Sacred Cows (people no one dares criticise)

mikom

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Fcuk right off with that. It's so tempting to ask whether their kids were accidents or attempts to save a failing relationship, but of course that's a no no.

A very aggressive and not at all proportionate response there.

Pumpkinseeds

mikom wrote: »

A very aggressive and not at all proportionate response there.

That's a matter of opinion. Do you have kids? If so did you and your partner do all the pre pregnancy healthy things like taking suitable vitamins/supplements, eating well, get fit? Did you plan it all down to the last detail? Reproducing isn't a talent or achievement, despite what many parents would have us believe. It's more difficult to avoid pregnancy than it is to get pregnant.

Chloris

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote:

Reading books,Watching films etc is equally as pointless as sport

Absolutely not. They, at least, have storylines with human meaning and characters you can empathise with. Athletes are usually overpaid, braindead muscley twats. Because sport is just this stupid aimless thing which has no real grounding, it cannot possibly deal with the complex human themes in the same way that literature or film can. It all ultimately has no purpose beyond "this arbitrary set of rules and objectives" outlined by the sport itself.

JupiterKid

Has anyone mentioned the Dalai Lama yet?

Muff Richardson

this thread got way too serious...

I'm gonna chuck Christy Moore into the mix, who incidentally was just autocorrected to 'Christ'...the adulation for this fat miserable bolloÃ႒§ks is nothing short of messiah like, usually by clueless 20-40 year old men who know only the chorus of about 3 or 4 of his mediocre ballads that are usually about nothing more than the gargle or some half starved culchie who's too thick to find his way to the port to emigrate so he's stuck on the side of the road eating a bunch of daffodils for his dinner.

(btw I'm one of these 20-40 year olds, the mans a genius and I won't hear a bad word spoken about him)

Eugene Norman

Chloris wrote: »

Absolutely not. They, at least, have storylines with human meaning and characters you can empathise with. Athletes are usually overpaid, braindead muscley twats. Because sport is just this stupid aimless thing which has no real grounding, it cannot possibly deal with the complex human themes in the same way that literature or film can. It all ultimately has no purpose beyond "this arbitrary set of rules and objectives" outlined by the sport itself.

The ancient Greeks would disagree. You've gone from being a GAA trainer, who nevertheless hates the GAA, to hating all sports.

And sport isn't designed to deal with the complex human themes of literature, or TV. Its part of the human experience nevertheless.

Chloris

Eugene Norman wrote:

The ancient Greeks would disagree. You've gone from being a GAA trainer, who nevertheless hates the GAA, to hating all sports.

I'm a teacher and I've always been athletic so I volunteer in my school at training. My interest in promoting health and fitness and productivity in youth doesn't mean I have to have any respect for or interest in team sports.

Eugene Norman wrote:

And sport isn't designed to deal with the complex human themes of literature, or TV. Its part of the human experience nevertheless.

What I'm saying is that I don't find it a very meaningful part, and that it is held on a pedestal for reasons beyond my understanding. Hence why I'm commenting about it in the Sacred Cow thread.

osarusan

Chloris wrote: »

Athletes are usually overpaid, braindead muscley twats.

An extraordinarily stupid statement.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You could reduce all sport with such reductionist absurdities. Soccer is kicking a round ball around the place. Gaelic football is picking it up sometimes. Rugby is picking it up with an egg shaped ball. Marathon runners expend energy going nowhere that they couldn't go faster on public transport, cyclists in the tour the France could hop on a TGV and get there quicker, athletics is running around in circles, gymnastics is jumping around in circles.... And on.

All great human civilisations have had sporting events, it tests more than the sport but the human desire to perfect themselves.

There is no dichotomy between liking sports and having a regard for the intellect either.

What pisses me off about rugby isn't really the sport itself (load of burly lads throwing a ball around the place and running into each other, whatever, grand) but the discourse around it. The whole "an entire nation holds its breath. Every man, woman and child waiting to see if an absolutely amazing really important big thing for Ireland, all of Ireland, will happen when the man kicks the ball over there and it goes the place he meant it to go".

