It is my opinion that the article does not suggest that "it's so terrible that I'd rather watch, say, a deep-sea fisherman risk his life than try deep-sea fishi

It is my opinion that the article does not suggest that "it's so terrible that I'd rather watch, say, a deep-sea fisherman risk his life than try deep-sea fishing myself." It actually directly chastises, in the following quote, the people who make such claims. There are men who feel that the entire problem with males today is that they’re too obsessed with college and professional sports. But that’s as wrong-headed as thinking that indulging in a straight diet of passive entertainment carries no ill-effects whatsoever. Rather than suffering from spectatoritis, these men are inflicted by high-horse-itis. The writers further clarify their position in the paragraph following the above one. They insist that "a problem only arises when instead of being a supplement to your life," it becomes "a substitution, a way to feel better about something you personally lack." I'm a fourth year undergraduate at a university in Boston, MA. I have had roommates who watch television many hours a day, do their homework with no passion or interest, and then proceed to drink and party all night. I will not argue that any of these actions are individually "bad," but I will argue that a life consisting primarily of these activities is devoid of creative output and is qualitatively "bad" under my philosophy. A life of raging all night at a party and, assuming an impressive alcohol tolerance, waking the next morning to start creating something is not a a life I'd call "bad." I believe this is a faithful interpetation of the article's position.