Dubstepforum.com

hugh wrote:this is awesome
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ktlincoln/the-2 ... ic-closing

ILLUMINATI ILLUMINATI ILLUMINATI!

southstar wrote:How else can you judge it? Comparing him with Phelps doesn't work, Bolt cant enter 10 different events every time

Guess that's the problem, it's impossible to directly compare athletes across disciplines. Obvious message here is don't try to do it however of all the medal ceremonies I saw, I had the most respect for Ashton Eaton when he stepped up to collect his gold in the decathlon.

magma wrote:Bolt's been untouchable for over 4 years and has performed better than any human that's ever lived in his chosen field of Athletics. That makes him a pretty fucking good athlete.

I'm in general agreement but still think Ed Moses going a few weeks short of 10 years unbeaten in the 400 hurdles has my vote.

He is an incredible athlete though as is Farah, Phelps Hoy Wiggins etc etc I just say we enjoy them.

hahah that gif.

wilson wrote:

southstar wrote:How else can you judge it? Comparing him with Phelps doesn't work, Bolt cant enter 10 different events every time

Guess that's the problem, it's impossible to directly compare athletes across disciplines. Obvious message here is don't try to do it however of all the medal ceremonies I saw, I had the most respect for Ashton Eaton when he stepped up to collect his gold in the decathlon.

We should bring back Superstars and actually fill it with superstars

Forget bolt, the 10000m final was by far my favorite event, the noise in that stadium was something special

magma wrote:

Perej wrote:Mass immigration from third world countries only started fairly recently. We weren't exactly multi-cultural compared to today pre-ww2.

If we all came from Africa anyway you could argue that every country is made up of immigrants, kinda/

Read some history. Angles, Saxons, Celts, Normans, Romans, Plantagenets, Vikings, Africans, Spanish, Portuguese, Flemmish, Arabs... we've pretty much had every people in the Western world (and many beyond) to'ing and fro'ing from our shores for the best part of 3000 years.

We're an ancient Island Nation made up of island-hopping Peoples and we should be bloody proud of it.

The Closing Ceremony was a bit shit compared to the Opening.

I'd agree that we had alot of people from Europe of course due to trade and conflict but in terms of people from the middle east, Asia or Africa they were here in very very tiny minorities, so we weren't 'multi-cultural' in the way that we are today, that much is clearly obvious.. just because people were 'to'ing' and 'fro'ing' doesn't mean they set up here or integrated or are even a part of mine or your heritage.

Anyway this is a thread about the paralympics now so let's not carry on.

magma wrote: There is no "best in the world" (apart from CM Punk and my brother's band)

you fuckin guy

Ok so here's something I've been thinking about a bit over the past day or two - and I can best put it across as follows

What's with the Paralympics?
This is a question that confuses me a lot. If the Olympics is all about the very top athletes/sports people in their respective field competing, why is there then a competition held to see who the best disabled athlete is?
Here's an even better question - some sports in Paralympics are actually quite enjoyable and competitive (Wheelchair racing springs to mind instantly). If these sports are as competitive and difficult as people say they are, should Wheelchair racing not be a full Olympic event? Would this not legitimise the sport a lot more?
I can't decide whether or not I find the Paralympics condescending and patronising in this sense. And does the term Paralympics, with it's separate advertising campaign, separate schedule and separate events, not just endeavour to exaggerate and highlight the differences between disabled people and normal people? Is this necessarily a good/bad thing?

So many questions, weigh in if you dare 0_o

hugh wrote:Ok so here's something I've been thinking about a bit over the past day or two - and I can best put it across as follows

What's with the Paralympics?
This is a question that confuses me a lot. If the Olympics is all about the very top athletes/sports people in their respective field competing, why is there then a competition held to see who the best disabled athlete is?
Here's an even better question - some sports in Paralympics are actually quite enjoyable and competitive (Wheelchair racing springs to mind instantly). If these sports are as competitive and difficult as people say they are, should Wheelchair racing not be a full Olympic event? Would this not legitimise the sport a lot more?
I can't decide whether or not I find the Paralympics condescending and patronising in this sense. And does the term Paralympics, with it's separate advertising campaign, separate schedule and separate events, not just endeavour to exaggerate and highlight the differences between disabled people and normal people? Is this necessarily a good/bad thing?

