Jump to content


Limited Posting Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


rolliefingers last won the day on January 24 2009

rolliefingers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

165 High-A

About rolliefingers

  • Rank
    Senior Hangouter - Plus Member Since 12/04
  • Birthday 3/8/1982

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Music, baseball, comedy, writing, changing the world.
  • Occupation
    Int'l health care non-profit
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Adam Jones, Kevin Millar
  • Favorite All Time Oriole
    Erik Bedard, Mike Devereaux

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Between dogfighting and football? Or between playing football and sustaining incurable brain trauma? Or between people paying to watch football and other people having an incentive to play it?
  2. Right, and this is the case I would make to Dr. FLK if he is still reading this. The question is whether the enjoyment that football gives to its viewers (i.e. us) worth the physical toll (including severe brain trauma, which might be more widespread among football players than we thought) the game exacts on its players. I, for one, don't think we can definitively answer that question right now. We need more information, specifically including: how pervasive is brain injury, even among players who never suffered a concussion? If we are honest and compassionate people, we need to at least entertain the notion that our actions might be related - however tangentially - to others' suffering.
  3. ...Unless they become extremely ill because of the cumulative effects of all that contact, and essentially become vegetables. E.G. the player who became a lawyer and then became so ill that his clients began suing HIM. (I'm not arguing that mentally injured players should be put down like dogs, but I am saying that many injuries sustained on a football field DO NOT allow players to live fully functional lives.) OTOH, as I said earlier, I don't think football players = fighting dogs because humans are moral agents and dogs are not. Therefore, I don't think the two sports are on equal moral footing. That doesn't mean football isn't also exploitative; it is, even if it isn't nearly as morally reprehensible as dogfighting.
  4. I disagree with the bolded part. The pervasiveness of brain injuries, as far as I know, is a fairly recent revelation. (I haven't played football since I was 13, so perhaps the consciousness - no pun intended - is higher now than it was then.) I think anyone with a functioning brain can figure out that football is a violent sport. But as I alluded to, I think brain injuries are a different beast altogether. Being a retired football player with, say, a chronic hip condition, or defective limbs - that's one thing, and it's certainly a risk I'd take if I had the talent to play professional football. Being a retired football player with severe brain trauma, that will shorten my life considerably, or possibly even worse, NOT shorten it but make me a vegetable anyway? That's entirely different. I don't think your average football player - probably not in the NFL, and CERTAINLY not at the amateur level - really understands what it means to essentially have Alzheimers at age 45. I grew up around two men who had it, and as much of a nightmare as it was for me, I'm sure it was a million times worse for them. If it indeed turns out that brain injuries are part and parcel of not just rare freak accidents or overtly hard hits (e.g. Darryl Stingley), but of normal, everyday contact, then I think the argument needs to be had - is the benefit worth the cost?
  5. You honestly believe that every person who plays football, at any level, knows all these things?
  6. I agree. The comparison isn't perfect, because dogs are clearly forced to fight each other, while nobody forces humans to play football. But I think you're onto something when you say "the fans have very little feeling towards the competitors other than as violent entertainment." I think that's 100 percent true. Hell, I don't care about baseball players as people, either, when it comes down to it. The difference is that baseball players don't suffer serious injuries as a matter of course while playing the game. I never thought football was ethically questionable until I started reading about all the ex-players who were just shells of their former selves. And while it made it worse that the league sometimes denied those players a proper pension, it doesn't really matter how much money they get; they're still permanently affected. My father and grandfather both had severe dementia when they died. To me, the mind is the most important thing you have. I must say, it's questionable to me whether watching football, knowing the damage it does to the human beings who play it, is a morally acceptable act. After all, they wouldn't play if we didn't watch.
  7. We must have been watching different games, then. I don't know what else to say.
  8. He wasn't putting his arm around the receiver, he was reaching for the ball. You cannot be serious!
  9. The defender did make contact with the receiver, however he was clearly going for the ball at the time. Do you disagree?
  10. That last pass interference call was such utter horsecrap, I hope someone gets fired over it.
  11. Wow, nice run by Rice and all, but that tackling was even worse than ours on the Benson TD. Wow.
  12. At the very least, it's been a pretty good debate, for the most part.
  13. Okay, what does proportional mean? Robbing him? Yelling at him to go away? Again, what happens if you hear someone rummaging around your garage, you go out unarmed, and he shoots and kills you? Shouldn't have you been able to fire the first shot?
  14. I know this is a digression, but this is not remotely true. Are you referring to the Eastside redevelopment?
  • Create New...