Yeah just like I wouldn't get married on Christmas or July 4th.
Edit: Oh wait. Single people advice.
Carry on.
Why I'm Making My Husband Miss The Super Bowl
- Thread starter neutralgamer02
- Start date
- Status
Yeah just like I wouldn't get married on Christmas or July 4th.
Edit: Oh wait. Single people advice.
Carry on.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
In this particularly scenario, husband really loves to watch/involving himself in the sports game. Don't you think allowing his husband to revel in what he enjoys very much even at the cost of "sacrificing" (though this is such an overly exaggerated word) her needs and wants is actually the very act of valuing human relationships?
Although I do agree that some sport fans can be very, very crazy indeed.
BaltimoreLarry
Member
Just giving some perspective. Some sad, sad perspective.
I'm doing fine, just making jokes. DONT PITY ME!!
Amory
Member
Last wedding I went to was on fourth of july weekend. The one before that was on labor day weekend. And both times I was vaguely pissed.
I wouldn't get married on super bowl weekend because I'd have some respect for my guests' time and not treat my wedding like the center of everyone's universe.
You're right. A gesture that says "Of course sweetie, I'd love to celebrate the day we committed our lives to one another with you just as long as there isn't something I'd rather watch on television" would have meant so much.
And you of course define "celebrate the day" as only specifically being dinner on the precise date they were married. Why?
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Once every 7 years... to be fair.
I think you're hung up on the sports aspect too much. I was offended by the condescending nature of his post that started the discussion before it turned into a semantics argument. I thought he was going to reword the way he said it because it came off as ignorant (which is why I called him out), but pages later he was still at it.
I think you're misunderstanding me still. I am not saying people cannot be passionate about other things; I'm saying that some things people are passionate about are silly or childish. That's it: all of this discussion has been in defense of that fairly straightforward concept.
For example, I like Baseball. I enjoy watching it, and very much enjoy analyzing it. However, I fully recognize that it is childish. It is perfectly possible to enjoy something and still recognize that it is puerile, or facile, or juvenile, or any combination thereof. And again, I don't quite understand why that upsets people so much.
I asked why you felt my analogy was poor; you explicitly stated you did not want to answer. I also asked a question here.
I'm not sure what the problem is here: empirical evidence does indeed suggest that sports are more conservative and are also more religious (start at page 259 if you'd like to do a full reading). If you believe this isn't true, feel free to provide contrasting evidence.
I feel it's sort of absurd that I would even have to answer this question. Of course there are trends that one can track through different strata of society.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
That makes the third time you've missed something I've posted, or incorrectly attributed words to me. I'm done discussing anything further with you on this topic. Deleting this thread from my subscriptions.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
I would set my wedding on a sunday. Sunday is cleaning day for me.
It's a football game, not sitting by the deathbed his best friend as he breathes his last breadth. What he wants to do is significantly less important than what she is asking.
Right. Because I'm currently single, my opinion goes right out the window. How convenient.
Xmas and July 4th are National Holidays. Xmas (or the winter solstice) have been celebrated for hundreds of years. July 4th is a celebration of the independence that Americans fought to create and preserve.
The Super Bowl is some guys who make way too much money, running down an astro turf field with a ball.
It's seriously not the same thing, and to think it's in the same league as a national holiday is complete insanity. Americans and sports. I don't get you guys.
Things Football is more important than:
1) What kind of dip you should eat with your chips.
2) Nothing else.
Seriously? You were pissed that you were slightly inconvenienced by someone's offer to have you share in an amazing moment in their lives? Wow.
Thank you, I did miss that -- I apologize, as there have been an enormous number of posts addressed to me in this thread. However, you still don't understand analogies. What you are looking for is equivalence (where two things are alike in all ways), which is not what an analogy is, by definition. Two things can be wildly different in many aspects but analogous in others. In fact, analogies are logically constructed by taking two disparate concepts and showing how they are nonetheless similar in some specific regard.
