Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Watching Football (American Style)?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 4 of 58 (827964)
02-06-2018 12:55 PM


NoNukes writes:
I am telling you guys, but I am not going to try to convince you that I am right.
I think you're as right as the guy who still watches football.
I think you're right for your and your life.
And I think the guy who still watches football is right for him and his life.
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with people willingly, consensually playing football while being aware of the risks.
I certainly agree that there's an issue right now in the "consensually" part since it seems rather obvious that the league is not being honest or forthcoming or proactive with all the information it possibly could about knowing or learning the subject of injury while playing football.
But if it's possible to work this out correctly, then I see no issue in playing football.
Of course, if it's not possible to work this out honorably, then I would not be playing in the NFL if I had a choice.
But back to the other side - I think it's at least apparent to the NFL players (and everyone else) enough that they know if the league is being shady or not. Which means they can consent to playing in "a shady league where personal safety is concerned" if they want to, or not.
But I don't see a moral reason to boycott the NFL for everyone.
Only a personal reason, which is just as valid, but different in the details.
I haven't watched football in a while. But that's mostly because I stopped being in football pools and stopped playing the fantasy stuffs, as well as I got rid of cable TV (Netflix only!).
I did pay $20 to a streaming service to watch the game at home this year.
I don't feel bad about it.
I have no horse in the race of what happens to football.
I won't really care if it goes on for ever.
I won't really care if it goes bankrupt this off-season and there's never another game again.
I think the issue of consent for the players being aware of what they're getting into is between the players and management and everyone individually. I think there's enough information to know it's "dangerous" and enough information to know the league is "at least a bit shady." But if someone thinks those risks are worth the rewards they get out of it (be it money or teamwork or even just joy-of-the-game) I think that's up to them as an individual.
I think there's enough information out and about that it's not really possible for the league to be hurting players "unknowingly against their will." Which I think is what's actually required in order for there to be some sort of larger-than-individual-choice moral issue going on.
Footballs has, been, and always will be a dangerous sport regardless of whether this particular information on concussions is dealt with honestly and fully openly or not.
I think the choice of what to do about that is on an individual-level.
...or something like that

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 02-06-2018 3:29 PM Stile has replied
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 4:00 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 6 of 58 (827971)
02-06-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
02-06-2018 3:29 PM


Taq writes:
With that in mind, can we truly say that NFL players are giving their honest consent when you hang millions of dollars in front of them? That's a very important moral question.
I agree it's an important question.
And my answer is "no" we can't truly say NFL players are giving their honest consent.
-but not because of the millions of dollars
-but because "we" are not "them"
-and, I do not think this is a reason to stop NFL players from playing or from giving their honest consent
-I do agree that this is something they should consider while evaluating their consent
If you give them too little you are devaluing their time and willingness to contribute to your research. If you give them too much money, you are incentivizing them to take risks that they would not otherwise take which is a violation of consent.
I agree with both these points.
And in developing some sort of ruling-government-type-standard... I would find them invaluable.
However, when discussing actual-real-feelings-of-people... the only source is the people themselves.
If you give them too little you are devaluing their time and willingness to contribute to your research.
Yes, but who gets to decide what is "too little?"
The honest answer is "the one deciding to accept the money."
And, yes, their judgment might be clouded by the small amount of money.
Or... maybe it's not, and their judgment of what's "too little" is different from someone else's.
If you give them too much money, you are incentivizing them to take risks that they would not otherwise take which is a violation of consent.
Again, yes, but who gets to decide what is "too much?"
The honest answer is, again, "the one deciding to accept the money."
And, yes, their judgment might be clouded by the large amount of money.
Or... maybe it's not, and their judgment of what's "too much risk for the money" is different from someone else's.
How can we objectively detect who's risk analysis is impaired and who's is not?
I don't know if there is a way.
And I certainly agree there's no way for a governing-body to enact some sort of practical standard that will work for everyone as I've described... and therefore any standard will necessarily have to ignore such intricate details.
My point is simply that it is possible for people to make such decisions without concerning the money, regardless of the fact that some people may have their risk-analysis impaired.
And, for such an issue, my opinion lies more with personal-responsibility rather than big-brother.
That's why I'd be against any sort of forced control method.
Not that I'd really care... I wouldn't start a petition against it if forced-control was started... it's not a huge deal to me.
But, it's still "a" deal, and that's where my opinion lies on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 02-06-2018 3:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by caffeine, posted 02-06-2018 4:06 PM Stile has replied
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 02-06-2018 4:48 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 14 of 58 (827989)
02-07-2018 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 4:00 PM


