BOXING - Immoral?

Locknload wrote:

Brain dead and wrong,

You failed to answer questions 2 and 3. What's the matter afraid you might sin?

2) You can run from the issue like the coward you are all you want but the fact is, of course they knew and did nothing that's why they're paying out millions in settlements to the plaintiffs because they failed to act. Do you think their paying out money because they think they're innocent.

3) What happened to this one? Another non answer. Typical chicken s***.

As far as me not discussing it. You're the one who wanted to join in and attack everyone who was voicing their opinion. You opened the door. I don't mind you voicing your pathetic opinion.

As I said, the place to take this up is e-mail, not a running forum. I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. Read my 2nd reply above. You have again chosen to resort--as it seems you often do--to elementary school put downs and substanceless attacks.

And, again, you began this charade by erupting with a patently derogatory, sweepingly generalized, and false statement about the Catholic priesthood being representative of widescale pedophilia. Sorry. Your personal animosity towards Catholicism aside--did the Pope not give you an autograph? Nun tapped you with a ruler when you were a wee tot and you couldn't handle it?--your attacks remain baseless. Read the USCCB's report on the issue.

They're closer to the situation then your misinformed self will ever hope to be, and you'd do well to read their account. Bishop Wilton Gregory is among the most humble priests you will find out there.

As for humility on your part...there's nothing to say there.

16 rounds? wrote:

When was the last time their was a sanctioned professional boxing match longer than 12 rounds?

The only 12 round fights are championship fights and maybe some big money fights, other than that, most average pro fights would be 8 or 10 rounds. The 10/12 rounders are what you usually see on TV, but most pro fights are probably in the 4-8 round range.

You are right about that, my mistake. I still think that my point is valid. That the object of a pro fight is for one fighter to knock out or injure the other.

I am by no means a boxing aficionado; the only fights that I have seen are the big ones that go 10+ rounds. Most of those fights do not last that long because one fighter either gets hurt or can't get up.

The idea that the object of a fight promoters get rich off from one person hurting another is what the church thought was immoral.

Good points by all of you. I think the most important issue of boxing is "protecting the welfare of the athlete". So...why not have all boxers wear head gear! I think it would save a lot of boxers from latter health problems (neurolgical damage) and save boxers lives. Look at Mohammad Ali...just imagine all the hits he took in the head...he would most likely be fine today had the boxing commission enforced headgear way back then. It certainly wouldn't change the sport, BUT WOULD "protect the athlete." Just my opinion. The excitement of the bout would still be there.

"tolerance" would be acknowledging that those who subscribe to concepts outside your own culture are not "wrong"

trackhead wrote:

"tolerance" would be acknowledging that those who subscribe to concepts outside your own culture are not "wrong"

no, that would be relativism.

you do not even believe what you have posted.

do you believe hitler was wrong? nazism is not my culture and i am willing to say it is wrong. i hope, and suspect you do as well.

do you believe south africa's former policy of racial separation was wrong? if what you said above is true, then there was nothing immoral about it.

2+2 can not both = 4 and 5.

there most certainly is a right and wrong. something is not made right just because a group of people decide it is.

as Pope Benedict has said, "truth is not determined by a majority vote."

there's always a fine line

Brain dead and wrong,

If you wanted to discuss this via email rather than a running forum why didn't you just come out and say that instead of attacking everyone you disagreed with?

If you want to believe what you want then so be it and I will believe what I want. But it's not up to you to decide what should be discussed here. So why don't you stop trying to play God and let the monitors decide what should or should not be discussed here.

Now go to confession and tell the man behind the wall with his pants down around his knees all about what a bad little boy you've been today.

whoa, sam. trackhead did not say that ANYTHING outside of your own culture is not wrong, thus your point about Nazism is moot. Maybe trackhead should have said "are not necessarily wrong" to clarify. As is, his statement is a tad vague, but let's not go overboard.

I agree 100% with the statement that truth is not determined by a majority vote. Heck, at one time the majority of humans would have "voted" that the Earth is flat. But on the flip side, truth is not determined by dogma or fiat either.

