sorry for the delay...i been sick and busy.
the spice moves on...
a last bit about gayness...and then????
Closely associated with the Divine Command theory I babbled about last time is Natural Law Theory. The two end up being linked because they both have a wee bit of common theistic history. Divine command is the morality of the church a long long time ago, Natural Law theory? The morality of the church a long time ago (and well to this berry day for some.). The name most often associated with Natural Law Theory is Aquinas. The problem is that the version that St. Tommy offered, if we are to read it generously, doesn't resemble the sort that your average person who is commited to the deal advocates today...
To over simplify Aquinas' account, the deal was this:
There is a divine law (because there has to be or the world just wouldn't make much sense).
God done gave us the key to understanding the divine law when he done gave us reason.
Reason is the key because we are the only things that got it and we alone were made in God's image, so it makes sense that reason is pretty darned special.
In that we have reason, a chunk of our purpose must be to use it (cause god wouldn't have done givin us reason for no reason).
It only makes sense (is rational) that things oughtta fulfill their purpose.
Therefore, in order to take full advantage of our faculties and rationality we must use reason to create our human laws because its the bestest tool for the job and part of our purpose is to be rational...(this is pretty darned much the natural law...we have to do what is natural to us the same way that beavers ought to chew wood).
The divine law is rational and to the degree that we formulate moral rules that are rational and in accord with god's word, our law (the human law) is in accord with the divine law and it rocks the moral hizouse...
Now this should remind all you wanna be philosophers out there of Aristotle's teleology based virtue ethic...Aristotle too woulda said fulfilling one's purpose is the way to go, he woulda also thought that reason was particularly important...but he wouldn't have put God in the picture. For Aquinas the natural law, the purposefulness of the world becomes a wee bit more important because rather that that purposefulness just being a consequence of the way the world works, it is handed down by God. So fulfilling one's purpose is pretty damned important (because, well God done gave everything it's particular purpose).
SOOOOO, what does that have to do with gay humping?
Well, quite a bit actually. It's not hard to see where the argument is gonna go. If part of our obligation is to act according to our divinely granted purpose, then anytime we deviate from that purpose we are doing a naughty thing. Obviously you have a willy or a puss for a particular purpose (to have babies) therefore any use of that willy or puss for any other activity is in violation of its intended purpose, is irrational, ungodly and morally wrong.
Now, although absurdly over-simplified, this version of natural law theory is roughly 4,328 times as sophisticated as the arguments you will hear regarding how gayness is 'un-natural'. Alas, even this slightly fleshed out version is pretty darned shitty. Because...well...no one who advocates it is willing or able to consistently adhere to it. Given that one of the premises in the whole deal is that reason is king, embracing a contradiction is going to be a pretty darned tough pill to swallow. Contradiction is one thing we can all agree is just plain irrational (and if you don't agree, you are using a definition of 'reason' that is so far removed from history and/or convention that you oughta stick to poetry).
The contradiction rears its ugly little head when we start considering purposes and nature...
If we are to stick to the simplified version of natural law provided above...we have a wee bit of a problem when we try to figure out the purposefulness deal because things have more than one purpose...one can use sex organs to make babies, for pleasure, to make cash, to help create intimacy in a relationship etc. Noone can claim that baby making is the only true purpose of the junk in your shorts, because there are just so darned many. However, if you are willing to commit to the notion that the baby making purpose is THE REAL purpose, and the use of one's naughty bits for anything other than that purpose is morally wrong then it MUST follow not only that diddling your own button is wrong but that I am doing something morally wrong when I wink at you or roll my eyes because certainly those aren't the REAL purposes of my eyeballs...in fact, if things can only have one REAL purpose then at least one (winking or rolling) MUST be at least as morally wrong as gay humping...and, well no one is trying to prevent eye rollers from getting married. No one will consistently commit to the notion that each organ that we have only has one real purpose and that any other use is morally wrong. If one cannot commit to that claim, then they cannot commit to the notion that gay humping is wrong on the grounds that it violates the purpose of your naughty bits.
Now, plenty of other seriously flawed reasons have been given under the name of natural law (more often than not unwittingly)...these reasons often differ from the account above in terms of the definition of 'natural'....some of those equally bad (if not worse) arguments to consider and dismiss:
The notion that 'natural' really means normal...or fitting within the realm of what is considered normal...
This is just ridiculous. Morality and normalcy don't have a damned thing to do with one another (and in fact we can prove that indeed they cannot have a necessary connection) BUT for the sake of brevity, all we need to do to effectively refute this idiotic argument is to point out that by these standards we'd get rid of anyone and everyone who happens to be exceptional as morally abhorrant. Noone wants to consider a prodigy or a smarty pants or someone who cultivates a partiucular talent morally wrong but practicing a particular skill all day is certainly abnormal. Unless you want to claim that every kid who is first chair in his schools orchestra is morally wrong because kids that age shouldn't practice their instrument so darned much you gotta give up on this absurd position...in order to hold this view, you just have to be an idiot or a liar.
Folks sure as hell don't think gay humping is unnatural in the sense that it violates the 'laws of nature' (this is what the person who calims 'animals dont do it!' is really getting after).
Since when have the laws of nature determined right or wrong? Never, of course. I have a bum ticker, naturally my heart is gonna give out by like forty-five...I sure as hell don't think i will be doing something morally wrong by putting in the artificial valve that is gonna keep me alive...and neither do you. You like man's accomplishments and creations...If 'natural', in this sense, is the standard for morality then you are going to have to give up on social convention in it's entirety, technology, medicine, art etc. because all of those things are inventions of man and consequently immoral. If you claim to want to get rid of all those things? Well you are just an idiot or a liar.
The 'it is icky' argument isn't going to hold either...'gayness seems gross so it is unnatural. dudes are naturally repulsed by dudes and women by women'. That is just plain stupid. Brain surgery is icky too, that doesn't mean it is morally wrong. If you claim to believe this? Yup...idiot or liar. This, by the way, is also why those of you who think icky pictures of blood covered baby monkeys are important to the 'abortion' argument are sorta jsut plain stupid too...just cause something is gross or difficult to looka t, sure as shit doesn't make it morally wrong. Fallacies are sure easy to come by, aren't they...
SOOOOO, having considered a handful of the arguments as to why gay humping is morally wrong I hope to have brought you to the only rational understanding one can have regarding the moral nature of the issue...there is no RATIONAL justification for the belief that homosexuality/homosexual behavior is in and of itself morally wrong...
Because the spice is here for you, I'll let you know that anytime you make (or attempt to make) an argument that gayness is somehow morally wrong you are sorta kinda advertizing that you are a thoughtless baffoon. However, i'll be happy to listen any arguments you've got and explain to you why they make you sound like a complete idiot before you say them out loud to anyone else.
other than that, i am moving on. i don't even remember what inspired the gay rant (i think it was general so and so saying such and such a month ago and the idiotic discussions the he inspired)...i got bigger and better things to worry about now. sooo, next spice report? either some poetry or some thoughts about crazy kids with guns.
smooch
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
gayness considered, completely and totally for the last friggen time
If you are gonna teach an introductory ethics class, you really oughta include homosexuality in your applied section...not because it is the most pressing moral concern facing...well...anyone, not because it is the most important issue of the twenty-first century and not because it is a really complicated, theoretically challenging topic. The reason you have to consider it is because it may be the issue that inspires the largest variety of absolutely horrible, useless, completely pathetic arguments around.
Sadly, if you were to ask 100 people their 'moral' stance regarding homosexuality you will get fewer than five reasonable answers. The popular arguments for both sides just plain suck. Folks advocate completely incoherent notions of morality when they talk about gay stuff, or they advocate moral standards that they don't really believe in...
Sooooooooo...since my self appointed position here is common sense distributor/reason provider AND since this topic seems to actually interest folks (you should see the absurd amount of time dedicated to the topic on various blogs) I'm gonna do you all a favor and explain why the arguments you hear (and likely some you hold) are completey friggen lame. Hopefully this will allow each and every last one of you to move the hell on and spend your energy on more interesting social, moral and/or political concerns.
So, as my gift to you I'll go over the really common, really shitty arguments, on both sides of the gayness/morality discussion, over the course of the next few of days.
We'll start with the popular arguments for why gayness is just plain wrong...
i. 'God said so...'
