18
   

Welcome Sports Haters!

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 06:18 am
@pcchamb,
pcchamb wrote:
Sir, thank you for pointing this out(correctly) and I shall move to strike the expression 'mindless idiot' from my lexicon immediately.
OK; WELCOME to the forum!





David
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 12:31 am
I find it quite ironic that some so-called "Progressives" who are sports fans support the TRADITIONAL sports-centered approach to mandatory P.E. Forcing nonathletic boys who have no interest in sports to participate in competitive team sports does NOT encourage them to become physically active, but causes them to hate sports even more. But, apparently, even some liberals (despite their claim of being compassionate) have no problem with the bullying of kids in schools.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:10 am
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:
I find it quite ironic that some so-called "Progressives" who are sports fans support the TRADITIONAL sports-centered approach to mandatory P.E. Forcing nonathletic boys who have no interest in sports to participate in competitive team sports does NOT encourage them to become physically active, but causes them to hate sports even more. But, apparently, even some liberals (despite their claim of being compassionate) have no problem with the bullying of kids in schools.
People who call themselves "Progressives" (we don 't know progressing toward WHAT)
are collectivistic, anti-Individualist freedom hating, authoritarians.





David
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:16 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Funny you should say that. I've always thought that forcing nonathletic kids to play sports was authoritarian to the core. Not to mention hypocritical, since the nonathletic kids never benefited from it. One of the early posters in this thread called himself a revolutionary because he believed that he was promoting physcal fitness. Baloney! All he was doing was promoting sports. To him a boy who throws a baseball poorly "throws like a girl." Such a comment shows contempt for nonathletic boys. (And I thought that "Progressives" were so tolerant.) This goes along with the warped view that nonathletic males are supposedly unmanly. I wonder if this unnamed member ever heard of Raoul Wallenberg, a World War II hero who (according to his half sister) "detested competititve team sports." I guess Wallenberg was a wimp, eh? There are actually innovative P.E. programs (such as PE4Life) that promote physical fitness programs for ALL students, but this unnamed "Progressive" member does not support such programs. He supports the same old sports-centered approach because he thinks sports builds character. He's not a revolutionary, as he claims; he's a reactionary.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:54 am
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:
Funny you should say that. I've always thought that forcing nonathletic kids to play sports was authoritarian to the core. Not to mention hypocritical, since the nonathletic kids never benefited from it. One of the early posters in this thread called himself a revolutionary because he believed that he was promoting physcal fitness. Baloney! All he was doing was promoting sports. To him a boy who throws a baseball poorly "throws like a girl." Such a comment shows contempt for nonathletic boys. (And I thought that "Progressives" were so tolerant.[That depends on what thay "progress" TOWARD; e.g., the Germans of the Weimar Republic progressed toward 1933, when the hell of national socialism began; thay PROGRESSED toward the NIGHTMARE of nazism.]) This goes along with the warped view that nonathletic males are supposedly unmanly. I wonder if this unnamed member ever heard of Raoul Wallenberg, a World War II hero who (according to his half sister) "detested competititve team sports." I guess Wallenberg was a wimp, eh? There are actually innovative P.E. programs (such as PE4Life) that promote physical fitness programs for ALL students, but this unnamed "Progressive" member does not support such programs. He supports the same old sports-centered approach because he thinks sports builds character. He's not a revolutionary, as he claims; he's a reactionary.[In 1934, a reactionary German woud have gone from national socialism to bringing back the lifestyle of the Weimar Republic.]
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:42 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Hi, David. I agree with your application of these words in this particular context. Of course, a German living under the totalitarian rule of the Nazis who wanted a return to the political freedoms of the Weimar Republic would be a reactionary; i.e., desiring a return to a previous form of government or social institution. I was using the word "reactionary" in a particular context. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the word "reactionary" to "Progressives" is a cuss word. I was speaking in a nonpolitical context. Today among those who promote policies for physical education classes in the schools, there is a division between those who still favor the traditional sports-centered approach to mandatory P.E. and those who recognize that promoting sports is not the same as promoting physical fitness and that having a "sports only" P.E. curriculum does not benefit and even hurts nonathletic students. The "reactionaries" in this particular context are those who want to force nonathletic students to participate in competitive team sports, even if they're not interested in them. So, I find it truly ironic, if not hypocritical, that this unnamed "Progressive" member of this website sides with the "reactionaries" on the issue of P.E. reform, favoring the "sports only" approach at the expense of nonathletic boys, whom he regards as "smart alecks" because they don't share his love of sports. Since he is a "Progressive," "reactionary" is a cuss word to him. But on the issue of P.E. reform, that's exactly what he is -- a reactionary. He calls himself a revolutionary on the issue of mandatory P.E., but there's nothing revolutionary about supporting the traditional approach, which more and more physical educators are realizing has failed nonathletic students. Just so I'm not misunderstood, I favor the retention of the traditional sports-centric P.E. for the school athletes and other students who want to participate in sports as an ELECTIVE. Our unnamed "Progressive," however, is against this sort of P.E. being an elective; he wants it to be mandatory on ALL students, thereby taking sports from its rightful role as a voluntary form of entertainment and turning it into a coercive tool of bullies. He demands that everyone love sports and does not respect other people's personal preferences. He will personally attack with derisive insults people who don't like sports, including people he's never met. This is an intolerant attitude and is indicative of an authoritarian personality. Of course, "Progressives" deny that they're authoritarian; but some of their comments at this website indicate otherwise.

