Topic: WE HATE SPORTS (Read 33559 times)

scarred · « **Reply #100 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 13:10 »

Only if you want it to be.

wait what i mean GO BEARS

TESTOSTERONE

KickThatBathProf · « **Reply #101 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 13:15 »

Good luck with that

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #102 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 14:36 »

Quote from: Hat on 01 Oct 2009, 11:46

Being a human is about significantly more than passively observing other peoples achievements, ideas, and creative pursuits (or even your own achievements to date), and as a result the range of things you can talk about outside of these things is practically infinite.

Talking about sports doesn't just involve observing what happened, but also speculating on things. This sort of thing is good for my science side, because it is essentially observing data, spotting a trend, making predictions based on that trend, revising the trend when future events don't match that trend. I think my problem with interacting with people is that I am either incredibly passionate about a subject or I really don't care.

Quote from: Hat on 01 Oct 2009, 11:46

In my experience, most of the limitations people find in their ability to converse with other human beings are entirely self-imposed by narcissistic tendencies when they realise the person they are talking to does not resemble them as much as they'd like.

Not for me. I can definitely recognize that I would not like to be friends with someone like me. It would be terrible.

Also, knowing things about sports can get you quite far, actually. A lot of times, I will make friends with people because it makes my life easier (if people like me, they will treat me better). Sports is a great way to spark that friendship. Sure, it's not a close friendship or someone that will help me move, but it will be someone who can relieve my boredom, end a dry spell or let me know about awesome things going on. That is actually why I started watching football again after not giving a shit for several years.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #103 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 17:37 »

There is already a thread for people who love sports. Can you not read, because your mind has been melted by sports?

Hat · « **Reply #104 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 19:27 »

Quote from: 0bsessions on 01 Oct 2009, 12:53

This thread is essentially an exercise in "I hate this and everyone who doesn't is a bestial jackass."

except most of the people in it are arguing both sides because it's a complicated issue worthy of discussion.

Actually it's really good we have two threads because we literally can talk about sports in the other one without shitting it up but this thread is talking about the value of sports to our society! Two completely different things and both pretty good topics!

Jeez.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #105 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 19:29 »

I don't really think everyone who likes sports is a dickshit fuckmoron, I just need to vent sometimes.

Hat · « **Reply #106 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 19:33 »

Quote from: Bastardous Bassist on 01 Oct 2009, 14:36

Talking about sports doesn't just involve observing what happened, but also speculating on things. This sort of thing is good for my science side, because it is essentially observing data, spotting a trend, making predictions based on that trend, revising the trend when future events don't match that trend. I think my problem with interacting with people is that I am either incredibly passionate about a subject or I really don't care.

yeah I'm not trying to say there's no inherent value in talking about sports, and really if you can talk about sports well, it's as worthwhile a topic as music or books etc but what I am trying to say is that the ability to relate to another human being and talk about their passions, not because of what those passions are, but because they are something another human being genuinely cares about is a pretty important part of social interaction.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #107 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 20:33 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 01 Oct 2009, 17:37

There is already a thread for people who love sports. Can you not read, because your mind has been melted by sports?

That is a thread about sports, this is a thread about why people dislike sports. I am discussing the topic at hand.

Hat · « **Reply #108 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 20:57 »

Quote from: Hat on 01 Oct 2009, 19:27

Actually it's really good we have two threads because we can talk about sports in the other one without shitting it up but this thread is talking about the value of sports to our society! Two completely different things and both pretty good topics!

Everyone is doing a good job in this thread except maybe Obsesessions and Scarred.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #109 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 21:01 »

As pointed out in the attempted discuss sports thread, this is perhaps in the wrong forum for everyone to be doing a good job. After all, this is for Infinite Pony Debates, not real debates.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #110 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 21:25 »

Okay, fine, if you guys are sticking around, what is it that makes you like sports, because really I have tried, but it is just so utterly incomprehensible why anyone would like it (we're talking about watching here).

Like, for example, a sports match takes as long as a film but is ten trillion times less interesting?

David_Dovey · « **Reply #111 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 21:51 »

Jesus man are you just being wilfully obtuse?

Most people when faced with your dilemma would probably say something to the effect of "well I don't understand but I guess different people just like different things so whatever no skin off my nose"

To return to the earlier analogy, it is kind of like those dumbshits who completely dismiss entire genres of music because it does not appeal to their narrow aesthetic sense.

Oh wait, you do that as well.

