Back from the Dead - Politics and Sports

Hello my dear Escapist-friends!

The merciful moderators have decided to give me a new chance. Thank you!

I want to start by thanking a few people.

evilneko:
Hehe. While I avoided many of his threads, it was always entertaining to see what he came up with next. I'm gonna miss that crazy kid.

Bohemian Waltz:
I'll miss you Danyal I never got a chance to say it, but I always enjoyed reading your threads. You were wildly flamboyant and probably had secret desires for livestock, but none the less you will be sorely missed. This place will hold an absence of color without you. At least you went down being controversial rather than rude. Goodnight sweet prince and god speed.

Mortai Gravesend:
Taking a thread calling out a specific user and probably breaking the rules and repurposing it as a "Goodbye Danyal" thread. Sounds like a good idea.

Esotera:
Well that's the end of an era with Danyal gone. Although his posts were very definitely flamebait they had some interesting discussion, and they were relatively regular (although many view this as a downside).

I think that maybe we should be encouraging more people to make threads.

evilthecat:
That said, I do feel strangely sad.. I think every forum needs a heel, and Danyal was one of the best it's ever been my pleasure to encounter.

Gethsemani:
It will feel strangely empty on these boards now that Danyal is gone. Engaging in discussion with him was strangely envigorating and he brought some panache and flair to this forum with his over-the-top rethoric and radical opinions. I will miss you, Danyal, even if never agreed on anything.

Katatori-kun:
Good riddance to the trolls. Let's hope the Mods start doing their job more consistently now. Internet bullying should be unacceptable, regardless of how "entertaining" a bunch of people on the forum think it is.

McMullen:
Danyal, I take back what I said about you before. You just had yourself a Crowning Post of Awesome.

Pingieking:
Other than that, I'm mostly in agreement with OP. Well, besides the statement that you treat everyone equally. I would like to believe it, and I'm sure you try a lot harder than the rest of us and do a lot better than the rest of us, but I highly doubt that you have actually achieved that ideal. I do applaud you for thinking and behaving that way. A lot of problems can be solved if the majority of people were like you.

For these posts and PMs: Thank you BlaBlahb, Bohemian Waltz, Esotera, Evilneko, Evilthecat, Gethsemani, Helmholtz Watson, Katatori-kun, McMullen, Mortai Gravesend, Pingieking and SmashLovesTitanQuest.

I want to thank you all, not only the people mentioned above but everyone here, for discussing stuff with me. While it might not be noticeable to you, the stuff I write has improved a lot. And my opinions have become more moderate, while at the same time I've discovered a lot of new things about human nature and my political and religious preferences.

I hope I've changed.

I hope I will take this forums less serious, and that I can stay a little less fanatical while trying to convince other people. I'll try to think of this quote by Nietzsche:

'We often contradict an opinion for no other reason than that we do not like the tone in which it is expressed.'

My ban and pardon were both well-timed in regards to IRL-work that had to be done, so thank you God/karma/mods. With a little luck I'll get a new game-pc next week and I'll be a lot less active here.

And to give this thread a 'valid topic' instead of 'Danyal': 'sports and politics'. Because the Netherlands were just eliminated from the European Football Championship 2012.

Should the government support and subsidize sports? It happens a lot in the Netherlands, because of 'children' and because it's healthy. But personally, I think sports should be completely private. It should only be indirectly subsidized, for example when poor children don't have enough money to participate in a 'normal' (not something like golf) sport.

HOLY SHIT IT'S A ZOMBIE.

image

Welcome back.

OT: I don't have any strong opinion for or against sport being subsidized. There's certainly no obligation or pressing need to do so, but if a democratic majority decides to spend money on doing so, that's fine by me even when I don't personally care for watching sport.

At least there's value for money in subsidizing it, since it's something a very large number of people enjoy. Unlike for instance opera, which is appreciated only by a far smaller group of people who're generally resourceful to boot, yet can cost the same or more. If you're going to have a cultural policy, at least support what people choose to enjoy, rather than what you wished they'd enjoy.

Well I didn't see this ever happening. How did you manage to get out of the permaban? Welcome back and all, I foresee this being an interesting week...

OT: yes, of course they should. It makes more sense in terms of healthcare in the long-term, as long as publicly funded sports is backed up with good education on healthy eating and generally living well. Sports can also cost very little to fund - football for most clubs will only require a spare field, a few balls, cones, and goalposts. When you think about the amount of people that reaches, it's worth it.

Esotera:
Well I didn't see this ever happening. How did you manage to get out of the permaban?

I thought admins would reply using PMs. I never got PMs from admins, so I thought they just never replied. It seems you receive admin-messages via e-mail, and the mail-account that I used to register an Escapist-account wasn't an account I checked often. Only a few days ago I discovered multiple admin-messages in a 'dusty inbox'. Well, I replied to them and I got a new chance :) Thank you admins!

It's a miracle...
What do you Atheists call miracles?
Joke.

Hello.
Now you know your boundaries.
Diddling horses: Fine
Diddling imaginary cartoon children: Ban

-------------

Expoloitation of the Positive Externality only in reguards to sports.
Fund sports that poor kids would otherwise be excluded and fund sports to prevent kids from ending up fat. It's good for society at large to not be fat.

-------------

You rickroled us you ******
xD

Well, this is unexpected. Welcome back, you crazy man.

Anyway, I think sports should remain private. Government doesn't need to be involved in sports. There really isn't a benefit to doing that.

the sleeper awakens.

no, while sports are nice entertainment and show national pride and competition, i think its a waste of government money.

Oh. My. God.

*Gets himself a beer*

This is going to get interesting...

I'll just hope you didn't lie with your statement that you have changed - or rather, your attitude towards posting....

---

Now: Sports!

It depends on what exactly you mean with "subsidizing" and "sports" - sports serve a viable purpose in terms of entertainment, public health or even international relations, so the question as to subsidizing it should be answered while aware of those particular benefits and the particular event/shape of sports we are discussing. With that in mind its rather obvious that the difference between the UEFA Cup right now and my local Ice Hockey Club around here is already staggering. As such I doubt that a general statement is possible.

As for the subsidies, talking of those also includes the question whether or not subsidies are really necessary for a particular realization of sports - some football clubs might easily do without subsidies while others can't. The same goes for specific sports and what shape the subsidies come in and that is also where the heart of this discussion will lie: in a cost/benefit analysis as to what particular realizations archieve the highest net-gain with minimal cost and what gain we actually want to archieve, for that matter.

Since I think the public health/children sports training thing is what you hinted at, here is my two cents: Around here children can join specific sports clubs which both serve as training grounds to spot the next talent and to provide the children with an opportunity to get a source of physical exercise[1] . Both are positive effects - especially physical exercise seems to be very important regarding public health so this makes a lot of sense in the long run. I don't particularly know how much subsidies certain clubs get and I can't really answer questions as to what kinds of sports should be subsidized in this regard; However, I personally like a certain plurality in sports in general, so I'am not necessarily opposed in providing fringe sport clubs with subsidy money.

[1] Plus, you probably have beneficial social effects as these kinds of clubs promote teamwork and social competences

Imperator_DK:
OT: I don't have any strong opinion for or against sport being subsidized. There's certainly no obligation or pressing need to do so, but if a democratic majority decides to spend money on doing so, that's fine by me even when I don't personally care for watching sport.

Esotera:
OT: yes, of course they should. It makes more sense in terms of healthcare in the long-term, as long as publicly funded sports is backed up with good education on healthy eating and generally living well. Sports can also cost very little to fund - football for most clubs will only require a spare field, a few balls, cones, and goalposts. When you think about the amount of people that reaches, it's worth it.

Dajosch:
As for the subsidies, talking of those also includes the question whether or not subsidies are really necessary for a particular realization of sports - some football clubs might easily do without subsidies while others can't. The same goes for specific sports and what shape the subsidies come in and that is also where the heart of this discussion will lie: in a cost/benefit analysis as to what particular realizations archieve the highest net-gain with minimal cost and what gain we actually want to archieve, for that matter.

Personally, I think government money should only be used for a select amount of special purposes. Government money requires taxes, taxes require force/violence, and using violence to force you to pay for my theater/archery doesn't seem justified. Free individuals should co-operate, independent from the government, to erect whatever organization they need for their sports. Football, tennis, golf, it should all be created without government money. But...
-sports often need large fields, whether it's archery, volleyball or sprinting. Thus, certain spaces in cities should be left for sports. Sport organizations can hire this area from the government: for a year, five years, ten years, together or independently. This way, it's still 'not the government' who is deciding what you should do in your spare time, nor are you forced to pay for someone else's sports, while at the same time the government can encourage sports, by providing large fields for low prices.
-and of course, poor children and people can get money to practice sports, but again, this is only indirect and not direct.

