being argued in a narrow context?

[Alvecia]

Is your argument that [sport] causes deaths, therefore should be banned?

No. My argument is what is written in the OP; assume a broader scope at your own peril

It seems that you make three points. That people are harmed, that people fight each other, and that others make money off it. Are these your reasons?

[Galnius]

Btw, the since 1980 thing? That means that, in 35 years, about 200 people have died from boxing. Do you know how ,minimal that is compared to the amount of boxers?



5.71428571429 deaths/year

Tens of millions of people box each year.

On average, the amount of deaths is about 6/10,000. Thats rounding up for the first, and down for the second.

[Galnius]

That is the OP. It brings up how people die and people get hurt, therefore, should be banned. You also state that people other than the boxers shouldn't get payed large amounts for the matches. THAT much I agree with. However, the rest is purely about the deaths and injuries.

So if there was an SAT or multiple choice and a question asked for a ''reasonable inference'' you would circle the one that says

''all sports that are violent and/or cause death should be banned''?

You wouldn't in any way be mindful that this might be an over-generalisation of a principle that's being argued in a narrow context?

I would choose, peronally, "The creator of this feels that due to the miniscule deaths per year and the injuries done by this, combined with the profiteering, that this should be banned."

[Infected Mushroom]

No. My argument is what is written in the OP; assume a broader scope at your own peril

It seems that you make three points. That people are harmed, that people fight each other, and that others make money off it. Are these your reasons?

to the degree that these are true with respect to boxing and with respect to the totality of all the relevant factors with respect to the activity of boxing, these reasons militate towards a ban

with any other comparison, the totality of all the relevant factors may be substantially different either because there are other overriding factors present and/or the factors that apply to boxing apply to that activity in substantially various degrees; so you have to be very careful with comparisons because they may militate a different conclusion.

Either way, comparisons don't help us evaluate the analysis with respect to boxing. Whether X, Y, or Z should be banned or not has no impact on whether or not boxing should be. It's a needless distraction.

[Infected Mushroom]

So if there was an SAT or multiple choice and a question asked for a ''reasonable inference'' you would circle the one that says

''all sports that are violent and/or cause death should be banned''?

You wouldn't in any way be mindful that this might be an over-generalisation of a principle that's being argued in a narrow context?

I would choose, peronally, "The creator of this feels that due to the miniscule deaths per year and the injuries done by this, combined with the profiteering, that this should be banned."

that's pretty much never going to be the right answer

[Galnius]

I would choose, peronally, "The creator of this feels that due to the miniscule deaths per year and the injuries done by this, combined with the profiteering, that this should be banned."

that's pretty much never going to be the right answer

Then what is the point? Summarize the OP. No additions, take it apart bit by bit and summarize it. I myself shall do the same.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'll just assume you know it's impossible and refuse to answer me because of that, can we all let this stupid thread die now?

[Galnius]

The evils of Boxing cannot be understated. Since 1980, around 200 people involved in boxing have died during training or battle in the ring. Contrary to popular belief, protective headgear does NOT prevent the long-term and short-term high risk of brain damage.

This states that around 200 people have died in 35 years, and that you feel the defensive measures provided are not adequate.

It is abhorrent that we have gotten rid of the Colosseum but maintain boxing. The fact that it ''entertains'' people is a very dark commentary on what Western society has devolved into. Society should not allow profiteers (match hosts, corporations, advertisers etc) to make big bucks by encouraging and promoting people to fight each other as a spectacle. People have gotten hurt and will continue to get hurt; it is also a shameless promotion of violence and physicality, tasteless in all respects.

This, after filtering opinions, is stating that people should not profit from the injury when they themselves are not on the line.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/541876-negative-effects-of-boxing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Medical_concerns
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dangerous/

A wiki page and 2 articles

I believe that boxing should be banned. It would be for the boxers' own good.

What do you think?

