Studies show brain damage after 1 season highschool football

[TheFeniX]

FeniX - To SCRawl's point, why don't you come up with some definition of "unacceptable risk" and then we can continue arguing from there. At this point in time you're all over the fucking place and I don't feel like chasing you down until you decide to come up with a consistent argument about what sports are bannable and which are not, and your original argument was pretty much "football players suck," so there's really no point in continuing.

You lying motherfucker. I pointed out that a particular group of football players were dicks, and I was backed up by some friends who were also football players. As part of that, which you ignored, is that the sport is causing brain damage to it's players. And the mentality is push push PUSH which makes it even worse. And I find it hilarious yet not surprising, the guy stating unprotected and anal sex are in of themselves somehow dangerous when they are most definitely not is claiming I'm "all over the place."

You talk about banning, which I never brought up. Here's my break: if the mere act of something is causing permanent brain damage, you probably need to reevaluate your obsession with it. If the mentality that pervades the sport is helping to push kids along this path: changes need to be made. I live in Texas. You brought up Varsity Blues. Even the guys I hung out with who were on the football team used to joke about how it's not a comedy, but a documentary. 3 of those guys on the varsity team were also in our PnP RPG group. Derrek more for Shadowrun because, as a redneck, he loved gunporn. Thank God they weren't anything like you.

But you're right, all that is aneqdotes. The real evidence is the shit you've been ignoring so you can focus on your "LOL LOSERS" bullshit. Why don't you offer something on why Football is a sport worth wasting billions of dollars on rather than "lol fun" and just to stick it to us pathetic nerds who hate you all?

Much like Fenix, you can't seem to figure out if you're going to try to claim your only issue is "concern" for the players, or if you're going to cop to your own angst.

The whole "angst" part is you being a shitfuck who makes baseless value judgements about people you do not know. Not that your opinion means shit to me, but I happened to actually (GASP) be fairly popular in high school among a wide range of groups. This may have been, because unlike you, I wasn't a judgmental asshole that made it a point to immediately stereotype everyone then claim everyone else is stereotyping so it's ok because... reasons.

But let's say you actually were right, and I was a sad sack so assblasted about my high school years I despised any football player. That would do jack. fucking. shit. to disprove the other points of my argument, of which Alyerium has done a much better job expanding on. Claiming that bias against a group of people somehow invalidates your argument makes you sound like a crybaby.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh, the initial argument was not "football players suck;" it was "football players should not be forced to suffer unnecessary injuries that can damage their brains just because they're teenagers caught up in a macho culture by older men trying to live out vicarious fantasies of their own glory days."

Don't be disingenuous. The initial argument was

Maybe that explains why so many football players are jerks.

The article simply said that head impacts cause brain damage. The first person who said anything remotely like what you're claiming was the "initial argument" was Broomstick right before you commented.

Dragon made a one-line wisecrack. You may not know it but this is typical; he posts a lot of interesting articles but has little or nothing to say about them in many cases. If you have a problem with what he personally said, take it up with him.

The others were talking about legal liability for the brain damage, which is hardly equivalent to "football players suck." Saying that football teams may get sued for bashing their players' brains out isn't "football players suck." Saying that the schools may refuse to cut football even if liability goes up, because they routinely keep football even while basic academics suffer, is not saying "football players suck" although it might be saying "football coaches suck" or something.

So basically all the original arguments of any substance (excepting Dragon's random crack at football players) were talking about the medical or legal consequences of the fact that football is causing brain damage to the players even at an adolescent level. They were either sympathetic to football players (and it is this one that grew to dominate the narrative as we moved on), or they are neutral.

So to call us a bunch of embittered nerds who just want to ban fun is... kinda out of line with the argument.

In addition, there are Alyrium's points to be considered- that someone may dislike the conduct of the average (or even just the worse-than-average) football player, and still care about the welfare of children. Alyrium has reasons for not approving of badly behaving football players, like the desire to avoid being killed in a drunk driving accident. That doesn't mean he can't say, in all honesty, "it is bad to do things that damage the brains of teenagers."

[Thanas]

After careful deliberation, I have decided to issue a warning to Frank the Tank for several ad hominems and general bad form of debating in this thread.