'Whoopee cushion' stops play at Masters (and what is 'sport'?)

[Mrs Miggins]

It's a game unless you have to change into special shoes to play it, then it's a sport

Ah but there are special shoes available for Zumba and I'm not sure that could be called a sport...

 

[SpookyFrank]

Everything is a sport except rugby, which is just a competition to see who can get their neck the widest.

 

[kabbes]

“What is sport?” is an even less interesting question than “what is art?” Sport is not some kind of scientifically-derived classification of the natural world. It’s an entirely artificial, conceptual category. What falls into the category depends only on how an individual chooses to define that category. Nobody’s definition is inherently superior to anybody else’s because the whole thing is conceptual and artificial in the first place. But people are arguing as if there is this platonic ideal of “sport” to which things can be compared to see how close they are. Fuckin’ yawn

 

[SpookyFrank]

“What is sport?” is an even less interesting question than “what is art?” Sport is not some kind of scientifically-derived classification of the natural world. It’s an entirely artificial, conceptual category. What falls into the category depends only on how an individual chooses to define that category. Nobody’s definition is inherently superior to anybody else’s because the whole thing is conceptual and artificial in the first place. But people are arguing as if there is this platonic ideal of “sport” to which things can be compared to see how close they are. Fuckin’ yawn

I'd say that a definition of 'sport' that includes horse racing, foxhunting, grouse shooting and however many other more or less codified ways of tormenting animals is inherently worse if it gives those practices a veneer of legitimacy that they manifestly do not deserve.

I mean rugby is shit but at least the brutes involved are nominally sentient and taking part of their own free will.

 

[kabbes]

I think you may rather have missed my point

 

[SpookyFrank]

I think you may rather have missed my point

Nope, I just disagree with it.

 

[Lord Camomile]

“What is sport?” is an even less interesting question than “what is art?” Sport is not some kind of scientifically-derived classification of the natural world. It’s an entirely artificial, conceptual category. What falls into the category depends only on how an individual chooses to define that category. Nobody’s definition is inherently superior to anybody else’s because the whole thing is conceptual and artificial in the first place. But people are arguing as if there is this platonic ideal of “sport” to which things can be compared to see how close they are. Fuckin’ yawn

Booooooo!

* throws popcorn *

 

[kabbes]

Nope, I just disagree with it.

What do you disagree with? You think that “sport” actually is some kind of objective category that is derived from the natural order?

 

[nogojones]

As said you can play any game with a beer and a fag it might affect your performance though. I played in goal for six aside football match halfcut before as a last minute favour and had a Stormer.

I used to play in goal for our pub Sunday league team so I could skin up for the defenders. If we were loosing at half time we'd all have a big huff of poppers before we went back on.

We did surprisingly well

 

[Mumbles274]

What do you disagree with? You think that “sport” actually is some kind of objective category that is derived from the natural order?

There is probably an equation that defines it

 

[SpookyFrank]

What do you disagree with? You think that “sport” actually is some kind of objective category that is derived from the natural order?

I think voluntary participation of all concerned is a bare minimum standard for an even slightly coherent understanding of the word 'sport'.

You can make the 'all possible definitions are arbitrary' argument about very nearly everything. It's just a bit pointless.

 

[DotCommunist]

It's a game unless you have to change into special shoes to play it, then it's a sport

to be fair, you have to wear smart clothes for snooker, if you are pro. At least court level formal if not better. Some of em wear it better than others.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The difference between a sport and a game is a bit like the difference between a language and a dialect - as in 'a language is a dialect with an army'. So a sport is a game that people take seriously - 'a matter of life and death? it is more serious than that'.

 

[klang]

Anything at the Olympics is def not a sport. It's the Olympic Games after all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anything at the Olympics is def not a sport. It's the Olympic Games after all.

Exactly. And snooker is not at the Olympics. Therefore snooker is a sport.

Can't beat logic. QED.

 

[klang]

snowboarding was a sport until fairly recently. it got downgraded to game status in 1998.

 

[Lord Camomile]

I think voluntary participation of all concerned is a bare minimum standard for an even slightly coherent understanding of the word 'sport'.

You can make the 'all possible definitions are arbitrary' argument about very nearly everything. It's just a bit pointless.

Doesn't mean it's wrong.

* descends into a whirlpool of infinite regression, still throwing popcorn *

 

[8ball]

Exactly. And snooker is not at the Olympics. Therefore snooker is a sport.

Can't beat logic. QED.

Danger-wanking is not in the Olympics either.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Danger-wanking is not in the Olympics either.

There you go. The Sport of Kinks?

 

[8ball]

There you go. The Sport of Kinks?

Game Of Bones.

 

[kabbes]

It’s not true that all definitions are arbitrary. Those derived from science, for example. They may be subject to debate and refinement, they may prove to be unnecessary given future developments, they may have many reasons for critique, but they aren’t arbitrary — they are based on trying to classify the natural world.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It’s not true that all definitions are arbitrary. Those derived from science, for example. They may be subject to debate and refinement, they may prove to be unnecessary given future developments, they may have many reasons for critique, but they aren’t arbitrary — they are based on trying to classify the natural world.

If they're subject to debate, refinement and amendment then they must necessarily be arbitrary. It's turtles all the way down.

 

[Yossarian]

* throws popcorn *

I'm going to give that an 8 out of 10 - it was a strong overhand throw and a reasonable amount of popcorn actually hit the target. You lost marks for what appeared to be an overly high proportion of unpopped kernels, which you're going to have to avoid if you're going to make it to the world championships in Pittsburgh.

 

[kabbes]

If they're subject to debate, refinement and amendment then they must necessarily be arbitrary. It's turtles all the way down.

I don’t think you understand what arbitrary means

 

[SpookyFrank]

I don’t think you understand what arbitrary means

Oh so now you do want to pin down the meanings of words. Pick a lane.

 

[kabbes]

Put it this way — birds are a thing. They exist, and we can study them. As part of that study, it becomes useful to classify them — taxonomy assists future study. The definitions derive from real world characteristics.
The concept of sport, on the other hand, has no existence beyond whatever meaning we ascribe to it. Once we have ascribes a meaning, that becomes the classification by definition. Arguing about what falls into the classification can never be anything other than a circular argument — something is a sport because and only because that’s how you’ve defined what sport is.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Put it this way — birds are a thing. They exist, and we can study them. As part of that study, it becomes useful to classify them — taxonomy assists future study. The definitions derive from real world characteristics.
The concept of sport, on the other hand, has no existence beyond whatever meaning we ascribe to it. Once we have ascribes a meaning, that becomes the classification by definition. Arguing about what falls into the classification can never be anything other than a circular argument — something is a sport because and only because that’s how you’ve defined what sport is.

I wrote my dissertation on taxonomy. All the differing levels of classification involved are based on arbitrary distinctions, and nothing stays fixed for long. The taxonomies we have now in the days of genomics are vastly different from those Linnaeus came up with, and people will continue squabbling over them and adjusting them in light of new data forever.

 

[Serge Forward]

There is probably an equation that defines it

Or an app.

 

[kabbes]

Right, but they are still based on trying to classify things that actually exist. They aren’t manufacturing a concept, defining what is classified by that concept and then arguing because other people have different definitions for it!

 

[Lord Camomile]

I'm going to give that an 8 out of 10 - it was a strong overhand throw and a reasonable amount of popcorn actually hit the target. You lost marks for what appeared to be an overly high proportion of unpopped kernels, which you're going to have to avoid if you're going to make it to the world championships in Pittsburgh.