View Single Post
12-01-2012, 02:20 AM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,197
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Ah, so right now we're arguing over value?
Give it a rest already. Owners are the ones taking all the financial risk. That's a fact.
If you think the value of the health risk is the same, that's good for you, but it's an opinion, not a fact.
Aside from being backed by common sense, it's also backed by the legal system. Physiological damages usually result in financial reparations, for example if you cripple somebody with your car while driving drunk your insurance company will have to pay a hefty fine. That's a legal equivalence between the financial and physiological, and it goes as reason would expect: the greater the physiological damage, the greater the financial compensation, on average.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But why would I say that? That makes no sense at all.
It doesn't make any sense to you.

For some reason, you can realize this doesn't apply to the owner, that it's a weak morality, yet for the players you have no gumption spouting nonsense like "so what? they'll still be rich and they've only lost five years of their lives, they still have it better than the Palestinians" -- you would NEVER write that about the owners. Why not? Simple, because you apply different, softer, standards of morality on powerful people.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I'm the last guy that will defend Jacobs or anything Bruins, but all you're going about on is hearsay. There hasn't been any confirmation.
The evidence is coming in from multiple quarters and is pretty overwhelming. You can deny any particular story, but the general pattern is convincing.

Last edited by DAChampion: 12-01-2012 at 07:35 AM.
DAChampion is online now