Iginla: Hockey is better and safer with fighting in it

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Preposterous. Of course studies could be undertaken, and not with much difficulty. The actual affect that a fight does or does not have can be measured in terms of in game events that occur as a result. The players continue to tell us that the effects are there, so one should be able to detect them.

Furthermore, tests to measure or at least account for the impact of fighting in hockey could occur by running a test season in one of the minor leagues, or in the CHL. Track the instances of stick fouls and unsportsmanlike play through the course of a regular season, and measure those against the test season and draw conclusions.

But why, the league doesn't want to remove fighting... why make measure to appease a small but vocal group that wishes for the game to change in a direction the league doesn't have an interest in changing to

Sorry not going to happen, it only makes sense to you because you're blindly stuck on your own need for proof. If you wish to be productive in a way then you need to change the NHl's perspective by providing your own proof rather then having the league change in hopes that it may or may not prove your belief

Please don't take this post as me saying you're wrong. I just don't understand you need for the game to change it's current standards so you can have your proof or not. It doesn't work that way. The only way I can see you changing the NHL's viewpoint is by yourself (opposing side) proving proof that fighting needs to go and that it doesn't need to keep it within the game.... until then I'll just smile and enjoy my game I love so much every time a fight breaks out. You fight is an honorable one but if you need the league to change first then it's going to be a loosing one

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by strombad

Your points are all well and good, but unfortunately the major issue with everything above is that you're leaning on physical evidence and "proof" of something's emotional or mental impact.

Fighting, while misused in some regards, is a tool that only affects the mental state of players. That is it's role. The only evidence therein that is even applicable in this situation is the word of players.

If someone were to undertake this study, it would not be a study that is comparable to something like "Does stick stiffness result in harder shots?" where you could in fact take a measurable form of physical data and apply it to your study, this is something more like "Does a particular food improve mood?"

Fighting is a physical act, but it's effect is not at all physical, it is entirely mental. You can ask for studies by professionals, but what exactly do you think they are going to draw their data from? It's going to be from players, because of it being a mental effect, they are the only real source of information.

Harp on these players being in a bubble all you want, but fighting is only effective inside that bubble, so I hope you don't see that point as being a detractor against their credibility on the situation.

The study would be looking at objective endpoints. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying the effects are not measurable? If so, I'd convincingly argue that if that's the case, which I believe is true, then they are in fact useless to the outcome of a game.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If so, I'd convincingly argue that if that's the case, which I believe is true, then they are in fact useless to the outcome of a game.

Is there emotions involved in hockey? If so, I'd convincingly argue that saying fighting is useless to the outcome of a game is a pretty tough "fact" to throw out there definitively.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Is there emotions involved in hockey? If so, I'd convincingly argue that saying fighting is useless to the outcome of a game is a pretty tough "fact" to throw out there definitively.

If there's no discernible effect, how useful is it?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If there's no discernible effect, how useful is it?

To me, when players are quoted after a game saying "that fight really gave us a spark" and other such comments, I tend to put a lot of weight into them, as they're the ones out there playing the game.

That's not to be confused with jirihrdina's point that players aren't necessarily the best ones to ask about player safety related topics, as I'm somewhat on board with him there.

But certainly, there's tons of evidence that fighting (staged included) has an effect on players, momentum and therefore outcomes. Whether those effects on outcomes are worth the risk and compromise to player health is definitly up for debate and not what I'm arguing here.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The study would be looking at objective endpoints. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying the effects are not measurable? If so, I'd convincingly argue that if that's the case, which I believe is true, then they are in fact useless to the outcome of a game.

You propose a study that would look at objective (without influence of personal emotions or opinions) end points regarding the effect of fighting (an act which has a purely personal emotional effect that almost all players share)? Good luck.

You're attempting to claim that there is any data in the world that could prove the emotional effect of fighting on player is different than what the players say is the emotional effect of fighting is on them.

It's like responding to someone who reads a sad book by saying "well, you're not a reliable source regarding whether or not that book was sad, so we need to study it." And yes, before you say anything to the contrary, that is exactly what it is like. You are attempting to disprove the emotions and opinions of players, despite their emotions and opinions being the only thing fighting has any effect on.

