[skippy the wonder dog]

The definitions I chose came from the good people that write dictionary entries, not from my personal beliefs as to what constitutes violence.

Then your luck is deteriorating, kiddo, as what you're now telling me is that the dictionary definition of violence you found doesn't support your argument.

And when I pointed it out, you refined the definition of violence to exclude things other than fighting, which is where you fall into the circular argument game.

Again, if you want to make the argument that hockey involving males over 18 years of age is inherently violent, I might come around to agreeing with you. But women and children play the game, and the quantitative and qualitative aspects of violence do not exist inherently within the game as they play it.

And I have already made precisely that argument: that there is a clear difference between hockey played by kids and hockey played in the NHL. I don't think I'm alone in that.

This is where you're playing dishonest word games. Rather than accepting that we're talking about the NHL, you are trying to stand on a definition of "hockey." I'm sorry to have to be the one who points out that this discussion is about fighting in the NHL.

It was both logical and easy for me to give you more information to distinguish between violent fighting and non-violent checking.

Checking is violent. So is high-sticking, cross-checking, roughing, boarding, slashing, hooking, tripping and so on.

Your refusal to recognize this shows your argument to be circular. You continually refine the definition to exclude forms of violence that call your conclusions into question.

You may be using dictionary definitions, but you're picking and choosing to restrict how those definitions may apply. That's dishonest, particularly given that you defined the problem as one of player safety.

Again, by my own definition, checking is not violent.

And that's playing dishonest word games. Instead of actually engaging the arguments made by others, you have attempted to redefine "violence."

When another poster says "hockey is a violent game," it does not matter what your personal definition of "violence" (or, indeed, "hockey") is. In fact, applying your personal definition to their words, you're erecting the straw man. You're playing an intellectually dishonest game in which you play with the meanings of words, rather than addressing the argument itself.

That kind of game seems to be your forte, but it won't work this time.

And where is your precedent for thinking this will happen?

You're proposing that somehow removing fighting will not only make players less likely to fight, but also make them less likely to slash, trip check, etc. Can you make an argument to suggest that your scenario is likely? One supported by actual, you know, evidence? As it stands, you seem to be relying on magic.

International Men’s Hockey, Women’s Hockey, Children’s hockey.

So you're proposing that less slashing, tripping, etc. happens in those forms of hockey because there is no fighting? This is your idea of cause and effect? This is your evidence that removing fighting in the NHL will result in an all-round reduction of rough play.

Holy shit, kiddo, you better not do your schoolwork to these standards. I mean, seriously: that's simply risible.

You can’t remove fighting without making hockey a no-contact sport? This definitely better not be the beginning of a straw man...

Nope. My contention is that if you want to remove fighting from NHL hockey, then you will have to fundamentally change how the game is played, or you will see a greater rate of other forms of violence. I view fighting as a consequence of the nature of the game as it is played in the NHL.

The best you've offered to counter that is the risible notion that there is less stick work in kids hockey because fighting isn't allowed.

To the contrary, I supported it with causal arguments.

Such as the one I've highlighted above? This is your standard for proving a causal relationship?

And you're in the fucking sciences?

Had they been circular arguments, I wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of causally linking violence to fighting, but not to rough play...

Causally linking them? You're not suggesting a causal relationship, doofus, you're defining the connotations of a word.

If you don't know what causation is, you better find a new buzzword.

The only way any sort of defense on my part would feel threatened is if anything you said made sense to me.

As I said, please try to keep up.

...what matters to me is that you eventually stop using this kind of jargon in the wrong places, because it is obscuring your understanding of ideas.

Kiddo, I suggest you finish your education before attempting to condescend to me.

I realize that whatever you learned last semester may have filled you with a sense that you know it all, but you do not.

Your argument is, in fact, circular. You have cherrypicked the elements of a definition not so that you can make your own argument based on that definition, but so that you can declare that the statement "[NHL] hockey is a violent sport" is untrue.

You have, in fact, erected a straw man by applying restrictive definitions of "hockey" and "violence" and using them to distort the arguments of others, rather than accepting that the definitions that others are applying are different, but no less valid.

This can accurately be described as playing intellectually dishonest word games.

If your professors accept this kind of thinking, they're doing you a serious disservice. Your university education is supposed, above all, to teach you to think critically. And it clearly isn't doing that very well.

[second_sight_kyle]

...

[second_sight_kyle]

Then your luck is deteriorating, kiddo, as what you're now telling me is that the dictionary definition of violence you found doesn't support your argument.

And when I pointed it out, you refined the definition of violence to exclude things other than fighting, which is where you fall into the circular argument game.