For example, a musical note and an ocean wave are analogous in that they can both be modeled by sinusoidal algorithms. That does not mean that those things are exactly equivalent; one is something which occurs in the ocean and involves water and can kill people, the other is an artistic concept that has no visible manifestation. They are so different! And yet, in some ways, they are analogous. To invoke the false analogy logical fallacy, you would need to show that the comparison through which the analogy is drawn is illogical or unreasonable.
As to the topic more generally: can I call anything childish or puerile? That's an honest question. Or am I being condescending if I describe anything ever created as puerile? If I refer to the Transformers cartoon as childish, for example?
freenudemacusers
Member
99% of the time they are awful. Like leather blazers.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Leather blazers totally work if they're burned and then not worn by anyone ever.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Well nobody will like that the things they love involving themselves in are called juvenile, childish, puerile, or any other similar terms like that. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
And I apologize beforehand, but from my personal point of view you were being condescending towards others in this thread. Not saying your opinion is wrong or anything though... (although I disagree with it)
It is, yes. I have openly admitted that several of the things I like are childish and silly. Is it hard for other people to admit the same? That's an honest question as well. This has already been informative.
I'm just not sure how to help this. Let's move away from sports for a second, and use a different example that is popular on GAF: My Little Pony. I think one can reasonably say that My Little Pony is childish and silly, as it is explicitly targeted at children. That does not mean that you cannot enjoy it, obviously.
Am I being condescending if I state that My Little Pony is childish? Even if I take specific and repeated care to point out that I also can enjoy some childish things? It seems like a statement of fact, to me. I don't know what else to say.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Wouldn't it be convenient to have your anniversary fall on a federal holiday? I can understand being pissed if it was on Christmas or new years bit nobody does anything besides watch fire works and barbecue on July 4th, and labor day.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Yes it is, because everyone thinks they're a big bad adult just like society wants them to be. People are constantly afraid of their adult image, because being childish is a threat to their perceived masculinity.
Do people even do ANYTHING on Labor day besides pack up the white shoes?
I agree, but it's not beyond me to appreciate the fact that some people actually enjoy those things, and I certainly don't think higher of myself because I don't partake in them.
Can you see how this initial post, specifically the bolded parts, could be taken as condescending? That's what sparked the need for argument from me, and it's all I've wanted you to address from the beginning:
(I'm not offended by the activities in question, so you can replace sports and games with anything.)
You're say you're "legitimately shocked" that a group of people could be passionate about something... almost as if you can't comprehend how it's possible because you're above those activities. And then you say "correctly understand" as if your thoughts on the value of the activity in question is the standard.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
You appear to be a highly intelligent person, but... how should I say this...., it baffles me that you seem to be mystified by such a basic and standard human nature/behavior.
Are you suggesting that things such as Super Bowl or any other serious, competitive sporting events (say for example, World Cup or Wimbledon) are comparable to stuff like My Little Pony or Transformer cartoons? That............ is a stretch, to put it mildly, isn't it?
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Are you saying they're not comparable? What makes professional sports more serious? What makes them more adult? More mature?
There's no intellectual pursuit in enjoying sports. There's no cerebral conundrum to overcome while watching sports. What is so serious about it? It's dumb fun, just like any other dumb thing we love to watch/play.
Video games. TV shows. Sports. Cartoons. Amusement Parks. It's all dumb fun that isn't serious at all.
Sports don't transcend that, no matter how much fans wish it would.
You can be passionate about something without kidding yourself into believing it's meaningful and important.
I love video games. I'm very passionate about gaming. I get into very heated discussions about video games. I still understand that video games are stupid and inconsequential.
No, that it is not what I am saying. You are still misunderstanding me. I am not shocked that people can be passionate about something. I am legitimately shocked because people insisted it was "meaningful," and that sports were not "trivial and silly."
