I was watching a movie today in gym class (goddamn health classes) and I started to realize I have a bit of a problem over a cultural value. Over the past who-knows how many years, it has become rather apparent that very many people think the classic A-Student in school should be valued above the jock. That is, there is a large number of people who think that more respect should be payed to the intellect than the athlete. My question is; why? I have a few ideas. One is that for so long before this the intellect felt undervalued - but I really have nothing to back this up. My second idea is that the intelligent and generally non-athletic in the nation just want all the attention. Frankly, I can't see one good reason to give more respect to intelligence than to athletic ability. Both take equal amounts of natural skill, practice, devotion and precision in skills. Well, actually, I'd say more precision is necessary in athletics than most academic persuits. Any ideas?
When all is said and done, the academic tends to pay a lot more back to society, whereas the jock generally sinks away or becomes an entertainer of the masses. Not to say it can't go both ways, of course. In the end people respect you for your accomplishments. And if you can find a cure for cancer or design the next bridge you'll become a hero figure. Being a fast runner just doesn't measure up in the information age anymore. It did a lot more when we were hunter gatherers, when we relied on the next kill as a matter of life and death. Now cancer is the major life or death threat, and it takes a much different kind of athlete to kill. That said, there's no reason someone can't be a jock and an 'A' student. It's just a more respectful pursuit to be chasing the future of humanity.
"In the end people respect you for your accomplishments" There you go. I can't believe I forgot to type up this one other idea... A lot of girls in my school comment that they won't go out with a guy who's just a joke because..... he's just a jock. But if a guy's just smart, that's fine. So maybe it's because the 'just smart' guy has more a chance of getting money. To be a successful, financially, athlete - you pretty much have to be in the top 600 in your sport in the world, at least. You don't even have to be in the top 600 in your city in an academic persuit to make good money.
well we're assuming that the jock and the Astudent are fairly one dimensional people. the most valued people at my old HS did both. there was always a few people who were good at everything and made everyone else look lazy. straight A's, 3sport athlete, class president, community service, ect. what about the artsy people? they are valuable too. interms of value to society a dumb jock is not very valuable. but not all jocks are dumb. also,note that the people who peak in highschool, are most often the jocks, not the Astudents.(at least in my experience)
its armageddon time, mankind has been wiped out, few survivors. now ask yourself "can i rebuild civilization?
Both straight A students and jocks are really nothing special. Especially the jocks because well. . . they're jocks. What more needs to be said? They study sports. A recreation that holds no relevance to anything important. Most of all, growing up, I came to despise them because during class, they treat everybody that sucks at sports like crap. All of them. In gym, the teacher splits the students up into teams. Instead of helping the players that suck, and working with them so everybody can participate, all the jocks do is complain, push you out of the way, and try to get you off of their team so that everybody plays while you remain on the side. And it was all of them. Not one of them shared my views that everybody should be included in the game no matter how bad they suck. Their view was if you suck, than you can't play. It makes you wonder if there really is such a thing as an intelligent jock.
This is more evident in the real world. If you suck at a certain job, people won't let you 'play the game'. EDIT: Unless it's a government job
Persol, You suck. You beat me to it. Great post. Polish the skills you have, not the ones you wish you had.
The most common place I encounter jocks(see below for jock definention) is the weight room. I workout 3-4 times a week so I am aware of many types of people that frequent a gym. In my college gym the football players work out in the same gym as the rest of the students. Now I know that football players are sterotyped as jocks, and I agree 95%. It's because they believe every thing lies in who can push the heaviest weight the fastest. I've read many books and magazines on exercise and I'm pretty confident in my knowledge of proper form and nutrition. When I observe the football players working out in the gym I see many things wrong. 98% of the time they do not work out to push themselves hard to utter weakness to properly stimulate muscle growth, but instead they work out to impress their fellow teammates, and often I see them mock people who, instead of throwing the weight into the air they actually take the time to concentrate on the muslce and power (under control) the weight up..... Intelligent athlete, yes.. intelligent jock? no First off I'll explain what I consider to be the difference between a jock and an athlete. In high school and now in college the people I observe to be jocks are those that are out to, in essenec, "show-off" to others. I don't mean the Brazillian exchange student who played on my soccer team senior year even though he was the leading goal scorer in the state. He was amazing, but he also helped others to learn. I consider him to be an athlete. But when I think of a jock it's the hot-shot (usually not as great as they think they are) sports player who is overly confident in what they do. If they make a touchdown or a goal then they brag about it for the next few weeks. They thrive on pushing other people down. The only people they will encourage are those that are akin to themselves, while they ignore anyone outside of the "jock" circle who tries to comment or improve a jock. Sometimes the jock will listen to the advice from an outsider, but they will mock his words and carry on with the correct "jock" method. I have to disagree. Sports and other recreational activities are a way for many people to get away from the ever demanding life in society. For me persoanlly; My area of study is not sports or anything close to it. I go to one of the top engineering schools in the US and world. It's very demanding and quite stressful at times. However I do rely on information provided by people who study "sports". But I gaurentee they're not jocks. They are professionals who are out to better the lives and enjoyment of people. I am always gathering information about the sports I enjoy just so I can continue to push myself and grow physically and mentally, and to make sure that I am not doing anything that can be harmful to me. I'm not talking about avoiding extreme sports, hell I've skied for the past 16 years, but rather about proper information and technique so that I am aware of all possible dangers associated with a certian sport. I love sports and they provide great relaxation and competition that are needed to survive in the world.