I'm a woman so it doesn't really impact me much, but you'd still get the odd conversation where people just will not accept that you can not care about rugby and be normal. "Does it not make you proud to be Irish?" No, frankly, it doesn't impact how I feel about my nationality any more than somebody Irish losing the Eurovision or winning the world Rock Paper Scissors Championship.

ETA: Chris Pratt. Don't think I've ever heard a single bad word about him

Chloris

osarusan wrote:

An extraordinarily stupid statement.

There's a lot of "stupid statement" remarks floating around, without a whole lot presentation on evidence to the contrary.

I think the whole premise of this thread is just lost on the majority of people who can't deal with having their firmly-held tenets shaken. But just saying "hey F you, sports/donal Walsh/people with disabilities/dole cheats/gay people are great!" is just not enough of a defence like.

RayM

The weird thing about rugby is that ten/twenty years ago, very few Irish people (outside of certain private schools) gave a damn about it. As soon as Ireland started winning, every cunt and his mother suddenly became an expert.

osarusan

Chloris wrote: »

I think the whole premise of this thread is just lost on the majority of people who can't deal with having their firmly-held tenets shaken.

Like your firmly-held tenet that athletes are usually overpaid muscley braindead twats?

Eugene Norman

Chloris wrote: »

There's a lot of "stupid statement" remarks floating around, without a whole lot presentation on evidence to the contrary.

I think the whole premise of this thread is just lost on the majority of people who can't deal with having their firmly-held tenets shaken. But just saying "hey F you, sports/donal Walsh/people with disabilities/dole cheats/gay people are great!" is just not enough of a defence like.

I think you're missing the point though. You can't just say "this is a sacred cow", you need a cogent argument. I would agree that sports can dominate conversations, and conversations about sport are rarely too interesting. However rugby would be the wrong sport to criticise here as most rugby fans I know ( and GAA fans) have more than one topic and its seasonal. I steer clear of Liverpool or Manchester United fans who talk about "we". And that's year long.

Sport isn't dumbing these folks down though.

Chloris

osarusan wrote:

Like your firmly-held tenet that athletes are usually overpaid muscley braindead twats?

Ok, go on, convince me of your view instead of just sarcastically saying I'm wrong. Aside from Muhammad Ali and maybe Frank Lampard, athletes aren't exactly lauded for their academic prowess or philosophical insights. They're impressively dedicated to becoming the best human engineering possible, which is valuable in its own way, but ultimately completely self-serving. In fact, all it's of benefit to is sports, to make people think athletes are doing something meaningful.

Dwarf.Shortage

Chloris wrote: »

Absolutely not. They, at least, have storylines with human meaning and characters you can empathise with. Athletes are usually overpaid, braindead muscley twats. Because sport is just this stupid aimless thing which has no real grounding, it cannot possibly deal with the complex human themes in the same way that literature or film can. It all ultimately has no purpose beyond "this arbitrary set of rules and objectives" outlined by the sport itself.

Pseudo intellectual scutter, an ignorant viewpoint wrapped up in nice words. Sport adds an incredible amount of value to the human experience and 99.99% of sportspeople aren't remunerated at all never mind over paid. Obesity brought about by our increasingly sedentary lifestyle is the biggest public health concern since cigarettes, the idea that our greatest weapon against this threat is "just this stupid aimless thing with no grounding" is absolutely laughable. We evolved to move, to run and jump and sprint, to chase and to be chased, to use our bodies everyday to survive, the need to do these things couldn't possibly have more "grounding", it's not even who we are, its what we are.

Joe prim

Tony McCoy...praised to the heavens for spending his life riding with a whip in his hand, while poor Graham Dwyer gets life for much the same thing,there's no justice

Eugene Norman

RayM wrote: »

The weird thing about rugby is that ten/twenty years ago, very few Irish people (outside of certain private schools) gave a damn about it. As soon as Ireland started winning, every cunt and his mother suddenly became an expert.

