Nah, I can accept and generally understand my emotional reaction to most things.
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
Nah, I can accept and generally understand my emotional reaction to most things.
I think choosing such a poor and inappropriate set of circumstance to compare in the first plays is a sign of a lack of emotional intelligence.
So the important question here: knob chopped off or United going the next 30 years without a trophy?
Crustanoid's knob chopped off
Dont even have to think about it
Dont even have to think about it
Emotional intelligence eh?
Strange psychological construct which does not distinguish itself as being responsible for variance beyond that which can be explained from assessment of 'the big five' personality traits.
Hectic had this for me with his excellent yet simple post.
However I'll attempt a more technical one. I'm more immediately emotionally affected by a united defeat than news of a Tsunami and I may become more emotionally aroused when United score a late winner than I am when I see a person pulled from wreckage 8 days after the disaster. However my ability to be emotionally affected is not mutually exclusive. Proximity, familiarity, past experience, current mood, personality and so on all act as moderators of my emotional arousal to any particular stimuli. If I'd lost a family member to a natural disaster previously I am more likely to feel a larger connection with those in a natural disaster than if I had not.
Strange psychological construct which does not distinguish itself as being responsible for variance beyond that which can be explained from assessment of 'the big five' personality traits.
Hectic had this for me with his excellent yet simple post.
However I'll attempt a more technical one. I'm more immediately emotionally affected by a united defeat than news of a Tsunami and I may become more emotionally aroused when United score a late winner than I am when I see a person pulled from wreckage 8 days after the disaster. However my ability to be emotionally affected is not mutually exclusive. Proximity, familiarity, past experience, current mood, personality and so on all act as moderators of my emotional arousal to any particular stimuli. If I'd lost a family member to a natural disaster previously I am more likely to feel a larger connection with those in a natural disaster than if I had not.
Anyhow.. Citeh... still cnuts? Discuss.
At least you know the difference between affect and effect.
Oh and shite cnuts, deffo.
You may be Mother Teresa and Bono's illegitimate lovechild, Popper, granted, but your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you must therefore be of low emotional intelligence can get a tad annoying, wouldn't you agree? Or, would you at least be able to empathise with us low emotionally-intelligent lifeforms enough to recognise how someone as self-proclamingly superior and moralistic as yourself could, in effect, come across as being kind of preachy and twatish? You're gonna find a lot of posters on a United forum who care more passionately about United than they do natural disasters, in fact, I wouldn't hesitate to say that you'd find a whole lot of people on planet Earth who care more about this and that personal passion than they do of any human tragedy far removed from themselves; you can't go around calling everyone emotional retards for simply going about their lives in such a perfectly natural way.
Here's a question, Popper...
What would you rather; United win the European Champions League final, and Nemanja Vidic kicks an owl, or, Nemanja Vidic doesn't kick an owl, but United go on to lose the European Champions League final?
Do you care about United more than owls?
What would you rather; United win the European Champions League final, and Nemanja Vidic kicks an owl, or, Nemanja Vidic doesn't kick an owl, but United go on to lose the European Champions League final?
Do you care about United more than owls?
So City then........
I didn't call anyone an emotional retard or claim superiority, be it moral or otherwise, in anyway shape or form over anyone...
Seeing as you have some time on your hands maybe you should go off an make a wall chart on 'The things I care more about Utd than', careful with the scissors now, there's a good lad.
But is he really comparing them? Reading it again it doesn't look as if he saying the event of City losing is worse then the Japan tragedy, but that his response is different.
He says he does not show depression over a number of global issues - Japan tragedy, Libya, global warming and the rain forests or for his own personal issues - no pay increase and possible redundancy......Yet he feels like shit for days when City lose, and that nothing else seems important. To me, that isn't the same as saying a football match is worse then those events happening, but that he registers a lasting emotional reaction to the former. There's certainly a difference. He's assessing a potential issue with his emotional reaction to events on a personal, and global scale and asking why that's the case.
It looks like you are arguing two points as one, the first is saying he should never have made the comparison - which I'm not sure is a comparison - and the other is that he lacks emotional intelligence. You have more of a case for the second, if you don't connect it to the comparison, although I think it's more down to his poor choice of words at times.
Its a comparison in that he's comparing his feelings relating to the two events.
To be honest I cant be arsed anymore, I've stuff to do..... and cider seems to be on the rag now that he thinks he has some backing and a whole evening with feck all to do.
To be honest I cant be arsed anymore, I've stuff to do..... and cider seems to be on the rag now that he thinks he has some backing and a whole evening with feck all to do.
I'm at work, Popper, I'm getting paid for this.
Imagine coming into this thread to have a quiet snigger at the usual 'LOL I ran into a rag today, and he was from Warrinton what a tosser I bet he doesn't even know where the billiard room is!!! He had a foam hand on his head lol CTID'-idiocy from Bluemoon to find this kind of discussion.