And, by the way, folks, I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican; and I'm not even a conservative in the sense that David is. I just call 'em as I see 'em.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 11:13 am
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:
Hi, David.
Hi, Bill.



wmwcjr wrote:
I agree with your application of these words in this particular context. Of course, a German living under the totalitarian rule of the Nazis who wanted a return to the political freedoms of the Weimar Republic would be a reactionary; i.e., desiring a return to a previous form of government or social institution. I was using the word "reactionary" in a particular context. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the word "reactionary" to "Progressives" is a cuss word.
It is antithetical to their intentions and to their self-image.
It is those who erase and void what thay have accomplished,
rendering their efforts futile and of no effect.



wmwcjr wrote:
I was speaking in a nonpolitical context. Today among those who promote policies for physical education classes in the schools, there is a division between those who still favor the traditional sports-centered approach to mandatory P.E. and those who recognize that promoting sports is not the same as promoting physical fitness and that having a "sports only" P.E. curriculum does not benefit and even hurts nonathletic students.
Yes; I was a non-athletic student, having refused to participate in mandatory P.E.







wmwcjr wrote:
The "reactionaries" in this particular context are those who want to force nonathletic students to participate
in competitive team sports, even if they're not interested in them.
That is very paradigmatic of liberals of the Roosevelt-Kennedy type:
thay r very willing to be heavy-handed in coercing n extorting Individuals' compliance
with the demands of their philosophy.





wmwcjr wrote:
So, I find it truly ironic, if not hypocritical, that this unnamed "Progressive" member of this website sides with the "reactionaries" on the issue of P.E. reform, favoring the "sports only" approach at the expense of nonathletic boys, whom he regards as "smart alecks" because they don't share his love of sports.
Tho I have seldom DONE it, its fun to hold sports up to logical scrutiny, in argument with them.





wmwcjr wrote:
Since he is a "Progressive," "reactionary" is a cuss word to him. But on the issue of P.E. reform,
that's exactly what he is -- a reactionary. He calls himself a revolutionary on the issue of mandatory P.E.,
Like the communist Revolution? Despotic?






wmwcjr wrote:
but there's nothing revolutionary about supporting the traditional approach,
which more and more physical educators are realizing has failed nonathletic students.
Since the age of 6, as a libertarian, I have challenged the authority of compulsory education:
a liberal endeavor, resulting from FAKE authority and from USURPATION: when governments were created,
thay were NOT granted power to force this on anyone without his consent.

I remember, in the first grade, asking my mother:
"Where in the HELL, do thay get the right to make ME go over THERE ??!!






wmwcjr wrote:
Just so I'm not misunderstood, I favor the retention of the traditional sports-centric P.E.
for the school athletes and other students who want to participate in sports as an ELECTIVE.
AGREED.





wmwcjr wrote:
Our unnamed "Progressive," however, is against this sort of P.E. being an elective;
he wants it to be mandatory on ALL students,
That is very paradigmatic of the authoritarian Roosevelt-Kennedy mindset.






wmwcjr wrote:
thereby taking sports from its rightful role as a voluntary form of entertainment and turning it into a coercive tool of bullies.
He demands that everyone love sports and does not respect other people's personal preferences.
Liberals are pointedly anti-Individualist, like Stalin n Hitler.





wmwcjr wrote:
He will personally attack with derisive insults people who don't like sports, including people he's never met.
This is an intolerant attitude and is indicative of an authoritarian personality.
Of course, "Progressives" deny that they're authoritarian;
Thay r liars, in addition to being authoritarian.
Thay believe in progress toward their goals, by deception, mendacity and fraud.





wmwcjr wrote:
but some of their comments at this website indicate otherwise.

And, by the way, folks, I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican;
and I'm not even a conservative in the sense that David is.
I just call 'em as I see 'em.
I join with Sir William Schwenck Gilbert 's observation that:

"I often think it's comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal,
That's born into the world alive,
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!"

Not everyone has consciously identified his own philosophy.





David
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:20 pm
I just came across a fascinating online article that certainly is relevant to this thread. It's entitled "'Fag' Is Turning into a High School Insult for Any Guy Who Doesn't Play Football."

http://www.alternet.org/sex/65697?page=entire

When I was a boy decades ago, the label that was given to nonathletic boys who had no interest in sports was "sissy" or "queer." It's quite ridiculous and stupid when you consider the FACT that homosexual men have always been active in sports, just as they've been active in just about every other realm of human activity. I'm not making an argument for gay lib here; I'm just stating a fact. There are some homosexual men who are more superficially "masculine" (i.e., physically rugged or athletic) than some hetereosexual men who are considered "effeminate" but are happily married and raising children of their own. The point is that nonathletic boys who have no interest in sports are subjected to stigmatization, often before they reach puberty. They have their masculinity questioned and are subjected to bullying, sometimes even physical violence. Quite understandably, men who had that sort of negative experience as they were growing up would not be inclined to look favorably upon the sports culture. But some sports fans (please notice that I said "some," not "all"), including several members of this website's forum, still cannot understand why such men would not like sports. Amazing.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 05:42 pm
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:
I just came across a fascinating online article that certainly is relevant to this thread.
It's entitled "'Fag' Is Turning into a High School Insult for Any Guy Who Doesn't Play Football."

http://www.alternet.org/sex/65697?page=entire

When I was a boy decades ago, the label that was given to nonathletic boys
who had no interest in sports was "sissy" or "queer."
I remember in junior high school (not in senior high school)
the words "fag" and "shmuck" were used so ofen among those boys
(maybe around 7 times a minute, in ordinary conversation)
that thay lost their meaning; thay got inflated.
Among the male gender, no one was safe from attributions
of those qualities, but it was just mt talk.
It was not taken seriously. However, as I remember,
no one had much expressed interest in sports in school.
I don 't remember much in the way of discussion of sports,
when we were in school, regardless of the fact that NY had
a baseball team that was known to ofen be successful (for all the good that has done us).





David
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:39 pm
Hi, David. I may not cover all of your points, but here goes ...

Unless I'm mistaken, the national push for mandatory "sports only" P.E. started with the Kennedy administration. Of course, as I've said many times, this approach FAILED to encourage the most physically unfit students (such as myself) to get into shape, and caused some of us to seek clinical therapy in our young adulthood to get over the bitterness of being mistreated in these useless classes. Today I'm a committed gym rat. I love working out at my health club on my bodybuilding program. (I'm in better shape than some of my high-school classmates who were on the football team. One of them (poor guy) is now horribly obese. I feel sorry for him.) None of the P.E. classes that I or any of my nonathletic friends were required to take offered any such physical fitness programs for us since we weren't athletes. We were only forced to play sports which we often weren't even instructed how to play or develop the necessary skills. So, today I'm very active physically at my local 24 Hour Fitness health club, no thanks to compulsory sports or P.E. classes taught by boneheads afflicted with machismo.

The unnamed member of this website's forum who posted earlier in this thread called himself a revolutionary because he thought (wrongfully) that imposing sports upon nonathletic boys against their will was productive and heroic. After all, he likened himself to revolutionaries because, as we all know (and I am speaking sarcastically), all revolutions are beneficial to mankind. Just look what the Russian Revolution gave to mankind (or the November Revolution, rather, which killed the baby of Russian democracy in its crib, so to speak). Anyway, our fellow able2know member thinks that his approach is beneficial and that this makes him a fine fellow beyond reproach and certainly above any criticism; but the fact remains that he is WRONG. His approach is wrong and doesn't work. It certainly short-changed me when I was forced to go through it.

