New Twist to Seau Suicide?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? :      Well...we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic...and probably many more in the future...LOL!!       Life is too short. No hard feelings, here.    
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    That's fine Tex . . . and no hard feelings either. 

    But I do think we all need to pause and think what can be done (a) to prevent debilitating injuries in football and (b) to support players (past, present, or future) who suffer from them.  We all love the game and want to see it healthy.  If it turns out, however, that scores of players are going to have to live out the remainder of their lives in pain and suffering because of their participation in the sport, then I know I will find it difficult to continue to justify watching or supporting the game. 

    I've already started to turn off hockey games.  I like the sport . . . but until the NHL and the players themselves do more to limit the injuries, I don't feel very good about supporting the game.  It will be sad if it requires the threat of lawsuits to change things in the NHL, but if it won't change any other way than even lawsuits are beneficial.
     




     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    Prolate0spheroid and NYC I read and respect your comments. I dont want to come off as a cold hearted person, but I feel that a reasonable person who is aware of all the risks and still elects to perform a task (whether play football or bungi jump) assumes some risk. NYC, my heart goes out to you and your family over your nephews tragic accident. I dont feel you should beat yourself up or feel partially responsible at all. All you did was be a good positive role model for a young man who made a decision to follow in the family footsteps. I believe that sometimes, no matter how many precautions we take, unfortunate act occurs. Having said all that do I feel we should try to protect the football playes? Yes, absoloutely but I also feel they burden some responsibility. And although our opinions differ, I appreciate you both challenging me in a direct but polite way and not the namecalling and nonsense that goes on here alot. Peace out.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]Prolate0spheroid and NYC I read and respect your comments. I dont want to come off as a cold hearted person, but I feel that a reasonable person who is aware of all the risks and still elects to perform a task (whether play football or bungi jump) assumes some risk. NYC, my heart goes out to you and your family over your nephews tragic accident. I dont feel you should beat yourself up or feel partially responsible at all. All you did was be a good positive role model for a young man who made a decision to follow in the family footsteps. I believe that sometimes, no matter how many precautions we take, unfortunate act occurs. Having said all that do I feel we should try to protect the football playes? Yes, absoloutely but I also feel they burden some responsibility. And although our opinions differ, I appreciate you both challenging me in a direct but polite way and not the namecalling and nonsense that goes on here alot. Peace out.
    Posted by Quagmire3[/QUOTE]


    Quag, I agree that someone who knowingly takes on risk is largely responsible for the consequences of his action.  My point, though, is that when two parties enter a transaction both knowing that the transaction entails significant risk to one but not both of the parties, both parties have (or at least should have) some moral (if not legal) obligation to help mitigate the pain and suffering of the party at risk should that risk materialize. 

    I think the degree of responsibility varies depending on the circumstances. If we label the two parties A and B, with B being the party who is taking on risk, A's responsibility to help B should the risk to B materialize depends on the answers to all of the following:

    • How much did A understand that there was a risk to B and, to the extent that A did understand that there was a risk to B, how much did A do (1) to make B aware of the risk or at least ensure that B understood the risk to the same extent A did and (2) to limit the risk to B to the extent A had some power to limit that risk?
    • How much did A profit from the transaction personally?
    • How hard did A try to persuade B to participate in the transaction despite the risks to B?
    • What were the benefits of participating to B (or maybe to society as a whole) that might make taking on the risk a sensible decision for B?

    A's responsibility (even culbability in some cases) increases in my mind the more A knew about the risks to B, the more A did to conceal those risks from B, the less A did to try to limit the risks to B, the more A profited from the transaction, the more A did to persuade B to participate despite the risks, and the less B benefited.  The less A knew about the risks,the more A did to inform B of the risks and limit those risks, the less A had to gain, the less A did to persuade B, and the more B benefited, then the less A is responsible.  In fact, in some cases, if B benefitted enough, A's participation in the transaction may even be praiseworthy.

