Boxing should be Banned

[Infected Mushroom]

If something is not clearly prohibited by the operation of the Constitution, then a law regarding the issue is presumptively Constitutional. [edited due to poor grammar]

If something isn't prohibited by the constitution, then it is constitutional?

To ban boxing, by this logic, would be a violation of the constitution since, by your own words, anything not clearly prohibited by the constitution is apparently constitutional.

So either you do believe this or you believe boxing should be banned.

Which is it?

the constitution decides whether laws (the actions of states) are constitutional or not, not whether activities by individuals are constitutional or not

a law that allows/promotes boxing or an absence of such laws would be constitutional... equally, a law prohibiting or in some form regulating boxing would also be constitutional

I am saying constitutionality is of no guidance here for resolving this issue

[Nord Amour]

Participating in a boxing match is a consumer risk. Whenever you buy prescription drugs you are taking a risk that you will go insane and jump off a bridge. When you brush your teeth, you risk choking on the toothbrush. We all buy cars knowing people die in them (if that sounds like a Jennifer Government reference, that's because it is). What do all of these things have in common? They are all extremely unlikely (save dying in a car), and so is dying in a boxing match. The statistics definitely don't support such a ridiculous, bleeding-heart suggestion.

Violence is a legitimate expression of the human Will, extending itself along the ancestral chain backwards into eternity. Nature has never coddled us, and so through blood we make the dominance and sturdiness of our species manifest through one of the greatest and oldest families of art. It is barbaric, in the same sense that taking a dump is barbarous, but to suggest that it is without guidance is the height of ignorance. During the pankration, to murder another man was always to lose the match, and in modern times, where we have many regulatory procedures in boxing, MMA, etc, your idea is all the more... what is the politically correct way to say it... a silly suggestion.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Because if there were, you would have more ground to stand on with your argument other than "it's dangerous and I don't like it" which isn't a valid argument, no statistic will help you.

That would be like me saying: "well, American football results in tens of thousands of concussions, broken bones, sprains, cuts, and bruises every year and I don't like it so I totally think it should be banned, even though nobody else seems to think so."

you are conflating the popularity of an idea with the desirability of the idea

Then make a poll gauging desirability and I can guarantee you'll find equal results.

[Jacobania]

If something isn't prohibited by the constitution, then it is constitutional?

To ban boxing, by this logic, would be a violation of the constitution since, by your own words, anything not clearly prohibited by the constitution is apparently constitutional.

So either you do believe this or you believe boxing should be banned.

Which is it?

the constitution decides whether laws (the actions of states) are constitutional or not, not whether activities by individuals are constitutional or not

a law that allows/promotes boxing or an absence of such laws would be constitutional... equally, a law prohibiting or in some form regulating boxing would also be constitutional

I am saying constitutionality is of no guidance here for resolving this issue

Regulating boxing? So you're not in favor of an outright ban, then?

[Infected Mushroom]

you are conflating the popularity of an idea with the desirability of the idea

Then make a poll gauging desirability and I can guarantee you'll find equal results.

desirability speaks to whether or not the outcome of such a law would be objectively good on balance...

popularity simply speaks to the current appeal of the idea amongst the populace

they are two entirely different concepts

a totally unpopular law could be implemented and result in very desirable outcomes, a very popular law could be implemented and result in very undesirable outcomes

this thread is about the speculation of whether the results would be desirable or undesirable; the current popularity or lack of popularity of the proposal has little bearing

[Infected Mushroom]

the constitution decides whether laws (the actions of states) are constitutional or not, not whether activities by individuals are constitutional or not

a law that allows/promotes boxing or an absence of such laws would be constitutional... equally, a law prohibiting or in some form regulating boxing would also be constitutional

I am saying constitutionality is of no guidance here for resolving this issue

Regulating boxing? So you're not in favor of an outright ban, then?

the OP makes my position relatively clear

[Galnius]

Statistics indeed are not subjective. However, when the statistic Is something like "About 200 in about 35 years", they are about as valid as the toothbrush commercials "1 in 3 dentists". Can you please supply factual specific information that isn't stated In a way to appear larger (about 200 in 35 years as opposed to averaging around 5.5 deaths per year, with less occuring currently due to the safety regulations), then provide links from peer reviewed studies, or at least .edus or .govs?

i have already provided a number of sources in the OP

You mean the two .com opinion articles and WIKIPEDIA. Yeah no, neither are valid in a debate where one can get information from .edus and .govs. Especially opinion articles and Wikipedia. It's like bring a rubber knife to a gun fight.

[Jacobania]

Then make a poll gauging desirability and I can guarantee you'll find equal results.

desirability speaks to whether or not the outcome of such a law would be objectively good on balance...

popularity simply speaks to the current appeal of the idea amongst the populace

they are two entirely different concepts

a totally unpopular law could be implemented and result in very desirable outcomes, a very popular law could be implemented and result in very undesirable outcomes

this thread is about the speculation of whether the results would be desirable or undesirable; the current popularity or lack of popularity of the proposal has little bearing

That's a lot more ambiguous than I had previously thought this thread was about.

I assumed that it was just about boxing.

[Allanea]

this thread is about the speculation of whether the results would be desirable or undesirable; the current popularity or lack of popularity of the proposal has little bearing

This is however not a possible conclusion we can reach.

Different posters this thread clearly have different moral priorities.

[Free Wexford]

Participating in a boxing match is a consumer risk. Whenever you buy prescription drugs you are taking a risk that you will go insane and jump off a bridge. When you brush your teeth, you risk choking on the toothbrush. We all buy cars knowing people die in them (if that sounds like a Jennifer Government reference, that's because it is). What do all of these things have in common? They are all extremely unlikely (save dying in a car), and so is dying in a boxing match. The statistics definitely don't support such a ridiculous, bleeding-heart suggestion.

