The NCAA and Concussions

[ZippyRulz]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/us/ohio-state-player-dead/index.html

More bad concussion news..

[LZIp]

It's worth noting that this was the OSU's player's first season playing football. Before that, he was on the wrestling team. Its not clear how many concussions were received for football vs wrestling.

[Balsy]

You're joking right Ando? Because if your not...

[ZippyRulz]

Moms to Congress: It's time to protect kids in contact sports

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/health/angry-moms-call-for-federal-rules-on-contact-sports/index.html

 

No more tackle football until high school.

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by ZippyRulz

[zipsoutsider]

All we need is the federal government regulating one more thing.

[LZIp]

20 hours ago, ZippyRulz said:

Moms to Congress: It's time to protect kids in contact sports

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/health/angry-moms-call-for-federal-rules-on-contact-sports/index.html

 

No more tackle football until high school.

 

And that would do...what? Its not common for violent hits, concussions, etc in grade school and junior high. In fact, I would argue that instilling proper tackling technique while they are younger would be the better way to go.

[K92]

59 minutes ago, LZIp said:

And that would do...what? Its not common for violent hits, concussions, etc in grade school and junior high. In fact, I would argue that instilling proper tackling technique while they are younger would be the better way to go.

We need federal regulations governing the coaching of proper tackling technique!

 

This country really has become dumber than Idiocracy.

Edited March 17, 2016 by K92

[g-mann17]

11 hours ago, zipsoutsider said:

All we need is the federal government regulating one more thing.

Yes, that is all we need.  We need Theodore Roosevelt to make an executive order to make football safer because there is just too much brutality occurring.  Oh wait, he did that...

 

History

[zipsoutsider]

13 hours ago, g-mann17 said:

Yes, that is all we need.  We need Theodore Roosevelt to make an executive order to make football safer because there is just too much brutality occurring.  Oh wait, he did that...

 

History

I am all for making football safer, but the risk the NFL will face by not taking actions and spending more money will continue to grow as more parents are too afraid to let their kids play. If the government gets involved (and it has ZERO business doing), it ill only provide an out for the NFL to get out of lawsuits by citing it met all government requirements.

 

Government is not the only answer to a problem. As a matter of fact, in many cases, it should be the last answer. There is no Constitutional basis for getting involved, but I doubt that will stop some politicians from trying to use it for publicity.

[Balsy]

10 hours ago, zipsoutsider said:

(and it has ZERO business doing), it ill only provide an out for the NFL to get out of lawsuits by citing it met all government requirements.

 

Government is not the only answer to a problem. As a matter of fact, in many cases, it should be the last answer. There is no Constitutional basis for getting involved, but I doubt that will stop some politicians from trying to use it for publicity.

 

I don't agree at all, and this is a philosophy derived from a political ideology.  It's almost entirely the purpose of government to protect citizens from threats they may not know are there.  That's done through regulation.  Did the government do a bad thing by regulating the addition Lead to gasoline? Please: The government SHOULD consider regulation after doing a through investigation.  The NFL sure as hell isn't going to do it.  They have a direct vested interest in NOT investigating or regulating it.  

[zipsoutsider]

21 minutes ago, Balsy said:

I don't agree at all, and this is a philosophy derived from a political ideology.  It's almost entirely the purpose of government to protect citizens from threats they may not know are there.  That's done through regulation.  Did the government do a bad thing by regulating the addition Lead to gasoline? Please: The government SHOULD consider regulation after doing a through investigation.  The NFL sure as hell isn't going to do it.  They have a direct vested interest in NOT investigating or regulating it.  

I must have missed that in the Constitution. Here I thought that it was, "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." I know liberals want to redefine what that means, but no thanks.

 

And FYI, the NFL is already dumping a significant amount of money into research to make the game safer. Some colleges are running pilot programs for more technologically advanced helmets.

[g-mann17]

14 minutes ago, zipsoutsider said:

I must have missed that in the Constitution. Here I thought that it was, "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." I know liberals want to redefine what that means, but no thanks.

I went ahead and highlighted the part that you missed.

[Balsy]

20 minutes ago, zipsoutsider said:

I must have missed that in the Constitution. Here I thought that it was, "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." I know liberals want to redefine what that means, but no thanks.

 

And FYI, the NFL is already dumping a significant amount of money into research to make the game safer. Some colleges are running pilot programs for more technologically advanced helmets.

 

Well said g-mann17.

 

As for the second part:

Yeah, after the NFL spent decades trying to deny/bury the medical research through advertising, lobbying and cherry-picked, paid, cherry-picking "experts"...very similar to how the tobacco industry denied/buried the medical research connecting smoking with lounge cancer. 

