IceNine said:

Honestly, I expected a better response. I suggest that boxing is linked to the development of dementia, and you respond with an image of someone suffering from ALS, then sarcastically suggest that physics had something to do with it. Pretty weak, IceNine.

As for the "bleeding heart" diversion, it a total ruse. To a liberatrian, everyone is a "bleeding heart"!

Question: How does a libertarian view the state's interest in protecting public safety? Answer: They don't.

Seatbelt laws, speed limits, motocycle helmet laws, emissions, pollution, hell just about everything that restricts your "basic human freedoms and rights" - it must seem like everyone is trying to protect you from yourself! How frustrating!

In reality, boxers frequently come from social and economic disadvantage, so the prospect of fighting one's way out of poverty supercedes concerns for personal safety in the ring. The risks are rarely acknowledged by the fans or the participants. By it's very nature, boxing is about hurting one's opponent - a unique and outdated primary objective in sports.

Some have mentioned the dangers in other sports, but in every other case there has been a move toward INCREASING safety, not keeping the exposed athlete vulnerable to dangerous injuries. This is true in auto-racing, american football, baseball, cycling, skiing - you name it. Professional boxing does not conform to this standard, and the risk of serious head injuries in boxing are well researched and established. This is why the American Medical Association (a whole legion of "bleeding hearts") has proposed a ban on professional boxing.

Another question: Why aren't helmets used in professional boxing? Or, if you prefer looking at it the libertarian way, why use gloves at all? As with all issues, there is a spectrum of opinion. Everyone has their own tolerance for risk vs. safety in any human endeavor. In the case of boxing, I'll hang with the AMA.

___

TheMax said:

Quick everyone, break out the violins and the tissues... there is going to be some crying tonight!

:LOL:

I love you!

Not true. They simply oppose laws designed to protect people from THEMSELVES. On the contrary, they're quite strict about laws designed to protect the public at large from the dangerous behavior of others.



Again, you're missing it. Seatbelt and helmet laws are designed specifically to protect stupid people from the consequences of their own bad judgement and as such are well intentioned but misguided laws. Frankly, I'd like to see fewer laws like these in order to weed out the overabundance of stupid people. Libertarians (like myself) beleive that it's YOUR HEAD and YOUR BODY and that you have a right to endanger them or put them at risk if you CHOOSE to.

The other laws you mentioned are designed to protect THE PUBLIC AT LARGE from the irresponsible and dangerous behavior OF OTHERS so that their pursiut of freedom does not negatively affect our own. Your examples don't belong together, and you're right, it IS frustrating, because I don't need a law to decide for myself wether or not to endanger my own head on a motorcycle, nor my body in a moving car. I'm smart enough to do both of those things on my own. Now, a PASSENGER helmet law makes more sense or a passenger seatbelt law beacuse you are responsible for someone else's safety. Why is that hard to diseminate?.



So you would deny people whom you have admitted are at a disadvantage one of the few opportunities they may have to rise out of it? If these individuals CHOOSE to work hard, train hard and sacrifice a measure of their safety, who are you to deny them this opportunity? If they're uneducated, poor and disadvantaged, are YOU going to hire them at your company or help them pay for an education?

The risks of boxing are inherently implied and certainly obvious to the participants if not before they enter the ring, than the first time they get hit, which ususally happens quite a few times just in training. If they decide they don't like it, they can quit...CHIOCE, man, CHOICE.



The answer to this problem (if it is one) is to provide the information to the participants and LET THEM CHOOSE whether or not THEY want to take those risks - in the same way that one could choose to smoke, drink, eat at McDonalds, DRIVE ON THE FREEWAY, swim, buy a gun, parachute, swim with sharks, drag race, play football, hang glide, be a stuntman, bungee jump, use drugs, invest in the stock market, have unprotected sex or eat raw oysters.

A lot of people want to ban a lot of things that they deem dangerously unacceptable, and they need to stop. Hell, it's against the law to commit suicide for crying out loud. I haven't heard any of these "bleeding hearts" (not my words, BTW) calling for a ban on NASCAR, skydiving, fatty foods, or scuba diving. Where does it stop?