Danyal:

Personally, I think government money should only be used for a select amount of special purposes. Government money requires taxes, taxes require force/violence, and using violence to force you to pay for my theater/archery doesn't seem justified. Free individuals should co-operate, independent from the government, to erect whatever organization they need for their sports. Football, tennis, golf, it should all be created without government money. But...
-sports often need large fields, whether it's archery, volleyball or sprinting. Thus, certain spaces in cities should be left for sports. Sport organizations can hire this area from the government: for a year, five years, ten years, together or independently. This way, it's still 'not the government' who is deciding what you should do in your spare time, nor are you forced to pay for someone else's sports, while at the same time the government can encourage sports, by providing large fields for low prices.
-and of course, poor children and people can get money to practice sports, but again, this is only indirect and not direct.

You've totally missed my point that it pays for itself by reducing the risk of health conditions such as obesity, CVD, and many other things. It's very nice having principles, but in the real world not funding sports is going to cost you a lot more and put strain on your healthcare system. Also, subsidising something is essentially the same as funding it, might as well just go the whole way.

I'm against pointless spending on sport, like building the ridiculous Olympic complexes we have in the UK, because previous events have shown us that they don't really get used, and the money could be better spent providing funds for football, rugby, cricket, rounders, or whatever in some field in the country, or on a reserved spot of tarmac. Sport's probably more a problem in cities, as land is at a bit of a premium (I forget this as my school was situated in a pretty rural area).

So here is my paradox for you - what would your position be on bicycle lanes? They clearly ease congestion and allow workers to commute within cities, but they are also used by some people purely for leisure. Should they be funded?

Esotera:
You've totally missed my point that it pays for itself by reducing the risk of health conditions such as obesity, CVD, and many other things. It's very nice having principles, but in the real world not funding sports is going to cost you a lot more and put strain on your healthcare system. Also, subsidising something is essentially the same as funding it, might as well just go the whole way.

Stroking a cat reduces stress -> healthy. Having sex -> healthy. You're not going to subsidize those things, are you? People should be educated properly on the risks of a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, poor people should get enough money to be able to sport, there should be locations available for sports, but the government shouldn't be able to choose whatever sport the bureaucrats like and subsidize that.

Esotera:
Sport's probably more a problem in cities, as land is at a bit of a premium (I forget this as my school was situated in a pretty rural area).

What I said:

Danyal:
-sports often need large fields, whether it's archery, volleyball or sprinting. Thus, certain spaces in cities should be left for sports. Sport organizations can hire this area from the government: for a year, five years, ten years, together or independently. This way, it's still 'not the government' who is deciding what you should do in your spare time, nor are you forced to pay for someone else's sports, while at the same time the government can encourage sports, by providing large fields for low prices.

Esotera:
So here is my paradox for you - what would your position be on bicycle lanes? They clearly ease congestion and allow workers to commute within cities, but they are also used by some people purely for leisure. Should they be funded?

Good question. Well, roads get used for leisure too. Actually, I drove around this morning just for fun, without any practical purpose. But 'infrastructure' is one of those things that can't be privatized as easily as sports. Bicycle lanes are mostly practical, partly leisure - sports are leisure, with some practical benefits. Democratically elected governments should be allowed to create bicycle lanes, but if I had written the constitution the government shouldn't be allowed to directly subsidize non-vital stuff that can easily be privatized like theaters and sports. Something like 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of sports, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;'. Isn't 'religion' tax-free in the US? That is how sports should be treated. Non should be favored, non should be directly subsidized, but there can be general policies to promote 'sports', like the cheap fields I talked about.

Danyal:

Stroking a cat reduces stress -> healthy. Having sex -> healthy. You're not going to subsidize those things, are you? People should be educated properly on the risks of a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, poor people should get enough money to be able to sport, there should be locations available for sports, but the government shouldn't be able to choose whatever sport the bureaucrats like and subsidize that.