    In the case of the NFL, I think we're somewhere in the middle of that continuum.  With the tobacco companies, I'd put them somewhere closer to the negative part of the continuum, since I think they know they're causing great harm and continue doing it primarily because they profit so much.  With towns hiring policemen, I think we're on the positive side of the continuum because police jobs are good ones and they have great benefits to society.  Still, I think towns have a duty to do all they can to limit the risk to policemen and also take responsibility for the care of policemen who are hurt in the line of duty.  Towns are certainly not doing anything immoral in hiring policemen into risky jobs--but the towns still, in my opinion, have responsibility to care for the policemen if the policemen are injured on the job, even if the policemen are well paid and enter the job with full knowledge of the risks.    

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : That's fine Tex . . . and no hard feelings either.  But I do think we all need to pause and think what can be done (a) to prevent debilitating injuries in football and (b) to support players (past, present, or future) who suffer from them.  We all love the game and want to see it healthy.  If it turns out, however, that scores of players are going to have to live out the remainder of their lives in pain and suffering because of their participation in the sport, then I know I will find it difficult to continue to justify watching or supporting the game.  I've already started to turn off hockey games.  I like the sport . . . but until the NHL and the players themselves do more to limit the injuries, I don't feel very good about supporting the game.  It will be sad if it requires the threat of lawsuits to change things in the NHL, but if it won't change any other way than even lawsuits are beneficial.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

         Sad?? If the trial lawyers win, it potentially destroys football, on all levels. Why would colleges continue a football program, and expose themselves to being sued? Why would NFL owners continue to invest in a franchise and a league, where their profits could be ripped away by lawsuits, such as these? 

         Would you agree with me that medical knowledge about head injuries is far advanced now, from what it was 20 years ago? 

         What is the purpose of players wearing helmets? Hasn't the league moved forward in getting better head gear?

         Do you really believe that the retired players were completely ignorant of the risks involved in playing football? 

         Can you think of anything that the league should be doing now, to make the game safer?    
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? :      Sad?? If the trial lawyers win, it potentially destroys football, on all levels. Why would colleges continue a football program, and expose themselves to being sued? Why would NFL owners continue to invest in a franchise and a league, where their profits could be ripped away by lawsuits, such as these?       Would you agree with me that medical knowledge about head injuries is far advanced now, from what it was 20 years ago?       What is the purpose of players wearing helmets? Hasn't the league moved forward in getting better head gear?      Do you really believe that the retired players were completely ignorant of the risks involved in playing football?       Can you think of anything that the league should be doing now, to make the game safer?    
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    If large numbers of people are really left debilitated by playing football and forced to spend years in misery and poverty because of that, maybe it should end?   I'm sure watching Christians being torn apart by lions or gladiators kill each other in combat was a lot of fun too (and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure it was fun).  But really such cruel sports needed to end.  

    Now I don't think football is that bad and I do believe that there are ways to make the game safe enough to allow it to continue.  But I also believe there is a moral responsibility on the part of all involved in football to ensure that when a player is seriously debilitated by the game that he is taken care of.  Having ex-players live drooling under bridges (because it was their choice to play after all and they got paid handsomely for it!) is not, in my mind, a morally acceptable alternative. 

    One other minor point: if the players were aware of the risks to themselves, then so was the league. In my opinion, if the league was aware that players could be seriously debilitated and continued to move forward, it shares responsibility for the fate of the players with the players themselves.  I don't think you can shirk responsibility when you do something that you know might hurt somebody else just because that somebody else agreed to do it himself.  You still are responsible for the harm you cause.  You can't get out of that responsibility simply by saying the harmed person agreed to do it knowing full well they might be harmed.  If that were the case, it would be completely moral for me to chop off your legs and leave you in pain and bleeding to death as long as you agreed to having your legs chopped off first.  

