Athlete question for Donovan

David!!! It speaks:

Quoted message said:

By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?

-cut-

Quoted message said:

A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength,
agility, and endurance,

If those traits (the person possesses),despite low level of fitness, are
adequate to compete (on any level) in given sport; than yes, you can call
them athletes

--
___ Now Playing: Nothing
\|/ .' '. \|/ ______ _______ ______ _______ _ _
--O--( o | o )--O-- /______ \______ |_____] ______/ |____/
\ \ .-. / / ______/ \_____ |_____] _____/ | \_
\ '-U-' /
\/beelj\/ ----www.drustvoribar.netfirms.com----

David said:

By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?
In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
be considered an athlete?
Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary definition
that you have posted, without additional qualifications?

You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna do
it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific questions,
and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David said:

By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?
In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
be considered an athlete?
Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary definition
that you have posted, without additional qualifications?

You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna do
it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific questions,
and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:44:43 +0200, Seb3k <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David!!! It speaks:

Quoted message said:

By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?

-cut-

Quoted message said:

A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength,
agility, and endurance,

If those traits (the person possesses),despite low level of fitness, are
adequate to compete (on any level) in given sport; than yes, you can call
them athletes

If that truly is the argument then the word has no real descriptive
meaning. Athlete = human being.

I wonder if this is an extension of a "feelgood" me me me centered
viewpoint that has been so popular since the 60's. It could be that
people who were born after that decade are so used to a society that
wants everyone to feel good about themselves that we have this absurd
debate where quadriplegic attached to a respirator could be called an
athlete right alongside an NFL runningback. "Well, I was training for
the blinking competition for weeks! I took last place but it was a
good competition". There you have it, instant athlete status. Silly
feelgood political correctness run amuck.

--
Is this thing on?

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:44:43 +0200, Seb3k <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David!!! It speaks:

Quoted message said:

By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?

-cut-

Quoted message said:

A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength,
agility, and endurance,

If those traits (the person possesses),despite low level of fitness, are
adequate to compete (on any level) in given sport; than yes, you can call
them athletes

If that truly is the argument then the word has no real descriptive
meaning. Athlete = human being.

I wonder if this is an extension of a "feelgood" me me me centered
viewpoint that has been so popular since the 60's. It could be that
people who were born after that decade are so used to a society that
wants everyone to feel good about themselves that we have this absurd
debate where quadriplegic attached to a respirator could be called an
athlete right alongside an NFL runningback. "Well, I was training for
the blinking competition for weeks! I took last place but it was a
good competition". There you have it, instant athlete status. Silly
feelgood political correctness run amuck.

--
Is this thing on?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

David said:

By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?
In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
be considered an athlete?
Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary definition
that you have posted, without additional qualifications?

You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna do
it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific questions,
and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

I would suggest the question could not be more specific and that you
are once again being evasive.

David may be only seeking positive confirmation that the assertions
you have made in previous posts about who may be described as an
"athlete", are in fact the description he has posted above.

In my opinion you have suggested many times that the above description
is correct, but you have not come out and actually stated it
categorically. This would be an important clarification for all of us
who have an interest in this thread.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Charles said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-06, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
> By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
> person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
> disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
> proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
> level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?
> In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
> does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
> be considered an athlete?
> Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary definition
> that you have posted, without additional qualifications?

You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna do
it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific questions,
and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

I would suggest the question could not be more specific and that you
are once again being evasive.

Bollocks.

Quoted message said:

David may be only seeking positive confirmation that the assertions
you have made in previous posts about who may be described as an
"athlete", are in fact the description he has posted above.

The assertions I have made in previous posts are clearly not the description
he has posted above. If they were, the answer would be obvious, so there would
be no need for confirmation.

So the answer quite clearly is no then?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Charles said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-06, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
> By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
> person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
> disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
> proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
> level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?
> In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
> does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
> be considered an athlete?
> Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary definition
> that you have posted, without additional qualifications?

You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna do
it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific questions,
and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

I would suggest the question could not be more specific and that you
are once again being evasive.

Bollocks.

Quoted message said:

David may be only seeking positive confirmation that the assertions
you have made in previous posts about who may be described as an
"athlete", are in fact the description he has posted above.

The assertions I have made in previous posts are clearly not the description
he has posted above. If they were, the answer would be obvious, so there would
be no need for confirmation.

So the answer quite clearly is no then?

Charles said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Charles said:

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:37:23 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>On 2005-08-06, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
>> person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
>> disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
>> proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
>> level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?
>> In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
>> does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
>> be considered an athlete?
>> Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary definition
>> that you have posted, without additional qualifications?
>
>You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna do
>it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific questions,
>and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

I would suggest the question could not be more specific and that you
are once again being evasive.

Bollocks.

Quoted message said:

David may be only seeking positive confirmation that the assertions
you have made in previous posts about who may be described as an
"athlete", are in fact the description he has posted above.

The assertions I have made in previous posts are clearly not the description
he has posted above. If they were, the answer would be obvious, so there would
be no need for confirmation.

So the answer quite clearly is no then?

If the answer was quite clearly anything, you wouldn't be asking me this
question.
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Charles said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Charles said:

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:37:23 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>On 2005-08-06, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible for a
>> person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
>> disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using the
>> proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
>> level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?
>> In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
>> does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
>> be considered an athlete?
>> Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary definition
>> that you have posted, without additional qualifications?
>
>You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna do
>it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific questions,
>and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

I would suggest the question could not be more specific and that you
are once again being evasive.

Bollocks.

Quoted message said:

David may be only seeking positive confirmation that the assertions
you have made in previous posts about who may be described as an
"athlete", are in fact the description he has posted above.

The assertions I have made in previous posts are clearly not the description
he has posted above. If they were, the answer would be obvious, so there would
be no need for confirmation.

So the answer quite clearly is no then?

If the answer was quite clearly anything, you wouldn't be asking me this
question.
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

David said:

By your understanding of the definition of 'athlete', is it possible

for a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

person of poor or low fitness level, who may have various physical
disabilities including obesity, to be described as an athlete using

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in

low

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

level competitive events and with only a very modest level of

performance?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can

he/she

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be considered an athlete?
Would you reply with a simple YES or NO based on the dictionary

definition

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that you have posted, without additional qualifications?

You're asking me to sign off on your straw-man argument. Sorry, not gonna

do

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it. If you want simple answers, you need to ask much more specific

questions,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and even then, I reserve the right to explain why I answer a certain way.

I would suggest the question could not be more specific and that you
are once again being evasive.

David may be only seeking positive confirmation that the assertions
you have made in previous posts about who may be described as an
"athlete", are in fact the description he has posted above.

In my opinion you have suggested many times that the above description
is correct, but you have not come out and actually stated it
categorically. This would be an important clarification for all of us
who have an interest in this thread.

Our coup de gras is complete Charles - the pedantic professor has crumbled.
I was hoping to hear from his friends who are strangely silent (maybe not so
strangely)

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

There is no reason on earth why a simple question as posed cannot be

replied

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Sure there is. The question rewrites the proposition I'm arguing for as a
straw man. Why should I sign on to such a transparent attempt to ridicule
my position ?

If I answer "yes", then I'd be signing on to a straw man proposition that
looks idiotic by design, so I'd need to explain why it isn't idiotic.

If I answer "no", then I'd need to explain why I'm not switching sides of
the debate.

Either way, I can't adequately address the question with such a simple

answer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason you won't answer it is that either
way it will make your position untenable

Well, of course signing on to a straw man argument puts one in an

untenable

Quoted message said:

position. I couldn't agree more ! And that is why I'm not going to do it.

You're just mad because I'm not going to give you a free pass to reframe

the

Quoted message said:

debate.

Why should I be mad, Donovan? I have just made you look a fool. Let's not
mince words here, this is not about 'reframing' a debate. This is about
winning or losing. You have just lost. Now sit down and shut up!

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

There is no reason on earth why a simple question as posed cannot be

replied

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Sure there is. The question rewrites the proposition I'm arguing for as a
straw man. Why should I sign on to such a transparent attempt to ridicule
my position ?

If I answer "yes", then I'd be signing on to a straw man proposition that
looks idiotic by design, so I'd need to explain why it isn't idiotic.

If I answer "no", then I'd need to explain why I'm not switching sides of
the debate.

Either way, I can't adequately address the question with such a simple

answer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason you won't answer it is that either
way it will make your position untenable

Well, of course signing on to a straw man argument puts one in an

untenable

Quoted message said:

position. I couldn't agree more ! And that is why I'm not going to do it.

You're just mad because I'm not going to give you a free pass to reframe

the

Quoted message said:

debate.

Why should I be mad, Donovan? I have just made you look a fool. Let's not
mince words here, this is not about 'reframing' a debate. This is about
winning or losing. You have just lost. Now sit down and shut up!

David said:

This is all waffle Donovan - if you have a Yes or No answer to a simple
question - then give it. If not, just sit down and shut up!

