It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 14237
Hoping this brightens the thread up...

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 7:58 pm
Posts: 812
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
This article is such a waste of words. There are way more important things to be concerned about than Ryan Shazier getting paralyzed doing something he loved and I love to watch.

Write an article about:
opioids and big Pharma
Obesity and reduced physical activities in schools
How are cigarettes still a thing?
Eating wings and drinking beer
Binge drinking
Uninsured gun owners
Gun manufacturers dumping guns in the US with no threat of lawsuits
Legalized MJ - does it create burn outs?

Let’s write a clickbait article at playoff time about an accident that happens once every 10 years. The guy isn’t even dead or permanently paralyzed that we know of.

Priorities America; Priorities.


None of those things directly involve sports. He's a sports writer.

If we go by your idea of priorities, writing or talking about football at all is a waste of time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4283
Quote:
Gun manufacturers dumping guns in the US with no threat of lawsuits


Ummm by that logic people would be able to sue alcohol manufacturers for DUI deaths. Doesn’t happen. And holding a company liable for the actions of an individual is a huge slippery slope.

What about car companies? Anybody sue a car company after some scumbag drives said car through a crowd of people?

Let’s just agree your comment was silly and not well thought out.

Best thing about this thread are the photos of the smile on Shaziers face.

That right there is a grounded and quality individual. I hope he plays again. If he doesn’t though, he most definitely will find success doing something else in life.

Same could not be said about a lot of pros if something similiar happened to them. The injury would become their crutch...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23672
Laying the Wood wrote:
Man, you guys really hate having your point of view questioned, don’t you? It’s almost like you adhere to football the way extremists cling to religion. I guess that’s why “fan” is short for “fanatic.”

I don’t agree with everything he said. It’s an interesting point of view. There is nuance to this situation. If writers and articles didn’t have agendas, they would look like Excel spreadsheets reporting only the facts.

I guess how I approached it was, did the author raise a point that I hadn’t previously considered? Is it a valid point? Is the author credible? Does the article, as a whole, seem like a stretch?

If you did all of that and still came to the same conclusion, more power to you. If you read all or part of the article and immediately wrote it off as “snowflake bullshit,” I think you’re selling yourself short.


It’s not an “interesting point of view” because the entire premise that Shazier’s injury has been “whitewashed” is not held up by the evidence.

Everyone knows he was paralyzed.

Everyone knows those injuries can happen. And that football players often end up life being in constant everyday pain or have lack of mobility. Hell...one of the key stories leading up to Super Bowl XL was a feature on Jerome Bettis and I remember them showing him in his house being barely able to walk up and down stairs.

I don’t need to see story after story complete with graphic images of Ryan Shazier’s rehabilitation regimen to know he’s still paralyzed. I do like seeing that despite his horrific injury, he’s still in high spirits...that will be key for whatever recovery he can have.

A bigger story would be the lip service they are paying to head trauma safety and the like as opposed to actually doing something about it.

To focus on this was dumb.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5600
Laying the Wood wrote:
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
This article is such a waste of words. There are way more important things to be concerned about than Ryan Shazier getting paralyzed doing something he loved and I love to watch.

Write an article about:
opioids and big Pharma
Obesity and reduced physical activities in schools
How are cigarettes still a thing?
Eating wings and drinking beer
Binge drinking
Uninsured gun owners
Gun manufacturers dumping guns in the US with no threat of lawsuits
Legalized MJ - does it create burn outs?

Let’s write a clickbait article at playoff time about an accident that happens once every 10 years. The guy isn’t even dead or permanently paralyzed that we know of.

Priorities America; Priorities.


None of those things directly involve sports. He's a sports writer.

If we go by your idea of priorities, writing or talking about football at all is a waste of time.


He's more of a social/political commentator that uses sports to push his views. Kind of like a Bob Costas with down syndrome.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1634
955876 wrote:
Quote:
Gun manufacturers dumping guns in the US with no threat of lawsuits


Ummm by that logic people would be able to sue alcohol manufacturers for DUI deaths. Doesn’t happen. And holding a company liable for the actions of an individual is a huge slippery slope.

What about car companies? Anybody sue a car company after some scumbag drives said car through a crowd of people?

Let’s just agree your comment was silly and not well thought out.

Best thing about this thread are the photos of the smile on Shaziers face.

That right there is a grounded and quality individual. I hope he plays again. If he doesn’t though, he most definitely will find success doing something else in life.

Same could not be said about a lot of pros if something similiar happened to them. The injury would become their crutch...


Let’s agree that your reply was not well thought out. Companies have been sued many many times including car companies for unsafe mechanisms and for being used in unintended ways.

Ever hear of a toy company getting sued because parts are too small and can get swallowed? I am sure they didn’t intend for the 3 year old to be biting the head off a Star Wars Happy Meal toy. Product getting used in unattended ways and there have been lawsuits of this variety.

Substitute mentally unstable person for infants. Substitute guns for toys. And tell me manufacturing insane amounts with no regard for how they would be used or distributed in the midst of certain segments of the population and geography, and it sounds to me like a very similar case but with more deaths in the books. No law suits only because of laws protecting gun manufacturers is my understanding.

Wings and beer consumption causes more deaths and health issues than football if it was studied in depth was my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:48 pm
Posts: 535
My take on the whole thing is that the Steelers are required to provide a player's status and that's it... And with him on the IR they don't even have to do that. Shazier's health and progress at this point is a private matter and how much he shares is completely up to him. I'd love to get more frequent updates as he was rapidly becoming one of my favorite active players, but it's just none of my business and I respect that.

This is completely unfounded, but I have a sneaking suspicion he's a little better than the pictures show and that the wheelchair is precautionary to ensure the spine is completely stabilized. When he does decide to update us fully on his progress, I think we'll all be very happy for him and his prognosis (football be damned).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2303
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
955876 wrote:
Quote:
Gun manufacturers dumping guns in the US with no threat of lawsuits


Ummm by that logic people would be able to sue alcohol manufacturers for DUI deaths. Doesn’t happen. And holding a company liable for the actions of an individual is a huge slippery slope.

What about car companies? Anybody sue a car company after some scumbag drives said car through a crowd of people?

Let’s just agree your comment was silly and not well thought out.

Best thing about this thread are the photos of the smile on Shaziers face.

That right there is a grounded and quality individual. I hope he plays again. If he doesn’t though, he most definitely will find success doing something else in life.

Same could not be said about a lot of pros if something similiar happened to them. The injury would become their crutch...


Let’s agree that your reply was not well thought out. Companies have been sued many many times including car companies for unsafe mechanisms and for being used in unintended ways.

Ever hear of a toy company getting sued because parts are too small and can get swallowed? I am sure they didn’t intend for the 3 year old to be biting the head off a Star Wars Happy Meal toy. Product getting used in unattended ways and there have been lawsuits of this variety.

Substitute mentally unstable person for infants. Substitute guns for toys. And tell me manufacturing insane amounts with no regard for how they would be used or distributed in the midst of certain segments of the population and geography, and it sounds to me like a very similar case but with more deaths in the books. No law suits only because of laws protecting gun manufacturers is my understanding.

Wings and beer consumption causes more deaths and health issues than football if it was studied in depth was my point.


The tort cases you allude to involve a product defect (in design) with strict liability. In cases where someone is using a gun, there is no product defect (i.e., the gun functions the way it is meant to function). It just so happens that the person using it decides to harm another party.

Under the argument you proffer, if I use my computer to bash someone, Apple can be sued by that someone. Clearly, that shouldn't be the case; there wasn't a defect (latent or otherwise) in Apple's computer that led to the harm. Now, if the gun randomly fired without someone attempting to use it in the manner prescribed, then sure your fact pattern makes sense and product liability would apply. Just in the same way if an Apple computer randomly blew up causing damage.

You can't just say: Product X caused harm Y to Z, therefore Z has a valid cause of action against the manufacturer of X. There needs to be some kind of product defect; otherwise, no company could stay in existence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1634
Ever seen Venetian blinds with the annoying stickers to prevent kids from hanging themselves? No design flaw.

What about IKEA and the tipping dressers?

Lawn darts...remember those?

Three wheeled ATVs...remember those?

Those weren’t design flaws.

The argument is not whether it would work to curb gun violence, the argument is if said manufacturers deserve to be quarantined from the court system, which has in the past demonstrated both adeptness and folly to protect the public from products, manufacturing and manufacturers.

....and much more interesting than banning the NFL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1634
Steelafan77 wrote:
Hoping this brightens the thread up...

Image


What do you think the sticker says on Cowher’s jacket?

Always makes me laugh when security procedures snag the “obviously he/she is allowed in” individuals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1040
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
Hoping this brightens the thread up...

Image


What do you think the sticker says on Cowher’s jacket?

Always makes me laugh when security procedures snag the “obviously he/she is allowed in” individuals.


Hi, My Name is:

Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1634
randomsteelerfan wrote:
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
Hoping this brightens the thread up...

Image


What do you think the sticker says on Cowher’s jacket?

Always makes me laugh when security procedures snag the “obviously he/she is allowed in” individuals.


Hi, My Name is:

Bill


That is funny. Hi my name is “LET’S GO! RIGHT NOW!”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2303
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Ever seen Venetian blinds with the annoying stickers to prevent kids from hanging themselves? No design flaw.

What about IKEA and the tipping dressers?

Lawn darts...remember those?

Three wheeled ATVs...remember those?

Those weren’t design flaws.

The argument is not whether it would work to curb gun violence, the argument is if said manufacturers deserve to be quarantined from the court system, which has in the past demonstrated both adeptness and folly to protect the public from products, manufacturing and manufacturers.

....and much more interesting than banning the NFL.


https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cg ... ontext=mlr

Bit dated, but weight of authority seems to be strongly on my side. I would need to read the specific cases you cite, but my guess is there was some kind of defect identified.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1634
Zeke5123 wrote:
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Ever seen Venetian blinds with the annoying stickers to prevent kids from hanging themselves? No design flaw.

What about IKEA and the tipping dressers?

Lawn darts...remember those?

Three wheeled ATVs...remember those?

Those weren’t design flaws.

The argument is not whether it would work to curb gun violence, the argument is if said manufacturers deserve to be quarantined from the court system, which has in the past demonstrated both adeptness and folly to protect the public from products, manufacturing and manufacturers.

....and much more interesting than banning the NFL.


https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cg ... ontext=mlr

Bit dated, but weight of authority seems to be strongly on my side. I would need to read the specific cases you cite, but my guess is there was some kind of defect identified.


I agree 100% that the law is on the side you are arguing! The gun manufacturers are in a protected class, which makes the point of the original article asinine.

The author is worried about a happy football professional getting paralyzed and insinuating that there is evil involved and America's pastime should be eliminated(exaggeration for effect), meanwhile gun manufacturers are in a protected status; lawn darts and three wheeler companies were ordered to stop producing because of holes in human heads, injuries and deaths, yet gun manufacturers can produce unimpeded and make parts that specialize in putting holes in human heads faster and in more volume than even the military wants. Yet we all throw our hands in the air and falsely scream 2nd amendment.

If you don't think that is the ultimate hypocrisy and the author, a voice of the people, choose instead to focus on a pretend NFL hypocrisy article....that is my point.

You know in your heart of hearts I am right and this argument makes sense!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2303
My guess is the facts you think you understand are different compared to facts actually identified. For example, I am sure if we look into the details regarding lawn darts, etc. we can find something to distinguish between darts and guns. The law you want to articulate is that if Manufacturer X creates Product Y and Product Y harms third party Z, then Z can sue X. That is a really bad system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4283
I haven’t responded Lakecrest. Not because I didn’t have a response but rather Zeke has pretty much covered it...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1634
Zeke5123 wrote:
My guess is the facts you think you understand are different compared to facts actually identified. For example, I am sure if we look into the details regarding lawn darts, etc. we can find something to distinguish between darts and guns. The law you want to articulate is that if Manufacturer X creates Product Y and Product Y harms third party Z, then Z can sue X. That is a really bad system.


I am talking about the spirit of consumer protection agencies and laws.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lawn darts and I believe they also banned the manufacturing of 3 wheelers, and then later it became voluntary from the ATV sellers.

The very heavy irony in all of this is that I can think of several instances of personally being impacted by 3 wheelers, and know several friends and family that were impacted as well. Even lawn darts we were heading down the path for an involuntary lobotomy.

Owned a Honda 180cc...no suspension, big bubble tires. Riding on the banks of a sulphor creek, have a nice scar when it rolled over me. Had a broken and crooked nose and probably concussion from reaching the top of steep hill and flipping backwards and betting cracked square on the bridge of the nose by the center of the handle bars. Several accidents flipping backwards on refuse coal piles. Sister got a broken leg on a three wheeler....wrecks left and right on these things with friends as well. Yet I remember zero outrage. No talk about how dangerous they were. No talk of bans!

The lawn darts....we use to play with them. We would try to throw them as high as we could into the air. I remember they would not always land where we intended. I remember my buddy putting one squarely through the liner of our childhood friend's swimming pool. No outrage about the danger, only about having to patch a liner in cold water of late October. No calls for lawsuits!

Then one day they are just gone. No longer in the stores. they just start disappearing from the streets and the vocabulary Then 4 wheelers start showing up all over the place. I was young, this was before the internet, so really never knew about the bans.

Fast forward to our present day and there is outrage of highest order over the latest shooting and mass murder. High schools, elementary schools, movie theatres....concerts, dance clubs. Outrage! OUTRAGE! Boiling anger! Protests! Live near Sandy Hook and saw people flying out of work early for some strange reason. Billions spent; used to do something, anything!

Lawn darts and three wheelers, zero mass outrage, making millions of dollars and they disappear off the face of the earth.

Billions of dollars spent to do something to reduce gun violence, yet amazingly gun manufacturers continue to produce unabated!

I will watch the Steelers and it all melts away! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 1634
955876 wrote:
I haven’t responded Lakecrest. Not because I didn’t have a response but rather Zeke has pretty much covered it...


No problem...we are off thread in a Steeler forum. All for the second amendment; just don't know if I am for it because the second amendment has made it necessary to be for it or I truly think something like Nazi Germany could happen here. I suspect we would all be frogs in the gradually warming waters and get boiled to death before pulling a trigger if it were to happen here. Also they don't need to be available like mints or toothpicks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2303
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
955876 wrote:
I haven’t responded Lakecrest. Not because I didn’t have a response but rather Zeke has pretty much covered it...


No problem...we are off thread in a Steeler forum. All for the second amendment; just don't know if I am for it because the second amendment has made it necessary to be for it or I truly think something like Nazi Germany could happen here. I suspect we would all be frogs in the gradually warming waters and get boiled to death before pulling a trigger if it were to happen here. Also they don't need to be available like mints or toothpicks!


That, and assuming the military supported by the government...9mm ain't going to do much against the might of the US military.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4283
What you are referring to with 3 wheelers is a design flaw that made them inherently more dangerous to the user than they needed to be. Far too easy to roll. Thus the transition to 4 wheelers. Still dangerous but not nearly as much.

If a firearm malfunctioned unexpectedly causing injury to user or bystander the company would be liable.

But that is not your argument.

Your argument implies that I should be able to sue Yamaha if you decide to run me over with your ATV. And that you could sue Louisville Slugger if retaliated by beating you with one of their bats.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4283
Quote:
Also they don't need to be available like mints or toothpicks!


Do you have to pass a federal background check to buy mints or toothpicks?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Posts: 1266
I actually like Drew Magary but this article is just awful and honestly not even accurate. First off, Ryan Shazier doesn’t want to be the victim so why should people feel the need to make him into one? Secondly, did anyone really think that hit was brutal? The viciousness of the whole event was how benign the hit actually looked.

_________________
Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uncomfortable Shazier article
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4283
And most likely or at least in part was due to his own poor technique.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Lifelongsteel, Majestic-12 [Bot], Quixotic, Steel Ubaldo, Stillerz Bar and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group