Support NeoGAF

[WanderingWind]

It wasn't an isolated statement, which is why I brought it up, as I mentioned. Here are your last series of posts responding to me in this thread:

There's extremely little response to the actual content of my argument, and repeated exasperation at how I can't see this and why am I being deliberately obtuse. Further, you suggest I'm not listening, but also complain that I'm asking people to explain too often. You also direct several expletives toward me (I am not especially offended by foul language, but it's indicative here of your tone).

Just stick to the argument. Remain calm. Provide evidence and reason to support your conclusions. Be constructive. That isn't a high bar to set.

And you continue to drip condescension with every post, and still marvel at the responses you get. The responses were not overtly hostile, nor is using "naughty" language indicative of any particular frame of mind. These are assumptions on your part. I'd ask you to stop projecting emotional states, as they are self-fulfilling prophecies. If you say somebody is angry enough times, you'll probably piss them off.

And not a single one of those responses was unjustified. But it's odd that the simple act of asking your questions is posited as being negative.

 

[Mushroom021]

That's what bothers me most. It's one thing to do this. It may work for them. But to write about it in such a public way shows that she has little respect for him.

I agree completely. Hopefully she'll realize shes stupid for making him miss the game, the dinner probably wasnt even good, I bet all he could think about was the game!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

If a guy wants to watch the game more than go out for their first anniversary, he's probably not worth being with.

If a wife isn't willing to change the date of the wedding so it doesn't fall on the Super Bowl weekend, she isn't worth being with.

 

[SapientWolf]

That was a terrible compromise. It's the gesture that's important, not the exact day.

 

[Vyrance]

He screwed up by agreeing to that date in the first place, especially with him being a sports photographer. Dude should have known better.

And who would actually DVR the Super Bowl? No one who loves football, that's for sure. Especially if you don't want any spoilers for the game. There's no way possible to watch the game later without hearing what happened.

 

[Onemic]

If a guy wants to watch the game more than go out for their first anniversary, he's probably not worth being with.

But who said the anniversary had to be at the same time as the superbowl, which is clearly important to him? Another time earlier in the day could have easily been taken, but she just wanted to put it at that time to teach him some sort of sick lesson.

 

[BobsRevenge]

So his charity, love, friends, family, and interests he's passionate about should seem meaningless, silly, and trivial to me? Got it.

That's a false equivalency. Optimally his beliefs would seem righteous and important to you, because they are directly positive to the people they affect. There is something there you should respect. It would be better for society if people lived examined lives with a sense of strong moral beliefs tied to human well being in the widest sense applicable, and then tried to act rationally from there.

Sports media would probably be largely excluded from that world, because in the end the basis for all that's built on it is weaker than more humane alternatives.

I'm talking about hypothetical optimal well being here, so don't take too much offense. I'm not saying that following sports media is horrible, I'm just saying it is clearly less good in nature than what Opiate is putting forth.

 

[Opiate]

And you continue to drip condescension with every post, and still marvel at the responses you get. The responses were not overtly hostile, nor is using "naughty" language indicative of any particular frame of mind. These are assumptions on your part. I'd ask you to stop projecting emotional states, as they are self-fulfilling prophecies. If you say somebody is angry enough times, you'll probably piss them off.

And not a single one of those responses was unjustified. But it's odd that the simple act of asking your questions is posited as being negative.

Sure.

Now if you could please, address the actual arguments. Remain calm. Provide evidence and reason to defend your position. Be constructive. If possible, please respond to the questions I explicitly asked you which you refused to or chose not to answer. Thank you.

 

[Devolution]

Lol. I'm quite lucky (unlucky?) since my wife is a serious gamer (just bought MW3 from Best Buy after spending $30 on it via redbox) and her mother set an example by respecting and wanting her husband to have his own time too. My wife enjoys shopping, spending time with family, and me offering her alone time isn't an issue at all, I've had to put more effort into joining her in doing things that she enjoys too. I don't understand the mentality of pressuring a SO to give up on his/her passion.

The mentality to me is mostly insecure (barring of course any sort of hobby that's actually destructive but I don't think we need to get into that here) along with an obsession with the idea that the couple must share everything completely. I think it happens when someone lets him or herself be wholly defined by their S.O. instead of keeping and reinforcing the stuff that also makes them an individual.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to co-opt some of your partner's interests and sometimes it's natural, but one shouldn't feel they need to change their partner's hobbies/interests (or get them to drop it) so that they share more in common. It's best to have some overlapping interests but it's not bad or wrong to have your own set of shit that the other person has no vested interest in. It's kind of easy to fall into this trap that all interests must be shared or else strife will happen. The strife happens though because a partner's interests and hobbies aren't respected as legitimate (not that the interests are different), as one partner starts to establish some bullshit elitism about it.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

If a guy wants to watch the game more than go out for their first anniversary, he's probably not worth being with.