Happens in all sports. If Ireland was likely to win an Olympic medal in sailing or horse dressage I'd get on board. It's far easier to explain why Irish people support Ireland in rugby than some kerryman supporting Liverpool. And I'd bet that viewing figures for the 6N are about as high as the 5N. Supporting Ireland in the 6N and the Lions is something I've always done and I grew up on a council estate.

osarusan

Chloris wrote: »

Ok, go on, convince me of your view instead of just sarcastically saying I'm wrong. Aside from Muhammad Ali and maybe Frank Lampard, athletes aren't exactly lauded for their academic prowess or philosophical insights. They're impressively dedicated to becoming the best human engineering possible, which is valuable in its own way, but ultimately completely self-serving. In fact, all it's of benefit to is sports, to make people think athletes are doing something meaningful.

I'm not here to convince you of my view.

I just think that saying that athletes are usually overpaid muscley braindead twats is a stupid statement.

I mean - usually implies a majority. So you think a majority of athletes in the world are overpaid?

They are not lauded for their academic prowess or philospohical insights because that won't do them any good in their job. It's silly to argue that they are not exhibiting these qualities when those qualities are not of value in their job, and then decide that makes them braindead. It is no more (or less) valid a criticism than saying Roddy Doyle is useless because he can't play a long iron from a golf-tee.

You seem to have some real issue with the value other people ascribe to sports - I don't understand why.

Also, Muhammad Ali was far from academically gifted - his IQ test score was 78.

Chloris

Dwarf.Shortage wrote:

Sport adds an incredible amount of value to the human experience...

Ok, finally somebody who's actually going to propose a refutation to my argument. I'm looking forward to this.

Dwarf.Shortage wrote:

...99.99% of sportspeople aren't remunerated at all never mind over paid.

I'm obviously talking about professional athletes, why would you be paid for something which isn't your profession. But fair enough, a lot of people do it for reasons other than money.

Dwarf.Shortage wrote:

Obesity brought about by our increasingly sedentary lifestyle is the biggest public health concern since cigarettes, the idea that our greatest weapon against this threat is "just this stupid aimless thing with no grounding" is absolutely laughable.

By all means, use people's blind worshipping of sport as a way of brainwashing then into being fitter. But it hasn't done much good, even with the recent obsession with rugby sweeping the nation. If anything, the leagues most people, especially kids, watch put the sportspeople up at unattainable, unrealistic levels. I'm all for individual self improvement through sport, if that's your thing. But the hero-worship and almost religious devotion to it can only be a bad thing for society.

Dwarf.Shortage wrote:

We evolved to move, to run and jump and sprint, to chase and to be chased, to use our bodies everyday to survive, the need to do these things couldn't possibly have more "grounding", it's not even who we are, its what we are.

We also evolved to rape, murder, steal, when it's possible, convenient or necessary. The necessity of some things is never called into question. The rules of rugby are just the rules of war revolving around the acquisition of a ball instead of huge casualties. It's like grown men playing pretend with toy soldiers, bumping each other backwards and forwards and ultimately, getting nowhere at the end of it.

Look, I could argue this until the sacred cows come home but we're just going around in circles; can't we just accept, in a thread specifically for unpopular opinions, that some people really find sport irksome and overrated?

Berserker

blackcard wrote: »

The GAA is what makes us Irish

What about people who aren't into GAA?

RayM wrote: »

The weird thing about rugby is that ten/twenty years ago, very few Irish people (outside of certain private schools) gave a damn about it. As soon as Ireland started winning, every cunt and his mother suddenly became an expert.

Not really true. The five nations games were still sell outs back then. Rugby's move into the professional world meant that it had to reach out to the masses and they have done a wonderful job. 15 years ago Leinster couldn't sell out Donnybrook. They have a huge fan base now at the expensive of the national football team, in my opinion, who can't fill the Aviva without the help of 10,000 plus visiting fans.

SummerSummit

Muhammad

porsche boy

SummerSummit wrote: »

Muhammad

Brave...