Do you love your family? Your wife? Your dog? Do you hate any of them? What if I told you that however you felt, it wasn't valid because you're in a bubble, and you don't REALLY know how you feel. Rather, we should do a study to tell you how you feel. Would you find me credible?

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If there's no discernible effect, how useful is it?

As I said above, it does. It's an emotional effect, that's what makes it hard or nearly impossible to measure by those outside the dressing room.

I want to be clear, the debate about whether or not the health risks of fighting outweigh it's value is entirely fair, and even I question it. But saying it has no effect, or that players are not reliable regarding it's effect (when it's solely an emotional effect felt by the players) holds no merit. So say what you want, but until you understand fighting in the NHL, you're never going to properly be able to argue against it.

Plus, all these notions of outside studies and inquiries are great, but it's a bit of a fantasy.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by flameswin

To me, when players are quoted after a game saying "that fight really gave us a spark" and other such comments, I tend to put a lot of weight into them, as they're the ones out there playing the game.

That's not to be confused with jirihrdina's point that players aren't necessarily the best ones to ask about player safety related topics, as I'm somewhat on board with him there.

But certainly, there's tons of evidence that fighting (staged included) has an effect on players, momentum and therefore outcomes. Whether those effects on outcomes are worth the risk and compromise to player health is definitly up for debate and not what I'm arguing here.

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious fighting gives teams a temporary momentum swing but I disagree it should be up for debate whether it's worth the risk.

when you have guys that are barely 30 dying and their profession was a goon in the NHL and their brain formed a disease from eating too many fists to the head then I think there should be no debate.

I occasionally enjoy an NHL fight but I don't think it's worth the entertainment nor the brain injuries.

[puckluck2]

And just want to add, it's not just fighting that gives teams a momentum swing. It could come from a hit, a good pk, a good pp, blocked shot, a save, a goal so it's not like we will be missing this great big thing known as a momentum swing if they no longer fight.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by strombad

You propose a study that would look at objective (without influence of personal emotions or opinions) end points regarding the effect of fighting (an act which has a purely personal emotional effect that almost all players share)? Good luck.

You're attempting to claim that there is any data in the world that could prove the emotional effect of fighting on player is different than what the players say is the emotional effect of fighting is on them.

It's like responding to someone who reads a sad book by saying "well, you're not a reliable source regarding whether or not that book was sad, so we need to study it." And yes, before you say anything to the contrary, that is exactly what it is like. You are attempting to disprove the emotions and opinions of players, despite their emotions and opinions being the only thing fighting has any effect on.

Do you love your family? Your wife? Your dog? Do you hate any of them? What if I told you that however you felt, it wasn't valid because you're in a bubble, and you don't REALLY know how you feel. Rather, we should do a study to tell you how you feel. Would you find me credible?



As I said above, it does. It's an emotional effect, that's what makes it hard or nearly impossible to measure by those outside the dressing room.

I want to be clear, the debate about whether or not the health risks of fighting outweigh it's value is entirely fair, and even I question it. But saying it has no effect, or that players are not reliable regarding it's effect (when it's solely an emotional effect felt by the players) holds no merit. So say what you want, but until you understand fighting in the NHL, you're never going to properly be able to argue against it.

Plus, all these notions of outside studies and inquiries are great, but it's a bit of a fantasy.

I don't disagree there's an impact on emotion, that's obvious. So what though? I'm asking how that impacts the game and outcome. If it doesn't, then what's the point? Why are we discussing their emotions?

We know there's a significant health impact, though I don't know that some people appreciate it's profound effects due to its late onset. People abhor asbestos, but this is similarly insidious. It's effects are seen after they've left the limelight. Hear no evil, see no evil?


We are unsure of it's impact on the outcome of a game. Do teams win more if they fight? Maybe, but it's questionable. The top 5 teams for fighting majors this season: Buffalo, Toronto, Philadelphia, Montreal, St Louis. Notice a trend? I don't. We know it changes their "emotion", but to what end? So would a sad movie, but I'm not sure if it's relevance here.