People can want to do a lot of stuff but not act on them. Just because they want to do it doesn't define them. Them not acting on their wants makes them who they are. Most guys would like to have sex with a hot chick they happen to walk by, but they aren't stupid enough to act on it. Women would like to do a ton of stuff too, but like men they are able to measure their wants against the consequence of acting on them.

It's the same for the reverse, you can hate to do something or be somewhere but put up with it because of what will happen if you don't go with it. Don't be so quick to label dudes that want to do something else but have to do this thing because they're obligated to. I'm sure he wanted to do the dinner, it was just planned at the worst time.

Who wants to stay at home tomorrow, go on a vacation, party all night, watch tv all day? If you do you are scum and don't deserve the stuff you have (not really, sarcasm).

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The mentality to me is mostly insecure (barring of course any sort of hobby that's actually destructive but I don't think we need to get into that here) along with an obsession with the idea that the couple must share everything completely. I think it happens when someone lets him or herself be wholly defined by their S.O. instead of keeping and reinforcing the stuff that also makes them an individual.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to co-opt some of your partner's interests and sometimes it's natural, but one shouldn't feel they need to change their partner's hobbies/interests (or get them to drop it) so that they share more in common. It's best to have some overlapping interests but it's not bad or wrong to have your own set of shit that the other person has no vested interest in. It's kind of easy to fall into this trap that all interests must be shared or else strife will happen. The strife happens though because a partner's interests and hobbies aren't respected as legitimate (not that the interests are different), as one partner starts to establish some bullshit elitism about it.

Agreed. Worlds Collide and all. One thing that I love doing is taking road trips or just driving to clear my head. Now, I don't mind periodically taking my wife but this is something I do that I enjoy, my alone time and I appreciate that my wife understands that. Couples who feel a need to truly become one person, I just don't understand it. For those who do it and things work out, congrats but for most people its healthy to keep your individuality in a relationship. Whether its crocheting, cooking, football, or film, IMO, the SO should understand and accept the passion and not try to crash in on it.

 

[Blue]

I'm not surprised by opiate in this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34432202&postcount=4363

Do you agree with his assessment, sports-gaf? I mean we all have made sweeping generalizations in our lives, but should a mod be making them? Especially one who considers himself to be a "level headed person".

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I'm not surprised by opiate in this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34432202&postcount=4363

Do you agree with his assessment, sports-gaf? I mean we all have made sweeping generalizations in our lives, but should a mod be making them? Especially one who considers himself to be a "level headed person".

Oh crap, when did you get here?

 

[Herpes Reasons]

I'm not surprised by opiate in this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34432202&postcount=4363

Do you agree with his assessment, sports-gaf? I mean we all have made sweeping generalizations in our lives, but should a mod be making them? Especially one who considers himself to be a "level headed person".

i've lived everywhere in california. even a brief stint in the eastcoast.
most or all of my sports friends were atheists.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I'm not surprised by opiate in this thread

I just remember him from the Kobe divorce thread. The putting ball through hoop shouldn't be paid that much thing. I wasn't surprised.

 

[Greg]

Optimally his beliefs would seem righteous and important to you, because they are directly positive to the people they affect. There is something there you should respect.

I absolutely agree, and that's why I applied his absurd argument to the 2nd part of my post. I think it's great that he has a charity. He could continue it or stop doing it and it would have no effect on me either way, but I can understand the appeal. I'm glad he has interests he's passionate about, and even though they won't help me directly, I can relate because I also have interests that I'm passionate about.

However, if he said himself that he has these things (charity that has no influence on me, activities he's passionate about that don't benefit me) - how is it possible to be "legitimately shocked" to find that other people have interests that they're passionate about?

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not surprised by opiate in this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34432202&postcount=4363

Do you agree with his assessment, sports-gaf? I mean we all have made sweeping generalizations in our lives, but should a mod be making them? Especially one who considers himself to be a "level headed person".

That's not a sweeping generalization. So much misplaced indignation in this thread.

 

[WanderingWind]

Sure.

Now if you could please, address the actual arguments. Remain calm. Provide evidence and reason to defend your position. Be constructive. If possible, please respond to the questions I explicitly asked you which you refused to or chose not to answer. Thank you.