Any sort of Divine Command theory is going to suffer from a number of problems that are so darned problematic as to make the theory pretty damned useless when it comes to making real world moral decisions...I'll run through 'em for you, even though i probably shouldn't have to.
Perhaps the most obvious troubles that you'll arrive at in attempting to derive morality from divine command are the practical problems: 'God said blah blah blah....' cannot serve as reasonable justification for a particular moral belief because there are so darned many competing accounts of who God is and what God said.
There are roughly four hundred, ninety-three thousand and twenty-one different conceptions of God. All of which have roughly THE EXACT SAME justification for their existence. So which one do we follow? If we narrow it down to...say... a Christian conception, which interpretation? Catholic? Fundamentalist? Should I ask a Baptist or a Seventh-Day Adventist? They sure as heck aren't gonna agree on what is morally kosher and what ain't...so how do i decide? Let's say I somehow narrow it down even further (I'll go with Catholic), then our question is which sort of Catholic? What sort of interpretation of the Bible? Even if i can find a particular flavor of religion I like (we'll stick with Catholic...still), what about the questions that the Bible doesn't answer specifically? and/or those where it seems to give conflicting answers (if any answers at all)? The bible doesn't (despite what you may have heard) specifically say that abortion is wrong. So...is abortion wrong because the Bible apparently indicates that God 'knew' me before I was born? OR is it not really a big deal because the old testament flavored penalty for sort of/kind of accidentally 'killing' a fetus is to pay a little restitution?
So, the practical problems for divine comman are pretty darned hard to get around. How on earth do we decide which God? Which interpreter of his word? If we have a certain interpreter how do we reconcile the conflicting, misleading and/or contradictory stuff that seems to be all over the place in just about every religion? Seems like a totally hopeless pain in the ass doesn't it? That ain't even the half of it...
Although determining what God said may seem to be a practical, epistemological problem, it doesn't entail that a Divine Command theory is wrong (just that it may be impossible to justify. The really damning criticism of Divine Command theory is pretty darned simple: it is impossible for a rational being to embrace the notion that what justifies a moral claim (in other words, what makes the moral claim 'right') is merely that God said so....why? Because, if the only demand is that God said it, pronounced it or issued the rule, it is not only entirely arbitrary it also entails the possibility of a contradiction. If there is the possibility of a contradiction...well, that just can't fly. For example: If all that is required for a particular action to be morally right (or wrong) is that God say so, then he can say whatever the heck he wants...He may very well say, ' kill every dude with an italian horn and visible chest hair!' and that then would be a moral imperative, it would be the right thing to do. Not only that, but s/he could say, 'You must both kill the gold chain wearing, chest hair flaunting guido's and not kill them!'...The problem, i hope, is apparent. Not only could it be the case that God is reduced to an arbitrary bossy pants, but there is no prohibition on his/her contradicting him/herself. And that can't work for roughly a million reasons (not the least of which is that if you allow for contradiciton you can do or believe anything.)
Now, i imagine a protest from the back of the room, 'Hey! Dumbass, God wouldn't command stupid stuff like that because he is all good and loving and knowing AND you idiot he wouldn't contradict himself because he is rational!' Well, here is the deal...If you are even tempted to respond in that manner you have already conceded that Divine Command just don't work. If you are saying that God is too darned nice to command that we kill folks who have horrible personal style...then you have given up on the notion that God saying something is what makes it right (go and read Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates makes the same sort of point much better than I do.) What you are saying is that it is the nice, good, loving thing to do and that is why God commands it. If God commands it for a reason then that reason is part of the justification for why it is right. If that reason is part of what makes it right, then you don't believe in Divine Command.
Similarly let's consider the contradiction example: God says, 'Kill those guido bastards! AND Don't kill those guido bastards!'. The objection was, 'God wouldn't say something contradictory you idiot!' Well, why not? The answer, inevitably is, "...because God isn't stupid. He is rational!' Well, if he is rational then you are relying on reason to justify the rightness or wrongness of the claim, not just his word...Either way? you are damned if you do and damned if you don't (pun thoroughly and completely intended).
So, let's review....
