For sure.And that's kind of my point.
Why have a separate competition? Why not integrate at least some of the sports into the mainstream? And why are able-bodied people not allowed to compete? If someone is fast at pushing a wheelchair, why should the fact that he or she can walk make the slightest difference to whether or not that's an admirable thing that we'd want to reward with medals? If it is, it is; if it ain't, it ain't... just as with any other sport.
(Why have a separate competition? Why not integrate at least some of the sports into the mainstream? And why are able-bodied people not allowed to compete? If someone is fast at pushing a wheelchair, why should the fact that he or she can walk make the slightest difference to whether or not that's an admirable thing that we'd want to reward with medals? If it is, it is; if it ain't, it ain't... just as with any other sport.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:03,
archived)
One reason could be logistics.I'd like to see the events combined, but I imagine the organizers have to take into account the needs of the athletes, which in many cases are different to those of able-bodied athletes. It's a tricky one though - if Pistorius can run in the 400m, then why not able-bodied people in wheelchair events?
It's worth enjoying though because GB usually win a shed-load of medals!
(,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:10,
archived)
It's worth enjoying though because GB usually win a shed-load of medals!
Is the dude with the springs running again in the paralympics as well?If so that's slightly unfair.
(,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:16,
archived)
Not sure.As to the fairness: I'm not sure it's unfair. But it does raise interesting questions about the nature of the sport in which he was competing. I'm writing a chapter that touches on this right now.
Writing it ironically slowly, given the topic.
(Writing it ironically slowly, given the topic.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:29,
archived)
Surely he's at a slight advantage that he's already used to the track conditions and that.Oh and he knows the good places to eat in London.
(,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:49,
archived)
Good question,I don't actually know *goes to check*. Yes he is. He's expected to win a ton of golds.
(,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:33,
archived)
Really? I seem to remember that someone was banned from doing both.I don't see why this is allowed
(
Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:44,
archived)
Dude's got no legs. He's disabled. Being quick enough to compete in the able bodied olympics doesn't change that.I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 17:02,
archived)
If I had Steve Austin's legs I would win every race.The race is to see who is the fastest human being over that distance on that day.
Those legs aren't human.
(Those legs aren't human.
Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 17:19,
archived)
It all depends on whether the swishy blade legs give an advantage or not.If he's been allowed to compete in the able bodied events, then the decision has been made that they don't.
( Mu Dinofiddler,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 17:22,
archived)
If Kobe Bryant turned up at the partially sighted basketball, as a player, wearing a blindfoldhe would be told to fuck right off.
I still don't see why this is allowed.
(I still don't see why this is allowed.
Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 17:29,
archived)
Because the prerequisite of being in the paralympics is a disability.To be in the olympics you just need to be good. There's no prerequisite to be able-bodied.
( Mu Dinofiddler,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 17:47,
archived)
They have men's events.Is it condescending to have separate women's events? You're right, it's a difficult one.
(
edjogs Collared doves are shit.,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:12,
archived)
That's something else I've been thinking about.Because exactly the same could be said about sex-segregated events.
If what we want is a demonstration of being fast, strong, high, or whatever, then it's not obvious why the sex of the fast, strong, or high person should matter. Though, of course, this would mean that in many, if not most, events, men would dominate. Women might still be able to compete and have a reasonable chance of winning in some sports, but not as many. Maybe most sport just is essentially sexist in a way that, say, mathematics isn't*.
If that's unacceptable, then there must be something else we want from sport. But then the question is raised about what it is that people value about sport if its not a display of strength, speed, or whatever. Answering that would perhaps help us answer the questions about paralympics, too. There's a range of candidate answers, but each brings its own questions.
Note, too, that Pistorius and Semenya have, in their own ways, already contributed to blurring the line between mainstream and para-sport, and male and female sport. We know that a lot of people have a different sexual phenotype to what their genomes would suggest - the human body is a strange thing. It could be that our traditional easy distinction of sexes is in trouble anyway for wholly biological reasons.
tl;dr version: the philosophy of sport is trickier than I thought.
*By which I mean the subject in itself, not the way the academy or wider culture handles it, which may well be highly sexist.
(If what we want is a demonstration of being fast, strong, high, or whatever, then it's not obvious why the sex of the fast, strong, or high person should matter. Though, of course, this would mean that in many, if not most, events, men would dominate. Women might still be able to compete and have a reasonable chance of winning in some sports, but not as many. Maybe most sport just is essentially sexist in a way that, say, mathematics isn't*.
If that's unacceptable, then there must be something else we want from sport. But then the question is raised about what it is that people value about sport if its not a display of strength, speed, or whatever. Answering that would perhaps help us answer the questions about paralympics, too. There's a range of candidate answers, but each brings its own questions.
Note, too, that Pistorius and Semenya have, in their own ways, already contributed to blurring the line between mainstream and para-sport, and male and female sport. We know that a lot of people have a different sexual phenotype to what their genomes would suggest - the human body is a strange thing. It could be that our traditional easy distinction of sexes is in trouble anyway for wholly biological reasons.
tl;dr version: the philosophy of sport is trickier than I thought.
*By which I mean the subject in itself, not the way the academy or wider culture handles it, which may well be highly sexist.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:25,
archived)