I think paying or encouraging someone to do things that cause severe injury should be a crime. This shit and boxing and American football should not exist.
I am very, very reluctanct to ban anything like that, my default being to err on the side of freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please.
I'm just surprised that so many people seem to like MMA so much.
(I know it's not the same, I know there are a few important differences, but) it feels to me like bullfighting: I can't understand how someone could enjoy watching _that_.
I think that the laws and social norms we have guard against most of that.
eg, talking about people involved in MMA, either as participants or as spectators: only adults, consenting explicitly to that, and “in full possession of their mental faculties”.
Someone tricking you into taking poison is committing murder.
When problems get hairy, we implement more guards: higher minimum age (eg, those below 21 can't drink, those with less than two year's experience riding motorbikes can't ride the most powerful ones), mandatory delays (eg, being forced to wait X days before euthanasia, abortion, gender reassignment).
I quite enjoy some of them, when the skills and stakes are high. I can appreciate the abilities of some fighters, the willpower and determination. It's interesting to see different (and very, very difficult) techniques that do not rely at all on bigger muscles or bodies. I wouldn't follow it regularly but when there's a good fight (and there are very good ones) it's fascinating.
I admit I'm probably more sensitive than most to the suffering of others, specifically to graphical depictions.
eg, I simply can't watch [PETA](https://www.peta.org/) videos or films like [Dominion](https://www.dominionmovement.com/).
I think I could watch an MMA fight, but I doubt I would enjoy it — rather the opposite.
Those are very different - I also can't watch videos of "innocent" animals being tortured unnecessarily; on the other hand, an adult human consciously engaging in an activity they thoroughly enjoy, even if they feel pain at some points, can be even inspiring. In that sense an MMA fighter getting KO'd is no different than a marathon runner collapsing. They might not even call that "suffering", so your "sensitivity" would be misguided.
Yes, a fight between two consenting humans is different from a bull killed in the bullring or a goat being thrown from the top of the church bell tower. I acknowledged that difference.
What they have in common though is _a focus on, and a celebration of, violence and pain_. That's what I can't stand (and what I suspect is ethically dubious, at best).
> “_An MMA fighter getting KO'd is no different than a marathon runner collapsing_”
It is _very_ different.
A marathoner collapsing is an unfortunate outcome. Nobody wants that, and nobody feels a bit happier when that happens. (The only very extreme and very unlikely exception: a chaser close behind in the race for whom that other runner collapsing is “good news”).
On the other hand, one of the fighters collapsing and being so badly injured that he can't get up is literally the best situation possible for the other fighter and for everyone and everything supporting him.
A fighter hitting so hard (and so “well”) that he literally kills his opponent immediately is arguably the perfect demonstration of his superiority. Even if fighters were so skilled (and so “kind”) as to calibrate their blows to always keep them just right below the “possibly mortal” level (a very generous assumption), inflicting maximum pain and damage to render their opponent unconscious is THE goal of the whole thing.
I remember #JoeRogan saying something along those lines about his time as a professional fighter (but I can't find the quote now): that his priority as a fighter was to inflict as much damage and pain in another human being as possible, that he was optimising for that and training that skill.
When that maximum pain and damage happens, a fighter is ecstatic, his team cheers, a crowd celebrates, sponsors rub their hands together in happiness. The exact moment when that person gets injured so badly (concussion? brain damage? death?) is replayed, commented on, shown to aspiring fighters, shared and “enjoyed” — sometimes by millions.
As I said, I have no temptation to _ban_ MMA. I think individual freedom wins here.
But I do think people should examine why they enjoy participating in that, or supporting that with their attention or their money — what exactly is at the core of the spectacle, what is being celebrated.
@tripu @ImperfectIdea @Pat @admitsWrongIfProven what is your point? Joe Rogan is a hero?
@tripu
>" am very, very reluctanct to ban anything like that, my default being to err on the side of freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please."
Not long ago, I had that exact same position. Let people make their own choices. But I've begun to evolve that position.
If someone with better information, experience, or intelligence knowingly leads someone else to harm themselves, then they are responsible for that harm.
E.g., there is a glass of Koolaid on the table and I know that a third party has put poison in the Koolaid. Another person walks in and I tell them, "Here's some Koolaid for you, drink up."
That's a crime. Many of these situations are like that. They may even disclose that there is poison in the Koolaid, but then dismiss the danger and show many other people drinking it and gaining fame and fortune or whatever, or using other psychological techniques to get them to drink it anyway.
Case #2: Drugs. Everyone knows that smoking tobacco will harm you. Yet millions of people around the world still smoke their first cigarette each year. Why? Because other people with more experience, knowledge and skill use a combination of psychological techniques to trick those naive people into harming themselves.
There are many other analogies along the lines of someone with superior information or experience who can lead others into harming themselves.
@admitsWrongIfProven