Those are my exact words. As another extreme example to clarify the concept, I have no problem with someone liking My Little Pony. If that's what you enjoy, that's great! However, I do have a problem if, in addition to enjoying My Little Pony, you try to argue that the show is a heartbreaking work of staggering genius, rivaling the greatest works of the Western literary canon.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
*Sarcasm detector explodes*
All I can say is that it isn't my nature, as I hope I have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread. It isn't that I don't believe you, mind you. I am, for example, aware that many people have trouble apologizing and admitting they are wrong, which is conceptually similar. However, I pride myself on my ability to admit wrongness and apologize (Which I have done several times in this thread, and even on this page). I can even state this right now: I am frequently wrong and have made several errors (both small and large) in this thread. I apologize to those I offended, as it wasn't intentional (I have said that before as well). In other ways, I am completely typical and usual and readily grasp "normal" behaviors.
At the moment, we're simply establishing a concept. If we can agree that some things are childish, is it necessarily condescending to state that out loud?
Dark Octave
Banned
Superbowl is once a year.
Eating with the wife is everyday for the rest of your life.
But with that said, I couldn't care less about the Superbowl this year.
Eating with the wife is everyday for the rest of your life.
But with that said, I couldn't care less about the Superbowl this year.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Pinkie Pie > Jay Gatsby.
freenudemacusers
Member
Maybe I've missed something in this thread, but if I don't read classic literature or watch MLP, they no longer function, correct? Or is this a separate conceit?
I'm not misunderstanding you. I already said the issue I had with your post had nothing to do with what you were calling childish, it was the way you called it childish as if your system of value was the standard.
People perceive it as an attack on their personal preference when you refer to their hobbies and interests as childish or puerile. Those terms have negative connotations in modern day culture. Adults do not want to be viewed as children and become defensive when these terms are used. (I personally think it's a shame that enjoying childish things or being viewed as enjoying childish things is frowned upon, but that's a separate discussion.) Most people are just not comfortable with it, and will take offense if you call their activities as such.
This all seems pretty intuitive to me. I feel like as an intelligent and logical poster, they should be apparent to you as well.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I think most are just overcome by their initial shock of your statement, and in their state of offense, overlook what you are trying to say, thus leading to misunderstanding.
To summarize your position, particular sports such as football have a lot of significance and importance, and yes, even meaning (subjective meaning) for humans, but it is all ultimately superficial since the value of football is solely a construct of the human mind. It requires the existence of humans to have any kind of meaning at all, unlike the laws of thermodynamics which persist and have meaning in the universe whether humans are around to understand it or not.
That's pretty much what you're trying to say, yes?
Most people are only hearing the first part, the "football has no meaning" part, and assume that you are discounting all the positive influences football and sports as a whole has on the human condition. Which I don't think you are, since you acknowledge that you love baseball.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Other than Football being a far safer evolution of the greco-roman gladiatorial sport, what meaning does football hold for you? I only ask because I didn't grow up around sports (my Dad hates sports, so my common hobbies with my father were comic books and movies)
Sports hold zero meaning for me. I played sports for years in school, and still don't understand the point of watching other people play sports.
I have to admit, I don't understand why people are so offended. People call video games dumb and stupid all the time, and we hear equally disparaging words about comic books on this very forum.
The discussion of functionality and inherent, objective meaning was a breakdown of discussion in to the most very basic philosophical elements -- it only arose because a position I originally thought was not objectionable (sports are silly, meaningless fun) was clearly very objectionable. I could have just left the thread, but we frown on that behavior on GAF; so eventually, I felt compelled to defend this concept at the most basic levels.
At this point, we've returned to slightly less basic and fundamental discussion, where we assume some basic axioms, such as "health is important" and "intelligence is a good thing." If those very common axioms can be accepted, then discussion of objective or inherent function really isn't necessary any longer.
But to answer the question; function isn't determined by use (or lack thereof). Special relativity still functions whether you happen to know it exists or not, whether you harness its properties to use cell phones or not, and so forth. Similarly, an objectively valuable book or TV show would not need your observation to grant it meaning.
I'm not sure what the problem is here: empirical evidence does indeed suggest that sports are more conservative and are also more religious (start at page 259 if you'd like to do a full reading). If you believe this isn't true, feel free to provide contrasting evidence.
I feel it's sort of absurd that I would even have to answer this question. Of course there are trends that one can track through different strata of society.[/QUOTE]
218k people interviewed by Scarborough Research™ who consider themselves "a leading authority on local market information." and they can't even provide the details on which parts of the nation they conducted these 'interviews'. Not state or county, not even race. They may have conducted this research anywhere and you know political preference varies area-by-area. Doesn't matter how old or what sport they watch.
Then for some reason, this was analyzed by Researchers at National Media Inc., a GOP firm.
No, I'm not reading the book you recommended.
I feel it's sort of absurd that I would even have to answer this question. Of course there are trends that one can track through different strata of society.[/QUOTE]
218k people interviewed by Scarborough Research™ who consider themselves "a leading authority on local market information." and they can't even provide the details on which parts of the nation they conducted these 'interviews'. Not state or county, not even race. They may have conducted this research anywhere and you know political preference varies area-by-area. Doesn't matter how old or what sport they watch.
Then for some reason, this was analyzed by Researchers at National Media Inc., a GOP firm.
No, I'm not reading the book you recommended.
If you replace "childish with "immature," then I think you will find your answer. People equate childish with immaturity and I think most adults would find being called immature insulting.
Even when I stated this in the very post you quoted?
me said:
It isn't intuitive to me, I'm sorry. I think this stems from my personal thought processes; again, I don't happen to think this way. It certainly makes more sense if that's the case, however, and ties in with other observations already mentioned (e.g. that people do not like admitting to being wrong or apologizing).
That's the argument at its most basic level, yes. But I do feel the argument was only driven to those extremes because people objected so strongly -- I had no intention of starting an epistemological debate in a super bowl thread, but I also did not want to upset people and then not explain myself, either. I had simply assumed that most people would recognize that sports are ultimately trivial, like video games, or shoe fashion, or any other myriad hobbies and pass times which we have also constructed meaning around.
I wonder how many people were pissed at her on her wedding day. "It's not a busy travelling day! Come celebrate with us! 
" "I will fucking END you, bitch!"
Really she sounds kind of crazy and insisted on this day being their wedding day as a test of his love. Very insecure about her place in his life, I think. She obviously knew this was important to him. Plenty of people manage to have weddings on day's other than the Superbowl. How DO they do it?
" "I will fucking END you, bitch!"Really she sounds kind of crazy and insisted on this day being their wedding day as a test of his love. Very insecure about her place in his life, I think. She obviously knew this was important to him. Plenty of people manage to have weddings on day's other than the Superbowl. How DO they do it?
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Sports: Somehow more important than everything else.
If he had insisted on moving their wedding for a regular season game then all right. But why did it HAVE to be the one day of the year that is the World Championship? Why not Saturday or one weekend later?
Let's be real here. It had to be THAT day because honey needed some affirmation.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
That's just it, though, not everyone is conforming to your values/standards, so it is pretty easy to understand why people might find your tone/words condescending.
Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're basically saying that in the grand scheme of things, you consider sports as something that is fundamentally unnecessary?
Okay, so you refuse to read one of my provided sources, and aren't convinced by the second because it comes from a Republican firm. Since you are very concerned that I provide as much evidence as possible to support my claim, here is more:
http://andrewgelman.com/2009/01/sports_fans_as/
Here is the full study cited in the National Journal:
At this link.
I ask again: can you provide your own evidence? Because you seem to strongly disagree, and refuse to read much of the data provided. It would be appreciated if the burden of evidence was not one sided. I am happy to listen to and read contrary data.
So do you think any objectively valuable books/tv shows/films exist? Or is there no such thing as objectively meaningful art since art demands observation (unless an artist creates solely fr his own sake)?
These aren't personal standards, though. I'm using as objective a standard as I possibly can, which I have repeatedly detailed as best I can.
I'm saying they serve no objective value. Satellites, for example, operate in part based on the principles of electromagnetism and special relativity. Even if you do not personally believe in those principles, or find them boring, the satellites still work and you can still use the cell phones which only function because we have harnessed those principles. Even if nobody cared about those principles at all, or knew they existed, they would still be in operation and still be affecting our universe.