Given the American educational system, you either have real balls to be a straight-A student, or you're just stupid enough to take things seriously.
Or just want to keep the parents off your back. Getting straight As isn't hard in my school. Not sure what school you are going to though, Tyler. In my school, the smart kids do not get the girls. The jocks get the girls and the parties, not the nerds(with some exceptionsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). Most of the jocks I know are extraordinarly dumb and arrogant. My best friends up until high school were jocks, and I got tired of it. I can see how the girls would get tired of it too. Athletics doesn't really serve a good purpose, anyway. From reading your other posts, I thought you would have better judgement than this. I said that jocks are thick and slow, didn't I?
You do suck, Persol. That’s the biggest load of garbage I’ve ever heard. Ya. Ya right. Like what? Who can pump the most iron? I’m not trying to say I’m completely against sports. Friendly games and sport activities can be fun. (Especially when you’re playing with a group of 5 year olds. That way, if they try anything funny, you can just step on them. lol.) What isn’t fun is the fact that athletes, actors, singers, writers, and various entertainers get paid millions while garbage men get close to minimum wage. It should really be the other way around.
Cool Skill, Have you even thought this one out? Garbage men should get paid more than professional athletes that have worked tremendously their entire lives to excel?! What do they give back to society? A: Not much. They take the trash to a landfill. And we're supposed to pay them millions for this service? Wow. I can see it now. People lining up in their back alleys to watch the garbage men perform. I think you're actually a bit jealous of the athletes. It takes skill and drive to do what a lot of them do. Even the academics. I'm not going to make any judgements, but you seem to be like the lazy type. No, you're obviously not against sports. You're against competition! And just for the record, I don't think highly of astronomical salaries for pro-athletes. It seems a bit much. That's why I enjoy minor hockey (WHL). They'll continue to make it as long as we continue to pay it.
That’s the biggest load of garbage I’ve ever heard. Perhaps you could give a reason? If someone thinks you are bad at a job, you will not be hired. I don't want someone on my team who is going to cause the rest of us work harder to makeup for their lack.
