Boxing should be Banned

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

the principles are the principles stated in the OP, being weighed against the contextual factors within the sport of boxing (in other sports and other spheres of activities, some of these decisive principles in the OP may apply, but there may or may not be other overriding factors at play which make me reach a different conclusion)...

[BK117B2]

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

Their validity has already been demonstrated.

You are making the claim that they are not valid on the basis of...well no basis really. You refuse to provide any basis other than 'I said so' which is worthless

[USS Monitor]

People should not be pushed away from sports. Obesity is a much larger problem than boxing incidents.

Is anyone saying we should ban sports in general?

[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

Their validity has already been demonstrated.

You are making the claim that they are not valid on the basis of...well no basis really. You refuse to provide any basis other than 'I said so' which is worthless

my argument was that boxing should be outlawed, quips about how I said/implied other things should also be outlawed or shouldn't be outlawed get us nowhere (that's just putting words in my mouth)

the principles in the OP don't apply in a vacuum, they apply within the context of boxing. They may or may not play a role in other spheres of human activity and you can be sure that with different activities, all the factors taken together will be different. Each issue should be analysed on its own. Sweeping comparisons and grand statements are not welcome; especially ones that seek to distort my argument to make it supposedly easier to attack.

[Cerillium]

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)

Oh?

The problem isn't the sport. It rests, in aprt, with the pugilists stepping into the ring, and the type of event they step in to. Boxing, like any sport, requires proper training. However, the rise of mixed martial arts (MMA) has put more young men in the ring than ever before. The average young man isn't properly trained nor does he wear appropriate protection.

I can't begin to tell you how many young MMA-wannabe shits have stepped into the ring with straight boxers from my gym only to be taken down by their own foolishness. We're not a pros. We're trained, and we box for not only the sport but also for the cardio workout. These kids don't know how to guard, they don't know how to dance, and they seem to think they're invincible and don't need warmups or instruction. They think what they see on TV is "boxing" and are surprised to learn we go by points and don't use our feet as weapons. They persist and insist they can handle it. They get their asses handed to them, often leaving with hands and fingers fractured during warm-ups (caused by improperly hitting training equipment). They don't return. They're part of the statistics. The majority of statistics published since 2000 include MMA fighters with boxers, and the majority of injuries and deaths sustained are to MMA fighters and not amateur athletes.

Your LivingStrong.com article is an OpEd.

Your Wikipedia has outdated material. You also seem to cling to only part of that article. Yes, "Since 1980, more than 200 amateur boxers, professional boxers and Toughman fighters have died due to ring or training injuries" and "In 1983, the Journal of the American Medical Association called for a ban on boxing." However, "In 1997, the American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians was established to create medical protocols through research and education to prevent injuries in boxing." Further Boxing Ban opponents correctly state that, "many skilled professional boxers have had rewarding careers without inflicting injury on opponents by accumulating scoring blows and avoiding punches winning rounds scored 10-9 by the 10-point must system, and they note that there are many other sports where concussions are much more prevalent."

Your third source is an OpEd by John Hardy, a neuroscientist at University College London. The article discussed head injuries, including hockey and other contact sports.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that boxers beat the fuck out of each other until one of them falls down. Here's the catch, Mush - there's a glaring difference between professional boxing and amateur boxing and MMA fighting. To understand, you can review pro vs amateur here.

Instead of moving to have all boxing banned, why not bitch and whine about the sensationalized versions of it? I'm a boxer, and I referee. I'm not a fan of pro boxing or MMA. You're right, it is too commercialized. There's nothing noble about it. Ban that shit. To ban all boxing would be the same as banning all dog ownership based on the fact that pit bulls are used in dog fights. If you think that comparison is amiss, it's clear you don't understand boxing as a sport nor the current disagreements within the boxing community.

In other words, you have made sweeping generalizations about a subject you are unfamiliar with for the sole purpose of ?

You sum it all up by stating, Let's ban promoted professional boxing and then conclude that the only way this can be achieved is to ban all boxing because "it's violent" (again, your lack of understanding of the sport puts you at a marked disadvantage).

So which is it: Are you sincere in your desire to have people "honestly engaging with the issues within this issue that I have raised" -or- are you willing to admit your bungling approach is due to the severe disadvantage you have placed yourself in because you did not actually research the topic prior to posting it?

I can only sum up my opinion of your OP and subsequent posts by comparing the behavior to that of a small child on a too high a diving platform. You have figuratively waved your arms and shouted "Ma, look at me, ma!" at us before fully assessing the height at which you so precariously stand. I say in jest: Get down, Mush, before you accidentally slip and crack your skull... lest we see a thread demanding a diving platform ban.

Meh. I'm done here.

[BK117B2]

Their validity has already been demonstrated.

You are making the claim that they are not valid on the basis of...well no basis really. You refuse to provide any basis other than 'I said so' which is worthless

my argument was that boxing should be outlawed, quips about how I said/implied other things should also be outlawed or shouldn't be outlawed get us nowhere (that's just putting words in my mouth)

the principles in the OP don't apply in a vacuum, they apply within the context of boxing. They may or may not play a role in other spheres of human activity and you can be sure that with different activities, all the factors taken together will be different. Each issue should be analysed on its own. Sweeping comparisons and grand statements are not welcome; especially ones that seek to distort my argument to make it supposedly easier to attack.

