Dally said:Joe Humble said:On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:His
position is that a person can be labelled 'athlete' simply by having trained
and participated in an event. There is no requirement as to this "athlete'
s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and barely
mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.
Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth?
Well, no. First of all, David's logic leap when he said "therefore" is
inaccurate. A grossly overweight and barely mobile person would NOT be
trained and competing in athletic events. Be careful about his segues,
they don't usually make sense. I believe he was attempting to conflate
my current state of being slightly overweight and finishing mid-pack in
a triathlon as "grossly overweight and barely mobile."
Wait a minute...why couldn't a grossly overweight person train and
compete in an athletic event? If we are not going to place
restrictions of the level of excellence required then training could
amount to walking 50 more paces that usual per day and competing could
be walking 100 paces.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.
Can you think of people who have substantially trained and participated
in sports to the extent that it's a major piece of their day-to-day
activities that you would NOT describe as an athlete?
Yes, they have a hobby that they enjoy. I noted elsewhere that I
think athlete is a word that has taken on a connotation of excellence
perhaps moreso today than when the dictionary terms being thrown
around were written.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power?
Yes. But it also loses its descriptive power when you fail to apply it
to mid-pack triathletes.
OK, you're a triathlete then, I have no issue with that.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?
Because it distinguishes between those who train and compete versus
those who don't. There are a whole host of attributes that are
associated with people who train and compete. It's a facts and
circumstances situation: some people might have agility and strength,
some might have endurance and strength, some might have precision/skill
and agility... the characteristics of an individual sport will differ.
But athletes will distinguish themselves in that they focus around their
sport to the extent that they train and compete in it. Non-athletes
will not.
Well, now you ARE associating measures of excellence to the
definition. I think David is right in suggesting you can't have it
both ways. Or maybe you just want to define the level of excellence
right where you fall and alas that is just a bit too convenient.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?
If the person is walking at an 18 minute ile pace then it's fairly clear
that they did not train for the run nor are they particularly competing.
No one ever argued that showing up once was enough.
Dally
No I guess not but the argument does seem to go something like, "a
level of excellence is required but I'll tell you what that is". And
I'm telling you that I will decide where it is --and the pissing match
is on!
--
Is this thing on?