     
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : If large numbers of people are really left debilitated by playing football and forced to spend years in misery and poverty because of that, maybe it should end?   I'm sure watching Christians being torn apart by lions or gladiators kill each other in combat was a lot of fun too (and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure it was fun).  But really such cruel sports needed to end.

    RESPONSE: So...your past statement that you weren't calling for the end of football was untrue?

    Now I don't think football is that bad and I do believe that there are ways to make the game safe enough to allow it to continue.

    RESPONSE: As I previously, please name what the NFL can do to make the game safer, that they already haven't done?

    But I also believe there is a moral responsibility on the part of all involved in football to ensure that when a player is seriously debilitated by the game that he is taken care of.  Having ex-players live drooling under bridges (because it was their choice to play after all and they got paid handsomely for it!) is not, in my mind, a morally acceptable alternative.

    RESPONSE That's what health care and pension plans are for. Do you or I have such an all-encompassing benefit afforded to us, should a catastrophic injury befall us? 

    One other minor point: if the players were aware of the risks to themselves, then so was the league.
     
    RESPONSE: Once again, you are failing to answer my questions. "The Dog(ggggg) couldn't have done it any better...LOL!!! Why should the league be liable when the players knew the risks going in?

    In my opinion, if the league was aware that players could be seriously debilitated and continued to move forward, it shares responsibility for the fate of the players with the players themselves.

    RESPONSE: Says who?

    I don't think you can shirk responsibility when you do something that you know might hurt somebody else just because that somebody else agreed to do it himself.  You still are responsible for the harm you cause.  You can't get out of that responsibility simply by saying the harmed person agreed to do it knowing full well they might be harmed.  If that were the case, it would be completely moral for me to chop off your legs and leave you in pain and bleeding to death as long as you agreed to having your legs chopped off first.

    RESPONSE: What drivel! Football is a rough sport, in which it's a certainty that a player won't escape the game unscathed. Everybody knows this. It one of the reasons why the players get paid the big bucks...and why the NFLPA bargains for a health care and pension plan.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    This is just silly, Tex.  I'll provide this response and then I'm moving on to other things because this is even less productive than your Tavon Wilson posts. 


    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : If large numbers of people are really left debilitated by playing football and forced to spend years in misery and poverty because of that, maybe it should end?   I'm sure watching Christians being torn apart by lions or gladiators kill each other in combat was a lot of fun too (and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure it was fun).  But really such cruel sports needed to end.

    RESPONSE: So...your past statement that you weren't calling for the end of football was untrue?

    I'm not calling for the end of football.  Read more carefully. If football caused large numbers of people to be debilitated then I might call for its end.  But I believe that can be avoided.  


    Now I don't think football is that bad and I do believe that there are ways to make the game safe enough to allow it to continue.

    RESPONSE: As I previously, please name what the NFL can do to make the game safer, that they already haven't done?

    I'm not an expert on all things that can be done to make football safer and neither, I'm sure, are you.  Let's let the experts handle this.  If you're going to insist on this line of argument, then please prove that the NFL has already done everything humanely possible to make football as safe as it can be.  I know you can't really answer that question, so please don't bother to waste your time or anyone else's.  Again, these are questions best left to people with real knowledge.  That's not either you or me.     

    But I also believe there is a moral responsibility on the part of all involved in football to ensure that when a player is seriously debilitated by the game that he is taken care of.  Having ex-players live drooling under bridges (because it was their choice to play after all and they got paid handsomely for it!) is not, in my mind, a morally acceptable alternative.

    RESPONSE That's what health care and pension plans are for. Do you or I have such an all-encompassing benefit afforded to us, should a catastrophic injury befall us? 

    Then let's make sure players have great coverage if that's what we need to do.  Many of the older players don't have that coverage.  Whether you or I have it isn't the issue.  But in case you're concerned, rest assured that I hav great coverage privately and also through the government because I live in Canada where universal health care exists. You maybe can vote for that in the states too if you want . . . I know I will.  