If you want to make an argument that ____ in the context of _____, then do so. That you chose otherwise is your choice, but others cannot reasonably be blamed for it.

Such a ban would either have no teeth or would be punishing the 'victims'

Why are you unwilling to share what you consider the relevant context?

Why should anyone get to dictate what others do with their bodies?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Bullshit. Banning fighting is fucking stupid and won't actually stop jack shit.

[Dyakovo]

What should I put my stuff in then?

Garbage bags.
*nods*

[Arcturus Novus]

Mush, you can't ban everything you disagree with.

[Galnius]

Mush, you can't ban everything you disagree with.

There goes my zombie contingency plan

[Ifreann]

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)

Making comparisons to other situations is a perfectly valid way of analysing someone's reasoning.

---

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.

the principles are the principles stated in the OP, being weighed against the contextual factors within the sport of boxing (in other sports and other spheres of activities, some of these decisive principles in the OP may apply, but there may or may not be other overriding factors at play which make me reach a different conclusion)...

And obviously people don't understand them, and they never will if you don't explain what they are and why they apply to boxing and not all the other comparable things people keep bringing up.

[Dyakovo]

the principles are the principles stated in the OP, being weighed against the contextual factors within the sport of boxing (in other sports and other spheres of activities, some of these decisive principles in the OP may apply, but there may or may not be other overriding factors at play which make me reach a different conclusion)...

And obviously people don't understand them, and they never will if you don't explain what they are and why they apply to boxing and not all the other comparable things people keep bringing up.

Because boxing, not these other comparable things being mentioned, is what he doesn't like.
*nods*

[The Rebel Alliances]

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?

From what I can tell from movies more fights break out in a hockey ring then riots in Egypt. Ban those too?

On a serious note. Athletes are injured in sports all the time. Part of playing a sport. Almost all carry a risk of personnel injury. Boxing has a higher rate, but no it should not be banned.

Where do you get your ideas?

[New Gothica]

I personally believe if you sign up for the sport of boxing then you have agreed to face any sort of trauma or physical damage associated with it and therefore like alcohol and nicotine are currently, should be up to choice not executive decision.

[Infected Mushroom]

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)

Making comparisons to other situations is a perfectly valid way of analysing someone's reasoning.

---

the principles are the principles stated in the OP, being weighed against the contextual factors within the sport of boxing (in other sports and other spheres of activities, some of these decisive principles in the OP may apply, but there may or may not be other overriding factors at play which make me reach a different conclusion)...

And obviously people don't understand them, and they never will if you don't explain what they are and why they apply to boxing and not all the other comparable things people keep bringing up.

the reasons are in the OP

but they apply contextually, in this case narrowly to boxing and perhaps a few other places, its always an analysis of ALL factors against the specific harms a prohibition would fight against

[Ifreann]

Making comparisons to other situations is a perfectly valid way of analysing someone's reasoning.

---

And obviously people don't understand them, and they never will if you don't explain what they are and why they apply to boxing and not all the other comparable things people keep bringing up.

the reasons are in the OP

but they apply contextually, in this case narrowly to boxing and perhaps a few other places

Well, I tried, clearly this is beyond you.

[Infected Mushroom]

And obviously people don't understand them, and they never will if you don't explain what they are and why they apply to boxing and not all the other comparable things people keep bringing up.

Because boxing, not these other comparable things being mentioned, is what he doesn't like.
*nods*

my views on the other sports are not within the scope of this topic, nor would a revelation concerning them shed any light on whether or not for the narrow subject of boxing, a prohibition would be reasonable or not

[Jochistan]

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.

You missed the bit about the constant smell of axe and the monster energy drink hats.

[Infected Mushroom]

I personally believe if you sign up for the sport of boxing then you have agreed to face any sort of trauma or physical damage associated with it and therefore like alcohol and nicotine are currently, should be up to choice not executive decision.

what about harm prevention?

[Jochistan]

I personally believe if you sign up for the sport of boxing then you have agreed to face any sort of trauma or physical damage associated with it and therefore like alcohol and nicotine are currently, should be up to choice not executive decision.

what about harm prevention?

they just went over that

[Galloism]

I personally believe if you sign up for the sport of boxing then you have agreed to face any sort of trauma or physical damage associated with it and therefore like alcohol and nicotine are currently, should be up to choice not executive decision.

what about harm prevention?

We generally shouldn't prevent people from engaging in activities that have potential for harm to self unless the person is sufficiently incapacitated via mental illness that they can't be said to make valid decisions.

[Infected Mushroom]

what about harm prevention?

they just went over that

in this case the harm prevention is of greater importance from my point of view

[Jochistan]

they just went over that

in this case the harm prevention is of greater importance from my point of view

It's fighting. they know what they sign onto.

[Infected Mushroom]

in this case the harm prevention is of greater importance from my point of view

It's fighting. they know what they sign onto.

Possibly. But why should we let them?

[Rubor Dolor]

It's fighting. they know what they sign onto.

Possibly. But why should we let them?

Autonomy in competent individuals who understand the risks and feel the benefits outweigh the negatives. As this is also true on a societal level we allow it.