|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by libertarian99
on Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:33 pm |
|
I saw a news story on CNN today about professional football players having an increased risk of dementia. It's not much of a surprise, considering how many times they are hit forcefully in the head by other large, strong men running at high speeds with the sole intention of knocking them to the ground and crushing them.
Here is a link to the story:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/30/dementia.ap/index.html
Here's a partial quote from the story:
...Dr. Scott A. Small, an expert on Alzheimer's and memory at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, called the new result "intriguing and alarming," although preliminary.
"This is the way you start," he said. "The most important thing it tells us is that additional studies need to be performed, and I would say, urgently. This is not a trivial matter."
He noted that studies of brain samples from deceased athletes have established a link between repeated concussions and brain changes somewhat like those seen in Alzheimer's. So that makes the suggestion of the new study more plausible, he said.
Another study of retired professional football players, published in 2005, found that a history of three or more concussions was associated with a boost in risk of mild cognitive impairment after age 50. Kevin Guskiewicz, lead author of that study and director of the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said the findings of the new study didn't surprise him.
In any case, any long-term risk of mental impairment is just part of the game, said Brandon Stokley, a receiver on the Denver Broncos, who has a history of concussions.
"Yeah, you always think about things like that," he said. "But again, I'm a football player and that's what I do, so if it happens to me and something's wrong with me, then so be it. This is the life that I chose and I wouldn't trade it for anything."
____________
PLEASE NOTE: I highlighted the statement above in bold because it clearly shows addictive thinking. The risk of serious bodily harm is not enough to make the player quit. Why isn't everyone clamoring to save this man from himself?
So why aren't parents demonizing professional football players? Obviously no parent would want their child to end up with early onset dementia. Why not stigmatize and demonize those guys so that children will think they are just big, stupid thugs who are obviously too brain-damaged to know what's best for them?
Just thought I'd throw that in there. It really highlights the effectiveness of the antismoking movement's mind control campaign. People are conditioned to accept such thinking when it applies to smokers; the same reasoning is unthinkable when applied to professional football players, who are instead hailed as heroes and paid huge salaries for inflicting serious bodily damage on others. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by crackerjack
on Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:25 am |
|
Guy your problem is that you want the world to make sense. People don't make sense at all and society as we know and love it is just organized chaos. We humans strive towards and pride ourselves on being civilized yet we love gore, bloodbaths, fart jokes and watching one 300 pound guy break another 300 pound guys spine on TV is what we call good entertainment.
I say humans are like animals but we are confused animals.
Take a monkey and put him in a box with two buttons in it. One red one green. eventually the monkey will push a button. The green button will produce a treat and the red one will administer an electric shock. It will not take long for the monkey to learn to only push the green button and not the red.
Humans are conditioned the same way but our buttons are all messed up.
300 pound man gets hurt purposely and carried off the field = green button = good = sport
Nipple accidentally slips out in halftime show = red button = bad = porn
Most outraged individuals. Women who say their kids saw the nipple.
Logic= The first thing a mother does is show her child a nipple to feed and calm the child so why be outraged at a nipple?
Human logic = Mothers screaming at their kids on the football field to Kill the other team.
The world makes no sense. |
|
|
crackerjack
Toker
Joined: Sep 08, 2009
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:57 pm |
|
| No, I don't expect people's behavior to make sense. I just enjoy pointing out the glaring logical inconsistencies in sheeple think. The sheeple themselves are scared to do that because they might be thrown out of the flock and left to starve on the savannah, bleating pathetically as they wither and die in the harsh light of the truth. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:44 pm |
|
I love this. The head honchos at the NFL are behaving just like evil tobacco company execs in denying that football--which keeps them rolling in cash--is damaging to people's health. Anyone who has ever watched slow-motion replays of professional football players tackling each other can see that kind of impact cannot be good for a person's brain.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/10/28/congress.head.injuries.ap/index.html?eref=si_mostpopular
I'm not the only one who noticed the similarity. Here's a quote from the story:
"Sanchez said that reminded her of tobacco companies denying a link between smoking and health damage in the 1990s."