So many questions, weigh in if you dare 0_o

Thats actually a very good point! The whole separation thing has always seemed condescending to me.

And will they make that hill where all the nations planted their flags wheelchair accessible?

hugh wrote:Ok so here's something I've been thinking about a bit over the past day or two - and I can best put it across as follows

What's with the Paralympics?
This is a question that confuses me a lot. If the Olympics is all about the very top athletes/sports people in their respective field competing, why is there then a competition held to see who the best disabled athlete is?
Here's an even better question - some sports in Paralympics are actually quite enjoyable and competitive (Wheelchair racing springs to mind instantly). If these sports are as competitive and difficult as people say they are, should Wheelchair racing not be a full Olympic event? Would this not legitimise the sport a lot more?
I can't decide whether or not I find the Paralympics condescending and patronising in this sense. And does the term Paralympics, with it's separate advertising campaign, separate schedule and separate events, not just endeavour to exaggerate and highlight the differences between disabled people and normal people? Is this necessarily a good/bad thing?

So many questions, weigh in if you dare 0_o

I think they're reasonable questions but I'd hold the attitudes of the paralympians towards the games is of greater consequence than any concern that they are then patronised. I don't necessarily think we have to downplay or ignore differences between people only that those differences shouldn't manifest in how we treat people.

scspkr99 wrote:

hugh wrote:Ok so here's something I've been thinking about a bit over the past day or two - and I can best put it across as follows

What's with the Paralympics?
This is a question that confuses me a lot. If the Olympics is all about the very top athletes/sports people in their respective field competing, why is there then a competition held to see who the best disabled athlete is?
Here's an even better question - some sports in Paralympics are actually quite enjoyable and competitive (Wheelchair racing springs to mind instantly). If these sports are as competitive and difficult as people say they are, should Wheelchair racing not be a full Olympic event? Would this not legitimise the sport a lot more?
I can't decide whether or not I find the Paralympics condescending and patronising in this sense. And does the term Paralympics, with it's separate advertising campaign, separate schedule and separate events, not just endeavour to exaggerate and highlight the differences between disabled people and normal people? Is this necessarily a good/bad thing?

So many questions, weigh in if you dare 0_o

I think they're reasonable questions but I'd hold the attitudes of the paralympians towards the games is of greater consequence than any concern that they are then patronised. I don't necessarily think we have to downplay or ignore differences between people only that those differences shouldn't manifest in how we treat people.

Yes true, I just find it such a confusing subject. I wish I knew some people who actually played some paralympic sports so I could ask them some questions about it.

wub wrote:And will they make that hill where all the nations planted their flags wheelchair accessible?

you're going to hell wub

Perej wrote:I'd agree that we had alot of people from Europe of course due to trade and conflict but in terms of people from the middle east, Asia or Africa they were here in very very tiny minorities, so we weren't 'multi-cultural' in the way that we are today, that much is clearly obvious.. just because people were 'to'ing' and 'fro'ing' doesn't mean they set up here or integrated or are even a part of mine or your heritage.

Well, our ruling classes have all been imported since about 1066, but even before then they were largely Danish, German, French or Roman.

A particularly obvious example is our banking establishment that was created using Jewish immigrants during the 15th and 16th Centuries so that we could have a hardline Catholic society (behelden to Rome, naturally) but also take advantage of those that were allowed to be involved in Usuary. The City of London wouldn't be the financial hub it is today without massively significant (at least culturally) immigration from the Middle East.

Different people immigrate these days, that's true. But don't think just because a culture seems "British" today that it started that way. Unless you're talking about woad painted borderline-savages in the South East there is very little "native" culture still visible - so called "Celtish" (there's no such concept really) blood can largely be traced to Spain and Portugal, Saxons and Angles both came over from Germany, Juts came over from Denmark... prior to around the 9th Century we had a multitude of languages being spoken in various permanently warring tribal areas - most of the South East separated itself to live under Norse-style rule (Danelaw) right up until the Normans came over and made us into a whole country.