 

Investing in technology doesn't necessarily make it better; and really the NFL dumping significant money into research is more for publicity.  Because if they weren't, it look bad.  But that DOES NOT mean that the Government shouldn't regulate something that is potentially harmful to people.  ESPECIALLY potentially life-long threatening to the "general welfare" (as the constitution says) of people.  

 

And I'm not even going to bring up the socio-economic issues...

 

[K92]

If only the government could outlaw stupidity.  What a wonderful world it would be.

[Hilltopper]

Quote

China has a new strategy in fighting crime, ripped from science fiction and hastily pasted at the top of the list of paranoia-inducing concepts.
It’s called pre-crime. It goes further than sting operations, counterterrorism, or any other government action to preempt criminal activity ever before.

 

Just for you Balsy. The perfect paradise.

[g-mann17]

36 minutes ago, Hilltopper said:

 

Just for you Balsy. The perfect paradise.

Right, and that was derived from the Patriot Act as I recall.

 

Pretty sure though that this went way off topic.

[zipsoutsider]

2 hours ago, g-mann17 said:

Right, and that was derived from the Patriot Act as I recall.

 

Pretty sure though that this went way off topic.

Which ahs been strengthened and expanded under Obama. Please, can we leave the politics out of football? WE have to put up with enough of the Bernie Sander BS on the news and social media.

[Balsy]

5 hours ago, zipsoutsider said:

Which ahs been strengthened and expanded under Obama. Please, can we leave the politics out of football? WE have to put up with enough of the Bernie Sander BS on the news and social media.

 

You're the one who made it political by saying "If the government gets involved (and it has ZERO business doing)".  That IS a political statement, not a statement of objective fact.  Because the objective fact is that the government does have that authority and has already used it (and it isn't a bad thing): seat belts, speed laws, drinking and driving, banning lead additives to gasoline...(the list goes on...and on...and on).  Lead was banned in all products because it's a nervous toxin, that is especially damaging to the brain development of children.  It wasn't consumers that got this done, it was an act of congress; after several years of testimony by scientists.  Why shouldn't congress conduct an investigation at the very least?  What does the NFL, or sports fans have to fear?   Was banning lead in consumer products a political thing?  I guess you could say that...but it was the right thing to do for the American people.  To protect us, our health, and the health of our children.

 

This doesn't need to be political, you just have to put away the misguided ideology that ALL regulation = bad, and no regulation = good; and make judgements on what the objective facts derived through the scientific process are.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Balsy

[zipsoutsider]

Whatever, I have had enough of left-wing nutjobs. You are wrong.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by zipsoutsider

[Balsy]

15 hours ago, zipsoutsider said:

Whatever, I have had enough of left-wing nutjobs. You are wrong.

 

Nice, constructive response.  Nothing I've said is left-wing nut jobish stuff.  Is there such thing as too much regulation?  Of course there is.  Is there such thing as too little regulation? Absolutely.  Unfortunately it usually takes something devastating...you know like a ship sinking in the atlantic killing 1500 people because it hit an iceberg and wasn't required to carry enough lifeboats for every person on board (you know...that pesky regulation thing), to get a positive outcome for people.

I for one am personally grateful that the vast majority of people do not hold your misguided ideology; and that there have been, and always will be, people willing to fight ignorance and bigotry in order to protect people and do what's right.

[zipsoutsider]

5 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

Nice, constructive response.  Nothing I've said is left-wing nut jobish stuff.  Is there such thing as too much regulation?  Of course there is.  Is there such thing as too little regulation? Absolutely.  Unfortunately it usually takes something devastating...you know like a ship sinking in the atlantic killing 1500 people because it hit an iceberg and wasn't required to carry enough lifeboats for every person on board (you know...that pesky regulation thing), to get a positive outcome for people.

I for one am personally grateful that the vast majority of people do not hold your misguided ideology; and that there have been, and always will be, people willing to fight ignorance and bigotry in order to protect people and do what's right.

Why bother? You are so convinced you are right it would be a waste of my time. I could have sat argued point/counterpoint, but it would be pointless.

 

There are obviously a lot more people who share my ideology that you are either aware of or would like to believe. Thank God. Almost done with 8 years of truly misguided ideology. 

 

Lastly, I must have missed what it is that makes me a bigot? Are all Conservatives bigots?

[Balsy]

5 hours ago, zipsoutsider said:

pt 1:  Why bother? You are so convinced you are right it would be a waste of my time. I could have sat argued point/counterpoint, but it would be pointless.

 

pt 2:  There are obviously a lot more people who share my ideology that you are either aware of or would like to believe. Thank God. Almost done with 8 years of truly misguided ideology. 

 

pt 3:  Lastly, I must have missed what it is that makes me a bigot? Are all Conservatives bigots?

