Watching Football (American Style)?

Nothing. I would support such an attempt-at-convincing.
As I would support such an attempt-at-convincing anyone (everyone?) not to play football. I wouldn't support making football illegal, though... or saying it's "wrong" in some sort of implied-objective-sense. Nothing. However, I don't see an issue with someone deciding to, correctly, amputate their limb and also getting money out of it.Is it possible to have one without the other? I don't know.
But it's certainly possible to talk about one without the other. My point is that the money isn't always for encouraging behaviour. It can simply be meant as compensation for a transaction.I certainly agree, though, that sorting out the "consent" vs. the "exloitation" can be very difficult. I also want to note that this can be said for a great many things, not just football or limb-severing.
It can be said about making a bet.
Or receiving money to offer more less-physical entertainment... like comedy or video games or movies or anything else.
Or even going to work.Just because money can be an incentive doesn't mean it is.
Even if money is an incentive, it doesn't necessarily mean that's a bad thing (although it certainly could be).
Each of us can (and should) answer these questions for ourselves, and remember that others can (and should) do it for themselves as well.You for you, me for me, others for themselves, and football players for football players.And if enough people decide they don't want to watch football, and football dies away because there's no money in it (not because it's "wrong to play football for money") then I will agree that this was the way it should be.That is, I also don't agree with propping up a sport (or company... ahem governments...) that cannot support itself. I agree.I think there are 2 different kinds of exploitation, though. And it would be best to separate them.1 - Along the lines of personal consent. The issues we've discussed on money impairing judgment, being able to have "fully informed" consent and all that.
This exploitation exists in both limb-severing as well as football.2 - Along the lines of 3rd party intervention. Like a mob boss deciding he wants to sell other people's limbs for money. Capone can go around hacking limbs off of people who absolutely do not consent, and sell those limbs in the 'black market' for money.But what about football? Although possible, I suppose, it would be much more difficult for a mob boss to decide he wants to sell a football player's... injuries? somehow? Capone can go around forcing people to play football who absolutely do not consent, and make money of it?Although possible in each case. My point is that it is "far easier" to 3rd-party-exploit the limb-severing than it is the football-playing.That's why I'm against selling-limbs being legal.
And why I'm for football being legal.Both have "exploitation issues," yes.
But it's obvious that there are far greater exploitation issues with one than the other.

I don't think morality works in an "all or none" way for any situation.
I think morality is always on an individual basis and always on an ongoing evaluation.What's good for me might be bad for you.
What's good for me today might be bad for me tomorrow.I don't think there's anything that is "good for everyone, all the time." Or, at least, I've never heard of anything.Bringing this back to football, I think it's an individual thing.. and each and every football player needs to sort that out for themselves (informed consent).
Each and every coach needs to sort that out for themselves.
Each and every team-owner needs to sort that out for themselves.
Each and every fan needs to sort that out for themselves.And no one's "sorting" (either way) affects any one else's... unless, of course, they want it to.So it will end up a myriad of different goods and bads.It's my argument that those who end up with a "good" should play/coach/own/be a fan.
And those who end up with a "bad" should stay away.And everyone should allow everyone else to do whatever-they-think is best for themselves. Then this should be part of the BDSM "informed consent" and they should make their decision accordingly. Those who still decide it's "worth it" are just fine to do so... according to me. Anyone being abused (family/friends...) should decide for themselves if they want to consent to staying in a relationship with the abuser. I would get away. And the government has a duty to protect children from such things.As for suicides... I've already talked about the issue of later-regretting-informed-consent. I agree that this is a serious issue. And it should be balanced appropriately against those who do not have a later-regretting-informed-consent. This depends on if the money is used as enticement (exploitation) or compensation (simply a "yes" to informed consent.) As with the football, and your IRB's, this can be difficult to sort out as a 3rd-party. It really is only ever known to the individual, and all we get is what they communicate outward... which may be lying or ignorant to their actual thoughts/feelings. But this doesn't change the fact that the only one who can ever "really" know is the individual. I only have reservations where informed consent is not available or being exploited. If it's used properly... then I don't have reservations for other's doing what other's want, even if it's something I wouldn't do for me.I would not have reservations simply because such things occurred without knowing the details around how and why. If everything is done under fully informed consent... I don't see a problem. This thread has been very enlightening for me to work through as a thought-exercise, actually. Especially the part about severing limbs (!)

I agree that it's possibly impossible for everyone.
And extremely difficult for a 3rd-party.
However, the one it's most-possible for, and the only one it's possible to "actually know" for... is the individual in question. I agree with not allowing a "body organs for cash" market.However, not for this reason of consent vs exploitation.
Only for the additional reason of 3-rd party exploitation (mob boss selling body parts of other people against their will) that realistically cannot exist in the NFL. To me, this is exactly the kind of decision we should each be making (including football players). Decide for ourselves, and let other's do the same.