NoNukes writes:
Well, they are not getting my money or my eyeballs any longer.
As a personal choice for yourself, I think this is very well grounded and defensible.
It seems like the exact thing you should be doing with the way you feel about the topic.
I don't believe that the folks who watch football want anything but brain accelerating into the skull hits when an opposing receiver comes across the middle. Rather than give up a first down, fans want that ball jarred loose at any cost.
You are also free to believe what you want.
And I am free to believe what I want.
I believe it's quite possible to watch football and also not want people to get hurt, and also understand that the game is dangerous and it's likely someone will get hurt.
It's also possible for me to show that your believe is incorrect.
All I have to do is provide evidence that 1 person watches football and wants something other than "brain accelerating into the skull hits."
Well, I submit football player wives, their children, their other family members and friends.
I submit myself and lot of other football-watchers (some avid, others not-so-much) who think trick plays are fun to watch as well as want to see their team win (Go Dolphins!) but would rather players not get hurt doing it.
For you to show that my believe is incorrect, you would have to show that it's strictly impossible for someone to watch football because they enjoy the sport and all the non-hurting-other-people aspects of it instead of wanting to see people get hurt.
Although it's possible in reality, I think showing such a thing is impossible to do in any practical sense.
Do whatever you will.
I think we should all, always, do whatever we will.
I think it's important to allow people who want to get money for playing football and accepting the risk of getting hurt to be able to make that decision. So that they too can "do what they will."
It's no decision I would make.
I wouldn't play in the NFL for any amount of money (let alone me not being skilled enough).
But I don't think there's anything at the level of preventing others from deciding to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 4:00 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 15 of 58 (827991)
02-07-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by caffeine
02-06-2018 4:06 PM


caffeine writes:
Who would decide they were being offered too much money for something?
I understand that doctor's can take a shot at it... on an individual basis... given that there are obvious, definite signs of, say "addiction."
Like if they took a dude off the street who was trying to get any amount of money he could to buy more video games... but he couldn't afford them... and he was offered 2 million dollars to play 1 game in the NFL... and he obviously has no football skills... then I think it's a pretty clear scenario that the money is affecting his judgment. Although, I would argue that even this isn't a definitely-known case.
But I would say that, in general and concerning actual NFL players/prospects... such a situation where it is obvious to any 3rd person (doctor or not) is extremely rare.
I'm saying that given the general environment of the NFL, the only person who can honestly judge such a thing is the NFL players themselves.
On top of that, if the NFL player's judgment is skewed and they don't know it... it very well may be impossible for anyone else to tell.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by caffeine, posted 02-06-2018 4:06 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 11:43 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


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 replied

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


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 replied

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


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 replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 12:09 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 12:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


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 replied

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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 02-07-2018 1:05 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 31 of 58 (828014)
02-07-2018 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taq
02-07-2018 1:38 PM


