The line of thought being promoted is that contact is integral to the sport...if it's integral it should be in the rules, no?
The only person who thinks contact has to be integral, required, necessary, AND so stated in the rules for it to be considered a contact sport, is YOU.
The sport does not actually have to meet these requirements for it to be considered a contact sport because these are merely your personal requirements, not actual requirements from the real world.
Logic dictates it saddis'...not me. That's like saying golfing is an athletic event...simply b/c in golf yuh have tuh walk and walking raises yuh heart rate...and duz cause yuh leg tuh pain yuh when yuh go home and...blah blah blah
Take this argument to any objective forum (and by that I mean 'a group of people') and they'd quicker accept the argument. Here is a bunch of football loyalists...and allyuh cyah let allyuh 'loyalty' tuh de sport accept logically sound arguments. Well some ah allyuh at least. Dai'z why I duz just shake my head and chuckle at the type ah groupthink I duz see on this site. Sheep following sheep, lol.
God forbid allyuh should be challenged to think fuh yuhselves.
Yeah but this is not a question of logic- this is a question of varying definitions. Logic is the use of sequential statements to form a conclusion via some kinda deductive/inductive reasoning.....as long as you define "contact sport" then you can use varying logic to get from point A to point B:
Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents
Assertion- In football/soccer, there is physical contact between opponents
Conclusion- Football/soccer is a contact sport
or according to you
Definition- A contact sport involves physical contact between opponents which is central/integral to the game
Assertion - In football/soccer physical contact is not central/integral to the game
Conclusion- Football/soccer is not a contact sport.
Once again Perfect logic.
The difference is in the definition of a contact sport and in the interpretation of whether physical contact is central to football. Your reasoning(logic) that contact should be integral to the game to be considered a contact sport, and hence stated in the rules of the game is inconsequential if one's pattern of logic/deductive reasoning is based on the first sequence- because it's merely an extension or explanation of statement 2 in the second sequence. The first sequence hence exists perfecly independent of such.
In sum, no one is disagreeing with your logic- people are disagreeing with basis upon which you form the statements in your logical sequence.
Just because a conclusion is logically sound doesn't mean it's correct or that it has to be agreed with..In fact many debates focus not on the logic, but on the (factual) accuracy or credibility of the logic's basis......inaccurate or incredible statements can be combined to make perfect logic.
This thread is like a drug....
p.s. Just because you follow mainstream thinking doesn't mean you're a sheep...as long as the mainstream thinking makes sense.....A sheep follows mainstream thinking regardless of whether or not it makes sense.