Cold is now an objective thing

I haven’t written in a while, so I’m going to start off this post with a PSA.

To the readers of Moral Hazard,

It’s important that you read to the end of the post and see who the post is by.  It’s listed at the end of each and every post, and should tell you whether the reprehensible opinions expressed within are authored by Dan, Patricia, or myself.  This is important!  It was brought to my attention the other day that people thought I (Mike) wrote all of the posts on this site.  Furthermore, some people thought I was actually in possession of the picture of Dan with chocolate all over his partially-covered form.

I want to make it explicitly clear that I am not in possession of the photograph, and quite honestly, it bothers me that it even exists.  I could take it off of this website but really, I know a copy of the bits exist out there somewhere.  Failing that, they existed at some point in time.  Really there’s no way to win here.  The crime against nature has been perpetrated and will continue for all of time.

Sincerely yours,

Mike.

Now, on to the meat of my post.  I talk a lot of shit about the south, but let’s be honest: I kind of like it there.  Really the south has no more problems than any other part of the country.  Sure, it has backwards racists but let’s not lie: so does the north.  At least the south has the distinct advantage of being warm, scenic, and pleasant.  In other words: I don’t feel like killing myself every single day of the winter, and North Carolina winters are beautiful compared to Pittsburgh.

Dog shit.

Dog shit.

It really bothers me when spoiled babies whine about “cold weather” when it’s in the 60’s, especially when I’m freezing my ass off in a frozen tundra.  I also realize that “cold” is a subjective notion; if you’re used to warm days all the time, then even a moderately unpleasant day is gonna make baby weal upset.

To prevent further misunderstandings, I’ve developed an “objective cold chart.”  It’s based around the following metric: freezing weather sucks, regardless of how used you are to it.  I can walk around in 20 degree weather without gloves because I’m used to it and I’m not a chump — but that doesn’t mean it’s not cold.  Referal to this chart is really simple; if you find yourself whining about the temperature, consult the chart.  The chart will tell you what you are, given the temperature.

Sub-zero: justified.

Sub-freezing: justified.  It’s worse closer to 0, obviously.  Around 32 isn’t so bad, and anything about 20 isn’t so bad IN MY OPINION, but I’m willing to concede that anything below freezing is terrible.

32-40:  Buck up and zip up your coat.  It’s chilly but it’s not that bad.

40-50: Poor baby.  This is sheer luxury in the winter.  If you find yourself whining about temperature in the 40’s you need a reality check.

50-60: Whiny baby.  If you’re whining about temperature in the 50’s, you need the taste slapped out of your mouth.

60 and up:  You deserve death.  Some real Al-Qaeda, Viet-Cong stuff too.

Advertisements

17 Responses to Cold is now an objective thing

  1. Dan says:

    Who is this “Mike” and why is he posting on my blog?

  2. Karin says:

    I think you need something about wind chill in your chart, as well. It can be just about as cold as it likes and I won’t complain — it’s the wind that cuts down to your bones that I hate.

  3. Anonymous Photographer says:

    Mike, while I mostly agree with your evaluation of the coldness vs. whining-justification scale, I am dismayed at your display of intolerance and misunderstanding when it comes to art. While it has been pointed out in other posts that art is open to universal criticism no matter the subject or source, I believe that there is a difference between the legitimate critique and evaluation of art (based on color, form, creativity, message, technical difficulty, composition, etc.) and the hasty condemnation for social or personal reasons. I am frankly astonished that one such as yourself would be “bothered that [the chocolate picture] even exists,” considering that as a philosopher and an academic, you ought to be more objective and open-minded. You can see less of Dan in that photograph than if the two of you were at the beach, but I can’t imagine you being disgusted by that situation. Furthermore, I feel that you have artificially injected something sordid into the photograph in your evaluation, while ignoring perhaps the innocent beauty inherent in someone savoring chocolate’s pleasure and the softness of the blue backdrop under white light. If you want to claim that someone’s art is of poor quality, there are certainly better ways of making the argument.
    With all due respect, of course 🙂