I must say that when I was a child that I was not as politically aware or socially astute as you. In fact, I think I went through my childhood disconnected from the deeper reality of my own life; and I was quite igorant and naive about a lot of things.

By the way, I bet hardly anyone reads these exchanges of ours. Laughing Thanks for responding to my posts, David. Have a good evening.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 08:37 pm
Thirty pages and counting, I'm slightly nonplussed but pleased that some here understand that mandatory sports is an unhealthy way to ensure physical and mental wellbeing let alone the millions of rabid sports fans and their annoyingly negative effects.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 11:05 pm

It seems ODD that the national "passtime" is trying
to run around in circles better than another group
of people runs around in circles. What good comes of that ??





David
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 07:33 am
@OmSigDAVID,
People like watching masochists torture themselves Dave and they pay a lot of money out to do it. And people like competing with each other as well.

And people also like watching the effects of being a winner.

There's no way John Terry would have got to shag Vanessa Perroncel had he been a fork truck driver or a clerk in an insurance office. And the story entertained the nation for weeks. It was lead story on TV and front pages a few times with in depth feechewers on pages 6,7,8 and 9. On the back pages there were analyses of how it would affect our World Cup chances and what the Football Association was going to do about it. Vanessa was the live-in girlfriend and mother of the child of another member of the national team.

So, in a sense, it is art in that it teaches important lessons about the respective natures of men and women when few constraints are operative. Which rather leads to the obvious conclusion that it is only the constraints which enable us to be the honourable, compassionate and respectable citizens that we are.

Perhaps you don't care for these things simply because you would prefer to believe that your admirable qualities are a matter of personal pride. I believe things too. I do believe that were you an Italian striker who scored a hat-trick and the winning goal in the World Cup final when Brazil were defeated in a 7 goal thriller, after extra time, you would not be quite the same person you are now. A person in his position couldn't be discovered to be going about with a piece in a shoulder holster, like Eliot Ness, and openly boasting of it.

But it's like everything else that you don't take time to study and let pass by on the edge of perception.

Top sport is not a full picture of our natures but it is as near we are prepared to let it be when there are ticket sales involved.

Otherwise it's the Book of Etiquette. Those who don't like sport have no understanding of what artistic appreciation is however much they talk about art appreciation. Sport, I can argue, is mankind's greatest work of art. A monumental ballet in which there are no actors. (Not much one might say after watching a footballer act the stuck pig when he has hardly been touched--but his acting is to try to gain an advantage and not like that acting a ballerina does when she is presented to the audience on the shoulders of the hero with her legs open. Or at least I hope not.)

Then there's betting on sport. A good bet makes watching a big match on TV nearly as good as playing in it. One experiences a semblance of the joys of winning and the agony of losing.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 08:19 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
People like watching masochists torture themselves
Dave and they pay a lot of money out to do it.
Maybe; seems like a waste of time to me, but many people disagree with me.




spendius wrote:
And people like competing with each other as well.
If it is at something productive, it might make sense.


spendius wrote:
And people also like watching the effects of being a winner.
Yeah, maybe, depending on what it was.



spendius wrote:
There's no way John Terry would have got to shag Vanessa Perroncel had he been a fork truck driver or a clerk in an insurance office. And the story entertained the nation for weeks. It was lead story on TV and front pages a few times with in depth feechewers on pages 6,7,8 and 9. On the back pages there were analyses of how it would affect our World Cup chances and what the Football Association was going to do about it. Vanessa was the live-in girlfriend and mother of the child of another member of the national team.

So, in a sense, it is art in that it teaches important lessons about the respective natures of men and women when few constraints are operative. Which rather leads to the obvious conclusion that it is only the constraints which enable us to be the honourable, compassionate and respectable citizens that we are.
Was it one of your countrymen who asserted that:
"The quality of mercy is not 'strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. . . " ?



spendius wrote:
Perhaps you don't care for these things simply because you would prefer
to believe that your admirable qualities are a matter of personal pride.
No; its that running around in circles seems to be an exercise in futility; a waste of time & attention.



spendius wrote:

I believe things too. I do believe that were you an Italian striker who scored a hat-trick and the winning goal in the World Cup final when Brazil were defeated in a 7 goal thriller, after extra time, you would not be quite the same person you are now. A person in his position couldn't be discovered to be going about with a piece in a shoulder holster, like Eliot Ness, and openly boasting of it.
Its not wise to boast of your security measures. Dion O'Banion woud probably attest to that, if he were still with us.
We agree qua the boasting, but hopefully he 'd be defensively well equipped. Its better to HAVE a gun and NOT need it,
than it is to NEED a gun and NOT have it.






spendius wrote:

But it's like everything else that you don't take time to study and let pass by on the edge of perception.

