Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 2:47 AM
204 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,476 Year: 15,299/29,783 Month: 1,243/1,502 Week: 0/241 Day: 0/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Watching Football (American Style)?
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 16 of 58 (827992)
02-07-2018 9:43 AM


Dangerous sports.
Up thread a mention was made about all the folk killed in F1 in the late sixties and early seventies. Actually it was in almost every level of professional racing at the time.

But autoracing is also a great example of technology removing most of the risk while not effecting the sport itself. But it took three things, first a public outcry that simply said "This must Stop!", a willingness for the sponsors to fund the additional costs involved in improving safety and they were significant costs and governing bodies that said "Unless you follow these construction standards you don't get on the track!"

I believe technology can help but today I simply don't see either of the other two factors in professional football or any of the gladiatorial games.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2784
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 17 of 58 (827994)
02-07-2018 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
02-06-2018 6:23 PM


Evolving opinions
Taq writes:

Where do we draw the line? I think that is an interesting question.


Indeed, your thoughtful comments are both wise and appreciated.

I draw the line personally at MMA fights. I do not enjoy watching it and
so I wont. I use to watch boxing and do not watch that any more either. (I realize it is hypocritical to still watch football, hockey and rugby.) I guess my opinion on the subject is evolving.
And that is why I enjoy this forum so much, it always seems to bring up interesting new points of *view on a myriad of subjects.

Edited by 1.61803, : spelling


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 02-06-2018 6:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3241
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 18 of 58 (827995)
02-07-2018 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
02-06-2018 6:23 PM


Taq writes:

Gladiatorial games might be a good example. Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks in sports? While American football players may not be dropping dead on the field, they are dropping dead off the field. Junior Seau committed suicide not long after leaving the league, and he shot himself in the heart so that scientists could study his brain. It is hard to ignore the implication that Seau was suffering from deep depression that could have been caused by CTE. Just to shift sports for a second, there have been a shocking number of deaths at the Isle of Man TT motorcycle races and there were tons of deaths in F1 during the 1960's. Is that any different than 1 out of 50 gladiators dying from wounds in the Colliseum?

Where do we draw the line? I think that is an interesting question.

I don't know.

I'm having trouble balancing two different things.

On one side... people hurting others unwillingly is bad.
How do we prevent this?

On the other side... people making decisions for themselves and providing consent for accepting risks is fine.
How do we allow this?

Where do they clash?
Is it possible to find an "objective"-ish line (if so, where?) or are all lines forced to be subjective (if so, can we show this to be true?)

My idea right now is to look at ways to not throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water.

That is, un-consented violence/harm in football is wrong.
Is there a way to prevent such a thing without preventing "football" in general?
Are we going down that path?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 02-06-2018 6:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 11:03 AM Stile has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 58 (827997)
02-07-2018 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stile
02-07-2018 10:33 AM


On one side... people hurting others unwillingly is bad.

What part of the hurting people is unwilling? Getting hurt and hurting others is the forseeable outcome of playing professional football in the way it is currently played. Based on the science we have so far, CTE would seem to be the expected outcome.

How do we prevent this?

Nobody is the least bit interested in doing this. So far, the issue only being addressed with lip service and fake band-aids. I've seen discussions about this, and the most popular sentiment is that the players should shut up and hit each other because they are being paid to do so.

My idea right now is to look at ways to not throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water.

Okay. Now, what's the baby? Your entertainment?

That is pretty much the issue that I wrestled with when deciding not to watch. The "baby" does not seem to have much substance.


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 18 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 10:33 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 11:19 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3241
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 58 (827998)
02-07-2018 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
02-06-2018 6:23 PM


Hey Taq, this is a reply to your Message 11. I'm having PC issues that seem to prevent me from replying to that particular message.

Taq writes:

In the case of research involving human subjects, the compensation put forward in the research proposal is judged by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that consists of administrators, scientists, and people from the community.

Yes. And every time they (or anyone) does this, they will be wrong.

Not "all wrong." And likely even "mostly right" (with enough experience).
But the entire concept is subjective... it will be different for everyone.

As soon as you draw a line there will be those at it, those below it, and those above it.
The line will be "correct" for those at (or close) to it, and wrong for those far from it.