Violence is a legitimate expression of the human Will, extending itself along the ancestral chain backwards into eternity. Nature has never coddled us, and so through blood we make the dominance and sturdiness of our species manifest through one of the greatest and oldest families of art. It is barbaric, in the same sense that taking a dump is barbarous, but to suggest that it is without guidance is the height of ignorance. During the pankration, to murder another man was always to lose the match, and in modern times, where we have many regulatory procedures in boxing, MMA, etc, your idea is all the more... what is the politically correct way to say it... a silly suggestion.

Stop mansplaining jk

[Jacobania]

this thread is about the speculation of whether the results would be desirable or undesirable; the current popularity or lack of popularity of the proposal has little bearing

This is however not a possible conclusion we can reach.

Different posters this thread clearly have different moral priorities.

Moral priorities on how to decrease gun violence, automobile accidents, and murder more-so than moral priorities on boxing incidents I would imagine.

[The Two Jerseys]

the statistics for the injuries and the deaths are not subjective

Statistics indeed are not subjective. However, when the statistic Is something like "About 200 in about 35 years", they are about as valid as the toothbrush commercials "1 in 3 dentists". Can you please supply factual specific information that isn't stated In a way to appear larger (about 200 in 35 years as opposed to averaging around 5.5 deaths per year, with less occuring currently due to the safety regulations), then provide links from peer reviewed studies, or at least .edus or .govs?

200 deaths in 35 years?

Pfft, auto racing killed 40% of that number in one day. Boxing is harmless in comparison.

[Jacobania]

Participating in a boxing match is a consumer risk. Whenever you buy prescription drugs you are taking a risk that you will go insane and jump off a bridge. When you brush your teeth, you risk choking on the toothbrush. We all buy cars knowing people die in them (if that sounds like a Jennifer Government reference, that's because it is). What do all of these things have in common? They are all extremely unlikely (save dying in a car), and so is dying in a boxing match. The statistics definitely don't support such a ridiculous, bleeding-heart suggestion.

Violence is a legitimate expression of the human Will, extending itself along the ancestral chain backwards into eternity. Nature has never coddled us, and so through blood we make the dominance and sturdiness of our species manifest through one of the greatest and oldest families of art. It is barbaric, in the same sense that taking a dump is barbarous, but to suggest that it is without guidance is the height of ignorance. During the pankration, to murder another man was always to lose the match, and in modern times, where we have many regulatory procedures in boxing, MMA, etc, your idea is all the more... what is the politically correct way to say it... a silly suggestion.

Stop mansplaining jk

Ironically, your statement proves Amour's point.

[Infected Mushroom]

Statistics indeed are not subjective. However, when the statistic Is something like "About 200 in about 35 years", they are about as valid as the toothbrush commercials "1 in 3 dentists". Can you please supply factual specific information that isn't stated In a way to appear larger (about 200 in 35 years as opposed to averaging around 5.5 deaths per year, with less occuring currently due to the safety regulations), then provide links from peer reviewed studies, or at least .edus or .govs?

200 deaths in 35 years?

Pfft, auto racing killed 40% of that number in one day. Boxing is harmless in comparison.

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

[Galloism]

200 deaths in 35 years?

Pfft, auto racing killed 40% of that number in one day. Boxing is harmless in comparison.

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

You know what else results in unacceptable death rates?

Any movie or show with Sean Bean.

[Allanea]

200 deaths in 35 years?

Pfft, auto racing killed 40% of that number in one day. Boxing is harmless in comparison.

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

Why do you view 6 deaths/year as "unacceptable"?

6 deaths per year is perfectly acceptable to me (and to boxers).

[Galnius]

When the pros outweigh the cons, and the worst case scenario is rare and occurs when one isn't following the guidelines (about 5.5 people per year out of the tens of millions who box each year), then logically one cannot consider it a true danger in fact, here is a video done by a law school about the BENEFITS of boxing, which highly overrides the two opinion articles and the wiki placed in the op. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tiMcl0ObDo

[Free Wexford]

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

You know what else results in unacceptable death rates?

Any movie or show with Sean Bean.

Dying

[The Two Jerseys]

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

You know what else results in unacceptable death rates?

Any movie or show with Sean Bean.

Except Sharpe, because French lives are expendable.

And for the record, the real killer is Star Trek. All those redshirts...

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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

Possibly. But why should we let them?

Because mentally capable adults should be able to make their own decisions?

[The German Democratic Reich]

200 deaths in 35 years?

Pfft, auto racing killed 40% of that number in one day. Boxing is harmless in comparison.

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

by your incredibly insane logic, you believe sports all together should be banned for their dewth rates


Thats stupid and a food way to make the population unhealthy

[Galloism]

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

by your incredibly insane logic, you believe sports all together should be banned for their dewth rates


Thats stupid and a food way to make the population unhealthy

Honestly, TV probably kills more than both because of the sedentary lifestyle it has fomented.

[Infected Mushroom]

I take that to mean that while boxing results in unacceptable death rates, auto racing results in even more unacceptable death rates

by your incredibly insane logic, you believe sports all together should be banned for their dewth rates


Thats stupid and a food way to make the population unhealthy

its really a contextual analysis based on the statistics of harm and a balancing against all other factors

I really wouldn't make a blanket statement like that

[Allanea]

As people have stated over 100 times in this thread, the actual health harm of boxing is very low.

[The Novakian Empire]

Your opinion is terrible and people have explained that to you.
I am not needed.
g'day.