Poll: Would you let your kid play (American) football in school?

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If my kid wants to play handegg, rugby, hockey or any other sport who the hell am I to tell them no? I played handegg, and my brother did and still does play hockey, and we both turned out fine. Though these days I prefer the more elegant sports of fencing and curling.

Keeps them fit, builds character, and best of all it helps them form a backbone, which is something that my generation surely needs. Though I think my children wouldn't have that problem since the inevitable reforms that will come from the societal-wide failure of "everyone's a winner" and "no need for competition" attitudes are already in sight.

How do you know you are fine? Some people do not know they had brain damage until they get the autopsy reports back after their death. It is just a matter of where the injury is as to how much it impacts your life. It is like playing Russian roulette, and allowing your child to do so, hoping their results turn out as good as yours. There are plenty of ways to build character that do not involve risking their brain.

Russian roulette is a terrible example because all but one of those involved ends up dead. Meanwhile those who end up with serious injuries are so few to say it's the inverse would be overstating how many players get seriously injured, to say nothing of killed.

Plus, have you seen kids? Be they pre-pubescent or teenagers, they WILL find a way to put themselves in that type of danger just climbing around things. Just look at the jungle gym of any school. Pretty much all of them prohibit climbing on the outside of those things, yet there's always plenty of children who do so anyway, and of them some of them will fall, and of those that fall some will be seriously hurt. That doesn't stop the children from trying, not even those who fall.

If my or anyone else's kid wants to play a sport, why should I stop them because of something that MIGHT happen that statistically will most likely not? I'll tell you this, if my parents had been the sort who prevented my brother and I from doing that, we'd be one of two different ways: we'd either be people who are completely averse to risk taking to a degree that prevents us from functioning in proper society (something my generation has a massive problem with) or we'd have become more rebellious then we already where and taken even bigger risks. In terms of development of a person of that age, there is no scenario which leads them better off then just letting them play the sport they want.

You are mistaken about it being a few is the issue, the problem is we are only now doing the scans, and the evidence thus far is showing a majority, not a minority. A child doing something dangerous now and then vs every day multiple times a day in practice, during games and recreational. That is the issue. Thus far the evidence we have is showing brain injuries to be the norm rather than the exception in American football. That is what I think people are failing to understand. The autopsies are showing it to be the majority. How severe the injuries are varies, but injuries are expected none the less. We would have to scan everyone to see exactly how bad this is, and that is too costly to consider.

 

[Rolaoi]

I have no issues with my son playing rugby, so not at all. In your version of the game you get to wear full body armour, in rugby, if a bit of your face/head falls off you tape it back on and get on with the game, unless you have blood on your top, and then you have to change it.

The padding in football is, counterintuitively, more likely to cause injury as players put more force into their movements. The average force of impact in American football is greater than in Rugby. It's only made worse as football players have gotten larger as time goes on. American football used to use similar padding as rugby, and favored smaller, faster players.

Now, defense has largely replaced this. As a result, teams want the biggest wall of fat and muscle they can find.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/31/170764982/are-nfl-football-hits-getting-harder-and-more-dangerous

http://theconversation.com/brute-force-reducing-the-impact-of-rugby-collisions-24276

Of particular interest

To get around this, several research teams have attempted to measure tackle impacts using instrumented training sleds, tackle bags and, more recently, instrumented shoulder pads. Using shoulder pads, Australian researchers reported rugby shoulder tackles had an average force of 1997 newtons (1997N), the equivalent of 206kg.

Researchers from the United States have reported much larger forces among American Football players. The athletes hit an instrumented tackle training sled at 3013N, or almost one third of a tonne; while the force of an instrumented helmet-on-helmet impact during games was as around 7191N, or nearly three-quarters of a tonne.

 

[Zontar]

You are mistaken about it being a few is the issue, the problem is we are only now doing the scans, and the evidence thus far is showing a majority, not a minority. A child doing something dangerous now and then vs every day multiple times a day in practice, during games and recreational. That is the issue. Thus far the evidence we have is showing brain injuries to be the norm rather than the exception in American football. That is what I think people are failing to understand. The autopsies are showing it to be the majority.

The damage can't be that bad if it's only after autopsies that this is becoming known, seems more like one of those diseases that people can catch but never really see then one that really inhibits most people (if the damage that the "majority" of handegg players have is serious enough to be noteworthy, it wouldn't have taken this long to learn about it, nor would it have take autopsies, we'd have know in the 70s at the latest).

