I mean, I just dont agree. It seems too much like someone saying their favorite song is better than another.
And I experience first hand in chemistry for engineers my freshman year. It was common knowledge that the ultimate goal of the course was to weed out those who should consider another curriculum than engineering.
And for the chemical engineering and chemistry students it was Physical Chemistry to weed the slackers out. I would hear that conversation because I was taking the same Physics courses as the chemistry engineering and chemistry students.
Pretty similar as sports. Failure was cold and dished out without sympathy. āYou best find another field to study.ā
2 Likes
Then where does something like MMA or boxing fall to you? It is a duo of sports that are either decisively won or judged on technical aspects of the bout.
Is that a sport? It most definitely is by any definition of āsportā
Wait a second.
Wasnāt it you a few posts ago saying that you know what red is?
Now it seems you dont.
Probably about time to invent another profile, bub.
My alma mater had similar weed out courses.
Physics, calculus 3, and dynamics. If you couldnāt pass those, choose a different academic path.
Iād rather sleep through another Nutcracker than sleep through a soccer match.
Ya, I still classify it as a sport, but it straddles the line for me. Its sporty since you are able win objectively and you also are engaging with someone else. Its not like gymnastics where your competitors are not able to challenge you.
But the judging is terrible. Everyone always talks about how many boxing fights get it wrong. The way the ufc started with the end of the fight coming from stoppage is obviously more in line with how Id want objectivity.
My point being, do you think people before the knowledge of the physics of the color spectrum could understand that the grass is not red but blood is?
To those who keep repeating the point of weeding out in academics. I have already addressed this. When it comes to weeding out people for science, society is benefited by only having the best as scientists. I do not see how society would benefit by having everyone be mathematicians and theoretical physicists. But it is different for sports. The weeding out for pro sports confers no such benefit to society and actually takes away the purpose sports is supposed to have for society. Sports is not to see who can win the superbowl but is a way for the every man and woman throughout life to actively participate to develop character, increase health, and as a way to bond with others in society. The focus on pro sports makes sports into a commercialized product for general society to passively consume.
You tell me. Youāre the one that just found out. Ive known this crap since I was like 9.
Wait, do you think the color spectrum is objective? That there is a line where you can objectively say one is red and one is not red based on science?
When you want to heat up a cup of vinegar & water do put it in the microwave or the ultra-violet?
When you tune in a radio or television do you ever get a rainbow emanating from the transducers?
It sounded like you think the color spectrum is something that we discovered. Are you saying that when we speak of where red lies on the spectrum, that we discovered its boundaries or that we decided on where red begins and ends on the spectrum?
Jobs for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people? Things for people to spend extra money on (contributing to local tax revenue). Something for people to aspire to (whether or not they achieve it is irrelevant).
I can go on.
*economic arguments
Something the gambling industry does as well. Would you accept economic arguments for those?
Also, it is not irrelevant. Telling your child all throughout their youth that they are going to be a famous musician, actor, pro athlete millionaire is setting them up for disappointment and feelings of inadequacy later in life.
You are a terrible parent if you do this.
How many parents tell their kids they are going to have a middle class job, and should be happy with just an average life as long as they have their friends and family?
People enjoy participating in sports. Does the fact that most everyone hits the ceiling of their athletic ability before they make it the professional level, negate their enjoyment of themselves, or those watching them perform. Where is the social negative?
Hitting the ceiling of a personās intellectual ability is detrimental to that personās self esteem, just like a person hitting the ceiling if their athletic ability.
As to the societal good, the pro athlete is providing a temporary escape from the challenges of life for the viewer. Plus the enormous employment to bring all this into the publicās living room or stadium. A net public positive.
You being a long distance runner, I get you seeing no entertainment in watching that sport. Iād rather watch paint dry than watch a race longer than 3,000 meters.
1 Like
What I am saying is that a weeding out process for athletic acheivement so as to find the best as pros does not offer society a benefit like the weeding out for scientists does.
Wouldnt you agree that it would be better for people to actually instead of watching pros paly sports to actually play themselves with their community? Do you really not think that the corporations behind pro sports want people to see pro sports as the be all end all of sporting? That they are not benefited by people dropping active participation and switching to passively watching the pros?
Like with economic arguments we can bring in gambling industry. Imagine all the jobs those industry have created. Its awesome right! I love how they have benefited society!
Watching sports and playing sports are not mutually exclusive.