Selflessness in the news

[konerko14]

I typed in "selfless" in the Google news section to see what type of news stories were being written with this word as the main focus. Heres a few interesting ones I found:

1. This article is written about an adult baseball team, saying that the Valencia Vikings won their league title because of the players' selflessness. A lot of people seem to think certain plays in baseball though are selfless such as "sacrifice" flyballs, bunting to advance a runner, etc, but they are in fact very selfish. The reason why he is "sacrificing" himself is to help his team score runs and in turn win the ball game. Thats his whole objective of playing the game- to win. Therefore, those acts are in fact selfish because hes "sacrificing" himself for a larger value.

http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displays...amp;format=html

2. This one tries to explain how altruism is in our genes. However it goes on to say that such things as parenting, and protecting friends and family during conflicts are selfless acts. The psychologist also says that the reason altruism is spreading is from a biological standpoint. Arent people altruistic based on their morals though?

http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2006/Jul06/r072406a

3. This writer praises a boy who died after he dove into some murky waters to try to save a couple who's car fell in. The boy never knew how to swim and there were already two bystanders who nearly had the couple out already, but the boy decided to do a huge selfless act anyway. The writer says it was "instinct" that told the boy to do what he did. The only quotes by others in the article either say what a great act the boy committed or damning other bystanders who didnt risk their lives to help the couple in the water. It says this about the boy and his selfless act: "A true hero!" Guess what? The boys family is religious. Who wouldve guessed?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...20360/1006/NEWS

4. This guy received an award from the White Sox organization because he gave up his 2005 World Series tickets to instead go help out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit. Jerry Reinsdorf, the White Sox owner, was the main driving force behind proposing the award. The team that I cheer for is the white sox and this almost made me consider looking for a new favorite team. Reinsdorf made some pretty bold statements in this article about selflessness and its importance.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...sp&c_id=cws

Feel free to comment on these articles or post some "selfless" or "selfish" articles of your own that you have found.

[DarkWaters]

2. This one tries to explain how altruism is in our genes. However it goes on to say that such things as parenting, and protecting friends and family during conflicts are selfless acts. The psychologist also says that the reason altruism is spreading is from a biological standpoint. Arent people altruistic based on their morals though?

This is amusing because Richard Dawkins wrote a book entitled The Selfish Gene where he argued that parental instincts are indeed selfish. The idea being that organisms all have the selfish goal to ensure the propagation of their genes. Providing protection and proper nourishment both physical and intellectual for one's children is then advantageous to ensuring that one's children grow up and eventually have children of their own and therefore further spreading your genes.

So it seems that the biological argument explains the same behavior, with the same reasons but Richard Dawkins describes it as selfish and the psychologist you mentioned above describes it as selfless.

4. This guy received an award from the White Sox organization because he gave up his 2005 World Series tickets to instead go help out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit. Jerry Reinsdorf, the White Sox owner, was the main driving force behind proposing the award. The team that I cheer for is the white sox and this almost made me consider looking for a new favorite team. Reinsdorf made some pretty bold statements in this article about selflessness and its importance.

I too am an avid Chicago Whitesox fan. I would not be so worried about Jerry Reinsdorf's actions as I would over (their manager) Ozzie Guillen's alarmingly frequent statements where he encourages his own players to commit various forms of assault.

Specifically, how he upbraided rookie reliever Sean Tracey for not intentionally beanballing an arbitrary batter on the Texas Rangers in response to pitcher Vincente Padilla blatantly hitting (Whitesox Catcher) A.J. Pierzynski with a pitch. After Sean Tracey failed to hit Texas batter Hank Blalock with a pitch, Ozzie Guillen removed Sean Tracey from the game and screamed at him in the dugout. Note that the action Ozzie Guillen encouraged is to punish any player on the Texas Rangers for the actions of one of their players. This is a perversion of collectivism. This is not the only recorded incident of the Whitesox skipper encouraging his bullpen to intentionally hit opposing batters.

