Godstud wrote:No, it's not, but since you don't agree with it, you call it that.
It was exactly that. At least in some of your posts you do attempt to put forward an argument, despite the needlessly vitriolic tone.
With respect to your reference of other sports, e.g. hockey and (American) football, I would again agree that the risks involved to children are poorly recognised. However, it is from studies of long-term players of both those sports that we are gaining more information about the effects of repeated concussion. Indeed, the same lines of research point out the dangers of excessive padding.
JJJ87 and layman suggest more padding, but in fact it's now being recognised that padding is actually counter-productive in reducing the risk of concussion. Because the striking limbs no longer suffer painful, relatively superficial damage upon impact, players and fighters in their respective disciplines hit with greater force that has more potential to affect the brain. The classic example of this is boxing; prior to the introduction of weighted, padded gloves, fights would rarely end in a KO. Since then, bouts have become far more likely to end in a knock-out (concussion).
Contrary to repeated accusations, I am not in favour of banning sports or martial arts (and I am in even less favour of increasing padding). I would prefer that people recognise that concussion is a greater risk than previously thought, and that we adjust our evaluation of the risk the children accordingly.
Furthermore, when it comes to whether child MT fighters are subject to abuse or not, I would ask: how many of these children come from wealthy families, and how many receive purses that provide a significant contribution to their family's income? One could ask a similar question of who profits most in the USA from having a ready supply of children, trained from a young age for a single sport.