YFlyer

osarusan wrote: »

Also, Muhammad Ali was far from academically gifted - his IQ test score was 78.

To avoid the draft.

steddyeddy

So physical fitness and competitiveness is negatively correlated with intelligence? Ever hear of Plato? Plato meaning"wide shoulders".

osarusan

YFlyer wrote: »

To avoid the draft.

This was not the reason. He said that himself.

Cuban Pete

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

Sounds like you have some bias. On the web you might encounter some of this behavior, but even still it's far from the majority. In real life, most people I know are kind of scared or at least very reluctant to give criticism. I'm talking about legitimate concerns here, by the way. Not discriminatory comments or anything like that.

Uh-huh? I'm the one who's biased. Right.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

steddyeddy wrote: »

So physical fitness and competitiveness is negatively correlated with intelligence? Ever hear of Plato? Plato meaning"wide shoulders".

No, but dedicating the amount of time to physical fitness that a professional athlete needs to dedicate probably means that they haven't been dedicating the amount of time to learning that other people have been. There are only so many hours in the day. Intelligence is not just an inherent aptitude, it's a skill, and it can be very much a case of use it or lose it.

Honest to god, listen to interviews with professional rugby or soccer players. Generally speaking they're not TED material, to put it mildly. It doesn't mean they're bad people or that they haven't worked very hard to get where they are.

RayM

RayM wrote: »

The weird thing about rugby is that ten/twenty years ago, very few Irish people (outside of certain private schools) gave a damn about it. As soon as Ireland started winning, every cunt and his mother suddenly became an expert.

At least 20 years ago those that followed it knew the significance of the competitions and saved the tears for the Triple Crown. Now the number of fans who have no sense of context and so think everything must be cheered to the rafters engage in hyperbole, so this years championship was heralded as some huge event when they couldn't name the teams that won it in it in which particular years in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Nelson Mandela. Did anyone ever have a go at his shirts? Well they were awful.

Eugene Norman

Chloris wrote: »

Ok, finally somebody who's actually going to propose a refutation to my argument. I'm looking forward to this.


I'm obviously talking about professional athletes, why would you be paid for something which isn't your profession. But fair enough, a lot of people do it for reasons other than money.


By all means, use people's blind worshipping of sport as a way of brainwashing then into being fitter. But it hasn't done much good, even with the recent obsession with rugby sweeping the nation. If anything, the leagues most people, especially kids, watch put the sportspeople up at unattainable, unrealistic levels. I'm all for individual self improvement through sport, if that's your thing. But the hero-worship and almost religious devotion to it can only be a bad thing for society.


We also evolved to rape, murder, steal, when it's possible, convenient or necessary. The necessity of some things is never called into question. The rules of rugby are just the rules of war revolving around the acquisition of a ball instead of huge casualties. It's like grown men playing pretend with toy soldiers, bumping each other backwards and forwards and ultimately, getting nowhere at the end of it.

Look, I could argue this until the sacred cows come home but we're just going around in circles; can't we just accept, in a thread specifically for unpopular opinions, that some people really find sport irksome and overrated?

Equating sport to rape is moral imbecility. Saying that it replaces war is probably true but then that's a good thing to replace.

Sports takes guts, dedication, teamwork and sacrifice in team sports and in celebrating the best sportspeople we are celebrating human achievments at their best in the physical sphere. The Greeks realised this. If the founders of Western thought see sport as just not important but essential to the human condition I think we can ignore an angry guy on internets opinion about the usefulness or not of sport, particularly since you have created a false dichotomy between watching sports and intellectual pursuits.

Eugene Norman

steddyeddy wrote: »

So physical fitness and competitiveness is negatively correlated with intelligence? Ever hear of Plato? Plato meaning"wide shoulders".

Yes. This.

Dwarf.Shortage

Chloris wrote: »

Ok, finally somebody who's actually going to propose a refutation to my argument. I'm looking forward to this.

.
.
.
.
.

