Boxing should be Banned

[Infected Mushroom]

not if we extended our protection to them

"Extend our protection"? If "protection" is not willingly accepted, it's called something else.

harm prevention = protection

[Asyir]

We havent yet, and we never will, unless the U.S. becomes totilatarian, which would cause the army to turn on the government, and just eject the ban and ideas anyway. Nice idealism though

enforcing laws =/= totalitarianism

also, I doubt the military would act with such dishonour

Dishonor? That is not dishonor. Your ideals of honor are skewed.

[Infected Mushroom]

enforcing laws =/= totalitarianism

also, I doubt the military would act with such dishonour

Dishonor? That is not dishonor. Your ideals of honor are skewed.

if a military force turns on the government and the nation, then it has acted with dishonour

[Galnius]

We havent yet, and we never will, unless the U.S. becomes totilatarian, which would cause the army to turn on the government, and just eject the ban and ideas anyway. Nice idealism though

Oh yes, armies are notoriously libertarian institutions.

No, but the military would stand for the governments takeover. Also, your right, IM, its a utopia that your thinking of. That doesnt exist

[Infected Mushroom]

Oh yes, armies are notoriously libertarian institutions.

No, but the military would stand for the governments takeover. Also, your right, IM, its a utopia that your thinking of. That doesnt exist

I advocate no utopia

[Flame Trees]

"Extend our protection"? If "protection" is not willingly accepted, it's called something else.

harm prevention = protection

Yes, I understand that's your intent. But when a third party prevents two other from acting in mutual volition, with force, the two see it differently from the third. "Protection" becomes undue interference and oppression. These people are adults, let them hurt themselves if they want to, that's their right and dealing with the consequences is their responsibility.

[Galnius]

No, but the military would stand for the governments takeover. Also, your right, IM, its a utopia that your thinking of. That doesnt exist

I advocate no utopia

You wish for an uncurroptable system where all laws are totally enforced. Thats either a dystopia, or a utopia

[Washington Resistance Army]

Of course it is. Duel is duel. *nods*

Duels are about avenging your honour or settling a dispute so soldiers don't have to go and die...

this is about none of those things. It is simply a paid-to-fight paid-to-entertain unethical business

What if you don't train to fight professionally?

[Flame Trees]

Oh yes, armies are notoriously libertarian institutions.

No, but the military would stand for the governments takeover. Also, your right, IM, its a utopia that your thinking of. That doesnt exist

Sorry, I don't understand, I think you might have left out a word or two.

[BK117B2]

Alright, convince me right now that boxing should be banned. If you can I will agree you have a valid idea.

its inherently violent and immoral, a blood sport too

Undeniably false. Immoral would be banning it

[Flame Trees]

its inherently violent and immoral, a blood sport too

Undeniably false. Immoral would be banning it

Well boxing is inherently violent, except maybe that Mayweather vs Pacquaio fight.

[Asyir]

Dishonor? That is not dishonor. Your ideals of honor are skewed.

if a military force turns on the government and the nation, then it has acted with dishonour

No it is not.

The military's purpose is to protect the rights of the people and to protect the people. If you go around banning shit, and the military turned on that government, then it would not be an act of dishonor. They would be fulfilling their purpose.

[BK117B2]

not if we extended our protection to them

"Extend our protection"? If "protection" is not willingly accepted, it's called something else.

Excuse me while I arrest and imprison you to protect you from being able to make your own decisions

[Flame Trees]

if a military force turns on the government and the nation, then it has acted with dishonour

No it is not.

The military's purpose is to protect the rights of the people and to protect the people. If you go around banning shit, and the military turned on that government, then it would not be an act of dishonor. They would be fulfilling their purpose.

The military's purpose, in the case of the US, is to protect and act in favour of the state. You can't make an ought into an is.

[Flame Trees]

"Extend our protection"? If "protection" is not willingly accepted, it's called something else.

Excuse me while I arrest and imprison you to protect you from being able to make your own decisions

Isn't that what happens in I Robot or something?

[BK117B2]

We havent yet, and we never will, unless the U.S. becomes totilatarian, which would cause the army to turn on the government, and just eject the ban and ideas anyway. Nice idealism though

enforcing laws =/= totalitarianism

also, I doubt the military would act with such dishonour

Enforcing totalitarian laws would be totalitarian

If a totalitarian regime emerged, there would be nothing dishonorable about correcting that problem.

[New Hampshire Republic]

K.

Let's ban smoking, alcohol, and football while we're at it.

[Protestant England and Germany]

I must admit that I would prefer to see boxing replaced by tank gladiators.

it would be too destructive...

Depends on where it is held. If you have designated arenas with a live audience about 50 feet above the ground and no terrain feature exceeding 10 feet, event though it would be hyper unrealistic. And if you use paint rounds instead of real ammunition, then the destructive capabilities would be kept at a minimum. People would still get injured for doing stupid stuff, but I doubt people would die.

[BK117B2]

Undeniably false. Immoral would be banning it

Well boxing is inherently violent, except maybe that Mayweather vs Pacquaio fight.

Yes, the violent part is true. Yes, Mayweather is masterful at avoiding punches.

[BK117B2]

Excuse me while I arrest and imprison you to protect you from being able to make your own decisions

Isn't that what happens in I Robot or something?

That's the gist of it

[Flame Trees]

Well boxing is inherently violent, except maybe that Mayweather vs Pacquaio fight.

Yes, the violent part is true. Yes, Mayweather is masterful at avoiding punches.

And throwing them at his girlfriends.

[Infected Mushroom]

if a military force turns on the government and the nation, then it has acted with dishonour

No it is not.

The military's purpose is to protect the rights of the people and to protect the people. If you go around banning shit, and the military turned on that government, then it would not be an act of dishonor. They would be fulfilling their purpose.

no the military isn't supposed to have a say in policy, that's the prerogative of the legislature

[Washington Resistance Army]

Duels are about avenging your honour or settling a dispute so soldiers don't have to go and die...

this is about none of those things. It is simply a paid-to-fight paid-to-entertain unethical business

What if you don't train to fight professionally?

I want an answer Kefka.

[Infected Mushroom]

What if you don't train to fight professionally?

I want an answer Kefka.

What do you mean?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I want an answer Kefka.

What do you mean?

You said "It is simply a paid-to-fight paid-to-entertain unethical business" and I asked what if you don't train to fight professionally for money? I've trained quite a few different styles and I'm going to keep doing that but I have no intention of doing it for a job or for money. Why should I be banned from legally doing that?