Oh good grief, that is stupid. Hasn't anyone bothered to look and see thats how it is in the real world. If you work hard to be good at something you excel, if you don't you do not excel.
Exactly. Like the article stated, "Critics of the cancellation say it's not necessary and players who excel should be given a showcase. As in life, they point out, there are always winners and losers."
God put competitiveness in males, and for these folks deciding "it isn't fair" or "competition at this age is wrong", is very wrong.
Losing and winning, at even these young ages, establish the competitive spirit in youngsters, that will serve them all their lives.
Take out the competitiveness as these folks are doing does indeed make wusses.
IMHO, and apparently Cutter's.
Sorry, but I don't understand connection between the news article that the link took me to, and the number of "queers and homosexuals". The news item was about a particular baseball game being cancelled, because it was deemed by the organisers to be putting too much emphasis at too early an age (9 to 12, or "9 through 12" as Americans would say :laugh: ) on singling out the best players. I am sure there are plenty of heterosexual men who were no good at baseball at all, and would not even have been included in the item's "many (who) sign up to play baseball at this age just to have fun," let alone be chosen as being among the best who have signed up.
You seem to be suggesting that if sporting events such as the Rec League All-Star Baseball Game for 9 to 12 year olds continue, the number of male homosexuals will drop. If so, I find such a suggestion suspect. If that is not what you meant, I apologise for misunderstanding. :)
Just asking - where does the bible say that "God put competitiveness in males"?
Also, I didn't know what a "wuss" was, so I looked it up. My dictionary says, "an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody regarded as weak or inefectual." Cannot a heterosexual man be weak or ineffectual?
:applause:
What's next? Some kids own cats and not dogs, therefore they turn gay? Man, the comments by some around here are a never ending source of amazement, amusement, and an indication of the failure of the American education system.
Thanks Cutter.
But what a strange saying!
How does anyone know that it is true?
If you don't explain something when someone who does not understand asks you to do so, how do you know that they still would not have understood if you had tried to explain?
I hope American pastors, teachers and doctors don't work by that saying! :laugh:
By the way, we have a similar saying here, but it is not about understanding.
It goes: "If you need to ask the price, you can't afford it!"
I think that is just as nonsensical as your American saying.
:)
The American was J.P. Morgan. He said when asked about how much a certain piece of art, a Rembrandt or some such item, cost him.
As for your other question, yes.
The logic isn't all that great.
But, here in the States we've seen a trend to pathologize boys for just being boys.
As in "Why can't Richard (an otherwise healthy eight year old) sit still? His twin sister can.
He must be hyperactive."
My reply, "No, he's just an eight year old boy.
Adjust your expectations accordingly."
Thanks, Squire! I thought it was a UK phrase, but I was wrong.
I am not sure I agree with that.
In my years in the teaching profession, I found just as many fidgitty girls as boys.
I also found that plenty of parents would prefer to "jump on the latest bandwagon", and say, "My child is dyslexic/has ADHD/has a learning disorder" etc., rather than, "My child is not very good at reading and spelling", or "My child is badly behaved."
(Don't get me wrong - of course there are children with genuine special educational needs).
You're right in reality fidgetiness knows no gender barriers.
Mind you, I wasn't in agreement with the statement.
I gave it as an example of the mindset of some.
My beef is with the pathologization of otherwise normal conduct.
I would agree with both of these statements if you had said "Liberalism and Conservativism . . ."
These two labels have been turned into the political equivalent of racial slurs.
Both are applied using circular logic, "If you are a Liberal, then you believe 'X'."
And, "if you believe 'X', then you are a Liberal."
Each label has a list of positions associated with it.
If someone claims either label, but they vary from one of accepted positions, then they may be declared to be outside the "camp" that they have claimed.
Their application today is similar to ones used in the past to determine whether people with mixed heritage were Negroes during times of slavery and later Jim Crow laws, or to determine who was a Jew in the time of the Nazis.
I think these labels are now officially useless!
I think that people who continue to use them to try to stifle debate on some subject by smearing another poster, as happens here on the BB all the time, are fear-mongers and should be treated as such.
By that I mean that they should be ignored.