Political Cartoons

Who made you the arbiter of what matters and what doesn't?

From:

unnamed525.livejournal.com

If your priorities are so twisted that you think that sports are actually important for anything more than mere entertainment, then there's no chance of arguing rationally with you.

From:

Watching and participating in sports makes people happy. Who are you to tell them what makes them happy is wrong.

From:

unnamed525.livejournal.com

What kind of stupid question is that? Oh, I know, just the kind of stupid question that would come out of a conservatard like yourself.

From:

Bazinga!

From:

Just because something makes you happy does not mean that the causer of happiness is in any way important. In fact, the important things in life should be things that do NOT make you happy. Happiness is frivolity.

From:

You're right, pretty much everything we do that isn't slaving away in the salt mines is frivolity.

From:

*sighs* Sometimes I wish you would actually be serious so as to have actual discussion.

From:

Says the person who thinks "Happiness is frivolity"?

From:

“Happiness comes in small doses folks. It's a cigarette butt, or a chocolate chip cookie or a five second orgasm. You come, you smoke the butt you eat the cookie you go to sleep wake up and go back to fucking work the next morning, THAT'S IT! End of fucking list! ”
- Denis Leary

Yes, happiness is frivolity. Happiness does not matter. It's not an important part of the equation, if it's in there at all. No one ever said you needed to be happy. It does not matter if I'm happy in my job or not, so long as it garners a paycheck. It is irrelevant if I'm happy or not in my life, as the point of life is survival and survival does not care about happiness. It is one thing I have been taught from birth, that happiness is not necessary. And reality confirms that.

Now then, care for that serious discussion?

From:

"No one ever said you needed to be happy."

No did anyone need to say or think that.

The idea of happiness as being important does not require that happiness be important in order to achieve some other thing. One could as easily state that you don't need to survive.

"care for that serious discussion? "

I'd hope that

farchivist will be ready for it as soon as you are. However, both participants need to rise to the challenge of rationally engaging with both the topic in general and one another's views. Simply stating one's own set of value judgements and expecting the other to take them as obvious doesn't constitute a rational or a productive conversation.

From:

One could as easily state that you don't need to survive.

If you have no function/purpose, this is correct. You then become expendable.

Simply stating one's own set of value judgements and expecting the other to take them as obvious doesn't constitute a rational or a productive conversation.

Hey, not my fault you can't see how I got to my positions. Try thinking about it some.

From:

"Hey, not my fault you can't see how I got to my positions. Try thinking about it some. "

That is not how 'serious discussion' works.

If you want to demand it of others, I really think you need to step up and provide it yourself.

If you're not going to bother to justify your positions (especially when you know that people are likely to disagree) then you can't claim to be engaging in serious discussion; you're just throwing silly claims about.

From:

If you wanted serious discussion, would you have made such a controversial statement without further argument? You must have known that the idea that 'happiness is not important' was going to be tremendously counter-intuitive to the point of seeming like an obvious falsehood to most of the people reading your comment.

From:

If you wanted serious discussion, would you have made such a controversial statement without further argument?

It's not a controversial statement; it's an obvious fact. Happiness is not required for functionality or survival. Or even desirable in many cases. One could argue being content, but not happiness.

You must have known that the idea that 'happiness is not important' was going to be tremendously counter-intuitive to the point of seeming like an obvious falsehood to most of the people reading your comment.

If people are going to rely on "intuition" or other feelings instead of actually thinking something through, then I doubt their ability to hold a worthwhile conversation anyway. Never rely on intuition. Always act on rationality and fact.

From:

"It's not a controversial statement; it's an obvious fact. Happiness is not required for functionality or survival. Or even desirable in many cases. One could argue being content, but not happiness. "

This is what I'm talking about; it seems deliberately obtuse. It makes the assumption that functionality and survival are the only measures of importance, which anyone with any experience of people will know is a controversial statement.

"Never rely on intuition. Always act on rationality and fact. "

Part of that is taking the time to give rational arguments for your positions, rather than stating them as 'obvious' and just expecting people to agree with your unusual claims. When you make posts like this, I'm lumping you straight in with the people who make posts purely based on intuition because it really does not constitute rational discussion.

What's more, it's silly, and you'd have likely realised that for yourself if you'd taken the time to rationally engage with different perspectives on what is and is not important in life. It's logically impossible to trace our justifications for what is important back through an infinite regress of logical argument, so there will need to be something we take as fundamentally important for non-rational reasons. Further, it's an observable fact that what such a thing(s) might be varies from person to person.

So you've apparently taken 'survival', so what? I've not seen you attempt to ground that in reason, so why should anyone factor that into what they say, write and do?

