PDA

View Full Version : Speaking of obscenities…….



skuthorp
08-06-2013, 07:28 AM
http://www.jmmal.com.au/

BrianY
08-06-2013, 08:06 AM
Rome had the gladiators. We have MMA. It's all bread and circuses for the mindless masses.

Flying Orca
08-06-2013, 08:13 AM
Rome had the gladiators. We have MMA. It's all bread and circuses for the mindless masses.

I dunno. I have a good friend who is into MMA, and he certainly doesn't fit the bread-and-circus or mindless stereotypes. He set a standing record for highest marks ever recorded in the engineering faculty at one of our local universities, is a talented musician and dancer, and is much in demand as an environmental engineer mitigating mining by-products. He's also been a martial arts enthusiast since he first set his mind to losing a bunch of weight (like, a hundred pounds) as a teenager. He is one of the smartest and nicest people I know, and he loves competing in MMA.

BrianY
08-06-2013, 10:05 AM
I dunno. I have a good friend who is into MMA, and he certainly doesn't fit the bread-and-circus or mindless stereotypes. He set a standing record for highest marks ever recorded in the engineering faculty at one of our local universities, is a talented musician and dancer, and is much in demand as an environmental engineer mitigating mining by-products. He's also been a martial arts enthusiast since he first set his mind to losing a bunch of weight (like, a hundred pounds) as a teenager. He is one of the smartest and nicest people I know, and he loves competing in MMA.

My beef with MMA is NOT with the partiicipants (although I do have to wonder about their sanity. Even smart people can make stupid choices.). My real disgust is with the people who promote the "sport" and those that watch and enjoy it. MMA is a blood sport whose only object is to inflict harm upon you opponent and litterally beat him into submission. The exact same activities done outside of the cage would get a person arrested and thrown in jail. That's not to say that it doesn't require skill and training and talent. It definitely does. The Roman gladiators also had skill and talent and lots of training. But what does it say about us as a society when we, like the Romans, gain pleasure from watching human beings fighting and causing harm to each other?

The funny thing is that our society finds the idea of dog fights to be abhorrent, yet two humans beating on each other inside a cage for money is OK? ? ?

Flying Orca
08-06-2013, 10:39 AM
The funny thing is that our society finds the idea of dog fights to be abhorrent, yet two humans beating on each other inside a cage for money is OK? ? ?

I take your point, but it's a question of informed consent, I think. My friend is one of the most intelligent people I know, and has very strong values that do not strike me as being out of whack, but he enjoys pitting his martial arts skills against others'.

(ETA - I wouldn't know about the voyeuristic blood sport aspects of the whole thing, I presume it's a TV thing and I don't do TV.)

BrianY
08-06-2013, 11:15 AM
I take your point, but it's a question of informed consent, I think. My friend is one of the most intelligent people I know, and has very strong values that do not strike me as being out of whack, but he enjoys pitting his martial arts skills against others'.

(ETA - I wouldn't know about the voyeuristic blood sport aspects of the whole thing, I presume it's a TV thing and I don't do TV.)

Again, my issue is not so much with the participants as it is with the audience and promoters and what the popularity of MMA says about us as a society. Even if you "don't do TV" you MUST be aware that the sport exists only because people pay to watch it - either directly through ticket sales or cable subscriptions or indirectly by buying the products of the companies that advertise during the broadcasts. Even if you have never watched it yourself, you surely have the abilty to consider what the meanings and implications are

Flying Orca
08-06-2013, 11:20 AM
Again, my issue is not so much with the participants as it is with the audience and promoters and what the popularity of MMA says about us as a society. Even if you "don't do TV" you MUST be aware that the sport exists only because people pay to watch it - either directly through ticket sales or cable subscriptions or indirectly by buying the products of the companies that advertise during the broadcasts. Even if you have never watched it yourself, you surely have the abilty to consider what the meanings and implications are

I'm vaguely aware that some matches are televised or promoted as live events, much the same as boxing I suppose. I don't really know anything about it beyond that. I kind of like the idea that previously obscure martial arts are getting wider exposure than they used to, and the cross-disciplinary nature of the competition strikes me as interesting.

BrianY
08-06-2013, 12:13 PM
I'm vaguely aware that some matches are televised or promoted as live events, much the same as boxing I suppose. I don't really know anything about it beyond that. I kind of like the idea that previously obscure martial arts are getting wider exposure than they used to, and the cross-disciplinary nature of the competition strikes me as interesting.