It's going to be very entertaining to watch the football execs pretend that being hit in the head repeatedly by players weighing 250 lbs. or so is really not that bad, especially when they have living proof that players are suffering permanent brain damage. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:55 pm |
|
| There is NO MONEY in denormalizing football or demonizing the 'industry'. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:25 am |
|
runamok wrote: There is NO MONEY in denormalizing football or demonizing the 'industry'.
They are talking about making the game safer. How are they going to do that? Are they going to put all the players in Samurai suits like they do on Ellen DeGeneres? The only way they can make the game safer is to either encase the players' heads in styrofoam or make everyone play flag football. Can you imagine the Super Bowl being a flag football game?
I particularly enjoy seeing the NFL execs demonstrate the fact that just about any executive working for any company, when faced with the impending destruction of their industry, is going to lie or at least distort the truth in order to keep their fat executive salaries. The tobacco company guys weren't particularly evil compared to other CEOs. They are all after the money.
This is a really good opportunity to see how the majority of people are no different than smokers when they are faced with the prospect of giving up something they enjoy because it carries health risks. Football is extremely important to a large number of people. This situation will demonstrate that most people--and not just smokers--when forced to choose between their passion and their health, will choose their passion. Smokers are by no means unique in their unwillingness to give up pleasure for safety.
I realized that smokers were not really different from other people when the news came out linking cell phones to brain tumors. One of my relatives has already had a brain tumor removed, yet would not consider stopping cell phone use even though it can be clearly demonstrated that cell phone signals damage living cells. This same relatives will act like smokers are from Mars for not immediately throwing their cigarettes in the trash due to health warnings. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:15 am |
|
I don't put any stock whatsoever into the cell phone/tumor correlation that the alarmists have cooked up in some, undoubtedly, bullshit study.
Everybody always looks for a villain when they come down with any kind of a life threatening disease like cancer. Nobody is quicker to cash in everyone elses freedom than a terminally ill patient or their family as they go on a witch hunt. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:58 pm |
|
runamok wrote: I don't put any stock whatsoever into the cell phone/tumor correlation that the alarmists have cooked up in some, undoubtedly, bullshit study.
Everybody always looks for a villain when they come down with any kind of a life threatening disease like cancer. Nobody is quicker to cash in everyone elses freedom than a terminally ill patient or their family as they go on a witch hunt.
People do have a desperate need to blame death on controllable factors. It's utterly unthinkable and intolerable that every one of us will some day cease to exist. I think that's why human beings invented religion. They had a desperate need to believe in eternal life. |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Richie
on Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:47 pm |
|
I just joined this forum and have been carousing the posts. Most I agree with, some facts I find interesting, and some I dispute (like smokers having fewer colds). But that's besides the point. I find the frequent use of the word freedom interesting. Yes, of course we're free to smoke or not. But, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I'm probably the only person who wrote a book (link below) on how to stop smoking that invites the reader to sit back and burn one while reading. I also suggest the smoker give honor to tobacco's rich heritage and traditions. And if someone wants to smoke, or anything else -- as long as it doesn't interfere with other's right, I have no objection. We all do what we want, anyway. But, what you 'want' can be a subconscious- rebellious decision, or a conscious one . Conscious, autonomous decisions don't come paired with justifications. I suppose that's a different level of freedom.
http://thedoublemessage.com/ |
|
|
Richie
Newbie
Joined: Nov 02, 2009
Posts: 7
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
Richie wrote: I just joined this forum and have been carousing the posts. Most I agree with, some facts I find interesting, and some I dispute (like smokers having fewer colds). But that's besides the point. I find the frequent use of the word freedom interesting. Yes, of course we're free to smoke or not. But, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I'm probably the only person who wrote a book (link below) on how to stop smoking that invites the reader to sit back and burn one while reading. I also suggest the smoker give honor to tobacco's rich heritage and traditions. And if someone wants to smoke, or anything else -- as long as it doesn't interfere with other's right, I have no objection. We all do what we want, anyway. But, what you 'want' can be a subconscious- rebellious decision, or a conscious one . Conscious, autonomous decisions don't come paired with justifications. I suppose that's a different level of freedom.
http://thedoublemessage.com/ |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