Thomas Edison · « **Reply #112 on:** 01 Oct 2009, 23:57 »

It's a vicarious thrill of being on the side of the "winners". Long ago, battles were a matter of life and death, with "our guys" having a serious interest in winning. If "our guys" lost, generally the men were killed and the town looted. If "our guys" were the winners, they got to do the looting and killing. Back then it was all participation sports. Everybody played, and everybody had a serious interest in the outcome.

Today, we have "civilized" our thirst for victory, and focus our efforts into team sports. When our team wins some still get the sense of satisfaction from the victory. Others are far more removed from the events and we recognize it for what it is: a bunch of testosterone infused jocks being overpaid for our entertainment. They don't really DO much for society other than make some of the audience feel like winners because of their emotional ties to the team, usually through regional proximity.

(I love google search)

KharBevNor · « **Reply #113 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 04:46 »

Quote from: David_Dovey on 01 Oct 2009, 21:51

To return to the earlier analogy, it is kind of like those dumbshits who completely dismiss entire genres of music because it does not appeal to their narrow aesthetic sense.

Oh wait, you do that as well.

Where the hell did this come from? My musical tastes are fairly diverse by the standards of this forum, or generally even. It is news to me that I have a narrow aesthetic sense? Also that's kind of a personal jab coming completely out the blue? Why you gotta do that?

I can get the winners and losers thing, but I guess I find it hard to see how you derive enjoyment from the game itself. I can easily see how it is fun to play games, but not really to watch them. This doesn't just go for sports, I can think of little more interesting than watching a chess game, say, whereas I quite like playing chess.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #114 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 04:58 »

OK apologies on the personal nature of the attack, that was out of line.

To clarify I was mostly referring to comments you'd made previously about hip-hop. But you also do have an established history of refusing to accept that anybody could even possibly have a different viewpoint to yours on some subjects, and that said viewpoints could be valid.

Most of the time it seems like you're deliberately acting boneheaded in order to get people's dander up and provoke a reaction but keeping that in mind it's still pretty frustrating. Also it's worth taking you at your word- even when you obviously aren't intending to be- to keep an interesting conversation going.

P.S; I will concede that what I know of your musical taste could be considered diverse, yes, but I would also argue there across that spectrum of music there is still some distinct thematic and stylistic similarities between them all. This thread also extends to other forms of art you enjoy and the art you produce yourself. "Narrow" maybe wasn't the best term to use, but you're not exactly hard to pin down either. At least not the version of yourself you're representing to the Internet.

I'm not saying that is at all a bad thing, by the way.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #115 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 06:24 »

I didn't know that not like very much hip-hop and detesting professional sports made you narrow minded.

Also are you implying that most peoples musical taste doesn't have broad thematic and stylistic similiarities? I can guess what you're gunning for but I don't think it's 100% fair.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #116 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 06:30 »

My beef isn't with what you don't like, but with the manner in which you dismiss the preferences of other people whose taste doesn't match up with yours.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #117 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 07:32 »

All I wanted was a thread where people who dislike or hate sports can vent, outside of the hair of sports people.

You didn't have to come into this thread! I am not saying you shouldn't, but you make this thread an attack on you by being here. It wasn't a personal attack on anyone here on the forums, but now you're making it about me?

I dunno.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #118 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 10:13 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 02 Oct 2009, 06:24

I didn't know that not like very much hip-hop and detesting professional sports made you narrow minded.

Maybe you just don't like things black people excel at.

Dliessmgg · « **Reply #119 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 11:21 »

Quote from: Ozymandias on 02 Oct 2009, 10:13

Maybe you just don't like things black people excel at.

This thread is dead.

jhocking · « **Reply #120 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 11:44 »

Did someone mention Hitler?

0bsessions · « **Reply #121 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 12:22 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 02 Oct 2009, 04:46

I can get the winners and losers thing, but I guess I find it hard to see how you derive enjoyment from the game itself. I can easily see how it is fun to play games, but not really to watch them. This doesn't just go for sports, I can think of little more interesting than watching a chess game, say, whereas I quite like playing chess.

For me, it's an appreciation of the level of skill involved.

Yes, watching two dolts who don't know what they're doing play chess at a party is about as entertaining as watching paint dry, but watching two excellent chess players matching wits can be exciting.

Look at it in the way that you would look at watching a skilled guitarist on stage. Watching them nail a complex solo is the same to some people as watching an American football player complete a 70 yard pass to score for some. It's the heightened emotion and excitement, especially live, that drives it. A big part of it can be the atmosphere involved. It's not so simple as just winning or losing, but the way the team goes about it.