Divine command just can't work. It can't help us make good moral decisions because there are too darned many competing accounts and no meaningfully relevant difference with regard to the evidence/justification for any of them. If help making moral decisions is something we want to do, Divine Command fails miserably because it won't be convincing to a rational agent... Perhaps more important is the logical problem. If the only justification we require for a moral claim is that God said so, the claims become arbitrary and lame. God could just be bossing us around for no good reason. If, however, we say that he has any sort of reason for what he commands, we concede that his saying so isn't what made the claim right in the first place and we refute the notion of Divine Command before it gets off the ground...
Divine command theory is just plain weak, whether you are talking about homosexuality or how many days you ought to refrain from sitting in the chair of a woman who was having her period. If however, you want to adopt it as consistently as possible, you best embrace every damned law in the Bible...from the shape and length of your beard to the crops you are gonna grow next to one another, because if you don't your position isn't even strong enough to demand the objections I offer here. You are conceding that interpretation is cool and your word, your interpretation of God's word is cool, therefore you have to concede that any other interpretation is cool too (unless of course you have some sort of direct access to god that I don't have...which you don't and can't).
All in all, Divine Command is a tough position to hold. To commit to it in a remotely consistent way, you would need to be willing to follow each and every prohibition the bible makes (which of course you aren't) and even if you were, you still wouldn't have any reason to believe that your beliefs were better than the muslim's or jew's around the block.
Our consideration of Divine Command leads us to a slightly more sophisticated (emphasis on slightly) slightly more defensable (still emphasizing slightly) position in the western tradition that is often used to condemn homosexuality on moral grounds: Natural Law Theory. Sadly, Natural Law is not going to offer us any help with regards to determining whether or not homosexuality is wrong because(as we will see next time) it (articularly as it is used in the debate regarding the right and wrong of gayness) is ridiculously problematic as well.
Sadly, if you were to ask 100 people their 'moral' stance regarding homosexuality you will get fewer than five reasonable answers. The popular arguments for both sides just plain suck. Folks advocate completely incoherent notions of morality when they talk about gay stuff, or they advocate moral standards that they don't really believe in...
Sooooooooo...since my self appointed position here is common sense distributor/reason provider AND since this topic seems to actually interest folks (you should see the absurd amount of time dedicated to the topic on various blogs) I'm gonna do you all a favor and explain why the arguments you hear (and likely some you hold) are completey friggen lame. Hopefully this will allow each and every last one of you to move the hell on and spend your energy on more interesting social, moral and/or political concerns.
So, as my gift to you I'll go over the really common, really shitty arguments, on both sides of the gayness/morality discussion, over the course of the next few of days.
We'll start with the popular arguments for why gayness is just plain wrong...
i. 'God said so...'
Any sort of Divine Command theory is going to suffer from a number of problems that are so darned problematic as to make the theory pretty damned useless when it comes to making real world moral decisions...I'll run through 'em for you, even though i probably shouldn't have to.
Perhaps the most obvious troubles that you'll arrive at in attempting to derive morality from divine command are the practical problems: 'God said blah blah blah....' cannot serve as reasonable justification for a particular moral belief because there are so darned many competing accounts of who God is and what God said.
There are roughly four hundred, ninety-three thousand and twenty-one different conceptions of God. All of which have roughly THE EXACT SAME justification for their existence. So which one do we follow? If we narrow it down to...say... a Christian conception, which interpretation? Catholic? Fundamentalist? Should I ask a Baptist or a Seventh-Day Adventist? They sure as heck aren't gonna agree on what is morally kosher and what ain't...so how do i decide? Let's say I somehow narrow it down even further (I'll go with Catholic), then our question is which sort of Catholic? What sort of interpretation of the Bible? Even if i can find a particular flavor of religion I like (we'll stick with Catholic...still), what about the questions that the Bible doesn't answer specifically? and/or those where it seems to give conflicting answers (if any answers at all)? The bible doesn't (despite what you may have heard) specifically say that abortion is wrong. So...is abortion wrong because the Bible apparently indicates that God 'knew' me before I was born? OR is it not really a big deal because the old testament flavored penalty for sort of/kind of accidentally 'killing' a fetus is to pay a little restitution?
So, the practical problems for divine comman are pretty darned hard to get around. How on earth do we decide which God? Which interpreter of his word? If we have a certain interpreter how do we reconcile the conflicting, misleading and/or contradictory stuff that seems to be all over the place in just about every religion? Seems like a totally hopeless pain in the ass doesn't it? That ain't even the half of it...
