Ruin Your Own F*cking Thread You Bastards

[storymilo]

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Vegangelica's Rules For The Future World:

• Competitive sports with more violence than golf or table tennis are not allowed. This means Football (US), Football, Hockey, Basketball, Baseball, and any other sport that involves people running at high speeds. Modifications to these sports are allowed, as such:

1. US Football must be flag football. No running is allowed, as to avoid potentially running into someone, or stepping on someone's toe.
2. Football can remain mostly the same, except no running is allowed, nor any type of tackle.
3. Hockey must be done in a sand-pit. If the logistics of this cannot be worked out, then you don't want to play Hockey bad enough.
4. Basketball will not allow running, and the goals will be shortened to the height of the smallest man on the team. Not only does this promote equality, but prevents someone who may be dunking from falling a great distance to the floor. If you have seen a black man jump, you will know this is necessary.
5. Baseball will swap to a Nerf ball and bat, made of foam. And no running.
6. All other sports will strictly observe the above rules that apply. Also, in addition to these rules, there will be a general rule that, through the use of a special referee, will ensure that each team wins equal amounts of points and that everyone goes home a winner.

• Meat will absolutely not be eaten, at any time, by any one. Government will replace meat-worker jobs and meat farming positions with the governmental position known as Animal Police Task Force. These people will be financially aided by the government, and their sole function will be to interfere with any animal that attempts to eat another animal. Since animals cannot use morality for their choice of diet, humans will provide that service by proxy. If, in time, the animal kingdom overpopulates, humans shall be rocketed off to an unknown direction in space to make room for the animals here on earth.
• All members of society in every culture will be made to look identical where possible, as to discourage societal influencing factors based on attraction, preference and bias. A natural state will be de jure, which means, by law, all bodily hair or otherwise will be unobstructed from natural growth, and body shape must be genetically determined and not manipulated by the lifting of weights or dieting.
• Movies will not be allowed to make anything they depict appear different than they actually are. All filming techniques other than point-and-shoot, with home video cameras, are illegal.
• Free expression will be limited to only the expression that does not influence someone else.

Finally, all men and women are to be equal in every regard. Men shall be ordered by law to pee sitting down, like women. Technology will be focused on enabling men to have all the biological parts necessary for carrying, and giving birth. By law, every other household will enforce this technology on the male, while the female will be required to get a job at a factory that has no air conditioning.

The above are a small portion of the changes that will be made to your lives. No longer will there be a society that charts its own course. The course of society will be charted for you, and static in all regards. There will be no future apart from maintaining the present. Deviation from this will result in strict, harsh punishment.

May we all live unhappily equal lives.

That's actually kind of similar to the end of the Sirens of Titan.

[VEGANGELICA]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I'm being dismissive?

I'm not saying that I think what you said had no validity, of course contact sports are dangerous, I've played them I know the risks, hell , i've been on the wrong size of the risks several times. If anything having played the sport I would say that I'm in more of a position to know the risks and make a more informed choice than you are.

I just think you are the one being far too dismissive of things. People CHOOSE to play these sports knowing the risks, people enjoy watching these sports knowing the risks.

Thank you for acknowledging that there is some validity to what I've said.

I do feel you are being somewhat dismissive of the injuries players sustain and of the value of rules imposed to reduce their likelihood, but mostly I feel you are dismissing...or at least missing...my main complaint about football that I've made in this thread: the NFL leadership and football in general have for years largely ignored the harm caused by concussions, and have put players under unnecessary risk.

For example, everything I've read says that players, until recently, have *not* been informed properly of the risks they face at their job, which means they were not choosing to play “knowing the risks,” as you say.

I found a good article that summarizes quite well many of my views on the NFL’s mishandling of injuries. The article quotes Hall of Famer Jim Brown:

Jim Brown: NFL Must Do More to Protect Players Jim Brown: NFL Must Do More to Protect Players
September 17, 2010

Jim Brown isn’t surprised by the rise in diagnosed concussions among NFL players and says the league and the union need to do more to protect those players. Speaking at the Santa Clara Sports Law Symposium on Thursday, the 74-year-old Hall of Famer bemoaned what he says has been the NFL’s historical denial of injuries at the cost of winning.

Brown, a longtime activist and proponent for change in the health care of current and former NFL players, thinks the concussions are symptoms of a larger issue.

“Concussion have brought the consciousness to the problem but I think the problem is football-related injuries period and the lack of support from the league of those players who have suffered those injuries,” Brown said. “The denial factor has been unbelievable. I’m here because I’m a fighter to try to bring attention to this fact.”

Specifically, Brown blasted the NFL for often turning a blind eye to head injuries suffered by players. The league, he says, promotes hard hits but doesn’t do enough to deal with the ramifications.

“All the denial that’s taken place over the years to keep the league from having to pay money or the players association taking advantage of their players and not representing them properly, all those things have gone on. Only now years later here we are saying concussions. People have been getting knocked out for years and going back in the game unsupervised.”

Historically, Brown says, the NFL has looked the other way when players suffer concussions in order to keep the player on the field despite the increased risk of injury.

Now, on to the issue of violence and whether certain hits should be designated as illegal in contact sports:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Can't a fully grown adult make a choice about wanting to do something that could possibly be dangerous? And what's wrong with a bit of danger anyway? I don't want to live to age 130 spending my whole life wrapped in cotton wool having not done anything in it.

Yes, I agree with you that a fully grown adult should be able to make a choice about wanting to do something that could possibly be dangerous. However, I do want the choice to be an *informed* choice. And I don’t support or encourage people to make dangerous choices because I feel doing so trivializes the importance of their health and their lives.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of danger...as long as you don't get hurt! I wouldn't want you living to the age of 130 with your brain turned INTO a cotton ball due to injuries you might sustain while playing a game. I would want your brain...and all your other body parts...to remain intact.

I assume when you played rugby you followed some rules, such as don't hit people's heads and don't hit people who aren't carrying the ball. (See? I've been reading up! Rugby Safety Rules | LIVESTRONG.COM). So why would you oppose American football safety rules, such as the rule against helmet-to-helmet hits?

And if someone feels he needs to bash another man's head in order to have a fulfilling, exciting life, shouldn't he rethink his priorities? I think so.

Originally Posted by Dirty

The NFL League officials have fought efforts to make the sport safer for the players...because, of course, that would cut into how much money team owners, etc., can make. Such a noble game! (Yes, I am mocking the NFL League leadership for having refused for so long to make the game safer for players.)
This is what you originally said. When I read that, I don't see any implications or talk about the work the NFL HAS been doing to try and limit injuries and keep the game as safe as possible.

Dirty, when I wrote that I mock the NFL League leadership for having refused “for so long” to make the game safer for players, this wording - “refused FOR SO LONG” - implies that the NFL is *now* trying to make the game still safer for players.

However, my post was focusing on the ways the NFL *has let players down for years* by not protecting them sufficiently from avoidable injuries. I was not focusing on the ways the NFL is now trying to deal with the concussion problem more aggressively after having been humiliated into doing so by the U.S. Congress.

Originally Posted by Dirty

What you said doesn't even make sense at times.. "because, of course, that would cut into how much money team owners, etc., can make. Such a noble game!" And how exactly does ignoring safety measures cost owners money? What, you think fans are gonna stop coming to the game because of less big hits? Fans are WAY more likely to stop coming to games because a player is injured and out for the season.

NOBODY, whether on this forum or anywhere, is arguing that maiming should be a part of the NFL. Players have been getting fined for YEARS for unnecessary hits.

What I said makes perfect sense, Dirty: the NFL leadership has not wanted to limit and penalize dangerous hits as much as they could (which would help prevent injuries) because doing so would reduce the wild, violent action that draws fans and makes American football so lucrative for those in the business.

The NFL is only *now* during *this very week* imposing much larger fines on players who make questionable hits, which shows that the NFL was *not* imposing large fines for helmet-to-helmet hits previously.

For proof that the NFL makes decisions to ignore safety issues for the sake of money, note what Dolphins linebacker Channing Crowder said this week about the new NFL crackdown on dangerous hits: "Offensive players can take shots at defensive players, some of them illegal, but the league doesn't protect those on his side of the ball. The NFL would rather, Crowder said, come down on defensive players and make life easier for those they perceive as the ticket sellers. 'They'll probably give us flags in a couple of years.' " Some Miami Dolphins players disagree with tougher penalties - Miami Dolphins - MiamiHerald.com

Channing's quote shows that the NFL is motivated by ticket sales and so is less likely to prevent dangerous hits, even illegal ones, made by offensive players.

You asked, “Do you think fans are going to stop coming to the game because of less big hits?” YES, that’s EXACTLY what I feel could happen if the game has fewer and fewer high impact collisions--or, at least, that's what the NFL leadership appears to fear. You see in this thread how people mock the idea of reducing the frequency of big hits in football, even helmet-to-helmet hits. I think most fans *like* the big hits and the violence in American football.

I’d love to think most fans are like you, Dirty, and are repelled by seeing injuries...but the impression I get is that many people really don’t care much if a player gets hurt, and in fact they ENJOY it. Consider these quotes:

Season expansion: A fan's perspective | The Pigskin Doctors
Season expansion: A fan’s perspective
June 25, 2010 – Matt De Lima

How many NFL fans lose sleep because the backup defensive end on their favorite team tweaks his ankle and sits a week or two? How many games have you refused to watch because a player was injured and you felt sorry for him?