    One other minor point: if the players were aware of the risks to themselves, then so was the league.
     
    RESPONSE: Once again, you are failing to answer my questions. "The Dog(ggggg) couldn't have done it any better...LOL!!! Why should the league be liable when the players knew the risks going in?

    I've already said that, in my opinion on a moral level, the players knowing the risks doesn't not necessarily absolve the league of all responsibility if it too knew that the game it was operating created risks for the players.  Legal liability is a different issue for the courts and lawyers to resolve.  Neither you nor I are experts on that.


    In my opinion, if the league was aware that players could be seriously debilitated and continued to move forward, it shares responsibility for the fate of the players with the players themselves.

    RESPONSE: Says who?

    I say so on a moral level.  (If you have a less demanding moral standard that's fine, but your weaker standard isn't necessarily better than my higher standard.)  On a legal level, the courts will tell us.  (Sorry if you don't trust the courts or lawyers or juries, but if you don't like the American system, you can move somewhere else I guess.)



    I don't think you can shirk responsibility when you do something that you know might hurt somebody else just because that somebody else agreed to do it himself.  You still are responsible for the harm you cause.  You can't get out of that responsibility simply by saying the harmed person agreed to do it knowing full well they might be harmed.  If that were the case, it would be completely moral for me to chop off your legs and leave you in pain and bleeding to death as long as you agreed to having your legs chopped off first.

    RESPONSE: What drivel! Football is a rough sport, in which it's a certainty that a player won't escape the game unscathed. Everybody knows this. It one of the reasons why the players get paid the big bucks...and why the NFLPA bargains for a health care and pension plan.  

    No, they get paid big bucks simply because the demand for top players is high and the supply short.  It's simply the market at work. It has nothing to do with compensation for risk.  Health and pension plans are great . . . but they don't necessarily cover all your costs when you are so debilitated at age 40 that you cannot work ever again. And I'm not sure what the players' benefit plans are (have you done that research?) but I'd be surprised if players who played for short periods are covered for life.  And those who weren't stars may also not have earned sufficient amounts during their careers to provide for themselves.   

    And calling something drivel is hardly an argument. 



     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : If large numbers of people are really left debilitated by playing football and forced to spend years in misery and poverty because of that, maybe it should end?   I'm sure watching Christians being torn apart by lions or gladiators kill each other in combat was a lot of fun too (and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure it was fun).  But really such cruel sports needed to end.   Now I don't think football is that bad and I do believe that there are ways to make the game safe enough to allow it to continue.  But I also believe there is a moral responsibility on the part of all involved in football to ensure that when a player is seriously debilitated by the game that he is taken care of.  Having ex-players live drooling under bridges (because it was their choice to play after all and they got paid handsomely for it!) is not, in my mind, a morally acceptable alternative.  One other minor point: if the players were aware of the risks to themselves, then so was the league. In my opinion, if the league was aware that players could be seriously debilitated and continued to move forward, it shares responsibility for the fate of the players with the players themselves.  I don't think you can shirk responsibility when you do something that you know might hurt somebody else just because that somebody else agreed to do it himself.  You still are responsible for the harm you cause.  You can't get out of that responsibility simply by saying the harmed person agreed to do it knowing full well they might be harmed.  If that were the case, it would be completely moral for me to chop off your legs and leave you in pain and bleeding to death as long as you agreed to having your legs chopped off first.    
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

         Let's try it again...here are the 6 concise, simple questions that I put to you. Do you care to answer, this time?: 

         1.) If the trial lawyers win, why would colleges continue a football program, and expose themselves to being sued?

         2.) Why would NFL owners continue to invest in a franchise and a league, where their profits could be ripped away by lawsuits, such as these? 

         3.) Would you agree with me that medical knowledge about head injuries is far advanced now, from what it was 20 years ago? 

