Boxing should be Banned

[Washington Resistance Army]

Using IM's logic, practically everything should be banned because anything can potentially cause unnecessary deaths. Legos should be banned because someone could choke on them, knives should be banned because someone could be stabbed or cut by them, dogs should be banned cuz they can bite people, tall structures should be banned cuz someone could fall off of them, etc etc etc.

Making a leap of logic by assuming that the scope of my argument on boxing applies unconditionally to all instances where unnecessary deaths can occur to the exclusion of all other contextual factors (such as by extending it to LEGO) is strawmanning

its also harmful to the discussion because it avoids an honest and well-throught out response to the reasons that are actually at issue within the narrow confines of the boxing issue

There is no boxing issue.

[BK117B2]

Oh so its ok to ban something as a long as its a minority of people watch it.

But if over 50% partake in some manner then its fine?


Universal deaths would imply most boxers are killed from boxing, and I'm not sure you'd want to make that kind of statement.

Typo fixed, "unecessary" deaths

The majority/minority distinction is just one of many contextual factors that you have to consider where it is relevant, again... Each specific dangerous activity should be analyzed on its own merits

It's not very useful to discuss boxing by making very questionable comparisons

But when people point out that the exact things you mention are present in other things, you blow it off. What makes boxing different from everything else in a relevant way?

And, something you've still been avoiding: why should Person A get to dictate what Person B does with their own body?

[Allanea]

There no meaningful way to engage the issue without comparing boxing to other activities.

200 deaths in 35 years is only a high (or low) number of deaths when compared to other activities (many of which are more dangerous than boxing).

You want us to decontextualize the discussion in a way in which we don't want it to be decontextualized.

[Valaran]

its also harmful to the discussion because it avoids an honest and well-throught out response to the reasons that are actually at issue within the narrow confines of the boxing issue

Perhaps the topic simply doesn't lend itself well to serious discussion (especially not in such narrow confines).

Most here seem to find it inherently ridiculous as a notion.

After all, you never replied to my serious post, but only to the parody...

[Infected Mushroom]

In other words, straw manning

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know what it means

and it is disappointing to me that a large number of posters have elected to make leaps of logic in over-extending the scope of my argument instead of honestly engaging with the issues within this issue that I have raised (or alternatively, by responsibly bringing up other angles of consideration with respect to this issue)

[Empire of Donner land]

Making a leap of logic by assuming that the scope of my argument on boxing applies unconditionally to all instances where unnecessary deaths can occur to the exclusion of all other contextual factors (such as by extending it to LEGO) is strawmanning

its also harmful to the discussion because it avoids an honest and well-throught out response to the reasons that are actually at issue within the narrow confines of the boxing issue

There is no boxing issue.

I have never heard anyone ever refer to Boxing as an issue in my life.

The issue is that we will run out of cardboard boxes. Obviously. Big Boss will shed a tear.

[Valaran]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know what it means

and it is disappointing to me that a large number of posters have elected to make leaps of logic in over-extending the scope of my argument instead of honestly engaging with the issues within this issue that I have raised (or alternatively, by responsibly bringing up other angles of consideration with respect to this issue)

Its because we find your argument making leaps of logic that we see as patently ridiculous.

[Infected Mushroom]

There no meaningful way to engage the issue without comparing boxing to other activities.

200 deaths in 35 years is only a high (or low) number of deaths when compared to other activities (many of which are more dangerous than boxing).

You want us to decontextualize the discussion in a way in which we don't want it to be decontextualized.

Arguing that the deaths in boxing is relatively low is fine (that is within the topic) but saying things like

''Oh since boxing should be banned because of X, then anything else with X should also be banned'' is not productive because

1. Maybe the other thing SHOULD also be banned (alternatively, maybe not, there are always a number of factors at play), either way, it has nothing to do with this topic or the underlying reasons proposed to justify the ban of THIS activity

2.Maybe there are other overriding contextual factors at play in the other issue that is brought up for comparison (but such comparisons or leaps of logic inevitably ignore those and then we get into unrelated ground)

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Arguing that the deaths in boxing is relatively low is fine (that is within the topic) but saying things like

''Oh since boxing should be banned because of X, then anything else with X should also be banned'' is not productive because

1. Maybe the other thing SHOULD also be banned

amaze

[Valaran]

1. Maybe the other thing SHOULD also be banned, either way, it has nothing to do with this topic or the underlying reasons proposed to justify the ban of THIS activity

2.Maybe there are other overriding contextual factors at play in the other issue that is brought up for comparison

But its the same principle at work, and we are in effect, attacking the principle. We ridicule the reaosns why you want to ban boxing, and show that by putting the same reasons in other similar situations.

We'd also argue that this principle, and the context of other sports and activities is the overriding contextual factor. This is the context for us.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There is no boxing issue.

I have never heard anyone ever refer to Boxing as an issue in my life.

The issue is that we will run out of cardboard boxes. Obviously. Big Boss will shed a tear.

Big Boss sheds no tears, ever. He's too manly for that.

But yeah, this really isn't an issue. Like at all.

[Infected Mushroom]

I know what it means

and it is disappointing to me that a large number of posters have elected to make leaps of logic in over-extending the scope of my argument instead of honestly engaging with the issues within this issue that I have raised (or alternatively, by responsibly bringing up other angles of consideration with respect to this issue)

Its because we find your argument making leaps of logic that we see as patently ridiculous.

My argument made no leaps of logic. It was talking only about boxing. I never extended the scope beyond that. In some cases, maybe my position is the same... in other cases, maybe its different because I see other overriding factors (that are not in boxing).

Either way, speculating on my stance in other issues is not relevant to the thread. The thread is about discussing whether BOXING (not anything else) should or should not be banned. It is not about trying to conveniently over-extend my argument to other spheres of human activity. That is just not, in my view, a responsible way to approach the OP.

[Infected Mushroom]

1. Maybe the other thing SHOULD also be banned, either way, it has nothing to do with this topic or the underlying reasons proposed to justify the ban of THIS activity

2.Maybe there are other overriding contextual factors at play in the other issue that is brought up for comparison

But its the same principle at work, and we are in effect, attacking the principle. We ridicule the reaosns why you want to ban boxing, and show that by putting the same reasons in other similar situations.

We'd also argue that this principle, and the context of other sports and activities is the overriding contextual factor. This is the context for us.

The problem with that, is that I have not been advocating that we put those reasons to the exclusion of all other principles in other spheres of human activity. Therefore, such supposed ridicule more often than not (perhaps universally) tends to miss the mark.

You're essentially wrestling with a straw-man of a broader unconditional argument, and not the narrow argument I have actually presented.

[Valaran]

Its because we find your argument making leaps of logic that we see as patently ridiculous.

My argument made no leaps of logic. It was talking only about boxing. I never extended the scope beyond that. In some cases, maybe my position is the same... in other cases, maybe its different because I see other overriding factors (that are not in boxing).

Either way, speculating on my stance in other issues is not relevant to the thread. The thread is about discussing whether BOXING (not anything else) should or should not be banned. It is not about trying to conveniently over-extend my argument to other spheres of human activity. That is just not, in my view, a responsible way to approach the OP.

Oh but it does. It assumes that willingly undertaken violence in a sport is something one should naturally condemn, and then wishes to deny the rights of others, depsite the fact that they have accepted those risks. Your 'logic' doesn't exist to most here.

See above for that second part. You also don't get to decide what is relevant.

[Empire of Donner land]

I have never heard anyone ever refer to Boxing as an issue in my life.

The issue is that we will run out of cardboard boxes. Obviously. Big Boss will shed a tear.

Big Boss sheds no tears, ever. He's too manly for that.

But yeah, this really isn't an issue. Like at all.

Now I want someone to write a NS issue on this. Option 3 can be a Nazi trying to use this to some how persecute Jewish people.

Other than that. IM, this really is not a important issue. No one has ever complained about this but you it seems.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Making a leap of logic by assuming that the scope of my argument on boxing applies unconditionally to all instances where unnecessary deaths can occur to the exclusion of all other contextual factors (such as by extending it to LEGO) is strawmanning

its also harmful to the discussion because it avoids an honest and well-throught out response to the reasons that are actually at issue within the narrow confines of the boxing issue

It's showing how ludicrous your argument is by applying the same logic to other things that could also potentially cause harm since your only base for banning things in your arguments is simply that they cause harm sometimes and banning it would be for "their own good" which isn't only unreasonable, it's ridiculous.