Although determining what God said may seem to be a practical, epistemological problem, it doesn't entail that a Divine Command theory is wrong (just that it may be impossible to justify. The really damning criticism of Divine Command theory is pretty darned simple: it is impossible for a rational being to embrace the notion that what justifies a moral claim (in other words, what makes the moral claim 'right') is merely that God said so....why? Because, if the only demand is that God said it, pronounced it or issued the rule, it is not only entirely arbitrary it also entails the possibility of a contradiction. If there is the possibility of a contradiction...well, that just can't fly. For example: If all that is required for a particular action to be morally right (or wrong) is that God say so, then he can say whatever the heck he wants...He may very well say, ' kill every dude with an italian horn and visible chest hair!' and that then would be a moral imperative, it would be the right thing to do. Not only that, but s/he could say, 'You must both kill the gold chain wearing, chest hair flaunting guido's and not kill them!'...The problem, i hope, is apparent. Not only could it be the case that God is reduced to an arbitrary bossy pants, but there is no prohibition on his/her contradicting him/herself. And that can't work for roughly a million reasons (not the least of which is that if you allow for contradiciton you can do or believe anything.)
Now, i imagine a protest from the back of the room, 'Hey! Dumbass, God wouldn't command stupid stuff like that because he is all good and loving and knowing AND you idiot he wouldn't contradict himself because he is rational!' Well, here is the deal...If you are even tempted to respond in that manner you have already conceded that Divine Command just don't work. If you are saying that God is too darned nice to command that we kill folks who have horrible personal style...then you have given up on the notion that God saying something is what makes it right (go and read Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates makes the same sort of point much better than I do.) What you are saying is that it is the nice, good, loving thing to do and that is why God commands it. If God commands it for a reason then that reason is part of the justification for why it is right. If that reason is part of what makes it right, then you don't believe in Divine Command.
Similarly let's consider the contradiction example: God says, 'Kill those guido bastards! AND Don't kill those guido bastards!'. The objection was, 'God wouldn't say something contradictory you idiot!' Well, why not? The answer, inevitably is, "...because God isn't stupid. He is rational!' Well, if he is rational then you are relying on reason to justify the rightness or wrongness of the claim, not just his word...Either way? you are damned if you do and damned if you don't (pun thoroughly and completely intended).
So, let's review....
Divine command just can't work. It can't help us make good moral decisions because there are too darned many competing accounts and no meaningfully relevant difference with regard to the evidence/justification for any of them. If help making moral decisions is something we want to do, Divine Command fails miserably because it won't be convincing to a rational agent... Perhaps more important is the logical problem. If the only justification we require for a moral claim is that God said so, the claims become arbitrary and lame. God could just be bossing us around for no good reason. If, however, we say that he has any sort of reason for what he commands, we concede that his saying so isn't what made the claim right in the first place and we refute the notion of Divine Command before it gets off the ground...
Divine command theory is just plain weak, whether you are talking about homosexuality or how many days you ought to refrain from sitting in the chair of a woman who was having her period. If however, you want to adopt it as consistently as possible, you best embrace every damned law in the Bible...from the shape and length of your beard to the crops you are gonna grow next to one another, because if you don't your position isn't even strong enough to demand the objections I offer here. You are conceding that interpretation is cool and your word, your interpretation of God's word is cool, therefore you have to concede that any other interpretation is cool too (unless of course you have some sort of direct access to god that I don't have...which you don't and can't).
All in all, Divine Command is a tough position to hold. To commit to it in a remotely consistent way, you would need to be willing to follow each and every prohibition the bible makes (which of course you aren't) and even if you were, you still wouldn't have any reason to believe that your beliefs were better than the muslim's or jew's around the block.
Our consideration of Divine Command leads us to a slightly more sophisticated (emphasis on slightly) slightly more defensable (still emphasizing slightly) position in the western tradition that is often used to condemn homosexuality on moral grounds: Natural Law Theory. Sadly, Natural Law is not going to offer us any help with regards to determining whether or not homosexuality is wrong because(as we will see next time) it (articularly as it is used in the debate regarding the right and wrong of gayness) is ridiculously problematic as well.
