The fight to get UFC and MMA legalized in New York took an embarrassing Backstep

I think you are being far too charitable when it comes to what Reilly says. I think it is quite clear that he chose dog fighting and prostitution as his contrast cases with MMA to make more than just the harmless point you suggest he’s making. His argument has the following structure: We wouldn’t use money to justify the legalization of immoral practices such as dog fighting and prostitution so why should we use money to justify the legalization of another immoral practice such as MMA. This argument simply doesn’t work unless he intends the alleged immorality of dog fighting and prostitution to mirror the alleged immorality of MMA. Given that he goes on to specifically draw a comparison between the violence inherent in both cock fighting and dog fighting and the violence inherent in MMA, it is clear that he is indeed comparing these things. So, I think you’re assessment of his argument is simply incorrect.

That being said, you’re right that the response on the part of Rogan, Miller, and Cuban is counter-productive. But I happen to share their belief that Reilly’s arguments by analogy are patently absurd. Moreover, he misrepresents the “choice” argument. The claim is not that because two people are willing to chose to do x, x should be legal. After all, two people could chose to murder and rape and we wouldn’t want that to be legal. The claim is that when two individuals agree/consent to get in the cage and fight—just as when two individuals agree/consent to get in a ring and box—the consent makes the violence in these cases markedly different than what happens in cock fighting and dog fighting. Indeed, the same consent argument could be used for the legalization of prostitution as well. But that is a topic for another day.

You did make the following claim:

" He did NOT compare MMA to those two things"

But one can’t make a slippery slope argument unless the things further up the slope, so to speak, are comparable to things below the slope. Otherwise, the former won’t lead to the undesirable latter. As such, I think I understood Reilly’s point perfectly. It was a fallacious slippery slope argument with a dash of guilt by association thrown in for good measure.

Perhaps you simply meant to say the following:

“He did NOT equate MMA to those two things”

That’s true, since MMA fighters, dogs, and prostitutes, are distinct. But that’s not what you said. I nevertheless agree with the main point you were trying to make—namely, that the interests of MMA would be better served if Reilly got a lesson in logic from the MMA community rather than juvenile, foul-mouthed, name-calling.

I love MMA. The problem is people dont know enough about the sport to say shit about it. Thats why I dont open my mouth and spout bad shit about fistball. I dont lobby against it or say I dont want that wrist injuring sport in my state dispite the tourists that will flood my state and spend their money and buy our shit..