Truth is not determined by a majority vote. So I guess we can all ignore the poll numbers showing Bush's approval rating at an all time low.

Thanx for clearing that up for me guys.

most kids touched by priests and such are not violently raped, just brainwashed and told it will be a good idea. that said, anyone here know anything about ancient greek culture, ever read plato, ever hear of socrates? Do you what a "beloved" or lover" is in the context of ancient greece. now not to condone any sort of clergy molestation, (do not, in fact if anything i am not pro homosexual, but it doesnt bother me. i guess i am apathetic to gey marriage etc.), but in ancient greece homosexual relations between a boy and man was seen as an accepted and valuable mutual relationship by many citizens. the man got a beautiful boy and the boy got great knowledge and friendly from his worldly, cultured lover. the point here is that morality is not a concrete property; morality varies with society, religion, political views, time period etc.. Morality is relative, and like einstein's theiry of relativity, one can say that soemthing like morality can be equal in any reference frame.

trackhead wrote:

there's always a fine line

No, there isn't. It's unfortunate that you haven't realized that your shoe expertise does not extend to every single other arena, but I'll tell you that it doesn't extend to this one.

Locknload wrote:

Truth is not determined by a majority vote. So I guess we can all ignore the poll numbers showing Bush's approval rating at an all time low.

A poll result is a poll result. It reflects people's sentiments. It is TRUE that Bush's approval ratings are low and that a majority of Americans disagree with what his administration is doing in Iraq. That does not mean, though, that what he is doing won't be successful. All it means is that the majority of Americans don't think it will be. As the president serves at the will of the people, their opinion ultimately does matter.

This can be a double edged sword. Suppose for some strange reason that the majority of US citizens suddenly decided that we should stop teaching the heliocentric theory of the solar system and instead go back to Ptolemy's theory that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. The president, though, demands that we stick with the heliocentric theory. His poll numbers plummet, and he is eventually run out of office, in spite of the fact that any sane person today would say that he was correct. Of course, the converse is also true in that the president could demand we go with Earth-centered and dump the heliocentric theory.

Lesson learned: A majority doesn't define truth. A well educated and thoughful citizenry is a prerequisite to prevent the perversion of majority rule.

ok -- why is there not a line?

funny:

I take the attitude that, "Cultures should be equally respected, while human rights should be upheld across all humanity" and I'm told that I'm wrong because

Boxing is d-u-m

trackhead wrote:

ok -- why is there not a line?

funny:

I take the attitude that, "Cultures should be equally respected, while human rights should be upheld across all humanity" and I'm told that I'm wrong because

I was referring to your tendency to promote relativism in any and all of these discussions, not your specific statement. Whenever someone points out a moral imperative, you seem to come back with "Well what about the 6th century Polynesian midgets and their worshipful attitudes towards penetrative homosexual intercourse? Doesn't this mean something?"

Obviously I am exaggerating, but not by much.

by your example (an exaggeration, of course), you seem to suggest that when I bring up an example of a society or multiple societies whose value perhaps runs in contrast to the attitudes of a portion of our own culture, the example is invalid because the culture in insignificant.

is that correct?

my goal in bringing up examples, such as Native Americans or !Kun, is to demonstrate that there are other possibilities to morality.

Jim,

"A well educated and thoughtful citizenry"?

Where do we find one of those?

trackhead wrote:

by your example (an exaggeration, of course), you seem to suggest that when I bring up an example of a society or multiple societies whose value perhaps runs in contrast to the attitudes of a portion of our own culture, the example is invalid because the culture in insignificant.

is that correct?

my goal in bringing up examples, such as Native Americans or !Kun, is to demonstrate that there are other possibilities to morality.

No, it has nothing to do with size or lack of proximity to this culture. Plus, culture is a loaded term.

Your last statement is incorrect. In some issues, there are no "possiblities" for morality. Dismembering an unborn fetus is not a possibility, Arabian pygmies who conceived the practice be damned. Herding millions of Semitic people into a camp and roasting them alive in a flaming pit is not a "possibility" even if you can dig up some article about 15 nymphs in the forests of Argentina who cook their relatives.

It doesn't work like that.

but didn't I write "...human rights are upheld"?