Lance Armstrong is #1 again
- Thread starter Questor
- Start date
Okay, so are outdoor one-arm pushups a sport? What separates that activity from riding a bike up and down a hill?
If he is so innocent and believes they have no proof, why doesn't he sue everyone for slander?
By your criteria it seems very many athletic endeavours would not qualify as a sport. If riding a bike is not a sport, is running a sport (sprinting, marathons, etc.)? Is swimming a sport? Is throwing something (javelin, shot put etc.) a sport? You acknowledge hockey is a sport but that merely involves skating, team work, and the manipulation of an external implement (the puck). I don't think skating is inherently different than cycling - in both cases you are using an external, muscle powered, device to propel yourself across a surface. If team work and/or the manipulation of an external implement are your criteria than you obviously have a very narrow definition of what a sport is. Which you are perfectly entitled to.
But for someone who claims to have an IQ in the 99.5th percentile you really do have no clue about professional cycling. I am not going to fawn over it the way Ridgeman does but I will say that at the professional level cycling is very much a team activity (I avoid the use of the word "sport" in order to not distract you from the issue at hand). There is a considerable amount of attention devoted to team tactics and planning. Essentially you have an entire team working to support a single rider - the other team members work to provide the key rider with a draft in order to lessen his/her workload and expend their own energy chasing down anyone who tries to breakaway from the pack.
Perhaps this point is too subtle but it is one that seems to have been completely missed in the discussion surrounding Lance Armstrong. People talk as if he won the 7 Tour de France titles single handedly. No doubt he was the foremost rider of those races but it is highly unlikely he would have won a single race without the assistance of his team members. So lets assume Armstrong did not dope (not my personal belief but let's assume it for argument's sake) - at the very least he benefitted enormously from having an entire team around him that was doping. Their recovery times, their ability to provide him with a draft, to get him to the front of the pack, to chase down break away riders all were directly related to their own doping and Armstrong's success is, at the very least, tied directly to their doping. I know the argument is that every other team was doping too so Armstrong's team was merely playing on a level field. I think this is probably true - it still doesn't mean that Armstrong's or his team's success should be rewarded with trophies and a place in the history books.
Do you believe NASCAR is a sport? Pushups? Jumping Jacks? Is everything a fucking sport these days?
Do you believe NASCAR is a sport? Pushups? Jumping Jacks? Is everything a fucking sport these days?
But then, once you've taken yourself out of the voting pool, what if there was legislation enacted that was not in your interest?
What if those super-geniuses decided that it would be better for society to become smarter and silently sterlize anyone who was 99.5 percentile IQ or less? That way, only smart babies would be born, that would be good for society right? (The point of not understanding WHY they're doing it is now out of our hands - obviously, our supersmart overlords are smarter and know what's right, right?)
Anyway, my point is that once you take yourself out of the voting pool, your own interests wouldn't matter anymore and your rights would probably get trampled. If you look at the time before women got the vote, there was a ton of legislation that was just completely unfair to women.
Segregation of voting right by IQ would cause something similar. So while it might look good on the surface, overall I doubt it would be a slam dunk for society as a whole.
That's a lot of what-ifs, and I have no reason to believe that the uber-smart would do that. In fact, the more intelligent one is, the more likely one is to be liberal.
There's only one 'what if' (ie enacting unfavorable legislation unopposed) and it was followed with an example of that 'what if' (ie. an example of unfavorable legislation).
'One' isn't usually considered 'a lot' but whatever, maybe you can convince enough people to follow your vision of utopia
Sterilizing people is a lot more than one what-if.... What-if we did this, what-if smart people became stupid, what-if smart people became evil, what-if, what-if, what-if....
It takes a little while to get your hamster going, right? He's a little slow, but still cute..
There's only one 'what if' - that the legislation enacted is incomprehensible and can't be challenged if you are not part of the voting pool. Remember, you agreed that they were smarter, so everything they do must be right. Too bad if you disagree - by definition, you're too dumb (i.e. only 99.5 percentile, where they are 99.9).
Stacking a bunch of 'what ifs' in your own post to cover your comprehension error doesn't add more 'what ifs' to what I posted...but don't sweat it, maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Perhaps you're good at math? (well, not THAT good, if you think 'one' is 'many')
Hmm...you sure about that 99.5 percentile? Maybe you were reading your thermometer during a fever?
Did you miss the part about the correlation between high IQ and liberal leanings? Philanthropy? Ever heard of the "liberal elite"?
Anyway, it appears common sense isn't your greatest asset. But, hey, coming up with strange hypotheticals is! Let's build on that...