Friday, March 16, 2007
sport is fun
it is the truth...
if you do not like the ncaa mens basketball tournament you are still pissed about being picked last in gym class, losing your girlfriend to a basketball player in 1oth grade, or getting beat up by someone wearing jordans.
this shit is just too damned good to be true.
if you do not like the ncaa mens basketball tournament you are still pissed about being picked last in gym class, losing your girlfriend to a basketball player in 1oth grade, or getting beat up by someone wearing jordans.
this shit is just too damned good to be true.
just ask...
why?
in the last several days, someone, somewhere...
read that karl rove claimed that the opposition was responsible for politicizing his involvement in the whole federal prosecutors deal and because of that he didn't do anythin' wrong...and thought, 'hey, that makes sense.'
heard that so and so agreed with the notion that them there queers shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military because as a catholic they have to believe that it is wrong...and said, 'hmm, ok i can respect that.'
was discussing some 'moral' issue with their buddy over a beer and nodded, 'right on' when they heard,'hey, its just a matter of opinion, let's agree to disagree.'
well, im here to tell you. that is just too damned bad. not because the views expressed are necessarily wrong (it may be the case that the bastards from the other side of the aisle are politicizing rove's deal, that gay folks should definitely not be allowed to serve openly and that the best one can do in a certain situation is agree to disagree). its a damn shame because the reasons used to justify those claims are absolutely useless, provide no support for the claim being made AND if you can make sense of the poorly punctuated sentences i be writing...you cannot consistently adhere to belief in any of them...
in the last several days, someone, somewhere...
read that karl rove claimed that the opposition was responsible for politicizing his involvement in the whole federal prosecutors deal and because of that he didn't do anythin' wrong...and thought, 'hey, that makes sense.'
heard that so and so agreed with the notion that them there queers shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military because as a catholic they have to believe that it is wrong...and said, 'hmm, ok i can respect that.'
was discussing some 'moral' issue with their buddy over a beer and nodded, 'right on' when they heard,'hey, its just a matter of opinion, let's agree to disagree.'
well, im here to tell you. that is just too damned bad. not because the views expressed are necessarily wrong (it may be the case that the bastards from the other side of the aisle are politicizing rove's deal, that gay folks should definitely not be allowed to serve openly and that the best one can do in a certain situation is agree to disagree). its a damn shame because the reasons used to justify those claims are absolutely useless, provide no support for the claim being made AND if you can make sense of the poorly punctuated sentences i be writing...you cannot consistently adhere to belief in any of them...
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
hi, my name is spice. what's yours?
two or three of you know me...er...uh knew me...
remember? i dragged you kicking and screaming through a history, preview and review of every stage of a half dozen-ish tours de france...you didn't want to try it at first? you had never heard of it? it looked and smelled funny and you couldn't pronounce the names????ventoux???hautacam???hinault???anquetil???merckx??indurain? remember?
but remember then? amember when you got used to the taste when that know it all jack ass at the water cooler said- hey, how about that armstrong guy he is great. huh!?- and you rattled off all sorts of goody about everything from his training schedule to his heart rate??
you compared his performance on mont ventoux to his climb of hautacam??
you had the g.o.a.t discussion, all day long, with yourself because all mr. know it all could say was-um yeah, you know he had cancer???
not only did you get used to it, you loved it.
when you stayed up till 4am to hear the streaming bbc broadcast of the final mountain stage...
man did the spice taste good that day...
remember that?
amember the time i pissed you off? remember...when i informed you that mean nasty Rival State was gonna beat the snot out of good ol' Alumni U? remember that? boy oh boy you hated me that time...you even refused to finish me. even if it meant no dessert. you were like -this sucks. i don't want it grrr grrr grr blah blah blah...im giving mine to the dog- Remember? And remember when you let a teensy eensy weensy bit get through your lips 'cause i played airplane with the fork???remember how you warmed to the spice like the taste of lowland single malt and a lingering mouthful of guiness??? remember how it warmed you up when you realized you could say something more about those bastards than, 'Rival State Sucks!'? remember that?
well, for the two of you that remember me, i'd like you to know that im back...
and i am here to add the same sort of spice to just about...um...everything.
for the other three of you who are new...
this is my lame ass introduction.
i loved bringing the sport spice because I LOVE SPORT. i am a fan of the game first and then the teams...a fan of play first and then of the players.
that's what allowed me to give you the yummy without compromise... allowed me to see and explain to you why le tour is so damned intriguing...
it's why i could see past the venom and the mean and the nasty and tell you both the weaknesses and the strengths of the opposing team. (it is also why i have never had a losing week betting sports...well, that and i have only ever actually bet on sports three times... and tim ford still owes me $275. i prefer to spend my time on sure bets like roulette and the big wheel).
you see my friends,
whether we are talking booze or berkeley (georges or charles), basketball or botticelli...
the spice doesn't care who is right or who is wrong...
it doesn't care who gets credit.