It clearly is entertaining. I enjoy watching it probably more than most. Is that enough though?


The players don't want it out of hockey. In fact, an informal players poll showed 95+%, though there's a few caveats. First off, I don't you're the popular boy in the dressing room if you dislike fighting from the first time you leave the skates with your buddy. Secondly, how many of these players friends and teammates make money because of fighting? They're not likely going to advocate their friends losing their jobs. But how relevant is this opinion? The majority of players did not want helmets either. Should we have let that slide? The liability here does not belong soley with the players, so neither does the decision. Post CTE, the families would likely want to have a voice too.



Edit: And what difference does my feeling for my family to this argument? I'm not saying the players don't have an opinion, I'm questioning it's value. What a bizarre analogy

[Rifleman]

I'm on the pro fighting side and I would probably watch significantly less games if fighting were eliminated, but recently I've thought more on my own stance on the issue.

Two guys want to beat the crap out of each other, or are paid to do it - that's fine. We are all adults and aware of the risks. Boxing and UFC have guys beat each other up for entertainment and those of us who watch it enjoy such pugilistic skill every once in awhile.

However, with ice hockey, the surface these guys fight on has no protective matting and gives very little in terms of shock absorption if someone were to faceplant onto the surface. The risk of someone hitting their head on ice and dying, seems significantly higher than if the same thing were to happen in a boxing or MMA match just due to those other sports having a softer surface where the athletes can fall. The NHL moved in the right direction with stopping fights as soon as one guy's lid gets taken off but is it enough? If the UFC or boxing suddenly decided to allow their fighters to fight on a concrete surface, we'd be horrified, yet that is really what we are allowing NHL players to do every time there's a scrap. I don't know what the solution to this is, but I think it's going to be a significant issue going forward - especially if someone dies due to a fight and them hitting their noggin on the ice.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

You propose a study that would look at objective (without influence of personal emotions or opinions) end points regarding the effect of fighting (an act which has a purely personal emotional effect that almost all players share)? Good luck...

It's not so far fetched at all. There are some pretty bright people in this world who have devised objective methods to analyse for all sorts of things that we would regard as subjects of emotive responses. Why can't it be done to calculate the effect of in-game events? You are now venturing from a fallacious argument from authority to an argument of incredulity, and it feels suspiciously like you are moving the goalposts in this debate.

Originally Posted by strombad

...I want to be clear, the debate about whether or not the health risks of fighting outweigh it's value is entirely fair, and even I question it. But saying it has no effect, or that players are not reliable regarding it's effect (when it's solely an emotional effect felt by the players) holds no merit. So say what you want, but until you understand fighting in the NHL, you're never going to properly be able to argue against it.

Having watched hockey my entire life, having grown up in a culture that promotes the nuclear deterrent argument, having enjoyed MANY good hockey fights, and having recently changed my mind about the usefulness about fighting in hockey, I will unequivocally reject the notion that I don't understand fighting in the NHL. I get it, and I have decided that it is obsolete.

I will concede that fighting in hockey produces an emotional lift, but that in itself is not a good argument at all regarding the effectiveness of this ONE activity. Sport is an incubator of emotions, and players will derive motivation and inspiration from practically ANYTHING within the course of a game. If not from a fight, the it would occur from something else.

I assume from your recent tack that you have (wisely) moved away from the nuclear deterrent argument, and that now your case rests on the statement that it has a "mental effect", which I interpret to mean that the role of fighting in hockey is to produce shifts in momentum. Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your thoughts here.

If this is true, then the counter action should also be true. That is, if the role of fighting in hockey is a necessary catalyst to inducing "emotion" and building or shifting "momentum", then its elimination from the game will result in the loss of "emotion" from the game. Do you honestly believe that? I sincerely doubt it, but I will ask you: if you deem fighting to be such an essential component of the game itself, then you surely have foreseen or can predict what will negatively occur, and what will be lost with its elimination. In other words, what do you think the end result will be, in a NHL without fighting? Or, more appropriately, what do you think the end result will be, in a NHL with huge limitations to the frequency of fighting?