Taq writes:
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?
What do you mean by "known flaw?"
If you mean known-to-the-designers, but not to the drivers... then I agree that it would be immoral.
If you mean known-to-the-designers, but all drivers (existing and potential) were made very much aware of it as well... and then decided if they wanted to drive that car or not while incorporating that risk into their decision... then I do not see it as immoral.
Guess which one I think is closer to the situation in the NFL?
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?
I'm not sure if "number of people dying" is indicative (in and of itself) that something is immoral.
For example, I am a proponent of being able to legally choose one's own death if one so desires.
Laws across Canada (and other nations?) are being adapted to account for allowing such a thing.
Such laws will allow 100% death to those who choose to follow through under them.
Is it immoral because 100% of people will die if they choose to die?
I don't think so.
I think the only moral/immoral point is on consent.
Does the consent exist?
Is it informed consent?
Is the NFL purposefully clouding the issue?
Is the NFL actively pursuing the ability to have informed consent?
Those are the questions I find to affect the moral issue.
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.
What's an IRB? The review-board people you were talking about? I'm going to assume this...
As well "I think..." is hardly proclaiming myself to be the ultimate anything. It's simply my opinion.
And if you read all I posted.. I actually agree that the IRB has a role to play, and an important one, and that they should play it.
I just point out that they, too, should remember that it is only their (hopefully informed and experienced) opinion and they should search for and account for more information in an ongoing fashion.
I think it is immoral to have the state profit off of a substance that causes serious harm to its citizens.
I agree.
1 - But who gets to decide what is "harm" and what is not? It is my opinion that this should be decided by each and everyone of us individually as mature adults.
2 - I don't think that selling alcohol causes serious harm to it's citizens (as determined by those citizens).
I think that some people abuse alcohol and cause serious harm to themselves and others.
I don't think playing football causes serious harm to NFL players (as determined by those NFL players).
I think that some NFL players abuse football and cause serious harm to themselves and others.
As well, I think some citizens accept the risk of damage-causing-alcohol consumption in order to get pleasure from it. When, really, any amount of alcohol-consumption causes some small level of damage, while large amounts of consumption can cause death. (Individuals vary).
As well, I think some NFL players accept the risk of damage-causing-football playing in order to get pleasure/money from it. When, really, any amount of football playing causes some small level of damage, while large amounts of playing can cause death. (Individuals vary).
However, I also think alcohol should be legal because the harms caused by prohibition are worse than those caused by its legal sale.
I think alcohol should be legal because I'm a big boy and can make such decisions for myself.
I don't need or want the government making such decisions for me.
I'm defending that same idea for the NFL players... I think (in this situation, at least) that personal responsibility should be valued higher than big brother safety nets.
I also participate in funding the state by buying alcohol, so I'm no angel.
I'm certain I have some level of hypocrisy myself. That doesn't stop us from having interesting conversations/thought-experiments though, does it?
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.
Okay. I think I see this. And I do agree.
Although I would not consider it strictly immoral if, say, 100% of football players died, as long as they participated under fully transparent and known consensual conditions.
However, given the reality of the situation... I would (at some point) agree that legislation should be put in. Because, at some point, even though I think people should be allowed to die if they really, actually want to... I don't think some "significant number of human lives" should be lost under the umbrella of a situation where we don't know if everything involves 100% informed-consent (because information about concussions and other injuries is not great), or even if judgment is being impaired (because of the high amount of money).
And if the main question is "where is this line?" I agree. Where is this line?
My only advice is to move in the directions we do understand... doing studies and investigations to get as close to 100% informed consent as possible and understanding whether or not judgment is impaired by the high amounts of money are good avenues towards the right path.
So... how do we do those?
Are we doing things moving in that direction? (I really don't know enough about the football issue to say either way).
Is there any other path-towards-the-line that can help give more information in figuring out where it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 02-07-2018 1:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 02-07-2018 4:26 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 33 of 58 (828038)
02-08-2018 10:36 AM


Hi Taq, this is a reply to you Message 32:
Taq writes:
Stile writes:
If you mean known-to-the-designers, but not to the drivers... then I agree that it would be immoral.
Even if it only affected a small minority?
Yes. It would definitely be immoral to that small minority.
Taq writes:
Stile writes:
I'm not sure if "number of people dying" is indicative (in and of itself) that something is immoral.
Are you sure about that?
Yes, I'm sure.
If you don't think so, you could respond to the example I gave about people choosing to die - legally and morally.
If a design flaw leads to one death per million cars, I think most people would consider that to be a non-issue. If a design flaw leads to 1 death for every 10 cars, that would be an issue.
"An issue" is different from "being immoral."
1 death per million cars, because of a known-design flaw that the manufacturer kept secret from the end-user is definitely immoral to whoever dies from it.
I agree that it may be a "non-issue" and taken as "the cost of selling/driving cars" but it's still undeniably immoral to the person who died.
It is the facts which determine if physical harm is being done, not the opinions of humans.
That's true, but irrelevant.
Physical harm is just fine as long as the one being harmed is okay with it.
Again, see my example of BDSM sex.
If we're talking about "what's right" then we need to talk about morality.
And where morality is concerned... physical harm is only an issue if there is no consent attached to receiving that physical harm.
If you want to step in and say "Whoa! That's too much physical harm for me!! You people should stop that so I don't feel strange!"
Then you are the one causing a problem... not the one's who have given their informed-consent to engage in the BDSM (or any other physically-harming activity) that you simply don't approve of.
If studies determine that alcohol abuse results in disease, then it is harmful. If studies demonstrate that NFL players have a much higher incident of debilitating brain injury, then those are the facts. You can't wish them away.
I fully agree.
And the studies (I believe) certainly do show that alcohol abuse results in harm (possibly not specifically disease-related-harm).
And the studies (I believe) certainly do show that NFL players have a much higher incident of debilitating brain injury.
I accept such things as facts.
I simply acknowledge the informed-consent of another mature adult to accept these risks for their own reasons if they so desire.
Again... BDSM specifically causes harm. That's the only thing it does... is causes physical harm.
However... two mature adults involved in a BDSM relationship is just fine if they both give their informed-consent.
Same thing with alcohol.
Same thing with football.
If NFL players were not being paid large salaries, would they be allowing themselves to be harmed in this way? Probably not.
And if BDSM wasn't fun for someone, would they be allowing themselves to be harmed in that way? Also probably not. And also equally irrelevant.
Even if an NFL player required a massive salary in order to subject themselves to such risk... who's to say that the judgment is impaired?
Is it impossible to have a non-impaired judgment saying you'll risk a lot to gain a lot? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's rather obvious that many of these judgments are not impaired. They're quite reasonable... risking a lot to gain a lot. That's not some strange concept. And mature adults should be able to make such decisions for themselves.
Now, I do agree that it's quite possible that the money does impair someone's judgment.
And that precautions should be put in place to work against such a thing.
But the precaution of "no one should do it" is over-board to me.
It's saying "well, I wouldn't do it... so NO ONE CAN!!!" And, well, that only sounds immature and ridiculous to me.
What precautions would help?
Where should the line be drawn?
Good questions.
But just because they are good questions doesn't imply that the answer is "no one should be doing this." That's silly.
I think it is universally understood among football players that they have a >80% chance of suffering from CTE. If memory serves, >90% of the brains they looked at from football players had CTE.
I would be defending the exact same thing if the number was an absolute, known 100% for every NFL player to step on the field.
As long as it is informed consent, what's the problem other than you think it's not something others should do?
I think others should be able to make up their own minds for such a question.
I think you're over-reaching your abilities by insinuating that it's not possible for someone to want to take such a risk for any reason.
I'm really not sure where we can draw the line. The best we an do is discuss it as a society and see if we can't come to some sort of consensus. What we shouldn't do is ignore the possible moral implications of how the system is structured and how it can cause individuals to sacrifice their long term health when they may not have in different circumstances. When you get right down to it, football is there for our entertainment. It's not as if they are saving people from burning buildings.
With this statement... I fully agree.
I will also point out that not a single word/sentence/idea makes any impact on my position. In fact, it all directly supports my position.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 02-08-2018 12:40 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 35 of 58 (828047)
02-08-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
02-08-2018 12:40 PM


Hi Taq, a response to your Message 34. My issues with the Reply To button in this thread irk me greatly.
Taq writes:
That would only apply if that also included millions of dollars in salary to the ones being harmed.
I'm not so sure that matters.
How many would expose themselves to physical harm just for the money? Why do we consider this type of behavior exploitative to the people being paid for such acts?
I think this is exactly what I'm questioning.
I don't see it as exploitative. Just for existing, anyway.
I do admit it opens the door for exploitation... but I don't see exploitation existing just because money is involved.
I'm going to try to take it in small steps to see if we can nail something down.
You say where you disagree and why:
Let's assume it's okay to make a consensual decision to be harmed "for fun." Like BDSM sex.
Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed in football "for fun?" - no money involved, even up to the level of the NFL.
Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed and also get paid for it? Like a BDSM dungeon thing or something.
Wait... this scenario is rather open.
Let me add some restrictions:
Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed and also get paid for it as long as there are strict limits that are enforced ensuring that the "harm" does not go beyond that which consent is given for by all parties involved? (like a modern, well-run BDSM dungeon thingy).
Is it okay for this situation to move over into football?
I am arguing that, yes, this is okay in BDSM and it's also okay in football.
The issue, for me, is understanding/ensuring/enforcing that the harm does not go beyond the consent. "Informed consent."
I don't think it is silly to ask if things should be banned if they are causing people harm. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I also think it is worthwhile to at least play Angel's advocate. If we try our best to thrash an argument and see if it stands then we can at least be confident in our positions at the end.
I apologize. Sometimes my emotions are not as under-control as I hope
And you are right.
It's the informed consent part that is worrisome.
I 100% agree.
It wouldn't be informed consent if money is being used to coerce participation.
I think that depends on what's implied by the term "coerce."
If you just mean "if money is involved at all" then I don't agree.
If you mean something along the lines of "if money is being used to make people stop asking questions and impede the right of informed consent (as I defined it above)" then I do agree.
Even then, our society and views on personal freedoms have taken the position that some coercion is ok, so I'm not sure where to draw the line.
I'm not so concerned about what society thinks on moral issues.
I'm more concerned about what I think, since I am the only one I can control.
That said, I don't think that any coercion is okay if it means "impeding the right of informed consent" as I defined above.
And, on the other side, I don't think any coercion exists (no matter how much money is involved) as long as informed consent exists as I defined above.
Perhaps the best people to ask are ex-football players who are suffering from brain injuries and get their views.
I think this is a mandatory (at minimum) place to get some information.
But I do think the information obtained from them would have to go through some proper filters.
I am under the impression that they have, basically, been swindled. They did not have "informed consent" (as I defined above) as they were not really aware of the possible injuries and concussion trauma when they signed into the league 10 to 20+ years ago.
I would assume that they would be incredibly biased in putting the line much closer to "no one should be doing this" than it really should be.
Now, if we took their information in order to try and ask "what sort of methods would you think might allow for more informed-consent so that others can a closer-to-fully-informed decision that you were robbed of..." then I think that would be a much better start for "finding the line."
And I think their stories should be made easily-available to anyone considering entering the league.
I think anyone attempting to prevent them from speaking or giving them hush-money or anything like that should be tossed in jail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 02-08-2018 12:40 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 02-08-2018 3:03 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 38 of 58 (828051)
02-08-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
02-08-2018 2:17 PM


