1
   

Compassion and the Decline of America

 
 
cjhsa
 
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:07 am
By Dennis Prager
worldnetdaily.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compassion and the decline of America


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: March 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

This past weekend, a friend of mine attended his 13-year-old son's baseball game. What he saw encapsulates a major reason many of us fear for the future of America and the West.



His son's team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened b was the scoreboard perhaps broken? b and was told that the winning team's coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated.

In order to ensure that the boys losing by a lopsided score would not feel too bad, the score was changed.

As is happening throughout America , compassion trumped all other values.

Truth was the first value compassion trashed. In the name of compassion, the adults in charge decided to lie. The score was not 0-0; it was 24-7.



Wisdom was the second value compassion obliterated. It is unwise to the point of imbecilic to believe that the losing boys were in any way helped by changing the score. On the contrary, they learned lessons that will hamper their ability to mature.



They learned that someone will bail them out when they feel bad.



They learned that they do not have to deal with disappointment in life. Instead, someone in authority will take care of them. (This is how reliance on the state for solving personal problems b the worldview of the left b is formed early in life.)



They learned that their feelings, not objective standards, are what society deems most important.

They learned that they are not responsible for their behavior. No matter how poorly they perform, there will be no consequences b sort of like tenure for university professors.



They also learned to think in the feminine b with an emphasis on feelings b rather than to cultivate their innate masculine sense that winners win and losers learn to deal with it and move on to the next game.

At the same time, the boys on the winning team learned not to try their best. Why bother?



Building character was the third value trumped by compassion. People build character far more through handling defeat than through winning. The human being grows up only when forced to deal with disappointment. We remain children until the day we take full responsibility for our lives. Our increasingly feelings-based society has created a pandemic of immaturity in our society. And there are fewer and fewer maturity-creating institutions in our society. Indeed, the opposite is more often the case. Schools, for example, keep young people immature, none more so than college, which serves primarily to postpone adulthood.



The fourth value that compassion denied here was fairness. It is remarkable how often compassion-based liberals speak of "fairness" in formulating social policy given how unfair so many of their policies are. It was entirely unfair to the winning team to have their score expunged, all their work denied. But for the compassion-first crowd, the winning team is like "the rich" who earn "too much" and should therefore be penalized with a higher tax rate; the winning team scored "too many" runs to be allowed to keep them all.



Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society.



Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy-makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,146 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:43 am
Quote:
By Dennis Prager
worldnetdaily.com


Done, thanks

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:47 am
That and the fact the score here at A2K lately is something like cj 52 - libs 0, I can see why you might not want to read it. Your feelies might get hurt.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:48 am
Amazing compassion you are showing there. Maybe you should toughen yourself up with a few punches to the face before Prager finds out.

Isn't there a gun forum somewhere where you would be much, much happier; yaknow, polishing your rods and talking all heterosexual like.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:51 am
Now I know why you moved to Berkeley... is that a snake eye?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:02 am
While the incident cited is indeed ridiculous, the author extrapolates from this one event and state "schools, for example, keep young people immature, none more so than college, which serves primarily to postpone adulthood."



This MIT student might be surprised to hear that.


CJ, you and the author of your article might wish to go take some logic courses....
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:10 am
I will partialy agree with you on this one. When my sons used to play soccer I found it annoying that every single team won a trophy at the end of the season and they were all the same size. Even the team who ended up winning the league got the same size trophy as the team that didn't even make the play offs.

What did that teach my sons? It taught them that no matter how well you do or don't do there is no difference between working hard and not working hard.

On my oldest sons team there was a kid who almost never showed up for practice and wouldn't you know it, he was able to play in every single game and get the same play time as my son who was there every practice working on team work and his basic skills. How is it fair to those that show up everytime that they get the same amount of time as those that don't? What does that teach the kids? It doesn't matter how hard you work you get what everyone else does so why work hard?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:19 am
Quote:
It doesn't matter how hard you work you get what everyone else does so why work hard?



Perhaps you could have a conversation with him about the point of hard work being the work itself, and not the reward.