Have I thought this out? No, I just post stuff out of the air. I think about it daily, Elbaz. Try it sometime. Much more than overpaid athletes. They clean up the city. I’d rather have a clean city than sit there and watch and athlete do all kinds of fun tricks. Not much? Have you tried it? I have. Not because I had to but to see what it was like. It’s disgusting and difficult. Try it. They hire people by the day, and pay by the day. You can just walk in there, and most likely, they will put you on a truck. They will pay you $6 per hour. At the end you get your check, and you can go back anytime you want. They sent me home early because I couldn’t keep up. It’s something I’m just not good at. Nor do I enjoy it. As for sports, dancing, acting, and music? True it isn’t easy work training, rehearsing, memorizing lines, and getting the steps perfect, but I have no problem doing it. I can get on a stage, and have no problem whatsoever. Furthermore it’s fun. I’ve locked myself in my room everyday of my life to practice. I can rehearse for days and days just to get the lines and the steps correct. Does that mean I should get paid more to entertain for fun than do hard labor like farming, garbage, construction, etc.? No way. Entertainment and sports are fun, and one of the things that people should not get paid to do no matter how much they practice. And paying people to do what they would do anyway is one of the things that limits society progress. On the other hand, garbage, farming, and hard labor is something that is necessary for city function. Nobody wakes up in the morning saying “Hey, I can’t wait to cover myself in smelly maggots, dead animals, and rotten trash.” It is not something they do for themselves, but something they do because it is necessary to the city. Nobody does it because it is exiting. The only reason I could give for people that freely volunteer to take responsibilities is because they care about living in a clean well functioning city. So you want to know if they deserve great rewards for doing so? Definitely. I believe people that do these important things should receive the highest monetary rewards. A farmer’s job to toil the ground so the city can eat is just as difficult and important as a doctor’s job to study and work on the human body to keep people healthy. Therefore, they should be well respected, and well rewarded. On the other hand, entertainers, artists, athletes, and such live for what they do, and wake up every morning thirsting for it. Because it is enjoyable. It falls under automatic city function in that individuals all have opportunities to participate in sports and entertaining activities at their leisure. There is no need to pay people to do it. Were you ever paid to go to the park with your friends to play a game of soccer or something? Do you get paid to play a game of cards or chess? Try going into one of those karaoke bars, and have them pay you to get on the microphone. It’ll never happen. In fact, most of the time you have to pay them to let you get on stage. There is a difference between working hard for athletics and entertainment, and laboring for city function. The difference is that people train and practice hard, and would go to the park to play because they want to, and it’s fun. What people wouldn’t do is repetitive labor, and go into the city, and haul heavy dirty things because they want to. Because it’s not fun. Our society’s worship of athletes and entertainers to the point where we pay them all of our money to watch them do what they do is obscene and ridiculous. Why do we do it? Because we’re human morons that have fallen under the spell of the god of commercialism. Which is more rewarding, watching these entertainers and athletes play or going to the park to play with your friends? Is it more important for you to get paid for playing a game in the park than it is for a farmer to toil the ground so we can eat or a garbage man that repetitively lifts heavy garbage so we can have a clean city? The only difference between professional athletes than athletes that play in the park is that the professionals get paid for it. The same goes for amateur and professional entertainers. They all work just as hard to make their art wonderful for the people they want to entertain. The only difference is that the professionals get paid. We don’t pay each other to play in parks, yet we pay entertainers and athletes to do the same thing in oversized parks. So why would it be more important to pay athletes and entertainers to play in over sized parks than it would be to pay each other to clean the city, and grow our food? So what would happen if we stop throwing our money at these over glamorized people? How would society improve? 1) we wouldn’t be wasting so much time watching them, and possibly devote our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors. 2) devoting our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors generates a higher level of creative output. 3) with an increased level of creative output, not only would our symphonies, films, stories, and games increase in immeasurable quality, our designs, inventions, and discoveries would propel us across the galaxy. 4) furthermore, the resources we throw at ridiculous supposedly heroic athletes, artists, and entertainers can be devoted to educating more people and improving the quality of our city environment. 5) the reaction effect goes on and on. Of course. Working all your life to excel at something has nothing to do with weather or not that something is a social necessity that is not automatic. Should I get paid more if I spent all my life practicing how to jump up and down on my head with a pogo stick attached to it? There is a man that worked all his life to be the Guinness Book’s fastest talker. He can talk 6 times faster than the Guinness Book’s fastest rapper. I think it’s great, and entertaining. But should he or any other athlete/artist/entertainer be rewarded for working hard to practice their art as much as laborer that repeatedly lifts heavy objects while knee deep in manure? I personally think working extremely hard to excel at a physical ability or art is much less difficult than the repetitive nature, physical and emotional stress, lack of intellectual appeal, and filth that comes with doing certain labor work for social function. I’m not against friendly competition for fun, Elbaz. But when it comes to real life, I believe cooperation gets us farther. I don’t think anybody should be paid any large amount of money to do anything. I’m sure you weren’t blind enough to take it that way. What I do think is that the highest paid people