[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong. Jarome Iginla cited precisely this as THE REASON fighting is important to hockey:

Incidently, have NHL players, coaches and management ever deviated from this defense? I'm asking because I am honestly curious, because I have yet to see anyone in the NHL make claims about fighting that do not in one way or another invoke the "nuclear deterrent" argument.

Wrong. You believe the theory of "fighting prevents some dirty plays" to mean the same as "fighting prevents all dirty plays." In your premise and conclusion, you state that they have no correlation. Because they both exist there is no correlation, according to your premise. The reality is (and thank you for quoting Jarome) is that professionals claim the elimination of fighting would cause MORE of these plays, notice how MORE is different? MORE infers an increase in an already established number. These plays already exist, professionals believe there would be more of them, not the very beginning of them.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You're right, but that is a very simplified version of the argument, and an actual indication as to why the sort of study and pursuit of information that I am advocating is so necessary. The correlation between the purpose and function of police officers as enforcers of law and order and the instance and frequency of crime is well established scientifically. There is NO SUCH ANALOGOUS ESTABLISHED CORRELATION between fighting and the control of unsportsmanlike conduct in hockey.

Argumentum e silencio
Moralistic fallacy

It isn't a very simplified version of the argument, it's the version of the argument you presented. If your argument is simple and in need of a defence, I'd suggest you strengthen it before making it while offering someone a "head start" on their criticism towards you. Making a flawed argument and then backtracking by bolstering it after the fact is tiring. If you would like to claim that studies should be done to prove the correlation between the two, you can, but at this time there is zero evidence that there is NO correlation, while there evidence of the witness that there IS correlation. You're cherry picking what you see as evidence, and in the absence of evidence you believe to be suitable, you claim the conclusion must be false. That doesn't fly in any reputable circle of logic or analysis.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Once again, I have no lack of understanding. I am perfectly clear about the perceived purposes of fighting in hockey, and I have chosen to reject them on the grounds that they are poorly established and do not accurately reflect reality. Your constant assertions that I am somehow failing to grasp this is becoming tiresome, unless you can demonstrate from anything that I have said to this point that demonstrates my ignorance in this matter. In my estimation, the actual purpose of fighting in hockey at present is primarily beholden to tradition, and then somehow justified for the sake of entertainment, and as an imagined need for players to enforce The Code™.

You still fail to grasp this.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The debate is happening whether you like it or not; the point is that there are more than a pedestrian number of well informed observers and participants who disagree about the purpose of fighting in hockey, and they challenge the premises offered by the League because the nuclear deterrent position is not well established.

But besides this, a much more important point is raised in the bolded portion of your response here:

Are the families and friends of Bob Probert, Derek Boogard, Rick Rypien, Wade Belak, and the certain unknown numbers of others who have suffered debilitating and fatal effects as a result of the culture of fighting in hockey UNAFFECTED? Or are they CONFUSED?

Appeal to authority

Again, a glaring issue presents itself in your argument. The vocal minority of those questioning fighting in the game is in fact a pedestrian number. As for them being well informed? That's a statement without any significance, as there is at least an equal percentage of well informed observers who are not in disagreement over the role of fighting. It's not as grand a query as you claim it to be, so feel free to relax.

Argumentum as nauseum

Are we discussing the role of fighting? Or the health effects of fighting? Because I've repeated that it is dangerous and potentially not worth the risk. Do I need to repeat myself in every post? Or are you going to practice proper reading comprehension and show that you understand that by not depending on health effects to make a point? You're not making one to me, because I agree with you, so if those points aren't for me, then feel free to address them to a different audience.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Argumentum ad populum.

By challenging my third premise, am I to conclude that you believe it to be a good idea to wilfully reject the possibility of gaining more information about the purpose and effect in hockey?

Argumentum ad consequentiam
Straw man

See, the thing about argumentative fallacies, is that everybody makes them. Your arguments are full of them, and yet for whatever reason you feel it's appropriate to casually call one out from time to time for some unknown purpose. You've made plenty, I'm sure I have too, but try to make sure your arguments are clean and without fallacy before daring to venture into them. It's doing for you the very opposite of what you intend.

To answer your question, I don't necessarily disagree, nor do I agree. I don't believe you have any significant credentials or intelligence to make a claim about what is best for the game, so I question the proposition. If you would like to tell me what you would hope to accomplish and more importantly why it needs to be accomplished, I would be willing to listen. Keep in mind however, in stating why it needs to be accomplished, you should be addressing a common problem or significant area of need that could be served. If your "why" is narrow and more self serving than it is serving an actual purpose, then I'm not interested.

To put it simply, if you're going to convince me, don't tell me of your opinion, tell me of facts and evidence. That's what you require from the NHL, so I think it's fair to require that from you. You've spent too long telling me how you and a few others "feel" based on a lack of evidence. How is that better than what NHL players "feel" in regards to in-game evidence?