Well luckily for me, the people who wrote those dictionaries agreed with my personal beliefs. Fighting as being violent was always in my mind, while rough play being violent was not. I refined my definition to help you
make this distinction, and also re-iterated that my original definition still fell in line with my personal beliefs. No circular arguments on my part, a lot of bullshit on yours.

And I have already made precisely that argument: that there is a clear difference between hockey played by kids and hockey played in the NHL. I don't think I'm alone in that.

This is where you're playing dishonest word games. Rather than accepting that we're talking about the NHL, you are trying to stand on a definition of "hockey." I'm sorry to have to be the one who points out that this discussion is about fighting in the NHL.

None of this disagrees with what I have been saying. We are talking about the NHL when it comes to the removal of fighting, and on another side topic we are talking about violence being inherent or not inherent to hockey. How about you make up your mind as to which of your fruitless arguments you want to pursue? The only argument you can carry that would come close to not sounding foolish is if you asserted that violence is inherent to the NHL (because it includes fighting, not rough play).

Checking is violent. So is high-sticking, cross-checking, roughing, boarding, slashing, hooking, tripping and so on.
Your refusal to recognize this shows your argument to be circular. You continually refine the definition to exclude forms of violence that call your conclusions into question.

No, my refusal to recognize this shows that my definitions of violence support my argument. I refined my definition once, not multiple times. And it wasn’t because of the straw man you assumed, it was to convey the idea to you. You also took rough play to include actions that explicitly draw penalties, as opposed to legal checking. If you want, I can expand my definition of violence to include intentional acts of great force that are uncontrolled and are expressed with malice. Oh wait, that already was my definition, and it turns out checking’s not violent. Maybe you refuse to accept that your concept of violence and what constitutes rough play can be different from the actual concept of violence (used by me) and another person’s version of rough play. And then the intellectually dishonest word game becomes, as I mentioned, an inability to put things all together.

You may be using dictionary definitions, but you're picking and choosing to restrict how those definitions may apply. That's dishonest, particularly given that you defined the problem as one of player safety.

Then perhaps you should offer the alternative, instead of claiming everything as dishonest. Show me how checking is uncontrolled, contains malice, frequently results in serious injury and/or uses great amounts of force, etc. Picking and choosing credible definitions is way more acceptable than saying that I feel fighting is violent, while checking is not. Dishonest? Give me a fucking break dude. One of the problems is player safety, of course. But you can remove fighting, you can’t necessarily remove checking without changing the game. There is a logical way to increase player safety by removing fighting, even if you personally think the effects of doing so would be miniscule. You do the math…

And that's playing dishonest word games. Instead of actually engaging the arguments made by others, you have attempted to redefine "violence."

I’m engaging your “arguments” in every single line. What is wrong with you? Although I haven’t re-defined violence for some time (unless you’re stuck in a time warp), building on previous ideas does not discredit them. If it’s your goal to repeat this over and over, then I’ll make it my goal to scroll, “checking is not violent.”

When another poster says "hockey is a violent game," it does not matter what your personal definition of "violence" (or, indeed, "hockey") is. In fact, applying your personal definition to their words, you're erecting the straw man. You're playing an intellectually dishonest game in which you play with the meanings of words, rather than addressing the argument itself.

It doesn’t matter what my personal definitions of violence are, which is why I consulted some dictionaries. I guess my straw men are made of titanium. I used the objective definitions of violence. I told you the definitions, and then applied them to fighting, checking, and hockey. I have been consistent in using the same words as were used originally, and in using the same applications. If the argument is about hockey being inherently violent, and if I use either my personal definition or the dictionary’s definition of hockey, then the argument is supported by what I have said. I’m picking up on the coincidence of you saying things are intellectually dishonest when you do not provide alternatives. If you think hockey is a violent game, tell me what you think hockey and violence are. If your definitions go beyond personal beliefs, that’s even better. Until then, stop using the term “intellectually dishonest” like you know what it means.

That kind of game seems to be your forte, but it won't work this time.

No, euchre’s my forte. Not getting the point seems to be yours.

So you're proposing that less slashing, tripping, etc. happens in those forms of hockey because there is no fighting? This is your idea of cause and effect? This is your evidence that removing fighting in the NHL will result in an all-round reduction of rough play.

Holy shit, kiddo, you better not do your schoolwork to these standards. I mean, seriously: that's simply risible.

We’re talking about precedents. You have an opinion from which you can (presumably) draw cause and effect, but which has no precedence (remove fighting and see injuries go up). I have an opinion that has a precedent, and could possibly have cause and effect. Guess which opinion has more evidence? Mine. Guess which has more magic…

Nope. My contention is that if you want to remove fighting from NHL hockey, then you will have to fundamentally change how the game is played, or you will see a greater rate of other forms of violence. I view fighting as a consequence of the nature of the game as it is played in the NHL.

The best you've offered to counter that is the risible notion that there is less stick work in kids hockey because fighting isn't allowed.