in the city should be the ones who do the most difficult labor. Furthermore, the most difficult labor is not spending years studying, traiing, and practicing to excel at an art or science. The most difficult work is rummaging in filth, toiling the ground, lifting and moving heavy objects, all repetitively. Either way, if I had to pick somebody to throw all this money at, I’d pick somebody that does the more difficult labor than an athlete/artist/entertainer. I have no idea what could make you think that. I think it is a very arrogant and presumptuous accusation. I am not jealous of athletes in the least bit. You couldn’t pay me a billion dollars to trade places with them. What is it with jocks that make them think that everybody is jealous of them? I enjoy friendly sports, but never have I ever wanted to do all that athlete stuff. It’s least appealing thing in the world to me. It could be that the only reason jocks are so arrogant is that they are the ones that are jealous of the sheer intellectual skill of artists and scientists. I have no doubt about that. The same goes for artists, designers, scientists, and entertainers. Just because I choose to use my skill in something more appealing to me does not mean I’m jealous of anybody. What is it with people and their clauses? This happens everywhere. Most of the time it’s the “I don’t mean to be offensive” clause, followed by a “but,” and then an offensive statement. Thanks for making a judgment, Elbaz, but because your clause says you are not making a judgment do you think a person would be dumb enough to believe that it is not a judgment? That nonsense may work for others, but I see no purpose for it. Assuming that “lazy type” labeled people exist, I’d like to know how you define “lazy type”, and how you came to the conclusion that cool skill is the “lazy type.” I know that most people don’t, and as I said, I don’t think anybody whatsoever should receive such large salaries either. In the same sense, I don’t think anybody should receive less than the cost of providing for their bare necessities weather they work or not. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you enjoy WHL because they don’t get paid astronomical salaries? Please clarify. Thank you. -cs So if you’re still wondering weather or not I “thought this one out”, it’s part of what I do. I plan and design organizations and cities including social standards. The reason, Persol, is because there is a difference in playing fun games than doing serious work. In my idealistic opinion, the main objective of a friendly game is to include EVERYBODY regardless of how well they play or regardless of uneven teams. As long as everybody is included, there is a game. Nobody should have to be left out. The objective of playing games is to include everybody. Leaving people out does not fit the objective. This is the reason why jocks are the creeps that they are. The teacher can say everybody in the group gets to play, but instead of being supportive and inclusive of their sucky teammate, the jocks complain, and push them out of the way. They would rather be inconsiderate and make people feel bad and left out than do whatever they can to have a fair game that includes everybody. The goal is to include EVERYBODY. Not to play while other people have to sit out just because YOU want to win. If you are too self centered to work with a sucky player that is trying their best to keep up, than you’re just as dumb as the rest of the jocks who think winning the game is the most important thing. It’s true that sometimes you have a score to settle with someone, and you want serious competition, but if other people are there that want to be included, it would be completely self centered of you to leave them out instead of postponing your feud. In the same way, it would be self centered of other people to interfere with a feud that is important to somebody. But when it all comes down to it, even if you offered them to play, and they decide to sit out so you can continue your personal vendetta, the goal of including everybody still exists. Therefore, a true athlete would not let them sit out, but convince them to join in the fun. That is the difference between a true athlete, and a dumb arrogant jock. A true athlete always puts their personal vendettas and competitive urges aside to have fun with everybody. Meanwhile, a dumb jock feels they have a right to play over others that are not as good. Dumb jocks use their physical abilities to push sucky players away because they posses a psychotic belief that they have more of a right to play than others. Being better at a sport does not mean you have the right to play over others. Everybody has equal rights to play. True athletes understand this.
Originally posted by cool skill Have I thought this out? No, I just post stuff out of the air. I think about it daily, Elbaz. Try it sometime. You always have to love a post that starts out by trying to put people down. They will pay you $6 per hour. At the end you get your check, and you can go back anytime you want... They sent me home early because I couldn’t keep up. It’s something I’m just not good at. They sent you home because you were not good at your job. It is the same reasoning. As for sports, dancing, acting, and music? True it isn’t easy work training, rehearsing, memorizing lines, and getting the steps perfect, but I have no problem doing it. I can get on a stage, and have no problem whatsoever. Furthermore it’s fun. There are plenty of jobs which are not absolutely necessary. We have a supply/demand economy. There are alot more people who can be trashmen then play professional sports. They also must put alot more training in, and expect to get paid back. This is the same reason people who go to college expect to get paid more. I’ve locked myself in my room everyday of my life to practice. I can rehearse for days and days just to get the lines and the steps correct. Does that mean I should get paid more to entertain for fun than do hard labor like farming, garbage, construction, etc.? Entertainment is a service. If people enjoy your service then you will be paid well. Entertainment and sports are fun, and one of the things that people should not get paid to do no matter how much they practice. I think that my job is fun to. Yet I still think I should be paid for it. And paying people to do what they would do anyway is one of the things that limits society progress. We pay people to do things WE want THEM to do. If they happen to like that job, then so be it. On the other hand, garbage, farming, and hard labor is something that is necessary for city function... It is not