This issue really evokes my emotions, because of how much I love sports. I think sports are a vitally important part of the human experience. I guess dance is, too, but we’re not talking about dance, in and of itself.
Dance isn’t a sport. Period. Ever. Nobody can change my mind about this. Dance is potentially expressive, beautiful, socially useful, entertaining, etc. But it IS NOT A FUCKING SPORT.
Only sports should be in the goddamned Olympics, and shoving non-sports into the mix is shameful and disgusting. It’s a wad of spit in the face of every great athlete who has ever taken the field. It’s a disgrace to the Ancient Greek tradition that the Olympics are attempting to continue.
I don’t give a fuck that there are already competitions for breakdancing. Or ballroom dancing. People can hold competitions for whatever they want. I actually think competitions shouldn’t be held for entirely subjective and artistic activities, but people can do whatever the fuck they want.
But not in the fucking Olympics. This shit makes me sick.
And before you start pointing out the other subjective, judged events that are already in the Olympics: THEY SHOULD ALL BE REMOVED, TOO. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. NONE OF THEM BELONG.
No more gymnastics (rhythmic or otherwise). No more figure skating and ice dancing. No more skateboarding. No more surfing. No more synchronized swimming. No more freestyle skiing. No more diving. No more BMX. No more ANYTHING that requires judging.
You might browbeat me into admitting that some of those subjectively judged activities are sports, but you will never convince me that they belong in the Olympics.
Olympic sports should be restricted to those which are determined by means of a clock, a measuring tape, the accumulation of OBJECTIVELY scored points, or a physical beating.
Even some of those should be on the chopping block. Some of the points-scoring events are too subjective. If a sport relies too much on fallible human judging, it should be excluded.
The vast majority of the events should be arbitrated only by the cold, merciless, absolute judgment of the clock or the measuring tape. Therein lies the truest purity of sport.
Honestly, the best thing to do would be to reset everything to the REAL tradition of the Olympics. Almost nothing, other than running, jumping, and fighting. With an absolute minimum of rules to get in the way, and all the athletes competing in the nude. Just sandals on their feet. No space-age materials to help anyone. Nothing for anyone to hide. Just human muscle and determination, on display at the greatest possible level.
But it’s all a forlorn dream. Instead, we have to have our stomachs turned, as a bunch of revolting little shitheads wobble and headspin.
The ancient Olympians are going to be spinning in their fucking graves.
EDIT: YES, I AM AWARE THAT THE FIRST COUPLE MODERN OLYMPICS FEATURED NON-SPORT ACTIVITIES, LIKE SCULPTURE AND PAINTING. THAT DOESN’T CHANGE MY VIEW. INCLUDING ART IN THE MODERN OLYMPICS WAS A RIDICULOUS MISTAKE. JUST BECAUSE IT WAS DONE BEFORE DOESN’T MEAN IT SHOULD BE DONE NOW.
I’m not making up any words. As for “making up definitions,” I will state again that I am indeed defining my own terms. That is allowed, in the realm of opinions.
I will also repeat that you are absolutely invited to poke holes in my rhetoric, if you observe logical contradictions or fallacies. But just saying “uhhh, you shouldn’t be making up things” is not a valid criticism of my argument.
I’m not denying that I am constructing my own definition and interpretation of the purity of sport. In another portion of the conversation, I’ve already admitted that I was incorrect to so heavily rely upon arguments to tradition, to support my position.
I may have committed other fallacies and contradictions. Again: bring any of those up. Nothing wrong with that.
But if you think “nuh-uh, you shouldn’t make things up” is some kind of valid debate point, well, it isn’t. I’m not insisting that my opinions are facts. Nor am I knowingly denying any actual facts, which may be inconvenient to my argument.
As long as I refrain from those things, I am free to define any terms that I wish. That’s not bad rhetoric.
Before you go back to your “but the definition of sports” line, remember that someone else’s definition is not automatically a fact. It’s only a definition within its own narrow context, which I am choosing to set aside.
Remember when you thought you were basing your definition on ancient olympic games but then you learned those had trumpet and herald contests and you got all sad about the ‘forlorn dream’ of your made up definition of sports? That was funny. Good times ;)
Yeah, that’s what I was talking about, when I said this:
I changed my opinion from “t3h AnCI3nts nEvAR WanTED THIS” to “well, I guess the ancients were wrong, too.”
That’s what I’m talking about. That person pointed out a fallacy in my original statement. I updated my views, to admit that I was incorrect in my insistence that tradition was on my side.
Again: my own “made up” definitions are not on trial, just on the basis that I am making them up. I am free to define my own rhetorical terms. You keep on implying that I’m somehow in the wrong for doing that. I’m not. I never will be. You apparently have zero clue about how rhetoric works.
So you stopped relying on tradition and instead rely on made up definitions of words. Masterful rhetoric, bravo! ;)
Let’s get this straight: according to you, admitting that I was engaging in a fallacy and changing my opinion to reflect the facts…that’s where I’m going wrong? That’s bad rhetoric, to you?
I guess you’d have preferred it, if I was just like “NUH-UH! THE ANCIENTS BELIEVED WHATEVER I WANT THEM TO HAVE BELIEVED! I’M NOT LISTENING TO YOUR HISTORY AND FACTS!”
That would have been better? That’s what you think rhetoric is supposed to be? Just “LALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING” whenever you hear anything you disagree with?
I mean, I guess so. That’s basically what you’ve been doing.
“I’M NOT LISTENING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF WORDS I USE BECAUSE I’M MAKING THEM UP” is just as funny.
I will explain this to you one more time: RHETORIC IS NOT ABOUT DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ME DEFINING MY OWN TERMS, AS LONG AS I AM LOGICALLY CONSISTENT IN THOSE DEFINITIONS.
This is not a controversial position. Of the two of us, I am not the one espousing a weird view. Do you think dictionary definitions are automatic-win cards, in organized debate contests? You think that’s how everyone’s rebuttal works? Each side just pulls out a dictionary and says “haha, I’ve gotcha now” and they win the debate?
The only way I could be at fault for going against the “definition” of a word is if I refuse to ADMIT that my own definition is potentially different from the dictionary’s definition, or the traditional definition, or whatever else.
I have always maintained that my opinion is my own. I have never claimed that I am supported by the dictionary. For the last time: I DON’T NEED THE SUPPORT OF THE DICTIONARY, IN ORDER FOR MY OWN FUCKING OPINION TO BE RHETORICALLY VALID.
You’ll have to provide your definitions for all the words in that comment since I can’t assume any are dictionary definitions. For instance is your definition of rhetoric ‘entertaining strangers with my bizarre angst’?
You really are just stuck on this “definition” thing, aren’t you?
I really do want to know if you think people in organized debate competitions pull out dictionaries like they’re “trap cards” from Yu-Gi-Oh.
I mean, you really are just embarrassing yourself, at this point.