I personally think the question can't be answered, because it's put in a way which is impossible to answer.
Should I feel guilty for rejoicing when my daughter says her first word, just because I know that right now tens of thousands of children are perishing in the most atrocious ways? Starving, abused, degraded, raped -- every single minute of every hour of the fecking day. Year in and year out.
If I am to go on and be of any use to anyone, I have to focus on the smaller world around me. I have no other choice. That's not being callous, that's just answering Camus' question in a hands-on, pragmatic way, one minute at a bleeding time. I'm chosing to live.
Fania Goldstein (aka Fénelon) put this point across so well in her Sursis pour l'orchestre, but sadly I can't find the exact quote at the moment. What she said was more or less that she'd never judge any of her friends for being sad when a lover cheated on them, or if they were rejected for a job, any other small incidence of life compared to the Shoah, because she understood that it's impossible to demand that we all live our lives with one single emotional scale.
Being more immediately upset about a United or City loss does not equal putting it above any of the disasters or the atrocities affecting people in this world every day. To demand that we never care about the emotions of our 'little world' (family, friends, team) is to ask the impossible of any human being.
I personally think the question can't be answered, because it's put in a way which is impossible to answer.
Should I feel guilty for rejoicing when my daughter says her first word, just because I know that right now tens of thousands of children are perishing in the most atrocious ways? Starving, abused, degraded, raped -- every single minute of every hour of the fecking day. Year in and year out.
If I am to go on and be of any use to anyone, I have to focus on the smaller world around me. I have no other choice. That's not being callous, that's just answering Camus' question in a hands-on, pragmatic way, one minute at a bleeding time. I'm chosing to live.
Fania Goldstein (aka Fénelon) put this point across so well in her Sursis pour l'orchestre, but sadly I can't find the exact quote at the moment. What she said was more or less that she'd never judge any of her friends for being sad when a lover cheated on them, or if they were rejected for a job, any other small incidence of life compared to the Shoah, because she understood that it's impossible to demand that we all live our lives with one single emotional scale.
Being more immediately upset about a United or City loss does not equal putting it above any of the disasters or the atrocities affecting people in this world every day. To demand that we never care about the emotions of our 'little world' (family, friends, team) is to ask the impossible of any human being.
You fecking bastards. This thread is so dead. It was funny and lighthearted until you lot took it uptown with your Adam Smiths and Albert Camus'.
What next, how Descartes identified what City are missing when he created the concept known as dualism?
Vivisect that, bitches.
What next, how Descartes identified what City are missing when he created the concept known as dualism?
Vivisect that, bitches.
I agree totally with Eyepopper.
People caring more about football results than people dying shows how absolutely ridiculous the world has got to.
It's a game. It's just meant to be a bit of fun. Despite what most people on here go on about... actually, it's not that important.
If we lose a game, I'm really pissed off and gutted. Do I mope about it for ages? No. I get over it. I've got so many more things in my life to worry about and enjoy as well as football, it's not the biggest thing in my life and it shouldn't be in anyones, as it's just a game and not that serious. If it's the biggest thing in a person's life on here then I seriously pity that person.
It's very, very sad that we should be having a debate about what makes us more sad and people are honestly saying United losing is worse than thousands of people dying. I think those people have probably lived very sheltered lives.
People caring more about football results than people dying shows how absolutely ridiculous the world has got to.
It's a game. It's just meant to be a bit of fun. Despite what most people on here go on about... actually, it's not that important.
If we lose a game, I'm really pissed off and gutted. Do I mope about it for ages? No. I get over it. I've got so many more things in my life to worry about and enjoy as well as football, it's not the biggest thing in my life and it shouldn't be in anyones, as it's just a game and not that serious. If it's the biggest thing in a person's life on here then I seriously pity that person.
It's very, very sad that we should be having a debate about what makes us more sad and people are honestly saying United losing is worse than thousands of people dying. I think those people have probably lived very sheltered lives.
I remember reading once, on this forum infact, that humans have a very small social scope in reality and that we can only ever care about a certain number of people. Say 100, family, friends, pets and United.
Same goes for concepts and ideals - most people adopt a charity, or fight a single cause - mine for example would be free tibet.
I definitely feel Waltrate makes a valid point and that is the individual is inherently limited to the emotional attachment he or she can have towards every evil in the world.
But Popper is also correct in the idea that equating a United loss to being as tragic as the Earthquake is insensitive, perhaps displays a lack of rationality, but it's more personally felt and so it comes down to the individual and this idea of an emotional sphere we all act within.
Same goes for concepts and ideals - most people adopt a charity, or fight a single cause - mine for example would be free tibet.
I definitely feel Waltrate makes a valid point and that is the individual is inherently limited to the emotional attachment he or she can have towards every evil in the world.