         4.) What is the purpose of players wearing helmets? Hasn't the league moved forward in getting better head gear?

         5.) Do you believe that the retired players were completely ignorant of the risks involved in playing football? 

         6.) Can you think of anything that the league should be doing now, to make the game safer?    
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    Hey sl#meball- WhyInTH's saving a fetus so important to you anyways?  You're against offering a living wage to the provider, You're against offering even the most basic semblance of healthcare for its well-being, You're PRO war mongering and stomping on the fetuses and children of non-western industrialized nations when it suits even the most miniscule of your higher-ups self-serving agenda, You're PRO sending 50,000 volts of electricity through the very same fetuses bones over and above rehabilation upon it falling by the wayside based off a lifetime of compounded struggles which you will NEVER, and HAVE- NEVER, EVER been subject to in the same degree as this poor wretched schlub...

    Difference between right-wing conservatives and liberals, Is that hypocrisy forwarded by right-wing conservatives knows ZERO bounds...It's omnipresen in EVERY SINGLE stance they have on E-v-e-r-y-thing...everything- stright up and down the board, top to bottom...Wherein the sole "hypocrisy" they shout back upon the Liberals & their policies, has to do the fact the garbage excusatory falsity that said liberals are apparently in love with the notion of destroying baby embryos through abortion, rather than the larger mantra that said liberals just want that simple option of a lone person having the freedom to choose to decide what they may OR may not, do to their own body.  

    That's it- therein lies your lone "hypocrisy" for liberals...   Yours is everywhere- All consuming, And Never ceasing, never stopping, never abating, and never ShuttingTFUp...EVER.

    Thanks for the nice thoughts Laz.  As I said and all I said was that I am no idealouge but hypocisy exists on both sides.  Please do not try to suggest that there's no hypocrisy on the left. 

    I have no opposition to abortion, but I find it downright absurd that there are some that find the chicken's egg more sacred than a human's.  And thank you for bringing up another hypocrisy.  You'd save a killer's life while choosing to end a fetuses.  I don't get it.  I know, I know.  Its not a life, its a choice - right?  Give me a break.  As for choosing what a woman does with her own body, why not choose contraception?  It's a helluva a lot less invasive.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? :      Let's try it again...here are the 6 concise, simple questions that I put to you. Do you care to answer, this time?:       Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    No. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]Conservatives like to say everyone is responsible for his own actions, but in the conservative world view if I know tobacco is addictive and its use will kill you I can still sell it to you at a handsome profit and have no responsibility at all for any harm that occurs to you.  This isn't taking responsibility in my opinion, it's shirking it.  In fact, the claim conservatives make that everyone is responsible for themselves often seems to me more like a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility for anyone else.   But enough about that.  What bothers me about this thread is that a lot of us apparently are fine taking pleasure in watching football and apparently aren't bothered at all by the fact that many football players spend the rest of their lives in debilitated conditions.   Oh well, we say.  They made their choice. They were paid for it.  Who cares? Texas Pat asked "where should compassion end?"  Apparently, among some on this board, even before it begins.  This is why I find so much of what is said here despicable. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Your GUILT for the plight of the NFL players is admirable. Is it the same for the THOUSANDS of construction workers that DIE or are injurer every year providing your infrastructure, 80 % of which suffer from some sort of dibilitateing injuries by the age of 55. Or how about the coal miners who provide the fuel for 80% of all power plants. Or the soldiers (who are all now volunteers) that die or are injured in the course of regular duties. Your  compassion for a HIGHLY compensated player who has the absolute BEST of medical care available to them is WELL MISPLACED, and your priorities are delusional when your biggest concern is for the NFL retirees

     What is DESPICABLE is that every day someone gives their life so that you can enjoy your comfortable lifestyle at near minimum wage and your concerns are for Athletes in the top 1% earners who take an obvious chance with their health for profit.

