Sport

I was going to start with something like Religion, but I thought "nah, what the hell. I'll go straight out with the big guns, the really controversial stuff, something people really care about: Sports."

What can I say about sports? Well, not much, but there was just one thing that irritated me and I wanted to say it, alright? That okay?

Okay, what is the deal with AFL. Will people just watch anything involving teams? I think that probably is the case, but come on. I'm am Australian and it's embarrassing to know that this 'sport' is seen as Australia's contribution to the world's sporting codes. It would be okay if it was supposed to be a joke and it was showing our aussie laid-back, sardonic crack at the professional athlete circle, but it isn't! Maybe it started like that and maybe that's how it's perseved as overseas, but that isn't case! Oh god!

What do I have against the game you ask? Well, please, if you have to ask then you probably won't be able to agree anyway but i'll give it a shot. First, there's no 'code' exactly is there? I mean, for a game to become an actual sport doesn't there have to be some sort of set of objectives with rules to define how each team achieves those objectives? Oh alright, so it does have those, but just barely. How can it be classified as a sport, it's a bunch of grown guys booting a footy in the air, exactly the sort of pointless activity that all young boys participated in, and we just called it 'bombs'. That was it, it didn't even need a name, it was just "hey, you wanna kick the ball around?" then you went off and booted it as high as you could and then tried to catch it, simple. That's AFL. They just added two goal posts and a referee, who does god knows what, then they just go round fumbling the ball and groping at each other, it's hideously embarrassing. It has none of the finesse or co-ordination that real football has, and they have to use their feet.

Some may argue that that it's fun and the guys have to be really fit. Yeah, I won't argue with that but that doesn't mean it isn't still a wanky sport. They give you consolation points if you miss a goal for christs sake! What the hell is that.

A dirty plan. (new title)

I have changed the title of this blog from "What were you thinking! : An attempt to change our trajectory through chronic nagging." to the current one basically for the sole purpose of attracting more attention through controversy.


I know, it's low. Don't worry, I do feel dirty. But stuff you. You're not the one putting your ass on the line out there. You're not the one who has to keep returning to this pitiful drudge puddle and disappointed to find that no one has even bothered to turn their head and spit in it (It's really hurtful).


So from now on I'm going to be exploiting peoples lust for the controversial. Nothing will be too low-brow and nobody will be above a good roasting. Anything goes; sex, sports codes, religions, politics, car manufacters; some of the important things that people devote their lives to. Are you happy? You freaks!


Nah just kidding, you're all right.

So, stay tuned for the possibility of something freaky-deaky...

Yo Guber, where's the meat?

But the word 'meat' may not necessarily mean what you think it does.
Mr Crothers says under the Food Standards Code, muscle meat (such as steak) is only one of the body parts that's included in its definition.
"Meat can mean snouts, ears, tongue roots, tendons and blood vessels. And it can come from other animals you may not expect to be eating such as buffalo, camel, deer, goat, hare and rabbit," says Mr Crothers.
Only offal (such as brain, heart, kidney, liver, tongue, tripe) must be specified on the label

http://www.abc.net.au/westernplains/stories/s1635272.htm

In a nut shell I believe people often follow good plans for bad reasons, or bad plans with good reasons. The plans I am briefly discussing here are the choices to eat or not to eat meat pies. And the reasons: They contain unknown (or usually worse if they are known) parts of animals which are considered gross or not gross.
Usually the opinion that they are gross leads to the not eating and the opposite opinion leads to the opposite action. I think both of them are unreasonable. This is because one relies on the person’s emotional response and the other relies on their taste.

Now it’s obvious that my position is that people shouldn’t eat meat pies, because they’re basically rubbish. Now I would have thought this was as pointless as telling people to refrain from eating their own shoes or something of the sort, but I consistently see people stuffing their pie holes so it can’t have been as obvious as I thought. It’s not the eating of pies that I’m concerned with, I couldn’t really care less – except for the fact that it’s obviously bad for peoples health – but what I am worried about is the reasoning behind peoples decisions. And I think you’ll find that once people tackle this problem then, just as a consequence, meat pie consumption will fall – which isn’t really my aim, but what the hell.

Some people are probably thinking that “I already don’t eat meat pies, so I’m in the clear”. The point is why don’t you eat meat pies; because they’re yucky? Or because what they contain is gross? Perhaps it’s because they contain pieces of murdered innocent animals? These are all examples, in my opinion, of misdirected reasoning. The first is a direct result of blindly following your taste impulses, the second is incorrect in thinking that eating certain parts of an animal is somehow worse than eating other parts that we consider normal – and should be considered no different from eating various parts of a plant – and the third, well, that’s a whole discussion in itself that I hope to return to.

The other person is the one who agrees with these previous points but then mistakenly takes them to be in the affirmative to eat the pie. No, this is not so. They are only criticisms of the reasons not to eat pies. Just because reasons against an action are debunked does not automatically imply that the action has any logical reason to be performed. For that we need reasons to eat the pie. “They taste nice” seems to be the only reason given, but is it a reasonable one? I have already covered this under point 1 above.

So in short; no, I don’t believe there are any ‘good’ reasons for eating meat pies, but if you find yourself thinking, “Look, I like the taste alright. Quit jiving me, get of my goddamn back and let me pie you clod.” Well like I said, I don’t care if you eat pies – or your own shoes for that matter – and no one’s going to stop you. But a heart attack might.

Matter of opinion?

A couple of New Jersey hunters are out in the woods when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn't seem to be breathing, his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps to the operator: “My friend is dead! What can I do?” The operator, in a calm soothing voice says: “Just take it easy. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead.” There is a silence, then a shot is heard. The guy's voice comes back on the line. He says: “OK, now what?"

Funniest joke in the world? I think not. But this is not what laughlab (www.laughlab.co.uk) would have me believe. This joke was announced as the 'world's funniest joke' by majority vote.

Laughlab was established by some scientist (I think. I don't know, you read the web page) and finding the world's funniest joke was one of their 'experiments'(?) Now, I understand that it being an international, multi-cultural, multi-aged, mixed-religious study thing that there was never going to be any good jokes submitted. But then why bother with the study? It's not really applicable to the general population at all.

I was going to criticise this 'scientific' endeavour as bringing shame upon the scientific community and feeding the current attitude against science by misrepresenting the term "scientific", but then I realised that I was misunderstanding the meaning of scientific. Science being essentially the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, this project did fit in, in theory. It would have been nice to get some insight into the neural workings behind what we find humourous, but this study gives a poor representation at best.

Anyhow, I’d be interested to hear comments. In fact maybe we could make some attempt at it here; post any jokes that you think are classics and we could get some voting or something.

Too Democratic

For reasons I shan't go into, I had a sudden desire to do a bit of research into ye ole King Arthur and his cronies from the Round Table and this is an excerpt from the first website I happened to come across:

“Was Arthur a true, historical figure or only a hero of legend? This is truly up to each and every one of us to decide for ourselves.”

Needless to say, this killed dead in its tracks any curiosity I may have still had in the topic. No. It is not for 'us to decide for ourselves'; it is up to the facts to tell us what happened. That's how human knowledge progresses.
Yes, fine, there may not be enough information to tell us exactly what happened and in this instance that seems to be the case, but that certainly doesn't mean that people can go right ahead and chose from the two options pretending that they're both as good and equally a valid solution to the problem. If there is not enough evidence to support either of the theories it means that we have to accept suspending our judgment of the question and wait for further evidence, and subsequently skeptically scrutinise the new evidence of course.
This particular case is even more pertinent to my main point in that there isn't actually an equal dividing line between the two theories requiring equal doubt of both unless supported. In this case if there is not sufficient evidence then it actually, by default, leans towards the side of the negative: that the story of Arthur is a myth. This is because of the inherent nature of what is being proposed by each of the theories. Our natural state should be to assume that it was a myth, because there's not much to support the contrary, and then place the burden of proof on the side of the persons trying to argue the alternative. If they provide a good case, then, by all means, we should change our minds.

It seems that in today's society (possibly older times as well, i'm not sure, i wasn't there) it has become somewhat of a faux pas to merely point out that a currently held belief is, well, wrong. Leaving the only ground left to present the happy land of compromise. Through my, admittedly and regrettably, limited readings I have come across many such instances in which even the most usually outspoken, skeptically rational, scientifically literate (yes, that is a vital characteristic) person has found themselves compelled to resort to this ultra-democratic, non-contentious position of compromising between two positions. I don't blame them either, because proposing anything else leaves them open to automatic accusations of arrogance or bigotry.

This is what happens when the general public (italics important) becomes too democratic or too generous with their criticism, extolling that both sides of the argument have merit. Sometimes people are just wrong and their beliefs, crazy. But, as i said above, it often reflects badly on the person suggesting this and makes them look arrogant for not 'allowing' other peoples opinions.

Today with all our current scientific, technological, moral, philosophical and social progress it seems to be popular to skirt around the issue of critically assessing peoples beliefs to avoid hurting their feelings or whatever. I just want to raise this idea into peoples minds when they read someone's criticism of another's ideas. Don't just dismiss it on the grounds that you think they're arrogant (even though they may be) but look at what they have to say, and look at what sort of credentials they have and why they're defending what they're defending or criticising and so on. This is important because it has been and is in international news quite recently and it seems that a huge proportion of people, understandably, can't get a handle of this.

God forbid that people tell the truth...

About time?

"On 3 May, major US soft drinks companies including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cadbury Schweppes, along with the American Beverage Association, volunteered to phase out drinks containing more than 100 calories per can from school vending machines by 2010. Instead, 35 million children across the US will be offered more alternatives, including bottled water and fruit and vegetable juices." New Scientist, 13 May, 2006

Not that i'm complaining because i think it's fantastic news, but isn't it about time?

We're not animals?

Yes, another post about food. It's just that food – specifically our uncontrollable desire for it -is the perfect target for our self analysis. It is perhaps the most vital of operations an organism must perform to be successful, second only to reproduction (obviously why both seem, to some, to be pillars of which their life revolves).

I’m aware that my previous post was somewhat non-sensical and a bit all-over-the-place, and so I apologise for that, and for this next one in advance as it not be much of an improvement.

To start here's another pearl of wisdom (maybe these could be the theme for my posts) that really 'got my goat', or whatever the expression is.

"Eeeeeew, mushrooms. They're a fungus!"

Yes they are. Well done, Carolus Linnaeus would be proud. But that is no argument for convincing people to not eat them. In fact, it is not an argument at all. It's tantamount to claiming that "I won't eat that because it's food." There's only one word for this: Idiocy.

I'm not trying to tell people that they're stupid for disliking the taste of certain foods. What I am trying to stop is people not thinking when they think they are thinking(...what?) or more accurately, to encourage rational thinking. If the only reason that you don't eat something is because it's "squishy"or "smells funny" or "looks yuk" or just down right doesn't taste nice, then these aren't reasons at all (I hope I don't have to clarify that i'm referring to items that are food and are of known decent nutritional value and age). Just eat it, it'll no doubt be good for you, but more importantly it will give you practise in taming those insulting primitive urges and give us some small justification for acting as the superior beings that we claim to be. Don't succumb to those phantoms from the past wrapping you round their little fingers by rewarding you for devouring all that is sweet or salty or whatever. We can thank those urges because they got us to where we are today, but we don't need them anymore and we should be giving them the shaft. If not for our own sense of self achievement then for our longevity.

Spice Weasel

“This needs more salt.” I cannot help but cringe every time I hear someone announce this. This single phrase I think captures, or represents, all that is keeping humanity from ‘growing up’.

My intent here is not to insult or denigrate other people or their habits. I am here, as my title suggests, to prod people to stop for one moment and to take a look at themselves and think “what the hell am I doing?” Do not think that I am solely targeting others from up here on my high horse, no, not at all. I am always painfully aware of how easily my brain switches off and I once again merge back into a member of…society.

Now back to the salt. There are many different aspects that it highlights and many different angles at which to attack it from, so I will arbitrarily start with what comes to mind first: Arrogance. I believe that it advertises the unconscious arrogance of the specific individual who, after sampling a meal at a restaurant, proclaims to ‘know better than the chef’ and state that the meal requires more salt to be of any worth.“But” – I hear you ask “what if this person had prepared their meal themselves? Surely they could see whether their own dish needs a ‘dash’ of the great flavour enhancer.”

Ah, but this brings me to my next point (a much more significant one I must admit). It is this idea that somehow adding salt to something magically changes its properties to release the full potential of the given food, and that only yours truly, by sampling the minutest of quantities, could ascertain the precise amount to be added. Let’s not kid ourselves, adding salt makes things taste more salty. That’s it. And being the contemptibly nutrient dependent organisms we are, have evolved a specific affinity for salty substances (for obvious reasons).

So if I could regress to my main topic, it is this blind succumbing to our primitive animal urges and instincts; whilst pretending their some higher, holy, divinely inspired culinary pursuit; is not only arrogant but ignorant as well.

So, the next time you're stuffing your pie-hole and think "this meal could have been better if only i had prepared it" remember it's just your mindless dead ancestors finding another way to guide your free will...