If my kid wants to play handegg, he's going to find a way, and no ammount of putting on kiddy gloves because of something that MIGHT happen is going to stop that. It's the ultimate act in futility, one that wastes my time and effort and breads resentment in my children towards me.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You are mistaken about it being a few is the issue, the problem is we are only now doing the scans, and the evidence thus far is showing a majority, not a minority. A child doing something dangerous now and then vs every day multiple times a day in practice, during games and recreational. That is the issue. Thus far the evidence we have is showing brain injuries to be the norm rather than the exception in American football. That is what I think people are failing to understand. The autopsies are showing it to be the majority.

The damage can't be that bad if it's only after autopsies that this is becoming known, seems more like one of those diseases that people can catch but never really see then one that really inhibits most people (if the damage that the "majority" of handegg players have is serious enough to be noteworthy, it wouldn't have taken this long to learn about it, nor would it have take autopsies, we'd have know in the 70s at the latest).

If my kid wants to play handegg, he's going to find a way, and no ammount of putting on kiddy gloves because of something that MIGHT happen is going to stop that. It's the ultimate act in futility, one that wastes my time and effort and breads resentment in my children towards me.

It isn't " only after autopsies" is the problem. Their lives are affected greatly prior to death. Why would you think " it can't be that bad"?! They used to treat most of the damage only psychologically rather than neurologically is the problem, not that it wasn't a severe issue. You should understand that modern medicine isn't really all that " modern". Usually we just treat symptoms rather than the cause. We have very limited tools and can only use what little we have to do the best we can. Hopefully one day we will look back on this time in medicine as being barbaric and ignorant and will have improved much by then.

It isn't that their injuries are not noteworthy, it is that most go untreated or undertreated regardless of the impact it has on their lives. Until one of them kills their family and themselves it often does not have attention brought to it. There is very little we can do to treat brain injuries. Even with severe stroke patients we feed them grapes and hope for the best for the most part. The human body is capable of repairing around the damaged area, however, whether or not it does repair and how much it does is on a case by case basis. Some never recover.

It is not a matter of putting on kiddie gloves, it is a matter of reason. We do not let out kids fight it out in the yard with metal pitchforks, nor would we let them knock each other senseless on a field. There are plenty other things they can do that are fun and challenging instead.

 

[Zontar]

It isn't " only after autopsies" is the problem. Their lives are affected greatly prior to death. Why would you think " it can't be that bad"?! They used to treat most of the damage only psychologically rather than neurologically is the problem, not that it wasn't a severe issue. You should understand that modern medicine isn't really all that " modern". Usually we just treat symptoms rather than the cause. We have very limited tools and can only use what little we have to do the best we can. Hopefully one day we will look back ion this time in medicine as being barbaric and ignorant and will have improved much by then.

It isn't that their injuries are not noteworthy, it is that most go untreated or undertreated regardless of the impact it has on their lives. Until one of them kills their family and themselves it often does not have attention brought to it. There is very little we can do to treat brain injuries. Even with severe stroke patients we feed them grapes and hope for the best for the most part. The human body is capable of repairing around the damaged area, however, whether or not it does repair and how much ti does is on a case by case basis. Some never recover.

Well then, it's a good thing that we are better now at identifying and treating problems then ever before, because if my kid wants to play a sport I'm not going to stop them, as would any good parent. Protecting your children from harm is important, but there is a line, and stopping them from playing the sports they want is very deep on the wrong side of it.

I can tell you this: even if somehow, in defiance of the odds you manage to prevent your kid from playing the sport, and from them doing something more risky then the sport itself, and prevent them from detesting you, they will in no way be grateful that you prevented them from playing something as a kid or a teen because of something that mostly happens in collage age players. If your kid wants to play a sport it's a catch 22 all things considered, and letting them play the sport they want is by far the optimal outcome.

 

[Padwolf]

I don't know what kind of show you guys have running over there, but in all the schools in england that have rugby clubs, the minors don't actually play rugby, it's more a slight tackling game they play rather than the full on beating eachother stuff. I have no problem letting my future kids play that if they wanted to, but given my family history they will probably end up playing football.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It isn't " only after autopsies" is the problem. Their lives are affected greatly prior to death. Why would you think " it can't be that bad"?! They used to treat most of the damage only psychologically rather than neurologically is the problem, not that it wasn't a severe issue. You should understand that modern medicine isn't really all that " modern". Usually we just treat symptoms rather than the cause. We have very limited tools and can only use what little we have to do the best we can. Hopefully one day we will look back ion this time in medicine as being barbaric and ignorant and will have improved much by then.

It isn't that their injuries are not noteworthy, it is that most go untreated or undertreated regardless of the impact it has on their lives. Until one of them kills their family and themselves it often does not have attention brought to it. There is very little we can do to treat brain injuries. Even with severe stroke patients we feed them grapes and hope for the best for the most part. The human body is capable of repairing around the damaged area, however, whether or not it does repair and how much ti does is on a case by case basis. Some never recover.

Well then, it's a good thing that we are better now at identifying and treating problems then ever before, because if my kid wants to play a sport I'm not going to stop them, as would any good parent. Protecting your children from harm is important, but there is a line, and stopping them from playing the sports they want is very deep on the wrong side of it.

I can tell you this: even if somehow, in defiance of the odds you manage to prevent your kid from playing the sport, and from them doing something more risky then the sport itself, and prevent them from detesting you, they will in no way be grateful that you prevented them from playing something as a kid or a teen because of something that mostly happens in collage age players. If your kid wants to play a sport it's a catch 22 all things considered, and letting them play the sport they want is by far the optimal outcome.

"very deep" on the wrong side of it? No what is very deep on the wrong side of it is what we can consider a harmless sport. At one time gladiator fights were considered sport. It is just a matter of society outgrowing their barbarianism. What is " very deeply" wrong would be to allow your child to engage in an activity knowing that by participating in that activity correctly can cause irreversible damage and even death. Before, we were ignorant of these things, now that we are not, there is no excuse.

I do not want to " prevent my kid" from playing this. Instead I want it to be banned as a " sport" as other past " sports" have been banned due to being too barbaric to be tolerated by society. Being ignorant of harm is one thing, knowing of harm and allowing it to continue is abuse and neglect.

It should fall to the past and be replaced, just as " modern sports" replaced the past " barbaric sports". We shall do so again as society outgrows it's past ignorance as well.

I think it would be more constructive to be thinking of the next cool sport to replace it with rather than trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[Zontar]

"very deep" on the wrong side of it? No what is very deep on the wrong side of it is what we can consider a harmless sport. At one time gladiator fights were considered sport. It is juts a matter of society outgrowing their barbarianism. What is " very deeply" wrong would be to allow your child to engage in an activity knowing that by participating in that activity correctly can cause irreversible damage and even death. Before, we were ignorant of these things, now that we are not, there is no excuse.

I do not want to " prevent my kid" from playing this. Instead I want it to be banned as a " sport" as other past " sports" have been banned due to being too barbaric to be tolerated by society. Being ignorant of harm is one thing, knowing of harm and allowing it to continue is abuse and neglect.

It should fall to the past and be replaced, just as " modern sports" replaced the past " barbaric sports". We shall do so again as society outgrows it's past ignorance as well.

You want to ban handegg as a sport? I'm sorry, but you want to ban handegg as a sport? That's not crossing the line into bad parenting, that's crossing the line into totalitarianism. You have literally no right to tell others they can't play a sport because they MIGHT (and in the case of children and teens playing non-collage handegg, it's a big MIGHT) because of the risk it poses to them. I know that in my handegg days I'd have decked someone for trying to take me away from the game for that reason. And most of society probably feels the same way given how many people watch and partake in the sport.

I shutter to think of a world where we are so risk averse that we would ban these sports, because that level of fear of risks would guarantee our extinction in the long run. There's no way we will become a stellar species with that type of risk aversion.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"very deep" on the wrong side of it? No what is very deep on the wrong side of it is what we can consider a harmless sport. At one time gladiator fights were considered sport. It is juts a matter of society outgrowing their barbarianism. What is " very deeply" wrong would be to allow your child to engage in an activity knowing that by participating in that activity correctly can cause irreversible damage and even death. Before, we were ignorant of these things, now that we are not, there is no excuse.