Why not? You could argue that most governments subsidise sex in the form of free contraception, STD checks, and child benefits & tax breaks to families. There's no point educating people unless the facilities are there for them to actually put the theory into practice. It's the equivalent of watching an instruction video on how to fly a plane and actually flying it. If you have limited opportunities to fly an actual plane, the education is just wasted money.

Also, sport is actually available on prescription from the NHS, especially for mental illness and the like as it is a cost-effective form of treatment for the minor stuff. Why not just expand that treatment to prevent people falling ill in the first place?

Danyal:

[quote="Esotera" post="528.378587.14808031"]So here is my paradox for you - what would your position be on bicycle lanes? They clearly ease congestion and allow workers to commute within cities, but they are also used by some people purely for leisure. Should they be funded?

Good question. Well, roads get used for leisure too. Actually, I drove around this morning just for fun, without any practical purpose. But 'infrastructure' is one of those things that can't be privatized as easily as sports. Bicycle lanes are mostly practical, partly leisure - sports are leisure, with some practical benefits. Democratically elected governments should be allowed to create bicycle lanes, but if I had written the constitution the government shouldn't be allowed to directly subsidize non-vital stuff that can easily be privatized like theaters and sports. Something like 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of sports, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;'. Isn't 'religion' tax-free in the US? That is how sports should be treated. Non should be favored, non should be directly subsidized, but there can be general policies to promote 'sports', like the cheap fields I talked about.

Still doesn't really make sense to me why a government shouldn't just fund it outright. Obviously it can still subsidise private enterprises in the way you've described (and generally does), but funding it publicly provides a more certain assurance that there will be facilities there.

Obviously there should be sports subsidies. The only issue I can think of local governments should be selective about what they fund. Don't fund large professional football clubs or such, because they're basically multimillion commercial enterprises.

On the other hand I teach at a funded project where we teach everyone who wants to kickboxing once a week for an hour. What you get is really mixed company. The main consistent component is Moroccan kids aged 14-17, then some other kids, ussually of other ethnicities they're a little older, and the odd bum or lonely 40+ year old who walks in.

What they all share is they like it though. Many of them it gives some purpose, gets them off the streets, teaches restraint, teaches they don't have something to prove. Most learn about themselves there. Confidence. Letting go of stress.
We purposely keep it more strict than ussual. Greet eachother, greet teachers at the end (not start, because we won't have explained by then, or they won't have picked it up), many also do by themselves at the end.

The only negative we ever encounter are the types who still feel they have something to prove, and go sparring far too heavily, just to prove they're harder. I warn a few times, and if we have them present, swap partners with a far more advanced student able to answer their force more easily, sometimes do that myself. They ussually start to spar with restraint if they kick too hard and you answer in kind, except you know much better how to power it, and then tune the power right down if they're hurt and put in place. It's only happened once we asked someone not to come anymore in the future.

I think that place we rent costs maybe € 150-200 a month. Peanuts if you see how many people go there to have a good time and a good workout. Comparing: the city spends € 4800 a year on three old men who ring the bells on the church once every week as a sort of concert that nobody wants and nobody cares about.


I do think the current programs are sometimes a bit much. People with a low income can often get a 100% city-paid sports for all their children, and sometimes there's no limit or the amount of training or amount of different sports. If I had a kid, and refused to work, he could literally train himself to be a professional fighter without spending a single penny on the gym.
And that's a bit much. It should be an sports enabling package, not something that just pays everything regardless what.

evilneko:
HOLY SHIT IT'S A ZOMBIE.

No, actually more of an anima... no, no, bad blahb, don't go there.

Danyal:

Esotera:
You've totally missed my point that it pays for itself by reducing the risk of health conditions such as obesity, CVD, and many other things. It's very nice having principles, but in the real world not funding sports is going to cost you a lot more and put strain on your healthcare system. Also, subsidising something is essentially the same as funding it, might as well just go the whole way.

Stroking a cat reduces stress -> healthy. Having sex -> healthy. You're not going to subsidize those things, are you? People should be educated properly on the risks of a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, poor people should get enough money to be able to sport, there should be locations available for sports, but the government shouldn't be able to choose whatever sport the bureaucrats like and subsidize that.

You shouldn't conflate "healthy" with "prevents X".
One is empirical the other one isn't.

We don't have a baseline of what "healthy" means but we know that having multiple sclerosis due to obesity is bad for your health, the healthcare-system and the economy in the long run.