But Popper is also correct in the idea that equating a United loss to being as tragic as the Earthquake is insensitive, perhaps displays a lack of rationality, but it's more personally felt and so it comes down to the individual and this idea of an emotional sphere we all act within.
What an interesting little discussion. I didn't realise this was going on in a Manchester City thread - no wonder I missed it! 
As I was saying in another thread, people are basically selfish. This is not a bad thing. Self-preservation is natural. Our whole anatomy and physiology is designed to protect us and keep us alive.
When we see something terrible, such as the tragedy in Japan, our first reaction may well be "Oh jesus. How awful!" but not far behind that, is this little voice that says, "Will it affect me?"
When we heard of the nuclear reactor stuff, this little voice became louder.
Sure, there will be some people who claim not to think like this. I think they're either bullshitting or lack some kind of survival gene or something.
Once we find out that we won't be personally affected by it, we can go back to the role of the observer and some people are more capable of empathising with the suffering of strangers than others.
Some might literally weep about it for days whilst others will simply shrug and say, "That sucks but shit happens." Neither response actually does very much good in terms of what has happened or saving any lives, though.
Comparing losing a football match to thousands dying in a natural disaster is taking the comparison a little too far but, at the end of the day, we are personally affected by a football result because that team is actually a part of our own life and so it resonates more with us. If you have perhaps visited Japan or even lived there or have relatives there or some other personal connection to the place then you might well be affected by it on a personal level. Otherwise it just becomes yet another disaster on the TV but there is no direct link between you and it. You are literally detached.
As cider (I think) said. This is perhaps a good thing. If we took every bit of shit that happens around the world onboard, we'd all be dribbling wrecks within a year. Call it yet another survival mechanism that we don't.
I think there's also something to be said for big numbers too. Whilst it might quench the tabloids thirst for sensationalism, big numbers aren't something we're very good with as humans. One million dead (or whatever) is quite meaningless.
However, if we were to hone in one particular case. Perhaps some boy who has just lost his mum, dad and sister, we can all empathise with that because (as the word suggests) we are able to put ourselves in that boy's position and have some idea of his pain.
His dead relatives are just three in a million dead but that kind of thing evokes a greater emotional response. I suppose that's fecked up too? Except it's not; it's perfectly understandable.
But yes. City are shit.
As I was saying in another thread, people are basically selfish. This is not a bad thing. Self-preservation is natural. Our whole anatomy and physiology is designed to protect us and keep us alive.
When we see something terrible, such as the tragedy in Japan, our first reaction may well be "Oh jesus. How awful!" but not far behind that, is this little voice that says, "Will it affect me?"
When we heard of the nuclear reactor stuff, this little voice became louder.
Sure, there will be some people who claim not to think like this. I think they're either bullshitting or lack some kind of survival gene or something.
Once we find out that we won't be personally affected by it, we can go back to the role of the observer and some people are more capable of empathising with the suffering of strangers than others.
Some might literally weep about it for days whilst others will simply shrug and say, "That sucks but shit happens." Neither response actually does very much good in terms of what has happened or saving any lives, though.
Comparing losing a football match to thousands dying in a natural disaster is taking the comparison a little too far but, at the end of the day, we are personally affected by a football result because that team is actually a part of our own life and so it resonates more with us. If you have perhaps visited Japan or even lived there or have relatives there or some other personal connection to the place then you might well be affected by it on a personal level. Otherwise it just becomes yet another disaster on the TV but there is no direct link between you and it. You are literally detached.
As cider (I think) said. This is perhaps a good thing. If we took every bit of shit that happens around the world onboard, we'd all be dribbling wrecks within a year. Call it yet another survival mechanism that we don't.
I think there's also something to be said for big numbers too. Whilst it might quench the tabloids thirst for sensationalism, big numbers aren't something we're very good with as humans. One million dead (or whatever) is quite meaningless.
However, if we were to hone in one particular case. Perhaps some boy who has just lost his mum, dad and sister, we can all empathise with that because (as the word suggests) we are able to put ourselves in that boy's position and have some idea of his pain.
His dead relatives are just three in a million dead but that kind of thing evokes a greater emotional response. I suppose that's fecked up too? Except it's not; it's perfectly understandable.
But yes. City are shit.
Can you show me where someone has said that last bit?
I definitely feel Descartes identified on a subconcious level when he put forward his ideas of dualism, but it's important to remember the idea of duality is much more ancient than Descartes.
Take from the example the idea of yin and yang, perpetuated by Daoism. Are we to understand City as a cause and effectual entity? If so - United might play apart;
The cause of United's success is the effect of City existing?
The cause of Cities atrociousness an effect of United existing?
The dualism of city is paradoxical in the sense that, they will always be shite - even though buy every player in the world.
