Boxing should be Banned

[Hastiaka]

Boxing is a sport. People get benefits, and others may die. They die because they take little precaution or become cocky when in fighting.

[BK117B2]

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

Possibly. But why should we let them?

Because we are not arrogant enough to think our opinions are more important than consent and control of ones own body

[BK117B2]

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

Actually they would provide such information...you're just strangely unwilling to share.

You were even specifically asked about context and refused to answer...then turned around and complained that people weren't taking the context (which you insist remain secret) into consideration

[Infected Mushroom]

No. Principles do not operate in a complete vacum.

Then explain the principles and the context of these principles. You have failed to do so in the OP.

the argument is meant to apply to boxing only

if you bring up other comparisons, it inevitably brings up more and more variables and then the principle may or may not be the overriding factor

for example, there are factors at play with respect to driving a car that aren't present in boxing (ex one is essential to the modern economy, the other isn't) and so on...

this is why I would refrain from over-generalising and bringing in potentially faulty comparisons

also, I cannot list all factors because I do not have a running list of all the possible examples a person could bring up

[Neutraligon]

Then explain the principles and the context of these principles. You have failed to do so in the OP.

the argument is meant to apply to boxing only

if you bring up other comparisons, it inevitably brings up more and more variables and then the principle may or may not be the overriding factor

for example, there are factors at play with respect to driving a car that aren't present in boxing (ex one is essential to the modern economy, the other isn't) and so on...

this is why I would refrain from over-generalising and bringing in potentially faulty comparisons

also, I cannot list all factors because I do not have a running list of all the possible examples a person could bring up

Why does it only apply to boxing, why can we not apply it to analogous situations? What is so unique about boxing that the same arguments cannot be used for other situations?
Boxing is a specific type of sport, what is so unique about boxing that we cannot apply the same principles to say wrestling, or other martial arts?

[Infected Mushroom]

the argument is meant to apply to boxing only

if you bring up other comparisons, it inevitably brings up more and more variables and then the principle may or may not be the overriding factor

for example, there are factors at play with respect to driving a car that aren't present in boxing (ex one is essential to the modern economy, the other isn't) and so on...

this is why I would refrain from over-generalising and bringing in potentially faulty comparisons

also, I cannot list all factors because I do not have a running list of all the possible examples a person could bring up

Why does it only apply to boxing, why can we not apply it to analogous situations? What is so unique about boxing that the same arguments cannot be used for other situations?

you can apply them to perfectly analogous situations, but a lot of the situations that have been brought up through this thread are not

also, why bring up an analogous situation at all when you can simply address the specific reasons in context?

[Neutraligon]

Why does it only apply to boxing, why can we not apply it to analogous situations? What is so unique about boxing that the same arguments cannot be used for other situations?

you can apply them to perfectly analogous situations, but a lot of the situations that have been brought up through this thread are not

also, why bring up an analogous situation at all when you can simply address the specific reasons in context?

Because for whatever reason you have decided to focus on boxing and not the same type of sport as boxing (ie martial arts). So tell me would you ban all martial arts?

[Infected Mushroom]

you can apply them to perfectly analogous situations, but a lot of the situations that have been brought up through this thread are not

also, why bring up an analogous situation at all when you can simply address the specific reasons in context?

Because for whatever reason you have decided to focus on boxing and not the same type of sport as boxing (ie martial arts). So tell me would you ban all martial arts?

it depends on the context (ex what it is used for) and the statistics for each one, economic viability, degree of risk of injury, types of injuries etc

chances are, some would be banned while others not

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because for whatever reason you have decided to focus on boxing and not the same type of sport as boxing (ie martial arts). So tell me would you ban all martial arts?

it depends on the context (ex what it is used for) and the statistics for each one, economic viability, degree of risk of injury, types of injuries etc

chances are, some would be banned while others not

Boxing is pretty low level when it comes to combat sports.

[Infected Mushroom]

it depends on the context (ex what it is used for) and the statistics for each one, economic viability, degree of risk of injury, types of injuries etc

chances are, some would be banned while others not

Boxing is pretty low level when it comes to combat sports.

then I suspect I wouldn't look too favourably upon most combat sports (unless other factors are involved and override the harm), but I haven't really researched those other sports so I don't know what the statistics look like

but I'm not sure how this shows boxing should or shouldn't be banned

[The Free Territory of Rothbardia]

According to IM's logic, humans shouldn't even exist since life itself is so dangerous *nods*

No. Principles do not operate in a complete vacum.

...because there’s no such thing as a complete vacuum? See physics for more info.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Boxing is pretty low level when it comes to combat sports.

then I suspect I wouldn't look too favourably upon most combat sports (unless other factors are involved and override the harm), but I haven't really researched those other sports so I don't know what the statistics look like

but I'm not sure how this shows boxing should or shouldn't be banned

It shouldn't be banned because you have yet to even give a single good reason why it should. There are no reasons to, at all.

[Ontorisa]

People have also died from the events in other physical sports like American Football, Ice Hockey and MMA. Should those also be banned?

[Infected Mushroom]

then I suspect I wouldn't look too favourably upon most combat sports (unless other factors are involved and override the harm), but I haven't really researched those other sports so I don't know what the statistics look like

but I'm not sure how this shows boxing should or shouldn't be banned

It shouldn't be banned because you have yet to even give a single good reason why it should. There are no reasons to, at all.

the reasons are listed in the OP (to be applied contextually to the sum totals of the factors at play in boxing unless another situation is established to be perfectly/reasonably analogous)

[Infected Mushroom]

People have also died from the events in other physical sports like American Football, Ice Hockey and MMA. Should those also be banned?

possibly, I would need to do more research

[Washington Resistance Army]

It shouldn't be banned because you have yet to even give a single good reason why it should. There are no reasons to, at all.

the reasons are listed in the OP (to be applied contextually to the sum totals of the factors at play in boxing unless another situation is established to be perfectly/reasonably analogous)

Yeah, and they're all really shitty reasons. What don't you get about that?

People don't want a nanny state, it's all consensual and even if you do ban it's not like it'll go away. Some of those styles are hundreds of years old.

[Infected Mushroom]

the reasons are listed in the OP (to be applied contextually to the sum totals of the factors at play in boxing unless another situation is established to be perfectly/reasonably analogous)

Yeah, and they're all really shitty reasons. What don't you get about that?

People don't want a nanny state, it's all consensual and even if you do ban it's not like it'll go away. Some of those styles are hundreds of years old.

practices that are hundreds of years old can be eradicated

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, and they're all really shitty reasons. What don't you get about that?

People don't want a nanny state, it's all consensual and even if you do ban it's not like it'll go away. Some of those styles are hundreds of years old.

practices that are hundreds of years old can be eradicated

And there's no reason they should be.

[Ontorisa]

People have also died from the events in other physical sports like American Football, Ice Hockey and MMA. Should those also be banned?

possibly, I would need to do more research

There are always risks of injury in sports, especially physical sports. I myself play both lacrosse and rugby and I know the consequences of taking a knee to the face in rugby, or a bad hit that ends up in a really bad concussion. The thing is IM: boxing has its own risks. If you want it banned because of its dangers, then you're also saying any sport that has a potential of concussions or risk of dangerous injury, especially physical sports, should be banned.

That means we're limited to sports like Tennis or Badminton and I hate those sports.

[BK117B2]

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.

people should not* be allowed to take such risks, it can result in serious brain damage and death

I fail to see why autonomy in this specific case should be so important

And why should risk of harm trump personal control over ones own body?

[Neutraligon]

It shouldn't be banned because you have yet to even give a single good reason why it should. There are no reasons to, at all.

the reasons are listed in the OP (to be applied contextually to the sum totals of the factors at play in boxing unless another situation is established to be perfectly/reasonably analogous)

You have still not explained why those reason should only be applied to boxing, or to martial arts in general. What is it that makes those sports unique that these reasons can only be applied to them. Why are you separating out those specific activities from all other activities.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It shouldn't be banned because you have yet to even give a single good reason why it should. There are no reasons to, at all.

the reasons are listed in the OP (to be applied contextually to the sum totals of the factors at play in boxing unless another situation is established to be perfectly/reasonably analogous)

The reasons you listed are ludicrous and completely subjective. Just because it's potentially dangerous and you simply don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned. Anyone who takes part in boxing or any physical sport know full well the risks involved and they choose to go forward. They are consenting adults who know what they are getting into. There is no reason to ban a sport that people are willing to take part in, none at all. Danger is an inherent part of life and it's time you come to realize it.

[The Free Territory of Rothbardia]

[Infected Mushroom]

people should not* be allowed to take such risks, it can result in serious brain damage and death

I fail to see why autonomy in this specific case should be so important

And why should risk of harm trump personal control over ones own body?

because people are capable of finding more productive, less risky, and equally rewarding hobbies (that don't include a high risk of brain damage, committing recreational assault and a substantial risk of death)

[Washington Resistance Army]

And why should risk of harm trump personal control over ones own body?

because people are capable of finding more productive, less risky, and equally rewarding hobbies (that don't include a high risk of brain damage, committing recreational assault and a substantial risk of death)

Training things like Muay Thai, Krav Maga, Judo etc are very productive and rewarding.