--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> All of the examples on my list are socially
> accepted by
> different groups as either activities themselves or at least as
> spectacles.
You did not say "spectacles."
> Hunting is accepted as both activity or as a spectacle, while other
> forms of
> violence are accepted at least as a spectacle - just check the
> lyrics of
> rap, hip-hop, or punk songs.
You destroy your own analogy by cutting too wide a swath with your generalizations, yet again, Woj. Killing animals via "hunting" fits along a conventional social construct that is "legal". Blowing up cats and dogs for fun is usually illegal. In fact, most of the violent actions you listed are illegal and generally accepted by the majority of the population to be abhorrent acts.
> Lest you miss my point altogether - this was my tongue-in-cheek
> response to
> some previous comments that celebrity watching is just fun.
No, I did not miss your point. However, the comparisons are not even close.
By the
> same
> logic, we can "explain" any behavior as "just fan" without saying
> anything
> about the actual cognitive processes underlying that behavior. We
> can
> equally "explain" that behavior by saying that people "chose" or
> "prefer" to
> do it, some prefer to be poor, other prefer to be rich, and still
> other to
> prefer to have fun. Got it?
I am usually in agreement with your observations, Woj, and in essence, I'm in agreement with your underlying argument, but your choice of comparison really sucked little green monkey dicks on this one, imo. The vivisection of the comments has been fun (heh), however, as usual!
- Deborah