I do not want to " prevent my kid" from playing this. Instead I want it to be banned as a " sport" as other past " sports" have been banned due to being too barbaric to be tolerated by society. Being ignorant of harm is one thing, knowing of harm and allowing it to continue is abuse and neglect.

It should fall to the past and be replaced, just as " modern sports" replaced the past " barbaric sports". We shall do so again as society outgrows it's past ignorance as well.

You want to ban handegg as a sport? I'm sorry, but you want to ban handegg as a sport? That's not crossing the line into bad parenting, that's crossing the line into totalitarianism. You have literally no right to tell others they can't play a sport because they MIGHT (and in the case of children and teens playing non-collage handegg, it's a big MIGHT) because of the risk it poses to them. I know that in my handegg days I'd have decked someone for trying to take me away from the game for that reason. And most of society probably feels the same way given how many people watch and partake in the sport.

I shutter to think of a world where we are so risk averse that we would ban these sports, because that level of fear of risks would guarantee our extinction in the long run. There's no way we will become a stellar species with that type of risk aversion.

It is no more crossing the line than past sports being banned for being too dangerous. How would it be any different? a game < brain damage. I am sure many people threw fits when other sports were banned, but it was for the better of society long term. And no, we will not go extinct if we ban football. LMAO

Banning it for minors would be a start, for adults, every single player who is injured should sue the organization until it closes.
"stellar species?' what does football have to do with how stellar our species is? It just makes us look like idiots, not makes us " more stellar". XD

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Seeing as how my best friend played football from middle school to a single year in college, and seeing how quickly it's wrecked his body? And how much he says it wrecked his body? I'd be very reluctant to let my child play football.

I'd probably encourage something like basketball instead if my child really wanted to play a sport.

 

[ffronw]

It is no more crossing the line than past sports being banned for being too dangerous. How would it be any different? a game > brain damage. I am sure many people threw fits when other sports were banned, but it was for the better of society long term. And no, we will not go extinct if we ban football. LMAO

Banning it for minors would be a start, for adults, every single player who is injured should sue the organization until it closes.

This idea is kind of ridiculous. At this point, you can't possibly claim that anyone playing football is unaware of the risks. The media has been trumpeting these stories for the past few years without regard to whether it's as widespread as any of them say. The science on this isn't settled, no matter how much some people might want it to be. We don't know if the people suffering from these injuries were genetically predisposed to them. We don't know what behavior they engaged in off the field or prior to playing football. We have studies that can say that certain people who played have ended up TBIs. That's all. Remember, correlation is not causation.

Here's what's really going on. The media love to have a "scandal" to report on, so they've seized on this story to make it all about football. Why? Because football is popular. This fuels lawsuits, as we've seen. Those in turn fuel more stories, and the media makes money off all of it.

 

[Zontar]

It is no more crossing the line than past sports being banned for being too dangerous. How would it be any different? a game < brain damage. I am sure many people threw fits when other sports were banned, but it was for the better of society long term. And no, we will not go extinct if we ban football. LMAO

That's a pretty dame slippery slop you've got there, since it can be used to justify banning literally anything one thinks should be removed from society. I mean god, better for society in the long term? No, it'll only brad resentment in a generation of children who will grow up believing that they where being denied the right to play a game they want to because of the spinelessness of their parents (which would be a correct assessment) and reverse the ban the moment they gain the ability to do so. I mean for the love of god, where does one stop using the "it's for their own good because of the risks" logic? Curling, basketball, ping-pong, ballet, hockey, lacrosse, golf, and literally everything else will (not might) get the same treatment of being banned for minors and eventually removed if no one opposes the flawed logic behind why it should be banned in the first place.

Banning it for minors would be a start, for adults, every single player who is injured should sue the organization until it closes.
"stellar species?' what does football have to do with how stellar our species is? It just makes us look like idiots, not makes us " more stellar". XD

What it has to do is that the level of risk aversion we as a species would need to ban sports like rugby and handegg would require us to have the bar set so low for what risks are deemed worth taking, that we would be stuck on Earth because we would never leave, and when the next excitation event happens we would go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It is no more crossing the line than past sports being banned for being too dangerous. How would it be any different? a game > brain damage. I am sure many people threw fits when other sports were banned, but it was for the better of society long term. And no, we will not go extinct if we ban football. LMAO

Banning it for minors would be a start, for adults, every single player who is injured should sue the organization until it closes.