    People DIE in NASCAR crashes, people watch and pay a high price to go to NASCAR races, and expect to see the crashes.
    People get hurt in NFL collisions, people watch and pay a high price to go to NFL games, and expect to see the collisions.
    The most despicable of all sports is on the greatest rise, MMA, where the point is to give your opponent dibilitateing injuries, precisely concussions. They have made a choice, just as the NFPLA members have.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    I have compassion for all those other groups too part-timer and think they too should receive compensation for debilitating injuries suffered on their jobs. 

    And if you want to talk, for instance, about Massey Energy and its former chairman Don Blankenship and what I believe should be their liability for the deaths of 29 coal miners I'll be glad to.  But we were talking about football. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : Your GUILT for the plight of the NFL players is admirable. Is it the same for the THOUSANDS of construction workers that DIE or are injurer every year providing your infrastructure, 80 % of which suffer from some sort of dibilitateing injuries by the age of 55. Or how about the coal miners who provide the fuel for 80% of all power plants. Or the soldiers (who are all now volunteers) that die or are injured in the course of regular duties. Your  compassion for a HIGHLY compensated player who has the absolute BEST of medical care available to them is WELL MISPLACED, and your priorities are delusional when your biggest concern is for the NFL retirees  What is DESPICABLE is that every day someone gives their life so that you can enjoy your comfortable lifestyle at near minimum wage and your concerns are for Athletes in the top 1% earners who take an obvious chance with their health for profit. People DIE in NASCAR crashes, people watch and pay a high price to go to NASCAR races, and expect to see the crashes. People get hurt in NFL collisions, people watch and pay a high price to go to NFL games, and expect to see the collisions. The most despicable of all sports is on the greatest rise, MMA, where the point is to give your opponent dibilitateing injuries, precisely concussions. They have made a choice, just as the NFPLA members have.
    Posted by part-timer[/QUOTE]

         Amen, brother.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : No.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

         COWARD.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]I have compassion for all those other groups too part-timer and think they too should receive compensation for debilitating injuries suffered on their jobs.  And if you want to talk, for instance, about Massey Energy and its former chairman Don Blankenship and what I believe should be their liability for the deaths of 29 coal miners I'll be glad to.  But we were talking about football. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    You have NO idea of the lack of concern to these loss's.

    Client 1: A construction workers looses a hand in an on the job injury at the age of 25. His gross earnings are $600 a week. He goes on workmen's comp at 75% post tax income which comes out to @ 66% of his wages or $400 till settlement(with NO benefits). The chart for workmen's comp places the value of that hand at 180 weeks. That is 180 times $400 or $72,000. Now does that sound fair. You have no idea of the suffering and lack of value for a life because of gov. reg.  Is that mans life worth any less than that NFL ex-star. That is a problem
    .
    It being football does not excuse it to receiving preferential treatment.

    You want Gov. Reg. changed start with those protecting the vulnerable not the top 1 % that can look after themselves.

    But again as I stated earlier, we have the pro-player crowd and the pro-NFL crowd at each other throats and the real negligent source may vary well be the NFLPA and they look like they are avoiding all the flack for now.


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : You have NO idea of the lack of concern to these loss's. Client 1: A construction workers looses a hand in an on the job injury at the age of 25. His gross earnings are $600 a week. He goes on workmen's comp at 75% post tax income which comes out to @ 66% of his wages or $400 till settlement(with NO benefits). The chart for workmen's comp places the value of that hand at 180 weeks. That is 180 times $400 or $72,000. Now does that sound fair. You have no idea of the suffering and lack of value for a life because of gov. reg.  Is that mans life worth any less than that NFL ex-star. That is a problem . It being football does not excuse it to receiving preferential treatment. You want Gov. Reg. changed start with those protecting the vulnerable not the top 1 % that can look after themselves. But again as I stated earlier, we have the pro-player crowd and the pro-NFL crowd at each other throats and the real negligent source may vary well be the NFLPA and they look like they are avoiding all the flack for now.
    Posted by part-timer[/QUOTE]

    Not fair at all part-timer, and I agree completely that the construction worker should get a better deal. I'm all for changing the regs.  And I'm fine paying more taxes, too, if it takes that to pay for the benefits. 


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from seymonster. Show seymonster's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    i made a choice to be a chef.  i cut and burn the crap out of myself all the time.  after 25 years the pain receptors or transmitters or whatever in my hands are completely shot.  i dont feel it anymore. i can be bleeding profusely and i wont know it until i see it.  i'm not suing anyone.  thats just life.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]i made a choice to be a chef.  i cut and burn the crap out of myself all the time.  after 25 years the pain receptors or transmitters or whatever in my hands are completely shot.  i dont feel it anymore. i can be bleeding profusely and i wont know it until i see it.  i'm not suing anyone.  thats just life.
    Posted by seymonster[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough, but in your situation, you're completely aware of every risk involved. You're aware that you could cut or burn yourself at any time, and you're aware of the effects of these injuries on your health, both shorterm and longterm.

    With that said, there appears to be more ambiguity with the former players' situations. It is becoming more and more apparent that they weren't aware, or made aware, of the severe risk involved, and the potential aftereffects. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : It is becoming more and more apparent that they weren't aware, or made aware, of the severe risk involved, and the potential aftereffects. 
    Posted by vertigho[/QUOTE]

         Please explain how "it is becoming more and more apparent that they weren't aware of the severe risks involved, and potential after effects?" 

         Even if that's true, has it become apparent that the NFL was aware of the severe risks involved, and potential after effects...and withheld this knowledge from the players? The plaintiffs need to show both of these things in order to win...providing that juror emotions don't rule the day.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    Again, a lot of non-sequiturs here.  The point of the case is whether the NFL did enough given the extent of its knowledge of the risks to mitigate those risks.  The only way to judge the merits of the case is to carefully examine how much the NFL actually knew about the risks, when it knew about the risks, and whether it acted sufficiently to reduce the risks given its knowledge of them.  

    Tex seems to want to reduce the case merely to who knew or didn't know about the risks and whether there was any deception.  But the case isn't mostly about that.  It's mostly about whether enough was done, given whatever knowledge of the risks existed, to mitigate those risks. 


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : You have NO idea of the lack of concern to these loss's. Client 1: A construction workers looses a hand in an on the job injury at the age of 25. His gross earnings are $600 a week. He goes on workmen's comp at 75% post tax income which comes out to @ 66% of his wages or $400 till settlement(with NO benefits). The chart for workmen's comp places the value of that hand at 180 weeks. That is 180 times $400 or $72,000. Now does that sound fair. You have no idea of the suffering and lack of value for a life because of gov. reg.  Is that mans life worth any less than that NFL ex-star. That is a problem . It being football does not excuse it to receiving preferential treatment. You want Gov. Reg. changed start with those protecting the vulnerable not the top 1 % that can look after themselves. But again as I stated earlier, we have the pro-player crowd and the pro-NFL crowd at each other throats and the real negligent source may vary well be the NFLPA and they look like they are avoiding all the flack for now.
    Posted by part-timer[/QUOTE]

    You make a great point: everyone needs protection for the sacrifices they m ake. NFL'ers are not special and it's strange we are talking about people who already have large incomes when there are so many people who are vulnerable. I think a reason so many people on the board resent players getting special treatment is that we do not get special treatment. We suffer losses, depression, have no insurance, medicate things away and are forced to deal with it. 

    The point is we all deserve a chance to be healthy, reach out, get help and find a new life. It doesn't matter if it is life after football or life after boston.com.  