Of course, I am also upset with Ozzie Guillen declaring war on Magglio Ordonez for the sole purpose of asserting his power and indirectly resulting in the allstar outfielder to leave for the Detroit Tigers. Ozzie Guillen also regularly issues bigoted and vulgar remarks during press conferences and live television interviews to display his ignorance.

Lastly, I also remember Ozzie Guillen issuing some buffoonish remarks concerning an incident a few years ago when Minnesota Twins outfielder, Torii Hunter (a known jerk) went out of his way to violently collide with former Whitesox backup catcher Chris Widger, nearly resulting in injury. Instead of condemning Torii Hunter, Ozzie Guillen instead criticized the Whitesox themselves for not playing more aggressively and insinuated that when baserunning, they too should deign to such unnecessary, thuggish actions that lead to almost no competitive advantage and can potentially inflict a serious injury on an opposing player.

If the Whitesox start playing poorly, I would expect Ozzie Guillen to be the first to go.

[konerko14]

Specifically, how he upbraided rookie reliever Sean Tracey for not intentionally beanballing an arbitrary batter on the Texas Rangers in response to pitcher Vincente Padilla blatantly hitting (Whitesox Catcher) A.J. Pierzynski with a pitch. After Sean Tracey failed to hit Texas batter Hank Blalock with a pitch, Ozzie Guillen removed Sean Tracey from the game and screamed at him in the dugout. Note that the action Ozzie Guillen encouraged is to punish any player on the Texas Rangers for the actions of one of their players. This is a perversion of collectivism. This is not the only recorded incident of the Whitesox skipper encouraging his bullpen to intentionally hit opposing batters.

Ozzie thinks that in these instances that White Sox players should defend themselves by retaliating. Its not exactly a form of collectivism though when he forces his players to do this or most other actions on the field, mainly because he is the manager and thats his job. The players job, as he knows when he signs the contract, is to obey orders from the manager. If the manager tells you to bunt, you should bunt. If he tells you to hit a batter, you should do that too.

Lastly, I also remember Ozzie Guillen issuing some buffoonish remarks concerning an incident a few years ago when Minnesota Twins outfielder, Torii Hunter (a known jerk) went out of his way to violently collide with former Whitesox backup catcher Chris Widger, nearly resulting in injury. Instead of condemning Torii Hunter, Ozzie Guillen instead criticized the Whitesox themselves for not playing more aggressively and insinuated that when baserunning, they too should deign to such unnecessary, thuggish actions that lead to almost no competitive advantage and can potentially inflict a serious injury on an opposing player.

I think there can be a competitive advantage from retaliating. I wouldnt want an opposing team to physically beat up me or my team, like what Torii Hunter did to Chris Widger, and expect to get away with it. Hunter actually did injure Widger- he gave him a concussion, and I would be glad to intentionally throw at Hunter or one of his teammates when they came up to bat or slide hard at one of them at second. Just like how I wouldnt allow someone to push me or my friends around outside of baseball on the streets. That brings up another point. Teammates are like your friends, you should stand up for them if they need you to. Or even if they arent friends of yours, they are on the team for some reason and you shouldnt want them injured. So, retaliating can give you pride and not make you feel like a wuss.

Edited August 1, 2006 by konerko14

[DarkWaters]

Ozzie thinks that in these instances that White Sox players should defend themselves by retaliating. Its not exactly a form of collectivism though when he forces his players to do this or most other actions on the field, mainly because he is the manager and thats his job. The players job, as he knows when he signs the contract, is to obey orders from the manager. If the manager tells you to bunt, you should bunt. If he tells you to hit a batter, you should do that too.

It is not clear to me that the Chicago Whitesox would be justifiably defending themselves by retailiating against an arbitrary batter on the Texas Rangers when Vincente Padilla is most likely the problem. By collectivism, I meant how Ozzie Guillen was holding all of the members on the Texas Rangers responsible for Vincente Padilla's actions. The manager of the Rangers has some responsibility for his players actions, but unless if a significant portion of the Rangers are cheering on Padilla as he beans some opposing players I would not hold the team as responsible.

