Montador's family sues NHL. Claims fighting leads to depression & addiciton

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I always get a laugh at the level of arrogance required to say that fighting is not a part of hockey (or the NHL, if you prefer) when fighting has been a part of hockey (or the NHL, if you prefer) literally since day 1. You can say you don't like fighting, and you can say you don't think the game would suffer if it was removed tomorrow. But don't sit there and pretend it is not a part of the sport today.

I also get a laugh at the guys defending brain damage and suicide, depression etc all because they think fighting is somehow "part of the game". It is not, it is a part of the pathetic culture we live in where two grown men punching each other in the brain is applauded.

It's not part of the game. Slashing Gaudreau in the hands isn't part of the game yet it happens every game. Just because two guys fight doesn't mean it's part of the game.

hockey will still be hockey long after fighting is banned.

[calgaryblood]

Unless the original point was "hockey is part of the game because they fight in the NHL"

I don't think anyone is denying there are fights in the NHL. "Part of the game" implies it's part of hockey or you might as well say "scoring goals is part of the game".

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I also get a laugh at the guys defending brain damage and suicide, depression etc all because they think fighting is somehow "part of the game". It is not, it is a part of the pathetic culture we live in where two grown men punching each other in the brain is applauded.

It's not part of the game. Slashing Gaudreau in the hands isn't part of the game yet it happens every game. Just because two guys fight doesn't mean it's part of the game.

hockey will still be hockey long after fighting is banned.

Both of those things are part of the game. If you want to eliminate fighting altogether, get ride of a fighting penalty, if you want to get rid of slashing altogether, get rid of the slashing penalty.

Making it not part of the game, by making it not part of the game.

I enjoy a fight, and I'm a fan of MMA but I struggle with enjoying both seeing what's happening with retiring fighters and double that for old boxers. I actually wouldn't be against seeing fighting booted from hockey, but to deny it's not currently part of the game (NHL) is ludicrous.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I also get a laugh at the guys defending brain damage and suicide, depression etc all because they think fighting is somehow "part of the game". It is not, it is a part of the pathetic culture we live in where two grown men punching each other in the brain is applauded.

Every single human culture in recorded history, without exception, calls upon grown men to perform acts of great bodily violence with the clear and present danger of severe injury or death; applauds them for doing so; shames them, shuns them, and depreciates their manhood if they refuse. By your standard, that makes the entire human race pathetic. If you think you're entitled to change human nature, please go and stand way over there. Nature is a real bitch when you try to pretend she doesn't exist, and she hits back hard.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Every single human culture in recorded history, without exception, calls upon grown men to perform acts of great bodily violence with the clear and present danger of severe injury or death; applauds them for doing so; shames them, shuns them, and depreciates their manhood if they refuse. By your standard, that makes the entire human race pathetic. If you think you're entitled to change human nature, please go and stand way over there. Nature is a real bitch when you try to pretend she doesn't exist, and she hits back hard.

blatantly false. There are many pacifist cultures throughout history. The entire human race does not predicate itself upon violence. And I entirely disagree that fighting is in human nature, maybe it's in yours, but don't speak for everyone else. If you think you're entitled to tell us what human nature is please go stand over there.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by AcGold

blatantly false. There are many pacifist cultures throughout history.

Name three. Once you have named them, show how they were able to maintain themselves without the protection of cultures that were not pacifist. Hint: You can't.

Then name a culture in which there was no such thing as murder or physical assault. Just one. Hint: See hint above.

The entire human race does not predicate itself upon violence.

George Orwell on Kipling: ‘He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.’ Note the word guard. That is to say, you are only able to live a civilized life because soldiers, policemen, and other professionals are willing to commit violence in your defence. Your existence is predicated upon their violence.

You are, of course, free to lie to yourself by denying that they exist, or that you are dependent upon them, or that their violence is necessary. But this, too, is predicated upon the protection that they give you.

And I entirely disagree that fighting is in human nature,

You are, of course, wrong. There are substantial sections of the human brain that are wired specifically for the purpose. That's to say nothing of endocrine and other physiological responses that are solely useful in either initiating or responding to violence.

maybe it's in yours,

Cheap attempt at ad hominem (abusive) fallacy duly noted.

but don't speak for everyone else. If you think you're entitled to tell us what human nature is please go stand over there.

I'm a professional student of human nature, and part of my profession involves the deep and searching study of human history and human psychology. What more do I have to be before I can tell you what human nature is?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I also get a laugh at the guys defending brain damage and suicide, depression etc all because they think fighting is somehow "part of the game".

Arguing in strawmen doesn't make you appear half as intelligent as you think it does. Find one person "defending brain damage and suicide, depression etc" in this thread. There are literally thousands of hockey players throughout history who fought but did not suffer from such.

