PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

OTish: Bipartisan bill filed in MA House to ban pre-8th grade tackle football


Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a problem with the government banning sports, yes. I don't need the government to parent me or my children. I can make the decision as to whether or not my pre-highschooler can play football. I don't need Big Brother to tell me.

“Big brother” tells you a lot of things you can and can’t do to your kids. Because, and I know this will surprise a lot of people, a lot of parents make terrible decisions which impact their kids who have little-to-no say in the matter.

Kids don’t understand the long term impact of their actions, which is why “big brother” has to create laws to prevent them from doing anything and everything they want. Because, and I know most here seem to not care, but it’s to society’s benefit to not have a bunch of younger people with CTE and damaging effects of repeated concussions.

How many “don’t tell my kids what to do” parents would be ok if their kids started smoking cigarettes or using chewing tobacco at the age of 6? Probably not many. How many parents would be comfortable with their kids in a car without a car seat or seat belt? Some, but most accept that restraining the kid in the car is to everyone’s benefit. Tackle football, as much as we all love to watch it, is unhealthy for kids’ brains. It doesn’t surprise me, or bother me at all, that banning it before a certain age is becoming trendy idea.

We regulate minors’ behavior all the time and usually whenever a new idea comes along there’s a crowd of anti-science types who say stuff like “don’t tell me my kid can’t smoke two packs of cigarettes a day! There’s no proof that cigarettes are bad for kids! I smoked a hundred cigarettes a day when I was a kid and I’m just fine now!”

Then you have the crowd who just doesn’t care about long term societal impacts of stuff like this because they’re too ignorant to understand how other people’s kids’ actions affect their own lives.
 
Should it be legal to beat your kid?
Not a valid comparison. Laws regarding which sports kids can play can’t compare to laws governing parental punishment.

I know a ton of men that played high school football and none of them have any CTE issues
 
“Big brother” tells you a lot of things you can and can’t do to your kids. Because, and I know this will surprise a lot of people, a lot of parents make terrible decisions which impact their kids who have little-to-no say in the matter.

Kids don’t understand the long term impact of their actions, which is why “big brother” has to create laws to prevent them from doing anything and everything they want. Because, and I know most here seem to not care, but it’s to society’s benefit to not have a bunch of younger people with CTE and damaging effects of repeated concussions.

How many “don’t tell my kids what to do” parents would be ok if their kids started smoking cigarettes or using chewing tobacco at the age of 6? Probably not many. How many parents would be comfortable with their kids in a car without a car seat or seat belt? Some, but most accept that restraining the kid in the car is to everyone’s benefit. Tackle football, as much as we all love to watch it, is unhealthy for kids’ brains. It doesn’t surprise me, or bother me at all, that banning it before a certain age is becoming trendy idea.

We regulate minors’ behavior all the time and usually whenever a new idea comes along there’s a crowd of anti-science types who say stuff like “don’t tell me my kid can’t smoke two packs of cigarettes a day! There’s no proof that cigarettes are bad for kids! I smoked a hundred cigarettes a day when I was a kid and I’m just fine now!”

Then you have the crowd who just doesn’t care about long term societal impacts of stuff like this because they’re too ignorant to understand how other people’s kids’ actions affect their own lives.
I know dozens of people that played youth & high school football. Not one has any issues from playing.

Do you actually support this bill?
 
I guarantee that they will.

Its all about control.
If they do, they’ll be a few mamed legislators. I’ll closelind a few dozen of them!:D
 
So... end football? Because that’s what this legislation is aimed at doing. And all in the name of the danger that it represents and it’s always represented. If we’re ending that on the basis that it’s dangerous, then my example is fine. I’ll point you to the number of people that lose their lives every year in automobile accidents vs. the amount of guys that lose their lives every year over playing football. While we’re at it, hockey needs to be banned as well. It’s dangerous. Same with all forms of martial arts. Close down the UFC. Let’s not consider the sheer revenue ramifications that such sports bring to American cities either. Nor should we consider the fact that this is literally the only option of some to bring themselves out of poverty. It’s dangerous. Can’t have it.

You’re looking at this through a microscope and failing to see the bigger picture. Never mind government further stepping in to take choice out of the picture. Why should the overwhelming majority be punished because of a few idiots? The government allows people the choice to smoke cigs and drink alcohol, both of which have also proven to be more deadly than playing football. But it’s football that needs to go. GTFOH.

You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
200w.gif


What really kills me, @KontradictioN, is that they don't see it. They need the government to take care of us. Pass. Hard Pass.
 
Looking more and more like this thread needs to go to the political forum.

I wish we still had one, but sadly it went the way of the Bramble Cay Melomys
 
I wish we still had one, but sadly it went the way of the Bramble Cay Melomys

Was not aware of that, it was such a cesspool I stopped checking it years ago.
 
Was not aware of that, it was such a cesspool I stopped checking it years ago.

It certainly had its warts but at the very least kept "borderline threads" off the main board.

Its been gone since the beginning of 2017, but is ironically why I still have my Moderators badge.
 
SMDH at anyone that infers disagreement with some uncommunicated and at best unclear 'notion' rather than disagreement with the slippery slope of taking the decision out of the hands of parents that do parent.

if an action needs to be taken, then it needs to be taken, and a possible slippery slope in the future is of no consequence

in pats terms:
if you have a person free lancing (collins) you get rid of him, even if it makes you weaker team in the LB core

the action must be taken, regardless of its unintended effects
 
Meh. Can't get worked up about it.

USA Hockey (and the Canadian equivalent) both ban checking until Bantam (age 13-14..in other words, 8th Grade). It's been that way for years.

US Soccer has banned heading the ball until age 10 and severely restricted it until...8th grade.

The CTE results were pretty damning - more than 1-in-5 high school football players, more than 9-in-10 college, almost universal at the pro-level. The governing bodies of youth football should be doing something to bring those numbers way down.
 
if an action needs to be taken, then it needs to be taken, and a possible slippery slope in the future is of no consequence

in pats terms:
if you have a person free lancing (collins) you get rid of him, even if it makes you weaker team in the LB core

the action must be taken, regardless of its unintended effects

There are multiple fails there, not the least of which is in the determination that this action in fact 'needs' to be taken. More often than not the folks that never consider the consequence of a slippery slope are the ones later found at the bottom one, unfortunately they are seldom alone. Neville Chamberlain comes to mind. That Pats analogy is way off, there was nothing unintended about Collins getting shipped out. That was a very calculated pour encourager les autres move.
 
Last edited:
For better or worse, children are not the property of parents anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Back
Top