Why I'm Making My Husband Miss The Super Bowl

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rentahamster said:
There is 'subjective' meaning. Opiate's not denying that. All he's saying is that there's no 'objective' standard of meaning, according to his testable definition.
Click to expand...

Sports are the primary way to increase and test human physical prowess, through a medium of competition, supplemented by medicine and backed by science. If for no other reason does the previous sentece give sports "objective meaning."
 
Rentahamster said:
There is 'subjective' meaning. Opiate's not denying that. All he's saying is that there's no 'objective' standard of meaning, according to his testable definition.
Click to expand...

A multi-billion (trillion, even, if we combine all sports?) dollar economy built off of athletics that provides jobs and other countless benefits to global economies holds no objective value?

That's a very narrow definition of objective then. It's too literal of a definition.
 
syllogism said:
Moreover, the human species is not static, so medicine that could be considered "objectively meaningful" today, might have no value in a few thousand or million years. You may have already alluded to this, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah I tried to allude to this in my last sentence. You don't have to wait centuries to see evolution change human chemistry. People today are modifying their own biological chemistry. Most are doing it unintentionally through diet and behavior, but some are doing it intentionally (unfortunately I can't find the article about one guy in particular who takes dozens of vitamins/drugs every day in an effort to change his chemistry and live longer)

Opiate said:
This is an interesting suite of discussions. Medicines which harm some people only do so because our knowledge of physiognomy is imperfect; as our scientifically supported medicine continues to improve, the number of people who fall through the "cracks" -- and who are administered a drug which they violently react to, for example -- continues to be reduced. In other words, medicine continues to become increasingly personal, and our knowledge of these specifics only improves with time.
Click to expand...
And wouldn't the history of progress in entertainment have parallels to the history of progress in medicine? Learning what works and what doesn't -- not absolutely, but generally. I think entertainment has become more effective over the years, getting better at identifying people's individual pleasure preferences just like medicine is getting better at identifying people's individual treatment preferences based on their biological chemistry.
 
Rentahamster said:
There is 'subjective' meaning. Opiate's not denying that. All he's saying is that there's no 'objective' standard of meaning, according to his testable definition.
Click to expand...

Its not like taxpayers are fronting the money for stadiums or anything...
 
Angry Fork said:
What =/ I'm not one of those guys at all.
Click to expand...

Well, it sure sounds like it when you try to trap someone in a logic box based on faulty assumption about their gender loyalty. This happens often to Devo. As much as I disagree with her on various topics, I feel compelled to point out when it appears her gender is addressed instead of her argument.

Sorry if I am mistaken.
 
In todays day and age, this crap reads like, "why I chose to have this day as my anniversary? Because I knew a year in advance I would write an article about it"
 
DY_nasty said:
Its not like taxpayers are fronting the money for stadiums or anything...
Click to expand...

You can take it a step further: teams in the Deutsche Bundesliga are owned and funded 50+1 by the city they are based in. An entire league built on the Green Bay Packers model.

And guess what? The Bundesliga is a $4.5-$5bil/year business.
 
Count Dookkake said:
Well, it sure sounds like it when you try to trap someone in a logic box based on faulty assumption about their gender loyalty. This happens often to Devo. As much as I disagree with her on various topics, I feel compelled to point out when it appears her gender is addressed instead of her argument.

Sorry if I am mistaken.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be like that, that sounds so nefarious/cold blooded lol. It was a genuine response/question from me, not trying to attack her gender or anything. I know a lot of gaf are misogynists and like to play that card I've seen it plenty of times I try to be as objective as possible.
 
And wouldn't the history of progress in entertainment have parallels to the history of progress in medicine? Learning what works and what doesn't -- not absolutely, but generally. I think entertainment has become more effective over the years, getting better at identifying people's individual pleasure preferences just like medicine is getting better at identifying people's individual treatment preferences based on their biological chemistry.
Click to expand...

I doubt that's the case, but it's possible. Medicine did not evolve with any efficacy until we objectively scrutinized it under scientifically controlled circumstances; before then, medicine took 1 step forward, 1 step back for decades, centuries, or even millinea, as local culture and mores continuously limited advancement. We have applied no similar rigor to our understanding of entertainment, and it feels that most of our entertainment is simply incidental to our culture, and not objectively derived.

Evidence strongly supports my conclusion, as general happiness in the US has not empirically improved for decades, and may in fact have declined.
 
