]]>
]]>
steve wrote:I haven't reasoned-out why I prefer the company of cats to dogs, but I do. I find myself happier when I share time with a cat, even though my life hasn't improved any.
I like dogs just fine, but sometimes their behavior patterns remind me of certain types of people whom I dislike, which bugs me a little. They are pack animals after all. Still, I prefer an animal that serves as “man’s best friend” to a human being who feigns to act as such. I tend to prefer the personalities of most cats—independent, low key and normally reserved, but incredibly loyal and loving to their companions when treated likewise.
My girlfriend made me watch that animated “Cats and Dogs” movie. What a crock of shit (no surprise there). The neighborhood cats want to take over the world at the behest of an evil white-haired Persian mastermind, and only the local gang of dogs can prevent it from happening. That kind of fundamental misunderstanding and mistrust of the feline really pisses me off.
It’s also pretty repugnant that both cats and dogs have suffered the injustice of having their namesakes utilized as popular slang terms for people, as in “Where my dogs (dawgs?) at?” or “Those cats that played at the Blue Note were on a whole other level.” I think I’m going to start referring to my friends as fishes or chinchillas or some other domesticated animal, just to be fair.
-greasygoose
Statistics: Posted by greasygoose_Archive — Sun Oct 12, 2003 3:45 pm
]]>
Intern_8033 wrote:This has really gotten off subject...
You have a reason: She was pretty. You have a reason for preferring one marble to another, and so steal it from my collection: It was a blue glasseye, and you like blue glasseyes.
But if I'm going to treat a human being different from another human being based on some kind of external substance, I better have a reason. Likewise, if I'm going to get excited about a baseball team, which is just a variation of the human tendency to be jingoistic, it's unsettling to not have a reason.
You have a reason: She was pretty. You have a reason for preferring one marble to another, and so steal it from my collection: It was a blue glasseye, and you like blue glasseyes.
I agree with you, I don't think it's learned for a man to treat an unfamiliar woman better than an unfamiliar man -- I think it's awful and I don't think there is a way to deal with it, this dichotomy of intellectual reason and human nature.
You think it's awful that you were nice to a lady? What kind of an asshole would feel awful about being nice to someone?
If it implies to you that you could be nicer to other people as well (but aren't), then maybe you could feel awful about that.
Work being a generally nicer, more positive influence on the world: Steal fewer marbles, be conciously nicer to other people, take a wrench and fuck-up a rowdy "lifelong" Cubs fan... The possibiilities are endless.
best,
Statistics: Posted by steve_Archive — Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:14 pm
]]>
possessing an intelligence that allows him to divide the opposite sex into two distinct classes: Those which he would fuck, and those he would not.
And women aren't superficial, right? Have you read any of these online rock and roll tour diaries? Nine times out of ten it's the homely band member sitting forlornly post show at a kitchen table lamenting his failure to score while his bandmates get it on in the next room.
None of this changes the fact that discerning beauty is a learned behavior. When I think of my earliest infatuations they were not based on anything visual. I probably developed that social behavior, like most bad things, in junior high school. And don't give me any of these supposedly cross cultural studies that end up with everyone "blindly" choosing the same features as ideal. If you're cultured enough to understand the rules for these studies than you're by definition not "blind".
As for the second part of your post I can only say the term "human nature" has been bandied about far too loosely in this thread. The things you list are precisely the most artificial, de-natured or social manifestations of humanity. And I am in no way shape or form a hippy.
I guess it's God's way of telling us that we aren't supposed to be questioning these things.
You are Rush Limbaugh and I claim my five pounds.
Statistics: Posted by aes_Archive — Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:23 pm
]]>
Intern_8033 wrote:I hate that it is happening to me, the same way I hate when I am nice to a girl just because she is pretty. I feel like human nature is interfering with logic.
I don't understand why it is necessary to have a logical basis for an unconscious act. What's wrong with "human nature?" It has served our species well for millenia.
