I think a much better way to go is this. Instead of saying a sport is a game where athleticism is the primary or sole determine, say that a sport is a game where athleticism is an essential determiner. In other words, take a look at the competition. Now assume that the competitor has maximum mental ability and zero physical ability. If that will result in guaranteed failure at the game, then it is a sport.
I'd actually go with this one, but I still hold that athleticism is more than thumb movements.
... (eg. roughly muscles above the elbows and below the jaw).
So thumb wrestling isn't a sport? What if we have a competition of who can hold themselves up in the air the longest by biting into a hanging rope? What if we have a contest of who has the strongest grip? Grip is almost entirely dependent on muscles below the elbow. What about cup stacking? I'm sure you don't consider cup stacking a sport, but it involves many muscles above the elbow. The same can be said for yo-yo.
I did say roughly. I think thumb wrestling is a game not a sport. I say biting can be a sport, as I meant "below the jaw" to mean "not including the muscles to move your eyes". Grip? A game. Cup stacking? Have you tried this? It is impossible to do with your body immobilized up to the wrists! I'd say it is a sport if it is done in competition. A stupid sport, as I'm not above value judgments, but I have been known to keep track of my best times with a 10 4 10 stack or whatever it is called. Yoyo? Arms are needed.
I'm not going to sit here and play with the fuzzy line though. I was hoping to clear up things way below it.
You'd have to say "minimum" or "baseline" physical ability. Someone with "zero" physical ability is dead.
Yeah, we can go with that. But where is your baseline?
I was just demonstrating a failure in your approach, since "zero" physical ability = death. A baseline is necessary. You would probably have to stick with something like the physical ability of the average human being.
So, we have two issues that need settling:- 1) Must the "sporting ability" be merely essential, or the primary or sole determiner? 2) What exactly is the "sporting ability"?
Terms like "heap", "plenty", or "ginormous" are 100% relative and subjective.
And yet you said:
Something is either tall or not tall.
Heap (in the meaning I was referring to):
1. a group of things placed, thrown, or lying one on another; pile: a heap of stones.
Objectionally I can state that a heap must be more than one thing. It must also be more than two things, otherwise the definition would say "pair" or use the wording like "both things". Also it must be possible for the objects to be physically stable when resting one on another. This means a heap of rice could be three grains, but it is not possible for a heap to be anything less than three objects that support themselves in some form of vertical structure.
One grain is not a heap. It falls below the threshold of uncertainty.
Anyway, I don't think I need to explain to you how to use a dictionary and logic, and I think you are now willfully being contrary.
I was just demonstrating a failure in your approach, since "zero" physical ability = death. A baseline is necessary. You would probably have to stick with something like the physical ability of the average human being.
That's far too high a baseline. If you say that, then you are saying that if a team of below average human beings play a game of Soccer, then it isn't a sport, but if above average human beings play it, then it becomes a sport. Soccer is either a sport or not. It's status can not change depending on who is playing.
Really? You're going to say that having a competition involving grip strength is not athletic? Really?
That was a typo. However, this is a fuzzy area, and not what I was getting at. You are picking up on a minor point in brackets that I prefaced with "roughly". 10 out of 10 for pickiness.
If an activity increases your strength and cardiovascular fitness, it's probably a sport. If it doesn't, it probably isn't.
Strength in finger and arm muscles increases with FPS play.
That was a typo. However, this is a fuzzy area, and not what I was getting at. You are picking up on a minor point in brackets that I prefaced with "roughly". 10 out of 10 for pickiness.
Is sport a subjective label like "beautiful" or is it an objective label like "water"? It can't be both. If it's subjective, there's no point to this discussion. If it's objective, there can not be any fuzziness whatsoever.
I was just demonstrating a failure in your approach, since "zero" physical ability = death. A baseline is necessary. You would probably have to stick with something like the physical ability of the average human being.
That's far too high a baseline. If you say that, then you are saying that if a team of below average human beings play a game of Soccer, then it isn't a sport, but if above average human beings play it, then it becomes a sport. Soccer is either a sport or not. It's status can not change depending on who is playing.
True. However, it's your approach, and a baseline is essential to it. It's you that needs to suggest one.
It must also be more than two things, otherwise the definition would say "pair" or use the wording like "both things"
Erm, no, because that would only be said in the case of exactly two things. If it was just a case of two or more (which some definitions of "group" actually mention!!), that would not work at all.
That was a typo. However, this is a fuzzy area, and not what I was getting at. You are picking up on a minor point in brackets that I prefaced with "roughly". 10 out of 10 for pickiness.
Is sport a subjective label like "beautiful" or is it an objective label like "water"? It can't be both. If it's subjective, there's no point to this discussion. If it's objective, there can not be any fuzziness whatsoever.
I think what lukeburrage wants is "beautiful water".
Is sport a subjective label like "beautiful" or is it an objective label like "water"? It can't be both. If it's subjective, there's no point to this discussion. If it's objective, there can not be any fuzziness whatsoever.
If you think all concepts are either "completely black or white" or "a single shade of grey" there is no point to this discussion. Between two objective extremes there can be an area where subjectivity is the only option.
I think what lukeburrage wants is "beautiful water".
Then he should say something like "strenuous sport" instead.
I count that at least three straw man attacks from you in one thread. Is it something in your water? I thought you were the big anti-logical fallacy guy.
If you think all concepts are either "completely black or white" or "a single shade of grey" there is no point to this discussion. Between two objective extremes there can be an area where subjectivity is the only option.
Not all concepts are black and white. But this is just the nature of language. A (spoken/written) language is a set of symbols that represent ideas. Some of those symbols represent subjective ideas. Other terms represent objective ideas.
