tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082015317933748943.post3918170470606928635..comments2012-11-07T13:40:48.584-08:00Comments on The Older I Get, The Better I Was: One Man's Quest to Dunk: Interlude--Youth and the YoungJaime Flacohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10241457218026503853noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082015317933748943.post-71461674574301342392010-04-05T06:11:44.147-07:002010-04-05T06:11:44.147-07:00I don't think morality plays a part in the mot...I don't think morality plays a part in the motivation and thus the choice to participate in most sports, even boxing or football. The idea of healthy competition among willing equals according to a defined set of rules seems like an act that has no moral value. <br /><br />Apart from the decision to play, actions within or around the sport can have a moral value. A thing being physically risky and/or underhanded within a sport doesn't necessarily make it morally wrong. I'm thinking of intentionally beaning a hitter or enforcing a "no layup" rule. Those to me are stylistic choices of a coach/player that he will choose, knowing the consequences, because that's the type of game he wants to play (and are generally based in some type of insecurity, I might add). There is a very fine line between that and the helmet-to-helmet hits and kidney punches to which I would impute moral value; where a rule has been put in place to prevent harm to the player, intentional violation of that rule is an immoral act. (I don't think the free base is awarded to the beaned player to prevent physical harm; I think it's awarded to prevent teams from plunking the other team's better hitters as a strategy.)<br /><br />But I would agree that the more pious players out there are less likely to get themselves and their teammates riled up for a win by screaming expletives about the other team, their mothers, and the various objects that would fit in their anal cavities.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01505089224475795324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082015317933748943.post-52508306359596194682010-04-03T17:20:08.650-07:002010-04-03T17:20:08.650-07:00I like the morally-neutral reference. I often won...I like the morally-neutral reference. I often wonder about the ultra-religious athletic types (David Robinson comes to mind, but in basketball, not quite as violent as football) like Tim Tebow, and really how playing such a cutthroat activity fits in to a religious format.Jaime Flacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10241457218026503853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9082015317933748943.post-84161970091333661012010-04-03T13:02:34.170-07:002010-04-03T13:02:34.170-07:00Jaime Flaco wrote: 'What is about the macho ne...Jaime Flaco wrote: 'What is about the macho need to impose one's will on an athletic match that makes one so stubborn?'<br /><br />It's a matter of evolutionary biology. The power-over struggle is an integral part of the food/territory/mate-earning process. That new "Life" joint on the Discovery Channel had a segment in its first episode about a male hippo that (who?) fought off another male hippo so he could retain sole claim to the female hippos (yes, plural - that's gangster) in his mud-pond. In the face of a physical opponent, he had to stand his ground in order to "win" the right to pass along his hippo DNA, which is the basic biological drive behind any life process. Appeasement of the other male hippo, perhaps via some female-sharing agreement, would have reduced his chances to spread his seed to the greatest extent possible. "No," he growled in his most intimidating hippospeak, "this is my mud-pond and these are my [insert pejorative term for a female hippos] and you better back off or else."<br /><br />For humans, athletics are the controlled, short-term, single-setting, morality-neutral way to pursue this instinct.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01505089224475795324noreply@blogger.com