ThreePointTakedown

Again, you need to define your terms: weak, cowardly, ineffectual(not sure how this applies). Confidence can come from anywhere. You've probably seen people with confidence, or something that looks like it, that probably shouldn't for one reason or another, but they have it. That tends to bother people. They judge and deem them not worthy of that confidence. How does that effect you in any meaningful way? It doesn't. Leave them alone to live their lives. Why should they care about living up to your standard(that goes way beyond confidence btw, not sure you were going to put that together)? Can you prove the theft? If not, that's on you, do better. If you can't prove it you are doing something that could be civilly actionable or fire-able. Losing a match, I've done that, twice. First, lost track of time. Second, I miss judged my opponent and lost out on opportunities to attack/score. They are just lessons learned in a sport that doesn't really matter to anyone outside of the community. Even to many in the community, they don't matter all that much. Gassing out, what's the significance? Why should I care?

The words are in the dictionary. Your definition is what’s important. It is not static and challenge you to prove otherwise. Lies Now the burden of proof is on your claim. I can’t wait to see this if you have the gall to try. Wrong. I judge everyone. That surprises me, not at all. Small people with giant egos, judge others. That tracks. Let's be clear, I called you and anyone disrespectful of the anthem a jerk because they are jerkish jerks that jerkishly jerkoff to disrespecful jerks. Yes, I was eluding to you, in fact, uselessly judging people. And it bothers you that no one cares about your opinion hence yelling at clouds. I like this. Some truth. Keep going. HAHA, no humility. You ARE an example for the kids. Why shouldn’t we be more like you? Its turned out so well. I don't want the government taking my money to help people that do not want to be helped(coming from someone with no knowledge of those they are judging, but quick to condemn those to suffer because they don’t live up to your made up standards, very charitable), and do not want the opportunity to help themselves(saw that coming, stuck in an outdated way of thinking, dead set on making people jump as high as you want before you’ll consider lending a hand, you are a horrible person that would rather watch it burn then to help anyone that doesn’t resemble you, there’s a word for that, I’ll bet you can guess and its not ‘conservative’ although it can be considered a synonym). Whatever lifestyle those people are, I don't support my tax dollars going to them and I don't want to be their friend(when self-righteous judgmental bigots, like you, die, we’ll all be better off). I don't want my money going to people with illegal activities or for activities that violate the golden rule, such as the people chanting "Death to America." They only way they should get money from me is if I choose to give to them. And sometimes I do...(I doubt that very much, keep throwing your temper tantrum, no one cares at this point) More lies. (everything you’ve said above this line betrays this comment, you absolutely fear what you don’t understand and don’t want to help anyone in those situations, not because you are informed but precisely because you are not or you would have a sense of compassion and sympathy, which you don’t, you’re ‘More lies’ is in fact a lie and I feel you’re just too scared to admit it because you’ve invested so much of yourself to the lie, tale as old as time) Remind me again how this relates to my youth baseball team reflecting on how they can get better so that umpires do not determine the game's outcome? How does this relate to PA? How widespread was that view? And I guess it was a good thing enough of those personally accountable self-rightous bible thumpers supported desegregation. (stop coaching little league, stop having any influence on young people, your ideology and that’s what it is because it isn’t rooted in fact, is harmful to society as a whole, it fosters hate and fear and you should be ashamed to have some of the ideas that you do considering the wealth of knowledge that we have right now) As fun as this was. This is where I'll leave you.

Are you asking an 'honest question' starting off by saying that I am a 'know nothing'? If so, do you understand how disingenuous that is? But to give you a legit honest answer, I like talking about wrestling and what's goin on in the world. Trying to convince people with moronic ideas that they are just that and would be better off changing their mind.

Appealing to the the lowest common denominator is not a great metric in this case. What an uniformed and potentially bias electorate thinks is not an effective way to determine if material is harmful. How do we define harmful? I'll bet the definition changes from household to household. How do we satisfy every permutation? We can't. Or we can offer up a way to keep their kids from being able to check out this material from the library. A system they can sign up for and determine what is appropriate for their own kids and not everyone else's as well. Is it perfect? No.

