• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US high school 'held cage fights'

All of them, as long as civilized order can be maintained. Channeling and controlling our natural instincts is both the source and the result of great social progress... but nothing good comes from attempting to deny them. What causes neuroses in an individual can cause far greater dysfunctions in a society.

The best society is not the one in which the human least expresses his animal drives, but the one in which the expression of those drives promotes the most societal good.

Controlled and focused human instinctual actions, can't agree more.

Don't have a specific source, but I have seen several mentions of the theory that the intricate social rituals and multilayered of Japanese society were developed as a response to the brutal internecine warfare that they experienced until well into the modern era. edit: And Jerry pointed out that similar forces were at work in shaping the social graces of the Victorian era.

I'm not arguing that their manners are "better" than ours, but I don't think it's controversial to claim that they have a much greater care for public decorum than we do.

You could argue that their manners are better than our and be right.

Most Japanese actually have manners.

As for our own history, it may be another issue of causation versus correlation, but look at the last two centuries and the progressively less exacting standards of public behavior. It seems to follow neatly the progression from the prohibition of dueling to the slow decline of the practice, into the modern era with the increasing enforcement and stricter penalties of laws against fistfighting. As a smaller and smaller portion of young men have ever experiencing being punched in the mouth, they appear to be growing mouthier and mouthier.

And it's not just the younger generation. A woman who appeared to be in her seventies called me a "mother****er" in public a couple of months ago. Rolled down her car window and shouted it at me.

Society is not very civil in their words anymore. I try to be a gentleman at all times and the favor is not returned very often.

I would of told that bitch to shove it up her rear but you know.

When the little monkey stops fighting back. Do you really think that this new attitude towards schoolyard fights is reducing the incidence of bullying? If anything, it appears to me to be encouraging it, because the victims must add fear of punishment to their fear of whatever punishment the bully is going to inflict upon them.

It does encourage it because the kid being bullied respects the rules more than the bully.

Even if you get your ass handed to you afterwards, punching a bully is a much more effective way of stopping him than telling on him. Fighting back establishes that you are not a soft target; all of the "conflict resolution" methods that they teach children in school are only effective while the adults are still watching.

Especially considering that bullies are rarely if ever punished as a result of "conflict resolution."

It teaches the bully your not just gonna take his ****.

So next time he better mind his words otherwise he will go home at least smarting from the injuries.

Yes, they are, which is why this case is so shocking. But that is not evidence that it is the wrong policy, only that it is incompatible with our litigation-happy and irresponsible culture.

That I'm not sure how we could fix.

In most cases, losing a fight still hurts-- and it is the risk of defeat more than defeat itself which encourages courtesy. And while the Wild West may have been more violent-- and more disorderly-- than modern society, I would argue that it was on the whole more polite.

I'd say that when I fight does occur now that it is a lot more intense because since fights are not condoned and are punished, you better get some really good shots in and win otherwise you won't have a chance to make it up.

Neither will accepting your anger and the fact that the other man's drunkenness is out of your control. That is what the law, the small claims court, and insurance policies are for.

On the other hand, beating him up-- or even landing a couple good shots on him-- will make you feel better, and it will leave you in a better emotional space for dealing with your anger when you see him swerving down the road again or when you get the bill from the repair shop.

Awesome post and a lot of great points from you! :2wave:
 
I see a lot of people thinking that fighting is a good thing.

What does it solve?

It relives the human instinctual tendency toward territorial and hierarchical aggression and releases the tension that builds up in multiple instances of emotional confrontations which do not lead to violence.

Getting your teeth bloody occasionally is a tremendous aid to the practice of treating people regularly with civility and respect.
true that, plus everybody needs a good asskicking every now and again
i know i am long overdue for one ;)
 
true that, plus everybody needs a good asskicking every now and again
i know i am long overdue for one ;)

*SMACK*

there feel better now?:mrgreen:
 
When the little monkey stops fighting back. Do you really think that this new attitude towards schoolyard fights is reducing the incidence of bullying? If anything, it appears to me to be encouraging it, because the victims must add fear of punishment to their fear of whatever punishment the bully is going to inflict upon them.

Even if you get your ass handed to you afterwards, punching a bully is a much more effective way of stopping him than telling on him. Fighting back establishes that you are not a soft target; all of the "conflict resolution" methods that they teach children in school are only effective while the adults are still watching.

Especially considering that bullies are rarely if ever punished as a result of "conflict resolution."

I don't think that bullying will ever be eliminated. But hasn't the bully been taught that violence is a proper response to frustration or anger? They have learned this at home, many times in violent households. Violence begets violence.

Of course you should defend yourself and fight back against bullies.


Yes, they are, which is why this case is so shocking. But that is not evidence that it is the wrong policy, only that it is incompatible with our litigation-happy and irresponsible culture.

I would say that condoning kids fighting is irresponsible.

Do you think we should repeal battery and assault laws for adults?


In most cases, losing a fight still hurts-- and it is the risk of defeat more than defeat itself which encourages courtesy. And while the Wild West may have been more violent-- and more disorderly-- than modern society, I would argue that it was on the whole more polite.

I don't think there is much difference between "You sir, are an asshole." and "You are an asshole." Emily Post doesn't cover fighting to the best of my knowledge.


Neither will accepting your anger and the fact that the other man's drunkenness is out of your control. That is what the law, the small claims court, and insurance policies are for.

On the other hand, beating him up-- or even landing a couple good shots on him-- will make you feel better, and it will leave you in a better emotional space for dealing with your anger when you see him swerving down the road again or when you get the bill from the repair shop.

I can take my anger out on a heavy bag, free weights, or my bass guitar.

Let's say I break the guy's jaw. He can sue me for medical expenses. I can go to jail. I may even lose my job. A battery or assault charge will prevent me from getting certain jobs. I can assure you this won't make me feel better. You are arguing for some instant gratification without consideration of the long term effects.
 
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"?

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?

Don't have a specific source, but I have seen several mentions of the theory that the intricate social rituals and multilayered of Japanese society were developed as a response to the brutal internecine warfare that they experienced until well into the modern era. edit: And Jerry pointed out that similar forces were at work in shaping the social graces of the Victorian era.
If we are talking about the same thing: Then I believe that the Japanese kept a strict and well-mannered society because of the illusion that was created of warfare. That it was honorable to fight other clans, and to die for your clan. Social conflicts was handled by violence and clan warfare. 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.

" There's nothing noble about dying. Not even if you die for honor. Not even if you die the greatest hero the world ever saw. Not even if you're so great your name will never be forgotten and who's that great? The most important thing is your life, little guys. You're worth nothing dead except for speeches. Don't let them kid you any more. Pay no attention when they tap you on the shoulder and say come along we've got to fight for liberty, or whatever their word is. There's always a word" -- Dalton Trumbo

I'm not arguing that their manners are "better" than ours, but I don't think it's controversial to claim that they have a much greater care for public decorum than we do.
That people were afraid of getting their chests caved in if they threw a rock through a window?

As for our own history, it may be another issue of causation versus correlation, but look at the last two centuries and the progressively less exacting standards of public behavior. It seems to follow neatly the progression from the prohibition of dueling to the slow decline of the practice, into the modern era with the increasing enforcement and stricter penalties of laws against fistfighting. As a smaller and smaller portion of young men have ever experiencing being punched in the mouth, they appear to be growing mouthier and mouthier.
Should we allow dueling to take place? I don't know how it is in most major cities, or most cities for that matter, but the holes-in-the-walls that I have lived, unless you rip half the opponent's face-off, then you are just goign to get reprimanded.
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? I am not so sure if the violence, nor the punishment of violence helped Ron Artest and his willingness to rip someone's head off.
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?

And it's not just the younger generation. A woman who appeared to be in her seventies called me a "mother****er" in public a couple of months ago. Rolled down her car window and shouted it at me.
You should have smiled, waved, and tell her to relish her last remaining year, as God has issued a recall with her name on it.
 
" There's nothing noble about dying. Not even if you die for honor. Not even if you die the greatest hero the world ever saw. Not even if you're so great your name will never be forgotten and who's that great? The most important thing is your life, little guys. You're worth nothing dead except for speeches. Don't let them kid you any more. Pay no attention when they tap you on the shoulder and say come along we've got to fight for liberty, or whatever their word is. There's always a word" -- Dalton Trumbo
.

We'll free every slave in every town and region. Can anybody get a bigger army than that?
~Dalton Trumbo
 
Let's say I break the guy's jaw. He can sue me for medical expenses. I can go to jail. I may even lose my job. A battery or assault charge will prevent me from getting certain jobs. I can assure you this won't make me feel better. You are arguing for some instant gratification without consideration of the long term effects.

Did you forget the part where they're using gloves, padding, helmets, mouth guards, that supervision is present and everyone has signed a waver?

I mean for Christ's sake Nerf is making a fortune and you're still crying about it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that bullying will ever be eliminated. But hasn't the bully been taught that violence is a proper response to frustration or anger?

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.

Do you think we should repeal battery and assault laws for adults?

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.

I don't think there is much difference between "You sir, are an asshole." and "You are an asshole." Emily Post doesn't cover fighting to the best of my knowledge.

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.

I can take my anger out on a heavy bag, free weights, or my bass guitar.

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.

Let's say I break the guy's jaw. He can sue me for medical expenses. I can go to jail. I may even lose my job. A battery or assault charge will prevent me from getting certain jobs. I can assure you this won't make me feel better. You are arguing for some instant gratification without consideration of the long term effects.

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.
 
Did you forget the part where they're using gloves, padding, helmets, mouth guards, that supervision is present and everyone has signed a waver?

I mean for Christ's sake Nerf is making a fortune and you're still crying about it.

Nerf?

250px-NerfNEGAS.jpg
 
Did you forget the part where they're using gloves, padding, helmets, mouth guards, that supervision is present and everyone has signed a waver?

I mean for Christ's sake Nerf is making a fortune and you're still crying about it.

You obvoiusly haven't followed the conversation. This portion you quoted was talking about a drunk driver hitting my parked car.

Should the schools arrange safe sex with condoms and supervision?

Children can't consent. ;)
 
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" :mrgreen:, 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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
At the risk of being considered a radical, I'm not entirely sure duelling should be illegal. It is engaged in by "consenting adults" :mrgreen:, 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.
 
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?

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.


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?


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?

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What if I am drunk and I mistakenly beat up the wrong person?

It's their responsibility to defend themselves.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Order and Civilization is just social concepts.

And life only has value in the context of such social concepts.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom