Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 133

Thread: US high school 'held cage fights'

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    There's no arguing that manners were better when one man could ask another to "step outside", and when it was over it was over.

    The point is that all this pent up aggression is going to come out one way or another, and channeling it into a controlled venue just might cut down on driveby shootings and related crap.

    At the risk of being considered a radical, I'm not entirely sure duelling should be illegal. It is engaged in by "consenting adults" , right? It is a formal structure to allow a near-equal engagement between two men who have decided the world isn't big enough for them both, and that they're willing to risk death to settle the matter. Absent duelling, people in that extremity resort to outright murder. I'd rather be challenged to a formal duel than shot in the back one dark night.

    G.

  2. #92
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You know what I'm talkin about, it's not like your room isn't filled with this crap:
    Nerf
    I didn't know that hasbro made bongs.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  3. #93
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You know what I'm talkin about, it's not like your room isn't filled with this crap:
    Nerf
    I preferred lawn jarts to nerf

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  4. #94
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Where do you draw the line between "oh they're just trying to get it out of their system", and "oh he's just trying to rip his head off"?
    I draw that line where the loser taps out or can't keep his hands up anymore. That's why fights between children big enough to hurt each other should be supervised, and why adults should be expected to know when to stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    If we allow kids to fight in schools, without disciplinary action, then what is to say that they are not going to think it is okay to Falcon Punch someone for accidentally spilling water on them when they're in their 40's?
    I don't think anyone should be hitting pregnant women. Definitely falls under the category of "less capable of defending themselves" in my book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Of course we cannot allow this to happen in the United States, but I do think it is an almost madness to believe that violence and death for an ideal is honorable.
    That makes it very difficult for us to be able to discuss the morality of violence intelligibly. We are coming from two very different places morally, since I do not believe that an ideal is necessary to justify violence and death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Should we allow dueling to take place?
    Between consenting adults in a legally designated location with an impartial observer? Yes, I very much believe that we should. I think prohibiting this was one of the most serious legal mistakes we have made in the past few centuries, along with restricting the sale of pharmaceuticals and declaring corporations to have civil rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    We watch the Pacers' basketball players rush the fans who were throwing things, and acting in an negative esteem, and we bring down punish these guys. Should we have not posted suspensions and just allow them to slug each other?
    No, because that is not a fight. That's a brawl that could have easily become a riot. The fans who were throwing things onto the court should have been barred from ever attending another live game, and the players who rushed them should have received fines and suspensions.

    We are far too tolerant of disorderly conduct at sporting matches. I believe that it truly cheapens the spirit of competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Does creating a medium to channel violent tendencies deter violence from happening? Or is our objective not to deter violence, but to not allow it to get to the point of over-injury?
    Bingo. My primary concern is not to deter violence, or even to prevent injury, but to maintain order and civilization. I would rather see a hundred law-abiding men dead from dueling than ten from a riot or one from a drive-by shooting.

    The added advantage is that two men shooting a single bullet at each other-- or attempting to stab each other-- in a clear field are not only practically guaranteed not to kill any innocent bystanders, they are considerably less likely to kill each other as well.

  5. #95
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post

    At the risk of being considered a radical, I'm not entirely sure duelling should be illegal. It is engaged in by "consenting adults" , right? It is a formal structure to allow a near-equal engagement between two men who have decided the world isn't big enough for them both, and that they're willing to risk death to settle the matter. Absent duelling, people in that extremity resort to outright murder. I'd rather be challenged to a formal duel than shot in the back one dark night.

    G.
    Funny you should bring up dueling, I asked a few years back who on this site believes we should bring it back. It seems to me you will watch out who you insult politically and your words will mean more if you are willing to back them up with your well being.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #96
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Bullies aren't acting out of frustration or anger. They are expressing dominance-- and are usually quite calm and amused by their handiwork, as long as they're in control. Frustration and anger are what they experience when their victims push back, which is why they eventually move on to easier prey.
    Bullies usually are covering up for other shortfalls they have that frustrate or anger them. Displaying dominance isn't polite by the way. Should the toughest people never have to wait in lines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    No, but I think such laws shouldn't apply to fights between equals that do not involve the intentional infliction of serious injury. If you strike someone considerably smaller or weaker than yourself, strike an unarmed person with a weapon, or continue striking someone who has ceased to defend himself, you should be charged with assault and battery at least.

    On the other hand, if you strike someone who proceeds to willingly fight with you, or strike someone once before they decline to return the favor, I don't think assault or battery charges should apply.

    If you're fighting in a place where it is going to disturb other people or lead to property damage, disorderly conduct is a perfectly appropriate charge.
    How would you be able to determine who equal matches are? A 130 lb man with training could seriously hurt a 200 lb. who had no training. What if the loser is still mad after the fight and gets a weapon or a bunch of friends together? You assume that the fight ends the conflict. This isn't always the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    On the other hand, knowing that calling you an asshole will give you full legal right to punch someone in the face will very likely lead to fewer people calling you an asshole-- whether they call you "asshole sir!" or not.
    What if they aren't in my wieght class?