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : You make a great point: everyone needs protection for the sacrifices they m ake. NFL'ers are not special and it's strange we are talking about people who already have large incomes when there are so many people who are vulnerable. I think a reason so many people on the board resent players getting special treatment is that we do not get special treatment. We suffer losses, depression, have no insurance, medicate things away and are forced to deal with it.  The point is we all deserve a chance to be healthy, reach out, get help and find a new life. It doesn't matter if it is life after football or life after boston.com.  
    Posted by NYC[/QUOTE]

         But...the players know that they are risking their health in playing pro football. They take their chances for in exchange for a shot at fame, and big money.

         What's the difference between the football players and the crab fisherman shown on "The Deadliest Catch"? Both know the score going in. Those crabbers risk their lives for about 6 weeks on the treacherous Berring Sea, in order to earn big money. 

         Yet, is there an outcry to put an end to crab fishing? Prostate, or whatever he calls himself, and you, NYC, both claim that football fans should feel guilty, and are selfish for supporting the game. So...I guess that those of us who enjoy eating Alaskan king crab should also feel guilty and selfish for eating crab...thereby supporting the dangerous industry of crabbing in the Berring Sea...LOL!!!

         Glochester fisherman surely can appreciate this, as well.

           
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? :      But...the players know that they are risking their health in playing pro football. They take their chances for in exchange for a shot at fame, and big money.      What's the difference between the football players and the crab fisherman shown on "The Deadliest Catch"? Both know the score going in. Those crabbers risk their lives for about 6 weeks on the treacherous Berring Sea, in order to earn big money.       Yet, is there an outcry to put an end to crab fishing? Prostate, or whatever he calls himself, claims that football fans should feel guilty and are selfish for supporting the game. So...I guess that those of us who enjoy eating Alaskan king crab should also feel guilty and selfish for eating crab...thereby supporting the dangerous industry of crabbing in the Berring Sea...LOL!!!      Glochester fisherman surely can appreciate this, as well.     
    Posted by TexasPat[/QUOTE]

    Apples to oranges...

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : Apples to oranges...
    Posted by vertigho[/QUOTE]

         How so?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?

    In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : No.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

         Since ol' Prolate has been reluctant to answer the simple questions that I put to him, I feel that it's incumbent upon myself to help him out. Here are the questions, with assumed answers from Prolate, in bold black:

         1.) If the trial lawyers win, why would colleges continue a football program, and expose themselves to being sued? 

    RESPONSE: No. Rich universities likely won't want to risk being targeted next by the trial lawyers. Besides, if the NFL is destroyed by these lawsuits, what's the purpose for the best athletes to continue to play football? Look for them to gravitate towards basketball or baseball. 

         2.) Why would NFL owners continue to invest in a franchise and a league, where their profits could be ripped away by lawsuits, such as these?

    RESPONSE: They wouldn't. Initially, they'll likely try to pass on the costs of defending and paying off the judgments by substantially raising ticket prices, to cover the new cost of doing business. But, eventually, they'll place their money in more profitable ventures;    

         3.) Would you agree with me that medical knowledge about head injuries is far advanced now, from what it was 20 years ago?

    RESPONSE: No doubt. This makes one wonder how guys who played football in the 70s and 80s can claim that the NFL knew the dangers of concussions, yet withheld the information from players? The predominant amount of studies on the subject weren't conducted until the 90s.

        4.) What is the purpose of players wearing helmets? Hasn't the league moved forward in getting better head gear?

    RESPONSE: The purpose of course is to protect against head injuries. The players wear helmets, knowing that the purpose of wearing them is to prevent and/or mitigate head injuries. Armed with that knowledge, obviously the players had some knowledge of the dangers and risks of head injuries.

         5.) Do you believe that the retired players were completely ignorant of the risks involved in playing football?

    RESPONSE: No. Prolate has admitted to this in previous posts. 

         6.) Can you think of anything that the league should be doing now, to make the game safer?

    RESPONSE: No...other than providing a better pension and health care plan for the retired players, or ending the sport.      

         There you go, Prolate. Now, was that so hard?
     

Share