Also, I would note that if you are not protesting all body contact as vehemently as you are fighting, then you are presenting a disingenuous argument when you try to use "brain damage" as your shield. The arguments around CTE and their effects centres around the physical contact. So if you truly and honestly care about these people's long term health rather than your selfish, personal hatred of fighting, then you would be standing here arguing that hockey needs to be made fully non-contact. That you aren't only shows how disingenuous your position is.

It is not, it is a part of the pathetic culture we live in where two grown men punching each other in the brain is applauded.

It's not part of the game. Slashing Gaudreau in the hands isn't part of the game yet it happens every game. Just because two guys fight doesn't mean it's part of the game.

You can call it "pathetic culture" if you like. That is fair criticism. But you can't honestly pretend that fighting is not a part of the game. Pointing out that other things are penalized doesn't change this. Slashing, tripping and and the like are part of the game too. Yes, they are penalized, but it still happens and it still impacts the game. And I won't even get into re-hashing the arguments around the belief (whether or not you think they are real or imagined is irrelevant) that fighting serves a purpose and/or can motivate a team or change momentum. They've been spoken of many times, and it is clear people like you won't consider it the 100th time when you refused to the first 99.

hockey will still be hockey long after fighting is banned.

And even it it is, that still doesn't change the fact that it is part of the game today. You may not like it. You may choose to pretend otherwise. But reality doesn't care about your feelings.

[undercoverbrother]

If fighting is a part of Hockey, why don't we see it at the highest level? For example, I can't recall the last time I saw a fight in the Olympics. If fighting is a part of Hockey why don't all players fight?


Why don't we see as many fights per game in the post season?


Fighting might be part of the NHL, but it isn't part of Hockey.


One thing that drives me nuts is when a player lays a good, solid, clean hit and then is expected to fight. It is ridiculous that a player that is playing within the confines of the sport's rules has to step outside the rules to justify his actions. The sport presents plenty of "legal" avenues to "get back" at the player that just made a clean solid hit.


Are hockey players so soft they can't take a legal clean hit?

[calgaryblood]

Lol because "it's part of the game" has turned into "it's part of the NHL" well duh, of course there is fighting in the NHL because it's not banned, don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Poster above me made a good point. Why don't we see fighting in the Olympics if it's part of the game? I mean all the best NHLers play in that tournament and somehow manage not to fight.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Name three. Once you have named them, show how they were able to maintain themselves without the protection of cultures that were not pacifist. Hint: You can't.

Then name a culture in which there was no such thing as murder or physical assault. Just one. Hint: See hint above.



George Orwell on Kipling: ‘He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.’ Note the word guard. That is to say, you are only able to live a civilized life because soldiers, policemen, and other professionals are willing to commit violence in your defence. Your existence is predicated upon their violence.

You are, of course, free to lie to yourself by denying that they exist, or that you are dependent upon them, or that their violence is necessary. But this, too, is predicated upon the protection that they give you.



You are, of course, wrong. There are substantial sections of the human brain that are wired specifically for the purpose. That's to say nothing of endocrine and other physiological responses that are solely useful in either initiating or responding to violence.



Cheap attempt at ad hominem (abusive) fallacy duly noted.



I'm a professional student of human nature, and part of my profession involves the deep and searching study of human history and human psychology. What more do I have to be before I can tell you what human nature is?

So if the entire human race is inherently violent wouldn't then every single human be violent? If you're going to make the claim every single human is violent in nature then every single would person would be exhibiting violent behavior. Shockingly enough we're not.

Pointing to historical incidents of violence and brain chemistry doesn't excuse the simple fact that not every human is violent. You're argument while incredibly rhetorical is false at the most basic level. An assertion of an an absolute must have no exceptions.

I'm a student of philosophy and logic and what you're spouting is a confirmation bias plain and simple, also I have a degree in psychology already so you're credentials don't mean anything when you don't understand logic.

It wasn't ad hominem it's taking offense to authoritative language coming from a place of basic logical fallacies, it's an attack on your words not your character. An ad hominem is an attack on character used to persuade an argument and that's not what happened. But it's good to know you can speak so rhetorically while having such a low understanding of basic logical fallacies.

Statement of absolute must have no exceptions

Cultures with non violent philosophies

Amish
Batek
Birhor

Not enough?

Mbuti
Nubiyans
Tahitians
Yanadi


Still not enough?

Ladaki
Kadar
Lepchas

I could keep going. Just because a society has an incident of murder does not then make the entire society inherently violent. That you demand I name a culture without murder just shows your basic lack of understanding in regards to logic, that's a terrible rhetorical question if you're trying to say all humans are violent.

One human is female therefore all humans are female?
One human is tall therefore all humans are tall?

You're spinning fallacies into rhetoric, aggressively arrogant rhetoric at that. I could quote famous pacifists to prove a point too. Edison:

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."