NoNukes writes:
We don't allow folks to sell their body parts for profit, but we do allow folks to damage their brains for similar motivation and for a lot less benefit to humanity.
That's a really good concept to bring up.
I admit I was all "well, we shouldn't allow people to sell body parts..."
And then the question-of-the-day hit me... why?
I think it still all comes down to consent and being able to ensure such consent is fully informed.
Have you ever heard of BIID?
It's, basically, the idea that people exist who have such an issue with their own body part(s) that they want them amputated/removed.
If such a person really, truly existed... it would only be moral to allow them to cut off their limb.
If such a situation existed... what's wrong with allowing such a person to make some money off of it?
Of course there's the socially-natural (conditioned?) response going "eww... that's gross... they're going to regret it... don't let them do it!!"
But, if that's the only negative against the idea... some huge level of "personal disapproval"... but still nothing more than personal disapproval of someone else's decision... then I say that's not enough to stop someone from doing something they truly decide as a mature adult.
But even saying that... I'm still not for allowing people to sell body parts.
And again, back to the question-of-the-day... why not?
Because I have a reason that goes beyond personal-disapproval, and it's again related to (wait for it...) informed consent!
I propose that if someone claims to have informed consent, and thinks they truly want their limb cut off... and go through the procedure... and then, say, 10 years later, really regret the procedure... then there is some strange level of "informed consent" that wasn't there originally.
This MUST be done only by the individual in question. Their feelings about the matter are the only thing of importance.
Now, isn't it possible that someone wants to remove a limb, and goes through with it, and 10 years later they're still happy with their decision?
Yes. I would say this is possible.
And the rest of their life they're still happy with the decision?
Yes. Still possible.
And, for such a person, I would say that their decision was a good one for them.. and they should be allowed to make such a decision.. and I would defend their ability to have such a decision (even if they wanted to sell their limb for money).
And this is where it relates back to the football issue.
Now there's this strange area of "informed consent" relying on future-you-still-agreeing-with-the-deal.
That seems to apply directly to NFL players as well.
So how can we tell if people are going to regret their decision 10 years from now or not in order to allow them to make the decision or not?
I don't think we can.
However... if we can provide evidence that somehow shows a "significant number of people" would regret cutting off a limb in the future even though they think they want to right now... then I would agree to preventing the procedure from being a free choice. That is, I would agree to make it illegal.
And for the NFL:
If we can provide evidence that somehow shows a "significant number of people" would regret suffering from their football-related-injuries (including death) in the future even though they think they want to play anyway right now... then I would agree to making contact-football an illegal sport.
Also, there are more considerations.
How difficult is it to enforce the "informed consent?"
That is... it's is much easier for some mob-boss to lean on a poor schmuck and have them lop off their arm to pay their debt then it is of some mob-boss to lean on an NFL player and have them under-go-years-and-years-of-playing-and-cuncussion-damage to pay off their debt.
Although neither scenario is "impossible."
Such differences should also be taken into account, I think.
If that seems reasonable... then we have more questions. What is "a significant number of people?" How many people would not regret such a decision? How do we even obtain this data?
Those players hurt after playing in the NFL seem like a great source of information... and I agree that information should be obtained by speaking with them and hearing their stories. But... they did not have the "informed consent" that's available today. Therefore... although their information should be deemed important, and included... I don't think it should be deemed all-important.
Taking it all into consideration... my current gut feeling is that selling-limbs should be illegal because:
-There is a high risk of regretting the decision.
-There is a high risk of immediate abuse (mob boss type stuff).
-It is extremely difficult to provide "informed consent"
...But I fully admit I could be wrong (it's not like I have any hard data). And I'd be willing to see some information and adjust my position accordingly along these guidelines.
And, my current gut feeling for the NFL is that it should still be legal because:
-There is a medium risk of regretting the decision.
-There is a low risk of immediate abuse (mob boss type stuff).
-It is difficult (but not extremely difficult) to provide "informed consent"
...And, again, I fully admit I could be wrong. And I'm willing to see information and adjust my position accordingly along these guidelines.
This post definitely needs some Minnemooseus added to it:
"...or something like that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2018 2:17 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2018 4:32 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 39 of 58 (828052)
02-08-2018 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taq
02-08-2018 3:03 PM


Taq writes:
I wouldn't have a problem with people electing to play football where there is no financial incentive. The interesting part is that almost no one does that.
Agreed. I didn't intend for that idea to go beyond the simple though experiment of "what if..." to help show where the line might be.
Right or wrong, this ethical and moral outlook is embedded in medical research, and being part of that world it has had some influence on me.
Again, I'd like to point out that I agree the IRB has a place, and that their job is difficult.
I'd just like to point out that even the IRB doesn't say it's immoral just because "money is involved." They say:
quote:
and anecdotal evidence suggests that members of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and professionals involved in research oversight are concerned that payment may coerce or unduly influence prospective research participants
(bolding by me)
And, again, I completely agree over a concern about the money in the NFL and how it may influence consent.
In fact, I would fully support the idea of an IRB-like system in the NFL reviewing the amount players get paid and attempting to study/understand/control the influence it has on their consent.
I just don't take any of this to mean anything along the ideas of "if money is involved, consent is impossible."
I think they could tell us if the money they made was worth the damage they suffered. If anyone would know, they would. Or maybe they will say that the money was worth it, who knows?
I think it's a very good question to ask.
I think it should be asked to those who suffered damage and those who didn't suffer damage.
I also think it should be assumed that any who died significantly early and can't answer would say it was "not worth it" to them. Even if for a select few it possibly was. (I do agree with erring on the side of caution, to a certain degree).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 02-08-2018 3:03 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 02-08-2018 6:23 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024