Malcolm Gladwell

#126
#126
volbeast33 said:
First we don't agree with you on the future risk high school football causes.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

volbeast33 said:
Second: I would guess the amount of suicides among football players is probably less than
The general population....I workout a gym with a guy who had a great job well off financially...supposed happy family with wife and kids.....he Hung himself in the basement a couple months ago.....suicide is a horrible thing for everyone to deal with but to blame it on football is an extreme stretch.
Click to expand...

Without any data to refer to, I would imagine that you are correct and that the percentage of suicides among individuals who played football is on par or less than the percentage of suicides in the general population. What I am saying, though, is that one cannot simply rule out that these "NFL suicides" are not highly correlated to brain damage.

volbeast33 said:
Third: that is where I disagree with you.....my kids will not smoke or drink in high school with my knowledge and if they ever smoke in their lifetime they will have to deal with dad LOL
Click to expand...

I guess my upbringing was just radically different. My father spent a large amount of time growing up in Vienna; the attitudes toward drinking and smoking are radically different and those attitudes were handed down.
 
#127
#127
realUT, you are setting yourself up for financial ruin if you knowingly allow you kids to drink. This isnt Vienna, this is the USA, where if your drunk/stoned kid hurts or kills someone, you will pay the family everything you own and earn for the rest of your life
 
#128
#128
VolsNSkinsFan said:
realUT, you are setting yourself up for financial ruin if you knowingly allow you kids to drink. This isnt Vienna, this is the USA, where if your drunk/stoned kid hurts or kills someone, you will pay the family everything you own and earn for the rest of your life
Click to expand...

Depends upon the statute of the state. There are states that allow children to drink in the company of their parents/guardians.
 
#130
#130
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Good luck with that defense
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that defending my actions that are explicitly legally permissible will, if the situation arises, be fairly easy.

From a moral standpoint, no defense is necessary, though. And, personally, I would rather my children were raised drinking wine, according to certain dilution tables, with dinner than drinking soda or juice.
 
#132
#132
VolsNSkinsFan said:
LOL... "But Judge, wine is beter than juice"

Seriously, good luck with that
Click to expand...

Why would I need that, I would simply have to refer to the statutes that allow minors to drink in the company of their parents/guardians:

Possession:
underage_possession_map_2011.gif


Consumption:
underage_consumption_map_2011.gif
 
#134
#134
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Oh look a chart with pretty colors on it. That should prevent you from financial ruin
Click to expand...

Well, I am glad that you are concerned for my financial security; however, you have yet to make an argument that allowing one's children to consume alcohol is either illegal or immoral, or both.

The only avenue in which to show it might be immoral is to begin with the idea of consent and the risks involved in drinking alcohol. Yet, then you open the argument up to a comparison of risks between drinking alcohol and playing high school football (here we have a study that claims that above 50% of high school football players will suffer negative brain changes). Feel free to cite a study that shows that allowing children to drink in moderation leads to greater than 50% of those children experiencing such trauma, and you may have an argument (of course, then you may have to argue against the Catholic Church serving alcohol to 2nd Grade children).
 
#135
#135
Should Parents Let Their Teenage Children Drink at Home? - WSJ.com

Research also suggests that alcohol can do long-term harm to developing brains. In the late teens and early 20s, the brain is developing its adult shape, pruning away unused connections and forming permanent pathways, particularly in areas involved in planning, decision-making and impulse control.

Brain scans have shown that heavy drinking—20 drinks or more a month—in adolescents can create changes in the frontal cortex, the hippocampus and white matter, leading to decreased cognitive function, executive function, memory, attention and spatial skills, researchers at the University of California-San Diego wrote in the Journal of Clinical EEG and Neuroscience in 2009.
Click to expand...

Full text of the study: The influence of substance use on adolescent brain development [eScholarship]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#137
#137
therealUT said:
The research has shown resulting brain changes in developing persons who consume greater than 4-5 drinks per occasion. I have no interest in disputing that claim.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was 20 drinks per month, per the abstract. It emphasizes that it's more pronounced at greater than 4-5 per occasion, which is logical.
 
#139
#139
HSVol said:
Actually, it was 20 drinks per month, per the abstract. It emphasizes that it's more pronounced at greater than 4-5 per occasion, which is logical.
Click to expand...

Per the study, it was 4-5 drinks per occasion. The three groups they had were:
(1) Light to non-drinkers (less than or equal to one drink per month
(2) Heavy drinkers (history of consuming 4/5+ drinks per occasion)
(3) Heavy marijuana users

I read the statement in the abstract as well and I am uncertain as to how they made that statement with regard to the groups of the study.

Basically, this study reduces to: non-drinkers, binge drinkers, and chronic weed smokers.
 