Then there was Einstein

"It is my belief that the problem of bringing peace to the world on a supranational basis will be solved only by employing Gandhi's method on a larger scale"

Then there was Gandhi that lead a nation of millions of people non-violently, successfully, to claim their own freedom. What do you have to say about that?

I'm guessing Gandhi, Mandela, Edison, Einstein and the Dhalai Lama were all just secretly violent. Every non violent protest never happened, every pacifist was just biding their time until they struck. The human brain also has cannabinoid receptors, does that then also then mean every single human consumes cannabis? It must by your logic, that makes it awfully confounding when you consider some people have an allergic reaction. Also this, for fun:

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Lol because "it's part of the game" has turned into "it's part of the NHL" well duh, of course there is fighting in the NHL because it's not banned, don't think anyone is arguing that point.

Poster above me made a good point. Why don't we see fighting in the Olympics if it's part of the game? I mean all the best NHLers play in that tournament and somehow manage not to fight.

He didn't actually make a good point, but I am not surprised your little echo chamber only hears what it wants. You even, ironically, defeated your second paragraph with your first.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

He didn't actually make a good point, but I am not surprised your little echo chamber only hears what it wants. You even, ironically, defeated your second paragraph with your first.

Actually he did if you were following along properly.


Transplant99 said fighting has always been part of hockey. That's what we are discussing so he did make a great point if you actually were following along.

There is no fighting in the Olympics or in 99.9% of hockey games. I played last night and it was a great hockey game with zero fights.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Actually he did if you were following along properly.


Transplant99 said fighting has always been part of hockey. That's what we are discussing so he did make a great point if you actually were following along.

There is no fighting in the Olympics or in 99.9% of hockey games. I played last night and it was a great hockey game with zero fights.

Tell me what the NHL is then. Or the CHL for that matter. AHL. ECHL. LNAH.

The fact that you are trying to equate your beer league to the NHL shows just how desperate your need to argue in semantics is.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Tell me what the NHL is then. Or the CHL for that matter. AHL. ECHL. LNAH.

The fact that you are trying to equate your beer league to the NHL shows just how desperate your need to argue in semantics is.

I blame all this confusion/discussion on Hockey Canada and their lack of coaching aids when it comes to fighting.

I mean, come on, how can the national governing body of a sport not provide this information.


Disgusting.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Arguing in strawmen doesn't make you appear half as intelligent as you think it does. Find one person "defending brain damage and suicide, depression etc" in this thread. There are literally thousands of hockey players throughout history who fought but did not suffer from such.

Also, I would note that if you are not protesting all body contact as vehemently as you are fighting, then you are presenting a disingenuous argument when you try to use "brain damage" as your shield. The arguments around CTE and their effects centres around the physical contact.

Wrong. The arguments around CTE and their effects centres around a very specific type of physical contact, more precisely, repetitive head injuries. I'm sorry that I have to keep coming back to this, but the point continues to be ignored and glossed over by the rather fatuous insistence that all bodily injuries are the same thing, and several respondents continue to produce vapid straw men of their own like this one:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So if you truly and honestly care about these people's long term health rather than your selfish, personal hatred of fighting, then you would be standing here arguing that hockey needs to be made fully non-contact. That you aren't only shows how disingenuous your position is.

There are reported recommendations by medical experts for reducing the incidence of subconcussive injuries, but eliminating all forms of contact is not among them.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You can call it "pathetic culture" if you like. That is fair criticism. But you can't honestly pretend that fighting is not a part of the game. Pointing out that other things are penalized doesn't change this. Slashing, tripping and and the like are part of the game too. Yes, they are penalized, but it still happens and it still impacts the game.

I agree that making the blanket statement about insisting that fighting is not a part of the game is short sighted and imprecise. But making this semantic argument doesn't help. Perhaps a better assertion is that whether or not it is "part of the game," fighting in hockey is dangerous and eminently preventable, and there are enough good reasons to see that it is eliminated from hockey.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong. The arguments around CTE and their effects centres around a very specific type of physical contact, more specifically, repetitive head injuries. I'm sorry that I have to keep coming back to this, but the point continues to be ignored and glossed over by the rather fatuous insistence that all bodily injuries are the same thing, and producing vapid straw men of their own like this one:

Ask Michael Frolik about body contact causing head injuries. Or pretty much any big hit as it relates to whiplash effect. I stand by my argument. The extreme anti-fighting people are using this argument disingenuously to paint themselves as virtuous saviours hockey of when all they are actually doing is railing against an aspect of the game they simply don't like.

I agree that making the blanket statement about insisting that fighting is not a part of the game is short sighted and imprecise. But making this semantic argument doesn't help. Perhaps a better assertion is that whether or not it is "part of the game," fighting in hockey is dangerous and eminently preventable, and there are enough good reasons to see that it is eliminated from hockey.

