Cutter

Godot: Interestingly enough, that thread came to my mind as well. And just like in that one, my points get ignored. Frustrating, but hardly surprising when your opponent hasn't a leg to stand on.

Now back to our original thread starter...

Heads up all you parents, don't ever watch your kids having fun. After all, what good is there in it? Neo_mp5 has spoken.

In response to Theli's:
Neo_mp5 replied:
BZZT! Wrong. From your OP:
Whether it was your intention or not, the subtext here is that work shouldn't be about fun. If that wasn't your intention, by all means feel free to say so. But I expect you to then justify why athletes shouldn't be allowed to have fun professionally and everyone else can.

Another snippet from the same post:
Still just an unsupported assertion bub. And do the following for me will ya:

A). Define 'productive'.
B). Prove that professional sport isn't 'productive'.
C). Prove that every professional athlete is/can be adept at something that could be considered 'productive'.

Still more from the same post:
Given the prevalance of professional sport, it would indeed seem to be important to society.

Still more from the same post:
Just because you think political, scientific or philosophical issues are more important than sport, doesn't mean everyone else does. Nor that they don't have any interest in those fields whatsoever.

In respone to Karalora's:
Neo_mp5 replied:
Ah, didn't take long for the snobbery to rear it's head, did it? It's also where you show your total ignorance of sports.

Most, if not the majority of, sports have a great deal of strategy. The intellectual stimulation from sports comes from trying to figure out, even second guess, what strategies your favourite athlete or team will employ, and then trying to figure out and/or second guess the oppositions counter-strategies. Even if a sport has no strategy at all, there's no harm in mindless diversion.

To say sports doesn't draw one in is the height of ignorance. One can argue that sport is better at drawing one in than most other form of entertainment. With a movie, play or book, all the events are mapped out. If you've already seen the movie or play, or read the book, then you know how it will turn out.

Sports, however, are in a constant state of flux. You have no idea how each event is going to end, and what is going to transpire throughout the event until it is over.

And to say you can't be drawn into a sport unless you know a player is simply ludicrous. I happen to follow (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) 14 various football teams, 3 cricket teams, 4 race car teams and 6 race car drivers. And I don't know a single professional athlete.

In response to BDS's:
Neo_mp5 replied:
As opposed, of course, to that earth shattering philosophical conundrum 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?', which of course continues to feed many millions in Africa.

Theli

If this is a moral topic and you wish to convince anyone, you will have to argue for your claims, not just state them. As with your ideals, you have given us no reason why we should share them. This is the main problem with ideals, they too often only serve the individual who has them.
First of all, the use of the word "important" when promoting your ideal, and secondly the complete lack of any morally relavent claims.
1+1=2, doesn't serve me at all. No more than it does anyone else.
Here's what is missing from your post, why should they do something more productive, and are they immoral for not doing it?
I mean, I could very well state that people should take the money they usually spend on cars and give it all away to charity. A noble suggestion, no doubt, but not a moral one. Once I say that people are not allowed to spend their own money, their own time or their own talents on something they enjoy I'm taking away their freedom. They become slaves, regardless of how "important" I feel the function I've been given them is.
I just found it strange how you typed "have fun" with capital letters, as if that had something to do with your argument.
Perhaps you could explain that.
No I'm commenting on a rather missplaced term in your opening post. "Real world". Is the real world made off what you consider important? The term seemed to have some relevance to your argument, yet it means nothing. That doesn't really help.
Why should everyone discuss politics or philosophy?
Why no go the other way around, saying that we are wasting time on this board, when we can be playing soccer. Or helping starving people, or working... well the list goes on.

The bulk of my counterargument is that you do not have the right to dictate how other people spend their time or talent, unless it involves hurting other people (except for certain situations).

neo_mp5

i guess this is my fault for posting in a message board full of "professional" debaters. i was after a discussion, not an arguent. i wanted to hear other opinions, not have mine shot down. this was a waste of my time. maybe i'll find some intelligent people on another website.

Cutter

Is this supposed to be some sort of sarcastic jibe? And I'd hardly call myself a "professional debater".

The two words are virtually interchangeable. Furthermore, a discussion doesn't just mean a conversation where everyone agrees with one another, nor is an argument always hostile (and I see very little, if any, hostility in this thread). My apologies if I'm misreading you, but that's what that sentence is implying to me.

Err, then what exactly did you expect to happen when others expressed their opinion, and their opinion differed to yours?

Actually no, it's a waste of our time. You started the thread, we responded and you've hardly addressed any of the points raised. That's kind of rude you know.

In other words, you're going to go find some people who'll agree with every word you say. How pathetic.