[Valaran]

But its the same principle at work, and we are in effect, attacking the principle. We ridicule the reaosns why you want to ban boxing, and show that by putting the same reasons in other similar situations.

We'd also argue that this principle, and the context of other sports and activities is the overriding contextual factor. This is the context for us.

The problem with that, is that I have not been advocating that we put those reasons to the exclusion of all other principles in other spheres of human activity. Therefore, such supposed ridicule more often than not (perhaps universally) tends to miss the mark.

You're essentially wrestling with a straw-man of a broader unconditional argument, and not the narrow argument I have actually presented.

That is something that that isn't possible - we don't exclude that. Because its the same principle at work for those, so we show how silly it is.

Your argument is too narrow to debate fully without its wider context then. Making comparisons to highlight the ridiculousness is not straw manning.

[Infected Mushroom]

Making a leap of logic by assuming that the scope of my argument on boxing applies unconditionally to all instances where unnecessary deaths can occur to the exclusion of all other contextual factors (such as by extending it to LEGO) is strawmanning

its also harmful to the discussion because it avoids an honest and well-throught out response to the reasons that are actually at issue within the narrow confines of the boxing issue

It's showing how ludicrous your argument is by applying the same logic to other things that could also potentially cause harm since your only base for banning things in your arguments is simply that they cause harm sometimes and banning it would be for "their own good" which isn't only unreasonable, it's ridiculous.

except I never made those other claims that you are supposedly ridiculing

and my response to those claims, wouldn't be relevant to my views on this particular issue because different factors may apply

[BK117B2]

1. Maybe the other thing SHOULD also be banned, either way, it has nothing to do with this topic or the underlying reasons proposed to justify the ban of THIS activity

2.Maybe there are other overriding contextual factors at play in the other issue that is brought up for comparison

But its the same principle at work, and we are in effect, attacking the principle. We ridicule the reaosns why you want to ban boxing, and show that by putting the same reasons in other similar situations.

We'd also argue that this principle, and the context of other sports and activities is the overriding contextual factor. This is the context for us.

And given the fact that it is directly addressing the 'reasons' mentioned, the only way they could not be valid is if some relevant, distinguishing factor can be shown. So far that has never been done.

The premise is that an activity carrying a risk of harm should grant other people the authority to forbid you from doing it. It is only logical to illustrate the realities of that concept

[Valaran]

except I never made those other claims that you are supposedly ridiculing

You don't need to have made them - its still the same principle underlying the claims you are making.

[Infected Mushroom]

The problem with that, is that I have not been advocating that we put those reasons to the exclusion of all other principles in other spheres of human activity. Therefore, such supposed ridicule more often than not (perhaps universally) tends to miss the mark.

You're essentially wrestling with a straw-man of a broader unconditional argument, and not the narrow argument I have actually presented.

That is something that that isn't possible - we don't exclude that. Because its the same principle at work for those, so we show how silly it is.

Your argument is too narrow to debate fully without its wider context then. Making comparisons to highlight the ridiculousness is not straw manning.

it is when the original argument had a limited and narrow scope, no argument exists in a vacuum (there are always multiple principles at play). With any other issue that you raise for a supposedly valid comparison, there is likely another overriding principle at play that is absent in this fact pattern; thereby making the comparison meaningless and intellectually dishonest

[Valaran]

And given the fact that it is directly addressing the 'reasons' mentioned, the only way they could not be valid is if some relevant, distinguishing factor can be shown. So far that has never been done.

Exactly. IM should prove why it is not relevant to make comparisons other than 'i didn't say it so it doesn't count'

[Infected Mushroom]

except I never made those other claims that you are supposedly ridiculing

You don't need to have made them - its still the same principle underlying the claims you are making.

principles do not operate to the exclusion of all other principles, and in an OP, it is impossible to list all other principles

[Doperland]

Ah... I love IM"s threads. They're good for some laughs (not from the topic itself. Or well, yeah, I guess the topic itself, but mainly the responses)

Also, I don't think we should ban Boxing. 'Cuz how else will we get training montages?

[Valaran]

it is when the original argument had a limited and narrow scope

You're argument is too narrow in scope, as I've said.

no argument exists in a vacuum

Indeed. And that non-vacuum for us is these other sports.

With any other issue that you raise for a supposedly valid comparison, there is likely another overriding principle at play that is absent in this fact pattern

There isn't and you have not given such principles for all those comparisons.