Which question do you feel was not answered?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Agreed. Worlds Collide and all. One thing that I love doing is taking road trips or just driving to clear my head. Now, I don't mind periodically taking my wife but this is something I do that I enjoy, my alone time and I appreciate that my wife understands that. Couples who feel a need to truly become one person, I just don't understand it. For those who do it and things work out, congrats but for most people its healthy to keep your individuality in a relationship. Whether its crocheting, cooking, football, or film, IMO, the SO should understand and accept the passion and not try to crash in on it.

I think it can be really good as long as done in moderation. I enjoy sports and if a girlfriend goes with me to a game because they want to then it can be a lot of fun and be a lot more fun than going alone but maybe not all the time. Same with an interest she may have. It may not be something I'm personally into but doing it with her from time to time because she enjoys it makes it a lot more fun and something I wouldn't normally enjoy becomes a fun activity.

 

[FStop7]

I'm not surprised by opiate in this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34432202&postcount=4363

Do you agree with his assessment, sports-gaf? I mean we all have made sweeping generalizations in our lives, but should a mod be making them? Especially one who considers himself to be a "level headed person".

Freshly minted Junior goes at a mod straight out of the gate.

 

[Deified Data]

DVR the game. Hope the wife knows her husband isn't having a speck of fun on their "date" and likely resents her for it. But whatever - dinner is dinner.

 

[Amory]

Even if her intentions were just to spend a nice anniversary evening having dinner with her husband, the article certainly doesn't portray it that way. I like to watch the super bowl with my friends if I can, but I'd be willing to miss it for a good reason like an anniversary. That article, though, just makes her sound like such a controlling bitch. I'm not sure how it can be argued that it doesn't.

She basically acts like the game is just a silly unimportant thing that he'll get over because of how much he loves her, yet then claims Kim Kardashian should be looked to as an example of why couples should celebrate their first anniversary. She may not be an asshole, but she's at the very least doing a great impression of one.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Freshly minted Junior goes at a mod straight out of the gate.

The one that called out Devo in the slut thread to. He's an alt of someone with an axe to grind.

Or a dumbass.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I only lurk now, but I feel the need to make one point clear:

WanderingWind, you misunderstood something that Opiate wrote earlier. He DOES believe that some people are objectively better than others, hence why your response of "that seems like your belief, not ours" confuses him.

Essentially, Opiate is arguing that people ought to be able to look at matters such as this dispassionately and see that while some things (science, math, the high arts, etc.) allow humanity to progress, others (sports, video gaming, stamp collecting, whatever, etc.) are more ephemeral and therefore of less consequence in the grand scheme of things. It's really not all THAT indefensible a view, especially since he's not advocating that everybody suddenly drop every non-useful thing (and, in fact, admits to several indulgences of his own).

It's an argument for context, not an argument to denigrate anybody or anything. Considering how much of our world is dedicated to trivialities (who the hell would give a shit what the mom who scared her baby by blowing her nose has to say on Good Morning America?), this doesn't seem all that terrible to me.

Edit: Or to put it a different way - people remember the great scientists and artists FAR more than the merchants or athletes. Opiate's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that there is a good reason for that.

 

[WanderingWind]

I only lurk now, but I feel the need to make one point clear:

WanderingWind, you misunderstood something that Opiate wrote earlier. He DOES believe that some people are objectively better than others, hence why your response of "that seems like your belief, not ours" confuses him.

Essentially, Opiate is arguing that people ought to be able to look at matters such as this dispassionately and see that while some things (science, math, the high arts, etc.) allow humanity to progress, others (sports, video gaming, stamp collecting, whatever, etc.) are more ephemeral and therefore of less consequence in the grand scheme of things. It's really not all THAT indefensible a view, especially since he's not advocating that everybody suddenly drop every non-useful thing (and, in fact, admits to several indulgences of his own).

It's an argument for context, not an argument to denigrate anybody or anything. Considering how much of our world is dedicated to trivialities (who the hell would give a shit what the mom who scared her baby by blowing her nose has to say on Good Morning America?), this doesn't seem all that terrible to me.

Edit: Or to put it a different way - people remember the great scientists and artists FAR more than the merchants or athletes. Opiate's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that there is a good reason for that.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, I think you've confused me with another poster. I am on a phone right now though, so maybe I did write something akin to that. I don't believe I ever said "that seems like your belief, not ours."