Surely you believe that something catastrophic will result from this, so what is it?

Originally Posted by strombad

...Plus, all these notions of outside studies and inquiries are great, but it's a bit of a fantasy.

For now, yes it is. Again, I keep seeing these sorts of declarations from the pro-fighting crowd as if they are enough to end the debate. I can't help but feel as if they are indications that you know the weakness of the position from an evidentiary standpoint. Why should anyone even care about the popularity of fighting in hockey in a discussion about its merits within the game and its effect on the outcome? Popularity on its own is not even a remotely good measure of effectiveness or value, so it really doesn't matter here one way or the other.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

But why, the league doesn't want to remove fighting... why make measure to appease a small but vocal group that wishes for the game to change in a direction the league doesn't have an interest in changing to

See, here is another instance of exactly what I was talking about in my last post. "Everyone loves fighting, so why bother educating ourselves about its place within the course of the game or its positive and negative effects?"

This does not somehow end the debate.

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Sorry not going to happen, it only makes sense to you because you're blindly stuck on your own need for proof. If you wish to be productive in a way then you need to change the NHl's perspective by providing your own proof rather then having the league change in hopes that it may or may not prove your belief

"Blindly stuck on your own need for proof?!" Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Where I come from, the strongest positions and the most sensible opinions and beliefs that always lead to the best courses of actions are also ALWAYS those founded on a robust body of evidence.

Do you believe that the evidence will support the status quo? If so, then why challenge the insistence for proof? One thing for certain is that if you wish to end this debate, and if you would prefer to silence the "small but vocal group", then this is a sure way to do it. Prove the effectiveness and usefulness of fighting, and we will happily accept the results. I would think that the League would embrace the chance to increase their own credibility by making this an unassailable case.

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Please don't take this post as me saying you're wrong. I just don't understand you need for the game to change it's current standards so you can have your proof or not. It doesn't work that way. The only way I can see you changing the NHL's viewpoint is by yourself (opposing side) proving proof that fighting needs to go and that it doesn't need to keep it within the game...

Who are you kidding? The League does this all the time. I specifically suggested that such study would need to occur in a trial season or two in one of the minor leagues, which is a practice that the NHL implements ALL THE TIME to test new rules and innovations to the game. They can launch an intensive study of how hockey works in the absence of fighting within the European leagues. There are plenty of reasonable, practical ways to go about doing this. Don't hide your head in the sand and pretend like I'm suggesting something infeasible.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by flameswin

...But certainly, there's tons of evidence that fighting (staged included) has an effect on players, momentum and therefore outcomes. Whether those effects on outcomes are worth the risk and compromise to player health is definitly up for debate and not what I'm arguing here.

I don't think anyone of the anti-fighting crowd would deny the emotional impact that fighting has in the game. What I do challenge is the value of this impact relative to the risks, but also relative to whatever else might effect "momentum". If the "emotional lift" is all that fighting is good for as it pertains to the outcome of the game, then is that enough to insist upon its continued part of the game? Secondly, if the goal here is to ensure the production of emotional responses, then why limit it to fighting? Are there other things that we should introduce to the game to spark emotion?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I get it, and I have decided that it is obsolete.

It's not up to you, nor is it up to me.

You're droning about argumentative fallacies and my apparent attempts at "moving the goalposts," but you're just using filler to round out your argument. My point is that players are the foremost experts on the impact fighting has on the game. You are not refuting that, so there is nothing for us to debate.

Is it irreplaceable? I doubt it. Is it risky? Absolutely.

Talk in maybes and would'ves or could'ves all you want. At the end of the day, my claim is this:
- Fighting has an affect on players, players believes this because they feel it. They are the only ones who truly understand this affect, because they are the only ones who feel it.

I implore you to hire a few highly regarded scientists to start the research that will inevitably prove your point. Until you or someone else does, it will remain a bit of fantasy.

As I've maintained, I think the debate over fighting being worth the risks is a real one worth having. But this whole notion that players don't know the in-game effect of fighting has become a bit silly.

