{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by LiamCDM:
9/5/2016 11:58:23 PM
25
Why is Letting People Win a Thing?
Courtesy of Mtashed 5:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Y_6g0icbg
I have a question for everyone here. Why exactly, is letting others win, a positively viewed trend in our society? If you let your opponent win, you aren't teaching them anything. You aren't teaching them how to improve and learn from their experience. You aren't helping them at all; save for a brief feeling of accomplishment. Their victory, means nothing.
If this trend is propagated throughout the next generations of humanity, like how this current generation is doing, we could see an increase in entitlement, narcissism and the inability to accept and learn from defeat.
Today's lesson, is simple. Equality of outcome is a dangerous idea. Equality of opportunity however, is perfectly reasonable and should be embraced.
-
You have a brain. You are smart. Some people don't have one. They are not. They also are mostly feminists and watch MSNBC or other liberal media
-
I'll sometimes let people win but usually not random people. They'd have to be close. But even then it's very rare that I do. I'm a competitive person and my ass is out to win. Maybe I'd let my gf win on occasion to be that guy but a lot of the time I'd smash [spoiler]Giggity[/spoiler]
-
So that nerd can feel accomplished in front of his girlfriend [spoiler]or in the case of Offtopic, their mother[/spoiler]
-
2 RepliesEdited by Legion: 9/6/2016 11:23:56 AMWhat's wrong with playing for fun? Winning isn't everything. Normally I would agree, but the first link just makes you look like a huge asshole, you probably don't give a shit. I just wanted to throw that out there.
-
3 RepliesI saw some "mentality defective" kid(cause the mentally defective forum ninjas can't handle the correct word) playing football. They let him run a touchdown btw. I'd have drilled him.
-
Edited by Clean Joey: 9/9/2016 3:28:49 AM[REDACTED]
-
I don't think it's exactly a terrible thing.I wouldn't want to completely smash a kid at something.That kid could have the potential to be truly great at a thing but then I absolutely smash his esteem and he gives up on the thing forever. There's not really any pride to be felt in absolutely decimating someone who isn't as experienced as yourself.I don't think I'd let people win but I'd go easy on a child.
-
I ain't takin no L because someone can't win or doesn't want an L
-
3 RepliesI only let children win. No point in crushing some kids dreams early on. May as well let them feel like their awesome only so they can get taken down later on. Still gonna talk mad shit to them...
-
The only times I purposefully let someone win are when I don't really want to play, or when I know I have a huge advantage but feel some sort of (sympathy/empathy?) for them. One example would be me (22 years old) playing a game of tag against a bunch of 12 year olds. Obviously, I am much more capable of winning due to physical limitations. But does that mean I should destroy their chances at winning? Well, I'm a pretty cool guy, so I let them win. They earn some confidence in themselves ("Wow, I just beat a grown-up!"). Now, put me against people within my own peer group, and if I want to play, I'll give it my all to stay on even footing. If I win, I win. If I lose, I lose.
-
6 RepliesWHAT?! Someone who uses logic and reason on offtopic?!
-
Down syndrome is a little different.
-
2 RepliesBecause parents don't want to have to deal with their kids when they lose, so they created a scenario where everyone is a winner.
-
Because sometimes there are heavy stakes on that one win, that one person can't afford to lose.
-
24 Replies[quote]Today's lesson, is simple. Equality of outcome is a dangerous idea. Equality of opportunity however, is perfectly reasonable and should be embraced.[/quote] I wouldn't say that you've illustrated "equality of outcome" very well, at least not in a moral sense. There's a distinction to be made. Voluntarily letting somebody win (when you could have easily defeated them) might be a virtuous thing, depending on the circumstances. It might be senseless and patronizing under other circumstances. However, you're never acting immorally under [i]any[/i] circumstances by voluntarily letting somebody else win. Using violence (or the threat of violence) to force an equality of outcome is immoral. Coercing somebody into losing so that another person may win is a whole different situation than if one competitor voluntarily threw the match to another.
-
1 ReplyYou've never been much better than someone else? Sometimes, winning isn't everything. Sometimes, you decide to help someone else a little. When you're a lot better than your opponent, its not particularly fun or kind to continue thrashing them. So, you let them win a little and keep things interesting.
-
Only the wealthy should be wealthy All else can eat dirt and be pleb dirtmonkeys
-
1 ReplyI think there is a very large segment, if not the majority, that believe exactly how you do. So dont stress.
-
1 ReplyI work with a guy that said he'll never take his kid to a Yankees game because they might lose. He doesn't want his kid to experience his team losing in person. I just shook my head and walked away mid conversation.
-
22 RepliesBecause, like the ancient Alexandrian weavers who wove an imperfection into each one of their quilts, we believe only God can create perfection.
-
1 ReplyI don't. Sometimes I go easier, on very unskilled opponents, to enjoy myself and not crush them [i]too[/i] badly, but I still win
-
8 RepliesI'd let someone win so I don't look like a try hard or to make them feel happy, nothing wrong with losing but that doesn't mean winning isn't fun.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Herakles: 9/6/2016 6:05:08 AMSo the "winner" "feels good about themselves".
-
2 RepliesShut the -blam!- up
-
Because some people feel really bad for others and act on it. I guess.
