Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
And who is saying that? Your scenario doesn't reflect the responses in this thread, it's dramatized.
Nobody said watching a team lose is worse then watching thousands of people dying by tidal waves.
Nobody said watching a team lose is worse then watching thousands of people dying by tidal waves.
I remember when this thread was for discussing dualism.
I don't think it's as crazy as it initially sounds. If we got upset at all of the deaths of people who we don't know, all the people starving, dying, suffering around the world, we would be unable to enjoy anything because we'd always be thinking about it. It is essential for a healthy mindset to care more about what is personally close to you than what isn't. Thousands of people die while you are watching any football match, I assume you don't let that bother you nearly as much as the result.
Maybe you think it is absurd about United, but it's perfectly normal to care more about less important things. If, for example, my close family member was killed, or I had my arm lopped off or I was blinded, I would care far more about that than anything which was happening in Japan, even though objectively I know that tens of thousands of people being killed is more important than one person dying, or me being disabled.
No we can conclude that you are a top red, who is cunningly disguising that fact by pretending to be above all else morally which in turn must make you the top most red.
Nicely done, but I'm on to you
They said they felt worse at a team losing than they did at thousands of people dying by tidal waves. That means, to them, it was sadder when their team lost than when the tidal wave hit.
At half time on every game you have ever watched, hundreds if not thousands of people have died. How does that affect your response to the remaining 45 minutes? Do you forget about the match, and consider the ever-mounting death? You've already said you don't need to know these people to feel the emotion, so essentially you are just deciding on when to react.
That's to do with emotional attachment. You obviously feel worse when something you have cared about for ages goes tits up, compared to a terrible disaster thousands of miles away which you don't have any relation. It doesn't mean it was worse
Millions of people die in Africa for example. It's sad, but compared to something happening to my loved ones I couldn't care in comparison.*
No doubt you're the same. Everyone is.
*Not in comparison. Don't get bitchin'.
Some more perspective MG. Forget my post, answer this.
That's different, because what you described is still tragic and a hell of a lot more important than a football match.
I think everyone in the world would be more upset if a family member died than they would be for thousands of people dying that they don't know, that's reasonable. The personal tragedy is so much closer to us. What's not reasonable is caring more about a football match than thousands of people dying they don't know. A football score is not a tragedy, at the very worst it's a minor annoyance if we take football for the game it is.
Errmm, cough, cough. Excuse me fine sirs but I appear to be lost. Could you point me in the direction of the Bluemoon meltdown thread?
If only I was a mod!!
If only I was a mod!!
Priorities.
Basically, people prefer life to death. It's quite normal to bask in the beauty and joy of living. It's not normal to spend your days moping around in sadness because of every tragic event that occurs around the world. Especially when we have no control over many of these things.
Living life and pursuing the things that bring you enjoyment is not bad, despite what the priest might have said to you.
I'm not going to take that in any way seriously.I'm not sure if you haven't read peoples responses over the last few pages, or are deliberately misinterpreting the points....No-one has said that. What has been said is that an emotional reaction might register stronger with United, but people can recognize the overall importance of something like Japan as far more significant.
It's really not that hard to see, and certainly isn't what you are describing, over and over again.
You've said exactly what I wanted to say, in a nutshell. Thank you!It's simply a case of different types of the same emotion. [...] both sides are right, but wrong to even argue it
MG -- I think that Bluemoon poster was just using a rhetorical figure -- hyperbole -- but was very heavy handed. (Insert obligatory Berties put-down here.) Or maybe he seriously was disturbed by the fact that his emotions regarding City were so much more visceral.
But just imagine -- you're sitting at home posting away on the Caf, and the boy next door sets fire to your kitten, just for a laugh. Will you immediate reaction be strong and violent? Probably. Would the strength of that reaction have any bearing on your compassion for the victims of the disaster in Japan? Of course not. You have not suddenly put the life of your kitten above all the lives lost in that disaster in any objective way. You're just a human acting like a human.
These are two different emotional scales, and you can't quantify emotions like some people are attempting here. But Redlambs already said it much better than I could.
I'm not suggesting we should mope around in sadness because of every tragic event. We'd be constantly moping around if we were to do that. That's a ridiculous thing to suggest we all do. I'd argue we do have some control over a lot of things, however; most people (footballers would be a good example!) could give a lot more money to charity than they do.
