I've never watched a superbowl.  I am not a fan of professional sports -- period.  I think they are a waste of time.  I also think they amount to nothing more than sublimated violence (and in the case of ice hockey, it's not all that sublimated).  I also think they are hugely counterproductive.  It's not for nothing that the Roman emperors controlled the masses with pan et circenses.  It was by giving the Roman citizens bread and public spectacles (in Nero's time, the feeding of Christians to lions) that their leaders controlled them.

In modern times, as Eldridge Cleaver put it, the people will never revolt as long as there are supermarkets.  I agree, though I would make it: the people will never revolt as long as they have supermarkets and the Super Bowl.  (Have you noticed how so many people in the stores are stocking up on chips, dips, and beer?  That's so that they can have diabetic or coronary reactions and, when inebriated, curse and beat their wives.)

This year will be super difficult, as I am a fan of The Who, for one thing, and for another wanted to see how far the Dobson Family will go in making abortion look like a capital offense for the abortionist and a stoning crime for the poor pregnant woman.  (After all, is there really any real difference between an American theocrat and a Muslim Mullah?)  That CBS accepted the ad featuring a sob story from a player speaks poorly of them.  Perhaps it should subject the network to what is left of the equal opportunity to respond laws.  Say, Planned Parenthood at no cost.  As I keep suggesting, we need to amend the IRS rule prohibiting support of a candidate by a religious group.  They should lose their non-profit status by merely lobbying for passage of all legislation based entirely on dogma.

Views: 422

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, that's one reading of your sources. Of course, the sources don't say whether the women who use abortion simply because they don't want to be pregnant (as if that weren't reason enough) were, in fact, using contraception and got pregnant anyway. Contraception isn't a perfect defense against pregnancy. But I suppose that doesn't matter in your rigid worldview, Free of Anon.
Issues of abortion regarding incest, rape, or maternal risk average less than 5% for the entire global population.

Let's do the math...what's 5% of SIX BILLION?
That's OK, PRG, because Free of Anon views all humans as competition for his DNA, so whatever holds them back is OK with him. What I can't figure out is why he would object to other people having abortions.
.05 X 6,000,000,000 = 30,000,000 = 10% of the U.S. population (the country with the third largest population on the planet.)


Countries with 30 million people or less - 155 out of 192.

Most tools are abused by those who choose to use them incorrectly. Some will use it to their selfish benefit. Others will use abortion to save lives. Placing a blanket regulation without thought to the whole is the reason our government is corrupt and injustice flourishes. Abortion is a useful tool for rape victims and others who unknowingly procreated a child with life ending consequences. I understand how unfortunate the world is that people do not know the responsibility of having sex, but if we were to block freedoms due to other people's injustices and ignorance, we would have none at all. Setting regulations so that abortion cannot be misused is important. Black and white thinking is the leading cause of misinformation, miscalculation, unfounded bias and any other intellectually degenerating problems. I think the biggest problem with people is this belief: I exist; therefore I deserve. I think it is because of that idea that helpful things like abortion are so misused.

I thought the ad was just "my mom was sick and encouraged to have an abortion but she didn't and now I'm a football player"? If someone chooses life, they still have chosen. If pro-lifers would just stick to encouraging people to choose life (in a non-harassing way), instead of trying to make abortion illegal, I wouldn't have such a problem with them. Of course, the people who make the ad don't want women to have a choice at all.
The NFL is responsible for more acts of charity than the rest of the nation combined
That is absurd.

"Sublimated violence"? So what? Perhaps no one has informed you of the fact that all animals engage in violence, and homo sapiens, and our family of primates, are perhaps the most notably violent.

What is your point? That something is an evolved trait of our species is completely orthogonal to whether or not it is good or desirable. You seem to be just posting senseless contrary positions.
That is absurd.

Oh my, what a refutation. Not.

Here's a perfect example of just how woefully uninformed the populace is:

Drew Brees and Peyton Manning. They both donate half of their incomes to charitable programs/scholarships. Brees wife is responsible for the reconstruction of over one hundred park and recreation areas in the New Orleans area alone. Drew Brees started and completely funds a demolition company that makes no money on demolition of post-Katrina homes that are no longer liveable. Peyton Manning splits his 50% of charitable contribution between New Orleans, (his home town), and Indiana ~ including 5 community centers for latch key children.

The NFL itself is involved in so much charitable work, there isn't enough character space in this reply for it all.

What is your point?

Literacy is not a crime. I made my point. Only the ignorant make claims about "sublimated violence" concerning anything that humans do. Competition, such as football, is a natural expression for our kind's predatory nature. We are animals, we are predators, animal life is uniformly expressed as violent.

Go spend a night in downtown [choose your city], not in a high end hotel, on the street. If you make it back, we'll talk then.

Oh my, what a refutation. Not.

Some things are so patently ridiculous as to not need detailed refutation. You've made an absurd claim. Rather like saying the Earth is less than six thousand years old. Even if every football player donated ALL their income to charity it couldn't possibly come close to exceeding the charity of the rest of the nation.

Perhaps you meant that on an individual basis, "per person," the members of the NFL are more charitable than the typical American, but that isn't what you said. Even that would need some statistics to back it up, not just examples of charity on the part of football players. Furthermore, the meaningful comparison would not be to the typical or median income citizen, but to others of their income bracket.

Literacy is not a crime. I made my point.
Literacy? I disagree. You thought you made a point. The concept of "subliminal violence" is worthy of criticism. It is an example of people trained in the humanities using outdated psychological terminology. There is nothing "subliminal" about it. However, your statement that humans are a violent species doesn't address that. Yes we are a violent species, but that fact has little if any baring on the criticisms James made toward football. I don't think you made a point at all.

You claiming otherwise, doesn't change anything. Go look at the statistics, the NFL as an organisation, and then all the players, player's wives, player's families.

"subliminal violence" ??? Again, literacy is not a crime.

The word used was sublimate:

divert the energy associated with (an unacceptable impulse or drive) into a personally and socially acceptable activity.

One of us was making a point about typing violence as per the actual definition, the other, well, we can't actually know, because they don't know the term used or the proper definition.
You claiming otherwise, doesn't change anything. Go look at the statistics, the NFL as an organisation, and then all the players, player's wives, player's families.

First, it was your claim so you need to provide evidence. Second, as I explained, the total gross revenues of all affiliated with the NFL still could not match the generosity of the rest of the nation. Again, if you meant to say something different, like the average NFL player is more generous than the average American (which is not what you said) you would still need to back that up.

Sublimate is based on the psychoanalytic notion of how the mind works, which has been thoroughly discarded by science. To argue that football is sublimation you would need to show evidence of socially unacceptable "drives" "impulses" or "energies." You can't because they're as imaginary as gods.

Literacy is not a crime, if it were you couldn't get arrested.
Try reading the OP.

The presenter of this thread called football, "sublimated violence". You, for reasons unknown thought to take it as "subliminal", which beyond being erroneous, was just baffling. Sublimate is actually a chemistry/physics term for a solid/gas changing to the direct opposite without ever entering the liquid state.

The psychological use was much later. Anything that is "socially unacceptable" stands outside the realm of empiricism, so your commentary is non sequitur. The presenter of the thread used the word as intended, and although we disagree, it is a proper claim from his perspective.

Tip of the iceberg:

I'm not going to even attempt to find all the multitude of charities, grants, foundations, scholarships and community programs that the individual players are responsible for, especially over the course of the last 30 years. Which still doesn't include the programs and charities that the NFL runs out of the organisation directly.

Literacy is not a crime, if it were you couldn't get arrested.

LOL, nothing more need be said.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service