"English" as a proper concept wasn't introduced until a long time after the Roman invasion... whilst London, Chelmsford, York and Chester might've been big, functioning cities, they weren't part of an "English" kingdom until the Venerable Bede started telling everyone that they should get along under the same banner and made up a bunch of folk tales to hammer the point home (Arthur, Robin Hood, concepts of 'Merrie Englande'). It didn't really happen in practise until William I came over, built castles and put us under Norman rule... and even then we had civil wars funded by France, the Netherlands and the Vatican to cope with. The line of kings that we tend to venerate the most, the Plantagenets (Edward the Confessor arguably all the way to Henry Tudor), were French invaders - descendents of the original Norman invaders. Our flag, which has since renamed the St George Cross to tie into the National myths imagined by Bede and other National imagineers is actually the Plantagenet family emblem.

And that's not even starting on where the Scottish, Welsh and Irish come into the "British" national character. It's fair to say we've been a melting pot for an awfully, awfully long time.

Anyway this is a thread about the paralympics now so let's not carry on.

Yeah, I'm bad at doing that.

they probably separate the olympics from the paralymics for the same reasons they put off the athletics competitions for a week; theres just a whole different set up process and equipment and etc. if you had them together, you would have to have the olympics running 24/7, and who would be getting the shaft on the non-prime times? probably the paralympians.

its fine the way it is.

kidshuffle wrote:they probably separate the olympics from the paralymics for the same reasons they put off the athletics competitions for a week; theres just a whole different set up process and equipment and etc. if you had them together, you would have to have the olympics running 24/7, and who would be getting the shaft on the non-prime times? probably the paralympians.

its fine the way it is.

If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

hugh wrote:Ok so here's something I've been thinking about a bit over the past day or two - and I can best put it across as follows

What's with the Paralympics?
This is a question that confuses me a lot. If the Olympics is all about the very top athletes/sports people in their respective field competing, why is there then a competition held to see who the best disabled athlete is?
Here's an even better question - some sports in Paralympics are actually quite enjoyable and competitive (Wheelchair racing springs to mind instantly). If these sports are as competitive and difficult as people say they are, should Wheelchair racing not be a full Olympic event? Would this not legitimise the sport a lot more?
I can't decide whether or not I find the Paralympics condescending and patronising in this sense. And does the term Paralympics, with it's separate advertising campaign, separate schedule and separate events, not just endeavour to exaggerate and highlight the differences between disabled people and normal people? Is this necessarily a good/bad thing?

So many questions, weigh in if you dare 0_o

Although there's a fair old amount of natural talent that goes into being an elite athlete, the Olympics is as much about extreme dedication to training, technique and 'fair play' as it is to showcasing genetic supermen like Usain Bolt. It's intended as an advert for sport and sportsmanship as much as a competition or freakshow, so it makes sense to me that they'd run a similar event for those who lost out in the genetic lottery or were permanently injured... the task of training for a wheelchair marathon is no easier than training for an able-bodied marathon and Oscar Pistorius demonstrates that a disability doesn't necessarily mean you're not still "elite"... but the victors of the Paralympics may inspire a whole different set of people to live healthily and enjoy friendly competition; perhaps people that might feel alienated by the sea of glossy perfection we see in the main Olympiad. It's terribly, terribly worthwhile event.

hugh wrote:

kidshuffle wrote:they probably separate the olympics from the paralymics for the same reasons they put off the athletics competitions for a week; theres just a whole different set up process and equipment and etc. if you had them together, you would have to have the olympics running 24/7, and who would be getting the shaft on the non-prime times? probably the paralympians.

its fine the way it is.

If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

Gotta spend money to make money.

hugh wrote:

kidshuffle wrote:they probably separate the olympics from the paralymics for the same reasons they put off the athletics competitions for a week; theres just a whole different set up process and equipment and etc. if you had them together, you would have to have the olympics running 24/7, and who would be getting the shaft on the non-prime times? probably the paralympians.

its fine the way it is.

If you are going to talk about it in a purely logistical sense then you can't ignore the fact we just spend over £10 billion during a double dip recession.

Well, we did sign up to all this in 2005 when everything was distinctly boomy still... it would've taken a very good effort from Mystic Meg to see where we'd be when it came around! Should we have let the world down at short notice rather than making the best of it?