something they do for themselves, but something they do because it is necessary to the city. Wrong. They do it for themselves so they can get paid. As you have previosly stated there are no requirements to work as a trashman. So you want to know if they deserve great rewards for doing so? Definitely. I believe people that do these important things should receive the highest monetary rewards. I have a house down the shore. There is no trash collection, and we just take our trash to the dump every week. When I'm down there, I also take the neighbors because she is getting old. I do not expect to get paid for it, because it isn't that much effort and I did not have to learn how to do it. A farmer’s job to toil the ground so the city can eat is just as difficult and important as a doctor’s job to study and work on the human body to keep people healthy. Therefore, they should be well respected, and well rewarded. Supply and demand. Most people could be farmers. Most people could not be doctors. On the other hand, entertainers, artists, athletes, and such live for what they do, and wake up every morning thirsting for it. Because it is enjoyable. As do some doctors and trashmen. It falls under automatic city function in that individuals all have opportunities to participate in sports and entertaining activities at their leisure. There is no need to pay people to do it. There is if you want to see people who are good. Were you ever paid to go to the park with your friends to play a game of soccer or something? If I spent my entire life practicing and learning chess then I would expect to be paid. Do you get paid to play a game of cards or chess? Only if other people want to pay you. If I say 'I will not play without payment' people will laugh and walk away. They can find just about anybody to play with, if skill doesn't matter. Try going into one of those karaoke bars, and have them pay you to get on the microphone. It’ll never happen. But if you are good it could lead to jobs. In fact, most of the time you have to pay them to let you get on stage. You are getting ripped off my friend. The only difference between professional athletes than athletes that play in the park is that the professionals get paid for it. They also train much harder, which doesn't leave much room for another job to support them. The same goes for amateur and professional entertainers. They all work just as hard to make their art wonderful for the people they want to entertain. The only difference is that the professionals get paid. Because people would rather watch them then amateurs. So what would happen if we stop throwing our money at these over glamorized people? How would society improve? 1) we wouldn’t be wasting so much time watching them, and possibly devote our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors. We might as well outlaw all entertainment. It is not your place to pick and choice what others want to pay for. You'd rather by a football, they'd rather buy a football ticket. 2) devoting our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors generates a higher level of creative output. Many people believe sports are fulfilling 3) with an increased level of creative output, not only would our symphonies, films, stories, and games increase in immeasurable quality Less people with specilize in these fields because they won't be able to make a living. The quantity would go up, and quality would go down. our designs, inventions, and discoveries would propel us across the galaxy. So all these athletes are suddenly going to become scientists? Should I get paid more if I spent all my life practicing how to jump up and down on my head with a pogo stick attached to it? One last time: supply and demand. Nobody cares enough to pay you to jump on a pogo stick. I personally think working extremely hard to excel at a physical ability or art is much less difficult than the repetitive nature, physical and emotional stress, lack of intellectual appeal, and filth that comes with doing certain labor work for social function. Most of the jobs you are talking about take little training. If they don't think they are getting paid enough for their job, they should find another one. I’m not against friendly competition for fun, Elbaz. But when it comes to real life, I believe cooperation gets us farther. No. You got sent home from the dump because you were not good enough at it. Cooperation is not part of your employeers responsibility. What I do think is that the highest paid people in the city should be the ones who do the most difficult labor. Furthermore, the most difficult labor is not spending years studying, traiing, and practicing to excel at an art or science. This is your opinion, and isn't supported by the number of people who fail at being artists, athletes, and scientists. So if you’re still wondering weather or not I “thought this one out”, it’s part of what I do. I plan and design organizations and cities including social standards. Then you should understand our economic system. The reason, Persol, is because there is a difference in playing fun games than doing serious work. In my idealistic opinion, the main objective of a friendly game is to include EVERYBODY regardless of how well they play or regardless of uneven teams. The objective of others is to win. As long as everybody is included, there is a game. Nobody should have to be left out. The objective of playing games is to include everybody. Leaving people out does not fit the objective. No, the objective of games is to have fun. Picking up after people who can't play is not fun. The goal is to include EVERYBODY. Not to play while other people have to sit out just because YOU want to win. If you are too self centered to work with a sucky player that is trying their best to keep up, than you’re just as dumb as the rest of the jocks who think winning the game is the most important thing. It is not fun to play with people who are nowhere near as good. If you don't want to win, then play a game with everybody that's left and don't keep score. Competition is fun. In the same way, it would be self centered of other people to interfere with a feud that is important to somebody. It is also self-centered to think somebody should 'draft' you in a pickup game, just because you want to play, even though you suck. Dumb jocks use their physical abilities to push sucky players away because they posses a psychotic belief that they have more of a right to play than others. Everybody has a right to play... but that doesn't mean you have a right to play with anyone you want. Challenge Kasparov to a game of chess and see if he accepts.