If condoms prevent the spreading of STDs, then it needs to be subsidized because in the long run it will take strain of the healthcare-system and keep your populace alive longer to pay taxes and the economy running.
That doesn't mean that condoms are "good for your health" or that the government is "subsidizing sex".

If XYZ-sport prevents ABC-condition, then yes it should be subsidized.

There is measurement and data to be gathered here first of course, but you don't get to dismiss it out of hand.

Danyal:
Hello my dear Escapist-friends!

The merciful moderators have decided to give me a new chance. Thank you!

snip

image

Welcome back man. You certainly made this place much more interesting and entertaining.

Am looking forward reading your interesting threads

Comando96:

Hello.
Now you know your boundaries.
Diddling horses: Fine
Diddling imaginary cartoon children: Ban

HAHAHAHAH

Oh that made my day, thank you very much XD

we have never met but I hope we can be friends

Well well well.

Well...

Well...

Well

You're back Danyal.

Danyal:
snip

THANK THE LORD GOD AND ALL THAT'S HOLY YOU'RE FINALLY BACK!

Danyal, the forums weren't the same without you, we've missed you. I've missed having a polar opposite rival to debate with, and it seems like my prayers have been answered.

I'm the only one allowed to defeat you Danyal, and if you go down, it'll only be after we both fall thousands of feet through the mountains of Moria battling in the air until we slay each other.

Danyal:
snip

(skip to 0:14)


"And so the boy, given up for permabanned....
....returns to his people, to sacred Escapist forums, a friend!
Our friend, Danyal!
AHOO, AHOO, AHOO!"

--------------------------------------------

Glad to see that your back. :D

OP:Hmm... I don't know if the US needs that. Despite our issues with obesity rising, sports are very popular already. One might even argue that sports are already emphasized over education at some colleges and high schools unfortunately. :/

Now, I know this might not be in place here, but when you made that thread which caused your banning, I called it and warned you not to proceed. You should have listened to me!

Anyway, it's good to have you back.

.
Answer:
Golf isn't a normal sport. It's a sport for the rich. You need massive areas to play it in and keep it maintained all of the time.
Players that represent the country in international contests should be subsidized somewhat, and some sports ought to be helped and encouraged if you want your country to win the euro-league in two decades - You need to start breeding a new stock of soccer players! What's better than encouraging young boys and girls to play soccer by subsidizing the sport a bit and opening stadiums?
The other option is genetically engineering perfect soccer players, but I would like to steer clear of that idea.

Esotera:
Still doesn't really make sense to me why a government shouldn't just fund it outright. Obviously it can still subsidise private enterprises in the way you've described (and generally does), but funding it publicly provides a more certain assurance that there will be facilities there.

Our government spends millions on football, while taxing videogames and archery. I don't think that's fair, and I would prefer a policy where all sports are supported (with 'cheap fields', no taxes, etc.) without directly funding one specific organization.

Blablahb:
Obviously there should be sports subsidies. The only issue I can think of local governments should be selective about what they fund. Don't fund large professional football clubs or such, because they're basically multimillion commercial enterprises.

Well, funding large professional football clubs happens rather often. Didn't PSV and FC Veendam get millions from the government?

Blablahb:
What they all share is they like it though. Many of them it gives some purpose, gets them off the streets, teaches restraint, teaches they don't have something to prove. Most learn about themselves there. Confidence. Letting go of stress.

Videogames are a great way to release stress, to train eye-hand coordination and to get 'computer-skills'. Archery is a great way to train 'body and mind'. I know multiple people who practice archery with ADHD, and archery helps them concentrate.

A lot of things are beneficial. I want people to figure out for themselves what they like, and stuff shouldn't be randomly taxed or subsidized just because 'the bureaucrats' like it. Taxing normal stuff while keeping sports tax-free? Seems like a smart idea. But now, in the Netherlands, I have to pay taxes when I buy a bow or arrows, while football clubs get million of subsidy.

Blablahb:
I think that place we rent costs maybe € 150-200 a month. Peanuts if you see how many people go there to have a good time and a good workout. Comparing: the city spends € 4800 a year on three old men who ring the bells on the church once every week as a sort of concert that nobody wants and nobody cares about.

Well, can't people just pay for themselves? And if they really can't because they're too poor, well, they should get funded by the government to be able to practice 'cheaper' sports, but the money shouldn't directly go to a sports-organization.

adamtm:
You shouldn't conflate "healthy" with "prevents X".
One is empirical the other one isn't.

I can't find it back, but I read in the news once that researchers found out that stroking a cat prevents heart problems or something. It lowers your blood pressure and helps against a whole range of problems. So, can I get my cat-subsidy now?

adamtm:
If condoms prevent the spreading of STDs, then it needs to be subsidized because in the long run it will take strain of the healthcare-system and keep your populace alive longer to pay taxes and the economy running.
That doesn't mean that condoms are "good for your health" or that the government is "subsidizing sex".

I'm sorry, but saying that a government that subsidizes condoms subsidizes sex is not a far stretch. Condoms should be tax-free, I completely agree, but they shouldn't be directly subsidized.

adamtm:
If XYZ-sport prevents ABC-condition, then yes it should be subsidized.

A growing body of university research suggests that gaming improves creativity, decision-making and perception. The specific benefits are wide ranging, from improved hand-eye coordination in surgeons to vision changes that boost night driving ability.

People who played action-based video and computer games made decisions 25% faster than others without sacrificing accuracy, according to a study.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203458604577263273943183932.html

And better creativity, decision-making and perception probably prevents a whole lot of negative stuff. Certainly helps road-safety. Subsidize my videogames!

Marik2:

Welcome back man. You certainly made this place much more interesting and entertaining.

Am looking forward reading your interesting threads

Thank you! Hope I won't disappoint you!

Evil Smurf:
we have never met but I hope we can be friends

Well, we're friends now :)

image

Witty Name Here:
Well well well.

Well...

Well...

Well

Witty Name Here:
THANK THE LORD GOD AND ALL THAT'S HOLY YOU'RE FINALLY BACK!

Danyal, the forums weren't the same without you, we've missed you. I've missed having a polar opposite rival to debate with, and it seems like my prayers have been answered.

Thank you! :D

Witty Name Here:
I'm the only one allowed to defeat you Danyal, and if you go down, it'll only be after we both fall thousands of feet through the mountains of Moria battling in the air until we slay each other.

This is a truly amazing miracle. When I read you're well well well, I had to post that video, and had to pause the video that I was 'watching' (more listening, really) in the background. Guess what?

image

Exactly the scene where the Balrog and Gandalf are battling in the air while falling through the mountains of Moria.

I'm not making this up.

Helmholtz Watson:
(skip to 0:14)


"And so the boy, given up for permabanned....
....returns to his people, to sacred Escapist forums, a friend!
Our friend, Danyal!
AHOO, AHOO, AHOO!"

--------------------------------------------

Glad to see that your back. :D

Epic! Thank you very much! :D

TheIronRuler:
Now, I know this might not be in place here, but when you made that thread which caused your banning, I called it and warned you not to proceed. You should have listened to me!

I trusted this:

GeorgW:

  • I want to post a controversial opinion, what should I do to avoid mod wrath?
  • Our cardinal rule is that it is more about how you say something, not what you say. Always make sure to explain your reasoning and to be respectful of other users, no matter their opinion. We do not usually punish people for someone else being offended; we punish them for being purposely offensive.

    But I shall not talk about That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named again.

    TheIronRuler:
    Anyway, it's good to have you back.

    Thank you!

    TheIronRuler:
    Players that represent the country in international contests should be subsidized somewhat,

    Aren't those people often rich already?

    TheIronRuler:
    The other option is genetically engineering perfect soccer players, but I would like to steer clear of that idea.

    Don't 'steer clear', it sounds great! Genetic engineering is the future.

    Danyal:

    TheIronRuler:
    Now, I know this might not be in place here, but when you made that thread which caused your banning, I called it and warned you not to proceed. You should have listened to me!

    I trusted this:

    GeorgW:

  • I want to post a controversial opinion, what should I do to avoid mod wrath?
  • Our cardinal rule is that it is more about how you say something, not what you say. Always make sure to explain your reasoning and to be respectful of other users, no matter their opinion. We do not usually punish people for someone else being offended; we punish them for being purposely offensive.

    But I shall not talk about That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named again.

    TheIronRuler:
    Anyway, it's good to have you back.