BUT it sure as hell do care about the argument-not who 'won' the argument- but which argument is better? what argument is best?
the spice is only concerned with two things:
knowledge and wisdom.
now, this can be an unbelievable pain in the ass...
but it can also be sorta helpful...
because the deal is, from what i have seen, even the best and brightest of you have lost your way...
noone seems to care about reasons.
noone seems to demand justification.
people seem to content themselves with opinions (more often than not, not even their own, but one borrowed from some jackass on a sunday morning news show).
you see, opinions are like bowls of oatmeal and white toast covered in skim milk...
they may get you by...
but
they aren't very satisfying,
you can do a hell of a lot better,
and
you sure as hell aren't gonna get laid if you serve one to your date.
opinions are baseless, bland and boring... reasons are where it's at.
and the spice is always where it's at.
that is why the spice has come back from the dead....
that is why the spice has work to do...
all bets are off and all topics need seasoning.
im bringing a dozen cloves of common sense, a cup of reason, a tablespoon of justification, and (depending on the occasion)a dash of evidence (and of course four lbs of mixed metaphor)
because thats what the spice do...
that's how the spice roll...
thats what the spice is all about...
the spice is about providing meaningful support for particular beliefs and pointing out the lack of meaningful support for other beliefs.
it is about recognizing when and why something tastes bland, knowing how to add some yummy to the dish, figuring out where to dump the lot of it when it goes bad and who to tip when it is prepared and served well....
the spice is here because reasons are to beliefs like cumin is to chili...
you may not think you like it...you may not think it is important...hell, you very well may not be able to identify it...BUT go on and make some chili without it? and it'll taste like a bucket of bland...
throw some of that earthy-hot goodness in there and you'll say, 'damn! so that is what that is!?!?! Cumin you say? Hell that's the shit that makes chili, chili!'
and good reasons are what make good beliefs...well...umm...good...
justification is a big part of what turns 'em into knowledge and wisdom...
and that is what the spice is alllll about.
sooooooooooooo...
dinner is served..
and every belief you've got is on the menu...
if you don't have reasons to flavor 'em? don't even worry about it...
just grab a glass of milk in case i burn your tongue
some pepto in case i burn your heart
and a few immodium in case i burn your ass...
because ill always have a pinch or two of goody lying around
and it's all yours
the spice is all yours.
remember? i dragged you kicking and screaming through a history, preview and review of every stage of a half dozen-ish tours de france...you didn't want to try it at first? you had never heard of it? it looked and smelled funny and you couldn't pronounce the names????ventoux???hautacam???hinault???anquetil???merckx??indurain? remember?
but remember then? amember when you got used to the taste when that know it all jack ass at the water cooler said- hey, how about that armstrong guy he is great. huh!?- and you rattled off all sorts of goody about everything from his training schedule to his heart rate??
you compared his performance on mont ventoux to his climb of hautacam??
you had the g.o.a.t discussion, all day long, with yourself because all mr. know it all could say was-um yeah, you know he had cancer???
not only did you get used to it, you loved it.
when you stayed up till 4am to hear the streaming bbc broadcast of the final mountain stage...
man did the spice taste good that day...
remember that?
amember the time i pissed you off? remember...when i informed you that mean nasty Rival State was gonna beat the snot out of good ol' Alumni U? remember that? boy oh boy you hated me that time...you even refused to finish me. even if it meant no dessert. you were like -this sucks. i don't want it grrr grrr grr blah blah blah...im giving mine to the dog- Remember? And remember when you let a teensy eensy weensy bit get through your lips 'cause i played airplane with the fork???remember how you warmed to the spice like the taste of lowland single malt and a lingering mouthful of guiness??? remember how it warmed you up when you realized you could say something more about those bastards than, 'Rival State Sucks!'? remember that?