Well, just look who gets the girls... Never mind, you can always PAY for girls later when you as an A-student will earn a huge salary at some Defense R&D faccility where you will develop the mother of all bombs that will blow away a thousand stupid jocks in some far away country. These schoolyard bullies had it coming!
Hell ya. **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: You always have to love a post that starts out by trying to put people down. -------------------- Why? **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: They sent you home because you were not good at your job. It is the same reasoning. -------------------- I never said that somebody that isn’t qualified for a job should do it, Personl. I hope you’re not mixing up playing games and work. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: We have a supply/demand economy. -------------------- Do you really believe that our economy is supply and demand? Do you think capitalism would survive if it was really were based on supply an demand? Should we all just be good little A students that take in all of the garbage that our economics teachers shove down our throats. Hard core economists and social scientists understand that supply and demand cannot support a society. Especially not a capitalist society. I don’t have to go through this in detail because it isn’t that difficult to figure out. That day I did the garbage thing, the other person that signed up for it with me was completely illiterate. I had to punch the letter code for him on the candy machine because matching the letters and numbers were too complicated for him. Now if a person walks into our city, and doesn’t know how to do something as simple as reading, should we not provide him with an education? Should we expect him to work at all? The only reason he was there is because he cannot get another job. Can he get an education? No. If he doesn’t work, than he cannot pay his bills. Even if there was free education out there for him, the fact that he has to work interferes with learning. Even if it didn’t should we expect him to be knowledgeable enough to go get an education? It’s a trap. There’s way more to it than that, but this is just an individual case of a huge social problem. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: There are alot more people who can be trashmen then play professional sports. They also must put alot more training in, and expect to get paid back. -------------------- So they train because they expect to get paid back? Did Michael Jordan train to be a great player because he expected to get paid back? If he knew he would never get paid for it, would he have given it up? Would he have stopped doing something he truly loves to do if he would never get paid for it? What if basketball players and other athletes and entertainers stopped getting paid? Would Michael Jordan and people that love their sport or art stop training to be great at what they do? So does the fact that there are a lot more people that can Having tons of people that have the ability to be trash-men does not mean the city should not reward them very well rewarded for the type of labor they do. And just because Michael Jordan trained for years to have an exceptional talent does not mean the city should reward him for it. What is important is the difficulty and appeal of the job. Sure somebody has worked all his life to be an engineer. Does that mean that being a trash man is less difficult? So we shouldn’t reward him well for going from house after house after house, and dealing with garbage? Should we pay him more for doing engineer work? Just because being an engineer takes much more training, that does not mean engineer work is more difficult than trash work. Yes sitting at a desk, crunching numbers, and creating designs is not easy work. But it is not nearly as difficult and unfulfilling as doing physical filthy labor. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: This is the same reason people who go to college expect to get paid more. -------------------- Right. So why shouldn’t we pay them large sums of money to do garbage or work on the fields? For example we have: a) Michael Jordan. A person that has worked years to develop his skill. b) Persol. A person that has college education, as well as various talents and abilities. c) Joe Shmoe. A semi-athletic uneducated person that isn’t too great at basketball, or anything else. d) the city. I use the term city, but city-school would be a better description. (The city school is my city design of the future.) So here we have A through D. There is a shortage of farmers, and the city needs help. Should the city reward Michael Jordan to play basket ball? After all, he did work for years to be good at it. What if nobody got paid to play basketball, sing, or act? Would the city really suffer for having a shortage of excellent basketball players, singers, and actors? Should the city not greatly reward Michael Jordan for toiling on the field? Should the city not greatly reward Persol in the same way for toiling on the field? Should the city not greatly reward Joe Shmoe in the same way for toiling on the field? After all, the three of them could be in school learning more or out in the park playing ball together. Or even doing some other more appealing work. True, there might be volunteers out there to help the city out of he goodness of their hearts, but shouldn’t the city be grateful to these volunteers or whoever decides to help by rewarding them with good money? Supply and demand is effective here in that there is a demand for farmers, and there is a supply of people with the ability to farm. But the city understands that this type of work is less fulfilling and desirable to the individual than other things that might be more fulfilling and enjoyable them. Therefore there is not much of a supply of people that are eager to toil the ground. Because of the shortage of people that would freely toil the ground, the city gives the people a great monetary incentive to do so in order to meet the demand for farmers. That is one way of doing it. Here is