|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Dec-27-07 |
| Helios727: Doesn't a "sport" also have to have a physical athletic element to it as well? |
 |
| Dec-27-07 |
| Petrosianic: <When chess players call chess a sport, this strikes me not only as false, but as pathetic. It’s pathetic in the same way it’s pathetic to ask someone out on a date who said no the last three times you asked. American culture has rejected chess. For the chess player to insist that chess is a sport is a way of not taking the hint.> Yeah, good observation. But still, it's <American> culture that's rejected chess. As Rachels himself popints out, GM's are more highly thought of in Europe. So he's explained why Americans want chess to be a sport (so that America will "go out" with us). But is it a sport or not? If it's not here, it's not in Europe either, where GM's are appreciated. Rachels says that physical activity is a necessary condition of sport. And I tend to agree with that. My first reaction was to say that chess is a pastime, not a sport (the difference being the lack of physical activity). However, thefreedictionary.com's definition of sport muddles this a bit: 1.
a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. 2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. <3. An active pastime; recreation.> D'oh oh Number 3.
|
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| apple pi: The other "snagging point" in the argument against chess as a sport is the technical classification of chess as "physical" because, although it doesn't involve the contraction of muscles as widely accepted sports do, it still involves impulses of neurons in the brain. |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| MichAdams: A remark attributed to Hemingway: <There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.> |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| Jim Bartle: So according to Hemingway, it's only a sport if you might die. |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| Petrosianic: Well, if that's the criteria, then rugby should qualify too. |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| MichAdams: Criterion. I know that you'll welcome the correction. |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| Petrosianic: Oops. Actually, I think we're both wrong. Isn't it criterium? |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| MichAdams: Not unless it's Petrosium. |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| Petrosianic: Nope. Just looked in thefreedictionary. Criterium isn't there, criterion is. I guess you're right. |
|
| Dec-27-07 |
| MichAdams: It has to do with whether the root of the word is Greek or Latin. |
|
| Dec-28-07 |
| Helios727: Impulses of neurons in the brain would occur when playing Monopoly as well. |
|
Dec-29-07
 |
| norami: In the essay referred to above, Rachels claimed that the same anti-intellectualism that causes Americans to ignore chess also caused Americans to elect G. W. Bush. I wonder if he would be interested in applying that analysis to racial voting patterns in America. |
|
| Dec-30-07 |
| apple pi: <Impulses of neurons in the brain would occur when playing Monopoly as well.> Yeah but Monopoly involves luck (rolling of die) |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| Petrosianic: <In the essay referred to above, Rachels claimed that the same anti-intellectualism that causes Americans to ignore chess also caused Americans to elect G. W. Bush.> That was the weakest part of the essay. That kind of thing might be a satisfying way to help us explain the election of people we don't like, but what does it say when people we <do> like get elected? "Oh, that one didn't count. The public was feeling smart that day." |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| MichAdams: Rachels is just jealous that Bush has a full head of hair. Or maybe he's a homosexual. |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| Jim Bartle: Rachels may have less ON his head than Bush, but I'm quite sure he has a lot more inside his head than George W. Then of course, most people do. |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| MichAdams: How many follicly challenged American Presidents have their been? Only Eisenhower and Ford spring to mind, though my memory doesn't go back that far . That's why I'm supporting Romney for President. |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| Jim Bartle: Truthfully, that's the best reason I've heard yet to support Romney. But I'm surprised to see your point is basically right. It's also true that almost all presidents have had more or less common last names (with possible exception of Eisenhower). So that doesn't bode well for Huckabee. |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| MichAdams: Never be suprised that I'm right, basically or otherwise. There's no way that a successful, articulate, handsome Republican could lose to a woman or an ethnic. The GOP have this one in the bag. |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| Jim Bartle: I'm afraid you may be right, though a GOP president will be up against an even stronger Democratic majority in Congress. I would call Romney a successful, articulate, handsome Ken doll, with pre-programmed bland answers (or non-answers) to all questions. Doesn't risk much, doesn't slip up much. |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| MichAdams: America doesn't need a political leader who wants to actually achieve things; it needs someone who'll do as little (harm) as possible, and who looks good not doing it. Go, Mitt, go! |
|
| Jan-02-08 |
| Jim Bartle: Then Mitt's perfect. |
|
| Jan-08-08 |
| Helios727: Actually we need Ron Paul to revamp our monetary and foreign policies. |
|
| Jan-08-08 |
| Jim Bartle: Oh no! The last Ron Paul-free bastion of the Internet, breached!! |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
