Of course, I may just be attempting to defend my psyche --- the (cultural) ground state is to not exercise, and it takes a lot of energy and mindset-adjustment to beome the kind of person who does exercise. So perhaps my zeal is responding to the percieved threat of 'an argument against exercise' by rationalizing counter-arguments.
But in all seriousness: exercise is Important.
GDT, what? I wasn't being sarcastic!
How have I failed as a writer? Was it the double exclamation mark? That was meant to convey a sentiment of what we might call affected enthusiasm, but of a kind that I think is really different from the kind of sarcastic tone which implies that the statement one is being affectedly enthusiastic about is false! Incidentally, I don't have knee or heart problems, either (... yet); the goal here was to make a tiny cutesy post on the theme of acknowledging trade-offs, a goal at which I would seem to have failed if it actually reads as an argument against exercise (!).
("Acknowledging trade-offs" in the sense that Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided, but that this obviously shouldn't be misconstrued to imply that all policies are equally good.)
I occasionally make sarcastic remarks (in real life) but forget to modulate my voice so it's clear I'm being sarcastic --- people sometimes mistake my outlook as somewhat absurd and this earned me a reputation as being 'cryptic' years ago. This is not what happened here, but illustrates that I am not the master of sarcasm.
This, I feel, *was* a good cutesy line on tradeoffs and my reaction just ended up being "oh no this blogger I like might be arguing against this thing I like *enter ego defense mode*".
Actually, I'm kind of embarrassed at my 'taking things too seriously'; what a faux pas!
Ehhh, it kind of *is*.
And for another thing, running is an (evolutionarily) natural movement, so if you're getting hurt by it, maybe it's the modern contrivances? (eg: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2013/07/12/bjsports-2013-092160.abstract)
Of course, I may just be attempting to defend my psyche --- the (cultural) ground state is to not exercise, and it takes a lot of energy and mindset-adjustment to beome the kind of person who does exercise. So perhaps my zeal is responding to the percieved threat of 'an argument against exercise' by rationalizing counter-arguments.
But in all seriousness: exercise is Important.
GDT, what? I wasn't being sarcastic!
How have I failed as a writer? Was it the double exclamation mark? That was meant to convey a sentiment of what we might call affected enthusiasm, but of a kind that I think is really different from the kind of sarcastic tone which implies that the statement one is being affectedly enthusiastic about is false! Incidentally, I don't have knee or heart problems, either (... yet); the goal here was to make a tiny cutesy post on the theme of acknowledging trade-offs, a goal at which I would seem to have failed if it actually reads as an argument against exercise (!).
("Acknowledging trade-offs" in the sense that Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided, but that this obviously shouldn't be misconstrued to imply that all policies are equally good.)
I occasionally make sarcastic remarks (in real life) but forget to modulate my voice so it's clear I'm being sarcastic --- people sometimes mistake my outlook as somewhat absurd and this earned me a reputation as being 'cryptic' years ago. This is not what happened here, but illustrates that I am not the master of sarcasm.
This, I feel, *was* a good cutesy line on tradeoffs and my reaction just ended up being "oh no this blogger I like might be arguing against this thing I like *enter ego defense mode*".
Actually, I'm kind of embarrassed at my 'taking things too seriously'; what a faux pas!