Should boxing be banned?

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
User avatar
Neptual
Senior Member
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 5:47 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: New York

Re: Should boxing be banned?

Post by Neptual »

Volenta wrote: That sounds like playing with words to me. Whether it will eventually happen or at the same time doesn't really matter. If you can make it logically consistent, then it's not a fallacy, so let me respond to your attempt.
Yes I know what a fallacy is. But you specified it to be a slippery slope in which turn it was not. It's not a play on words it's reading the definition strictly.
That's not true. Players aren't forced to continue playing; when injured so badly that they can't continue, they can be replaced with other players or just removed when out of options. Smaller injuries are taken care of during the match, right after it incident happened.

Did I not state the if players are unable to walk they can't play? This is the same thing I said with different wording.
It's not about short duration pain, it's the lifelong brain damage that is the issue being discussed.

Perhaps I described my point wrongly. But first does getting kicked in the head or punched in the face have a higher percentage of getting brain damage. 5 punches in the face the damage is cosmetic. 5 kicks to the head the damage is internally.
What's wrong with measuring it that way? It is the percentage/relative numbers that counts.
The problem with measuring it that way is that people will look at the data and because the number is high people will say "high numbers mean high injuries" when in reality it's just do to the low number participants engaged in the activity.
She's beautiful...
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should boxing be banned?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

The trouble is, banning things isn't always a good solution. You have to look at the effects of the ban.

For boxing, banning it would reduce the sport a bit, but would also push it underground where it would become more violent.

Remember, during alcohol prohibition, there was only a roughly 20% drop in alcohol consumption. It's not always clear than banning something reduces the occurrence enough to justify the costs of doing so and the unintended consequences (e.g. organized crime, etc.).

We'd need to compare places where it's illegal, to places where it is legal and regulated (and therefore usually safer).
Usually, it makes more sense (both as a consequence for the people, and financially for government) to regulate (and tax) instead of ban things.

Now, you could ban boxing from TV or something like that- that's easy enough, if you can get around the free speech issues. The question there then becomes "what else does opening this censorship can of worms lead to?".
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should boxing be banned?

Post by Volenta »

dan1073 wrote:Did I not state the if players are unable to walk they can't play? This is the same thing I said with different wording.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I meant to say that it's not only when they can't walk. They can in principle stop when they think they can't continue. And when it's more serious, they aren't even allowed to continue. You're not allowed to play when you're still bleeding for example. So I don't see a real problem here?
dan1073 wrote:Perhaps I described my point wrongly. But first does getting kicked in the head or punched in the face have a higher percentage of getting brain damage. 5 punches in the face the damage is cosmetic. 5 kicks to the head the damage is internally.
The statistics of boxing proves that punches also lead to internal damage. But you seem to forget that kicking in the head is not at all permitted in soccer (even if someones feet is coming close to another players head, the game will be stopped and the player will possibly get a yellow or red card), while punching on the head is the central idea of boxing.
dan1073 wrote:The problem with measuring it that way is that people will look at the data and because the number is high people will say "high numbers mean high injuries" when in reality it's just do to the low number participants engaged in the activity.
I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make. Do you mean that if it's something that isn't practiced a lot, then it's alright? What if it became more popular and there would be more participants; the percentages would approximately still be the same.

@brimstoneSalid
Not everything that gets a ban goes underground (on the same scale as it was before the ban). With things like drugs (like alcohol) it's pretty obvious, since a lot of people simply can't life without it because of their addiction. I don't think you can compare it with a sport. But like you said, this can be checked in places where it is an illegal practice already. And of course, it's also possible that the change only has effect after a generation or so, since the new generations aren't grown up with it and have not developed an interested in it. But you definitely made some good points.
Post Reply