It's an ill-posed question, which makes it impossible to address it with a
"yes" or "no" without first correcting the question. I have answered question
in the other thread.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David said:

typo - should be a 'goon from academia'

Yes, but please don't forget that Prof. John Hadov is also well known
for academically bullying hard working taxpayers with his highly
controversial "research" - http://moleculegirl.com/mitochondria.htm

Joe Humble said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

If that truly is the argument then the word has no real descriptive
meaning. Athlete = human being.

My point of view in this thread (since you're not bothering to read it)
is that the sport has to be physically demanding, and you have to train
for it. Most human beings do not train for physically demanding sports.

That is an interesting comment. A marathon is a very physically
demanding sport but anyone can train for and compete in it.

I understand the point that you are trying to make, so I'll address it.
There are a number of runners who are on fairly casual training schedules.
These runners may not be terribly proficient. It's borderline to say that
they're "training". Fortunately, language has a way of evolving, and there
are a number of more specific terms that address these runners -- fitness
running, penguins, recreational running, etc. "Athlete" is a very general
term, with borderline applicability to these relatively undertrained athletes,
whereas these other terms are more precise.

Most people will need some time to build enough mileage to commence a
reasonable marathon training program. When I talk of "training", it must
be understood that running around the block a few times, the week before
the event, does not count.

Anything less than 40 miles a week is not a competitive marathon training
program. Any program that doesn't include *some* interval work or tempo
work is not a competitive marathon training program either.

Quoted message said:

In fact,
many people do who are very inadequate even compared to the general
population.

Running is a sport where training makes a huge difference. Someone with a
fairly mediocre time of about 30 minutes in a 5k is capable of getting down
to around 24 minutes or so, and that's without any change in body composition.
So even very untalented runners can get quite proficient with training.

So in my opinion, almost anyone who is on a serious distance running training
program should be better than the population median for their age and gender.

Quoted message said:

Dally has already done this and made it clear she thinks she makes the
cutoff.

Dally's argument, and mine, is that there isn't a "cutoff" in terms of
proficiency.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2005-08-06, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> This is all waffle Donovan - if you have a Yes or No answer to a

simple

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> question - then give it. If not, just sit down and shut up!

It's an ill-posed question, which makes it impossible to address it

with a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"yes" or "no" without first correcting the question. I have answered

question

Quoted message said:

in the other thread.

Every question can be answered - this question is not ill posed at all

as is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

obvious. It is posed extremely well as it exposes the ridiculousness of

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

position. We don't want to look up another thread to find a 'yes' or a
'no' - grow some balls Donovan. In the meantime 'Sit down and Shut Up!'.

So... Have you stopped whipping your daughter yet?

Hmm. I'm forgetting something.

Oh, yes: Yes or No: have you stopped whipping your daughter yet?

This is a serious debate Art. I can only deal with one sophist at a time.

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2005-08-06, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> This is all waffle Donovan - if you have a Yes or No answer to a

simple

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> question - then give it. If not, just sit down and shut up!

It's an ill-posed question, which makes it impossible to address it

with a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"yes" or "no" without first correcting the question. I have answered

question

Quoted message said:

in the other thread.

Every question can be answered - this question is not ill posed at all

as is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

obvious. It is posed extremely well as it exposes the ridiculousness of

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

position. We don't want to look up another thread to find a 'yes' or a
'no' - grow some balls Donovan. In the meantime 'Sit down and Shut Up!'.

So... Have you stopped whipping your daughter yet?

Hmm. I'm forgetting something.

Oh, yes: Yes or No: have you stopped whipping your daughter yet?

This is a serious debate Art. I can only deal with one sophist at a time.

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On 2005-08-06, David <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > This is all waffle Donovan - if you have a Yes or No answer to a

simple

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > question - then give it. If not, just sit down and shut up!
>
> It's an ill-posed question, which makes it impossible to address it

with a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "yes" or "no" without first correcting the question. I have answered
question
> in the other thread.

Every question can be answered - this question is not ill posed at all

as is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

obvious. It is posed extremely well as it exposes the ridiculousness of

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

position. We don't want to look up another thread to find a 'yes' or a
'no' - grow some balls Donovan. In the meantime 'Sit down and Shut Up!'.

So... Have you stopped whipping your daughter yet?

Hmm. I'm forgetting something.

Oh, yes: Yes or No: have you stopped whipping your daughter yet?

This is a serious debate Art. I can only deal with one sophist at a time.

Me? A sophist? Impossible!

I learned all I know from you.

You aren't a sophist, are you?

Art