#140
#140
therealUT said:
Per the study, it was 4-5 drinks per occasion. The three groups they had were:
(1) Light to non-drinkers (less than or equal to one drink per month
(2) Heavy drinkers (history of consuming 4/5+ drinks per occasion)
(3) Heavy marijuana users

I read the statement in the abstract as well and I am uncertain as to how they made that statement with regard to the groups of the study.

Basically, this study reduces to: non-drinkers, binge drinkers, and chronic weed smokers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I just noticed that. The abstract isn't very consistent with many of the other study characterizations. They go from light drinkers (<= 1 drink/occasion) to heavy (<= drink/occasion). I guess it's hard for them to find something in the middle for this sample.

Anyway, it's still an interesting debate. I think each side can find research that supports its assertions.

On the topic of concussions, I don't think there's nearly enough research to warrant a shutdown of football, or even advocate for a shutdown.
 
#141
#141
HSVol said:
Yes, I just noticed that. The abstract isn't very consistent with many of the other study characterizations. They go from light drinkers (<= 1 drink/occasion) to heavy (<= drink/occasion). I guess it's hard for them to find something in the middle for this sample.

Anyway, it's still an interesting debate. I think each side can find research that supports its assertions.

On the topic of concussions, I don't think there's nearly enough research to warrant a shutdown of football, or even advocate for a shutdown.
Click to expand...

I do not know if there is enough research to warrant shutting down football; I do think that there is enough research to warrant much more research and serious assessment of football with regard to results, even if that means having to uncomfortably distance oneself from something they love. I love football; I am glad that i do not have children of football age at this moment. However, there does not appear to be a critical flaw in the Purdue study and I reasonably expect further studies to replicate the results. If that is the case, and the safety equipment continues to fail to keep players safe, then I think football either has to shut down or we have to start treating high school students as adults capable of making their own decisions that have a high probability of producing strong negative changes in their brains.

If I were a parent right now, I would not allow my child to play middle-school football and I would discourage them from playing high school football. Of course, I also think that many 15 and 16 year old individuals are capable enough of making decisions for themselves (hence, my stance on drinking and smoking).
 
#142
#142
therealUT said:
Buzz Bissinger has now provided a preview of what he will be arguing for in the debate tomorrow night:


I have a feeling that the debate tomorrow night is only the beginning of a very deep, very serious, and very concerned discourse concerning the future of college football in America.
Click to expand...
If anything ends football, it will be the head injures. The other arguments will not get far.
 
#145
#145
tvolsfan said:
I haven't heard much about this at all. It doesn't even seem like many people are taking it seriously to me.
Click to expand...

It is certainly being discussed in the Northeast; I can see how it would not be discussed as much in SEC country. My own perspective, is that it is being discussed, at least around here, more than the issue of steroids was discussed a few years ago. As I stated earlier, I would be surprised if there is not a Congressional Hearing on football soon (after the elections, of course).
 
#146
#146
Potential brain issues are so publicized and well-known now that most players above the age of 14 more than likely have some awareness of the risks.

If people want to beat their brains in for money/fame/popularity, let them. Why are we so obsessed with protecting people from themselves?
 
#147
#147
rockytop9808 said:
Potential brain issues are so publicized and well-known now that most players above the age of 14 more than likely have some awareness of the risks.

If people want to beat their brains in for money/fame/popularity, let them. Why are we so obsessed with protecting people from themselves?
Click to expand...

My issue is simply one of inconsistency: if 14-year-old persons can make the decision to "beat their brains in" and we let them, then why do we prohibit them from drinking, smoking, etc.? Why do we force them to attend school until at least age 16 (in most states)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#148
#148
therealUT said:
It is certainly being discussed in the Northeast; I can see how it would not be discussed as much in SEC country. My own perspective, is that it is being discussed, at least around here, more than the issue of steroids was discussed a few years ago. As I stated earlier, I would be surprised if there is not a Congressional Hearing on football soon (after the elections, of course).
Click to expand...
If the issues of head injuries is the driving factor, I could see something happening.

If the issue is colleges needing to focus on academics, nothing is going to happen.
 
Last edited:
#149
#149
therealUT said:
My issue is simply one of inconsistency: if 14-year-old persons can make the decision to "beat their brains in" and we let them, then why do we prohibit them from drinking, smoking, etc.? Why do we force them to attend school until at least age 16 (in most states)?
Click to expand...

Bc most people do not agree that football is that dangerous of a sport for high school students.....now getting wasted..... smoking and no education is very dangerous to them
 
#150
#150
volbeast33 said:
Bc most people do not agree that football is that dangerous of a sport for high school students.....now getting wasted..... smoking and no education is very dangerous to them
Click to expand...

Right, according to common notions; according to scientific studies, though, football might well be just as dangerous or more dangerous than drinking and smoking.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top