Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unbelievable poll. As in I can't believe people literally do think this way.
I've decided I don't like chocolate. It is addictive, and simply makes people obese; it serves no other purpose.
There is NO QUESTION we should put the KIBOSH on chocolate. Of course, this is in keeping with the fact that government regulations can regulate our society into Utopia, without question. In fact, the more regulation the better.
I will be sure to break the poll into liberal, conservative, and independent choices, for some reason. Oh, I'll also be sure to word the choices "No, leave chocolate alone and allow thousands to continue to die of obesity every year".
I expected responses like this. It is basically the 'false dilemma' fallacy. We could regulate both chocolate and the NFL. Or one but not the other. Or neither. There is no logical reason why we couldn't regulate the NFL, but not chocolate. I would actually favor regulating both. As you point out, hundreds of thousands of Americans do die from obesity each year.
I am surprised this question is even necessary. Have you heard of Junior Seau, Dave Duerson, and Aaron Hernandez? Here are some others. Plus there are those like Warren Sapp, who has memory issues to the point where he can't get through his day without a phone app to help him remember things.
I am surprised this question is even necessary. Have you heard of Junior Seau, Dave Duerson, and Aaron Hernandez? Here are some others. Plus there are those like Warren Sapp, who has memory issues to the point where he can't get through his day without a phone app to help him remember things.
There are no laws I am aware of that prohibit the NFL from either broadcasting or playing outside if the States. I remember watching NFL on TV when we only had 2 channels on TV.
Why not ask if Walmart should be allowed to expand in Europe or CNN being watched outside of America? And bans would be in those other countries.
I prefer CFL to the NFL but unfortunately it's expansion into the States failed. Baltimore won one Grey Cup but never really had a real name most of the time. Grey Cup tommorrow playing in Edmonton and it might be warm, above freezing. ☺
I expected this question too. In the 1990's President Clinton put very onerous restrictions on tobacco advertising. Before that, companies routinely handed out free stuff (hats, shirts etc) with their brand-names plastered on them. Clinton banned that. Joe Camel was banned as appealing to minors.
At the time, many protested that this was a first amendment violation, but evidently it has been upheld by the courts. We could do the exact same thing regarding the NFL, and in particular the efforts to boost its popularity overseas.
And again, soccer has a higher rate and total incidence of brain injury than American football.
Such a f***ing busybody. Do you ever get tired of trying to find new things to control and more lives t run as you see fit?
As I understand it, most of the trauma in soccer is due to 'heading.' (propelling the ball by hitting it with the head instead of kicking it). Soccer rules could and should be easily changed to eliminate 'heading.' Again, this is a 'false dilemma' fallacy.
As I understand it, most of the trauma in soccer is due to 'heading.' (propelling the ball by hitting it with the head instead of kicking it). Soccer rules could and should be easily changed to eliminate 'heading.' Again, this is a 'false dilemma' fallacy.
No, you moved the goalposts.
You said we should not export NFL football because we'd be exporting something that cases head injuries. And my point is that we'd be exporting a sport that has less head injuries than the sport already more popular than our version of football, thus exporting a safer alternative to what the soccer fan already enjoys.
Now your goalpost is we should eliminate all things that have a risk of causing head injury, period?
Is that the new endpoint for today's busybody musings?
You said we should not export NFL football because we'd be exporting something that cases head injuries. And my point is that we'd be exporting a sport that has less head injuries than the sport already more popular than our version of football, thus exporting a safer alternative to what the soccer fan already enjoys.
Now your goalpost is we should eliminate all things that have a risk of causing head injury, period?
Is that the new endpoint for today's busybody musings?
I would completely ban the NFL if I could, but as I said in #1, it is too entrenched, like booze and cigarettes. But it is not yet entrenched overseas, which is why I think we have a shot to restrict the export.
Soccer is entrenched around the world. If it could be made safer by banning the 'headers,' why not do that?
Voting is quite a disappointment. Thus far only 8 (including me) vote yes, 16 vote no. That is a 2-1 margin. I guess most people don't care about the health, safety, and wellness of folks overseas.
Voting is quite a disappointment. Thus far only 8 (including me) vote yes, 16 vote no. That is a 2-1 margin. I guess most people don't care about the health, safety, and wellness of folks overseas.
I have absolutely zero care about people who engage voluntarily in a sport with known risks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