But I do know that I said the argument as framed above isn't unusual or even controversial. That was not the argument that sparked this little debate, however.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, I think you've confused me with another poster. I am on a phone right now though, so maybe I did write something akin to that. I don't believe I ever said "that seems like your belief, not ours."

But I do know that I said the argument as framed above isn't unusual or even controversial. That was not the argument that sparked this little debate, however.

Sorry, it was reilo.

And perhaps I've missed some context, but it seems that the argument started from Opiate saying that sports were meaningless and unimportant, with people getting rather offended at the statement and challenging him on his idea of "inherent meaning." From there, it spiraled into questions of Opiate's seeming lack of emotion in argument, as well as perceived condescension by him on your part.

Am I missing something? I came into the thread late and don't intend to stay, but it seems like the debate has hit something of a brick wall.

 

[Good Job Bob]

I only lurk now, but I feel the need to make one point clear:

WanderingWind, you misunderstood something that Opiate wrote earlier. He DOES believe that some people are objectively better than others, hence why your response of "that seems like your belief, not ours" confuses him.

Essentially, Opiate is arguing that people ought to be able to look at matters such as this dispassionately and see that while some things (science, math, the high arts[, etc.) allow humanity to progress, others (sports, video gaming, stamp collecting, whatever, etc.) are more ephemeral and therefore of less consequence in the grand scheme of things. It's really not all THAT indefensible a view, especially since he's not advocating that everybody suddenly drop every non-useful thing (and, in fact, admits to several indulgences of his own).

It's an argument for context, not an argument to denigrate anybody or anything. Considering how much of our world is dedicated to trivialities (who the hell would give a shit what the mom who scared her baby by blowing her nose has to say on Good Morning America?), this doesn't seem all that terrible to me.

Edit: Or to put it a different way - people remember the great scientists and artists FAR more than the merchants or athletes. Opiate's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that there is a good reason for that.

I don't think you're understanding his argument correctly.

It doesn't matter who people remember or what allows humanity to progress, what matters is that something is inherently true to the rules and principles of the universe

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The one that called out Devo in the slut thread to. He's an alt of someone with an axe to grind.

Or a dumbass.

He's not an alt

 

[hoos30]

She's a selfish prig and they'll be divorced within five years.

 

[NervousXtian]

Edit: Or to put it a different way - people remember the great scientists and artists FAR more than the merchants or athletes. Opiate's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that there is a good reason for that.

We'll see on this point, but I almost doubt it. Merchants (or in this case business owners such as Buffett, Gates, Jobs) and Athletes (Jordan, Ruth, Aaron, Montana, Mantle, Sanders, etc) will probably be remembered just as much, if not more in the future than scientists or artists of our generation.

I would argue that written history in the past was written by those with enough education to actually write it, so scientists, philosophers, artists, etc would get a lot of press. Not so today.

I bet in 20 years time, more people will remember Michael Jordan than Jeff Koons and more people will remember Eli Manning than Tim Berners-Lee.

 

[Blackace]

If a guy wants to watch the game more than go out for their first anniversary, he's probably not worth being with.

I think it is the "I won" article that sucks the most...

 

[BobsRevenge]

I absolutely agree, and that's why I applied his absurd argument to the 2nd part of my post. I think it's great that he has a charity. He could continue it or stop doing it and it would have no effect on me either way, but I can understand the appeal. I'm glad he has interests he's passionate about, and even though they won't help me directly, I can relate because I also have interests that I'm passionate about.

However, if he said himself that he has these things (charity that has no influence on me, activities he's passionate about that don't benefit me) - how is it possible to be "legitimately shocked" to find that other people have interests that they're passionate about?

I think he's arguing that it is an irrational passion and letting it affect you in a way that is obviously negative isn't a proper response to what is happening.

edit:

I think it is the "I won" article that sucks the most...

I think it's the Huffington Post in general. It's a horrible way to get news for people who don't know how to properly filter and process it. Too much information, with too much of it being stupid or pointless.

 

[Good Job Bob]

I think he's arguing that it is an irrational passion and letting it affect you in a way that is obviously negative isn't a proper response to what is happening.

How is it irrational?

 

[BobsRevenge]

How is it irrational?

It's basically a socially accepted shared nerdiness that doesn't have any point outside of that and the branching effects of marketing it (charitable actions, presenting a nationalized image) and such. It is irrational to be passionate about it because there are far more important things to be passionate about. Nothing that happens in sports actually affects you if you don't let it, outside of some lost social talking points (that don't actually go towards bettering anything, and mainly serve for people to regurgitate stuff the sports media presents).

That people get so passionate about that they let it affect how they see other people? It's not worth it at that point.

 

[Good Job Bob]

It's basically a socially accepted shared nerdiness that doesn't have any point outside of that and the branching effects of marketing it (charitable actions, presenting a nationalized image) and such. It is irrational to be passionate about it because there are far more important things to be passionate about. Nothing that happens in sports actually affects you if you don't let it, outside of some lost social talking points (that don't actually go towards bettering anything, and mainly serve for people to regurgitate stuff the sports media presents).

That people get so passionate about that they let it affect how they see other people? It's not worth it at that point.

I'm guessing you're not a proponent of individualism than, eh?

 

[NervousXtian]

It's basically a socially accepted shared nerdiness that doesn't have any point outside of that and the branching effects of marketing it (charitable actions, presenting a nationalized image) and such. It is irrational to be passionate about it because there are far more important things to be passionate about. Nothing that happens in sports actually affects you if you don't let it, outside of some lost social talking points (that don't actually go towards bettering anything, and mainly serve for people to regurgitate stuff the sports media presents).

That people get so passionate about that they let it affect how they see other people? It's not worth it at that point.

It's called balance. I'm passionate about things that do matter, and things that don't. As a human being, both are healthy.

 

[BobsRevenge]

It's called balance. I'm passionate about things that do matter, and things that don't. As a human being, both are healthy.

I agree. I just hate seeing people actually let it affect them in a negative way. Like, seeing my Dad get stressed about it. Dude is old, it isn't worth it for him to care that much.

People are emotional, it's exactly that that makes life feel worthwhile, but it's worth it to really look at where your passions lie and try to see if maybe you could be doing things better. I mean, peoples' passion about sports ignite riots and such, and people actually do get physically hurt from things like this.

You're right that it's about balance, but in my opinion most people don't have this balanced optimally. It also speaks towards the primal mind creating divisions between people and using that to create prejudice and maladaptive attitudes regarding people in an out-group. Obviously in sports it is rarely a considerable issue, but it is the same mechanism that enables wars and such. Obviously the results of how this applies to these situations isn't comparable in effect, but still I think it is a factor worth taking seriously.

 

[Trigger Warning]

.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I know this thread is old and has probably devolved considerably, but you don't form a successful relationship by taking pride in 'making' your partner do something.

The guy obviously cares about sports and, while that may or may not be a super awesome thing, it's his interest, and his new wife is essentially spiting him and exerting control by forcing a "this or that//me or them" scenario. There's no danger that this will backfire or cause resentment!

False choices in relationships are terrible for the future of said relationship.

 

[KHarvey16]

I don't understand why anyone would attempt to judge meaning or importance as if everything existed in little bubbles, cut off from everything else. Even if you disallow the words meaningful and important applying to something like sports, you can't deny the affect sports, and more generally leisure and games, have on allowing human beings to achieve the goals you do assign import and meaning. For thousands of years humans have played and watched games and sports because we're a social species. I don't think you could find an academic who deals with human culture and society, an expert in important things if you will, who would deny the hugely important role these activities and interests have played, and will play, in human kind's story.

This is why it seems hugely naive to me to judge sports and games in a vacuum. Whether these things answer some important question or contribute to the well being of the society that answers these questions would seem a useless distinction in this context.

 

[Laughing Banana]

The development of this thread has been really fascinating.

To think that an article in Huffington Post from a wife who objects his husband watching Superbowl actually generated the kind of discussion on the last few pages...

 

[thetrin]

If a wife isn't willing to change the date of the wedding so it doesn't fall on the Super Bowl weekend, she isn't worth being with.

You would change the date of your WEDDING for a fucking football game? Seriously? Talk about messed up priorities.

Let me just say this: There is nothing in my life more important than family. The moment something like a fucking football game becomes more important than the living breathing human being you share your life with, shit is terribly terribly wrong.

That said, I'm very single, and very happily single. But I would never put any of my hobbies ahead of something like an anniversary.

The Super Bowl is so stupidly inconsequential that I can't even imagine that anyone is arguing that she was on the wrong.

For instance, for me, EVO is one of the biggest events of the year for me. I'm addicted to it. I absolutely love watching it. I had to miss the Street Fighter IV finals this year because my family wanted to go out for dinner and "be a family". I'm not even dating or married to any of these people. They're my cousins and my mother and there's no special occasion. I could have called my mom and said I was sick or something and stayed home and watched EVO. I didn't. That was still more important than EVO. Why? Because family is always what comes first. Not your hobbies, not your silly TV addiction. Family. That's all that matters in the end.