    Thank you!

    TheIronRuler:
    Players that represent the country in international contests should be subsidized somewhat,

    Aren't those people often rich already?

    TheIronRuler:
    The other option is genetically engineering perfect soccer players, but I would like to steer clear of that idea.

    Don't 'steer clear', it sounds great! Genetic engineering is the future.

    .
    I remember I was the first reply, and you replied to me stating the same quote.
    They aren't already rich - oh no, not at all - prizes at competitions aren't that great, and you need to win more than a handful to support yourself and your family properly. People that represent your country in prestigious sports or sports that have a connection to your nation and people should receive some special support and encouragement from the state.

    Genetic Engineering... No, I meant engineering embryos to become the perfect athletes. It's one step away from having clone armies... Which does sound good but then you'd get sued by George Lucas.

    Hurray! Welcome back mate.

    Danyal:

    Should the government support and subsidize sports? It happens a lot in the Netherlands, because of 'children' and because it's healthy. But personally, I think sports should be completely private. It should only be indirectly subsidized, for example when poor children don't have enough money to participate in a 'normal' (not something like golf) sport.

    I think what you're on about is intramural/amateur sports, in which case limited public subsidy is no big deal. But what about professional sports?

    Here in America professional sports is big business, and its quite the cash cow. Even in recession Americans spend on sports. But its the Universities and the super-rich who cash-in, all the while being supported by special exemptions from government regulations. I think government should cut in on that action, for the common good, particularly in the area of so call "amateur collegiate athletics".

    Here in America Universities grow fat and rich on the income generated by unpaid labour. There are strict rules about payments to collage athletes, which in fact are broken quite regularly causing scandal after scandal. It gets pretty ridiculous.

    Meanwhile our cities are crumbling: Abandon homes, "white flight", lack of a tax base, over-burdened government agencies. The conventional "fixes" --- higher taxes, community block grants, development zones, etc. --- don't seem to work.

    I propose we set-up a Municipal Sports League as an alternative to the Collage system. The income derived from ticket sales and broadcasting rights would be used to pay players a salary, and the profits would go to the cities for schools, hospitals, road and bridge repair/construction, etc. To encourage local community involvement the head Coach would be an elected official. The benefits: Tax free money for cities and the local economy. Jobs, particularly among youth and minorities -- two of the highest unemployment categories. The regular influx of fans to down-town games would spin-off jobs and income to the local small businesses, bars and restaurants. It would also lead to community pride and good-natured rivalry among the competing towns.

    Who knows, done right, you might even see Universities getting back to the business of education.

    Welcome back Danyal, I've often found your threads entertaining and on the rare occasion actually informative. ^^

    Anyway susidising sports is a good thing. Governments should support things that are good for people like sports, culture and education. While taxing things that are bad like smoking and alcohol. Obviously they shouldn't support (commercial) professional football.

    Oh and the dutch football team is not completely eliminated yet. If they win with a difference of 2 goals from Portugal and the Germans defeat the Danish they still qualify for the quarter finals.

    Danyal:

    adamtm:
    You shouldn't conflate "healthy" with "prevents X".
    One is empirical the other one isn't.

    I can't find it back, but I read in the news once that researchers found out that stroking a cat prevents heart problems or something. It lowers your blood pressure and helps against a whole range of problems. So, can I get my cat-subsidy now?

    adamtm:
    If condoms prevent the spreading of STDs, then it needs to be subsidized because in the long run it will take strain of the healthcare-system and keep your populace alive longer to pay taxes and the economy running.
    That doesn't mean that condoms are "good for your health" or that the government is "subsidizing sex".

    I'm sorry, but saying that a government that subsidizes condoms subsidizes sex is not a far stretch. Condoms should be tax-free, I completely agree, but they shouldn't be directly subsidized.

    adamtm:
    If XYZ-sport prevents ABC-condition, then yes it should be subsidized.

    A growing body of university research suggests that gaming improves creativity, decision-making and perception. The specific benefits are wide ranging, from improved hand-eye coordination in surgeons to vision changes that boost night driving ability.

    People who played action-based video and computer games made decisions 25% faster than others without sacrificing accuracy, according to a study.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203458604577263273943183932.html

    And better creativity, decision-making and perception probably prevents a whole lot of negative stuff. Certainly helps road-safety. Subsidize my videogames!