This idea is kind of ridiculous. At this point, you can't possibly claim that anyone playing football is unaware of the risks. The media has been trumpeting these stories for the past few years without regard to whether it's as widespread as any of them say. The science on this isn't settled, no matter how much some people might want it to be. We don't know if the people suffering from these injuries were genetically predisposed to them. We don't know what behavior they engaged in off the field or prior to playing football. We have studies that can say that certain people who played have ended up TBIs. That's all. Remember, correlation is not causation.

Here's what's really going on. The media love to have a "scandal" to report on, so they've seized on this story to make it all about football. Why? Because football is popular. This fuels lawsuits, as we've seen. Those in turn fuel more stories, and the media makes money off all of it.

I do not get my information from the "media". I read medical journals and it is my job to deal with injured children, that is what I do for a living, so of course I am biased in regards to putting their health first.

"you cannot possible claim that anyone playing football is unaware of the risks."

is EXACTLY the point I am making. Children cannot make these decisions for themselves and rely on their parents to keep them safe. If their parents choose to make poor choices and put their child in danger, it is their child, who is not legally capable of consent that pays the consequences for the rest of their life. We should not force children pay for adults mistakes. We need to remove American football as an option for minors until they are of age of consent to make the decision to risk their brain for themselves. They need to be able to make an informed decision once they are of age of consent, not before then.

 

[Fox12]

"very deep" on the wrong side of it? No what is very deep on the wrong side of it is what we can consider a harmless sport. At one time gladiator fights were considered sport. It is juts a matter of society outgrowing their barbarianism. What is " very deeply" wrong would be to allow your child to engage in an activity knowing that by participating in that activity correctly can cause irreversible damage and even death. Before, we were ignorant of these things, now that we are not, there is no excuse.

I do not want to " prevent my kid" from playing this. Instead I want it to be banned as a " sport" as other past " sports" have been banned due to being too barbaric to be tolerated by society. Being ignorant of harm is one thing, knowing of harm and allowing it to continue is abuse and neglect.

It should fall to the past and be replaced, just as " modern sports" replaced the past " barbaric sports". We shall do so again as society outgrows it's past ignorance as well.

You want to ban handegg as a sport? I'm sorry, but you want to ban handegg as a sport? That's not crossing the line into bad parenting, that's crossing the line into totalitarianism. You have literally no right to tell others they can't play a sport because they MIGHT (and in the case of children and teens playing non-collage handegg, it's a big MIGHT) because of the risk it poses to them. I know that in my handegg days I'd have decked someone for trying to take me away from the game for that reason. And most of society probably feels the same way given how many people watch and partake in the sport.

I shutter to think of a world where we are so risk averse that we would ban these sports, because that level of fear of risks would guarantee our extinction in the long run. There's no way we will become a stellar species with that type of risk aversion.

It is no more crossing the line than past sports being banned for being too dangerous. How would it be any different? a game > brain damage.

I don't think the sport should be banned. Some people are passionate about this. For some people, it's all that want to do. It's their dream. For others it's an opportunity to go to college, or get a grant. I don't think I have the right to tell others how to live. Sports can be dangerous, it's just part of the experience.

What we should is two fold. First of all, spread awareness, and let people make their own decisions. The second, an arguably more important thing, is make sports programs financially responsible for the health of their athletes. If an athlete experiences major health problems many years down the line as a result of sports, there should be medical coverage provided by the sports company. Both on college and proffesional sports. I can promise you, some major changes will take place then. Athletes won't be disposable anymore.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It is no more crossing the line than past sports being banned for being too dangerous. How would it be any different? a game < brain damage. I am sure many people threw fits when other sports were banned, but it was for the better of society long term. And no, we will not go extinct if we ban football. LMAO

That's a pretty dame slippery slop you've got there, since it can be used to justify banning literally anything one thinks should be removed from society. I mean god, better for society in the long term? No, it'll only brad resentment in a generation of children who will grow up believing that they where being denied the right to play a game they want to because of the spinelessness of their parents (which would be a correct assessment) and reverse the ban the moment they gain the ability to do so. I mean for the love of god, where does one stop using the "it's for their own good because of the risks" logic? Curling, basketball, ping-pong, ballet, hockey, lacrosse, golf, and literally everything else will (not might) get the same treatment of being banned for minors and eventually removed if no one opposes the flawed logic behind why it should be banned in the first place.

