4 ms·

As a non-American, this is something that confuses me about American culture. I see a lot of statements along the lines of "I should be able to do X if it only

• skookumchuck 8y ago
  You're right about the cognitive dissonance going on. Americans want the right to do whatever they want, but won't accept responsibility for their choices.
• steveeq1 8y ago
  Yes, but lawyers don't make as much money that way.
• jjeaff 8y ago
  Yes, and that principle is embedded in common law. For example, if you park near a baseball field and a flyball breaks your car window, you likely will have no recourse to sue anyone. Same would be true of something like football, but things change when you have an organization making money off of it that has known and may have known of the dangers for a long time and has made a concerted effort to hide the dangers. I think the long term dangers of football are still not widely known or acknowledged.
• mcgrath_sh 8y ago
  Until roughly a decade ago, the risks of football were under-disclosed. This includes nefarious actions such as the NFL buying their way into medical journals to refute claims that football leads to brain injuries. Arguably, the 2015-16 rookie class is the first that had consequences laid out to them from Freshman in HS forward. (I believe the 2009 AFCCG is the NFL line of demarcation.) Additionally there is the question of ability to consent and duty of care for a minor playing HS football. In direct response to your question, yes, there is an ability to do dangerous things in the NFL/football, but the NFL had previously withheld/ actively withheld information about the risks from the players. This is different than the ability to knowingly consent to the danger.
• ForHackernews 8y ago
  That answer might be fine for the NFL (and maybe even for college teams), but for high school and younger football players, it seem absurd to say "Well they accepted the risks" For good reason, we don't give children the full scope of authority to assume personal risks that we allow to adults.
• CM30 8y ago
  100% agreed. If you take a risk and it doesn't pay off, you shouldn't be able to sue other people for your own decisions or mistakes. Played an extreme sport (like skydiving or winggliding or snowboarding or mountain climbing or anything else) and got injured? Tough, you decided to do that, and you and your family should stop something looking for someone to blame/sue because of it. Same goes for any other hobby, whether it's fishing or caving or climbing the outside of buildings for Instagram photos. You took a risk, and if it didn't pay off, tough luck. You made that decision. And this especially goes for anything illegal. Oh sure, there are exceptions for legal activities if some party did do something wrong that caused it to become more dangerous than expected (like say, telling kids to play American football without padding and helmets on ice) then maybe there may be a case that someone is to 'blame'. But if you break the law and get injured doing so, well tough luck. You did something illegal and it worked out horribly, what you'd expect? For instance, I distinctly recall cases of burglars suing because they got injured robbing some property or trespassing. That's ridiculous, and the whole idea should be immediately tossed out with 'well if you didn't break into a property you weren't supposed to be in, you wouldn't have got injured'. People should take responsibility for their own mistakes and decisions, and accept that sometimes things don't work out well and that it's merely part of life.
  • thatcat 8y ago
    Taking on a known extreme risk isn't the same as taking on an unknown risk that exists due to the negligence of others.
• jessaustin 8y ago
  ...surely you accept certain risks... TFA is largely about insurance for youth leagues. Children aren't capable of assessing and accepting certain risks. That's why we don't let them drive automobiles on the highway.