And yes, she's not family yet, but she may be one day, and she's worth treating that way.

I think it is the "I won" article that sucks the most...

No question that that is lame. Won't argue there.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I agree. I just hate seeing people actually let it affect them in a negative way. Like, seeing my Dad get stressed about it. Dude is old, it isn't worth it for him to care that much.

People are emotional, it's exactly that that makes life feel worthwhile, but it's worth it to really look at where your passions lie and try to see if maybe you could be doing things better. I mean, peoples' passion about sports ignite riots and such, and people actually do get physically hurt from things like this.

You're right that it's about balance, but in my opinion most people don't have this balanced optimally. It also speaks towards the primal mind creating divisions between people and using that to create prejudice and maladaptive attitudes regarding people in an out-group. Obviously in sports it is rarely a considerable issue, but it is the same mechanism that enables wars and such. Obviously the results of how this applies to these situations isn't comparable in effect, but still I think it is a factor worth taking seriously.

So you never get emotional over "stupid" things? I'm not sure what the whole looking down on others thing is by people who don't like sports in this thread.

 

[thetrin]

So you never get emotional over "stupid" things? I'm not sure what the whole looking down on others thing is by people who don't like sports in this thread.

I think passion for whatever your hobby is, is a wonderful thing. It's what makes us happy people. On the other hand, if you value sports over human relationships, that is just plain sick.

I would say the same about video games, btw. It has nothing to do with sports in particular.

 

[BobsRevenge]

So you never get emotional over "stupid" things? I'm not sure what the whole looking down on others thing is by people who don't like sports in this thread.

Of course I do. But I do try to pay attention to if it is affecting me or someone else in a negative way, or if I could improve it. It feels like a good practice, generally, and I feel happier for it. I seem to have a good effect on the people around me on account of it, as I actively mediate stupid heated conversations (mostly in my family) by being cool headed, rational, and sympathetic.

I feel more secure in my actions for it.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think passion for whatever your hobby is, is a wonderful thing. It's what makes us happy people. On the other hand, if you value sports over human relationships, that is just plain sick.

I would say the same about video games, btw. It has nothing to do with sports in particular.

Why does this situation represent anyone valuing sports over human relationships? Why is having an anniversary dinner on a specific day at a specific time representative of "human relationship"? Do they miss out on a human relationship if they were married the weekend before? Or after? Is having an anniversary lunch on years when the game falls on the wedding day a missed opportunity at a human relationship? Is a human relationship defined by the strict adherence to anniversary dinners?

What a strange way to look at this.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

I'd rather she not let me watch the game than her leave me for my best friend.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

You would change the date of your WEDDING for a fucking football game? Seriously? Talk about messed up priorities.

What kind of idiot would set his wedding date on the day of the superbowl? It's a sunday, sundays are for church (for those who are religious anyway) and football.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I think passion for whatever your hobby is, is a wonderful thing. It's what makes us happy people. On the other hand, if you value sports over human relationships, that is just plain sick.

I would say the same about video games, btw. It has nothing to do with sports in particular.

That's not what was being discussed at all. Maybe you should read the conversation before responding.

I'd rather she not let me watch the game than her leave me for my best friend.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

You would change the date of your WEDDING for a fucking football game? Seriously? Talk about messed up priorities.

Let me just say this: There is nothing in my life more important than family. The moment something like a fucking football game becomes more important than the living breathing human being you share your life with, shit is terribly terribly wrong.

That said, I'm very single, and very happily single. But I would never put any of my hobbies ahead of something like an anniversary.

The Super Bowl is so stupidly inconsequential that I can't even imagine that anyone is arguing that she was on the wrong.

For instance, for me, EVO is one of the biggest events of the year for me. I'm addicted to it. I absolutely love watching it. I had to miss the Street Fighter IV finals this year because my family wanted to go out for dinner and "be a family". I'm not even dating or married to any of these people. They're my cousins and my mother and there's no special occasion. I could have called my mom and said I was sick or something and stayed home and watched EVO. I didn't. That was still more important than EVO. Why? Because family is always what comes first. Not your hobbies, not your silly TV addiction. Family. That's all that matters in the end.

And yes, she's not family yet, but she may be one day, and she's worth treating that way.



No question that that is lame. Won't argue there.

it's not changing the date of the wedding, it's the fact that he is a sports photographer, has worked one Super bowl already, may do more in the future who knows when, and she is basically giving him an ultimatum of this date or none at all. she doesn't compromise and that comes off as very inmature and controlling.