For me, personally, a game with a high score on one side gets really boring. Seeing the opponent crushed into the ground is nifty for a couple minutes, but it gets boring when one team is leading the other by about ten for an extended period of time. I know it's not your cup of tea, but bear with me for a moment on this example:

I was at a professional baseball game on Tuesday night. The team I root for was being outright abused the whole game. It was coming to the end of the game and they were down by a rather large deficit. In the span of about five minutes, they came back and almost took the lead. While they didn't pull it off in the end, the park still absolutely exploded with emotion over the excitement of watching them claw back and then suddenly almost clear the deficit with one moment.

Stuff like that doesn't happen every game (Just like not every concert is well performed or not every piece of art is particularly thought provoking), but it's the potential fort that excitement that I watch for.

Then there's the subtleties. Player positioning and following the odds and all that. Baseball's considered, by most, to be the most boring of the big professional sports. I personally disagree, because I'm fascinated by much of the things going on between the box scores. It can be the same thing with football (Soccer to us Americans), as I've never quite gotten the appeal, but I can see where its fans probably appreciate the subtleties more than I do.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #122 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 12:31 »

Quote from: Ozymandias on 02 Oct 2009, 10:13

Maybe you just don't like things black people excel at.

haha yes funny.

Jon, this is kinda interesting. The experience of being riveted by a guitarists skill is fairly alien to me. I care about what comes out of the guitar, not what went into it.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #123 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 13:31 »

I would ask, is this not the same thing?

By this i mean, is the skill going into the guitar not part of what you enjoy so much as it is what produces the sound you have said you do enjoy to come out? Similarly, it is the skill in sport that produces the entertainment which Sports fans enjoy so much.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #124 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 13:37 »

but i can enjoy technically unskilled musicians if they make music that is enjoyable to me. see: Meg White. she's not good at drumming but i love The White Stripes and her drumming fits perfectly with what they do.

the only enjoyment i can get from unskilled athletes would be laughing at their expense (not to belittle the value of this form of entertainment).

what i am saying is that the two don't exactly seem comparable.

0bsessions · « **Reply #125 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 13:52 »

They're comparable, but in different ways. SWM is right in that a bad musician can still be enjoyable, but a good musician will often get more appreciation, even if they're not aesthetically pleasing. For example, Rush is known for being technically good and I respect them for it, but god damn do I hate listening to their music.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #126 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 13:59 »

See I know for a fact there are hundreds of technically excellent musicians who produce work that is, at best, dull. I don't think someone deserves respect for spending five hours a day for ten years playing the guitar if they can't produce something interesting at the end of it all.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #127 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 14:01 »

true.

but still, "interesting" is a relative term and will be different for everyone. that's what makes this a difficult thing to talk about.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #128 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 17:39 »

Quote from: 0bsessions on 02 Oct 2009, 13:52

They're comparable, but in different ways. SWM is right in that a bad musician can still be enjoyable, but a good musician will often get more appreciation, even if they're not aesthetically pleasing. For example, Rush is known for being technically good and I respect them for it, but god damn do I hate listening to their music.

I have found bad musicians enjoyable, but never consistently so. They can produce one or two songs that I like, but for the most part, bad musicians produce bad music. Now, I'm not talking about technicians. I will liken this to American football to maybe enhance the discussion about what makes sports interesting.

First, since I am talking to non-sports people, I will describe the function of the position known as "wide receiver." He runs down the field, catches a football that is (he hopes) thrown to him and tries to run forward after catching the football. This requires speed (to hopefully outrun the guy who's trying to stop you from catching the football), precision (because you have to be where the guy throwing the football thinks you're going to be), good catching skills (so that you can come down with the football even if you get hit by someone) and good agility (because if you miraculously find yourself still on your feet after you catch the ball, you can try to get even further downfield by avoiding people trying to stop you). A good wide receiver isn't necessarily the best at any of these, but he has to have all of them to some degree. The same with a musician.

A good musician doesn't have to be crazy fast on his/her instrument, but needs to have the ability to play what the music demands. A good musician needs to be precise. That is, a good musician needs to be able to play what he/she wants when he/she wants. A good musician must have musicality. Nothing that he/she does will be good unless it helps the piece of music that he/she is playing. You don't necessarily have to be the best in any of these areas, but you must have all of them to some degree to be a good musician. The appreciation comes from watching someone who has the ability to consistently produce good music, as with an athlete who can consistently produce a good game. Also, as with music, it doesn't matter how good one individual is if the whole group doesn't execute well.