I suspect that the player's job description limits their compliance to coaching edicts referring to game strategy only. I doubt that the players are contractually obligated to join in a brawl to defend their team if their coach demanded that they do so.

We must also remember that baseball is not a contact sport. If a pitcher throws a baseball at a batter's head at close to 100 miles per hour, he could inflict a serious injury. A pitcher has no right to throw a baseball at a arbitrary batter's head during a game anymore than he would if he were to throw a baseball at an arbitrary pedestrian's head in the street. In either case, this is a form of assault.

I think there can be a competitive advantage from retaliating. ... So, retaliating can give you pride and not make you feel like a wuss.

I think there is greater pride to be taken in setting the good example and issuing a complaint to the umpires and if necessary to major league baseball as first recourse.

[konerko14]

It is not clear to me that the Chicago Whitesox would be justifiably defending themselves by retailiating against an arbitrary batter on the Texas Rangers when Vincente Padilla is most likely the problem. By collectivism, I meant how Ozzie Guillen was holding all of the members on the Texas Rangers responsible for Vincente Padilla's actions. The manager of the Rangers has some responsibility for his players actions, but unless if a significant portion of the Rangers are cheering on Padilla as he beans some opposing players I would not hold the team as responsible.

Do you agree that all the individuals who live in a specific country should accept responsibility for their governments action? They may not support all of their governments decisions but they do live in the country. Just like how the Texas players did not commit the act themselves, but they are part of the team. Notice how its the Rangers vs the White Sox. It is a team effort.

AJ Pierzynski did nothing to provoke his beaning but he did get thrown at and couldve seriously got injured. Same with when Widger got trampled by Torii Hunter. I would not sit back and let the other team injure my players/teammates. An eye for an eye.

I suspect that the player's job description limits their compliance to coaching edicts referring to game strategy only. I doubt that the players are contractually obligated to join in a brawl to defend their team if their coach demanded that they do so.

They are obligated in a way. Sean Tracy was sent back to the minors the next day after not throwing at Hank Blalock. I wouldnt consider it a sacrifice if throwing at the batter keeps you in the majors.

I think there is greater pride to be taken in setting the good example and issuing a complaint to the umpires and if necessary to major league baseball as first recourse.

The umpires immediately give warnings to both teams if they suspect a beaning was intentional, but that doesnt punish the perpetrator, even if the pitcher hit an opposing batter in the face with a pitch. You need to take the matter into your own hands and get the job done, otherwise teams will continue to treat you with no respect and will not fear you.

To go along with my other example, if a country gets attacked by another country, the attacked country needs to retaliate to show that others cannot walk all over them.

Edited August 2, 2006 by konerko14

[Dikaiosyne]

Its interesting how a different set of mores invade baseball, hockey, and other sports. How "thuggish" and moronic behavior is exulted.

Nominally, baseball is a game, with a set of rules facilitating that. It is a decent and positive thing by itself, and allows for physical competition w/o endangering law and order, and normally life and property. It allows people a stage to do amazing things, and is a showcase for human action and efficacy.

But one of the problems is, even in this perfect stage for the power of human morality, its influence is rudimentary at best.

Although baseball or other sports maybe a tool for discovering morality (doing your best, learning from failure, taking responsiblity, and exulting in victory) it is interesting that a second set of mores has also taken hold. So instead of respecting the abilities and beating your oppenent within the gaming arena, you wish him (or her) physical harm. Allow an understandable reaction to competition, this is the first mistake in a line of immorality. Games are great because the options are limited within the rules.

Sports, especially professional sports, need an effective governemnt to protect the life and property of its willing participents. Injuries to exceptional atheletes can represent huge monitary losses to both the individual and the business that imploys them.