    What would be the incentive to not call smaller, weaker, less well trained than me people assholes?


    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    You can, and it would likely do you some good. But I would argue that it would not do you as much good as taking your anger out on the person that provoked it-- and that a few mild injuries to your face and hands would provide a better sense of closure than muscle fatigue would.
    But the fight wouldn't be fair as he would be drunk. What if the drunk driver is bigger or smaller than me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Actually, I am arguing that in this case the instant gratification would be a desirable thing-- on a personal and societal level-- and that all of the long term consequences you are describing here would be wholly inappropriate. Those long term consequences are, in a vicious cycle, the cause and the chief symptom of cultural values I consider to be unhealthy.

    As long as he was standing up and facing you when you broke his jaw, he shouldn't be able to sue you for medical expenses or press charges, and as long as you weren't at work when you did it, you shouldn't have to worry about losing your job. Of course, he also shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars in medical expenses, either-- but nationalized healthcare is a topic for a different thread.
    None of this addresses my anger when I am without a car for repairs or lessened value at resale time. It also doesn't insure he won't drive drunk again. If he's an alcoholic, he most likely will repeat this action. All allowing me to beat the guy up is doing is enabling my temper tantrum. And what if his big brother says he won't stand for me beating up his brother? He then beats my ass. Then my big brother goes after him. And so on and so on.

    What if I am drunk and I mistakenly beat up the wrong person? This reminds me of the story in Florida where a little old lady shot at these kids thinking they were stealing her car but it wasn't her car. It was the same make and model though. The kids were already at the police station reporting the lady that shot at them.

    I also remember a story where a guy's daughter lied about the neighbor molesting her. He shot and killed the guy. Then he found out that it wasn't true.

    This is what is wrong with vigilante justice. It ignores the rule of law. It ignores the burden of proof. It's endorsing anarchy.

    Violence doesn't insure civility. Even with the law, I may get my ass kicked for calling someone an asshole. People still call others assholes in spite of this.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  7. #97
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    I draw that line where the loser taps out or can't keep his hands up anymore. That's why fights between children big enough to hurt each other should be supervised, and why adults should be expected to know when to stop.
    Survival of the fittest is how we should settle disputes?
    I don't see adults, caught up in the moment of fighting, using discretion. Fights do not occur because both parties accept any terms, they happen immediately and passionately. There is no time for there to be an mediation, there is no time for supervision.

    I don't think anyone should be hitting pregnant women. Definitely falls under the category of "less capable of defending themselves" in my book.
    So there should be age and weight groups in this organized fighting competition. Where women, and the unfit, are not barred from participation becasue they are less capable? Sounds familiar.

    That makes it very difficult for us to be able to discuss the morality of violence intelligibly. We are coming from two very different places morally, since I do not believe that an ideal is necessary to justify violence and death.
    That death and violence can justify itself?

    Between consenting adults in a legally designated location with an impartial observer? Yes, I very much believe that we should. I think prohibiting this was one of the most serious legal mistakes we have made in the past few centuries, along with restricting the sale of pharmaceuticals and declaring corporations to have civil rights.
    See above... I don't think we can condition immediate responses out of people. There is no time for mediation.

    No, because that is not a fight. That's a brawl that could have easily become a riot. The fans who were throwing things onto the court should have been barred from ever attending another live game, and the players who rushed them should have received fines and suspensions.
    A fight is when two parties have given consent, thru a mediating body? That the mediating body is responsible for limiting the over-injuring?
    We are far too tolerant of disorderly conduct at sporting matches. I believe that it truly cheapens the spirit of competition.
    What is the true effect that regulation has on competition? The mafia was fairly deregulated and fairly competitive, as no-holds-barred will force creativity to oust the other. Regulation will do the same. Hm...

    Bingo. My primary concern is not to deter violence, or even to prevent injury, but to maintain order and civilization. I would rather see a hundred law-abiding men dead from dueling than ten from a riot or one from a drive-by shooting.
    Order and Civilization is just social concepts. We see ants marching one by one, and we gawk at their order. Are they really orderly? Are they really following obligations bestowed upon them by nature? Swarms of birds appear orderly too, but when a hawk swoops in they scatter and are just as selfish and you and I.
    The added advantage is that two men shooting a single bullet at each other-- or attempting to stab each other-- in a clear field are not only practically guaranteed not to kill any innocent bystanders, they are considerably less likely to kill each other as well.
    So moderated fights protect innocent from harm? Is that because violence is predicated by an ideal?
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  8. #98
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    Displaying dominance isn't polite by the way. Should the toughest people never have to wait in lines?
    I'm not sure where this is coming from, or where you're going with it. I'm not endorsing bullying, nor am I suggesting that people should simply be able to crack someone's skull in order to bypass social norms.