However, it does raise the idea that you can undermine consent by preying on peoples' desperation and greed.

I don't think this idea needs to be raised. I think it's pretty obvious that this idea is a part of reality and should be studied and dealt with accordingly. I agree with the concept 100%

And I think that when lines do have to be drawn (like your example above) they should be done so understanding how "right" they will be along with how "wrong" they will also be. And update their positions to be "as right as possible" whenever new information comes to light.

I simply don't agree that just because some group of people think it's possible that others in some situation are being taken advantage of... that then they "definitely are." I think that's a jump that shouldn't be made so quickly.

But we can't know if all those people in that group are not being taken advantage of.

We also can't know if any significant number of people in that group are being taken advantage of.

If we create a system or environment that can lead to abuses it is immoral, even if there are some who are not abused.

I think there's an idea related to what you've stated here that we both agree with.
However, as stated, I don't agree with this idea.

Alcohol is sold at liquor stores in Canada (and available even easier in most other nations).
Alcohol is dangerous.
A great many people abuse alcohol and hurt themselves and others.
Canada, in selling alcohol, has "created a system or environment that can lead to abuses, even if there are some who are not abused."

However, I do not think that Canada selling alcohol is immoral.
I think that those who abuse alcohol and hurt others are immoral.
I would not attempt to prevent Canada from selling alcohol.
I would very much attempt to prevent people from abusing alcohol while keeping alcohol available for those who do not abuse it.

And move this argument over to football:

The NFL plays football.
Football is dangerous.
A great many people abuse football and hurt themselves and others.
The NFL, in playing football, has "created a system or environment that can lead to abuses, even if there are some who are not abused."

However, I do not think that playing football in the NFL is immoral.
I think that those who abuse football and hurt others are immoral.
I would not attempt to prevent the NFL from playing football.
I would very much attempt to prevent people from abusing football while keeping football available for those who do not abuse it.

I trust that goes to show the point I'm trying to make.

Now, that being said, I do agree that there is some idea around what you're talking about that should be considered and should be studied and should be monitored to make sure no "widespread abuse" (maybe wrong word here?) is happening.

I think that safety precautions in the NFL are lacking, and they should be studied and fleshed out some more.

But I can't think of a single statement-phrase to express where I think the line should be.
I just think that where the NFL is currently at... is not something that should be "beyond" that line into obviously-negative territory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 02-06-2018 6:23 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 02-07-2018 1:38 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3241
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 21 of 58 (828000)
02-07-2018 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
02-07-2018 11:03 AM


NoNukes writes:

What part of the hurting people is unwilling?

The part where they give their consent.

Like BDSM sex.
It hurts others, but if they give their consent I have no issues with it.

Getting hurt and hurting others is the forseeable outcome of playing professional football in the way it is currently played. Based on the science we have so far, CTE would seem to be the expected outcome.

I agree.

And as long as the players give their consent, I have no issues with this.
I also agree that it's possible for issues to exist on whether the amount of money in question is impairing their consent or not.
I would agree completely with any studies or investigations into whether or not this is happening.
I would also agree completely with any precautions or penalties the NFL can add to prevent people hurting others without their consent. Or to lessen the chances of CTE in any possible way.

I do not agree with "getting rid of football" at this point in time.

I've seen discussions about this, and the most popular sentiment is that the players should shut up and hit each other because they are being paid to do so.

I am under the impression that this is some people's take on it.
I am also under the impression that other people are fighting for more regulations and more transparence and that they're making progress.

NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

My idea right now is to look at ways to not throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water.

Okay. Now, what's the baby? Your entertainment?

No. The "baby" is the NFL player's ability to decide what they want to do with their own lives using their own minds.
I don't like the idea of controlling other people's free choices.
I like the idea of personal responsibility over big brother.

That is pretty much the issue that I wrestled with when deciding not to watch. The "baby" does not seem to have much substance.

I would agree that if the "baby" was "entertainment..." then there would not be much substance there.
However, perhaps you're thinking of the wrong "baby."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 11:03 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 58 (828003)
02-07-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stile
02-07-2018 9:26 AM


That doesn't change the fact that the NFL players themselves have the "best chance" out of anyone and everyone to make such a judgment correctly.