The classic example of this is Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse the apposing catcher to score in an All-Star Game. Although the merits of an All-Star Game are debatable, Rose dislocated his victim's shoulder, and permenently eroded Fosse's skills as a baseball player. This assault not only affected the man's health, but his livilihood. Fosse never hit for the same average or power or played the same caliber of defense than in his 1970 All-Star Year. All of the plunking in the world of the offender couldn't bring back this man's talent. While Rose's career was not similarly physically injured, obviously there has to be a better solution than an eye for an eye when dealing with excepentally talented individuals in an excepental situation. Simply returning thuggish behavior inkind destroys with the rules and stablity of the game.

So to the modern examples like the plunking of A.J. Pierzynski do NOT need to be "dealt with" on the field. It is a legal matter dealing with life and property, not one of pride and an "eye for an eye," One for a proper government that protects rights and life to deal with.

[DarkWaters]

Do you agree that all the individuals who live in a specific country should accept responsibility for their governments action? They may not support all of their governments decisions but they do live in the country. Just like how the Texas players did not commit the act themselves, but they are part of the team. Notice how its the Rangers vs the White Sox. It is a team effort.

This analogy does not apply in these circumstances because the actions from the beaning almost surely came from Vincente Padilla (you insinuated that he was analogous to a citizen) and not from the management of the Texas Rangers (analogous to a government). Thus, we should first note that comparing holding the players accountable for the actions of another player, who is certainly not a team leader, is different from holding willing citizens accountable for the actions of their government.

For the above point to be legitimate we should recognize that the Texas Rangers are an organization who is formed on the premise of playing baseball according to a stated system of rules, which do not give permission to injure opposing players. Thus, to hold all players on the Texas Rangers accountable for Vincente Padilla's actions would be tantamount to holding all denizens of Appalachia accountable for the abhorrent actions of abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph.

In summary, Vincente Padilla does not speak for the Texas Rangers through actions or words. The management of the Texas Rangers should have some accountability for his actions. However, I think to retaliate by inflicting harm against an arbitrary player on the Texas Rangers in response to the actions of Mr. Padilla would be morally unjustified.

They are obligated in a way. Sean Tracy was sent back to the minors the next day after not throwing at Hank Blalock. I wouldnt consider it a sacrifice if throwing at the batter keeps you in the majors.

Sean Tracey was demoted to the minors because relief pitcher Cliff Politte was returning from injury. Of course, not complying with coach Ozzie Guillen's demand that he plunk Hank Blalock with a fastball is not going to make Sean Tracey looked favorably upon by the coach.

On this note, might I also point out that in a more recent game, Chicago relief pitcher David Riske did hit an opposing batter with a pitch upon Ozzie Guillen's request. Both David Riske and coach Ozzie Guillen received a suspension from Major League Baseball.

::: edited to fix an inadvertant word omission :::

Edited August 2, 2006 by DarkWaters

[DarkWaters]

Its interesting how a different set of mores invade baseball, hockey, and other sports. How "thuggish" and moronic behavior is exulted.

...

So to the modern examples like the plunking of A.J. Pierzynski do NOT need to be "dealt with" on the field. It is a legal matter dealing with life and property, not one of pride and an "eye for an eye," One for a proper government that protects rights and life to deal with.

I just wanted to say that I considered your post to be well-stated and enjoyable.

[konerko14]

So to the modern examples like the plunking of A.J. Pierzynski do NOT need to be "dealt with" on the field. It is a legal matter dealing with life and property, not one of pride and an "eye for an eye," One for a proper government that protects rights and life to deal with.

It would be awfully tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that a pitcher intentionally threw at a batter. Also, other somewhat violent plays are part of the game. A couple examples would be sliding hard into the second baseman/shortstop to breakup a double play. Or a runner colliding with a catcher because the catcher was blocking the plate with his body(Torii Hunter rammed Widger even though he wasnt blocking the plate. Thats why I dont like that play). But my point is that these rough plays are part of the game, and MLB is already handling it just fine with suspensions and fines when needed.