I believe this needs a Freudian examination of the ego and ID to truly evaluate Cities duality, which I believe is more a fragmented personality then some sort of karmic effect and cycle of negativity/positivity.
City on that level represents the idea that City exists, therefore so does shite.
I wish you had the power to remove everyone discussing this over the the Bluemoon forum itself, I really do.
People need a reality check, and it shouldn't come from a thread designed to laugh at rivals in a sport.
So here's a real question to you lot: Despite the billions in the owner's bank, despite the signing of a couple of players even we would want here, why is it still seemingly their destiny to feck up at every step? Is it fate? Is it Karma?
Something we can all agree on then, whose a bigger cnut, Mario Balotelli or Hitler 
Remember before you answer that none of us have been directly affected by Hitler!
Remember before you answer that none of us have been directly affected by Hitler!
Something we can all agree on then, whose a bigger cnut, Mario Balotelli or Hitler
Remember before you answer that none of us have been directly affected by Hitler!
I've been directly affected by Hitler.
Something we can all agree on then, whose a bigger cnut, Mario Balotelli or Hitler
Remember before you answer that none of us have been directly affected by Hitler!
My granddaddy died in a panzer battalion and the family lost all of their lands in Prussia thanks to that cnut.
Hitler wasn't so nice, neither.
Did you join the Nazi party?
A lot of people are arguing that if feels worse for them if United lose than if thousands of people die. I can't for the life of me understand that.
Just because we don't know these people doesn't make it any less appalling. I got emotional watching the news reports of the tsunami, I'm quite an emotional person anyway but it just really got to me. Watching those clips on the TV made me feel a way I've never even approached feeling when watching United lose. Basically, when United lose, I'm gutted for a bit, then get over it. There will always be a next game and a new season.
This is a real sensitive subject for me. I often go on about what I see as the obscene, disgusting wages of premiership footballers and have a particular guilt about it when I regard the plight of starving children around the world, and it does in some ways taint my enjoyment of the game when I think about how much money is made and given to the footballers.
Basically: Football, a game = not that important. People dying in Japan = important.
No, but when he died, my family lost the only dictator we've ever had. We've had plenty of cretins, a couple of Shakespeare impersonators, we've even had one Donkey who fathered my great-great grandfather but never had we had a dictator.
I'm not sure that's being said at all. Your post doesn't really relate to what's being said in this thread.
WTF? City fans will think we actually give a damn about their massive club with all the activity in this thread.
So just because they don't know the people dying in Japan some people feel sadder about a ball going into a net/not going into a net then they do about thousands of people dying.
Do we have to know people to feel sad for them? We can't we just feel sad for everyone that dies in a horrific way for something that wasn't their fault? Why do we care so much about a GAME where one group of men try to get a ball into a net while another group of men try to stop them getting the ball into a net so much that it matters to them more than catastrophic disasters.
The human race has got so fecked up, really. This thread is full of absolutely unbelievable statements.
Do we have to know people to feel sad for them? We can't we just feel sad for everyone that dies in a horrific way for something that wasn't their fault? Why do we care so much about a GAME where one group of men try to get a ball into a net while another group of men try to stop them getting the ball into a net so much that it matters to them more than catastrophic disasters.
The human race has got so fecked up, really. This thread is full of absolutely unbelievable statements.
I was referring to people saying it feels worse for them if United lose than if thousands of people die.
Ignore my last post, I hadn't seen your response for basically the same thing as I had said.
In regards to your last point, I'll post what I said earlier -
Cartesian dualism is almost as horrible, confused and fundamentally wrong as the Berties and their bizarre 'The Only Real Manchester Team but Funded by ADUG Oil Money -- Look at my funny banana and appreciate my deep devotion, you bleeding Munich!' approach to football and football support.
Bringing this thread back to silliness, a mate of mine (a blue, no less!) sent me this quote from the great and good at Bluemoon. It's old, but it's a really good one --
"Those small-time rag bastards always up their game when they play us - we are their cup-final nowadays." [my bolding & italics]
That's not even part of the discussion. Surely the issue with this is that in every minute that passes, someone dies, and many of those will be in horrific ways.
Is it really realistic that you spend every waking moment reflecting in sadness on the deaths and atrocities happening world wide?
I question how anyone can have a stronger emotional response to a team playing a game for fun and not doing as well as another team as they can to watching thousands of people getting killed by a massive tidal wave.
Jeez. Can't believe I even have to explain this.
I think we can conclude from this thread how selfish, sheltered and misinformed some people are, and how much they need to reorganise their priorities.
To compare a form of entertainment to real life events is pointless, regardless of how emotionally involved we are in either.
It's simply a case of different types of the same emotion. I'm amazed the geniuses on here haven't yet figured out that both sides are right, but wrong to even argue it
It's simply a case of different types of the same emotion. I'm amazed the geniuses on here haven't yet figured out that both sides are right, but wrong to even argue it