2010 NFL Season

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Reconcile bloodsports with Exodus 20:13.

No one has ever been killed in football nor is injuring an opponent the point of the game.  It happens incidentally, but that's possible with any sport or hobby.  The difference between football and baseball is simply that the nature of the sport happens to bring about more unwanted injuries, unfortunately.  But you can injure yourself while skiing too.  Or gardening.

Your argument is weak.  It might work for something like UFC or boxing, but football is about running a ball into an endzone, not beating the crap out of somebody.

You continue to ignore the fact that in full-contact football, tackles and hard falls are a natural course of game play.  Regardless of the intent of someone tackling another player, injuries not fully mitigated by equipment still occur on a frequent basis, often resulting in permanent damage.  Players may not be killed, but they are needlessly destroying their bodies for your entertainment, not unlike in dog fighting.

Once again, the only difference between dog fighting and full-contact football is consent of the participants.

But fighting is about injury.  That's evident in its very name.  Football is about endzones and goalposts.  As technology and medical information improve the sport has adapted to make it safer and safer.  It continues to be less of a risk for players as the years go by.  And that's because it's end is something morally neutral and not injury.  You almost seem to be arguing against double effect.

There are plenty of jobs which pay individuals to do dangerous jobs that almost invariably put them in immediate danger (either long or short term).  Are Catholics forbidden from becoming coal miners, loggers, or deep sea fishermen?

Is this the argument of double effect?

[dark lancer]

Reconcile bloodsports with Exodus 20:13.

No one has ever been killed in football nor is injuring an opponent the point of the game.  It happens incidentally, but that's possible with any sport or hobby.  The difference between football and baseball is simply that the nature of the sport happens to bring about more unwanted injuries, unfortunately.  But you can injure yourself while skiing too.  Or gardening.

Your argument is weak.  It might work for something like UFC or boxing, but football is about running a ball into an endzone, not beating the crap out of somebody.

You continue to ignore the fact that in full-contact football, tackles and hard falls are a natural course of game play.  Regardless of the intent of someone tackling another player, injuries not fully mitigated by equipment still occur on a frequent basis, often resulting in permanent damage.  Players may not be killed, but they are needlessly destroying their bodies for your entertainment, not unlike in dog fighting.

Once again, the only difference between dog fighting and full-contact football is consent of the participants.

But fighting is about injury.  That's evident in its very name.  Football is about endzones and goalposts.  As technology and medical information improve the sport has adapted to make it safer and safer.  It continues to be less of a risk for players as the years go by.  And that's because it's end is something morally neutral and not injury.  You almost seem to be arguing against double effect.

There are plenty of jobs which pay individuals to do dangerous jobs that almost invariably put them in immediate danger (either long or short term).  Are Catholics forbidden from becoming coal miners, loggers, or deep sea fishermen?

I wonder if your tendency to read only what you want to read is caused by brain damage.  In most sports and in all jobs, all actions which lead to injury are avoided as much as possible.  In full-contact football, actions which lead to injury are a natural outcome of game play, making it a blood sport.  You can justify football all you want using the same flimsy arguments the NFL made a year ago, but the fact remains that players are not adequately protected from all injuries and are expected to engage opponents in ways that can and does cause permanent damage for your entertainment.

[Walty]

Reconcile bloodsports with Exodus 20:13.

No one has ever been killed in football nor is injuring an opponent the point of the game.  It happens incidentally, but that's possible with any sport or hobby.  The difference between football and baseball is simply that the nature of the sport happens to bring about more unwanted injuries, unfortunately.  But you can injure yourself while skiing too.  Or gardening.

Your argument is weak.  It might work for something like UFC or boxing, but football is about running a ball into an endzone, not beating the crap out of somebody.

You continue to ignore the fact that in full-contact football, tackles and hard falls are a natural course of game play.  Regardless of the intent of someone tackling another player, injuries not fully mitigated by equipment still occur on a frequent basis, often resulting in permanent damage.  Players may not be killed, but they are needlessly destroying their bodies for your entertainment, not unlike in dog fighting.