By contrast, Football only matters as long as we happen to decide to care about it. In fact, if I were to observe France instead of the US, poof, the power of Football to be entertaining would suddenly vanish in to thin air. Imagine if moving to France made gravity stop working, or modern medicine stop functioning, or cell phones die.
braves01 said:
Speaking elementarily again: it may, but our ability to measure these qualities does not exist yet. For example, I hardly think it's controversial to suggest that Tolstoy (who I do not personally like, and I choose him for this reason) is a more intellectually sophisticated writer than Norman Bridwell, who wrote Clifford, the Big Red Dog. But how do we show this? We can say "it's obvious," but we don't actually have an "idea complexity-o-meter" which accurately and objectively measures this. At least, not yet. I would compare this to M theory (which is a particular strain of string theory); it may be true, but our ability to measure its veracity is non existent. Similarly, an objectively valuable book may exist, but we aren't yet advanced enough to measure this specific arena well. A big part of the problem is our nascent understanding of neuroscience.
Our problem isn't our nascent understanding of neuroscience. Not everything in the human condition needs to be explained mathematically. Tolstoy may be a more complex author than the guy who wrote Clifford but it doesn't really matter at all. One could argue Clifford has had a bigger impact in the world as he is a childhood staple while most people have not read Tolstoy. This is what people I think here have issue with. Some things in society and culture will never and can never be broken down into grand truths. Who would want to live in a society where everything that is created is given a numerical value in terms of worth and value? This is an incredibly sad way to picture the world.
I know this doesn't matter and doesn't refute anything but I moved to China and football is still entertaining for me
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
He's not telling you how to live your life, he's just saying that if you're going to objectively measure something that is mostly subjective in nature such as literature, you're going to have to eventually quantify it somehow in order to to find a common metric of comparison that makes sense.
Otherwise, when debating matters of subjectivity, it's just a matter of taste and "this is better", and "no you're wrong, this is better" "why?" "because"
Which is why you shouldn't be looking to objectively measure something that is entirely subjective in the first place. If you are trying to objectively measure than you are in fact telling someone how to live their life because you will attach numbers of worth to how people choose to live. Objectivity should not have a place in terms of what someone decides to do with their time especially when we are talking about god damn hobbies.
I still say there's a fundamental difference between having an anniversary dinner at the same time as another event because this is a good time for dinner/we always have anniversary dinner at this time, and specifically scheduling an anniversary dinner at a certain time to interrupt something important to your spouse, as a "test".
Red Blaster
Member
Calling it a known unknown doesn't answer his question. If we are to assume you are consistent in your viewpoint, no piece of art or creative work in the history of mankind holds any sort of value as those items are intrinsically linked to subjective interpretation. And that's fine; it is your opinion as directed by your perspective. You can hold your opinion that sports are meaningless just as must as the rest of us can criticize that opinion as reductionist and myopic.
Again, I'm not saying you can't do something, just that some behaviors may be less ideal or less objectively valuable than others.
Let's take the discussion away from sports again, for a moment. Would I suggest eating lots of hostess cupcakes should be disallowed? No. Would suggest that I be allowed tell people how to spend their time, and then prohibit cupcake consumption? Of course not! If you you enjoy hostess cupcakes, go ahead and eat them.
But outside of very extreme circumstances, eating lots of hostess cupcakes is objectively bad for your health. Saying that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the cupcakes anyway; it's just a statement of fact. There are healthier things to eat that will benefit you more longer term. Providing this objective information does not mean I am preventing you from eating hostess cupcakes.
Similarly, saying Football is ultimately meaningless does not mean that I hereby decree that you cannot enjoy football (or My Little Pony, etc.) I do think several people are misunderstanding this, so I presume the error is on my end. Let me state it broadly: stating that some things are objectively more meaningful than other things does not mean people should be forced to engage only in the the most objectively meaningful things.
- Status