New Scientist - 'Ban Boxing'

Every now and then there's some person, movement or politician who wants to ban boxing. Every time there's the debate that if you ban it, what other sports do you have to ban wich are equally or even more dangerous, and do you really want to put thousands of athletes out of a job.
Plus worldwide it's completely impossible.

 

All sports can be dangerous in their own ways.

 

^ this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you sit on a fence.

I think it's an interesting perspective. If the evidence is there that boxing is causing unprecedented brain damage beyond all other sports, then the writer obviously has a good point and could be right. If brain damage is too frequent, then I cant put a good argument forward as to why professional boxing should be permitted. Anyway, whether rightful or wrongful, professional boxing wont stop unless it becomes super marginalised, and there are no signs of that in the near future.

 

Government has no right to restrict anyone's freedom in this way.

 

My big paper in college which I was going to publish in a practical ethics journal, was a rebuttal to such nonsense. One of the best things I ever did. Naturally, I lost the hard copy during a move and the computer on which I had written it croaked.

Basic points were:

1) Running through the evidence that boxing is really bad for you. This was over 10 years ago, and they were already learning that even soccer gives you brain damage. But boxing is the most damaging. It's really the accumulation of damage in sparring that is the worst thing. No doubt, it takes a big toll on you

2) Just because something is damaging is not enough reason to make it illegal in any remotely free society. Nobody wants to make it illegal for rich people to try to climb Mount Everest. It's not illegal to smoke, drink, sleep around or eat shitty food.

3) People are allowed to make their own risk/reward assessments, unless there is some very compelling reason not to let them. And there are benefits to boxing. Nobody ever smoked his way out of poverty. Not many kids stay away from gang life because they joined a local hang gliding club. Not to mention the fact that people gain personal enjoyment and fulfillment from participating.

If we do start making peoples risk/reward decisions for them, there's a whole ton of **** that has no real upside that we should ban before we get to boxing and that would lead to a very restrictive society. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/04/the-7-deadly-hobbies-pastimes-your-insurer-hates/

4)Prohibition doesn't work. How's your drug war going, assholes? If regulated, responsible boxing were illegal, it's likely that fewer people would do it. But those who did would take on so much extra risk that the net harm could be worse. Underground tough man contests, no doctors, no regulations, etc.

Therefore:

5) There's no way you can meet the standards for banning this activity in a society with the level of freedom ours (US, Western Europe, Australia, etc) has. So mind your own business.

 

"they say that boxing is brutal and violent. but look at football. they dont try to get to the quarterback to shake his hand" - sugar ray leonard

 

scientists gave us thalydomide, chernobyl and now fracking. is it time for an article in ring magazine calling for a ban on science?

 

Better ban Motorsport as well then. Extremely dangerous sport to be driving around at plus 100mph speeds. If you come off you are more than likely to suffer life changing injuries or die instantly. Ban.

 

You would have to ban DIY too, I think in A&E that's the number 1 reason for admissions. While we're at it - extreme sports, skiing, smoking, drinking, drugs, guns, cars...hell, I could go on forever.

 

Well that's ******ed on so many levels. It's not like it's something new that boxing is a dangerous and hard sport.

Just work on your defense and you'll be fine

 

Oh yeah? Well, BAN SCIENCE! :ban

How do you like that, egghead?


I'll tangle your proteins, dweeb. :bbb

 

they should ban football as well then (which they wont).. concusion leads to brain damage which in turns equal suicidal....look at the football players who committed suicide. (Junior Seau for example)

 

So someone is advocating using non-consensual violence, or the threat of non-consensual violence in an effort to prevent consensual violence.

Anytime someone wants to ban something what they are doing is advocating the authorization of the use of violence by government agents with lethal weapons to try to prevent the thing that they are wanting to ban. So, these people that want to ban things aren't actually against violence, they are only against certain types of violence, such as consensual violence. They are ok with non-consensual violence being imposed so long as it is used to acheive the result that they are after. Something is very twisted with their value system.