Is it pointless if it makes you happy though? [/quote]
Yes. [/quote]
Agree to disagree.
[quote]
[quote]
Yes, sports are over hyped kids games; however, I think sports, and entertainment more generally, help people in a lot of way you aren’t giving due credit. [/quote]
Such as? [/quote]
The play 60 program, Gronk going to see little kids in the hospital, all the charity organizations the players make, etc…
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
It likely does the opposite by taking resources that would be better suited to being spent on shit that actually matters. [/quote]
That’s Capitalism for you. [/quote]
lol… You’re missing the point on purpose here. [/quote]
Money would be better served elsewhere; however, that isn’t what people choose to spend their money on. As you well know capitalism is predicated on market demand and people would rather spend all their money on sports than a cure for Cancer. That’s the downside of the system.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
however, that isn’t what people choose to spend their money on. As you well know capitalism is predicated on market demand and people would rather spend all their money on sports than a cure for Cancer.[/quote]
It’s a chicken and egg thing. Do they prefer to piss away money on paying way too much to watch grown men play a kids game over curing cancer? No. Not likely. I’m sure if everyone knew the grand they piss away going to a game on a Sunday could actually cure cancer, 99% would stay home and donate that grand.
They piss away their money because they are selfish and ultimately savage people. Look at the very first part of this post. You’re justify it because it “feels good”, and that appears to be good enough. Not that it actual has any value, but because it feels good.
[quote] That’s the downside of the system.
[/quote]
Not really. The government provided bread and circuses under different economic systems too. Capitalism just allows one to be free to stupid.
I know you better than to expect you to continue to blame capitalism for our short comings as a society.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
however, that isn’t what people choose to spend their money on. As you well know capitalism is predicated on market demand and people would rather spend all their money on sports than a cure for Cancer.[/quote]
It’s a chicken and egg thing. Do they prefer to piss away money on paying way too much to watch grown men play a kids game over curing cancer? No. Not likely. I’m sure if everyone knew the grand they piss away going to a game on a Sunday could actually cure cancer, 99% would stay home and donate that grand. [/quote]
I mean, maybe, but everyone is well aware that they could spend that grand on research vs football. I would, but I don’t piss away any money on the NFL unless you count food on Sunday I guess. I refuse to pay for tickets, clothing, etc… I’ve never paid for a Raven’s ticket and I’ve never seen a game at M&T Bank stadium.
[quote]
They piss away their money because they are selfish and ultimately savage people. [/quote]
That’s a bit harsh and borderline ridiculous. It’s your opinion that it’s a waste of money, but it is their money to spend.
[quote]
Look at the very first part of this post. You’re justify it because it “feels good”, and that appears to be good enough. Not that it actual has any value, but because it feels good. [/quote]
I’m not justifying anything, I’m offering a different perspective.
Feeling good is valuable, in it’s own way. Some people need exterior forces to feel good. I think that’s ridiculous too because I don’t but I’m not like everyone else and everyone else isn’t like me so I won’t judge how others derive their worth.
Not really. The government provided bread and circuses under different economic systems too. Capitalism just allows one to be free to stupid. [/quote]
The downside is that people get to choose what to spend their money on and it isn’t always the most productive of choices. I’d rather see many of these people put that grand in their 401(k), but it isn’t my money.
If you’re going to rail against the NFL then you need to be prepared to argue that every form of entertainment should be abolished so that the proceeds can be applied towards…what was it? Cancer research?
No TV, no movies, no books, no music, no sports of any kind, no theater. In fact, no forms of recreation at all until we’ve defeated cancer.
As an aside, the season starts in 108 days, 5 hours, 21 minutes, and 30 seconds. Sorry, man, but leukemia is going to have to wait.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you’re going to rail against the NFL then you need to be prepared to argue that every form of entertainment should be abolished so that the proceeds can be applied towards…what was it? Cancer research?
No TV, no movies, no books, no music, no sports of any kind, no theater. In fact, no forms of recreation at all until we’ve defeated cancer.
People need sports specifically and recreation in general precisely because cancer exists. Life is hard and there’s a whole lot of pain and suffering involved. People need something to look forward to and that something is Sunday afternoons (and Monday evenings if your team doesn’t cover the spread).