another more primitive way to do it: Strip people of food, shelter, education, love, and other necessities. Limit these necessities, and let them compete with each other for them on their own. The only way to achieve a better quality of living is to step on each other in competition to get it. Survival of the fittest means that strongest get to it first. It also means the strongest do whatever is necessary to hold on to what they have. Meanwhile, the weak have no choice but to go on the farm because if they don’t, than they’ll probably have a hard time obtaining their basic necessities. The city’s demand for farmers is met. Here is an even more primitive way to do it: The city needs farmers. The city appoints various people to do the task, and chooses whoever they feel like. Whoever refuses shall be punished. The city’s demand for farmers is met. As history progresses, the methods for meeting social and economic demands progress. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Entertainment is a service. If people enjoy your service then you will be paid well. -------------------- So first, it’s “we have a supply and demand economy.” Then, it’s “Entertainment is a service.” These statements are true in some ways, but seriously limit the bigger picture. Again, paying somebody to entertain you is not a service like paying them to clean up is. The difference is that one improves the city, and therefore all individuals while the other damages the city. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: I think that my job is fun to. Yet I still think I should be paid for it. -------------------- So you feel that you should be paid more to do your fun job than to swim in trash all day? **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: We pay people to do things WE want THEM to do. If they happen to like that job, then so be it. -------------------- It isn’t about weather they like it or not. Regardless of what people want to throw their money at, it’s not the point. The point is, people who do more difficult jobs deserve to be paid more than people who do jobs that are automatic. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Wrong. They do it for themselves. -------------------- Wrong. People do not do it because it is fun. They do not do it because they enjoy it. It is necessary to the city. Basketball on the other hand is not done because it is necessary for the city. Basketball is something people do for themselves. The city has no desire to pay people to play basketball. What is important is rewarding them well to do something that is difficult and necessary for the city like garbage. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: I have a house down the shore. There is no trash collection, and we just take our trash to the dump every week. When I'm down there, I also take the neighbors because she is getting old. I do not expect to get paid for it, because it isn't that much effort and I did not have to learn how to do it. -------------------- It’s nice that you don’t expect to get paid to take your own trash out, and help an elderly neighbor. Would you also like to volunteer to spend all day going from house after house doing much more intensive filthy trash work for free? Would you do it for $6 an hour? Do you think it’s alright to pay somebody else to do it for $6 an hour? How much would you go around doing the real filthy trash work for? Would you do it for $7? $10? $20? $50? $100? $500? Do you think it’s right to pay somebody else less than what it would take to get you to do it? **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Most people could be farmers. Most people could not be doctors. -------------------- Wrong. Furthermore, I’m sure more people would rather be doctors than farmers. Both are difficult, but I think working in a hospital or clinic, and treating people is much easier and more appealing than being out in the hot sun pounding dirt. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: As do some doctors and trashmen. -------------------- Am I not living in the real world? So people wake up in the morning thirsting to jump in trash? If they couldn’t get paid for it they would do it free? If some robot came out that would eliminate the need for trash men, they would still do it because they wake up in the morning thirsting for it? Because they enjoy it? I know people that love to paint, and thirst for it so much that they do it regardless of weather they get paid or not. I must not get around much because I know of no person that thirsts for trash so much that they would be willing to do it if they couldn’t get paid. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: There is if you want to see people who are good. -------------------- There isn’t if you want to see people that are extremely good. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: If I spent my entire life practicing and learning chess then I would expect to be paid. -------------------- So just because you spend your whole life to be great at chess, does that mean you would not play chess for less money than you would do trash? **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: If I say 'I will not play without payment' people will laugh and walk away. -------------------- So if people say they would not do garbage without proper payment, should we just laugh and walk away? Should we just let garbage pile up because people don’t think they should have to clean up after the rest of the city for free? **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: But if you are good it could lead to jobs. -------------------- How? Being good at singing does not lead to any real jobs that are important for city function. The city does not require excellent singers to function properly. Furthermore, the city has no reason to pay people to sing because weather they are paid or not, there will always be excellent singers. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: They also train much harder, which doesn't leave much room for another job to support them. -------------------- No. They all train just as hard. It’s not talent, not ability, and not training. Athletes that don’t get paid can have just as much or if not more talent and training than the professionals. Like I said, there is only one difference. One gets paid. The other doesn’t. And if a paid athlete does train more, it’s because the one that is not paid uses their time to support themselves. Meanwhile an athlete that gets paid has more access to better training opportunities. If neither get paid, does that mean society will be damaged? For course not. They both can still train to be much better. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Because people would rather watch them then amateurs. -------------------- No people would rather watch what is more appealing and talented. Somebody getting paid lots of money doesn’t mean they are more talented and appealing than a person that does not get paid. People pay to watch them because that is what they are presented. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: We might as well outlaw all entertainment. It is not your place to pick and choice what others want to pay for. You'd rather by a football, they'd rather buy a football ticket. -------------------- Just because paying for entertainment is unnecessary and unproductive doesn’t mean entertainment should be outlawed. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Less people with specilize in these fields because they won't be able to make a living. The quantity would go up, and quality would go down. -------------------- Wrong. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: So all these athletes are suddenly going to become scientists? -------------------- They can be whatever they want. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: One last time: supply and demand. Nobody cares enough to pay you to jump on a pogo stick. -------------------- Supply and demand is irrelevant. The fact that there is a higher demand for somebody to jump up and down on their head with a pogo stick attached to it does not mean that paying them to do so would be productive. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Most of the jobs you are talking about take little training. If they don't think they are getting paid enough for their job, they should find another one. -------------------- OK. If you don’t think you are getting paid enough to do trash, you should go find another job. And when you do feel that you are being properly compensated to do trash, than maybe we can all have a cleaner city. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: No. You got sent home from the dump because you were not good enough at it. Cooperation is not part of your employeers responsibility. -------------------- Ya ok. Go tell that to your boss. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: This is your opinion, and isn't supported by the number of people who fail at being artists, athletes, and scientists. -------------------- Of course it is. And even if it isn’t, it’s irrelevant. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Then you should understand our economic system. -------------------- Implying? Or do you mean I should accept the spoon fed version of it that everybody seems to think is so real. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: The objective of others is to win. -------------------- Yes. That is my point. Thank you. The object of dumb jocks who only think about themselves is to win. Real athletes understand that others have as much right to play as they do. Real athletes don’t dictate who gets to play and who doesn’t. Real jocks understand that they have no right to tell others to sit out of the game no matter how sucky they are. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: No, the objective of games is to have fun. Picking up after people who can't play is not fun. -------------------- It’s obvious you don’t think in terms of EVERYBODY. For some reason you seem to be focused on what is fun for the better player, and refuse to broaden your spectrum. If the objective of the game is to have fun, how is sitting on the sideline fun? Dumb jocks say that the object is for “ME to have fun.” Real athletes say “EVERYBODY should have fun.” **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: It is not fun to play with people who are nowhere near as good. If you don't want to win, then play a game with everybody that's left and don't keep score. Competition is fun. -------------------- Sure competition and keeping score is fun, but how do you expect to have fun when dumb jocks refuse to let you in? **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: It is also self-centered to think somebody should 'draft' you in a pickup game, just because you want to play, even though you suck. -------------------- Right, but as I said, a real athlete would put aside his own desires to settle whatever vendetta. A real athlete understands that even though another person is willing to sit out, it doesn’t mean that the other person doesn’t want to play. Because the other person wants to play, real athletes would invite the person into the game. **************************************** **************************************** Originally posted by Persol: Everybody has a right to play... but that doesn't mean you have a right to play with anyone you want. Challenge Kasparov to a game of chess and see if he accepts. -------------------- If he’s too scared to play me, then it’s perfectly understandable. Some people don’t readily enjoy the agony of ultimate defeat and humiliation. ****************************************
The statesman or the soldier who is more important? The pen & the sword which is mightier? You just seem to be on the side of jocks thats all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
According to this argument, so does music, visual arts, the art of cooking, the theater... All those activites are just for amusement, stress relief and furthering personal growth. Except athletics also makes you healthier. Plus, so what? Are you guys really trying to define the worth of a person here? Come on people, throw the first stone already...