Live music is exciting as with sports because there is always the possibility that one will mess up, and to see the performer (athlete or musician) perform when it wasn't guaranteed that it would happen is exciting. Also, with sports there are harsher consequences of screwing up than with music, so it's more exciting when the screw-up does/doesn't happen.

KickThatBathProf · « **Reply #129 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 18:51 »

I think the main draw of an athelete/musician screwing up is not only the "screw-up" but also the way the athlete/musician recovers. A good musician and likewise a good athelete will have the ability to shut out or laugh off a mistake (I believe football people call it "compartmentalizing"). A bad or maybe inexperienced one will let one simple mistake influence the rest of his or her performance.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #130 on:** 02 Oct 2009, 21:19 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 02 Oct 2009, 07:32

All I wanted was a thread where people who dislike or hate sports can vent, outside of the hair of sports people.

But that would be a silly thread to have! Threads devoted solely to hating things are silly! I thought we knew that?

Radical AC · « **Reply #131 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 01:57 »

My college football team is rated number five in the country. We won a bowl game in 07 and since then we have built or started work on a new technology and general studies building, a student union expansion, a new nursing building, a new science building, and a new business and econ building. I am reaping the benefits of a sports culture, even if I have little to do with it. I have never gone to see my schools team play in the four years I've been here.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #132 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 05:22 »

And...you did those things because you won the bowl?

Did you win millions of dollars or something?

What?

BB I really don't get what you're blathering on about. For a start, music is a joyous and beautiful thing and sports aren't. Like, I personally cannot even begin to see how a dude catching a ball and a dude playing a song are in any way comparable, aesthetically. For a second, I don't think we have anything like the same definition of what constitutes a bad musician.

Dovey, why can't we have threads in which to hate something. We're hating an abstract thing after all? It's not like I made a thread saying "WE HATE DOVEY, JON, BB AND TOMMY" (though you wouldn't think it maybe at some points during this thread). If you don't like the fact that I or a couple of other people dislike or hate sports, you could have stayed out the thread, just like we have stayed out of your thread talking about sports. One could argue equally that a love-in thread is as boring as a hate thread. I would have liked a discussion with other like minded people about what we most disliked about sports, and maybe discussed tactics for permanently eradicating sports from our culture, possibly by putting everyone who likes sports in gas chambers. But no.

Radical AC · « **Reply #133 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 05:32 »

Pretty much. Merchandising, and selling rights, donations, sponsorships, ect. all as a result of the program. The uni coach is the highest paid state employee because of it. If you look at Florida they have the largest school in the country and the best football team. Screams correlation.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #134 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 05:45 »

I am so glad we don't have anything like that in the UK.

Radical AC · « **Reply #135 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 06:00 »

Oh, I agree it is a pretty stupid system. I don't care for pro/team sports at all. Of course there are lots of stupid systems in the world, and as far as I can tell the sports machine isn't doing net harm to the world. If my degree is worth that much more, and my facilities are that much better I can't complain.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #136 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 09:05 »

It's a good system in the system of capitalism, because if people didn't spend their money on college sports, that money would not be spent on colleges. The net result is that institutions of higher learning get more money then they would have otherwise, so it would be hard to argue that the college sports machine is doing net harm to the world, to borrow your phrase, dude. It's a bit easier to argue about the professional sports machine, but it's not really doing much more net harm than the movie industry (remember that most of the money in the movie industry is not spent on art).

Quote from: KharBevNor on 03 Oct 2009, 05:22

BB I really don't get what you're blathering on about. For a start, music is a joyous and beautiful thing and sports aren't. Like, I personally cannot even begin to see how a dude catching a ball and a dude playing a song are in any way comparable, aesthetically. For a second, I don't think we have anything like the same definition of what constitutes a bad musician.

A person playing one note is generally not a joyous thing. A person catching one ball is generally not a joyous thing. It's the collection of how it all fits together. If I spent my entire life up until this point disliking music, then I would have the exact same opinion about music that you do about sports. You have to have the background to appreciate that the people you're watching/listening to are doing something great within the tradition of that activity.

Youre definition of a bad musician doesn't include someone who plays stupid stuff ineptly?

Quote from: KharBevNor on 03 Oct 2009, 05:22

One could argue equally that a love-in thread is as boring as a hate thread.

One would also argue that we are not discussing how much we love sports in the "love sports" thread. We are rather discussing sports as a whole. If you really want me to leave, though, I will.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #137 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 09:14 »

I really can't tell you where you should and shouldn't be I suppose. I'm just saying that when you come into this thread you seem to make my dislike of sports into a personal attack on yourself.

Also, I personally don't have much love for hollywood or the record industry, so those aren't really comparisons I would care about. Also, higher education in the UK manages to be funded perfectly well without relying on sports teams.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #138 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 09:24 »

Yes, but I haven't seen you go make a thread in either the movies or music forums about how much you hate Hollywood or the record industry. You seem to be content to let them do their thing, and I think that maybe you should do the same with sports.

I never thought you were personally attacking us. You were just actively hating something that we don't believe deserves as much hate as you were directing at it. As such, we are now trying to convince you that sports are not, in fact, the worst thing in the world.

My college did not have a big sports program, and we had enough funding to get by, but any college that has a good sports team has enough money to do some amazing things. I am now at a program at a different University that is strongly focused on research (which is the result of a lot of money long ago) and they have amazing facilities compared to where I got my undergraduate degree. If we want to do really interesting experiments, we don't have to scrounge a piece of equipment, somebody has it (science equipment is freakishly expensive). They get a lot of money through their research, but the results would be quite similar if they got it through sports (I've talked to people who have gone to big sports universities, and they had enough money to do things they wanted).

BrittanyMarie · « **Reply #139 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 09:51 »

I don't think Khar needs to make a thread about how he hates those things because in this forum people mostly agree with him. I don't really understand why people are saying things about that though, as even from like 2004 the dude has been incredibly consistent in his views. He probably has made posts about how terrible they are, just not an entire thread.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #140 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 10:15 »

But, as I said BB, in other countries people manage to get funded without having big sports teams. What you seem to be saying is that, in the US, any college that doesn't want to place an emphasis on sports, or doesn't attract people who are good at sports by devaluing their degrees to allow sports people an easy ride. Don't you think that's a fucked up system, as opposed to an advertisment for the brilliance of sports. Sports simply shouldn't have a place in something like that. Imagine if hospitals had to attract funding based on how good their basketball teams are. They have to hire doctors who aren't so good at medicine, but are so good at basketball.

BrittanyMarie is spot on! No one here really likes Hollywood or the big five, so not much point. Anyway, this is not actually a thread about me.

KickThatBathProf · « **Reply #141 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 10:47 »

Do you actually read his posts before you respond to them? BB actually provided an example where something other than sports provided the funding for the school and in no way did he say the college system was brilliant.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #142 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 11:03 »

Quote from: BrittanyMarie on 03 Oct 2009, 09:51

I don't think Khar needs to make a thread about how he hates those things because in this forum people mostly agree with him. I don't really understand why people are saying things about that though, as even from like 2004 the dude has been incredibly consistent in his views. He probably has made posts about how terrible they are, just not an entire thread.

And I think most people in this forum probably agree with him about sports. Well, watching sports at least. I've seen posts where somebody expresses an enjoyment of a mainstream movie or artist. Sometimes he responds, and sometimes he doesn't. The thing is, those posts are spread out around the forum where it's hard to avoid them. You'll be reading through a thread and then there is a post about somebody who likes something mainstream. The sports thread is an attempt to avoid that. Instead of spreading out the sports discussion through random posts in other threads when the topic might turn to sports, we thought we'd spare everyone else the trouble and just make a thread to get all of our sports discussion out.

Also, in terms of funding, I clearly never said it was necessary. Many colleges get along just fine without a significant sports program. Colleges don't need them, but if you had the option to make a lot more money and maybe foster some social interaction between the student body that isn't focused on parties, wouldn't you? It gives them a lot more money for merit- and need-based scholarships. It gives them a lot more of a budget for equipment and everything. I raises the value of almost every degree that institution confers. Yes, a sacrifice is made by making one degree really easy, but it's usually a degree that isn't too useful anyways. As for the hospital analogy, if I thought a hospital would be able to treat more people with better care by getting a basketball team, there is no way I could justify not doing that.

also: I had actually just clicked on this thread to see what people were saying about sports and if there were any new reasons to stay away from sports since I had been adamantly opposed to sports, and would have left quietly if I hadn't seen:

Quote from: KharBevNor on 30 Sep 2009, 08:31

I hate that people want to increase sports teaching in school, to teach children to be competitive, to pick on the weak, to be elitist, rather than increase art and music teaching in school, to teach children to be creative and understanding.