If I present you with a rock and say "this object is an animal", there is clearly a problem. It's not a subjective statement. There is a very clear definition of what is an animal, and what is a mineral. The rock is clearly in the mineral category, not the animal category. This is something that we can have a meaningful discussion about.
If I present you with a rock and say "this rock is beautiful", there's no problem. Sure, it might be an ugly rock to you, but there's no arguing. With my words I have not expressed a truth about the universe, I have expressed my feelings. My feelings are my feelings, and there is no use arguing them. Feelings are worth discussing, sharing, and exploring, but not debating.
If classifying something as a sport is an objective thing, just like classifying something as an animal, vegetable, or mineral, then we can have a debate over what counts as sport. If sport has feelings involved, then there is no debating, it's just in the eye of the beholder. It's not a false dichotomy. It's a true dichotomy.
Look, it doesn't matter whether you call them Sports, Athletic events, ZXCLhasdofihasdfes, or "Recreational activities which raise our heartbeats to perform aerobic exercise so we can consume energy"; they are all still the same events regardless of the label. Soccer will always be boring, Ice Hockey will always be awesome, and CS nerds will never have a life. The idea that somehow because an activity has some sort of label it is better than other non-labeled activities is idiotic. Maybe you guys shouldn't care about what the activities are labeled and more about why we should or should not play/compete/participate in them.
Look, it doesn't matter whether you call them Sports, Athletic events, ZXCLhasdofihasdfes, or "Recreational activities which raise our heartbeats to perform aerobic exercise so we can consume energy"; they are all still the same things. Soccer will always be boring, Ice Hockey will always be awesome, and CS nerds will never have a life. The idea that somehow because an activity has some sort of label it is better than other non-labeled activities is idiotic. Maybe you guys shouldn't care about what the activities are labeled and more about why we should or should not play/compete/participate in them.
The only reason I care is that many people use phrases similar to "X is not a sport" to express their disrespect for that particular activity. It's as if an activity achieves the magical label of sport commands some sort of respect in people's minds, and activities which do not achieve that label are somehow not worthy of respect. It's similar to the arguments about manga meaning "comics from Japan".
I think you're the only one in this thread to have suggested that a label could be considered to make something better...
Then why have this argument in the first place? There is no greater purpose behind the debate. It's just going to end up being an excuse to perform a "No True Scotsman" argument.
"Oh...you doing Curling? That's not a REAL Sport."
As if an activity is inherently better because it's called a sport. What other purpose could the result of this debate be?
If sport is objectively defined then people must come up with a better criticism than "X is not a sport"...
Incidentally, lukeburrage, is darts a sport, according to you?
I just read this, which is interesting. It also means the definition of "sport" has some importance otherwise - in some countries (like the UK) it seems being a "sport" qualifies you for tax breaks over there.
Andrew, you've got it. The reason I argue for an objective definition of the word sport is to eliminate the No True Scotsman bullshit that poisons the term.
I think "sport" is a subset of a "game", and different kinds of games test different things. I think both Scott and I agree on this. The objective definition, I think, is an interesting thing to debate. Not because "sport" means there is more intrinsic worth in that type of game.
Anyway, the point of the debate wasn't so much "sport" but, as stated in the opening post, what makes something an athletic activity, and therefor why some things were mentioned in the "Athleticism" thread and some things were not. I just used a definition of sport that includes the concept of athleticism to get things going.
Comments
I did say roughly. I think thumb wrestling is a game not a sport. I say biting can be a sport, as I meant "below the jaw" to mean "not including the muscles to move your eyes". Grip? A game. Cup stacking? Have you tried this? It is impossible to do with your body immobilized up to the wrists! I'd say it is a sport if it is done in competition. A stupid sport, as I'm not above value judgments, but I have been known to keep track of my best times with a 10 4 10 stack or whatever it is called. Yoyo? Arms are needed.
I'm not going to sit here and play with the fuzzy line though. I was hoping to clear up things way below it.
So, we have two issues that need settling:-
1) Must the "sporting ability" be merely essential, or the primary or sole determiner?
2) What exactly is the "sporting ability"?
One grain is not a heap. It falls below the threshold of uncertainty.
Anyway, I don't think I need to explain to you how to use a dictionary and logic, and I think you are now willfully being contrary.
If I present you with a rock and say "this object is an animal", there is clearly a problem. It's not a subjective statement. There is a very clear definition of what is an animal, and what is a mineral. The rock is clearly in the mineral category, not the animal category. This is something that we can have a meaningful discussion about.
If I present you with a rock and say "this rock is beautiful", there's no problem. Sure, it might be an ugly rock to you, but there's no arguing. With my words I have not expressed a truth about the universe, I have expressed my feelings. My feelings are my feelings, and there is no use arguing them. Feelings are worth discussing, sharing, and exploring, but not debating.
If classifying something as a sport is an objective thing, just like classifying something as an animal, vegetable, or mineral, then we can have a debate over what counts as sport. If sport has feelings involved, then there is no debating, it's just in the eye of the beholder. It's not a false dichotomy. It's a true dichotomy.
"Oh...you doing Curling? That's not a REAL Sport."
As if an activity is inherently better because it's called a sport. What other purpose could the result of this debate be?
Incidentally, lukeburrage, is darts a sport, according to you?
I just read this, which is interesting.
It also means the definition of "sport" has some importance otherwise - in some countries (like the UK) it seems being a "sport" qualifies you for tax breaks over there.
Anyway, the point of the debate wasn't so much "sport" but, as stated in the opening post, what makes something an athletic activity, and therefor why some things were mentioned in the "Athleticism" thread and some things were not. I just used a definition of sport that includes the concept of athleticism to get things going.