To give you some perspective, in 2011, the UFC (the largest MMA fight promoter in the US) had a total revenue of about $475 million from live event tickets, pay-per-view fees, licensed products such as tee shirts, DVD's and other misc. sources. The company is estimated to be worth $1 billion +. The average UFC pay-per-view event draws 3 million male viewers between 18 and 49 - about the same audience as a big college football game.

Flying Orca
08-06-2013, 12:15 PM
To give you some perspective, in 2011, the UFC (the largest MMA fight promoter in the US) had a total revenue of about $475 million from live event tickets, pay-per-view fees, licensed products such as tee shirts, DVD's and other misc. sources. The company is estimated to be worth $1 billion +. The average UFC pay-per-view event draws 3 million male viewers between 18 and 49 - about the same audience as a big college football game.

I was going to make a wrestling comparison, but the last time I commented upon anything to do with wrestling, some people got their knickers bunched, so I won't.

Waddie
08-06-2013, 02:53 PM
It's just human nature to be interested in human competition at the primal level. Why we're like that is a good question, but there's enough evidence to show that it is like an addiction for some people. I love watching football (American) and hockey (Canadian) and they're just one step away from MMA.

regards,
Waddie

hanleyclifford
08-06-2013, 03:07 PM
I was going to make a wrestling comparison, but the last time I commented upon anything to do with wrestling, some people got their knickers bunched, so I won't. Wrestling is very different. In wrestling the objective is to outmaneuver your opponent and pin his shoulders to the mat - very different from beating into submission.

BrianY
08-06-2013, 03:38 PM
It's just human nature to be interested in human competition at the primal level. Why we're like that is a good question, but there's enough evidence to show that it is like an addiction for some people. I love watching football (American) and hockey (Canadian) and they're just one step away from MMA.

regards,
Waddie


I knew someone would bring that up. Football and hockey have a point to them other than simply beating your opponent into submission with your hands, legs, feet and elbows. They also wear protective gear to prevent/minimize injury. Even the fights in hockey never come close to the level of human-on-human violence that is MMA. The entire point of MMA is to injure your opponent to the point that he is physically incapable of defending himself from your punches, kicks and choke holds. That's a lot further away from hockey and football than "just one step".

Hypothetcal: If killing your opponent was allowed in MMA, would you be OK with it? Assuming that the participants went into it willingly and knew the possible consequences, signed wivers, etc would that be OK? If not, why not? You might say that killing people is unlawful, but beating them up is also unlawful and we seem to be OK with making that exception for the sake of entertainment. Why not make the exception for killing?

From a moral persepctive, what is the real difference between a sport whose whole point is to injure and cause pain and even render your opponent unconscious by repeated blows to the head or the use of a choke hold, and a sport that allows and even encourages the death of your opponent?

Waddie
08-06-2013, 03:41 PM
So it's a simple matter of degree......

And it's OK if the violence is just a byproduct?

regards,
Waddie

skuthorp
08-06-2013, 04:35 PM
This was initiated by footage of a childrens cage fighting circuit, children of 6 coached by their parents and fighting for money, and professional coaching schools.
I thought of pre-boxing rules bare knuckle bouts, do you know the longest bout on record was supposedly 75 rounds? Feller called Isaac Bittern won I think.

shamus
08-06-2013, 04:45 PM
Pretty awful idea.
I'm wondering whether I would change my opinion if I knew one otherwise intelligent contestant, or not. Interesting how personal knowledge shapes our opinions.

BrianY
08-06-2013, 09:49 PM
So it's a simple matter of degree......


And it's OK if the violence is just a byproduct?


regards,
Waddie


no, it's a matter of INTENT.


As for the violence, that IS a matter of degree. Violence up to a certain level is harmless (i.e. you can check someone into the boards or tackle someone without causing harm). Beyond that level, violence quickly goes from harmless to harmful...sometime VERY harmful. Hockey and football are played very close to that line and there are rules and penalties for crossing over it. There is also an increased interest and effort in dialing back on the the level of violence in those sports. MMA is by it's very nature is way over that line. You cannot punch someone in the face without causing harm.

Waddie
08-06-2013, 10:05 PM
no, it's a matter of INTENT.


As for the violence, that IS a matter of degree. Violence up to a certain level is harmless (i.e. you can check someone into the boards or tackle someone without causing harm). Beyond that level, violence quickly goes from harmless to harmful...sometime VERY harmful. Hockey and football are played very close to that line and there are rules and penalties for crossing over it. There is also an increased interest and effort in dialing back on the the level of violence in those sports. MMA is by it's very nature is way over that line. You cannot punch someone in the face without causing harm.

Intent makes no difference at all. People watch MMA for the same reasons people watch football or hockey. And Nascar would be boring as h*ll if it weren't for the wrecks. If a person watches football or hockey simply for the sport of it, to watch skilled players, then they watch MMA for the same reasons. MMA, football, hockey - all are gladiator sports, and no one would watch if there were no contact. Why isn't flag football televised regularly? No audience.

regards,
Waddie

doorstop
08-07-2013, 03:55 AM
I,m with Jeff on this one.

skuthorp
08-07-2013, 06:10 AM
"all are gladiator sports"
SPORTS?? Titivation and voyerism maybe, grist for the TV entertainment mill for those with a certain mindset but not a 'sport' by any stretch of the word. Professional game playing for obscene amounts of money for some, for others just the injury byblow that such excess generates. Anyone that thinks that junior MMA is a 'sport' is seriously warped.

I presume you were referring to ice hockey.

Garret
08-07-2013, 07:26 AM
Wrestling is very different. In wrestling the objective is to outmaneuver your opponent and pin his shoulders to the mat - very different from beating into submission.

In real wrestling, that's true & it is a sport. "Professional Wrestling" is nothing like that - it's carefully staged "entertainment" where the outcome is decided before the match even starts.

skuthorp
08-07-2013, 07:32 AM
In real wrestling, that's true & it is a sport. "Professional Wrestling" is nothing like that - it's carefully staged "entertainment" where the outcome is decided before the match even starts.
Ha, like Italian soccer and IPL cricket. But it's entertainment and the TV audience and the gate receipts and the bums on seats for the advertisers are what matters, manipulation of results to enhance those must be expected. Thats why I reckon they all should be members of Actors Equity.

John Smith
08-07-2013, 07:33 AM
My beef with MMA is NOT with the partiicipants (although I do have to wonder about their sanity. Even smart people can make stupid choices.). My real disgust is with the people who promote the "sport" and those that watch and enjoy it. MMA is a blood sport whose only object is to inflict harm upon you opponent and litterally beat him into submission. The exact same activities done outside of the cage would get a person arrested and thrown in jail. That's not to say that it doesn't require skill and training and talent. It definitely does. The Roman gladiators also had skill and talent and lots of training. But what does it say about us as a society when we, like the Romans, gain pleasure from watching human beings fighting and causing harm to each other?

The funny thing is that our society finds the idea of dog fights to be abhorrent, yet two humans beating on each other inside a cage for money is OK? ? ?

MMA consists of fights between consenting adults. Dogs can't choose. There is obviously an appetite for this type of thing, and, as one who has watched from time to time, I expect this sport has a surprising good safety record.

People get injured car racing, boat racing, playing football, and a host of other activities.

John Smith
08-07-2013, 07:35 AM
I was going to make a wrestling comparison, but the last time I commented upon anything to do with wrestling, some people got their knickers bunched, so I won't.

Wrestling, pro wrestling, can hardly be called a sport.

skuthorp
08-07-2013, 08:41 AM
Wrestling, pro wrestling, can hardly be called a sport.
More like dance actually, the choreography has to be spot on, the acting convincing, the costumes colourful and the participants fit and larger than life. It may be that because it makes no pretensions of being what it isn't, it is closer to being a sport than it might at first seem.

BrianY
08-07-2013, 08:41 AM
MMA consists of fights between consenting adults. Dogs can't choose. There is obviously an appetite for this type of thing, and, as one who has watched from time to time, I expect this sport has a surprising good safety record.

People get injured car racing, boat racing, playing football, and a host of other activities.


So, becasue the two adults consent to beat the crap out of each other, it's OK...alright, let's go with that. If the two people consented to a fight to the death, would that be OK? I guess so, by your standard.

As for the dogs, if dog fight organizers provided a way for the dogs to exit the fighting area so that they could choose to leave if they wanted to, would that be OK?

But that's not really my point, anyway. I really don't care that two people agree to beat the crap out of each other. If that's what makes them happy, fine by me. What I DO care about is centered on your accurate statement that there is "...an appetite for this type of thing" and what that says about us. What does it say about us that we ("we" meaning our society) allow this to happen and that we enjoy watching it?

Perhaps I was raised differently from everyone else, but I was always given the impression that enlightened and cvilized people considered Roman gladiator fights as uncivlized and barbaric. There is no diffence between those games and these MMA fights, except that people do not routinely die in MMA...at least not yet.


People get injured car racing, boat racing, playing football, and a host of other activities.

That's a very lame excuse/justification. Extending that logic, you could say since everyone dies, anything that causes or results in death is OK. That would, of course, be absurd. Yes, people engaged in those activites are sometimes injured and sometimes they are killed...but that's not the goal/purpose of the activity and efforts are made to minimize the risk of injury and death....unlike MMA in which the ONLY goal/purpose is to injure you opponent to the point where he is unable to defend himself. The difference is obvious and significant.