You cited the object of boxing is to intentionally inflict harm on your opponent - and you're right - but at the same time the object of scuba diving is to intentionally defy the laws of biology and physics; to put yourself in an element in which you are not naturally suited to survive. The object of skydiving is to defy death and gravity, all for the sake of a rush. God knows what the object of a NASCAR race is (to defy death? drive fast in circles?), but I won't be the one to tell those rednecks that they CAN"T risk their lives because I THINK IT"S DUMB.



Because nothing would ever happen - and in ameture boxing they DO use helmets. For the same reason they don't use aluminum bats in pro baseball or road signs in a race: it would remove the element of competition and fundamental nature of the sport.



They have this too (The Ultimate Fighting Championship and a few others) and, once again, those guys WANT to get in there and WANT to do it - CHOOSING to risk THEIR OWN SAFETY, not ours, and of course there are a lot of people who want this outlawed also. Nobody ever said it wasn't dangerous, but it's hopelessly misguided to start introducing laws based on the concept of implied risk.

And as long as I'm on the subject, there ARE measures in place to protect fighters to some degree, like Doctors at ringside, 10 oz. gloves and referee stoppage, not to mention drug testing and liscencing.

If someone's dumb enough to jump off a fucking bridge over a bunch of sharp rocks with rubber bands strapped to his ankles: let them. I have a title for people who hurt themselves or die doing dumb things like this: "The Thinning of the Herd".

A few years back, a group of like minded people banned to gether to create similar laws designed to protect us from the "dangers" of Prince, "Darling Nikki" and rock n roll in general. Your intentions are noble, but your logic is flawed. You can't prtect us from ourselves and I wish you'd stop trying. It's not myself I'm worried about, it's crazy fuckers with guns and tailgaters in SUV's. Tell me I can't ride my motorcycle anymore because it's too dangerous. After all, there's no real POINT ot it, right? Except that I enjoy it and choose to ride.

If you don't like boxing, don't watch it, certainly don't pay for it and boycott its sponsors if you like, but don't tell the rest of us what to do with our lives because you think it's dangerous. Please.
[This message was edited Tue Sep 17 19:16:52 PDT 2002 by herbthe4]

herbthe4 said:

GREAT RESPONSE, HERB!!!

I had already decided that there was NO possible way to make themax understand that their self-righteous comments are not the rule of law and that it is very arrogant for them to assert that their views are superior, but I am damned glad taht you didn't give up!!!

God, I love liberals.

IceNine said:

Thanks. I knew you'd appreciate it, but careful with the "liberal" label. On some issues, I'm considered quite consrvative. Also, I'm a registered Independent, but I did vote for Harry Browne and people still say "who?"

You should re-title the thread, since I think it's morphed into a good debate that may miss some response from the non-boxing crowd. I want to hear ONE GOOD REASON why "dangerous" behaviour should be a "CRIME" - that is behaviour that's dangerous only to myself. I want to be free to try and fly off the godamned roof of my house with a head full of grain alcohol if I'm dumb enough to try it.

And one thing I didn't get to was the undeniable fact that if they ban boxing, it will only get worse. It'll still take place, only it'll be in people's basements, abandoned wherehouses and country fields with NO REGULATION WHATSOEVER. Is that what these people want? The same thing is happening with the "war on the drugs" right now. The inmates run the asylum and only the criminally dangerous enforce the rules.

Updated information on Vargas... it appears that Vargas was not trying to disrespect De La Hoya by not shaking his hand after the fight:

Vargas to Talk on Thursday

With much talk surrounding the lack of a post-fight handshake by Fernando Vargas after his loss to Oscar De La Hoya, Main Events' Carl Moretti has informed MaxBoxing that this was certainly not the intention of 'El Feroz'.

Said Moretti, "Immediately after the fight, I was close to Fernando the whole time. He asked me where me Oscar was, but the Nevada Commission doctors asked us to bring him back to the dressing room ASAP for precautionary reasons."

Dr. Margaret Goodman verified Moretti's assertions, saying, "I wanted Fernando out of the ring as quickly as possible. It wasn't Fernando's decision. We did what was in the best interest of the fighter medically."

Vargas was whisked back to his dressing room and then to a local hospital, where he was later released. He will address the media for the first time since the fight on Thursday.

- Gerbasi

From http://www.maxboxing.com

IceNine said:

I can believe this, Vargas looked dazed and confused..