    You are conflating two things that are separate again.

    Improving and preventing are different things.
    Governments dont subsidize condoms because it improves sex, they prevent STDs, teen-pregnancy and abortion-rates. All conditions that are far more expensive than the subsidies for condoms.

    Also we are talking about physical conditions here predominantly and measurable effects, not psychological ones, even though I personally believe that the state should also take care of the psychic health of their citizens.

    In short if you can prove that gaming directly prevents car-crashes, then yes it should be subsidized.

    Subsidizing sports is not different than what we already do with other minor preventative measures like sex-ed in schools for example.

    All you are doing is using the slippery slope fallacy.

    PS: find me the cat-stroking article, if it was in the daily mail it immediately is disqualified from being used as "evidence". I've read a study recently that 80% of internet-explorer 6.0 users have an IQ lower than 60....yeah turns out it was fraudulent.

    TheIronRuler:
    You should have listened to me!

    HE DIDNT LISTEN

    Can't wait to lurk his entertaining threads, while they last

    I know I already commented on this thread, but I feel like this video is relevant to Danyal's return.

    Danyal:
    snip

    That's a sign from the Gods Danyal! You and I are destined to fight like enemies, die like brothers, then enter Valhalla or something along those lines!

    Anyways, you're being added to my friends list as I type this. ^_^

    Danyal:

    Dajosch:
    As for the subsidies, talking of those also includes the question whether or not subsidies are really necessary for a particular realization of sports - some football clubs might easily do without subsidies while others can't. The same goes for specific sports and what shape the subsidies come in and that is also where the heart of this discussion will lie: in a cost/benefit analysis as to what particular realizations archieve the highest net-gain with minimal cost and what gain we actually want to archieve, for that matter.

    Personally, I think government money should only be used for a select amount of special purposes. Government money requires taxes, taxes require force/violence, and using violence to force you to pay for my theater/archery doesn't seem justified. Free individuals should co-operate, independent from the government, to erect whatever organization they need for their sports. Football, tennis, golf, it should all be created without government money. But...
    -sports often need large fields, whether it's archery, volleyball or sprinting. Thus, certain spaces in cities should be left for sports. Sport organizations can hire this area from the government: for a year, five years, ten years, together or independently. This way, it's still 'not the government' who is deciding what you should do in your spare time, nor are you forced to pay for someone else's sports, while at the same time the government can encourage sports, by providing large fields for low prices.
    -and of course, poor children and people can get money to practice sports, but again, this is only indirect and not direct.

    That is a far too simplistic view. As Esotera already pointed out, there are evident benefits at the very least in terms of public health for giving government subsidies to promote physical exercise for children or adults. Its also a much too broad scope you apply here - there are numerous sports which can differ significantly in the running costs they produce and what their net-gain is. Thus, this question needs to be answered a bit more intricately than making some general statement about whether or not giving out subsidies to sports clubs at all.

    Hey Danyal, diddle any sexy cows lately? In all seriousness as much as I don't agree with your political viewpoints the forum got pretty boring without you. Just try to keep the bestiality threads to one at a time.

    Also, a reminder of what awaits you if you incur moderator wrath again...


    Let's hope you've changed...

    On the subject of subsidized sports, I support it. You really couldn't have a realistic competition between the public and private sectors.

    Unlike healthcare, sports equipment isn't cripplingly expensive and any field at a public school is a place to hold the events and practices, the government probably wouldn't even have to spend a dime on renting the field out. Sure not everyone would use the government subsidized sports programs, but in the end it probably wouldn't end up costing too terribly much.

    A private version of this would have to buy better equipment and staff to give incentive to pay for something the government does for free and rent out the land needed to play the sports. It would be too expensive.

    This is of course for "normal" sports. Archery, shooting, golf, horse-back riding, and the like can go to the private sector. The government should provide the basics, the private sector should offer something more.

    Holy shit it's Danyal! R&P just got more interesting! :D

    OT: I believe that the majority of sports should be left private, but some little league sports should be given government funding to try and promote a more healthy childhood for the newer generation. Sure, most of the funding would still come from sweepstakes and fundraising, but a bit of extra money for equipment coming from the state would be a big help, especially in smaller population areas where it's harder to raise funds.

     

    Reply to Thread

    This thread is locked