Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 101 (8823 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-23-2018 9:04 PM
365 online now:
DrJones*, edge, NoNukes, Percy (Admin), Rrhain (5 members, 360 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 827,511 Year: 2,334/29,783 Month: 1,000/1,334 Week: 325/318 Day: 46/79 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Watching Football (American Style)?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10360
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 46 of 58 (828204)
02-13-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Stile
02-13-2018 1:08 PM


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.

The important thing here is not your particular reason. For you, there are reasons that outweigh the principle of letting people do whatever they want to themselves. Clearly, we do not agree on what constitutes sufficient reason. We are not going to agree on that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 02-13-2018 1:08 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7376
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 47 of 58 (828236)
02-14-2018 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Stile
02-13-2018 1:00 PM


Stile writes:

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).

It is entirely possible that for some football players there isn't informed consent because the piles of money corrupt the process of consent.

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.

The whole point is that consent may not be possible for some due to the amount of money being offered.

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.

It isn't regret. These players are suffering from deep depression caused by brain injury, and it drives them to suicide in some cases. There are also serious questions being asked about changes in behavior due to brain injury because it can result in loss of inhibition and an impaired decision making process. Some have even asked if CTE can be partially to blame for criminal behavior (e.g Aaron Hernandez who committed murder and then was found to have CTE).

But this doesn't change the fact that the only one who can ever "really" know is the individual.

I think we can all agree that at least one, and probably more, players have been exploited by the professional football system. We know from the basic setup of the system that there will be those who are exploited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 02-13-2018 1:00 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:07 PM Taq has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10360
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 48 of 58 (828243)
02-14-2018 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Stile
02-13-2018 1:00 PM


It really is only ever known to the individual, and all we get is what they communicate outward

I take strong issue with your comments along this line. Here are some possible arguments against the idea, in no particular order.

1. If there is a compulsion/exploitation to the player's detriment, then the player may not be in a position to make a reasonable decision. At best we can say that the player's decision is the one that should count. But the player may be just another addict.

2. The player's call may not be the ultimate answer because the player is not the only one affected. This idea hit home after reading Taq's comments about Aaron Hernandez. If Aaron's CTE was in part responsible for Hernandez committing murder, then the fact that Aaron benefited from the transaction isn't the last word on things, whether Aaron regrets it or not.

3. Players make their decisions to play, and how to play after with damaged brains in many cases. Their initial decisions may be well-formed decisions, but their decisions to play football in years 6, 10, and 14 may be "punch drunk" decisions. The decisions are influenced by more than just financial gain. They are influenced by nontangible things like notoriety and fame and in some cases an enjoyment of delivering pain and harm to others.

4. Objective evaluations are just as valid as the player's subjective, personal evaluation if the impact on society as a whole is considered. That does not put society as a whole in position to substitute their evaluation for a player's evaluation, but it does mean that other opinions about whether we should be sponsoring football do depend on things other than, "well that's what the player wants."

In short, I think you are simply restating your belief that the player ought to have free choice and that we should not interfere with that choice. But as I noted in another post, it appears that even you believe that the free choice principle has some limits. Neutral observers, of course, cannot read minds, so they are deprived of some information. But the player is not necessarily in a superior person to judge, and in some extreme cases, perhaps we should disregard his judgment.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 02-13-2018 1:00 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 02-15-2018 3:09 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:24 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3126
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 49 of 58 (828286)
02-15-2018 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq
02-14-2018 6:05 PM


Taq writes:

It is entirely possible that for some football players there isn't informed consent because the piles of money corrupt the process of consent.

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?

The whole point is that consent may not be possible for some due to the amount of money being offered.

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?

It isn't regret. These players are suffering from deep depression caused by brain injury, and it drives them to suicide in some cases.

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.

There are also serious questions being asked about changes in behavior due to brain injury because it can result in loss of inhibition and an impaired decision making process. Some have even asked if CTE can be partially to blame for criminal behavior (e.g Aaron Hernandez who committed murder and then was found to have CTE).

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 can all agree that at least one, and probably more, players have been exploited by the professional football system. We know from the basic setup of the system that there will be those who are exploited.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 02-14-2018 6:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 02-15-2018 3:14 PM Stile has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7376
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 50 of 58 (828287)
02-15-2018 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
02-14-2018 7:48 PM


NoNukes writes:

But the player is not necessarily in a superior person to judge, and in some extreme cases, perhaps we should disregard his judgment.

To put it another way, players have an extreme conflict of interest when it comes to looking out for their own well being.

To use another example, there have some tough questions being asked in the medical community about conflicts of interest and clinical trials. How much financial gain is tied to positive trial results? When a researcher presents results from drug trials, is money biasing their results? It has become customary for people to announce their conflict of interests, but is that enough?