The stance and question

[Alvecia]

It seems that you make three points. That people are harmed, that people fight each other, and that others make money off it. Are these your reasons?

to the degree that these are true with respect to boxing and with respect to the totality of all the relevant factors with respect to the activity of boxing, these reasons militate towards a ban

with any other comparison, the totality of all the relevant factors may be substantially different either because there are other overriding factors present and/or the factors that apply to boxing apply to that activity in substantially various degrees; so you have to be very careful with comparisons because they may militate a different conclusion.

Either way, comparisons don't help us evaluate the analysis with respect to boxing. Whether X, Y, or Z should be banned or not has no impact on whether or not boxing should be. It's a needless distraction.

I see.
What is your response to the inevitable issue of consent

[Whuossau]

Maybe some reforms instead of bans? That would solve most if not all of the negative points of boxing that you've brought up. Personally I wouldn't be a huge fan of any further reforms to boxing, it was better when boxers were known as some of the toughest athletes on the planet. These days they aren't usually seen like that. Most of the pay comes from people who willingly pay to see matches, which millions of people do.

[Infected Mushroom]

that's pretty much never going to be the right answer

Then what is the point? Summarize the OP. No additions, take it apart bit by bit and summarize it. I myself shall do the same.

in view of the totality of all the relevant factors with respect to boxing (some of which include the numbers of injuries/deaths cause, the objectionable violence in the activity itself, and the unethical profiteering involved), boxing should be outlawed

the door is left open for contextualised analysis of other activities, but these warrant a separate analysis

[Galnius]

The evils of Boxing cannot be understated. Since 1980, around 200 people involved in boxing have died during training or battle in the ring. Contrary to popular belief, protective headgear does NOT prevent the long-term and short-term high risk of brain damage.

This states that around 200 people have died in 35 years, and that you feel the defensive measures provided are not adequate.

It is abhorrent that we have gotten rid of the Colosseum but maintain boxing. The fact that it ''entertains'' people is a very dark commentary on what Western society has devolved into. Society should not allow profiteers (match hosts, corporations, advertisers etc) to make big bucks by encouraging and promoting people to fight each other as a spectacle. People have gotten hurt and will continue to get hurt; it is also a shameless promotion of violence and physicality, tasteless in all respects.

This, after filtering opinions, is stating that people should not profit from the injury when they themselves are not on the line.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/541876-negative-effects-of-boxing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Medical_concerns
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... dangerous/

A wiki page and 2 articles

I believe that boxing should be banned. It would be for the boxers' own good.

What do you think?

The stance and question

Sooo.....it is stating that you believe X should be banned because it causes injury and death, and that profiteers who are not at risk should not be allowed to make the profit. This statement is also applicable to MANY other sports and activities. Thus, comparisons dealing with it are indeed relevant.

[Infected Mushroom]

to the degree that these are true with respect to boxing and with respect to the totality of all the relevant factors with respect to the activity of boxing, these reasons militate towards a ban

with any other comparison, the totality of all the relevant factors may be substantially different either because there are other overriding factors present and/or the factors that apply to boxing apply to that activity in substantially various degrees; so you have to be very careful with comparisons because they may militate a different conclusion.

Either way, comparisons don't help us evaluate the analysis with respect to boxing. Whether X, Y, or Z should be banned or not has no impact on whether or not boxing should be. It's a needless distraction.

I see.
What is your response to the inevitable issue of consent

I don't have much regard for it in this context

[Galnius]

Then what is the point? Summarize the OP. No additions, take it apart bit by bit and summarize it. I myself shall do the same.

in view of the totality of all the relevant factors with respect to boxing (some of which include the numbers of injuries/deaths cause, the objectionable violence in the activity itself, and the unethical profiteering involved), boxing should be outlawed

the door is left open for contextualised analysis of other activities, but these warrant a separate analysis

They ONLY include death/injuries and profiteering, as well as something that commits the moralistic fallacy and is, purely, an opinion.