View Single Post
05-09-2013, 01:37 PM
I am the Liquor
Wrong Way Eberle
I am the Liquor's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,294
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
1. a. Tier crossing is potentially more dangerous.
For those who choose to do so maybe, but for those who dont it isnt. Again, those who choose to do so need to weigh the pros and cons of their choice.

b. Where do you draw the line for freedom of a parent to decide child safety?
Where do you draw the line on governmental interference? I would like to think parents have more invested (and for the right reasons) in the choices than govt does.

Are child safety seats in car up to parental descretion?
Why not? Myself along with millions of others grew up without them. Shocking I know.

c. When it comes to health of the citizens it's always a public matter.
Absolutely ridiculous statement. In a free society one's health should be the domain of each individual.

After all healthcare is a public service. Perhaps the fee for contact peewee should be quadrupled. After all injuries are a public burden.
The extra costs in treating injuries would be offset by the increased cardio workout due to fear of said injuries and moving quickly and often to avoid the dreaded inevitable vegetative state. This would save millions in cardiovascular disease care further on down the road.

2. We do know that there is a danger to concussions the more you get. A cumulitive effect. For example. A child gets 1 concussion a year of contact hockey (unlucky ******* or just can't keep his head up). If Peewee contact is in he'll have suffered 4 concussions by the time he gets to midget. 5 after his first year of midget. I'm not sure how many before someone gets told to shut it down, but if it's 5.. he's not playing hockey anymore. Take the hitting out of peewee and he plays 2 more years of midget.
Again, if this is a proven fact why expose ANY age group to potential brain injury? Why draw a line at any age? Just get rid of it altogether.

I guess the point is trying to get the kids through their child hockey careers with as little cumulitive concussions as possible.
Why not get rid of all hitting at all age levels? Why expose anyone to potential brain injury?

And before anyone spews more of.. he'll just get 2 concussions a year in Bantam because he doesn't know to take a hit like he learned in peewee. For the 10th or so time... that's an opinion with no factual support. The only evidence I've seen says it remains the same.
Statistical data can be shaped in any number of ways to prove or disprove whatever point you would like to get across.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote