There is nothing especially noble about football.

In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?

I think women's soccer has the 2nd highest rate of concussions in any sport ( that is studied). My guess is that was for team sports since everyone seems to ignore boxing and MMA as a kind of a d'uh.

So far the studies have been with pro football players. Meaning people who have played football for 10+ years. The # of years is probably higher but we can call it 10+. Until their is some study on players at the pee-wee level and high school and then college you cannot know when you might have a danger point. So unless you think your kid is talented enough to make the cut from high school to college, I would not be too worried.

Saying that, you had better have coaches who can A) identify a concussion and B) care enough about the player to pul lthem right then and there.

"Sorry" is not something that justifies a premise.

And no, she is not going to keep my kid from diving because diving is not a contact sport that requires a helmet and virtually guarantees repeated blows to the head inside a helmet.

We will provide plenty of occasions for our son to exercise courage and endurance and toughness so that he does not end up overly soft. But thanks for you concern! It really does take a village!

In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?

IGymnastics thoroughly fucks bodies up. Like 16 year olds with arthritis. So yeah, that is something you should think about before letting a child get into hyper competitive gymnastics.

In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?

I played high school football, but after senior year, never again did I play real football, so I feel like the problem likely stems from long term play, like 15-20 years? I guess some players get pretty banged up in high school too, but they are probably the exception. But where do you draw the line? Ban sports or any activity where you might get hurt? My daughter also does ballet and one of the girls in her dance class tore knee ligaments dancing. You can't ban everything. Although of all activities that I've tried, football is over the top brutal, it is something where you ALWAYS get hurt to some degree every season, even if it's not enough to put you out of action.