Banning it for minors would be a start, for adults, every single player who is injured should sue the organization until it closes.
"stellar species?' what does football have to do with how stellar our species is? It just makes us look like idiots, not makes us " more stellar". XD

What it has to do is that the level of risk aversion we as a species would need to ban sports like rugby and handegg would require us to have the bar set so low for what risks are deemed worth taking, that we would be stuck on Earth because we would never leave, and when the next excitation event happens we would go the way of the dinosaurs.

Sure some people were probably mad when cock fighting was banned, but you know most of society got over it.. They banned merry go rounds too, and damn it I loved those things, that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to ban it, they were right, even if I did like to play with them. These things happen, it doesn't set us back as a society, it allows for more to increase their chance of succeeding in society. If the results are less kids with brain damage, we will have more kids maturing that can help design the rockets needed to get us off the planet in the first place.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"very deep" on the wrong side of it? No what is very deep on the wrong side of it is what we can consider a harmless sport. At one time gladiator fights were considered sport. It is juts a matter of society outgrowing their barbarianism. What is " very deeply" wrong would be to allow your child to engage in an activity knowing that by participating in that activity correctly can cause irreversible damage and even death. Before, we were ignorant of these things, now that we are not, there is no excuse.

I do not want to " prevent my kid" from playing this. Instead I want it to be banned as a " sport" as other past " sports" have been banned due to being too barbaric to be tolerated by society. Being ignorant of harm is one thing, knowing of harm and allowing it to continue is abuse and neglect.

It should fall to the past and be replaced, just as " modern sports" replaced the past " barbaric sports". We shall do so again as society outgrows it's past ignorance as well.

You want to ban handegg as a sport? I'm sorry, but you want to ban handegg as a sport? That's not crossing the line into bad parenting, that's crossing the line into totalitarianism. You have literally no right to tell others they can't play a sport because they MIGHT (and in the case of children and teens playing non-collage handegg, it's a big MIGHT) because of the risk it poses to them. I know that in my handegg days I'd have decked someone for trying to take me away from the game for that reason. And most of society probably feels the same way given how many people watch and partake in the sport.

I shutter to think of a world where we are so risk averse that we would ban these sports, because that level of fear of risks would guarantee our extinction in the long run. There's no way we will become a stellar species with that type of risk aversion.

It is no more crossing the line than past sports being banned for being too dangerous. How would it be any different? a game > brain damage.

I don't think the sport should be banned. Some people are passionate about this. For some people, it's all that want to do. It's their dream. For others it's an opportunity to go to college, or get a grant. I don't think I have the right to tell others how to live. Sports can be dangerous, it's just part of the experience.

What we should is two fold. First of all, spread awareness, and let people make their own decisions. The second, an arguably more important thing, is make sports programs financially responsible for the health of their athletes. If an athlete experiences major health problems many years down the line as a result of sports, there should be medical coverage provided by the sports company. Both on college and proffesional sports. I can promise you, some major changes will take place then. Athletes won't be disposable anymore.

Children cannot make their own decisions. That is why it should not be a sport for children given the risks involved. What I am suggesting is we ban it for minors, as they cannot legally consent and hold adult organizations financially liable for their athletes injuries.

 

[Zontar]

Sure some people were probably mad when cock fighting was banned, but you know most of society got over it.. They banned merry go rounds too, and damn it I loved those things, that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to ban it, they were right, even if I did like to play with them. These things happen, it doesn't set us back as a society, it allows for more to increase their chance of succeeding in society. If the results are less kids with brain damage, we will have more kids maturing that can help design the rockets needed to get us off the planet in the first place.

See here's the thing, cock fighting is in no way comparable because 1) it's pitting two animals to fight each other, and 2) it's not something society ever accepted.

And I'm sorry, did you just say the banning of merry go rounds (something I have no idea where it happened) was not a bad idea? Because that sounds like a pretty dame bad idea to me. These things don't just "happen", it takes regressives wanting to have something they don't like for whatever reason removed gaining enough power to do so, and yes, it DOES set back society because you're literally saying to the rest of society that you know better then they do, and trying to pass laws based on this false assumption. It doesn't help anyone succeed in society to tell them that something they WANT to excel at is something they can't do because someone they've never met thinks they know better then them, on the contrary it only makes one wonder why they should try given how if something they wanted to do well at is banned, what is there a drive for?

And your last sentence is wrong, not because of the "sop marginal it's statistically nothing" margin of children reaching maturity who wouldn't (and if male suicide rates are anything to go by, the idea that those reaching maturity will go up is so debatable it can't be stated as factual) but also because the risks of getting into space at all on a level that would allow our long term survival would be one we as a society would need to reject to even think that banning a few sports is a good idea.

 

[J Tyran]

If my kid wanted to play it I would let him, I intend to try and get him into cricket and even that can be deadly as two recent tragedies in the sport proved (people getting by the ball). Sports often involve running, jumping, jumping onto or off things, body contact with other other players and things like that. There are fast moving objects hurled or whacked about, things to drown in or fall off.

All of those carry a degree of risk, you cannot protect your kids from everything keep them in and in most cases the benefits of sports outweigh the potential risks (in terms of physical, mental and kill development). As long as the school or sports club is responsible of course, all the right safety equipment and so on.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Sure some people were probably mad when cock fighting was banned, but you know most of society got over it.. They banned merry go rounds too, and damn it I loved those things, that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to ban it, they were right, even if I did like to play with them. These things happen, it doesn't set us back as a society, it allows for more to increase their chance of succeeding in society. If the results are less kids with brain damage, we will have more kids maturing that can help design the rockets needed to get us off the planet in the first place.

See here's the thing, cock fighting is in no way comparable because 1) it's pitting two animals to fight each other, and 2) it's not something society ever accepted.

And I'm sorry, did you just say the banning of merry go rounds (something I have no idea where it happened) was not a bad idea? Because that sounds like a pretty dame bad idea to me. These things don't just "happen", it takes regressives wanting to have something they don't like for whatever reason removed gaining enough power to do so, and yes, it DOES set back society because you're literally saying to the rest of society that you know better then they do, and trying to pass laws based on this false assumption. It doesn't help anyone succeed in society to tell them that something they WANT to excel at is something they can't do because someone they've never met thinks they know better then them, on the contrary it only makes one wonder why they should try given how if something they wanted to do well at is banned, what is there a drive for?

And your last sentence is wrong, not because of the "sop marginal it's statistically nothing" margin of children reaching maturity who wouldn't (and if male suicide rates are anything to go by, the idea that those reaching maturity will go up is so debatable it can't be stated as factual) but also because the risks of getting into space at all on a level that would allow our long term survival would be one we as a society would need to reject to even think that banning a few sports is a good idea.

I agree, cock fighting isn't comparable, ( was just on my mind after reading about some guys being arrested for it earlier they still do it even with it illegal, and yes it was accepted by parts of society and still is)


I was referring to this in regards to merry go rounds:
https://hifsaarshad.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/playground-merry-go-round-goes-extinct/

They have been removing the merry go rounds from playgrounds due to injuries and deaths.

I was referring to more children reaching maturity with fewer brain injuries, not just " reaching maturity". We want their brain in tact when they get there. Children cannot legally consent for good reason, their brains are not developed enough to consent, so why would we think they would be developed enough to consent to injuring them?

 

[Zontar]

I agree, cock fighting isn't comparable, ( was just on my mind after reading about some guys being arrested for it earlier they still do it even with it illegal, and yes it was accepted by parts of society and still is)


I was referring to this in regards to merry go rounds:
https://hifsaarshad.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/playground-merry-go-round-goes-extinct/

They have been removing the merry go rounds from playgrounds due to injuries and deaths.

Oh those things, I was wondering since the school near my place still has the classic merry go round. I don't think the new model is used because it's safer (I sure as hell know the ones I've seen are no safer given how often I've seen kids fall off), just that it's different and they need some excuse for the change.

I was referring to more children reaching maturity with fewer brain injuries, not just " reaching maturity". We want their brain in tact when they get there. Children cannot legally consent for good reason, their brains are niot developed enough to consent, so why would we think they would be developed enough to consent to injuring them?

When it comes to what kids what to do for playing, they know what they want. It doesn't take a 25 year old fully developed mind to figure out "hey, I want to throw this ball". Having this issue put on par with consent is a massive false equivalence in terms of the complexities of the issues at hand.