 

I don't know what's going on with the quoting thing...but I'm going to go with this.

 

Pt 1:  Go look in the mirror.  You're telling me that your not convinced your right?  I'm not convinced I'm right, I'm only pointing out that you're not fully correct.  You know, that's the point of the peer review process...to check each other, and to call each other out when we're off our rocker.

 

Pt 2:  That isn't obvious at all, couldn't be further from the truth, and I'd suggest you get out of your bubble once in awhile. 

 

Pt 3:  Are all conservatives bigots? Of course not.  Unlike you, I don't live by an absolute ideology. Some of my close friends are varying degrees of conservative, and we always have well-informed discussions on topics such as this and offer our opinions to each other.  I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes we convince each other that perhaps the way we saw it, wasn't necessarily the best way. 

A person is a bigot, when they are being a bigot.  Bigotry is defined as: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas without just or logical cause".  I've demonstrated to you that All regulation does not = bad; yet you still hold unfairly to the absolutest mentality, without making a case for it.  That is, by definition, bigotry.  I mean if it's your opinion that regulation = bad, that's fine...it's then on you to make a case for why seat belts, speed limits, banned lead in consumer products...(the list goes on)... is a bad thing.

[Balsy]

6 hours ago, zipsoutsider said:

Pt 1:  Why bother? You are so convinced you are right it would be a waste of my time. I could have sat argued point/counterpoint, but it would be pointless.

 

Pt 2:  There are obviously a lot more people who share my ideology that you are either aware of or would like to believe. Thank God. Almost done with 8 years of truly misguided ideology. 

 

Pt 3:  Lastly, I must have missed what it is that makes me a bigot? Are all Conservatives bigots?

 

I don't know what's going on with the quoting thing, so the last post messed up.  But here it goes.

 

Pt 1:  I am not convinced I'm right, you are.  If you can make a valid case for why all regulation is bad and why lead should be free floating in our environment, I'm all ears for being convinced.  Now, I agree with you that it'd be an uphill battle, but unlike you, I'm not a bigot.  

 

Pt 2:  Well it's not so obvious, and you'd be surprised how few do hold your ideology as compared to those who don't hold that absolutest ideology of yours.  Perhaps you should venture outside of your bubble more often.

 

Pt 3:  Of course not.  A bigot is someone who is being a bigot. Believe it or not, I have several very close conservative friends and we have discussions all the time about issues like this, even though we don't agree (you know, like adults are supposed to do).  We listen to each other, and we're calm with each other, and every once in awhile we realize that perhaps our view isn't necessarily the best one...and that perhaps the right course of action is somewhere else entirely than both of us had though of.  

 

 Bigotry is defined as:  "someone who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas, without just cause."  You strongly and unfairly dislike the idea of regulation, without really making a just cause for your argument.  That's the definition of bigotry.   Now, you're entitled to the opinion that all regulation = bad, but the onus is on you to make that case.   For instance:  you need to explain why regulating lead (a dangerous nervous toxin that impedes the brain development of children, and can kill you if it's in high amounts in your bloodstream) is a bad thing.  Good luck with that one.

 

 

[zippy5]

The irony in this thread is tremendous 

[zipsoutsider]

If, and that's a big if, there is a role for government, it lies with the states, not the federal government. The SCOTUS has ruled (Gibbons vs. Ogden, Bailey vs. Drexel Furniture CO., that Congress has tax and spend power, and has deviated little from Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, which has guided the court's understanding of the General Welfare Clause. Story defined the clause in a manner that was a balance between Hamilton and Madison's perspectives, expressed in the Federalist Papers. The tenth amendment dictates that any powers not expressly spelled out in the Constitution go to the states. So if, there is a role for government in this it goes to the states, not the ever bloated federal government. Lead in the water is left to the states. The federal government, however has the ability to influence the issue by denying government backed loans to homes with chipping paint (tax and spend.)

 

Perhaps I am the minority who appreciates the rule of law. I am not a libertarian. I believe there is a role for government and regulation that role is clearly spelled out by the Constitution. Democrats seem quite eager to disregard our rule of law these days, as represented in the formal rebuffs issued unanimously by the SCOTUS to the Obama administration for abusing the powers of the executive branch.

 

In terms of being a bigot, you are way off base and venturing outside of my bubble, I suggest you might take a dose of your own medicine and venture away from academia and you might see that there has been a growing cry from Americans to take our government back - from an ever-infringing federal government who abuses its power more each year. And while I do not care for either man, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are no accident and are no minority. Their message of giving control back to the middle class and taking away power from government resonates with a large segment of the population. If you don't like a law or parts of the Constitution then change it, legally.

 

I will leave you to go to your safe space.