3 ms·

This is a variation of "driving would be safer without seatbelts" argument. I.e. because you'd be forced to drive more cautiously. Problem 1: You don't know wh

by abalone 12y ago

This is a variation of "driving would be safer without seatbelts" argument. I.e. because you'd be forced to drive more cautiously. Problem 1: You don't know what the other guy would do (they might be a "crazy" outlier) and it protects you from them. Problem 2: Probably people would drive a little more cautiously on average, but not a LOT more cautiously. (As evidenced by historical behavior before seatbelts were required.) Whereas the severity of injuries would skyrocket.

dionidium 12y ago
> This is a variation of "driving would be safer without seatbelts" argument. I.e. because you'd be forced to drive more cautiously. No, it is not a variation of that. Your argument relies on a change in behavior in response to increased risk. (A change that may or may not occur.) The OP's argument does not require a change in behavior. The point is that boxers without gloves could go on behaving as though they have gloves on and then they'll break their damn hands (preventing 12 rounds of concussive blows to their opponent's brain). As others have argued below: gloves protect hands not heads.
- abalone 12y ago
  "Without gloves, punching someone in the forehead is a reliable way to hyperextend your wrist or break your hand." That is precisely an argument that relies on a change in behavior in response to increased risk. I think you misunderstood the OP's argument.
  - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
    No, without the glove a boxer cannot do as much damage. The glove makes the hand much more powerful. Now a punch is only limited by arm strength and skill. Take the glove off and the boxer can either wreck his hand, or punch differently, which he would have learned in practice.
    - abalone 12y ago
      "Take the glove off and the boxer can either wreck his hand, or punch differently" That is a change in behavior to avoid risking injury to the hand and face! Can we agree on that? You are arguing that overall injury is increased by using gloves because of the greater frequency and magnitude of punches, despite less severe injury per punch. But that is precisely the no seat belts argument too. Gloves reduce the risk of injury to the hand and disfiguration of the face, just as seat belts reducing bodily injury in an accident. The argument then goes, seat belts encourage us to drive faster and increase the overall number of accidents, which in the end cause a greater amount of injury. That is the parallel with gloved punching. If we didn't have seat belts, we'd drive slower, because you'd get so messed up if you had an accident. That is the parallel with OP's no-gloves argument. That argument seems plausible on the surface but as we know from seat belts, it has some problems which I've stated earlier.
  - Phil987 12y ago
    Without gloves you could only punch someone in the forehead so many times before your hand starts to hurt/gets injured. With gloves you can go all day.

by abalone 12y ago

dionidium 12y ago

> This is a variation of "driving would be safer without seatbelts" argument. I.e. because you'd be forced to drive more cautiously. No, it is not a variation of that. Your argument relies on a change in behavior in response to increased risk. (A change that may or may not occur.) The OP's argument does not require a change in behavior. The point is that boxers without gloves could go on behaving as though they have gloves on and then they'll break their damn hands (preventing 12 rounds of concussive blows to their opponent's brain). As others have argued below: gloves protect hands not heads.

abalone 12y ago
"Without gloves, punching someone in the forehead is a reliable way to hyperextend your wrist or break your hand." That is precisely an argument that relies on a change in behavior in response to increased risk. I think you misunderstood the OP's argument.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  No, without the glove a boxer cannot do as much damage. The glove makes the hand much more powerful. Now a punch is only limited by arm strength and skill. Take the glove off and the boxer can either wreck his hand, or punch differently, which he would have learned in practice.
  - abalone 12y ago
    "Take the glove off and the boxer can either wreck his hand, or punch differently" That is a change in behavior to avoid risking injury to the hand and face! Can we agree on that? You are arguing that overall injury is increased by using gloves because of the greater frequency and magnitude of punches, despite less severe injury per punch. But that is precisely the no seat belts argument too. Gloves reduce the risk of injury to the hand and disfiguration of the face, just as seat belts reducing bodily injury in an accident. The argument then goes, seat belts encourage us to drive faster and increase the overall number of accidents, which in the end cause a greater amount of injury. That is the parallel with gloved punching. If we didn't have seat belts, we'd drive slower, because you'd get so messed up if you had an accident. That is the parallel with OP's no-gloves argument. That argument seems plausible on the surface but as we know from seat belts, it has some problems which I've stated earlier.
- Phil987 12y ago
  Without gloves you could only punch someone in the forehead so many times before your hand starts to hurt/gets injured. With gloves you can go all day.