I still stand by my "eye for an eye" statement, even if it is an arbitrary player. If the opposing team roughs up one of your guys, then they deserve to have one of their guys roughed up.

Edited August 3, 2006 by konerko14

[DarkWaters]

It would be awfully tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that a pitcher intentionally threw at a batter.

This is true. Nevertheless, if a batter is hit by a pitch, the pitcher still has some accountability regardless of his intent. Does anyone know the legal term for unintentionally injuring someone? Moreover, whether or not anyone can prove a pitcher's intent, he would still be morally accountable for intentionally hitting a batter. Needless to say, in the circumstance of a pitcher who accurately perceives that his job will be in jeopardy if he does not comply with a coach's edict that he intentionally bean a batter, then it is the coach who initiated the force and is therefore the one who is largely responsible.

Also, other somewhat violent plays are part of the game. A couple examples would be sliding hard into the second baseman/shortstop to breakup a double play. Or a runner colliding with a catcher because the catcher was blocking the plate with his body(Torii Hunter rammed Widger even though he wasnt blocking the plate. Thats why I dont like that play). But my point is that these rough plays are part of the game, and MLB is already handling it just fine with suspensions and fines when needed.

I agree. There are indeed some plays where contact is justified. It is the responsibility of MLB to minimize the number of plays where excessive and unnecessary violence is used.

I still stand by my "eye for an eye" statement, even if it is an arbitrary player. If the opposing team roughs up one of your guys, then they deserve to have one of their guys roughed up.

If I understand your position correctly, it sounds like you are comfortable with treating a sports team, which is a collection of individuals, as an individual during competitive play.

All of this talk about the Chicago Whitesox pitching makes me hope that they start to turn their game around soon. They have some work to do if they would like to secure a post-season spot! Now that it seems likely that Javier Vazquez will not be traded, I am thinking it would be most advantageous for Brandon McCarthy to be placed in the starting rotation and therefore render Javier Vazquez to the bullpen, but this is probably a discussion for another thread altogether.

[konerko14]

Needless to say, in the circumstance of a pitcher who accurately perceives that his job will be in jeopardy if he does not comply with a coach's edict that he intentionally bean a batter, then it is the coach who initiated the force and is therefore the one who is largely responsible.

Right, the manager a lot of the time is the one largely responsible for bean balls. Therefore, the other team needs to retaliate and try to hurt the value of his team since he tried doing this to yours. If you notice, pitchers who commit the first bean ball rarely get thrown out of the game, its only after a warning has been issued will pitchers get thrown out for bean balls. So its almost like they get a free shot if you choose not to retaliate. And then it depends on the situation to figure out if a retaliation will be of more value to you than a suspension or fine.

If I understand your position correctly, it sounds like you are comfortable with treating a sports team, which is a collection of individuals, as an individual during competitive play.

Yeah, thats my position. Mainly because its the team that you are competing against and not one individual. You are trying to defeat the team and attain a victory. If they hurt one of your guys, they detract value from your team, which I think calls for an attempt to detract value from their team. You could wait until their players or manager gets a suspension(if they even get one), but by then you wont even be playing them any longer.

All of this talk about the Chicago Whitesox pitching makes me hope that they start to turn their game around soon. They have some work to do if they would like to secure a post-season spot! Now that it seems likely that Javier Vazquez will not be traded, I am thinking it would be most advantageous for Brandon McCarthy to be placed in the starting rotation and therefore render Javier Vazquez to the bullpen, but this is probably a discussion for another thread altogether.

Javier Vazquez is known for pitching stellar for the first five innings of the game and then loses his mental edge after that and surrenders the majority of his runs. The White Sox need to figure out if they want to pitch him five innings each start or put him in the bullpen and bring McCarthy to the rotation. But if you bring McCarthy to the rotation, he wont be able to pitch deep into games right away anyways because hes conditioned as a one or two inning reliever right now. I think they should try using Vazquez for five innings and see how it goes. If it turns out to be a negative experience, then try McCarthy in the rotation.