It’s not that I am apathetic to the hard work these men put into their jobs. But realistically, how am I supposed to feel? If we are so empathetic to the health of football players, why not make the league flag football? Two-hand touch? Surely these players would have longer careers if we removed violence from the game. Let’s replace the football with a pillow, replace the turf with marshmallows and make the point of the game to hug your opponent. Whoever has the most hugs wins!

http://www.sportshaze.com/nfl-the-be...lence/National Football League: The Beautiful Violence
By Chris Mathews on September 12, 2010

Now that the 2010-11 National Football League season is here I wanted to revisit why Americans are so enthralled with the game of professional football.

There’s an inner peace [/B]on a cozy Sunday morning – no work, remote in hand, watching grown men sacrifice life and limb to get paid and ultimately entertain us.

We really don’t care what the players had to do in order to play that day. Or even if medically - better yet sanely - they should even be out there.

And:

Concussions keep coming, but sports violence a hit with fans
"Concussions keep coming, but sports violence a hit with fans"
By Cam Cole, Vancouver Sun columnist

Ah, the vicious but legal hit. How the customers love it. The brain-rattling, snot-bubble-inducing collision that leaves the recipient writhing on the playing surface -- or better yet, not moving at all -- is now such a staple of the nightly highlight shows, it's no wonder the sports leagues that trade on that pattern of intent to injure have to be guilted into doing anything to halt it.

The same lawmakers who chastise the NFL, in public hearings, for its shameful record of looking after decades of its forgotten concussion victims are elected by a citizenry that lusts for blood in its arenas — in hockey, in ultimate fighting, in football — even as it tut-tuts and professes concern for the athletes' well-being.

On the issue of whether fans are at all ethically responsible when athletes whose salaraies they support get seriously injured:

Originally Posted by Dirty

So....because I eat seafood, I support the death of men at sea who catch crabs, right?
You're whole view is that of a VERY slippery slope

Yes, if you are eating crabs and fish, then the injuries and deaths of the people who are catching them *are* partly your responsibility, since you provide money that allows them to go do this. And since you apparently know that the job of fisherperson is the one of the most dangerous jobs anyone can do, then you have an even greater responsibility not to ignore the problem. You can vote with your money. This is why people boycott products.

Fans of football vote with their money, too, and their vote shows that they aren’t too bothered by watching people slowly, and sometimes quickly, damage their brains permanently by engaging in jarring hit after hit after hit.

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Vegangelica's Rules For The Future World:
[LIST]
[*]All members of society in every culture will be made to look identical where possible, as to discourage societal influencing factors based on attraction, preference and bias. A natural state will be de jure, which means, by law, all bodily hair or otherwise will be unobstructed from natural growth, and body shape must be genetically determined and not manipulated by the lifting of weights or dieting.

The above are a small portion of the changes that will be made to your lives. No longer will there be a society that charts its own course. The course of society will be charted for you, and static in all regards. There will be no future apart from maintaining the present. Deviation from this will result in strict, harsh punishment.
May we all live unhappily equal lives.

Your satire of my views is almost correct about a few things, but not others, Freebase. For example, as someone who supports people being able to keep their body hair without being treated in an awful way, I am a non-conformist fighting the pressures of conformity. So, if you don’t like enforced conformity, then you and I are on the same side.

As for the freedom issue, I want people to be able to chart their own course...as long as doing so does not physically hurt others. I would, however, consider implementing a law that forces you, and ONLY you, to have to pee sitting down.

[Dirty]

I just don't agree with your slippery slope mentality. There are so many things, that if you enjoy, you are supporting something bad or evil or tragic (by your logic). Everybody makes choices in their profession. I don't endorse death at sea because I like to eat crab legs. Because from what you are saying, if I didn't buy the product they wouldn't have to do the job. THEY ALREADY DON'T HAVE TO DO THE JOB. Fisherman aren't enslaved to do their job, they choose to do it.

Same with football. Fans aren't responsible for concussions and injuries because they buy a ticket to a game. Nobody is forced to play football, there are many other jobs they could have if they wanted them. They choose not to. Professional athletes know this going into their profession: They're job comes with a likely chance they will earn a lot of money, with a small risk of serious injury.

Channing's quote shows that the NFL is motivated by ticket sales and so is less likely to prevent dangerous hits, even illegal ones, made by offensive players.