So you think the person whose judgment is being influenced is the most objective. Would you also suggest that we should let hookers judge whether their pimp is using them or not? Or that a meth addict is the best judge what is the best use of his time and money that day?

I can accept that your philosophy is that people should make their own choices. But the idea that nobody else can objectively judge those choices is BS. The least objective person may well be the person taking the money. Sometimes our values say that we just let the person make his own hell.

But beyond that, I'm not making a call for anyone but myself.


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 15 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 9:26 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 12:03 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3241
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 23 of 58 (828004)
02-07-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
02-07-2018 11:43 AM


NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

That doesn't change the fact that the NFL players themselves have the "best chance" out of anyone and everyone to make such a judgment correctly.

So you think the person whose judgment is being influenced is the most objective.

In certain situations, yes.
In others, no.

But the "judgment" I was talking about wasn't whether or not their judgment is impaired.
It was whether or not they want to assume the risks for the money they get in return.

I think that any idea that flat out considers this judgment to be "automatically impaired" is wrong.
I think it's quite possible to make a non-impaired judgment on the risk of personal safety vs. large amounts of money.

I do agree that the larger the amount of money, the more likely it is to impair the judgment.
I do not agree that any mount of money (even "infinite") automatically makes the judgment impaired.

I would want to see how someone's reached the conclusion that a "significant number" of NFL players are having their judgment impaired before I agreed that it was occurring.

Someone just claiming that it's possible... and therefore "it must!" be happening... just isn't enough for me.

Would you also suggest that we should let hookers judge whether their pimp is using them or not?

In certain situations, yes.
In others, no.

I would assume that most hookers are aware their pimp is using them. They just don't see a pathway for getting out of their situation.

Or that a meth addict is the best judge what is the best use of his time and money that day?

In certain situations, yes.
In others, no.

And I think attempting to say that a significant number of NFL players are "addicted to the money" in the way a meth addict is addicted to meth is shamefully incorrect.

I can accept that your philosophy is that people should make their own choices. But the idea that nobody else can objectively judge those choices is BS.

I agree.

However, I think the situations where this occurs accurately are so insignificant when compared to the situations where people use-this-idea-to-put-controls-in-place-where-they-shouldn't that it's simply irresponsible to use this as a reason to move forward with blocking the NFL. Until, of course, you can show that this is occurring in significant numbers.

But beyond that, I'm not making a call for anyone but myself.

I think you making the call for yourself is just as important as the NFL players (and other fans) making the calls for themselves.

I also agree that you seem to be making the correct call for yourself given the information you've provided here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 11:43 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 12:09 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 12:10 PM Stile has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 58 (828005)
02-07-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stile
02-07-2018 12:03 PM


[sfdferew]

duplicate

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 23 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 12:03 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 58 (828006)
02-07-2018 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stile
02-07-2018 12:03 PM


It was whether or not they want to assume the risks for the money they get in return.

We already know the answer to that question. If for you that is the right question, then so be it.

I also agree that you seem to be making the correct call for yourself given the information you've provided here.

Seem to be? I find your phrasing very telling.


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 23 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 12:03 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 12:36 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3241
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 26 of 58 (828007)
02-07-2018 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NoNukes
02-07-2018 12:10 PM


NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

I also agree that you seem to be making the correct call for yourself given the information you've provided here.

Seem to be? I find your phrasing very telling.

I apologize. I understand it can come off as sort of aggressive towards you.
I assure you, though (for as much as that's worth,) that I didn't mean it in such a way.

I mean "seems to be" in the context of "I can't read your mind, or know your actual thoughts/feelings, so I could be wrong."

In the same sense that I can't read the minds of NFL players, or know their actual thoughts/feelings, so I could be wrong about what I think they desire.

I find it very important to always understand that other people are other people... and have an equal right to determine their own thoughts/ideas/desires and are always the one-and-only authority on such matters.

So, yes, it seems to me that you're making the right call for you.

But only "seems" that way to me, because I can't know your mind or your thoughts or your feelings. Only you know those things in any reliable way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 12:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 12:45 PM Stile has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 58 (828008)
02-07-2018 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stile
02-07-2018 12:36 PM


I apologize. I understand it can come off as sort of aggressive towards you.

I did not find it aggressive. I find it condescending in exactly the way you seem to avoid condescending to the opinions of football players. No need to apologize for the way you feel.

I find it very important to always understand that other people are other people... and have an equal right to determine their own thoughts/ideas/desires and are always the one-and-only authority on such matters.

I haven't argued against anyone's rights to do anything. Nobody here has done 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 26 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 12:36 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 12:53 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3241
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 28 of 58 (828009)
02-07-2018 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
02-07-2018 12:45 PM


NoNukes writes:

I did not find it aggressive. I find it condescending in exactly the way you seem to avoid condescending to the opinions of football players. No need to apologize for the way you feel.

Condescending would be a better word than aggressive, yes.
And as I said I didn't intend for it to be aggressive, I also didn't intend for it to be condescending.

Like I said, I intended it to mean that I can't read your mind.

NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

I find it very important to always understand that other people are other people... and have an equal right to determine their own thoughts/ideas/desires and are always the one-and-only authority on such matters.

I haven't argued against anyone's rights to do anything. Nobody here has done that.

I agree.

My statement wasn't in the context of anyone's rights to do anything, or even any argument made in this thread.
This statement was in the context of me not being able to read your mind and therefore only being able to say that you seem to be doing what's right for you. It was a part of my apology for using the term "seem" that you took in a condescending way when I didn't intend such a thing.

Edited by Stile, : Added quote to the top, I originally miffed on tags and it was omitted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 12:45 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 1:05 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 58 (828010)
02-07-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Stile
02-07-2018 12:53 PM


Stile writes:

I find it very important to always understand that other people are other people... and have an equal right to determine their own thoughts/ideas/desires and are always the one-and-only authority on such matters.

Stile writes:

My statement wasn't in the context of anyone's rights to do anything, or even any argument made in this thread.

I have to admit that I cannot make any sense out of your statement about rights not being in the context of anyone's rights.

Here is a statement about rights. Folks have the right to play football, and other folks have the right to watch football. None of that means that others cannot critique their choices. It would be great if violence did not have negative consequences or if our own choices did not contribute to those consequences. But that is not the world we live in.


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 28 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 12:53 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7575
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 30 of 58 (828012)
02-07-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Stile
02-07-2018 11:11 AM


Stile writes:

I simply don't agree that just because some group of people think it's possible that others in some situation are being taken advantage of... that then they "definitely are." I think that's a jump that shouldn't be made so quickly.

We could use cars as an example. If you allow a known flaw to be incorporated into a car's design that you know could unnecessarily put peoples' lives at risk and you don't fix the problem because it would reduce profits, is that immoral? Most people would say yes. Would it be moral if it only killed 0.1% of car owners which would still be hundreds or even thousands of people? Where do you draw the line?

Alcohol is sold at liquor stores in Canada (and available even easier in most other nations).
Alcohol is dangerous.
A great many people abuse alcohol and hurt themselves and others.
Canada, in selling alcohol, has "created a system or environment that can lead to abuses, even if there are some who are not abused."

However, I do not think that Canada selling alcohol is immoral.
I think that those who abuse alcohol and hurt others are immoral.
I would not attempt to prevent Canada from selling alcohol.
I would very much attempt to prevent people from abusing alcohol while keeping alcohol available for those who do not abuse it.

It's interesting that you can proclaim that an IRB is probably wrong and they can't be judges of what is moral, yet here you are proclaiming yourself the ultimate moral judge of alcohol in society.

There needs to be a distinction made between what we think should be legal and what we think is immoral. I think it is immoral to have the state profit off of a substance that causes serious harm to its citizens. However, I also think alcohol should be legal because the harms caused by prohibition are worse than those caused by its legal sale. I also participate in funding the state by buying alcohol, so I'm no angel.

But I can't think of a single statement-phrase to express where I think the line should be.
I just think that where the NFL is currently at... is not something that should be "beyond" that line into obviously-negative territory.

I have a slightly different view. The question for me is the line between immoral and illegal. How immoral does something need to be before we step in and change behavior through legislation? That line is really hard to draw.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 11:11 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 2:27 PM Taq has responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018