As you said, sport is full of emotion. Does fighting provide all of the emotion? Of course not, but does it provide the same emotion that a blocked shot does? I couldn't tell you, I'm not in the NHL. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest it's elimination would result in a loss of particular emotional response, whether or not the emotional response you perceive it to elicit "valuable" is subjective to you, but that doesn't make it definitive.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

It's not up to you, nor is it up to me.

I never said it was up to me. I was merely pointing out that I am an educated fan who understands the argument for the importance of fighting in hockey, and I have rejected the argument.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I never said it was up to me. I was merely pointing out that I am an educated fan who understands the argument for the importance of fighting in hockey, and I have rejected the argument.

As an educated fan, the lack of substance you require in your rejection of an entire argument seems a bit comical, but to each their own.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by strombad

It's not up to you, nor is it up to me.

You're droning about argumentative fallacies and my apparent attempts at "moving the goalposts," but you're just using filler to round out your argument. My point is that players are the foremost experts on the impact fighting has on the game. You are not refuting that, so there is nothing for us to debate.

Are they? They are the foremost experts on how it makes them feel, not the impact on the game. That's measured in various ways, including penalties, goals, wins, etc. All they can tell us is how it makes them feel. Does it help them win? That's not an opinion they are the foremost experts in I'm afraid. The only small analysis I've found showed a minimal positive impact. Certainly not enough to support a claim that it's useful. It doesn't limit dirty plays, so I'm unsure of the importance of the impact.

Is it irreplaceable? I doubt it. Is it risky? Absolutely.

Talk in maybes and would'ves or could'ves all you want. At the end of the day, my claim is this:
- Fighting has an affect on players, players believes this because they feel it. They are the only ones who truly understand this affect, because they are the only ones who feel it.

They also are the only ones who feel their own flatulence. I'm really not sure what the relevance is. I feel like we're not talking about the same things.

I implore you to hire a few highly regarded scientists to start the research that will inevitably prove your point. Until you or someone else does, it will remain a bit of fantasy.

Prove what? That fighting doesn't impact the game? Again, no one said that. I think I was the only one who questioned the magnitude of the impact (on the outcome, not their feelings) and I doubt highly it's very much.

As I've maintained, I think the debate over fighting being worth the risks is a real one worth having. But this whole notion that players don't know the in-game effect of fighting has become a bit silly.

No one is saying that fighting didn't make them feel something. I didn't see that posted anywhere anyways. My question was what tangible benefit on the game is it producing?

Affecting their feelings is irrelevant to the product. The players do not play in empty rinks without cameras for their mental health, so their feeling and emotions aren't really relevant to the end product here.

Momentum is, but I question how much difference a fight makes. That can be quantified by wins/losses, scoring chances and the like.

As you said, sport is full of emotion. Does fighting provide all of the emotion? Of course not, but does it provide the same emotion that a blocked shot does? I couldn't tell you, I'm not in the NHL. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest it's elimination would result in a loss of particular emotional response, whether or not the emotional response you perceive it to elicit "valuable" is subjective to you, but that doesn't make it definitive.

It's precisely the "value" of said emotional response we're saying is minimal, when you look at the outcome of the game.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

You're droning about argumentative fallacies and my apparent attempts at "moving the goalposts," but you're just using filler to round out your argument.

I'm not even sure what this means. "Filler"?

I actually think that my argument has been pretty consistent, but there are a number of stages to it:

1. Fighting in hockey is dangerous and there is mounting evidence that its continued place produces long term substantial health risks that dramatically affect one's quality of life.
2. The purpose of fighting in hockey is both highly debatable and not well established.
3. As a means to justify the risks, the best course of action is to educate ourselves as best as we are able to about both the purpose and effect of fighting in hockey, and the long-term impact.

Originally Posted by strombad

My point is that players are the foremost experts on the impact fighting has on the game. You are not refuting that, so there is nothing for us to debate.