Ok, now you're really losing it... Yes I am assuming here, but I doubt you really watch a lot of football. First off, there are hardly any hits by an offensive player that are illegal. The only two I can think of is Blocking in the Back and Chop-Blocks (Where an offensive player cuts the legs out from a defender while the defender is already engaged with another offensive player). These are two of the most serious penalties (though they hardly happen) and are penalized heavier than the rest. Channing Crowder, like a lot of defenders, is just frustrated because the NFL is telling the defense they have to be less physical. Do you even want offensive players to be allowed to block? I am starting to think you really do want a flag-football league.

Do you understand what Crowder is saying though? Of course the NFL is driven by ticket sales, it is a BUSINESS. Channing is saying that they are over-protecting receivers and quarterbacks (because for the most part, they are the marquee names that draw fans). You are saying that his quote shows the NFL is ignoring safety issues for the sake of money, when he is actually showing the complete opposite with his quote. So I think you misinterpreted that completely.

You asked, “Do you think fans are going to stop coming to the game because of less big hits?” YES, that’s EXACTLY what I feel could happen if the game has fewer and fewer high impact collisions--or, at least, that's what the NFL leadership appears to fear. You see in this thread how people mock the idea of reducing the frequency of big hits in football, even helmet-to-helmet hits. I think most fans *like* the big hits and the violence in American football.

Fans like big hits. Fans also like seeing the best players healthy and playing the game of football. It makes no sense to think that the NFL thought they would lose fans by reducing the big hits on game day. They are more likely to lose fans because their favorite star player got injured and can't play anymore.

I’d love to think most fans are like you, Dirty, and are repelled by seeing injuries...but the impression I get is that many people really don’t care much if a player gets hurt, and in fact they ENJOY it.

Where are you getting the impression that ANYBODY enjoys seeing a player get really hurt on the field? I don't know one fan in the entire world who ENJOYS seeing guys get seriously injured.

And ok... I don't really know why the NFL ignored the issue before these past few years, but NFL players aren't children and don't need to be explained the risk of playing their sport. Ok, maybe the NFL didn't inform them thoroughly enough of the dangers, but jesus christ there are smart, grown men out here. You don't think they know that their sport, which features a lot of physicality and contact by some of the best athletes to ever walk the earth, poses health threats? Don't kid yourself or pretend these guys are retarded. But lets put the whole "NFL ignoring health risks for years" thing aside for a second... It's not about what they did in the past, it's what they are doing now. What, we're just gonna sit around and dwell on the past mistakes they may have made instead of focusing on the present and the future? You can't change what happened years ago, so what are you even trying to say? The NFL wasn't responsible? Ok... well that was then and this is now.

[TheCunningStunt]

Originally Posted by Dirty

Where are you getting the impression that ANYBODY enjoys seeing a player get really hurt on the field? I don't know one fan in the entire world who ENJOYS seeing guys get seriously injured.

Football (soccer ) is the same, sportsmanship FTW. Although the most infamous bit of brutality:







(After Roy Keane *player in red* 5 years earlier got injured, Alf Inge Haaland *the player in blue* stood over him and called him a cheat, when in fact - it was a serious injury.)

"I'd waited long enough. I fcking hit him hard. The ball was there (I think). Take that you cunt. And don't ever stand over me sneering about fake injuries"

[Dirty]

Changing topics for a minute to soccer... I suppose I am the typical American in terms of being a sports fan. I'm a close follower of the three big American sports - Basketball, Baseball, Football (I watch hockey mildly). I just can't get into soccer. I have my reasons why I think it is so gigantic pretty much everywhere else... but to me it's just so boring and the flopping that I see in soccer is just ridiculous and pathetic sometimes. It was hyper here that Beckham coming to the US would make soccer more popular, but I never thought it would happen, and it certainly didn't.

Edit: I YouTubed the video of that hit... Very dirty play by Keane

[TheCunningStunt]

Dirty play?

It wasn't play, it was revenge.
Haaland and Keane were involved in an incident 5 years earlier, Keane f*cked his cruciate ligaments. Haaland stood over him and called him a cheat.
So he waited 5 years to hit him hard.

Keane
What a player that man was.

Football is the best sport in the world, I have no idea why it's not as big in America as it is in Europe.

[James]

Golf is the only good sport.

[TheCunningStunt]

Originally Posted by James

Golf is the only good sport.

Sport, lol.

It's a game.

[James]

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

Sport, lol.

It's a game.

It's a sport

[TheCunningStunt]

Originally Posted by James

It's a sport

It's a game, and a pretty fucking dire one.

That said, I've only ever watched.
People say you have more of an appreciation for it once you've played the GAME.
But watching it, Jesus Christ.
I hate it.
It's worse than cricket.