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    How would you be able to determine who equal matches are? A 130 lb man with training could seriously hurt a 200 lb. who had no training.
    Yes, but most people are not capable of inflicting that kind of damage without incapacitating their opponent first-- and people who are capable of doing so are also perfectly capable of refraining from it.

    Besides, I'm not talking about keeping people in fair weight classes-- I am talking about avoiding gross disparities, like the average man hitting the average woman or guys who weigh over 200 pounds lean picking fights with emo kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    What if the loser is still mad after the fight and gets a weapon or a bunch of friends together? You assume that the fight ends the conflict. This isn't always the case.
    This is what already happens now. It would still happen, and I'm not pretending that it wouldn't. But it would happen less often, and having an appropriate and socially acceptable means of settling disputes like this would mean stronger cultural norms against going outside of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    What would be the incentive to not call smaller, weaker, less well trained than me people assholes?
    Fear of lucky shots, miscalculating their skill level, their friends, people who don't like unfair fights, and the near certainty of being considered an uncouth thug by everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    None of this addresses my anger when I am without a car for repairs or lessened value at resale time. It also doesn't insure he won't drive drunk again. If he's an alcoholic, he most likely will repeat this action.
    I have already addressed this and do not intend to repeat myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    And what if his big brother says he won't stand for me beating up his brother? He then beats my ass. Then my big brother goes after him. And so on and so on.
    There is a natural disincentive for this behavior-- the risk of being thought ridiculous by others. People don't go out and get revenge for their brother getting a black eye or losing a tooth in a stand-up fight. They get revenge for their brother getting seriously hurt, or getting jumped by several guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    What if I am drunk and I mistakenly beat up the wrong person?
    It's their responsibility to defend themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I also remember a story where a guy's daughter lied about the neighbor molesting her. He shot and killed the guy. Then he found out that it wasn't true.

    This is what is wrong with vigilante justice. It ignores the rule of law. It ignores the burden of proof. It's endorsing anarchy.
    I'm not talking about justice. Why do you keep thinking that I am talking about justice, when I have made it clear repeatedly that I am not? There is a legal system for doling out justice, and I whole-heartedly approve of it. This isn't about justice, or damages, or reparations. It's about settling minor grievances and venting frustration.

    If some drunken idiot smashes your car and you accidentally get into a fight with the wrong drunken idiot, it isn't a terrible injustice. It's just a stupid fight, made slightly more stupid by your mistake. You can apologize afterward, or if he's terribly aggrieved by it, he can fight you again when he's sobered up.

    A fight like that doesn't solve anything except for feeling like you want to hit something. That's all I'm looking for it to accomplish.
    Last edited by Korimyr the Rat; 03-22-09 at 05:12 PM.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    That death and violence can justify itself?
    Do you feel that most violence is wrong?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #100
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US high school 'held cage fights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Survival of the fittest is how we should settle disputes?
    If we were talking about survival of the fittest, I wouldn't be talking about stopping the fight when the loser can't defend himself any more. And I'm not talking about deciding who's right or wrong, because a fistfight can't settle that. I'm talking about working the frustration out of their systems so that they can either settle the matter civilly or agree to drop it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Fights do not occur because both parties accept any terms, they happen immediately and passionately. There is no time for there to be an mediation, there is no time for supervision.
    No, but it is not the least bit unreasonable to expect an adult to be capable of recognizing when the other person isn't hitting them any more, and to stop fighting when that happens. And I don't think adults need mediation and supervision to guarantee it-- because they're adults, and are supposedly responsible.

    Kids need supervision for the same reason they need safety equipment. They're not expected to be responsible for themselves, and they need adults around them to make responsible decisions for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    So there should be age and weight groups in this organized fighting competition. Where women, and the unfit, are not barred from participation becasue they are less capable? Sounds familiar.
    You don't need a regulating authority to recognize that someone isn't capable of defending themselves. I'm not trying to set up a competitive sporting event, just to prevent people from inflicting serious injuries on each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    That death and violence can justify itself?
    Yes. As long as your opponent has the opportunity and ability to defend himself, you don't need justification for knocking him around a little. And as long as he's willing to take the risk of fighting to the death, you don't need justification for killing him.

    It's only when you're hurting or killing people who can't or won't defend themselves that you need moral justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    A fight is when two parties have given consent, thru a mediating body? That the mediating body is responsible for limiting the over-injuring?
    No, a fight's when two unarmed people attempt to batter each other into submission. You don't need a mediating body for a fight, because serious injuries are unlikely.

    When two parties consent to meet and engage in combat, that's a duel. And that requires a mediating body, not to limit the severity of injuries, but to ensure that both parties are entering into the combat of their own free will and that there is no treachery involved. It's the higher stakes that demand additional safeguards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Order and Civilization is just social concepts.
    And life only has value in the context of such social concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    So moderated fights protect innocent from harm? Is that because violence is predicated by an ideal?
    Not an ideal. Just warning signs and an opportunity to avoid it.

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •