Mr. WEO Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I think the case could be made that letting pre-teens get hit in the head over and over again is negligent. We've known that getting hit in the head is bad for a very very long time. How, specifically, would you make that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I think the case could be made that letting pre-teens get hit in the head over and over again is negligent. We've known that getting hit in the head is bad for a very very long time. Yeah, "we" have. Someone should file a negligence lawsuit against the parents for willfully forcing their child to put himself in that kind of harms way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Billieve Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yeah, "we" have. Someone should file a negligence lawsuit against the parents for willfully forcing their child to put himself in that kind of harms way. I'm not saying I disagree. I just don't find arguments like "we didn't know hitting you in the head over and over would do any harm" credible. I think that the parents knowledge of potential harm is a much better argument. How, specifically, would you make that case? I think I just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I'm not saying I disagree. I just don't find arguments like "we didn't know hitting you in the head over and over would do any harm" credible. I think that the parents knowledge of potential harm is a much better argument. I think I just did. So you would argue that youth tackle football that is allowed to be played by any entity or individual is by definition a willfully negligent act? Because "hitting you in the head over and over" (not exactly an accurate descriptor of football) is known to be universally detrimental to a kid's health? Not very convincing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Billieve Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 So you would argue that youth tackle football that is allowed to be played by any entity or individual is by definition a willfully negligent act? Because "hitting you in the head over and over" (not exactly an accurate descriptor of football) is known to be universally detrimental to a kid's health? Not very convincing.. No. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say that an entity has no knowledge of potential head trauma in football. The particulars of that knowledge and what actions, disclosures etc were undertaken as a result are details I'm not privy to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 So you would argue that youth tackle football that is allowed to be played by any entity or individual is by definition a willfully negligent act? Because "hitting you in the head over and over" (not exactly an accurate descriptor of football) is known to be universally detrimental to a kid's health? Not very convincing.. "Hitting you in the head over and over" isn't an accurate descriptor of what causes CTE, either. People always conveniently forget that part - it's the cumulation of the more frequent sub-concussive impacts that is damaging in the long-term. So Steve, you'd have to demonstrate that Pop Warner knew that not getting hit in the head caused brain damage, not that "getting hit in the head is bad." No. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say that an entity has no knowledge of potential head trauma in football. The particulars of that knowledge and what actions, disclosures etc were undertaken as a result are details I'm not privy to. "This is a ridiculous claim, even though I have no knowledge about it." Well, that's a winning debate strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 "This is a ridiculous claim, even though I have no knowledge about it." Well, that's a winning debate strategy. If it's good enough for presidential debates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Billieve Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 "Hitting you in the head over and over" isn't an accurate descriptor of what causes CTE, either. People always conveniently forget that part - it's the cumulation of the more frequent sub-concussive impacts that is damaging in the long-term. So Steve, you'd have to demonstrate that Pop Warner knew that not getting hit in the head caused brain damage, not that "getting hit in the head is bad." "This is a ridiculous claim, even though I have no knowledge about it." Well, that's a winning debate strategy. I don't know the particulars about the case, neither does anyone else on this board. The idea that you couldn't know about head trauma resulting from being hit in the head bc the science wasn't in yet has nothing to do with the particulars of this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 i'll pay attention to this when CTE is definitively linked to football and head trauma. Shipbuilders and construction companies didn't know that asbestos was as nasty as it is at the time, nor were they able to project the impact of exposure to it. well, after reading above... the fact is 100% that those things caused the cancer... so there is that... I'm not saying I disagree. I just don't find arguments like "we didn't know hitting you in the head over and over would do any harm" credible. I think that the parents knowledge of potential harm is a much better argument. I think I just did. so the fact that we still do not know for sure, scientifically, that hitting the head against something causing CTE is already not credible ... so there goes your argument. I don't know the particulars about the case, neither does anyone else on this board. The idea that you couldn't know about head trauma resulting from being hit in the head bc the science wasn't in yet has nothing to do with the particulars of this case. the science is in now, and of all people to debate on this board about brain activity - i would not debate Tom there. but the current science has not revealed conclusive evidence of what causes CTE. in fact, scientifically, therefore factually, it is quite a leap from CTE to football/head trauma at this juncture. that is relatively compared to other cases of negligence. mesothelioma is my favorite. it is 100% fact that the tiny threads of the would scratch, cut and destroy the cells of the lungs and cause scaring, for a simple explanation. it was not known at the time, and personally i disagree that there should have been such a large settlement for it. smoking is my least favorite. forget the chemicals and all other little bits of what you inhale and just think youre inhaling smoke from burning anything. breathing in enough smoke from homeopathic all organic humus would kill you after a while. ...i could go on and on, popcorn lung is my favorite right now because of the whole vapor ecigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Billieve Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 i'll pay attention to this when CTE is definitively linked to football and head trauma. well, after reading above... the fact is 100% that those things caused the cancer... so there is that... so the fact that we still do not know for sure, scientifically, that hitting the head against something causing CTE is already not credible ... so there goes your argument. the science is in now, and of all people to debate on this board about brain activity - i would not debate Tom there. but the current science has not revealed conclusive evidence of what causes CTE. in fact, scientifically, therefore factually, it is quite a leap from CTE to football/head trauma at this juncture. that is relatively compared to other cases of negligence. mesothelioma is my favorite. it is 100% fact that the tiny threads of the would scratch, cut and destroy the cells of the lungs and cause scaring, for a simple explanation. it was not known at the time, and personally i disagree that there should have been such a large settlement for it. smoking is my least favorite. forget the chemicals and all other little bits of what you inhale and just think youre inhaling smoke from burning anything. breathing in enough smoke from homeopathic all organic humus would kill you after a while. ...i could go on and on, popcorn lung is my favorite right now because of the whole vapor ecigs. My opinion is that you don't need scientific evidence to be reasonably certain that blows to the head can cause harm. So where the science is at, now or then, doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 My opinion is that you don't need scientific evidence to be reasonably certain that blows to the head can cause harm. So where the science is at, now or then, doesn't really matter. That's why they wear helmets. And everyone was reasonably certain that harm from blows to the head were mitigated by helmets. As well as being reasonably certain that long-term brain trauma wasn't caused by non-concussive blows not to the head. So that's two "reasonable certainties" that were proven false by science. But hey, I'm sure you're "reasonable certainty" is enough to completely ignore scientific evidence or lack thereof. Maybe you should elevate your game, and try for "consensus" now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 My opinion is that you don't need scientific evidence to be reasonably certain that blows to the head can cause harm. So where the science is at, now or then, doesn't really matter. the world being round is only reasonably certain in my opinion. but the fact that jet fuel can't melt steel beams is scientific fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted March 12, 2016 Author Share Posted March 12, 2016 I'm just not sure where the sport can go from here nor all the other contact sports (even including soccer)nowhere concussions happen. Perhaps we are all destined to be avatars in a virtual game with no exposure to any contact whatsoever Wait to video games are proven to cause damage and lawsuits start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts