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: 442

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh so its a chemistry term. Right, now that makes perfect sense. You used google to find an irrelevant meaning. I'm impressed.

Sublimated and subliminal, are different forms of the same word: sublimate.

There is nothing "non sequitur" about pointing out that the psychoanalytic theory of drives, the basis for the concept of sublimation, is not scientific or falsifiable. This is an atheist web site and the falsifiability of constructs is always pertinent.

And you're still insisting that the charity of one sport exceeds that of the entire nation?

FoA, learn when to walk away, you're embarrassing yourself.
Talk about embarrassing ... LOL.

Here's a quick lesson in English for you: the first definition is the most correct. But, not everyone needs Google to solve every situation; so your pscyhobabble bullshit, which is just that, is non sequitur. But, feel free to keep patting yourself on the back, even though:

There is nothing "non sequitur" about pointing out that the psychoanalytic theory of drives, the basis for the concept of sublimation, is not scientific or falsifiable.

Hmmm ...

Sublimate is based on the psychoanalytic notion of how the mind works, which has been thoroughly discarded by science.

The psychological use was much later. Anything that is "socially unacceptable" stands outside the realm of empiricism, so your commentary is non sequitur.

Maybe should learn about these nifty things called "books". Oh wait, nevermind ...
One last note on what is embarassing:

subliminal

1886, "below the threshold" (of consciousness), formed from sub "below" + L. limen (gen. liminis) "threshold." Apparently a loan-translation of Ger. unter der Schwelle (des Bewusstseins) "beneath the threshold (of consciousness)," from Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841), author of a textbook on psychology published in 1824. The scare over subliminal advertising came in 1957.

sub·li·mate (sŭb'lə-māt')
v. sub·li·mat·ed, sub·li·mat·ing, sub·li·mates

v. tr.

Chemistry To cause (a solid or gas) to change state without becoming a liquid.


To modify the natural expression of (a primitive, instinctual impulse) in a socially acceptable manner.

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


v. intr. Chemistry
To transform directly from the solid to the gaseous state or from the gaseous to the solid state without becoming a liquid.

[Latin sublīmāre, sublīmāt-, to elevate, from sublīmis, uplifted.]

For this, yes, I went Google Fu, and if you aren't getting it, let me spell it out ...

There is no linguistic similarity to the words, even though you so erroneously said so, they have utterly different definitions and etymological roots.

Indeed, it is time to walk away. LMFAO.
John,

LOLOLOL, good shot, I'll take that one, straight away.

Well played. :)
There is no linguistic similarity to the words, even though you so erroneously said so, they have utterly different definitions and etymological roots.

You're wrong on that, FoA. Both words derive from Latin, sub and limus (oblique) or limen (threshold).

Sub has the meaning of under, beneath, below, as well as up to, close to, towards. Subliminal takes the former, sublimate that latter.
Sub has the meaning of under, beneath, below, as well as up to, close to, towards. Subliminal takes the former, sublimate that latter.

No, because in Latin, sublimare(a) is used first person indicative, as a singular term; i.e. it isn't broken into sub-limare. It means most strictly, elevate.

subliminis is morphologically from German, meaning it didn't exist in Latin.
If readers look past his child-like insults they'll find that his google based posts completely agree with what I said.

Yes, I mistakenly used the word subliminal when it should have been sublimate, but other than that my observations were accurate. There is nothing "sublimate" about it either.

The most interesting thing is that psychologists borrowed terms from physics and chemistry in a futile attempt to ground their theories in the hard sciences. The misappropriation of terms continues today in the pseudo science of spiritualist like Deepak Chopra's use of 'quantum,' for example.
I'd like to say "interesting speculation", but, it really isn't.

Your math, speculative, is just for the direct charitable contributions to the players association from the NFL. Which, as I previously stated, isn't inclusive of the organisations other charitable works.

How many players, over 37 years, how many programs, grants, scholarships, community centers, etc.

How much of that 300B was also from any NFL players, past/present?
Free of Anon, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett alone have each donated more than $30 billion to charity. I suspect that each exceeds the total NFL payroll since it began, but the combined $60B puts your hyperbole in perspective. You made a preposterous claim. Back it up with actual facts from reputable sources or drop it.
Hate watching sports myself.Running a ball down a field or throwing a ball in a basket just seems boring to me.
I don't like the Superbowl either. I'm trying to get approval from family members by sitting in the same room with a book, occasionally glancing up and commenting but otherwise pressing forward in whichever book I'm on now.

rofl @ Jared Lardo. It could be left in nominative as a mixture of Latin and English? I'm not sure of the root word for circenses so I'm leaving that alone.
CBS also rejected an ad for a gay dating site. I'm sure they wouldn't have any objections with eharmony, just as they have no objection with ads for beer, chauvinist ads showing women wrestling with each other while men fawn over them.

To hell with CBS and their hypocritical polital agenda.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service