But still. What I was arguing was that when we're made aware of tragic events we should view them as worse than a game of football, and so thus be more upset over something that matters so much more than a simple game.
Yes, and I'm suggesting that it shouldn't, regardless of whether they can still see Japan as more significant.
That was just to illustrate that the objective importance of an event can be very different to how much one cares about it. When we lost to Liverpool earlier this month did you care more about the fact we had just lost, or all the hundreds, thousands of people who had died while that match was being played? If the former, how are those deaths different from the deaths in Japan, if the latter, I don't know how you cope with life.
Priorities.
Do all the flags represent populations which are less important?
Viewing things as worse doesn't mean you're more upset about it.
I know Japan is fecking loads worse then me losing £2. But I was more pissed off over the £2. If someone I knew was over there, I'd be more concerned with that obviously as it has a direct affect on me or someone I know.
Thousands of people die every day, do I go around constantly upset about it? Honestly, no, even though I recognise it's terrible.
You've said exactly what I wanted to say, in a nutshell. Thank you!
MG -- I think that Bluemoon poster was just using a rhetorical figure -- hyperbole -- but was very heavy handed. (Insert obligatory Berties put-down here.) Or maybe he seriously was disturbed by the fact that his emotions regarding City were so much more visceral.
But just imagine -- you're sitting at home posting away on the Caf, and the boy next door sets fire to your kitten, just for a laugh. Will you immediate reaction be strong and violent? Probably. Would the strenght of that reaction have any bearing on your compassion for the victims of the disaster in Japan? Of course not. You have not suddenly put the life of your kitten above all the lives lost in that disaster in any objective way. You're just a human acting like a human.
These are two different emotional scales, and you can't quantify emotions like some people are attempting here. But Redlambs already said it much better than I could.
Hey, simplicity is often the most correct way, but often comes from the most simplistic of people thus ignored.
To think, I was even going to make a point about loving your wife/gf and loving your dog and it not being comparable (whilst also inserting the obligatory Eyepopper joke in here). But I'm glad I didn't resort to any kind of logic here, I mean considering the forum and thread I'd have looked like a semi-intelligent poster trying to look intelligent
I'll have to agree to disagree with most people here.
It's a shame where people's priorities lie these days.
It's a shame where people's priorities lie these days.
Oh dear.
If I was pissed off with mother nature every time something shit happened, I'd never stop punching walls.
Sorry, this is philosophy!
Try two doors down, the door with the three stars and 'The Mystery Of The Three Holes -- How To Unravel The Conundrum Of The Bib (coffee & lunch included)' sign on it.
So you were more upset when you lost £2 then you were when you watched news reports showing many people - children, mothers etc - being swept away by a massive tsunami.
Oh dear.
Sw33t, I'm glad we've got you here now.
You see, this whole thread is an intervention...
These days? Do you think there has been some major change in human nature over the past few decades or something?
'Human nature' is an excuse used for selfish people imo. We're all capable of feeling for others and putting other people first, just selfish people don't and then try to excuse it by saying it's human nature. It's not.
It's a shame when people can't read peoples post properly and respond to them, instead opting to make broad, sweeping statements on the condition of humanity, which in fact, relates to no-one, or anything.
No it isnt.
What if I offered you a ticket to the Champions League Final (assuming United got there) or a donation for the equivalent amount to the Japanese Disaster Fund.
Which would you prefer?
oooooh, I've always preferred science to psychiatry, please do continue!
Hee hee!!!
More pissed off, yes. Did I think it was worse? No. I recognise that murders, rapes, roberies, stabbings, and thousands of people die every day because of hunger, AIDs, dirty water etc etc etc. and quite obviously they're a lot worse. But it doesn't affect me. I feel empathy, feel sorry for the people, families and country, but it doesn't change my life directly.
Again, emotional attachment.
You go out down the shops, someone robs you and kicks you in the teeth. Two streets over, 2 people were shot dead. You're more concerned about what happened to you, even though you're going to say you're not. Why's that? Because it directly affects you.
agreed, it's spasicity.
I think it was rather disgusting that you celebrated Berbatov's goal the other day, countless people died before and after that goal and you sat there MG, cheering on a football team, oblivious to the plight of man.
Indeed. Now how much is it for an argument?
I explained what I meant and my position many times relating specifically to posts people made.