Opiate said:
I doubt that's the case, but it's possible. Medicine did not evolve with any efficacy until we objectively scrutinized it under scientifically verifiable circumstances; before then, medicine took 1 step forward, 1 step back for decades, centuries, or even millinea, as local culture and mores continuously limited advancement. We have applied no similar rigor to our understanding of entertainment, and it feels that most of our entertainment is simply incidental to our culture, and not objectively derived.
Click to expand...

Microfracture surgery.

Patelet Rich Plasma injections.

These are all new procedures that evolved from the sports world that have absolute benefits to society. I would call that objective value.
 
Opiate said:
We have applied no similar rigor to our understanding of entertainment, and it feels that most of our entertainment is simply incidental to our culture, and not objectively derived.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following this last part. Can you expound on that?
 
The subjectivity of life and enjoying/living it gives medicine its meaning in the first place. Therefore the variable subjectivity of life must have objective meaning, which includes entertainment.
 
Okay... I really can't remember the last time someone busted out a happiness chart.

Also, the argument is jumping all over the place now. Before it was sport has no meaning. Then, it was sports have no objective meaning. Now, it seems we're at meaning that I personally feel is not good enough.
 
DY_nasty said:
Okay... I really can't remember the last time someone busted out a happiness chart.

Also, the argument is jumping all over the place now. Before it was sport has no meaning. Then, it was sports have no objective meaning. Now, it seems we're at meaning that I personally feel is not good enough.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but this thread will die in just a bit when the game starts.

I'm stuck at home with kids while the wife is at work, couldn't get a babysitter for the game.. so gonna watch with my 6 and 4yr old who could care less about football. Also, means no beer until the wife gets home in an hour or more, don't drink when home alone with the kids.
 
This dude should have stood up and said he's watching it and they'll go out another day. She's going to pull stuff like this from now on that he conceded.
 
Opiate said:
I doubt that's the case, but it's possible. Medicine did not evolve with any efficacy until we objectively scrutinized it under scientifically controlled circumstances; before then, medicine took 1 step forward, 1 step back for decades, centuries, or even millinea, as local culture and mores continuously limited advancement. We have applied no similar rigor to our understanding of entertainment, and it feels that most of our entertainment is simply incidental to our culture, and not objectively derived.

Evidence strongly supports my conclusion, as general happiness in the US has not empirically improved for decades, and may in fact have declined.
Click to expand...

Happiness =\= being entertained.

Happiness is incredibly flexible and relative to your situation. Pyramid of needs rich vs poor etc etc.
 
DY_nasty said:
I'm not sure I'm following this last part. Can you expound on that?
Click to expand...

That is, our sources of entertainment are not derived from scientifically optimized study, but from the ebb and flow of cultural preferences. The way medicine "evolved" (or did not do so, rather) from the collapse of the Roman Empire in 400AD to the seventeenth century Italian Renaissance; any substantive "advancements" were significantly prohibited by cultural preferences which held medical science back.

Similarly, the cultural hegemony of currently popular sports significantly prohibits a real scientific approach to the subject. Most of our sports did not develop because they proved to be scientifically and objectively more entertaining than, say, European Rules Football, or Rugby, or Jai Alai; they just coincidentally happened to be the sports our culture grew up with. Similar to how religions evolve; there isn't anything that suggests Greek Paganism (Zeus, Athena, etc.) is more valid than Norse religious customs (Thor, Lo'ki, etc.). They just happened to develop those particular stories incidentally, not through controlled experimentation and optimization.

gatti-man said:
Happiness =\= being entertained.

Happiness is incredibly flexible and relative to your situation. Pyramid of needs rich vs poor etc etc.
Click to expand...

In general, I agree. However, I don't have a better way to empirically measure how effectively our entertainment is entertaining us. Do you? Honest question.

DY_nasty said:
Okay... I really can't remember the last time someone busted out a happiness chart.

Also, the argument is jumping all over the place now. Before it was sport has no meaning. Then, it was sports have no objective meaning. Now, it seems we're at meaning that I personally feel is not good enough.
Click to expand...

"Sports have no objective meaning" has always been my position, at least. Other people have confused this with subjective meaning, but they're totally distinct arguments, and the latter is effectively a dead end. Of course they have subjective meaning; everything in the universe has subjective meaning, so that's the end of that.

In general, though, it's appropriate for discussion to evolve. I have certainly considered reasonable arguments by several posters here, for example. It would be a very bad sign if no one seemed to be considering the opinions of others and no one changed their minds at all.
 
Opiate said:
That is, our sources of entertainment are not derived from scientifically optimized entertainment, but from the ebb and flow of cultural preferences. The way medicine "evolved" (or did not do so, rather) from the collapse of the Roman Empire in 400AD to the seventeenth century Italian Renaissance; any substantive "advancements" were significantly prohibited by cultural preferences which held medical science back.

Similarly, the cultural hegemony of currently popular sports significantly prohibits a real scientific approach to the subject. Most of our sports did not develop because they proved to be scientifically and objectively more entertaining than, say, European Rules Football, or Rugby, or Jai Alai; they just coincidentally happened to be the sports our culture grew up with. Similar to how religions evolve; there isn't anything that suggests Greek Paganism (Zeus, Athena, etc.) is more valid than Norse religious customs (Thor, Lo'ki, etc.). They just happened to develop those particular stories incidentally, not through controlled experimentation and optimization.



In general, I agree. However, I don't have a better way to empirically measure how effectively our entertainment is entertaining us. Do you?
Click to expand...

No i certainly dont. Entertainmemt is just so nebulous because of the vast difference of tastes. However i would correlate our lack of happiness with a change in culture agrandizing the rich. I think now more than ever people are constantly shown what they dont have creating a lack of satisfaction.
 
Anniversaries definitely trump sporting events, sure. I still don't understand why she had to be so snarky ("My sexy leather dress...") about it in her article as if she was displaying her dominance. Perhaps I'm focusing too much on that bit, but I cannot stand women who weaponize sex and use it as a means of getting what they want in a relationship.

Why not frame it like, "My husband is being very considerate and skipping something he enjoys immensely (and that's even part of his job) to be with my on our anniversary?" The fact that she's seemingly trying to make an example of her husband, for housewives everywhere, is what rubs me the wrong way.
 
Ok, I have to ask. Opiate, are you your avatar?
 
gatti-man said:
No i certainly dont. Entertainmemt is just so nebulous because of the vast difference of tastes. However i would correlate our lack of happiness with a change in culture agrandizing the rich. I think now more than ever people are constantly shown what they dont have creating a lack of satisfaction.
Click to expand...

This seems very plausible to me. I think we actually agree here; my goal was not to suggest that happiness studies conclusively prove that our entertainment is not getting better, but rather, to suggest that there is no evidence that it is, and what scant evidence we do have may suggest the opposite, if anything.

Jtwo said:
Ok, I have to ask. Opiate, are you your avatar?
Click to expand...

I am.
 
Crazy! You're extraordinarily good looking!
 
soultron said:
Anniversaries definitely trump sporting events, sure. I still don't understand why she had to be so snarky ("My sexy leather dress...") about it in her article as if she was displaying her dominance. Perhaps I'm focusing too much on that bit, but I cannot stand women who weaponize sex and use it as a means of getting what they want in a relationship.

Why not frame it like, "My husband is being very considerate and skipping something he enjoys immensely (and that's even part of his job) to be with my on our anniversary?" The fact that she's seemingly trying to make an example of her husband, for housewives everywhere, is what rubs me the wrong way.
Click to expand...

There's also something inherently conniving and sinister (I know that sounds a bit evil) about placing a date like that around something you know is important to your significant other, no matter how much stock you personally put in such an event, you should at least respect that it's important to your S.O..

Also I wish some of you wouldn't have to make me denounce any sort of gender bias every fucking time these issues come up.
 
Women that think that they can control their men with sex are women that are on a crash course to divorceville.
 
Chichikov said:
The issue is not missing the Superbowl, it's keeping stupid tabs on what each person had to give up and who walked the dog when; this is an extremely unhealthy way to run a relationship.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding.

Shit will really hit the fan when they have kids.

I literally loled when she talked about walking the dog and giving him foot massages. Uh, duh lady you're married, what do you think you signed up for? He's not your roommate.

As for the anniversary dinner thing. It really is silly. I would think a rational human being would like to celebrate the day they got married in a way they could enjoy it to its fullest instead of forcing a compromise for the sake of a stupid day.
 
Opiate said:
A few things:

1) I'm not particularly inclined to indulge predilections that are meaningless just because you happen to like them anyway. For example, if you had an absolute fascination with high fashion, I wouldn't consider it appropriate to blow off important events for that -- I don't mind people engaging in trifling entertainment as long as they recognize it for what it is, and plan accordingly. Similarly, an ultimately silly game like the Super Bowl is irrelevant when compared to other, more objectively meaningful activities.