Which I knew to be a fallacy, so I pointed it out. Unfortunately, as is often the way with this forum, I got drawn into what is (for the most part) an intelligent discussion that has a good reason to exist.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #143 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 11:55 »

Quote from: KickThatBathProf on 03 Oct 2009, 10:47

Do you actually read his posts before you respond to them?

Yes. Thanks!

How is it a fallacy anyway BB? I don't remember having a discussion on that front. Why is it good to teach children to be competitive and value mindless things.

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #144 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 17:25 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 03 Oct 2009, 11:55

How is it a fallacy anyway BB? I don't remember having a discussion on that front. Why is it good to teach children to be competitive and value mindless things.

That is not the fallacy. The fallacy is that music education does not teach children to be competitive. I am an extremely competitive person due to music (I couldn't stand sports in middle school, high school and college). In fact, I've not met people more competitive and elitist than people doing music in school. The elitism goes away to some degree in the professional world, but the competitiveness is even worse.

AanAllein · « **Reply #145 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 17:45 »

Yeah I would dispute that teaching sports encourages people to be competitive. I hated sports at school, and barely participated in pretty much any sports class you could name for the majority of my formative years, but I am one competitive motherfucker. A lot of my competition at school went into trying to be the best academically (including at art! and music!), now it tends to be funneled into card games. So, I would agree with BB that expunging sports teaching from schools would do little or nothing to affect how competitive people are. Maybe they might channel it into something other than sport, if you're very lucky?

And the valuing "mindless things" is pretty laughable (though I'm sure you're aware of this Khar) since anyone could just easily extend that argument to music or art if they consider them to be mindless things. For one, I'm quite disappointed that my school doesn't offer much of a sports program, since the students there are generally less motivated and involved with the community (working in a team encourages this!) than at schools where students are involved in sports programs. Of course, this would also be true of debating competitions, dance competitions etc, but the more opportunities for a diverse range of students, the better.

0bsessions · « **Reply #146 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 19:25 »

Quote from: Ptommydski on 03 Oct 2009, 11:29

Damn, it's now taking all my energy not to make a WE HATE SPATS thread too.

Do it and I swear to god I will make a WE SPAT HATE thread. You've been warned.

Alex C · « **Reply #147 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 20:03 »

I think people need to give khar some benefit of the doubt here too, because in all honesty, the way many people defend sports is often quite asinine. (Calm down people, I'm not talking about anyone here). The fact of the matter is that society values sport in a way that can't really be quantified or justified in purely economic terms, yet a surprising number of people insist on trying to do so anyway, often bending the truth to make the stand. It's rather akin to the way creationists fall back on intelligent design rather than cede the field completely despite the fact that there's not much empirical they can fall back on. It's an emotional issue for many people since there's a lot of pride and tradition wrapped up in these things.

For example, a lot of people in Chicago are rather bummed they aren't going to be hosting the Olympic Games. But a lot of people are also quite happy about it because nobody wanted to get stuck footing the bill. Now, perhaps you can cite the economic impact estimates that claim that hosting the Olympics would bring in serious revenue, but post Super Bowl and Olympic Games studies show that these benefits rarely if ever happen, and they certainly aren't enough to offset the enormous initial expense of meeting IOC facility standards or building high end NFL stadium. At the end of the day, you have a bunch of people opposing the idea by saying "No, we could be doing so much more," while the supporters counter with numbers they more or less pulled directly out of their ass. I won't argue with the effectiveness of such tactics, but it'd probably a lot more intellectually honest if people just came out and said "You know what? Fuck you, the games are going to be awesome."

Bastardous Bassist · « **Reply #148 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 20:19 »

I'm only defending college sports based on economics. The funny thing is that I don't really care for college sports. It's just a subject I've given lots of thought and realized that it actually kind of makes sense. I'll never try to defend professional sports on an economic level. That would be incredibly foolish.

Alex C · « **Reply #149 on:** 03 Oct 2009, 20:28 »

Yeah, my greater point really comes down to the idea that the things that we value are not always producers of more value, or, at least not in any easily demonstrated economic sense. Even if a sports franchise generates a lot of revenue for itself we're still at best redistributing people's disposable income. In the case of college programs you're just shifting money from people with spare time and money to an institution that hopefully should be able to do some good with the funds. Some people might argue that it'd be more efficient to eliminate sports and convince people to devote the resources and energy straight to the institutions without the stadium building, gatorade chugging middlemen. Good luck trying to get that idea past the Libertarians and paleoconservatives.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: WE HATE SPORTS (Read 33559 times)