Should all sports including the Olympics be banned since, whenever there’s a winner, there must also be a victim?

Tag:

Best Answer

maybe

Answers

No they shouldn't

You misinterpret the word "victim". Anybody entering a sporting competition of any sort knows that somebody must win, and that therefore others must lose. Naturally that person wants to win, but is prepared for the idea that he or she will not win.

Victimhood occurs when somebody who has no connection with the aggressor is injured or similar.

Just because someone does not win a race or event does not make them a victim. Good sportspeople know that there is always the chance they may not win.

The poster is clumsily drawing attention to a real situation that is developing in the UK at least, where children are not allowed to compete against each other in running, jumping, whatever, as - inevitably - some children will win and some will lose.
The ones who lose will of course immediately turn into tragic psychopaths.
The fact that in real life some peopleare ALWAYS better at one thing than another person doesn't matter to these PC morons.

EDIT: It would of course be better if the Asker said'losers' instead of 'victims'

No, although there were contests in ancient Rome so imbalanced that there was a winner and a victim. The winner may have been a lion.

There are no victims in sports.

A loser in sports is not a victim.Check the dictionary.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'd delete this question if I were you.

A good sport is not a loser.