Look, I could argue this until the sacred cows come home but we're just going around in circles; can't we just accept, in a thread specifically for unpopular opinions, that some people really find sport irksome and overrated?

Make up your mind.

Junkyard Tom

galljga1 wrote: »

Dwarf Throwing.

Banned by the elf and safety brigade.

MRnotlob606

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Banned by the elf and safety brigade.

Are you an actual cat ? that would be mad craic now. A little dote of a cat with a mouse on internet forums. How pleasant.

Junkyard Tom

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Are you an actual cat ? that would be mad craic now. A little dote of a cat with a mouse on internet forums. How pleasant.

Here's a pic of me.

smurgen

John Lennon. What an annoying hypocrical man.love is all you need my arse.he wasn't very loving when he beat his two wives and emotionally abused his son.he was also a pathological liar and politically clueless.

Tarzana2

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Stephen Fry. I think he's a bit of a prick myself.

Anytime there's a thread about being offended someone will post this. Meanwhile someone calls him 'boring' on Twitter and he threatens to delete his account in a desperate bid for attention. God forbid one person might not find him fascinating.

Yeah, he always strikes me as a bit of a drama queen. And very supercilious on QI. Drop it, Stephen, an army of researchers found all the facts you're vomiting.

smurgen

Bressie also. He has depression so we'll gloss over the fact he's useless and smug and his music is horrific.

Cold War Kid

I think Bressie is the exact opposite of a sacred cow. He gets regularly slated despite being a fairly inoffensive kinda bloke. He judges on that talent show and used to be in a band and has published the odd opinion column.

I'm not seeing anything worse than any other z-lister - same with his attitude: not anything particularly OTT cocky there IMO.

Saying he has depression has particularly seemed to cause people to be on the attack towards him. It's not easy for everyone to talk about their depression. I did so here last night, and even though it's nothing to be ashamed of, I've deleted some posts now.

SummerSummit

The Palestinians

Dirty Dingus McGee

Chloris wrote: »

Absolutely not. They, at least, have storylines with human meaning and characters you can empathise with. Athletes are usually overpaid, braindead muscley twats. Because sport is just this stupid aimless thing which has no real grounding, it cannot possibly deal with the complex human themes in the same way that literature or film can. It all ultimately has no purpose beyond "this arbitrary set of rules and objectives" outlined by the sport itself.

Most sportsmen don't get paid a penny.

Most sports have great story lines attached to them and I think the majority of people can empathize with sportsmen when they see how much effort they put in for very little reward in most cases and when they say the pain defeat can cause them.in both watching and participating sport plays a key part in peoples lives across the world.

You dismiss team sports in another post yet they are a very good grounding for what life in general is like.Loads of effort for a common good , having to co-operate with people and listen to their opinions, I'd imagine that playing teams sports would give someone the edge in getting a job as a lot of workplaces are big into team work and if you can work in a team environment in sport you can do it in work as well.And sports is a great metaphor for life as it results in continual failure for each and every participant.

neris

Joe Duffy - Working man of the people on 10 times the average industrial wage **** himself off to others misery and suffering but his buddies in the media fail to notice this and point it out to the average liveline caller

Dirty Dingus McGee

Oakley Shrilling Lifeboat wrote: »

No, but dedicating the amount of time to physical fitness that a professional athlete needs to dedicate probably means that they haven't been dedicating the amount of time to learning that other people have been. There are only so many hours in the day. Intelligence is not just an inherent aptitude, it's a skill, and it can be very much a case of use it or lose it.

Honest to god, listen to interviews with professional rugby or soccer players. Generally speaking they're not TED material, to put it mildly. It doesn't mean they're bad people or that they haven't worked very hard to get where they are.

I'd imagine it takes a great degree of intelligence to be good at sport. Sport involves continually making split second decisions.Looking at golf or snooker which are slow paced sports it must take a great degree of intelligence to work out what shot to play at times when there are so many potential options available to the player.

There is more to intelligence than maths,science and english etc. Instead of applying there intelligence to a matches etc sports men apply it to there sport.