And my contention is that if you remove fighting from NHL hockey, you won’t fundamentally change how the game is played, with no greater rate in other forms of violence. The precedent is that the non-existence of fighting in other leagues does not change the game fundamentally from how it is played in the NHL. You have no precedents in your favour, and none that would support your cause an effect.

Such as the one I've highlighted above? This is your standard for proving a causal relationship?

And you're in the fucking sciences?

Causal arguments, of course referring to how violence was causally related to fighting. I hope you caught that one, genius. As for the causality and precedence regarding the removal of fighting, I already covered that.

As I said, please try to keep up.

As I implied, having you run in circles is pleasure to me.

Kiddo, I suggest you finish your education before attempting to condescend to me.

If you remember being an undergraduate, then you’ll remember that most don’t care about understanding ideas as much as they care about understanding facts. No, what I said came from the arrogance of someone who knows that this is all too easy.

I realize that whatever you learned last semester may have filled you with a sense that you know it all, but you do not.

It doesn’t take an undergraduate with a sense that they have the world figured out to understand your bullshit. You can claw and scrape for a sense of intellectually superiority over an undergraduate all you want. Maybe you just assumed I took myself seriously enough to give a shit.

Your argument is, in fact, circular. You have cherrypicked the elements of a definition not so that you can make your own argument based on that definition, but so that you can declare that the statement "[NHL] hockey is a violent sport" is untrue.

It’s not circular in the slightest. I have given definitions more credible than my personal beliefs, in an argument that was distinct from the ‘removal of fighting from the NHL.’ Hockey indeed is not a violent sport, but kudos for attempting to put words in my mouth by throwing NHL in there.

You have, in fact, erected a straw man by applying restrictive definitions of "hockey" and "violence" and using them to distort the arguments of others, rather than accepting that the definitions that others are applying are different, but no less valid.

My definition of hockey is restricted? Hockey as all people play it at one time in their lives is more restricted than hockey as a relative handful of males over 18 play it in the NHL? I have been over that there was no distortion, and indeed there wasn’t. And in case you missed it, the entire point of all this was about the validity of definitions. Definitions that I couldn’t attack, since you didn’t offer them to me. Partial marks for attempting the straw man gambit again, though.

This can accurately be described as playing intellectually dishonest word games.

See above.

If your professors accept this kind of thinking, they're doing you a serious disservice. Your university education is supposed, above all, to teach you to think critically. And it clearly isn't doing that very well.

Yeah, I’ll get right on that. I’ll preface the conversation with my professor by saying some guy I’m arguing with online thinks that critical thinking includes bending words, putting words in mouths, not offering alternatives, using incorrectly various debating phrases, and having a weird fetish for undergraduates.

[BIGVDOGG]

thats a bit much to read.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Kyle, I suggest you return to the dictionary. Your definition of violence is simply incorrect. Violence is not inherently lacking in control, nor is it inherently malicious.

Rather than going to your prof and talking about some guy you're arguing with online, I suggest you ask him to clarify the meaning of "causal" for you, because you seem to be painfully confused on that one, and your dictionary isn't helping.

As for this "weird fetish," you seem to really like being provocative. If you're not patronising me, you're trying to find other ways to wind me up. Well, I'm not playing.

Since it's clear that you're completely unwilling to discuss the point honestly, and are only really interested in engaging in some kind of verbal masturbation intended to reinforce your delusion that you're smarter and better educated than everyone else, I won't be wasting any more time with you.

Too bad. I thought you were a pretty smart guy, but there's not much point in discussing anything with someone who clearly has no sincere interest in the point under discussion, but simply wants to be the dominant monkey in the troupe.

[thesellout]

Children - dont make me come back there!

_____

That being said, i think the solution to fighting in Hockey is not to put an end to it, but to REGULATE IT more harshly then has been done in the past. Everyone's happy!

[cferneyh]

You can't kill the game by removing something that people will watch without it (watching your kids play hockey, watching international hockey, watching women's hockey, etc.).

I think that you need to start thinking of NHL hockey as a different brand of hockey. It isn't the same as women's hockey, and it isn't the same as kid's hockey, just like my beer of choice is a microbrew and not Coors Light. Despite the fact that they are both beer and have elements in common, they aren't the same.

And if you did already make that point - or agree with it somewhere - then I apologize, but the posts on this topic have gotten long and I'm easily distracted.

Oh look....a birdy!

[grimes]

Show me how checking is uncontrolled, contains malice, frequently results in serious injury and/or uses great amounts of force, etc.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8maaJPeFE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8maaJPeFE</a><!-- m -->

[tigerthelion]

I've browsed through the last few pages a little bit. Did I see someone say that they found women's hockey exciting to watch? hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: