Boxing should be Banned

[Infected Mushroom]

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'

No the onus is on the person making the comparison to prove why its valid

otherwise, people could simply respond to any given thread by making the most ridiculous comparisons to supposedly ridicule

the presumption is that comparisons shouldn't be made unless you are sure they aren't problematic and outside of the scope of the original argument

[Empire of Donner land]

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?

You raise a good point. Rocky would be banned. And if that happens riots will surely break out across the U.S.

[Valaran]

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

We I see no reason to bother about such principles you didn't deem worthy enough to mention (or was it that they don't exist?)

Clearly they haven't overridden your main principle or even featured in your primary argument, so fuck them. We're attacking the principle you have given us.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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

People have gotten hurt and will continue to get hurt; it is also a shameless promotion of violence and physicality, tasteless in all respects.

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

These quotes taken from your OP are pretty much the only reasons why you've wanted to see certain things banned in past threads you've made, because people can potentially get hurt, you don't like it and banning it would be for the participants own good. Applying that logic to anything else wouldn't be such a stretch for you.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

I'm not obligated to, because I never presented an argument that was wide enough in scope to reasonably invoke such comparisons

I am not obligated to respond to potentially invalid comparisons that are made by posters who prefer to straw-man the OP's arguments by assuming a wider scope of applicability (to the exclusion of all other factors) rather than responsibly respond to the actual points in the OP with respect to the specific issue

[Valaran]

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

No the onus is on the person making the comparison to prove why its valid

otherwise, people could simply respond to any given thread by making the most ridiculous comparisons to supposedly ridicule

the presumption is that comparisons shouldn't be made unless you are sure they aren't problematic and outside of the scope of the original argument

Which we have done at every juncture, and you have simply said:

'its not in the op so its it doesn't count'

And fundamentally the argument has broadened with every poster that wasn't yourself (including chessmistress), because it was too narrow at first. You want fresh angles? We're giving them to you, but none of those angles will be in the original argument.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

People have gotten hurt and will continue to get hurt; it is also a shameless promotion of violence and physicality, tasteless in all respects.

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

These quotes taken from your OP are pretty much the only reasons why you've wanted to see certain things banned in past threads you've made, because people can potentially get hurt, you don't like it and banning it would be for the participants own good. Applying that logic to anything else wouldn't be such a stretch for you.

the claims are made within the context of this activity; they may or may not apply to other activities (they may or may not be the overriding factor in other spheres of activities)...

in any event, their application or non-application to other spheres of activities says nothing about whether or not they apply here

[Valaran]

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



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



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

I'm not obligated to, because I never presented an argument that was wide enough in scope to reasonably invoke such comparisons

I am not obligated to respond to potentially invalid comparisons that are made by posters who prefer to straw-man the OP's arguments by assuming a wider scope of applicability (to the exclusion of all other factors) rather than responsibly respond to the actual points in the OP with respect to the specific issue

You're right. So we'll broaden it for you, since you're argument was too narrow. And guess what? We broadened it.


As noted, its not strawmanning, and its rather erroneous of you to pretend so, since it means you can simply not bother giving proper replies.

[Infected Mushroom]

No the onus is on the person making the comparison to prove why its valid

otherwise, people could simply respond to any given thread by making the most ridiculous comparisons to supposedly ridicule

the presumption is that comparisons shouldn't be made unless you are sure they aren't problematic and outside of the scope of the original argument

Which we have done at every juncture, and you have simply said:

'its not in the op so its it doesn't count'

And fundamentally the argument has broadened with every poster that wasn't yourself (including chessmistress), because it was too narrow at first. You want fresh angles? We're giving them to you, but none of those angles will be in the original argument.

Chessmistress has interacted responsibly with the OP. They have brought up an extra issue to consider WITHIN the bounds of the topic of boxing (gender issues). I said nothing about gender issues in the OP, but its a valid consideration in arguing for why boxing should or shouldn't be banned if one were to make that argument. It doesn't rely on assuming I said something (which I did not) on the topic in the OP.

I take no issue with that. That argument doesn't rely on taking my argument out of proportion; they are being creative and presenting a new perspective to explore that doesn't rely on distorting my argument.

On the other hand, arguments that go ''OP said X should be banned because of Y... therefore OP is also saying Z should be banned because Y applies (to the exclusion of all other principles that may be present in Z but not in X)'' is both 1. derailing (its entirely irrelevant whether that other activity should or shouldn't be banned) and 2. an irresponsible debating strategy that distorts the OP's argument (in other words, strawmaning).

Chesmistress' arguments do not rely on strawmaning my posts.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not obligated to, because I never presented an argument that was wide enough in scope to reasonably invoke such comparisons

I am not obligated to respond to potentially invalid comparisons that are made by posters who prefer to straw-man the OP's arguments by assuming a wider scope of applicability (to the exclusion of all other factors) rather than responsibly respond to the actual points in the OP with respect to the specific issue

You're right. So we'll broaden it for you, since you're argument was too narrow. And guess what? We broadened it.


As noted, its not strawmanning, and its rather erroneous of you to pretend so, since it means you can simply not bother giving proper replies.

then you are attacking an over-broadened variation of my argument, and not my actual argument

hence, strawmanning

[Valaran]

Chessmistress has interacted responsibly with the OP. They have brought up an extra issue to consider WITHIN the bounds of the topic of boxing (gender issues). I said nothing about gender issues in the OP, but its a valid consideration in arguing for why boxing should or shouldn't be banned if one were to make that argument. It doesn't rely on assuming I said something (which I did not) on the topic in the OP.

She also brought it up in the context of other sports.

Did you notice that part?

On the other hand, arguments that go ''OP said X should be banned because of Y... therefore OP is also saying Z should be banned because Y applies (to the exclusion of all other principles that may be present in Z but not in X)'' is both 1. derailing (its entirely irrelevant whether that other activity should or shouldn't be banned) and 2. an irresponsible debating strategy that distorts the OP's argument (in other words, strawmaning).

[/quote]

These other principles you fail to ever mention, or explain how they supersede or even interfere with the one we're attacking.

Its not derailing to attack your principle, and if you feel it is, then I'd recommend asking moderation to clarify it for everyone.

Its not irrepressible to show how ridiculous your argument is, when put into the wider context (which you tried to ignore).

[Valaran]

You're right. So we'll broaden it for you, since you're argument was too narrow. And guess what? We broadened it.


As noted, its not strawmanning, and its rather erroneous of you to pretend so, since it means you can simply not bother giving proper replies.

then you are attacking an over-broadened variation of my argument, and not my actual argument

hence, strawmanning

its not over-broadened (well, maybe it is to you, but I imagine your are in a tiny minority on this). Its putting it out of the vacuum as you claim it should be.

And an broadened version of your argument still uses your argument, so, yeah we're still going for the right point.

[Infected Mushroom]

She also brought it up in the context of other sports.

Did you notice that part?

These other principles you fail to ever mention, or explain how they supersede or even interfere with the one we're attacking.

Its not derailing to attack your principle, and if you feel it is, then I'd recommend asking moderation to clarify it for everyone.

Its not irrepressible to show how ridiculous your argument is, when put into the wider context (which you tried to ignore).

the principle applies in boxing where I believe there are no overriding factors; it may or may not apply in other contexts where there could be overriding factors

I take no issue with Chessmistress' argument because they aren't putting words into my mouth and then attacking a constructed boogeyman of an argument

[Ifreann]

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

What's dishonest and detrimental to discussion here is your patent refusal to explain why you want to ban boxing. People have repeatedly pointed out that your stated reasons for banning boxing apply to an equal or greater extent to many other things and you aren't advocating that they be banned. This is a perfectly relevant point and you're not addressing it.

[Valaran]

the principle applies in boxing where I believe there are no overriding factors; it may or may not apply in other contexts where there could be overriding factors

I take no issue with Chessmistress' argument because they aren't putting words into my mouth and then attacking a constructed boogeyman of an argument

You haven't stated other overriding factors, so I'm of a mind to believe that they don't exist.

