Repulsive human activities

I concede at the outset that what is repulsive to me may be bliss to others (eg. “rugby heaven”). I further concede that it is not my function to pass judgement on others, and that even seeming to do so may excite their wrath and indignation. I think we all however should form judgements about various dubious pastimes.

1. Boxing. In the noble sport of boxing the goal is to brain damage your opponent to the extent that he can’t get up off the floor. This is done mainly by punches to the head. Punches around the chest and midriff also help in the general deliberate debilitation, but it is the grogginess that counts, and that signifies brain damage. I can see why this appeals to some people. It excites the worst features, blood lust, bullying, violence, in human nature. It is not noble at all. Morally, medically, boxing is without excuse or justification. I do remember that it is immensely popular in some cultures such as Samoan, and inexplicably with some intelligent individuals such as Sir Robert Jones.

2. Motor sport. This won’t win me any friends either. Motor sport is noisy, polluting, hideously expensive, pointless. I am not aware that it contributes to fitness or social welfare in any way. It is a happy hunting ground for petrol-heads and lovers of inordinate speed, power and danger, and the females who seem to hang about. It was a good day when Auckland decided it didn’t want the annual Formula One event clogging up our streets and bringing the inner city to a halt for days on end. I sense that Hamilton is now starting to regret that they ever took it on. Stock cars and such things seem simply juvenile and silly to me. (Of course there is also the motor bike. I know of one surgeon who reputedly refused to treat any victim of a motor bike smash -- and I know of another one who had a love affair with his Harley Davidson. Motor bikes are here to stay, of course, and I know that many people ride them responsibly. So I’m not including them in my criticism of motor sport.)

3. Foul language. Well, I guess it’s my upbringing in the first instance. We were not allowed to use “bad” language, ever, at home -- let alone “foul” language. But it’s also a matter of good taste, which now seems widely lost. Foul language is now endemic. It has become unexceptional. People now think it is justified by usage. Women as well as men swear frequently and pointlessly in their normal conversation. It fouls the air. It has become part of the general trivialising of words and meaning. My attitude also reflects, I realise, the respect for my native language in which I was raised. The language, well used, is not like that. Are these people chronically short of adjectives, or simply general vocabulary? The English language at its best is built and equipped for subtlety, for shades of meaning and expression. Perhaps people no longer possess subtleties and insights anyway, let alone know how to express them. Anyway, foul language is not used in our home.