Aaron Hernandez's Brain

[DaveThePanther2008]

Football has been played for nearly a century.   Earlier players had far less protection than today's player.  I can't recall ever hearing about a player from the 50s or 60s, for instance, committing suicide or murdering people.   

Hernandez was a thug long before the NFL and to even suggest that CTE "made me do it" is nothing more than a cope out.

The man ended another mans life because he knew about an incident Hernandez was involved in where he killed someone else.   That isn't CTE that is just plan THUG LIFE mentality and to even suggest it was is just wrong.

[CollegePanther]

9 hours ago, RealisticPanther said:

Dude there's CLEARLY no such thing as CTE. Yes, the brain looks different---but there's been absolutely no studies establishing cognitive deficits in people with CTE relative to "normal, healthy" subjects..nor is there any anecdotal evidence of such..all the old football players are anecdotally perfectly fine and aren't any worse off than the general population. 

CTE is a bunch of propaganda, and anyone who believes in CTE doesn't have very good logic skills in my opinion and maybe should be worried about their own cognition.

Studies funded by the National Football League have served you well

[pantherclaw]

16 hours ago, Paa Langfart said:

On a side note - does this finding make you feel any differently about Hernandez and his behavior prior to his death ?

As an adult, he still knew the difference between right and wrong. 

[JARROD]

People are all mammals, products of evolution. In our corps we are all capable of killing because we are meat eaters and hunters.

evolution gave us reason, compassion, and realization of life and death.

it doesn't excuse his behavior, there is no place in society for people like him, regardless of the cause, and he needed to be removed.

 

 

[RealisticPanther]

18 hours ago, Floppin said:

Its fun you take a slight at my deductive reasoning while applying your own bullshit conjecture and self applied confirmation bias. Be intellectually honest or gtfo of intellectual conversation.

Its funny how you state then when none of it is true...how is anything i said conjecture moron? Confirmation bias? Why the hell do I care? Like i said, im scientifically minded and logical and objective, I have 2 science degrees and I believe in science and I'm pretty sure I know a lot more about all of this and what these papers are talking about than you do.  And its funny how so many other idiots give you pie for making such an idiotic statement...when anyone with half a brain can look at what i said, see its perfectly logical and none of it is conjecture, but thats what you get in this country...a bunch of idiots with no logic skills or deductive reasoning or ability to see deeper patterns in things or look into things for themselves without believing whatever the TV tells them to believe. We have idiots like you...who present me a citation of which I'm pretty sure you only read the abstract, and even if you read the whole paper, its doubtful u fully understood it or looked at all the individual citations the author made to "prove" their point(or actually, THEIR confirmation bias), so I take the time to do all the dirty work for you...and you make an ignorant statement like that?

You owe me a god dam apology for being so fuging stupid.

[RealisticPanther]

17 hours ago, HornetsSting said:

I'm willing to bet 100:1 you voted for Trump didn't you?

No, not at all. Its hilarious to me how people like you are so convinced in your small minds that you're right, that when someone like me who has science degrees and can properly interpret all the studies and looks into it in way more depth than you're able to understand comes and says "this is bs" you STILL believe unanimously 100% that you're right and couldn't be possibly wrong and I'm some trump voting retard for not automatically agreeing with popular opinion or everything I'm told and actually having the intelligence to look into it myself and form my own conclusion. 

1) Just because football players have a higher rate of mortality from neurological disease doesn't mean coorelation=causation. CTE doesn't cause this, the fact football players live longer causes this, because if you compare football players, who live longer, to a cohort of "normal brained" people who live as long as them, you see the same ratio of mortality from neurological diseases.

2) There's no study showing any long term cognitive decline or cognitive issues from CTE in football players. The studies only show short term cognitive decline, and while that can have longer term consequences, it doesn't appear to in football players which in my opinion leads me to believe that their high fitness level and rate of exercise attenuates the damage and their brain adapts without noticeable consequences, much like the brain of a marijuana user, while noticeably very damaged and pathological, adapts to where any cognitive decline isn't noticeable. Also, anecdotally there appears to be no long term consequences. We have to note that over 1/3 of the population has a brain that is reminiscent of a football player's with CTE at some point in their life. Depression, PTSD, many things cause the brain to be indistinguishable from that of someone with CTE. So maybe we should fund a bunch of studies on how seasonal affective depressive syndrome causes long term neurological damage if you believe CTE does...I guess that would mean a huge chunk of the population also has the same prognosis as football players right? ha. Actually, they have a lot worse outcomes and much higher mortality rates than football players. This supports point number 1.

Those are just 2 very important points to consider.

[Floppin]

24 minutes ago, RealisticPanther said:

Its funny how you state then when none of it is true...how is anything i said conjecture moron? Confirmation bias? Why the hell do I care? Like i said, im scientifically minded and logical and objective, I have 2 science degrees and I believe in science and I'm pretty sure I know a lot more about all of this and what these papers are talking about than you do.  And its funny how so many other idiots give you pie for making such an idiotic statement...when anyone with half a brain can look at what i said, see its perfectly logical and none of it is conjecture, but thats what you get in this country...a bunch of idiots with no logic skills or deductive reasoning or ability to see deeper patterns in things or look into things for themselves without believing whatever the TV tells them to believe. We have idiots like you...who present me a citation of which I'm pretty sure you only read the abstract, and even if you read the whole paper, its doubtful u fully understood it or looked at all the individual citations the author made to "prove" their point(or actually, THEIR confirmation bias), so I take the time to do all the dirty work for you...and you make an ignorant statement like that?

You owe me a god dam apology for being so fuging stupid.

You did no leg work. You made bullshit opinion based arguments while not actually providing any evidence in refute other than a "derp I'm smarter than these scientists so I know that these statements are false because of my made up opinion" 

You have no idea apparently of my background and I could give two shits about your bio undergrad. I'm more educated than you but that doesn't matter. Make a real argument that refutes the science other than "its wrong because in my uneducated opinion these brain scans look the same or something despite that not actually being the science discussed mmm paintchips." Otherwise you can suck your apology off my asshair.

[CPcavedweller]

5 hours ago, HornetsSting said:

Typical small minded Trump supporter, Obama inherited a depression and a economy that was losing 700k jobs a month and 10% unemployment. 

Trump inherited a economy on the rebound that Obama left for him. DOW was 7000 when Obama took ever and 21,000 when he left.

Trump is the Job Gruden of presidents, like Gruden rode the coat tails of Tony Dungy and took the team Dungy built to the SB. Obama is Tony Dungy. 

Obama's economy is what set the stage for 3% economic growth. Trump got lucky and was elected at the right time. 

Where is that wall?! Or that Obama care repeal?! CON MAN

I didn't vote for Trump...

The stock market is a poor indicator of the health of the economy.

Donald Trump is what he is, as was Billary Clintons.

You can't discount the effect of rolling back regulations on the impact of the balance sheet for corporations and especially for small business

Lastly, you can't have regulations that disproportionately impact small businesses and force them into compliance, ultimately causing them to close, and then say you are against corporate America. Regulations force small businesses to take on costs that many times they cannot afford, cutting their ability to hire people. 

P.S. There is no such things as a president's economy. There is market fluctuation and the eb and flow of which can rarely be attributed to a president alone.

[CPcavedweller]

@HornetsSting You call Trump supporters small minded, tell the person they are wrong, and then find out the person you call a Trump supporter and wrong...isn't a Trump supporter.

So...who is small minded? 

I think people who blindly follow any person without regard to who they are or what they stand for is, as you say, small minded. It would appear that your love fest for Obama fits that description. I disagree with a lot of what Trump does and has done. I don't care for much of his agenda other than the rolling back of regulations that stifle economic growth in the private sector and disproportionately effect the ability of small businesses to grow; and the reduction of the corporate tax rate in the repatriation of  that would allow for more re-investment in the U.S.. 

Democrats claim to be anti-Big Business, yet their policies that force small business closure and stifle the growth of the private sector say otherwise. Democrats ask why the poor would vote against their own interest by voting for Republicans, yet fail to ask the same question of why millionaires and corporations, including Wall Street, would donate against their own interest by giving money to democratic candidates campaigns. Is it philanthropy? Is it them giving back to those who can make a difference for the poor? No. It is so Democrats can continue to create policies that force consolidation of power in large, publicly held companies, and so that loopholes for Wall Street investments will remain open. They also reduce competition for these large companies by ensuring innovation in the markets take place slower than they otherwise would.

Regardless of all of this, I am not a Trump supporter. I am a Libertarian and believe in small, decentralized government, while being socially liberal. Nevermind the fact that you will likely believe that government not only plays a role in dictating who gets what and how much, and how much do they get to keep of what they earn, but that government plays a role by forcing societal change through laws and regulations. 

#smallmindedness is a disease. 

[CPcavedweller]

17 minutes ago, Floppin said:

You did no leg work. You made bullshit opinion based arguments while not actually providing any evidence in refute other than a "derp I'm smarter than these scientists so I know that these statements are false because of my made up opinion" 

You have no idea apparently of my background and I could give two shits about your bio undergrad. I'm more educated than you but that doesn't matter. Make a real argument that refutes the science other than "its wrong because in my uneducated opinion these brain scans look the same or something despite that not actually being the science discussed mmm paintchips." Otherwise you can suck your apology off my asshair.

I'm more educated than you. My PH.d in economics says so. 

I am no Climatologist, but I would assume that 3% contribution to the global carbon output by humans is barely significant. I would also assume that the warming of the planet, at an accelerated rate, occurs because as the curve travels along the X-axis, it gets steeper as it rises up the Y-axis, producing what looks like exponential growth. This would seem accurate because the cooling effect and insulation of ice is lost as it melts, and the warming continues. The problem is that people believe this growth has occured due to human factors, when in fact, it could also be explained by these compounding factors that would have occurred regardless of whether or not humans drove cars and manufactured goods. It also remains a fact that Earth will return to another Ice Age at some point due to the disruption of ocean currents that distribute warmth around the northern and southern hemispheres. 

Lastly, weather is not climate. Hurricanes that cause swamps to flood, are not an indication of climate change. People will say, this is the most rain in recorded history; 100 years does not even scratch the surface when discussing climate. It makes for a great story, but it is hardly an infallible argument to make. 

[Floppin]

4 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

I'm more educated than you. My PH.d in economics says so. 

I am no Climatologist, but I would assume that 3% contribution to the global carbon output by humans is barely significant. I would also assume that the warming of the planet, at an accelerated rate, occurs because as the curve travels along the X-axis, it gets steeper as it rises up the Y-axis, producing what looks like exponential growth. This would seem accurate because the cooling effect and insulation of ice is lost as it melts, and the warming continues. The problem is that people believe this growth has occured due to human factors, when in fact, it could also be explained by these compounding factors that would have occurred regardless of whether or not humans drove cars and manufactured goods. It also remains a fact that Earth will return to another Ice Age at some point due to the disruption of ocean currents that distribute warmth around the northern and southern hemispheres. 

Lastly, weather is not climate. Hurricanes that cause swamps to flood, are not an indication of climate change. People will say, this is the most rain in recorded history; 100 years does not even scratch the surface when discussing climate. It makes for a great story, but it is hardly an infallible argument to make. 

What in the fug are you talking about? Are you lost?

[CPcavedweller]

20 minutes ago, Floppin said:

What in the fug are you talking about? Are you lost?

Weather....is....not.....an...indicator...of....climate....change.....

Climate is measured over hundreds of years, not four months. People want to attribute the hurricane season to Climate Change when it really was due to a lack of Wind sheer in the alley's that hurricanes that end up impacting the U.S. travel along. 

More Russian propaganda. 

Speaking of, you do realize Russia played both sides of the aisle right? 

[Floppin]

3 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

Weather....is....not.....an...indicator...of....climate....change.....

Climate is measured over hundreds of years, not four months. People want to attribute the hurricane season to Climate Change when it really was due to a lack of Wind sheer in the alley's that hurricanes that end up impacting the U.S. travel along. 

More Russian propaganda. 

Speaking of, you do realize Russia played both sides of the aisle right? 

Again, what are you goin on about? Did you have a stroke? Are you lost? At what point exactly have I been discussing climate change? Certainly not in this thread and certainly not with you.

[CPcavedweller]

1 minute ago, Floppin said:

Again, what are you goin on about? Did you have a stroke? Are you lost? At what point exactly have I been discussing clinate change? Certainly not in this thread and certainly not with you.

See, now is where the progressive elitist thinking comes out. "....and certainly not with you" says quite a bit about how you view others.

#feelLetitbern