Another difference is that unlike all of those other activites you mention, MMA consists of an activity that in any other setting is illegal. Society has decided that two people do not have the right to attack and cause physical harm to each other in any other setting. Why? Because society recognizes the harm inherent in people fighting each other. So why are MMA fights (boxing, too) legal?

Flying Orca
08-07-2013, 10:17 AM
Brian, I'm curious as to the source of your obvious moral outrage - not to say I disagree, necessarily, I'm just interested. Hypothetically, if two people consent to the consequences of their freely-chosen actions, even if death is a possibility, what is your objection? Is the death of one human being out of billions, when accepted as a possible consequence of an informed choice, necessarily a bad thing?

BrianY
08-07-2013, 11:59 AM
Brian, I'm curious as to the source of your obvious moral outrage - not to say I disagree, necessarily, I'm just interested. Hypothetically, if two people consent to the consequences of their freely-chosen actions, even if death is a possibility, what is your objection? Is the death of one human being out of billions, when accepted as a possible consequence of an informed choice, necessarily a bad thing?

Again, my "outrage" is NOT with the participants, although I do not understand their motives. I generally take a pretty Libertarian view about what people should be allowed to do. If two people want to have a fight and no one else is harmed in the process and I don't end up paying for their hospital bills or funeral expenses, more power to 'em. I won't respect them for doing so, however.

My problem is with a society that wants to watch this stuff and with the people who make money from it. There is something inherently immoral about making a profit on and gaining pleasure from watching people deliberately hurt each other. It degrades the participants in that it makes them no different from dogs or chickens or any other animal forced to fight. The fact that these guys choose to do so doesn't decrease the degradation at all. They voluntarily reduce themselves to primitive beasts using their bodies to inflict harm on another person for profit and ego. There's no dignity or virtue in that. There is no honor in it. Beating someone with your fists for the profit and enjoyment of others may make someone a "winner" but it does nothing to increase one's dignity, character and worth as a human being.

The folks who make money off of this activity are no better than pimps. They make their profits from the degradation of others. They exploit the fighters who sacrifice their health and bear the pain and agony, yet they make no sacrifices themselves. They reap huge rewards from the pain and misery of others and are celebrated for thier "business acumen" and promotional talents. Why should we regard them any differently than we regard pimps or drug dealers? They are in the same business - satsifying the base desires of consumers through the pain, misery and degradation of others.

The audience allows all of this to go on and are consequently the most at fault. If it wasn't for their support, the business wouldn't exist. Like the promoters, they gain from the pain and misery of others. They satisfy their primitive blood lust by watching people beat each other until they bleed, sometimes until they're unconscious. The fighters aren't human beings. They're animals whose only value is in how hard hey hit, how fast they kick and how ruthlessly they beat their opponent into helpleess unconsciousness. The audience rejoices in the pain and misery, the blood and the bruises and they degrade themselves in doing so.

We're supposed to be better than than. Enlightened, civilized people are supposed to fight against their base instincts towards violence - not make money from them or rejoice in them. Above all, enlightened, civilized people are supposed to feel compassion towards others, not take pleasure from their degradation and pain. Most people understand this instictively and they naturally feel revolted when they hear stories of animal cruelty, spousal abuse or other similiar events. We understand that there is something inherently wrong with people fighting each other and we make laws to try to prevent it and we punish those that do it. (We even consider people that do not feel this sense of wrong or who lack compassion and empathy to be defective and possibly in need of therapy or other treatment). Yet somehow that compassion and understanding goes away when two people willingly enter a cage and fight. We tell ourselves that they're doing it voluntarily and that somehow make it OK even though the outcome is exactly the same as if they were coerced into it. What moral person rejoices in the pain of others?

The act degrades all of us because we allow it to happen. Some of us even revel in it. The tolerance and celebration of such behavior helps to perpertuate it outside of the cage. It pulls us backwards toward our primitive past instead of advancing our spiritual and moral development into something more than mere animals. We should strive to be something more, something better than freakish Thunder Dome fans.

I understand the appeal of violence. I enjoy watching hockey games and admit to cheering after the big hits. As I said before though, there is a line that we should not cross where violence truns from harmless to harmful. All other sports and activities respect that line EXCEPT for MMA and boxing. NO OTHER sport or activity has as its sole purpose and intent the physical battering into insensibility of another person.

ccmanuals
08-07-2013, 12:05 PM
well articulated Brian and I agree.