My dad died of a heart attack. I can sit in my house and sit around with my kids until every last heart attack has been prevented or I can take my kids up to Lake Forest to watch the Bears practice and instill in them a love of the game the way my dad instilled it in me. Which makes for a better world?
They piss away their money because they are selfish and ultimately savage people. [/quote]
That’s a bit harsh and borderline ridiculous. It’s your opinion that it’s a waste of money, but it is their money to spend. [/quote]
Spending as much as we do on entertainment isn’t savage?
A Hollywood actor gets millions of dollars to play pretend. A QB gets millions of dollars to play a game. A teacher is lucky to make 6 figures. A solder? Fire fighter?
And let’s say that the percentage that give back through charities are actually breaking the “moral bank” even, which I doubt they are, but let’s for arguments sake say it is…
It’s entertainment… An excuse to get drunk… There is no enrichment.
I understand wanting to escape once in awhile, but as often as we do? Our lives aren’t that hard here.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
People need sports specifically and recreation in general precisely because cancer exists. Life is hard and there’s a whole lot of pain and suffering involved. People need something to look forward to and that something is Sunday afternoons (and Monday evenings if your team doesn’t cover the spread).
My dad died of a heart attack. I can sit in my house and sit around with my kids until every last heart attack has been prevented or I can take my kids up to Lake Forest to watch the Bears practice and instill in them a love of the game the way my dad instilled it in me. Which makes for a better world?[/quote]
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you’re going to rail against the NFL then you need to be prepared to argue that every form of entertainment should be abolished so that the proceeds can be applied towards…what was it? Cancer research?
No TV, no movies, no books, no music, no sports of any kind, no theater. In fact, no forms of recreation at all until we’ve defeated cancer.
[/quote]
Yup, basically this. [/quote]
Nope, not even close. That isn’t at all what I’m saying. But then again if you had to actually address my point without this nonsense you might just agree it’s a giant waste of time.
They piss away their money because they are selfish and ultimately savage people. [/quote]
That’s a bit harsh and borderline ridiculous. It’s your opinion that it’s a waste of money, but it is their money to spend. [/quote]
Spending as much as we do on entertainment isn’t savage?
A Hollywood actor gets millions of dollars to play pretend. A QB gets millions of dollars to play a game. A teacher is lucky to make 6 figures. A solder? Fire fighter? [/quote]
I love capitalism, but that is the biggest draw back. People would rather spend money on entertainment than education as of right now. That’s the world we live in. I don’t know what else to say about it.
Ya, it’s “savage” I guess. What is the alternative?
Do you want to force people to spend money on education, cancer research, etc…?
That’s rhetorical, I know you do not.
[quote]
And let’s say that the percentage that give back through charities are actually breaking the “moral bank” even, which I doubt they are, but let’s for arguments sake say it is…
It’s entertainment… An excuse to get drunk… There is no enrichment.
I understand wanting to escape once in awhile, but as often as we do? Our lives aren’t that hard here. [/quote]
You’re generalizing.
For every drunk watching the game there are fathers bonding with sons. For every slob that acts a fool (a lesson in its own right) there’s are lessons being taught about competition, team work, grit, etc… For every Ray Rice there’s a Larry Fitzgerald.
If you can’t see the value in this “kids game” I don’t know what to tell you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
They piss away their money because they are selfish and ultimately savage people. You’re justify it because it “feels good”, and that appears to be good enough. Not that it actual has any value, but because it feels good.
[/quote]
I’ve said my 2 cents and am stepping away, but is this your point? That people are selfish and savage? And that they do things that feel good but have no value?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you’re going to rail against the NFL then you need to be prepared to argue that every form of entertainment should be abolished so that the proceeds can be applied towards…what was it? Cancer research?
No TV, no movies, no books, no music, no sports of any kind, no theater. In fact, no forms of recreation at all until we’ve defeated cancer.
[/quote]
Yup, basically this. [/quote]
Nope, not even close. That isn’t at all what I’m saying. But then again if you had to actually address my point without this nonsense you might just agree it’s a giant waste of time. [/quote]
I would consider us T-Nation buddies and I have to say, as your buddy, you resort to a variation of this post a lot. It is what you’re saying. If it isn’t what you mean then you aren’t conveying it very well.
I’ve taken from your posts that you think spending money on football has no value and is a waste of money. Money that would be better suited to improve society. Is that not a fair assessment of your posts? If not, then please correct it.
What Dr. P did was simply take that position to it’s logical conclusion. Avengers: Age of Ultron has made like $150M last I saw. That’s $150M that could of been used to fund cancer research; therefore, using your logic (as conveyed here), the people that spent money on the movie (I am one) are savages. Is that not what you’re saying?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
They piss away their money because they are selfish and ultimately savage people. You’re justify it because it “feels good”, and that appears to be good enough. Not that it actual has any value, but because it feels good.
[/quote]
I’ve said my 2 cents and am stepping away, but is this your point? That people are selfish and savage? And that they do things that feel good but have no value?
[/quote]
Relative to the amount of effort we tend to put into actually important things? Yes.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
They piss away their money because they are selfish and ultimately savage people. You’re justify it because it “feels good”, and that appears to be good enough. Not that it actual has any value, but because it feels good.
[/quote]
I’ve said my 2 cents and am stepping away, but is this your point? That people are selfish and savage? And that they do things that feel good but have no value?
[/quote]
Relative to the amount of effort we tend to put into actually important things? Yes.
[/quote]
I use to work for Johns Hopkins University. My job was to setup grants and report on research grants the university received through public and private funds. We are talking tens of millions of dollars here and I only dealt with a handful of departments within the School of Medicine.
My point is, I don’t think you’re giving enough credit to the “effort.”
What Dr. P did was simply take that position to it’s logical conclusion.[/quote]
No, he took it to hyperbole land to try and frame my point as ridiculous. I can’t for the life of me think of the logical fallacy this is, but it is one, lol.
When in fact, neither my point nor enjoyment of the game are ridiculous. What’s ridiculous is the amount of energy, effort and most importantly resources (including time) is spent on games and entertainment.
If I use this “a lot” then so be it. Doesn’t make me wrong.
[quote] Avengers: Age of Ultron has made like $150M last I saw. That’s $150M that could of been used to fund cancer research; therefore, using your logic (as conveyed here), the people that spent money on the movie (I am one) are savages. Is that not what you’re saying?
[/quote]
Individually, no one is a savage. Collectively, our culture savagely pursuing the ever elusive.
I had someone tell me once that the first time you do coke, it is like seeing god, heaven for an instant. And every subsequent time it is less and less enjoyable, but you continue to do it chasing that first high, knowing you’ll never get it again.
All I’m doing is pointing out how we’re doing just that. I don’t think there are any lessons one can teach their children at a football game that can’t be taught elsewhere, nor any bonding that can’t be had elsewhere.
Am I projecting what I don’t like about myself here? Sure. Does that mean I’m going to stop? Nah… Not today.
I never said abolish anything. The same bullshit arguments were used against me in the Miley Cirus thread awhile ago.
I never wanted to ban anything, and never even suggested we make anything against the rules. I simply asked if maybe we should reevaluate our positions on things.
What Dr. P did was simply take that position to it’s logical conclusion.[/quote]
No, he took it to hyperbole land to try and frame my point as ridiculous. I can’t for the life of me think of the logical fallacy this is, but it is one, lol.
When in fact, neither my point nor enjoyment of the game are ridiculous. What’s ridiculous is the amount of energy, effort and most importantly resources (including time) is spent on games and entertainment.
If I use this “a lot” then so be it. Doesn’t make me wrong. [/quote]
All of those other forms of entertainment require the same amount of energy, effort, and most importantly resources (including time), as football. All of those resources could be allocated to bettering society. It’s the same thing.
Individually, no one is a savage. Collectively, our culture savagely pursuing the ever elusive.
I had someone tell me once that the first time you do coke, it is like seeing god, heaven for an instant. And every subsequent time it is less and less enjoyable, but you continue to do it chasing that first high, knowing you’ll never get it again. All I’m doing is pointing out how we’re doing just that. [/quote]
I’m not going to touch this analogy with a ten foot pole.
[quote]
I don’t think there are any lessons one can teach their children at a football game that can’t be taught elsewhere, nor any bonding that can’t be had elsewhere. [/quote]
The point is the lessons exit. The bonding exists. Which means, at the very least, the NFL has value in those two things alone.
The fact that lessons can be learned and bonding can occur elsewhere is irrelevant.
[quote]
Am I projecting what I don’t like about myself here? Sure. Does that mean I’m going to stop? Nah… Not today. [/quote]
