Suboptimist

In case you’re curious about how nerdy the crowd I run with really is.

(9:17:56 PM) Jackie Van Buren: ok, how about this. I was thinking about our comparisons and how you were wrong and tennis and baseball are actually far different from tables and chairs
(9:18:12 PM) Robert Sykes: Elaborate.
(9:18:17 PM) Jackie Van Buren: tables and chairs are more like in a complementary distribution, while tennis and baseball are like in an overlapping distribution
(9:18:36 PM) Jackie Van Buren: you see?
(9:19:06 PM) Robert Sykes: Let me think about how that’s wrong, just a sec.
(9:19:28 PM) Jackie Van Buren: ok. I’m prepared to fight
(9:19:57 PM) Robert Sykes: First, your analysis fails to explain how baseball and tennis can be considered overlapping. Having a ball in common doesn’t really cut it.
(9:22:07 PM) Jackie Van Buren: ok, because they can easily be found in place of each other. they are both sports and you can have one without the other. for example, let’s say you want to play a sport and you say, we can choose between tennis or baseball. or perhaps we could even play both. they overlap in their uses
(9:22:55 PM) Jackie Van Buren: but tables and chairs, you can’t have one without the other. you will never find a chair in a table’s position or vice versa. (and we’re not talking about exceptions here, like sitting on a table)
(9:23:14 PM) Jackie Van Buren: they complement each other and have exclusive environments
(9:25:27 PM) Jackie Van Buren: it’s imperfect, but whatever
(9:28:30 PM) Robert Sykes: There is one caveat in that arguement. You can’t separate the fact that tables can act like chairs from their existence in an argument about exclusivity, if we decide to compare it to something with some degree of gradience like you sport example. Also, the very fact that we can play both shows that they’re the same argument. As you said, and as data from say, users of sport show, we can like both at the same time, but if I like tennis, I can’t dislike baseball based soley on my preference for tennis. I can not like it because it’s tedious, professionals are overpaid, and a host of other reasons.
(9:29:07 PM) Robert Sykes: I can like chairs because they are more comfortable to sit on than tables, for example, but it’s ludicrous to dislike tables based on that fact.

[…]

(9:38:52 PM) Robert Sykes: You get the last word.
(9:38:59 PM) Robert Sykes: I’m like Bill O’Reily.
(9:39:14 PM) Jackie Van Buren: that only angers me and makes my argument worse
(9:39:22 PM) Jackie Van Buren: hmm maybe that’s why he is so irritating
(9:39:41 PM) Robert Sykes: Oh, dear. I apologize.
(9:39:47 PM) Robert Sykes: Well, make a quick final word.
(9:39:59 PM) Jackie Van Buren: hold on hold on I have to think
(9:39:59 PM) Robert Sykes: I have to edit for length, after all.
(9:42:37 PM) Jackie Van Buren: you don’t have to choose between tables and chairs, is the thing. It’s not about disliking one to the exclusion of the other. On the contrary, you shouldn’t have to choose between them. They go together. On the other hand, you must choose between baseball and tennis at a given time, though they can still be found in the same environments. You can play both, but not at the same time, though you can still like both

If you’re curious about the continuity of the argument, so are we. This discussion took place roughly a week following the initial argument. We weren’t sure what the original issue at hand was. Preference, playing, something more general…?