primetime
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 13,627
- Reaction score
- 15,375
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
overweight middle aged keyboard warriors
Not a valid comparison. Laws regarding which sports kids can play can’t compare to laws governing parental punishment.Should it be legal to beat your kid?
I know dozens of people that played youth & high school football. Not one has any issues from playing.“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.
If they do, they’ll be a few mamed legislators. I’ll closelind a few dozen of them!I guarantee that they will.
Its all about control.
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.
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
Was not aware of that, it was such a cesspool I stopped checking it years ago.
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