Dwarf.Shortage

SummerSummit wrote: »

The Palestinians

And I'd say on the other hand the same can be said of The Israeli's, that conflict is a great example of what the OP is talking about because it's so divisive. Most people who know a bit about it hold one or the other side as a sacred cow and the other side as evil, in my experience anyway.

pickarooney

Oakley Shrilling Lifeboat wrote: »

No, but dedicating the amount of time to physical fitness that a professional athlete needs to dedicate probably means that they haven't been dedicating the amount of time to learning that other people have been. There are only so many hours in the day. Intelligence is not just an inherent aptitude, it's a skill, and it can be very much a case of use it or lose it.

Honest to god, listen to interviews with professional rugby or soccer players. Generally speaking they're not TED material, to put it mildly. It doesn't mean they're bad people or that they haven't worked very hard to get where they are.

Sure look at the big thick head on Jamie Roberts.

bjork

Those who can not be mentioned or the thread will be closed


Hint: This time 8 years to the day they had downed a bottle of new zealand wine and were half way through dinner


While their toddlers were home alone

Junkyard Tom

I love sports myself. I play soccer regularly enough and love watching Rugby Union. I find the blanket dislike of sport a bit odd myself. I mean, indifference to sport is understandable but hostility towards it seems bizarre.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'd imagine it takes a great degree of intelligence to be good at sport. Sport involves continually making split second decisions.Looking at golf or snooker which are slow paced sports it must take a great degree of intelligence to work out what shot to play at times when there are so many potential options available to the player.

There is more to intelligence than maths,science and english etc. Instead of applying there intelligence to a matches etc sports men apply it to there sport.

There are different types of intelligence, sure. I couldn't do what sportspeople do and I'm not undermining their skill. But listen to most of them stringing a sentence together, especially when they're discussing anything other than their sport. It takes a certain degree of monomania to be at that level with anything. On the flipside you have the archetypal eccentric professorial type who has no common sense, or people who are highly intelligent and skilled at something academic but have zero social intelligence.

I think this insistence on saying "sure athletes ARE intelligent" actually kind of does the opposite of what it's intended to do. Being able to play a sport has value in itself, it doesn't have to be justified by saying that they're just as intelligent as a phd candidate, speaking of which...

pickarooney wrote: »

Sure look at the big thick head on Jamie Roberts.

That's nice, but not exactly representative, is it?

roshje

pickarooney wrote: »

Sure look at the big thick head on Jamie Roberts.

Do you mean Dr. Jamie Roberts

Dirty Dingus McGee

Oakley Shrilling Lifeboat wrote: »

There are different types of intelligence, sure. I couldn't do what sportspeople do and I'm not undermining their skill. But listen to most of them stringing a sentence together, especially when they're discussing anything other than their sport. It takes a certain degree of monomania to be at that level with anything. On the flipside you have the archetypal eccentric professorial type who has no common sense, or people who are highly intelligent and skilled at something academic but have zero social intelligence.

I think this insistence on saying "sure athletes ARE intelligent" actually kind of does the opposite of what it's intended to do. Being able to play a sport has value in itself, it doesn't have to be justified by saying that they're just as intelligent as a phd candidate, speaking of which...



That's nice, but not exactly representative, is it?

Your right it doesn't have to be justified except when someone like yourself questions a sports persons intelligence.

I don't hold it against Stephen Hawking that he isn't a skilful sportsman as that us not his field of expertise so why would anybody hold it against a sports man if they are not good at public speaking or maths etc.The only people who do that are those who feel threatened in some way by the popularity of sport and have to dismiss it as being un-itellectual and the participants not being intelligent in order to make themselves seem more clever.

When the Sun Hits

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Uh-huh? I'm the one who's biased. Right.

Wow, great retort.

I've shown no bias at all. You are the one who made the ridiculous claim that criticism of the Islam faith is something that is accepted, and that objection to this criticism is "taboo" and unheard of. Can you prove that in any way? Perhaps you're not biased, but if not, you are seriously deluded.