Pixnaps

though of course a major requirement for that would be that the audience is NOT in fact intelligent

Godot

The problem here is that we are a large group of people that really enjoy discussing just about anything, and usually in the most minute of details.

If all you expected was for each of us to present our opinions, there wouldn't be much discussion now, would there? You presented a minority opinion without the least bit of evidentiary support and now you're leaving with your tail between your legs when your position has been nuked by the collection of posts in this thread so far. (Hats off to all!:notworthy)

Although I'm certain you will not see this, I urge you to reconsider leaving and stick around II a bit longer. It's quite a fun place. To each their own though.

neo_mp5

"The problem here is that we are a large group of people that really enjoy discussing just about anything, and usually in the most minute of details."

that's not what i'm seeing. i'm seeing a sad bunch of people who get a feeling of power from dissagreeing with people. a bunch of fakes. kind of pathetic people who say "there is no god" simply because other people say there is

"If all you expected was for each of us to present our opinions, there wouldn't be much discussion now, would there?"

ah, but that's what a discussion is

"You presented a minority opinion without the least bit of evidentiary support"

that's why it's an opinion

"and now you're leaving with your tail between your legs when your position has been nuked by the collection of posts in this thread so far. (Hats off to all!:notworthy)"

exactly. my opinion has been attaked. that's all that's happened. my opinion has not changed, i've heard no intelligent input on the subject, and i haven't heard any other opinions. nothing has been accomplished.

"Although I'm certain you will not see this, I urge you to reconsider leaving and stick around II a bit longer. It's quite a fun place. To each their own though."

i came here because generally, where there's atheists, there's wisdom. but as of yet, i haven't found any of either. just pathetic wannabe non-conformists.

neo_mp5

"Is this supposed to be some sort of sarcastic jibe?"

yes. yes it is.

"The two words are virtually interchangeable. Furthermore, a discussion doesn't just mean a conversation where everyone agrees with one another, nor is an argument always hostile (and I see very little, if any, hostility in this thread). My apologies if I'm misreading you, but that's what that sentence is implying to me."

a discussion is an exchange of ideas, in the hopes of bettering the knowedge of all participants. an argument is "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!"

"Err, then what exactly did you expect to happen when others expressed their opinion, and their opinion differed to yours?"

i haven't heard any opinions expressed. my opinion has been attacked. that's not the point of having a discussion.

"Actually no, it's a waste of our time. You started the thread, we responded and you've hardly addressed any of the points raised. That's kind of rude you know."

no points have been raised. all you've been doing is misreading my statements, and making rediculous accusations. for example:

"In other words, you're going to go find some people who'll agree with every word you say. How pathetic."

xorbie

First off, I just want to say that I disagree with your opinion about sports, and I think your argument has no leg to stand on.

That said, who's the wanna non-conformist? The people here who believe you are wrong are arguing the majority opinion, an opinion that supports something that is enjoyed by the masses. Nothing "non-conformist" about that. Moreover, I have little respect for people who attach labels like "non-conformist" to themselves or others. Kinda reminds me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3604/do...elevision.html

Look, if you really don't like professional sports, fine. If you have some gripe about the over-commericialization of it, I'll even agree with you. If you want to complain that many athletes are poor role models, I'll agree. But to attempt to place yourself on a moral pedastal above the overwhelming majority of the population simply due to your own preference can't help but coming off as obnoxious and pompous (not that I'm saying you are, just that this is how it seems).

If you think that a writer using his talent to write instead of becoming something "useful" is different than an athlete using his talent to perfom instead of becoming something "useful," I think you need to re-examine your views. If, on the other hand, you merely enjoy reading far more than you enjoy playing or watching sports, well to each his own.

Joel

neo_mp5

"That said, who's the wanna non-conformist? The people here who believe you are wrong are arguing the majority opinion, an opinion that supports something that is enjoyed by the masses. Nothing "non-conformist" about that."

thay are agreeing with the other non-conformists. there's plenty "wannabe" about that

"But to attempt to place yourself on a moral pedastal above the overwhelming majority of the population simply due to your own preference can't help but coming off as obnoxious and pompous"

this is exactly what i'm talking about. where do you get these rediculous accusations? rip them out of thin air? i'm not puting myself on any pedestal, and prreference has nothing to do with the matter, except that a sports fan wouldn't have put any thought into the matter.

"If you think that a writer using his talent to write instead of becoming something "useful" is different than an athlete using his talent to perfom instead of becoming something "useful," I think you need to re-examine your views. If, on the other hand, you merely enjoy reading far more than you enjoy playing or watching sports, well to each his own."

your comparison does not work. an athlete getting paid to play sports is not like an author getting paid to write a book, but like a person getting paid to READ a book.