  4. Mike says:

    Counterpoint: Dan’s picture is foul

  5. Anonymous Photographer says:

    Perhaps you could help me out by explaining how
    lounging in bed AND bars of chocolate
    could be foul when that predicate clearly applies to neither conjunct in isolation.
    It is strange indeed to claim that ~Fx ^ ~Fy ^F(x^y).
    “Emergent properties” are typically looked upon with suspicion, as all explanations of them tend to be mystical and unsatisfying.
    However, if you are aware of the source of this alleged foulness, please enlighten me.

  6. Mike says:

    If the natural light of your reason does not compel you to the conclusion that the picture is foul, then I suggest you get it serviced.

  7. Anonymous Photographer says:

    I’ll allow your (lack of) argument to speak for itself.

  8. Dan says:

    Anonymous Photographer: I assume you like omelets. I also assume you like bubble gum. Must you therefore like a bubble gum omelet?

  9. Patricia says:

    As a proud Northerner, I must point out that while there are backwards racists in the North, there are FAR fewer religious whackos. It also just so happens that my favorite scenic places are all pretty far north, and that “pleasant” being a subjective term, I’d apply it to northern weather before southern most any time of year.
    You would probably like northern winters if you lived in a city that got snow instead of ice and rain, or perhaps a western city where at least it didn’t get cold.

  10. Anonymous Photographer says:

    Dan: I actually do dislike bubblegum. It tastes like pink chemical. But supposing I liked it, there are plenty of gum-egg combinations which I would like just fine. If I ordered breakfast and there was a piece of gum next to my omelet, I’d chew the gum after eating my eggs. Bubblegum flavored omelets might be good according to some people; bubblegum ice cream is pretty good, after all. Bubblegum IN an omelet, however, would make it hard to eat the omelet. It isn’t necessary to say that every combination of the two would be good since both are, only that combining two good things is generally good in the absence of a reason for not mixing them.

    The issue here is that Mike failed (repeatedly) to give a reason why mixing chocolate and bed-lounging would make two non-foul things foul.

    I’ll admit that some combinations would be bad – for instance if the chocolate were melting onto the sheets, or if it were unwrapped and absorbing sweat, since these would make a mess and ruin the taste of the chocolate. This might be foul, although potentially still a funny photograph.

  11. Mike says:

    I think it’s the mixture with Dan’s half naked form that makes it foul.

    Unless you’re into Dan’s half naked form.

    Ya foghat.

  12. Dan says:

    Mike, I’d like to point out that you posted a photo of me more revealing than the chocolate pic: https://moralhazard.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/comin-straight-from-the-underground/

    You can see my man-boobs, AKA “moobs.” Besides, who isn’t into my half-naked form? I bet you probably rub one out to that picture several times daily.

  13. Anonymous Photographer says:

    So it would not be foul if it were a women in underclothes? Although this almost sounds sexist, maybe you should have a contest and collect more data points to see if that is the source of your displeasure.

    By the by, it isn’t a bad half-naked form. I bet its intermittent appearance draws you many viewers.

  14. Dan says:

    A women?

  15. Anonymous Photographer says:

    My bad; that should of course read ‘woman.’

  16. einam says:

    I was told by a different anonymous photographer that Dan might be the goatse man!

    I totally took the goatse poster off my wall and replaced it with a blow up of the new chocolate one.

  17. Nick says:

    Anonymous Photographer: chocolate ^lounging = enjoyment. Enjoyment + Dan’s half-naked form = nauseous hilarity. Nauseous hilarity * overly critical analysis = you must have spent enough time staring at the picture to spontaneously orgasm to come to such a conclusion. Shortened fomula: chocolate ^lounging + Dan’s half-naked form * overly critical analysis(time) = u r teh gheyness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: