Competition is just the way we work through challenge. Shielding people from failure doesn't do anyone any good. You will win and lose in life, best to learn how to do both gracefully when the stakes are low.
That's right, learn disappointment in life early, so you don't grow up thinking that the world is a nice place.
I get a great deal of happiness & satisfaction out if competition - win or lose. Competing motivates me to try my very best, and a tough opponent brings that out in spades. I was once a serious racquetball player, and many nights at the club I'd play the challenge court a level above my ability. I'd lose every time but the level of competition was exhilarating. Thinking of competition only in terms if winning & losing is missing the point of competition. In the real world, we compete every day in a variety of ways, sometimes winning, sometimes not. Having kids "compete to a tie" is not competing at all. It's a lost opportunity to teach kids how to both win and lose with grace, and how to "win" a the best challenge of all - to discover your own personal best and try to improve that through competition. For me, the whole "don't let kids lose" idea is grounded in cliche, dated 70's pop psychology. So, again in my own view, 'competition' is a completely different conversation from 'winning & losing'.
I'm with Buddy.
Competition is just the way we work through challenge. Shielding people from failure doesn't do anyone any good. You will win and lose in life, best to learn how to do both gracefully when the stakes are low.
As soon as you realize you are happy, the emotion will likely give way to wanting something more; a mood which will very likely snuff out your happiness.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Sir Winston Churchill.
The Founders of this great country were aware of many things. The concept of Happiness was so important that it was given star billing in the Declaration Of Independence … the pursuit of Happiness.
Class warfare is an attack on happiness when considered in Churchill’s remarks. The same can be said of secular attacks on religious events.
How is it that we idolize millionaire movie stars, canonize millionaire rock stars and worship millionaire athletes, yet demonize millionaire entrepreneurs and businessmen ?
There is a war on Happiness. The fact that the smallest of voices can now attack and silence the joy or celebration of the many by claiming their rights are being trampled is absurd, for openers.
It depends on what type of socialism. Was he referring to Communistic socialism where the state owns all property and means of production? If so I would agree with him. But democratic socialism as practiced in N. Europe has been very successful economically and socially. Indeed, many of those countries rank highest in happiness in the world. Danmark consistently ranks #1 in happiest citizens.
How happy is your country? In a report released for the meeting, economists John Helliwell, Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs round up what is known about happiness around the globe.
Different groups have asked different questions to measure happiness. In the widest such survey, Gallup asked people to rate their lives from 0 to 10. It found huge differences in global happiness: More than a third of Europeans ranked themselves an 8 or higher. Less than 5% said so in sub-Saharan Africa.
According to polls taken from 2005 to 2011, these were the happiest countries:
Children under age 8 should be working on their skills, and not be worrying about winning and losing. Plus, the parents are much more competitive than their kids and they get really obnoxious.
Indeed - + competition seems to be linked to aggressive behaviour.
Children under age 8 should be working on their skills, and not be worrying about winning and losing. Plus, the parents are much more competitive than their kids and they get really obnoxious.
I doubt there are any adults left in the USA. I think our comforts have neotenized them away.
I get a great deal of happiness & satisfaction out if competition - win or lose. Competing motivates me to try my very best, and a tough opponent brings that out in spades. I was once a serious racquetball player, and many nights at the club I'd play the challenge court a level above my ability. I'd lose every time but the level of competition was exhilarating. Thinking of competition only in terms if winning & losing is missing the point of competition. In the real world, we compete every day in a variety of ways, sometimes winning, sometimes not. Having kids "compete to a tie" is not competing at all. It's a lost opportunity to teach kids how to both win and lose with grace, and how to "win" a the best challenge of all - to discover your own personal best and try to improve that through competition. For me, the whole "don't let kids lose" idea is grounded in cliche, dated 70's pop psychology. So, again in my own view, 'competition' is a completely different conversation from 'winning & losing'.
Children under age 8 should be working on their skills, and not be worrying about winning and losing. Plus, the parents are much more competitive than their kids and they get really obnoxious.
Preventing winning is a denial of happiness. The denial of happiness because its not fair to someone else who doesn't have the same set of skills in a given sport or activity. Somehow, you tried to inject violent competion as an excuse for injecting 'fairness' or 'non-winning' into all activities. Not all sports and activities consist of violent competition. Yet you try to use it as an excuse to stop or end true competition of any kind.
Also saying that denial of winning is denial of happiness is a personal projection, not a statement of truth.
Preventing winning is a denial of happiness. The denial of happiness because its not fair to someone else who doesn't have the same set of skills in a given sport or activity. Somehow, you tried to inject violent competion as an excuse for injecting 'fairness' or 'non-winning' into all activities. Not all sports and activities consist of violent competition. Yet you try to use it as an excuse to stop or end true competition of any kind.
You are putting words in my mouth, I play scrabble as competitively as possible. But cooperation, not competition is the 21st century way. We are a global nation, and we are going to have to learn to help each other. Tribalism and fighting (which physical competition prepares us for) is passe.
btw happiness comes from within, no one can take that from you.
You are the one who started the thread, you should at least make a case tor what you believe.
Preventing winning is a denial of happiness. The denial of happiness because its not fair to someone else who doesn't have the same set of skills in a given sport or activity. Somehow, you tried to inject violent competion as an excuse for injecting 'fairness' or 'non-winning' into all activities. Not all sports and activities consist of violent competition. Yet you try to use it as an excuse to stop or end true competition of any kind.
Manufactured outrage courtesy of Fox News. I caught the segment on O'Reilly where Greg Gutfeld put out his "war on fun stuff" theory, presumably taken from his book.
Everyone knows that the classic definition of a Puritan is someone who has a sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun. O'Reilly and his fellow Fox pundits basically come from the same Puritan mold. What Gutfeld is trying to do is invert this old joke to define liberals as Puritans.
It ain't gonna wash, not with folks like O'Reilly and Limbaugh slut-shaming unmarried women who dare to want to have sex. Remember the Scarlet Letter? Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others who go after Sandra Fluke are simply carrying on a cherished Puritan tradition.
Much as I see your good intentions, I fear this topic will come to no good end. Some folks don't understand that an "argument" doesn't have to be a negative thing. Best of luck - I give it 2 days ;)
Socialism exists as an idea because a lot of people simply reject the idea that in a modern world so many people especially children should go hungry as the millionaire movie stars and athletes you speak of lament on the taxes they have to pay on their Lamborghini's or opulent palaces in gated communities (or injustices of a Czars lifestyle vs. a peasant). You are entering an enormous philosophical discussion from a rather narrow viewpoint skewed suspiciously towards a somewhat different subject imo than the pursuit of happiness and its general importance to the founding fathers.
Just take the bolded part and go from there.
Consider my narrow view as a beginning towards the widening of the conversation.
The uneven pursuit of happiness versus the equal sharing of misery.
As a reason for founding a country and how current events are directly opposed to the notion.
Another example can be infered by the playing of games in public grade schools where no one is allowed to win.
The idea that there are no winners and losers in public schools is truly laughable. What do you think grades are? What do you think high stakes test scores are for? They are for ranking and sorting children into winners and losers.