From:

It makes the assumption that functionality and survival are the only measures of importance

Only that which is necessary are important. Functionality and survival are necessary; hence their importance. Happiness is not necessary, thus the lack of importance. I do not see that as being controversial at all. If you find it controversial, you will need to explain why.

Part of that is taking the time to give rational arguments for your positions, rather than stating them as 'obvious' and just expecting people to agree with your unusual claims. When you make posts like this, I'm lumping you straight in with the people who make posts purely based on intuition because it really does not constitute rational discussion.

I am not here to educate people, nor should I bother to do so when I already know from long experience that they will not listen. And anyone who cannot construct how I came to my positions from the wealth of knowledge available to humanity is probably someone who shouldn't be in the discussion anyway.

It's logically impossible to trace our justifications for what is important back through an infinite regress of logical argument

And yet, I can do that with mine, if I take the time to. And have, in the past. No, I am not going to do it with you. I do not have the current time to spend a few weeks typing it all out for you.

So you've apparently taken 'survival', so what?

I don't know what you mean by "so what".

I've not seen you attempt to ground that in reason, so why should anyone factor that into what they say, write and do?

I don't say that anyone should. Whether people factor that into what they say is their own look-out. Whether they do so or not determines whether I think they have anything worthwhile to say.

From:

"Only that which is necessary are important. Functionality and survival are necessary; hence their importance. "

Non sequitur.

This works the assumption that importance and necessity are the same thing.

It also attempts to treat necessity as some fundamental quality, whilst necessity only has meaning in regards aims and outcomes; eating is necessary to survive, but what is survival necessary for?

From an objective standpoint, nothing is necessary other than math and logic. The goals that people desire to achieve, such as survival, are not objectively necessary (as shown by the fact that people fail to do)

"I do not see that as being controversial at all. If you find it controversial, you will need to explain why."

A controversial statement is one which generates strong disagreement and debate. The importance of happiness has been a subject of debate since ancient times. Most contemporary academics involved with that debate would put some level of importance on happiness, some consider it of fundamental importance. Most of the wider public (at least in the western world) consider it to be important.

The statement 'happiness is not important' is a fringe position, and one that contrasts sharply with popular opinion both in academia and in the wider public. It's almost a textbook example of a controversial opinion.

"I am not here to educate people, nor should I bother to do so when I already know from long experience that they will not listen. And anyone who cannot construct how I came to my positions from the wealth of knowledge available to humanity is probably someone who shouldn't be in the discussion anyway.."

Said by someone who couldn't work out for themselves that 'happiness is not important' is a controversial opinion.

If you've given up on serious debate then fine, but I think you forfeit any high ground from which to criticise others for not engaging in it.

Also, it's deeply flawed to assume that anyone armed with a wealth of knowledge and a command of reason will come to the same conclusions as you. It's quite clear from a look through history that people in that position have come to a wide variety of conclusions on issues such as these.

"And yet, I can do that with mine, if I take the time to. And have, in the past. No, I am not going to do it with you. I do not have the current time to spend a few weeks typing it all out for you."

You'd need an infinite amount of time to trace back an argument through an infinite regress. Not only would a few weeks not be sufficient, a lifetime would not be.

From:

new-wave-witch.livejournal.com

I did, and I'm the boss. So go have a popsicle and chill out.

Sincerely,
Bruce Springsteen

From:

I think what bothers me about sporting events is that there's this false sense of patriotism that never translates into anything real.

It's the same complaint I have about St George's Day in the UK wherein the Union Jack is everywhere, everyone gets drunk and people put stupid memes about how proud they are to be British on their facebook... but there is zero talk about the sorts of things that could actually support or better the nation (such as volunteering or donating to regional or national charities or community projects)

If it's just people getting really enthusiastic and spending lots of money on something they admit is just recreation whilst ignoring 'bigger issues' then at least there's no hypocrisy, but don't pretend there's anything genuinely patriotic about it.

From:

I can see where you are coming from, but as the OP is referencing college sports (the people cheering are University of Miami fans I believe), and there is a demonstrable positive from supporting a college team:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/415602-what-are-the-benefits-of-college-football-teams/.

In the US, other than on national holidays like July 4th, Memorial Day and Veterans Day, most sporting events aren't displays of national pride. I suppose the Super Bowl could be, and the singing of the national anthem before sporting events, but it's not a huge part of the events.

The problem with singling out sporting events is that there are other things that people get really into, like TV, films, shopping, the internet, etc. that could be considered just as frivolous, but aren't covered. Perhaps for brevity, I don't know.

Either way. As always, I appreciate your reasoned response and your restraint in not calling me a conservatard. :)

From: