Blood Sports!

[PsYcHo]

I put this in the "Fun" section for a reason, so don't take it too seriously.

Should we allow blood sports? I mean fight to the death type tournaments. Unlike those of the Romans, I'm speaking specifically to an all volunteer sport. Winner gets a bunch of money, loser dies. And just to make sure this isn't seen as a way to profit off the suffering of the marginalized, competitors would have to meet a minimum standard of being currently financially stable, and a thorough mental health evaluation.

So if the parameters of financial and mental stability are met, should this be allowed?

[brimstoneSalad]

Interesting question.

In terms of the people participating it may be respecting their interests to let them do what they want, but I'm not sure what the effects on society would be.

[PsYcHo]

I think I understand your concerns, along the lines of "is this promoting violence as a positive?", but I contend that man is an animal at his core. If someone were already pre-disposed to violent behavior, with no concerns about their own welfare, they are the ones who are most likely to kill an innocent person anyway. So why not give them an accepted outlet for their deviant behavior?

Most mass killers are socially marginalized persons, and they want to lash out against the world and often kill themselves in the process. They want attention, so being the "star" in a consensual murder seems like a reasonable solution to satiate their blood lust.

As a society we freely give teenagers guns and instruct them to kill or be killed (military), but hypocritically tell them "you're old enough to kill a man and die in a foreign land, but you can't buy a beer until you're 21, because you don't have the wherewithal to make an informed choice about harming yourself." (This situation could be an entirely separate thread.. )

I contend the only message we are sending to society is "You're going to do it anyway, do it here instead of in the middle of a crowded city."

[EquALLity]

Hm... No.

It promotes violence when you celebrate it as a sport. It desensitizes people to things they shouldn't be desensitized to, and will make people think violence is fun and 'normal'.
I don't think it necessarily gives people predisposed to violence an outlet that they couldn't get otherwise. That's like saying we should have child porn for children who agree to it to stop pedophilia, when we could just use... art for that (ew... but possibly a real alternative that could help people). There is violence in the media and in movies, it's not like people like that can't use other things.
Actually celebrating, though, I don't think gives an outlet. It makes people like violence MORE, because they're being encouraged. And people who previously wouldn't like violence would probably be less opposed to it if it becomes a 'normal' aspect of our culture... It's like The Purge.

As for the people doing it... Do they really know what they're getting into? Can you really consent to die? I support euthanasia, because the people who are euthanized have actual medical problems that are very severe, but we're talking about perfectly healthy people here.
And what if they're in the middle and decide they don't want to do it anymore?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

YES! Oh my God, it would be so cool!

[Jebus]

Absolutely not.

First of all, it would be hard to judge the mental stability of the contestants so we should let them participate for the same reason that we should prevent someone from jumping off a building.

Something like this could also become a popular spectacle in the same way as public executions and I don't think anyone who witnesses a public execution becomes a better person because of it.

Finally because of the probable underground popularity it would quickly turn into an illegal unregulated event fueled by organized crime.

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that such an action would "satiate their blood lust." It would be more likely to have an opposite effect.

Having said all that I would be open to the idea of prisoners on death row participating in such an event if the proceeds went to the charity of my choice.

[PsYcHo]

Having said all that I would be open to the idea of prisoners on death row participating in such an event if the proceeds went to the charity of my choice.

I think allowing prisoners to fight would should be (if this crazy scenario were allowed) against the rules. They already committed murder, and are being punished. Since they are incarcerated, it would also be similar to the old Roman rules of making slaves fight for their lives. My scenario is based upon two consenting, mentally competent individuals engaging in combat.

I'm a big fan of freedom of choice, as long as your choice doesn't hurt anyone else, so if both contenders are deemed mentally fit why shouldn't they be allowed to engage in consensual battle?

What rules should such a sport have?

And to address EquALLity's concern about someone deciding halfway to quit, I think a "tap out" should be allowed.

(Remember, this is just a fun "what if" scenario.)

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I think I understand your concerns, along the lines of "is this promoting violence as a positive?", but I contend that man is an animal at his core. If someone were already pre-disposed to violent behavior, with no concerns about their own welfare, they are the ones who are most likely to kill an innocent person anyway. So why not give them an accepted outlet for their deviant behavior?

I think the issue would be more along the lines of "Does blood sport lead to violent behavior in the public, where the consequences of violence are often not wanted?". Whether or not blood sport satisfies some innate urge for violence, is irrelevant, and grounded in an appeal to nature, but if blood sport allows for murders to be displaced such that they occur unto people who desire them, then blood sport has altruistic potential. This of course assumes that the question I asked before is answered with a no.

Most mass killers are socially marginalized persons, and they want to lash out against the world and often kill themselves in the process. They want attention, so being the "star" in a consensual murder seems like a reasonable solution to satiate their blood lust.

How do you know this?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

It promotes violence when you celebrate it as a sport. It desensitizes people to things they shouldn't be desensitized to, and will make people think violence is fun and 'normal'.

That isn't necessarily a problem though, so long as it doesn't escalate to actual violence.

I don't think it necessarily gives people predisposed to violence an outlet that they couldn't get otherwise. That's like saying we should have child porn for children who agree to it to stop pedophilia, when we could just use... art for that (ew... but possibly a real alternative that could help people).

PsYcHo has specified that the participants in blood sport must be mentally fit, which presumably would include completed brain development.

both contenders are [to be] deemed mentally fit

Therefore, I don't think there's reason to believe that consensual child pornography would be acceptable if blood sport is acceptable.

There is violence in the media and in movies, it's not like people like that can't use other things.

Do you think this type of media induces violence? Perhaps the perceived realness has some influence on the audience's resulting behavior?

And people who previously wouldn't like violence would probably be less opposed to it if it becomes a 'normal' aspect of our culture... It's like The Purge.

This would be my concern as well. If blood sport normalizes violence, then will the public be more likely to partake in violent behavior outside of the arena?

As for the people doing it... Do they really know what they're getting into?

A well informed, mentally stable person certainly does.

Can you really consent to die? I support euthanasia, because the people who are euthanized have actual medical problems that are very severe, but we're talking about perfectly healthy people here.

Of course you can consent to die. I don't see why their physical health has any influence upon this.

And what if they're in the middle and decide they don't want to do it anymore?

Good point. Perhaps a system could be implemented for recall that immobilizes both contestants, permanently bans the contestant that changed his mind from competing in blood sport (to prevent exploitation), and concedes victory to the opponent?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I think allowing prisoners to fight would should be (if this crazy scenario were allowed) against the rules. They already committed murder, and are being punished.

Why does it matter if they are being punished? Fulfilling the interests of the incarcerated is still fulfilling interests.