Welcome Sports Haters!

Sir, thank you for pointing this out(correctly) and I shall move to strike the expression 'mindless idiot' from my lexicon immediately.

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.

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.]

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.

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."

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.

I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.

Quote:

I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.

Do you see merit in music and visual art?

I will confess that don 't see much merit in dancing, either; illogical.

Do you see merit in music and visual art?

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.

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.