well, for the two of you that remember me, i'd like you to know that im back...
and i am here to add the same sort of spice to just about...um...everything.
for the other three of you who are new...
this is my lame ass introduction.
i loved bringing the sport spice because I LOVE SPORT. i am a fan of the game first and then the teams...a fan of play first and then of the players.
that's what allowed me to give you the yummy without compromise... allowed me to see and explain to you why le tour is so damned intriguing...
it's why i could see past the venom and the mean and the nasty and tell you both the weaknesses and the strengths of the opposing team. (it is also why i have never had a losing week betting sports...well, that and i have only ever actually bet on sports three times... and tim ford still owes me $275. i prefer to spend my time on sure bets like roulette and the big wheel).
you see my friends,
whether we are talking booze or berkeley (georges or charles), basketball or botticelli...
the spice doesn't care who is right or who is wrong...
it doesn't care who gets credit.
BUT it sure as hell do care about the argument-not who 'won' the argument- but which argument is better? what argument is best?
the spice is only concerned with two things:
knowledge and wisdom.
now, this can be an unbelievable pain in the ass...
but it can also be sorta helpful...
because the deal is, from what i have seen, even the best and brightest of you have lost your way...
noone seems to care about reasons.
noone seems to demand justification.
people seem to content themselves with opinions (more often than not, not even their own, but one borrowed from some jackass on a sunday morning news show).
you see, opinions are like bowls of oatmeal and white toast covered in skim milk...
they may get you by...
but
they aren't very satisfying,
you can do a hell of a lot better,
and
you sure as hell aren't gonna get laid if you serve one to your date.
opinions are baseless, bland and boring... reasons are where it's at.
and the spice is always where it's at.
that is why the spice has come back from the dead....
that is why the spice has work to do...
all bets are off and all topics need seasoning.
im bringing a dozen cloves of common sense, a cup of reason, a tablespoon of justification, and (depending on the occasion)a dash of evidence (and of course four lbs of mixed metaphor)
because thats what the spice do...
that's how the spice roll...
thats what the spice is all about...
the spice is about providing meaningful support for particular beliefs and pointing out the lack of meaningful support for other beliefs.
it is about recognizing when and why something tastes bland, knowing how to add some yummy to the dish, figuring out where to dump the lot of it when it goes bad and who to tip when it is prepared and served well....
the spice is here because reasons are to beliefs like cumin is to chili...
you may not think you like it...you may not think it is important...hell, you very well may not be able to identify it...BUT go on and make some chili without it? and it'll taste like a bucket of bland...
throw some of that earthy-hot goodness in there and you'll say, 'damn! so that is what that is!?!?! Cumin you say? Hell that's the shit that makes chili, chili!'
and good reasons are what make good beliefs...well...umm...good...
justification is a big part of what turns 'em into knowledge and wisdom...
and that is what the spice is alllll about.
sooooooooooooo...
dinner is served..
and every belief you've got is on the menu...
if you don't have reasons to flavor 'em? don't even worry about it...
just grab a glass of milk in case i burn your tongue
some pepto in case i burn your heart
and a few immodium in case i burn your ass...
because ill always have a pinch or two of goody lying around
and it's all yours
the spice is all yours.
the resurrection
born 8/13/1997
died 7/29/2001
resurrected 3/14/2007
the spice report was born a beautiful, bouncing, sports-flavored, e-mail newsletter of sorts in the late summer of 1997.
over the course of its brief, completely undistinguished life it covered all things sport...most notably college basketball, foosball and le tour de france.
it died of decidedly unnatural causes in july of 2001.
it has come back to life, in a slightly different form.
because there seems to be no end of fish...
begging to be fried...
in a pot of poorly punctuated goody.
died 7/29/2001
resurrected 3/14/2007
the spice report was born a beautiful, bouncing, sports-flavored, e-mail newsletter of sorts in the late summer of 1997.
over the course of its brief, completely undistinguished life it covered all things sport...most notably college basketball, foosball and le tour de france.
it died of decidedly unnatural causes in july of 2001.
it has come back to life, in a slightly different form.
because there seems to be no end of fish...
begging to be fried...
in a pot of poorly punctuated goody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)