I knew you'd weasel out of having to back up your claim. Why break your streak? Scurry away.

If I don't want my child to read something. The best way is to keep it from every child. That's never backfired, ever. Get a hobby or better relationship with your kids.

When might this announcement be coming? Any inside info?

Again, there is no way to nail down 'PA'. It is and I'll say it again, 'whatever I feel is right at the time.' Which is a useless fortune cookie phrase to live by. By holding yourself to a shifting and useless ethical standard, you hold others to it. So your standard becomes the de facto standard you hold everyone else to and judge those that don't live up to it. You're gonna say, 'but i don't judge people.' I will refer you to the anthem discussion where you are whining about others not doing a thing to your standard despite having no knowledge of your standard or caring at all about the imaginary effects it might have on you. And discussing if they should get well deserved scholarship money taken way because of it. Not saying you agreed or not, but that the discussion was happening over a perceived slight is abhorrent. So you do judge people. So certain people are worthy in your eyes and some aren't. How are we to tell the difference? You can just say it. 'I don't like their lifestyle for x, y, or z and so I don't think they deserve aid or comfort for reasons a, b, or c .' At least you'd be honest, you won't have many friends, but you'll be honest. But since you're putting up such a fight over this, I imagine you won't. Thus, people that need and could be helped will go without because self-righteous people can't stomach the idea of people that are 'less than' getting help out of the hole that, likely as not, our systems helped to put them in. This was the argument for filling public pools with concrete after segregation was torn down. 'If they are going to be able to use it then I'd rather no one have it.' Voluntarily cutting of their nose to spite their face. But, ya know, racist!

Again, planting a seed within the minds of children that they should look inward for help in progressing in their skills. Could leave some to believe that outward expression of their perceived vulnerabilities is wrong. Which could leave a bunch of potential mini-coaches(the kids) from helping each other overcome their senses of shame or inadequacy at not being good, better, or best at certain skills of the game. If everyone helps and is encouraged to seek help. Then we all win. Fears are lessened. Aid is accepted more easily. Pride which might hinder the reaching out for help is replace with gratitude. Your whole model. While not wrong. Is not better or best by any means. And you probably wouldn't vote to fund a clinic that might aid that person in the treatment of their condition. They should look inward and seek the knowledge, courage, and fortitude to pull themselves up by there boot straps and get on the straight and narrow. But that figures.

I don't accept that definition. Those words work perfectly well on their own. With little to know way of explaining how you can, definitively, get to either of them. Win or dominance. Again if you have some knowledge I'm all eyes. The second line. I don't accept your premise. You'll have to define the characteristics of the 'W' word and why they should be considered in a negative way. Then explain the causal relationship to happiness and why its effects on happiness is, again, negative. So how do we proceed from here?

What was my unrecognized privilege again? I'll give you a pat on the back if you can even explain the concept let alone make any sense of your comment.

Please explain the difference? When you can't/won't because there is no difference, I'll accept your defeat and 6-8 oz of tears. Sweet sweet tears!

The tears of the vanquished are the sweetest of all.

Admitting I was lucky enough to have the privilege does not make me a hypocrite. Its the O2 mask scenario. I made something of myself with hard work, luck, and help from others. Now I'm helping others put on their masks so they have the opportunity that I was afforded. Thank you for allowing me to clarify that. You can go back to yelling at clouds.

Nope. That's not how that works. Try again.

Thanks for the input.

Define success for me as you see it?

It comes from how you try to relate to those less fortunate and your suggestions of how they can follow in your example to better their lives. Some could. But others cannot. It is this subsection of people I am trying to tell you, get no benefit from your suggestion, yet you still insist that they should try anyway. As if they hadn't already, to the best of their ability. Its not valid or timeless. One of the things that has helped us survive is that we work together. The weaker among us, need our help to thrive and we are all better for rendering aid. Yes it is entirely virtue signaling. Its tough to hear or admit, I'll bet. If you had evidence of any kind that prove your point, I imagine, you would've provided it. What you're doing is making a moral judgement on anyone that doesn't succeed by using your method. That they are unworthy of help if they do not live up to your make believe standard. I would feel bad if it turned out I felt that way about anyone. Let alone people that really need a helping hand. Systemic issues? Please include examples. They shouldn't be hard to find. I'll wait. Indeed. If you could produce them there would be no need to make this comment at all.

Trying to get narrowminded people with, seemingly, little knowledge as to how quite a few people live in this country and the resources available to them. You prescribe your preferred method of aid and comfort. Method(s) you may have used to get to where you are now. To let you know that, even the very little, that you had to work your way up from wherever you started, is not available to a, not insignificant, number of people in this country and around the world. Your blanket solution to a very complicated problem is ignorant. Especially with as easily as information is available these days. I won't call it malicious, yet. But its easy to find studies and statistics to help fix some of the big problems we have and you seem to be against those options for reasons I haven't been able to pin down. If you think, just be accountable for yourself first, isn't virtue signaling, let me dissuade you of that notion. Because that's exactly what it is. You are better than others because you were able to do it. Not wanting to admit that you couldn't. You needed help too. And what little help you received is unavailable to members of your community. Every second you can't/won't admit it, people that really need help, are going without it. Because people like you are voting, into office, reps that keep us from being able to help.

1st. Too much to type out. What I don't like: a focus on winning as the goal. So much is lost, sacrificed, or abandoned in the quest to win. You're a bad coach if your athletes' only focus is winning a match. Kids should be kids. Teach them how to enjoy a stressful, yet very temporary situation and to find the benefits of working and executing in the absence of getting a hand raised. Their worth is not tied to how many points they can score for the team. 2nd. How do you define 'successful' or 'highly probable'(cuz if you can nail down a probability for certain characteristics to be successful in this sport you should either sell it for a boat load or share it)? Just getting their hand raised? I do not subscribe to that definition. So I feel we would be talking past each other. A successful wrestlers gets out of the sport what they want. That's it. Maintain their fitness and flexibility. Learn some situational awareness. Maybe how to function better/more effectively in a various stressful environments. Use their imagination to see clear and efficient solutions to complex problems before they've even arisen. Up and down the spectrum of success. Plenty of people have gotten what they wanted out of very few wins and I'll bet there are plenty that would admit they wish they could go back and take a different path despite quite a bit of 'success'. I'm one of them. Care to answer those questions yourself? Hope it helps.

Nah, I'm happy to contribute. Wasn't much either. I was one of the lucky ones.

(shrug)

Just curious why they think its disgusting? I guess really what 'it' is that they feel is disgusting. A child dressing up and doing a presentation like an adult would in an environment meant for adults? Ya, that would probably be a little disturbing, the way horror movies are more horrible if a child is used as the terror element. Seems way out of place. But if they mean, dressing up in clothes that, they themselves wouldn't allow their child to dress in and maybe portraying a character in a school play, or just dancing around like children do. What is disgusting about that? That seems like something a child would do. Like putting on their parents' shoes and try to walk around. Adorable! One is disturbing, ya. The other, not at all. Even a little.

Why?

People exist, in this country, probably not far from wherever you live, that do not have enough food to participate at all, let alone have the ability or will to grow their skills sets in any of these sports. If you are just talking about playing in a backyard/sandlot to entertain themselves. Sure this could happen. Kids make up games all the time and they can get pretty good at them. Many if not most do not have professional leagues at all, let alone on tv to provide motivation to help get them out of their situation. If you are trying to say that these sports, as organized leagues, can benefit a child with very limited resources to gain skills and motivation to grow and improve their future outcome. Sure its possible. But again, exceptions do no prove the rule. It seems as if you are, again, trying to insinuate that if one person among countless amounts can achieve in one particular way. Then all can use that same game plan to achieve similar results. No. That's no how things work. Sorry if it hurts but that is ignorant of you if you actually believe that.