Once again, the only difference between dog fighting and full-contact football is consent of the participants.

But fighting is about injury.  That's evident in its very name.  Football is about endzones and goalposts.  As technology and medical information improve the sport has adapted to make it safer and safer.  It continues to be less of a risk for players as the years go by.  And that's because it's end is something morally neutral and not injury.  You almost seem to be arguing against double effect.

There are plenty of jobs which pay individuals to do dangerous jobs that almost invariably put them in immediate danger (either long or short term).  Are Catholics forbidden from becoming coal miners, loggers, or deep sea fishermen?

Is this the argument of double effect?

No, but I'm saying that Thomistic principles of assessing the morality of a given action are determined by their ends.  In other words, the action and end of football in and of itself is morally neutral and the fact that unfortunate side-effects may go along with it does not change that fact precisely because they are undesired in the first place.

[dark lancer]

Reconcile bloodsports with Exodus 20:13.

No one has ever been killed in football nor is injuring an opponent the point of the game.  It happens incidentally, but that's possible with any sport or hobby.  The difference between football and baseball is simply that the nature of the sport happens to bring about more unwanted injuries, unfortunately.  But you can injure yourself while skiing too.  Or gardening.

Your argument is weak.  It might work for something like UFC or boxing, but football is about running a ball into an endzone, not beating the crap out of somebody.

You continue to ignore the fact that in full-contact football, tackles and hard falls are a natural course of game play.  Regardless of the intent of someone tackling another player, injuries not fully mitigated by equipment still occur on a frequent basis, often resulting in permanent damage.  Players may not be killed, but they are needlessly destroying their bodies for your entertainment, not unlike in dog fighting.

Once again, the only difference between dog fighting and full-contact football is consent of the participants.

But fighting is about injury.  That's evident in its very name.  Football is about endzones and goalposts.  As technology and medical information improve the sport has adapted to make it safer and safer.  It continues to be less of a risk for players as the years go by.  And that's because it's end is something morally neutral and not injury.  You almost seem to be arguing against double effect.

There are plenty of jobs which pay individuals to do dangerous jobs that almost invariably put them in immediate danger (either long or short term).  Are Catholics forbidden from becoming coal miners, loggers, or deep sea fishermen?

Is this the argument of double effect?

No, but I'm saying that Thomistic principles of assessing the morality of a given action are determined by their ends.  In other words, the action and end of football in and of itself is morally neutral and the fact that unfortunate side-effects may go along with it does not change that fact precisely because they are undesired in the first place.

Which would be incorrect in the case of full-contact football because tackling and tripping are important tactics for preventing the opposing team's advance with the ball.  An example of a morally neutral game with unfortunate side effects would be baseball as players take every effort to avoid injury to other players.  In baseball, knocking over or tackling someone on the other team would not help your team out.

[Baskerville]

Lancer your not going to find any converts here. We like Football, the players like Football. So everyone is happy. Go troll somewhere else.

[dark lancer]

Lancer your not going to find any converts here. We like Football, the players like Football. So everyone is happy. Go troll somewhere else.

Is God happy?

[Texican]

Is Lancer happy, is apparently the question here.

BTW, Hogs won!

(yeah, I know they're not in the NFL, but still...)

[dark lancer]

Is Lancer happy, is apparently the question here.

BTW, Hogs won!

(yeah, I know they're not in the NFL, but still...)

Quit stalking me.

[Iuvenalis]

The Kansas City/Indy game should be a good one.

I really think the Chiefs can/will beat the Colts.

Seriously, unless the Chiefs we've been seeing the last few weeks don't show up, that is.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Lancer your not going to find any converts here. We like Football, the players like Football. So everyone is happy. Go troll somewhere else.

Is God happy?

While God is obviously a baseball fan foremost, I have no reason to think that he dislikes Football.

The question is whether he cheers for the Cardinals or the Saints-- that is, whether he prefers the Church Militant or the Church Triumphant.