Perhaps it teaches the kids that having fun is more important than competing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:23 am
Baldimo wrote:
I will partialy agree with you on this one. When my sons used to play soccer I found it annoying that every single team won a trophy at the end of the season and they were all the same size. Even the team who ended up winning the league got the same size trophy as the team that didn't even make the play offs.

What did that teach my sons? It taught them that no matter how well you do or don't do there is no difference between working hard and not working hard.
Maybe it taught them you shouldn't expect your reward to be a bigger trophy. If you don't drive yourself while ignoring the trophy you will or won't get then you aren't working very hard.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:30 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
By Dennis Prager
worldnetdaily.com


Done, thanks

Cycloptichorn


See, I figured that meant you were done here.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:32 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't matter how hard you work you get what everyone else does so why work hard?



Perhaps you could have a conversation with him about the point of hard work being the work itself, and not the reward.

Perhaps it teaches the kids that having fun is more important than competing.

Cycloptichorn


If that were the case then getting a BS from Harvard wouldn't be any more important then getting a BS from Red Rocks Community College. After all both people went to college and got degrees so why would one persons college education be better then another?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:37 am
Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't matter how hard you work you get what everyone else does so why work hard?



Perhaps you could have a conversation with him about the point of hard work being the work itself, and not the reward.

Perhaps it teaches the kids that having fun is more important than competing.

Cycloptichorn


If that were the case then getting a BS from Harvard wouldn't be any more important then getting a BS from Red Rocks Community College. After all both people went to college and got degrees so why would one persons college education be better then another?


Who says it is any better?

We all know that Bush got degrees from Harvard and Yale, and look what a moron he is.

Actually, you prove my point; a degree isn't about receiving a bigger or better piece of paper, but about the work and process that goes into receiving it. The point isn't to have a sheepskin but to be a better person for going through the process.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:42 am
And while going through the process, some will fail (Bush didn't, BTW), and failure is likely going to be a very foreign concept to those coddled by feel good stupidity.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 10:52 am
I guess the liberal way to handle this would be to take the losers out for ice cream and the winners out for little car bomb jihad.
0 Replies
 
malek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 11:34 am
"It's not the winning that counts, it's the taking part" - Pierre de Coubertin.

The problem seems to be that some people put too much emphasis on winning at any cost, in my opinion.
A sporting victor would applaud the loser(s) as they left the field of play. In the USA, it seems to me that losers are quite often the object of mockery and humiliation.
I don't agree with changing scoreboards, and would much rather see good sporting nature and attitudes re-introduced at grass roots level.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 11:42 am
malek wrote:

A sporting victor would applaud the loser(s) as they left the field of play. In the USA, it seems to me that losers are quite often the object of mockery and humiliation.


And you'd be very wrong unless you are watching too much NBA.... You want to see humilitation of the loser... watch international soccer, though it's mostly on the part of the fans, not the players.
0 Replies
 
malek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 11:46 am
Sport is supposed to be enjoyable, cjhsa. It is competetive recreation.
Humiliation shouldn't come into the equation. If you think that it should, then I would suggest that you've missed the whole point.

Even gun toting warriors should be magnanimous in victory. :wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 11:48 am
learning to lose is just as important as learning to win.
0 Replies
 
malek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 11:50 am
Both should be suffered or enjoyed with dignity.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 11:59 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't matter how hard you work you get what everyone else does so why work hard?



Perhaps you could have a conversation with him about the point of hard work being the work itself, and not the reward.

Perhaps it teaches the kids that having fun is more important than competing.

Cycloptichorn


If that were the case then getting a BS from Harvard wouldn't be any more important then getting a BS from Red Rocks Community College. After all both people went to college and got degrees so why would one persons college education be better then another?


Who says it is any better?

We all know that Bush got degrees from Harvard and Yale, and look what a moron he is.

Actually, you prove my point; a degree isn't about receiving a bigger or better piece of paper, but about the work and process that goes into receiving it. The point isn't to have a sheepskin but to be a better person for going through the process.

Cycloptichorn


Your fooling yourself if you don't think better colleges allow people to earn more money. There is almost no way a person from a community college is going to earn more money then someone who went to Harvard.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Compassion and the Decline of America
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/10/2025 at 04:56:06