Ah, so you have no issue because she agrees with your argument. That makes some sense, I suppose. She agrees with the words already in your mouth (though she then applied them to other sports), so its no big deal, right?
Maybe the boogeyman is your argument.

[Rio Cana]

One of our local island boxer was in the news this weekend. He was in the US state of Virginia at a boxing event and he collapsed. They are trying to save him. Story on him -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing ... liams.html

I should point out that they say he has won 16 and lost none. Also, someone here said that his trainer had set up 3 fights for the last three months. No real time to rest any possible injuries. Chances are if he makes it that his promising boxing career is over.

[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

What's dishonest and detrimental to discussion here is your patent refusal to explain why you want to ban boxing. People have repeatedly pointed out that your stated reasons for banning boxing apply to an equal or greater extent to many other things and you aren't advocating that they be banned. This is a perfectly relevant point and you're not addressing it.

I have explained them. The reasons are in the OP.

I don't appreciate it when people assume those reasons operate in a vacuum (to the exclusion of all other principles) and then instead of talking about the reasons as they apply to BOXING, pretend that I argued that other activities should also be banned (when in fact, for those activities, there could be other overriding principles at work).

[Gauthier]

As a huge UFC fan I don't think boxing should be banned. Has anyone (I mean pro-banning people) even watched Golovkin box? He's awesome not some running around tactics.

Mixed Martial Arts lied to me. I was expecting something like Real Life Street Fighter, but instead what I got was a bunch of people slapping and grappling each other in all sorts of Kama Sutra poses. It's like professional wrestling, but even more homoerotic.

[Shiraan]

This is a perfectly relevant point and you're not addressing it.

You haven't heard the news? nothing is relevant except what fits into IM's narrow, sheltered worldview.

[Valaran]

What's dishonest and detrimental to discussion here is your patent refusal to explain why you want to ban boxing. People have repeatedly pointed out that your stated reasons for banning boxing apply to an equal or greater extent to many other things and you aren't advocating that they be banned. This is a perfectly relevant point and you're not addressing it.

I have explained them. The reasons are in the OP.

And then not discussed since by yourself, no matter how many people disagreed with them on their own merits.

[BK117B2]

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

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about applying your stated position

[Infected Mushroom]

I have explained them. The reasons are in the OP.

And then not discussed since by yourself, no matter how many people disagreed with them on their own merits.

I have been responding to some of the posts that speak to those reasons within the correct context of boxing.

But the posts where those reasons are then taken out of context, applied in other context (and credit is somehow supposedly attributed to me) to the exclusion of all other principles... are not productive.

[The Holy Therns]

As a huge UFC fan I don't think boxing should be banned. Has anyone (I mean pro-banning people) even watched Golovkin box? He's awesome not some running around tactics.

Mixed Martial Arts lied to me. I was expecting something like Real Life Street Fighter, but instead what I got was a bunch of people slapping and grappling each other in all sorts of Kama Sutra poses. It's like professional wrestling, but even more homoerotic.

Oo. I should watch more MMA.

[Ifreann]

What's dishonest and detrimental to discussion here is your patent refusal to explain why you want to ban boxing. People have repeatedly pointed out that your stated reasons for banning boxing apply to an equal or greater extent to many other things and you aren't advocating that they be banned. This is a perfectly relevant point and you're not addressing it.

I have explained them. The reasons are in the OP.

I don't appreciate it when people assume those reasons operate in a vacuum (to the exclusion of all other principles) and then instead of talking about the reasons as they apply to BOXING, pretend that I argued that other activities should also be banned (when in fact, for those activities, there could be other overriding principles at work).

Obviously people don't understand what principles you are applying here, and they never will if you don't explain what they are and why they apply to boxing but not all the other comparable things people keep bringing up.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about applying your stated position

there is when the person assumes that the principles in the OP apply in a vacuum and that there are necessarily no overriding factors in the comparisons raised which render them invalid

its also a very sketch tactic because then we can go on for pages and pages about why X is different from Y and S is different from T when really... the more responsible thing to do would have been to simply discuss the actual topic (instead of making comparisons and putting words in people's mouths)