2) However, this is not just a predilection for the man in question: he is a sports photographer, so this crosses over in to professional duty, to some extent. It is no longer simply trivial entertainment.

3) In addition, anniversaries are not important in themselves, either; they are a symbol of fidelity and love, but those admirable qualities could be celebrated at any time for any reason. In other words, fidelity and love are genuinely relevant qualities; a symbol of those qualities is not. I would be much more sympathetic to this woman if she felt that her actual love and fidelity were threatened in some way, rather than symbol of them.
Click to expand...
This should have had everybody concur. Why so many posts after this?
 
Jtwo said:
Crazy! You're extraordinarily good looking!
Click to expand...

Thank you! I appreciate the compliment.

Flying_Phoenix said:
This should have had everybody concur. Why so many posts after this?
Click to expand...

The general discussion that arose from my posts centered on the first point; specifically, the implication that sports are not inherently meaningful (i.e. that they are "trifling entertainment" and that the Super Bowl is a "silly game"). It's been a rather interesting discussion, in my opinion, but you are correct that it's tangential to the original topic.
 
She comes across as incredibly childish and manipulative. That she would even write up something that reads like a chronicle of her victory over her husband is pretty disgusting.

It's not so much that she did it that has me concerned; people can have strange, fucked up motives that they often keep to themselves. Her going out of her way to write that up expecting adulations for shitting on her husband is deplorable imo

She knows exactly what she accomplished.
 
If his team made it to the Super Bowl, we could celebrate the day before. I hate to admit this, but I then secretly rooted for the other team -- the team whose name I couldn't tell you but that (thank goodness) -- ultimately won.
Click to expand...

This part got me. Is celebrating one day early really that much of a deal to her?

Wouldn't celebrating early resolve the conflict dead in its tracks? Both would get what they wanted.

This whole article reads like she was just out to fuck over her husband because, well, that's how compromises in marriages work!
 
Opiate said:
The general discussion that arose from my posts centered on the first point; specifically, the implication that sports are not inherently meaningful (i.e. that they are "trifling entertainment" and that the Super Bowl is a "silly game"). It's been a rather interesting discussion, in my opinion, but you are correct that it's tangential to the original topic.
Click to expand...

Well not to be a dick to others but sports are insignificant. Science, politics, those are things that are important. Those are things that change the world as they have tremendous effect on people.

Sports are merely a hobby of intense athleticism.

But in terms of it being "silly", well define "silly". This is a video game forum. Many people out there consider games as children's toys. Are we silly for being so into them?

I can't imagine anybody having a reasonable opinion who thinks anything else.
 
Devolution said:
There's also something inherently conniving and sinister (I know that sounds a bit evil) about placing a date like that around something you know is important to your significant other, no matter how much stock you personally put in such an event, you should at least respect that it's important to your S.O..

Also I wish some of you wouldn't have to make me denounce any sort of gender bias every fucking time these issues come up.
Click to expand...

But, to be fair to the wife, the husband did agree to marry on the weekend of the Superbowl. If he had any foresight, he could've asked to push it a weekend in either direction, correct?

This situation does not fall entirely on the wife because she was not the only one involved in making the decision.
 
NIN90 said:
This part got me. Is celebrating one day early really that much of a deal to her?

Wouldn't celebrating early resolve the conflict dead in its tracks? Both would get what they wanted.

This whole article reads like she was just out to fuck over her husband because, well, that's how compromises in marriages work!
Click to expand...

I have no idea where she lives but most stuff around here shuts down early on Sundays too.



soultron said:
But, to be fair to the wife, the husband did agree to marry on the weekend of the Superbowl. If he had any foresight, he could've asked to push it a weekend in either direction, correct?

This situation does not fall entirely on the wife because she was not the only one involved in making the decision.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the squabbles I just had calling him a dumbass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

It's College Bowl Season!
3
322
JBat replied
Kendrick Lamar is performing at Super Bowl LIX Halftime Show
News  2 3 4
154
8K
Coconutt replied
Jeff Baena (husband of Aubrey Plaza) commits suicide
2
82
8K
rkofan87 replied
Random: anyone know why I suddenly can't access my Apple tv subscription on my devices?
7
356
jorgejjvr replied
  • Poll
I'm done using my PC for today. I'm now going to ___ .
49
2K
ReBurn replied
Top Bottom