I agree.Like I said, I would support an implementation of something along the lines of the IRB you described to monitor/help-keep-football-players-on-the-right-line-of-informed-consent.Do you have a better idea? I agree.Do you have an idea on how to figure something like this out that goes beyond someone deciding a subjectively-personal line for themselves and forcing it on others? I was implying that those suffering from deep depression caused by brain injury and, in some cases, being driven to suicide would regret their decision to play football.If you agree they would regret such a decision... it seems we would agree. I understand how such information makes informed consent more difficult to ascertain/control.But how does it remove the important of deciding to do something under informed consent vs. someone's personal subjective opinion being forced on everyone? I think we've agreed on this a few times now.
Again, implementation of some sort of IRB group to help maintain a level of informed consent would be a great move.Do you have any other ideas that could help?

I think you provided my response to your issue yourself: I very much agree.1 - The player is not necessarily in a superior position to judge
2 - This means that other people are sometimes in a superior position to judge an individual
3 - An outsider's judgment on someone else (even given a situation where it can be superior) can never be known to be 100% correct for someone else (ie - people can't read other's minds)
4 - Only the individual themselves (given a situation where their judgment is not impaired, and other's judgments are inferior) can ever know 100% that their judgment is correct for them.
5 - If an individual is able to judge for themselves, then we absolutely know that their judgement will definitely be superior than anyone else.I also agree completely with each and every one of your points... that they are "arguments against my idea."
I simply don't see them as point that support the conclusion of "we should stop football."Which leaves the question... what should we do about these points?And I would support any thing like the implementation of an Internal Review Board to help monitor and facilitate someone into a well-judged informed consent decision around playing football.
I do not, however, think any of your points climb to the level where someone should take their own personally-derived-subjective opinion on the matter and force it on other people.Is there anything else we can do that might help the issue without having one person decide for everyone "what's best?"
The past has shown that these sorts of "nothing at all" decisions are generally wrong, and usually eventually overturned (banning alcohol, banning marijuana...).I'm implying that if we were to ban football for any of these above reasons... then it will not turn out for the better. People will find other ways (MMA, Boxing) to put themselves in physical danger in order to receive money. If we were to ban all such sports... more would simply be created, or a large black-market (underground fighting) would explode in popularity with even worse health issues for everyone.There are people who want to do these things. Such people are going to do these things. The best decision is to work something out where those who want to can (as safely as possible)... and those who don't want to are protected.

Agreed.May not be a perfect solution (is anything ever, really, "independent?").
But having something and trying for improvement is certainly better than having nothing and doing nothing when we know a problem exists. I agree as stated.I would note, though, that I would expect the "independent oversight" to be more of a "you can make a non-impaired decision" vs "you can not make a non-impaired decision" kind of thing.If they were to decide, say "no player should be paid more than $300, 000"... then I think this would create it's own issues.
Although I don't have an issue with a price-cap like this in general (for other, totally unrelated-to-this-issue reasons).I do not like the idea of implementing a price-cap because "the independent oversight" says it's best for everyone. They're going to be wrong. For the majority of everyone under their umbrella. Such issues would cause greater problems than what's already there now.If football gets restricted... players doing this will just go somewhere else (MMA, boxing...).
If all such sports get restricted... people who want to do with will, again, go somewhere else (black market...)We see this all the time. The entire underground sex-trade exists basically because governments forbid paying-for-sex. There's a lot more issues in the underground sex-trade arena then there are with someone agreeing to work in a well-regulated BDSM dungeon and worrying over whether or not their judgment is impaired.The exact same thing would happen if football/MMA/boxing were to be banned. There would be a hell of a lot more health-related issues due to the super-popular black market for such things. And implementing safety regulations there aren't exactly going to be easier.1 - There are people who want to risk getting hurt to receive rewards (monetary/fame/respect...)2 - If we don't make it legal and regulated, it will be illegal and unregulated3 - Right now it's legal and not-regulated enough.4 - How do we keep it legal, and regulate it more, but don't regulate it too much such that those-who-want-to-do-this won't just create a larger black-market for it anyway?

I think this is the basic idea, although I wouldn't word it in quite the same way.The problem is that each and every person have a different idea of "chaos, immorality, fun, romantic, safe..." and even "humanity."
Sometimes people are very close in their definitions.
Sometimes people are very far away.That is... I don't think many people want to be "inhumane." I just think many people have a different idea of what "humane" is than what anyone else has. I would assume it would be quite a spectrum across various different levels.The issue with drawing a line (any line) is that it will include one person (or a group) choosing a subjective "level" and forcing everyone else to adhere to it.With subjective things, this cannot be done without upsetting many people (no matter how many agree with it).
Those many people are going to push back.To me, I would rather draw a definitive line more around the area of "do whatever you want as long as you're not doing something to someone else who doesn't want it." (Informed consent).Which, in a way, is just a different bunch of words to frame the same problem:Where to draw the line between safety and enjoyment for football?
Where to draw the line between safety and enjoyment for alcohol?
Where to draw the line between safety and enjoyment for BDSM sex?
Where to draw the line between safety and enjoyment for badminton?
...You can attempt to draw a specific line for each issue as it arises...
Or you can attempt to apply Informed Consent... but then you have to draw a specific line on who is "informed" and who is not (the IRB stuff we've discussed, children vs adults... things like that).Either way, it looks like a subjective line has to be drawn somewhere.I just personally prefer the Informed Consent route than the dealing-with-each-issue-one-at-a-time route as it seems to allow a bit more personal freedom for mature adults, as well as tackle "every issue, even non-discussed/unknown ones" equally well.