Top sport is not a full picture of our natures but it is as near we are prepared to let it be when there are ticket sales involved.

Otherwise it's the Book of Etiquette. Those who don't like sport have no understanding of what artistic appreciation is however much they talk about art appreciation. Sport, I can argue, is mankind's greatest work of art.
U can ARGUE it.




spendius wrote:

A monumental ballet in which there are no actors. (Not much one might say after watching a footballer act the stuck pig when he has hardly been touched--but his acting is to try to gain an advantage and not like that acting a ballerina does when she is presented to the audience on the shoulders of the hero with her legs open. Or at least I hope not.)
I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.


spendius wrote:
Then there's betting on sport. A good bet makes watching a big match on TV nearly as good as playing in it.
One experiences a semblance of the joys of winning and the agony of losing.
Yeah, but its faster n easier just to flip a coin; and its a lot more fun to use a good casino.





David
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 09:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.

Do you see merit in music and visual art?
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:08 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Quote:
I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.
Do you see merit in music and visual art?
Since you appear to argue that merit is based on logicality, kindly let me know what actions of mankind are logical and how you came to this viewpoint.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 10:55 am
@InfraBlue,
David wrote:
I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.
InfraBlue wrote:
Do you see merit in music and visual art?
Yes; it can be effective communication.
Some of it is very pleasing in ways that I 'm not able to quantify,
nor to sufficiently describe.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 11:04 am
@Chumly,
InfraBlue wrote:
Quote:
I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.
Do you see merit in music and visual art?
Chumly wrote:
Since you appear to argue that merit is based on logicality,
kindly let me know what actions of mankind are logical and how you came to this viewpoint.
Use of the laws of Nature and of competent reasoning to rise to the top of the food chain,
and to conform our environments to our needs, wishes and comforts;
I came to this point of vu by observation (including reading history).





David
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 11:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Yes Dave--but what is it that rises to the top of the food chain. Is it the individual in a provincial environment or a culture in an environment of cultures.

Would it be worthwhile rising to the top of a food chain in an aggregate of individuals who had not had the benefit of a cultural ascendency and were operating simply on the laws of nature and competent reasoning from the get-go just after the missing-link?

Had you really "read" history you would know that before the advent of art and religion, which are the same thing really, it would not have mattered what you thought on these matters nor is there any likelyhood of you even being able to think along such self-indulgent lines.

Which makes me think that your idea of reading history is not mine. It seems to be a consumer durable to you. Something to be able to say one has done as with having "done" the sights of Europe on a package tour and with an album of pictures of the self taken in front of each famous attraction to prove it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2010 02:08 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Yes Dave--but what is it that rises to the top of the food chain.
Is it the individual in a provincial environment or a culture in an environment of cultures.
It was many Individuals.



spendius wrote:
Would it be worthwhile rising to the top of a food chain in an aggregate of individuals who had not had the benefit of a cultural ascendency and were operating simply on the laws of nature and competent reasoning from the get-go just after the missing-link?
YES




spendius wrote:
Had you really "read" history you would know that before the advent of art and religion,
which are the same thing really, it would not have mattered
To whom ?



spendius wrote:
what you thought on these matters nor is there any likelyhood of you
even being able to think along such self-indulgent lines.
Self-indulgence is good, as long as u do it enuf.




spendius wrote:
Which makes me think that your idea of reading history is not mine. It seems to be a consumer durable to you. Something to be able to say one has done as with having "done" the sights of Europe on a package tour and with an album of pictures of the self taken in front of each famous attraction to prove it.
Drivel
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Should cheerleading be a sport? - Discussion by joefromchicago
Are You Ready For Fantasy Baseball - 2009? - Discussion by realjohnboy
tennis grip - Question by madalina
How much faster could Usain Bolt have gone? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sochi Olympics a Resounding Success - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/21/2017 at 05:52:15