I have agreed that they are within a category of "experts", but I also do not believe that they are the only ones, nor do I believe them to be very reliable experts. For reasons that I have outlined in dozens of posts before this one, any "expert" in any field in any form of discourse is only as qualified as the breadth and variety of her or his experiences. One's expertise is only as good as it can function outside of her or his own personal or cultural biases, and THAT is the critical point here. This is very much a cultural argument, and observations from within the cultural bubble are only useful IF there is something to compare or contrast.

Originally Posted by strombad

As I've maintained, I think the debate over fighting being worth the risks is a real one worth having. But this whole notion that players don't know the in-game effect of fighting has become a bit silly.

It's not though. In my line of work, I spend quite a bit of time analysing and considering the effects of cultural and social conditioning on beliefs and perspectives. I can say ALOT more about this if you don't completely understand what I am getting at; I'm just not sure this is the right venue.

I have NO DOUBT that the players, coaches, and management are absolutely sincere in their beliefs about the value of fighting in hockey. By way of reminder, here is what Jarome Iginla said about it:

Originally Posted by Jarome Iginla

"Fighting helps hold players accountable for their actions on the ice, even more so than penalties. If it was taken out of the game, I believe there would be more illegal stickwork, most of it done out of sight of the referees; more slashes to the ankles or wrists, and in between pads; and more cross checks to the tailbone. Incidents of players taking such liberties are rare in today's game because fighting gives us the ability to hold each other accountable. If you play dirty, you're going to have to answer for it.
...In my opinion, fighting prevents more injuries than it causes."

I think Iginla is wrong, not because he doesn't know anything about hockey. He's wrong because his perception of things has been dramatically affected by what he has been told his whole life about fighting in hockey. He's wrong because he has drawn a correlation between hockey fights, and what he somehow believes to be a limitation on "illegal stick work, slashes to the ankles or wrists, and in between pads, and cross checks to the tailbone", and has concluded that one is directly related to the other.

He is wrong because of this:

Premise A: There is fighting in hockey, and there has always been fighting in hockey.
Premise B: There is dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey, and there has always been dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.
Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between fighting and the instances of dangerous play caused by reckless and unsportsmanlike actions with sticks and equipment in hockey.

(By the way, I find it an interesting aside that you have valiantly defended the players' distinction as experts on the subject, and yet have seemingly not adopted their argument; instead you have taken to positing an entirely different line of reasoning for the place of fighting in hockey. Why is that, exactly)

Originally Posted by strombad

As you said, sport is full of emotion. Does fighting provide all of the emotion? Of course not, but does it provide the same emotion that a blocked shot does? I couldn't tell you, I'm not in the NHL. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest it's elimination would result in a loss of particular emotional response, whether or not the emotional response you perceive it to elicit "valuable" is subjective to you, but that doesn't make it definitive.

I could be wrong, but I think that you are exaggerating the effects that this would have. It's not like the emotion from the game would suddenly disappear in the absence of fighting. Like I said earlier, players will rally around whatever they can. With no fights, the SAME emotion would find its way through something else to generate or to shift momentum.

[nickk382]

Iginla mentioned that it makes the game safer. To all of us that know hockey in and out, we can all trust that our former captain knows exactly what he is talking about. When bad and illegal things happen to people, they should face the inevitable response by the person that it was done too, or someone that cares for them a lot, through family, or as a teammate.

The comments that I saw on that article hurts me in so many ways that it's unbearable. Either those people don't truly understand the sport, don't watch it at all, or they're straight hippie liberal ###### bags.

Fighting in hockey, not only makes the people accountable for their idiotic actions, but in many ways, motivates the team to know that they won't be pushed around. Hockey, in my opinion, is the toughest sport in the world, especially with one that can have many consequences through injury. Fighting should always be part of the game. I've never seen someone in my time, be so devastated via injury because of a fight, unless the fight was never agreed upon from both players. (Like Bertuzzi, who should be jumped by any real human being for what he did to Moore. )

Like Iginla said, although fighting can be perceived as entertainment, it still has the symbolic, authentic, and rational action for what it truly should be displayed as.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by strombad

As an educated fan, the lack of substance you require in your rejection of an entire argument seems a bit comical, but to each their own.

How predictable. What do you think you know about the "substance" behind my rejection of the argument for fighting?