I haven't reasoned-out why I prefer the company of cats to dogs, but I do. I find myself happier when I share time with a cat, even though my life hasn't improved any.
I am also nicer to women than I am to men, to old people than post-collegiate bohemians, to kids than adults, to policemen than civilians. I think only a small part of this behavior is learned. The cops thing is, for sure.
I am questioning my tastes less and less as I age. Perhaps this is a weakness.
"Swifty Swifterson?" Jesus.
If the Cubs make it to the World Series, I have agreed to "root" for them. This is because I believe they will be in it against the Yankees, who I hate with a passion I reserve for them and this purpose alone.
best,
Statistics: Posted by steve_Archive — Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:56 am
]]>
Plus why are you working in a damn bank if you're living in a corn growing town? My god, get into corn.
Statistics: Posted by aes_Archive — Fri Oct 10, 2003 10:23 pm
]]>
Intern_8033 wrote:My problem with sports is that they're innately competitive, meaning, in order for you to be good, someone else must be bad. You could argue that this isn't true in theory, but it certainly is in practice.
Finally, I can reply to you, because I have a counter argument.
You can be good and bad all by yourself -- it doesn't require someone else. Baseball (uniquely, I think) is littered with brilliant players, recognized as such, who have elevated the game and done all the good things baseball can do for us, while playing for resoundingly bad (hopeless even) teams.
Gary Carter
Walter Johnson
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Piazza
Ron Santo
Eric Gagne
Rocco Baldelli
Ed Delahanty
Warren Spahn
There are also great (in some sense) players who know the desperate need to hang in there in a great game. These guys are clearly good, or they wouldn't be able to play at the professional level, but they are also no longer as good as they were. In some cases, they become "bad." They are doing it for reasons beyond "winning" or "competition," which escapes everyone over a long-enough career:
Ricky Henderson
Jesse Orosco
Wilber Wood
Satchel Paige
There is something special about baseball, and it has only a little bit to do with competition.
best,
Statistics: Posted by steve_Archive — Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:37 am
]]>
greasygoose wrote:
Intern_8033 wrote:when was the last time you listened to a Toto album, or wanted to?
i actually had the song 'Africa' in my head all night saturday and part of sunday morning...does that count?
andyk
Statistics: Posted by andteater_Archive — Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:04 am
]]>
there is a certain amount of energy that people have, and where we live a lot of that energy gets focused on seemingly complex subjects like sports. i don't necessarily think that's an all-together bad thing, but it is interesting to note that when people are effectively cut off from political participation, they have energy left over and they focus it on things like sports. people in some circles stand to get very rich off that while perpetuating the system that disconnected people from political activity in the first place. i personally think that people getting together and organizing games/leagues themselves (ala the electrons) goes beyond the sports culture to which chomsky was referring.
just a side note: i'm a cubs fan, sitting on my couch and watching the games with the rest of them.
Statistics: Posted by andrew_Archive — Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:15 pm
]]>
Intern_8033 wrote:My problem with sports is that they're innately competitive, meaning, in order for you to be good, someone else must be bad. You could argue that this isn't true in theory, but it certainly is in practice. Compare this to music, for example, which is regularly practiced as a self-contained process of challenging _yourself_, competing against _yourself_.
Practicing an instrument is no less competitive than playing catch with a friend or shooting a basketball. If performing music does not contain a competitive element, does that imply that one band is just as good as another? Granted, this competition might be perceived only by an audience (e.g. "the Shellac concert rocked, but the opening band was much better"). This is not so different from saying, "The Braves won the game because they are a better team than the Mets." The difference is that organized sports have more clearly-defined rules for recognizing accomplishments. Then again, the ancient Greeks wrote volumes about the rules of aesthetics, which sadly seem to have been lost on most artists today. Anyway, most musicians that I know don't really care whether they're seen as better or worse than anyone else, and as you say, they're only competing with themselves. I would reckon that most athletes feel pretty much the same way. If you are a shitty baseball player, you will likely have a hard time making a team. If you are a shitty musician, you will probably have a hard time getting people to listen to your music. In theory, music is a subjective expression of non-competitiveness; in practice, when was the last time you listened to a Toto album, or wanted to?
I think it’s better to be able to berate your team, than say, to beat your girlfriend.
Why choose one when you can have both?
Point well taken. I'll have to try that next time my team blows an 8-3 lead in the eighth inning.
Statistics: Posted by greasygoose_Archive — Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:06 pm
]]>
boy, you got me there (?!)
many reductionist absurdities at hand, but i'm baffled by much of the rest of what you are trying to say, which probably reflects badly on one of us--not sure which
>>My problem with sports is that they're innately competitive, meaning, in order for you to be good, someone else must be bad. You could argue that this isn't true in theory, but it certainly is in practice.
the good/bad dichotomy is not true in practice, in anything near every instance, for anyone who pays attention to sports beyond the _sportscenter_ level of paying attention to sports
as to competition, well...that's life outside of sweden or holland for you. part of my point is noncompetitors are the ones who are obsessed with winning and losing as outputs of competition. of COURSE you WANT to win if you bother to compete in the first place. but to focus solely on winning and losing is to ignore many of the most interesting parts of competing--vital parts of sports, owning a small business, going to school, whatever. athletes often say they 'only care about winning,' but they're lying--it's a canard that is well thought of among sports journalists and is therefore perpetuated at every turn. uniformly, after their careers are over, athletes sing a different tune. clearly they draw sustenance from the experience of competition, even apart from crushing their foes. it's some fraction of that sustenance that draws people to watch and study and obsess over sports, perhaps unhealthily at times.
Statistics: Posted by tmidgett_Archive — Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:19 pm
]]>
Intern_8033 wrote:My problem with sports is that they're innately competitive, meaning, in order for you to be good, someone else must be bad. You could argue that this isn't true in theory, but it certainly is in practice. Compare this to music, for example, which is regularly practiced as a self-contained process of challenging _yourself_, competing against _yourself_.
baseball can be "regularly practiced as a self-contained process of challening [ones self]"
i do this when i spend an hour at the batting cages, working on hitting the ball the opposite way. its done taking ground balls or simulating a game in your head while you practice pitching against a backstop, etc. etc.
in the same sense, while we can assume that a majority of the people who post on this board are members of the "indie-rock" community and tend to follow the DIY aethstetic / ideals that come with that tag (and therefore dont think of their music as competition)... in my dealings with musicians over the past five or so years, i can definately say that many musicians are extremely competitive, their goal being to "make it big"
"in order for you to be good, someone else must be bad"
i think that applies to everything in life, not just baseball and music.
andyk
Statistics: Posted by andteater_Archive — Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:05 pm
]]>
i listen to sports radio throughout my workday and i hear people call in who get so angry about the way cubs management has fucked over the fans --- but at the same time, whenever topics roll over to somewhat political issues that seem like pretty close example of the cubs mess, people seem not to care or be extremely uninformed. (this was pretty evident in the beginning of the year with the developing war in iraq)
in any case, i love baseball. i love football. i love basketball. and i think chomsky seems to be stereotyping sports fans.
some people are real assholes but there are also some that just love the way it feels when you slide into second base, non sexually speaking.
andyk (whom some refer to as andrew)
andrew wrote:i'm sure we all went to high school with people who seemed to be the least interested or motivated creatures on earth but were able to analyze sports much better than we could analyze anything, ever.
it's nice to see that intern_8033 is a fellow andrew. i respect that in a man.
Statistics: Posted by andteater_Archive — Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:37 pm
]]>
steve wrote: I am a bad baseball player.
now, now, steve...you caught a mean fast ball between innings once, don't forget about that!!
regards, jet.
Statistics: Posted by jevat_Archive — Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:51 pm
]]>