And that is fine. I may disagree with people who want fighting banned, but I don't challenge their right to hold and assert that opinion. It is when people haul out garbage like "there's no fighting in my beer league therefore fighting isn't part of the game hurr durr durr" that I will take exception.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wrong. The arguments around CTE and their effects centres around a very specific type of physical contact, more precisely, repetitive head injuries. I'm sorry that I have to keep coming back to this, but the point continues to be ignored and glossed over by the rather fatuous insistence that all bodily injuries are the same thing, and producing vapid straw men of their own like this one:


There are reported recommendations by medical experts for reducing the incidence of subconcussive injuries, but eliminating all forms of contact is not among them.

I agree that making the blanket statement about insisting that fighting is not a part of the game is short sighted and imprecise. But making this semantic argument doesn't help. Perhaps a better assertion is that whether or not it is "part of the game," fighting in hockey is dangerous and eminently preventable, and there are enough good reasons to see that it is eliminated from hockey.

First the bolded part. Very specific types of physical contact has a lot to do with repetitive head injuries true, but fighting isn't the biggest cause of these repetitive injuries. Concussions are caused by the brain hitting the inside of the skull. Body contact causes the body to stop with a sudden change of direction but the brain continues in the direction of the original motion then bumping into the skull.

You have turned this into your personal opinion about fighting and it shouldn't be. You are spouting your opinion again as fact, it isn't.

[AcGold]

Each repetitive brain injury is not necessarily a concussion, hence why it's called CTE. It's not chronic concussion encepholapothy, it's chronic trauma. And that's why it's such a tricky issue

"Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes (and others) with a history of repetitive brain trauma, including symptomatic concussions as well as asymptomatic subconcussive hits to the head"

Meaning that hits to the head exhibiting absolutely no symptoms may also cause CTE. Even the little hits add up and create, theoretically at this point in time, the tau proteins that are the major cause of concern. The brown portions shown on the middle and right are the tau proteins of two athletes with CTE (football, boxing) and the left is the control group.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ask Michael Frolik about body contact causing head injuries. Or pretty much any big hit as it relates to whiplash effect.

I can't ask Frolik this question, but neither have you, so what is the point of even bringing it up? It's pretty futile.

I can't speak for all of us in the "extreme anti fighting" crowd, but I would hazard to guess that no one is unconcerned about head injuries beyond those sustained by fighting. Yes, it's a problem, and yes, I continue to hope for better measures to reduce them. However, there is already a lot of compelling evidence which shows that if there were no fights in hockey, there would be a lot fewer incidences of repetitive sub-concussive injuries. We can't make the game perfectly safe. But we can make it a lot safer.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I stand by my argument. The extreme anti-fighting people are using this argument disingenuously to paint themselves as virtuous saviours hockey of when all they are actually doing is railing against an aspect of the game they simply don't like.

And here you are being just as disingenuous by insisting that those of us who want to see fighting eliminated from hockey are manipulating sympathies for no good reason apart from our own queasiness. Well done.

Until just very recently, I had no problem with fighting in hockey. I do now, and it is not because I "simply don't like it." I am opposed to fighting in hockey—along with other blood sports—for a range of complex reasons that go well beyond simple disdain.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

First the bolded part. Very specific types of physical contact has a lot to do with repetitive head injuries true, but fighting isn't the biggest cause of these repetitive injuries.

We have already established that there are elements of the causation that are debatable, but the evidence from studies of CTE among former hockey players does rather strongly suggest that repeated fighting was the primary contributing factor.

I have pointed to this now directly several times, and without a response from you:

Habitual fighting demonstrably increases the risk of developing CTE, which is sustained from suffering repeated head trauma. There is a very strong circumstantial link between fighting in hockey and the incidence of CTE. Would you contest this last statement?

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Concussions are caused by the brain hitting the inside of the skull. Body contact causes the body to stop with a sudden change of direction but the brain continues in the direction of the original motion then bumping into the skull.

So, is it your contention that "the biggest cause of these repetitive injuries" is body contact? If so, this looks to me like your own personal opinion, but one that does not even have the benefit of circumstantial evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You have turned this into your personal opinion about fighting and it shouldn't be. You are spouting your opinion again as fact, it isn't.

I have been pretty straightforward about the fact that my opinion is based on an incomplete body of evidence, and have attempted to argue from a position of taking preventative measures to reduce future harm. But more to the point, what is it that you think this thread is about? My responses have been directed to the discussion of the merits of a lawsuit filed under the explicit pretense that fighting in hockey was a primary contributing factor to the death of Steve Montador:

Originally Posted by The Lawsuit

"By promoting and, in fact, glorifying fighting, the NHL continues to perpetuate its message to players, coaches and fans that blows to the head should not be considered serious injuries. The NHL knew that by eliminating staged fights from their game they would decrease drug addiction and depression in the men it enlisted in the barbaric role."

Like it or not, this is the issue.