One could say that in cases of fraud the doctors and researchers willingly reported false data, but isn't that missing the problem at the heart of it? I think we would be better off if there was a system where money was not a source of corruption, or an oversight system that is not biased by money or dependent on the doctors and researchers for employment. In so many other areas of life we assume that there will be corruption where there are no safeguards to prevent it, and I think the same could apply in the case of the NFL.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2018 7:48 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7376
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 51 of 58 (828289)
02-15-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Stile
02-15-2018 3:07 PM


Stile writes:

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 think we need some sort of independent oversight. However, the first step is in admitting that there can be exploitation of players. Just saying that they gave their informed consent doesn't cut it, IMHO. That is only ignoring the problem.

As a first step, there are independent doctors on both sidelines during games. They are the ones who determine if a player has suffered a concussion. In the old days it was the team doctor, and since that doctor depended on the team for his pay check there was a clear conflict of interest that was working against the health of the players.

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?

That's the $64,000 question. It's something our society has been struggling with since our inception. Should we allow people to drink alcohol or not? Should we allow people to freely buy hard drugs or not? Where is the line between personal freedoms and the well being of society?

The best way of determining these things is open and honest debate. Even then, the answer may not be clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:07 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:38 PM Taq has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3126
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 52 of 58 (828290)
02-15-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
02-14-2018 7:48 PM


I think you provided my response to your issue yourself:

NoNukes writes:

But as I noted in another post, it appears that even you believe that the free choice principle has some limits. Neutral observers, of course, cannot read minds, so they are deprived of some information. But the player is not necessarily in a superior person to judge, and in some extreme cases, perhaps we should disregard his judgment.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2018 7:48 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2018 4:02 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3126
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 53 of 58 (828291)
02-15-2018 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
02-15-2018 3:14 PM


Taq writes:

I think we need some sort of independent oversight.

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.

Just saying that they gave their informed consent doesn't cut it, IMHO. That is only ignoring the problem.

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 unregulated

3 - 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 02-15-2018 3:14 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 02-15-2018 5:29 PM Stile has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10360
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 54 of 58 (828294)
02-15-2018 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stile
02-15-2018 3:24 PM


I simply don't see them as point that support the conclusion of "we should stop football."

I don't come to the conclusion that we should stop football. But those points, with some other arguments, might support a case to stop football. I am not arguing that the case exists; only that the player's desires are not the only issue.

Which leaves the question... what should we do about these points?

That's a personal question that you have to answer for yourself. You don't need to consult a football player to make a decision. I've made my own call. Others might take up a stronger opposition to football than I would, and others might decide there is no problem.

I have sometimes wondered if giving folks super solid helmets actually creates more problems than it solves. I suspect that current players are not capable of adapting to a game without the modern style weapon helmets because they learned to play the game in ways that require them to prevent injury. But those helmets do absolutely nothing to limit CTE because a helmet cannot stop your brain from smacking into your skull. Only limiting the magnitude of head impulse generated in the collisions can do that.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:24 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7376
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 55 of 58 (828310)
02-15-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
02-15-2018 3:38 PM


Stile writes:

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...)

Moving from Angel's advocate to Devil's advocate for the moment . . .

There is also the argument that we humans don't want a perfect society. It could be that part of being human includes a bit of chaos, immorality, and "having fun". There is a reason that we romanticize events that we know are wrong, such as the gladiators of ancient Rome. If we try to make society perfectly safe, are we taking the humanity out of it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:38 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2018 9:58 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Stile, posted 02-20-2018 10:19 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10360
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 56 of 58 (828325)
02-15-2018 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taq
02-15-2018 5:29 PM


It could be that part of being human includes a bit of chaos, immorality, and "having fun".

Okay, sounds interesting... Perhaps life should have some risks... Don't legislate away all the fun... If racing a car around an oval wastes fuel going nowhere and exposes participants to risks, we should still allow it... I follow you I think...

There is a reason that we romanticize events that we know are wrong, such as the gladiators of ancient Rome.

I think if the answer works for the gladiators of Rome, then that is an argument not in favor of that reasoning.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 02-15-2018 5:29 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3126
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 57 of 58 (828496)
02-20-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taq
02-15-2018 5:29 PM


Taq writes:

There is also the argument that we humans don't want a perfect society. It could be that part of being human includes a bit of chaos, immorality, and "having fun". There is a reason that we romanticize events that we know are wrong, such as the gladiators of ancient Rome. If we try to make society perfectly safe, are we taking the humanity out of it?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 02-15-2018 5:29 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2018 8:59 AM Stile has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10360
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 58 of 58 (828566)
02-21-2018 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Stile
02-20-2018 10:19 AM


Summary
I appreciate the folks who have indulged my ramblings, and possibly rantings on the subject. I don't think any of you all are bad people because you watch football.

I cannot watch the game anymore. I also cannot watch boxing or any of those unlimited, extreme punching/kicking/choking sports either. It is not the violence in particular that bothers me. I can still watch movies with violence and read comic books. But it seems a near certainty that most of the offensive and defensive lineman, a majority of the defensive backs and at least an appreciable fraction of starting quarterbacks who are successful should be expected to suffer from CTE if they play for a length of time, I do find that there is an immoral component in the situation. Your own findings may vary.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Stile, posted 02-20-2018 10:19 AM Stile has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018