Imagine a world where in debate and conversation everyone agreed with you, in style, in approach, in tone, in substance, would you want to live in a world like that?

If not STFU when it comes to complaining and calling the maude squad to intervene.

I think it needed to be said.

carry on



--





this public service is brought to you by the blowhard-in-chief who has no illusions about his own greatness and who has a thick skin to go with a set of brass balls.

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

I just feel sorry for those that are not as enlightened as ME.

If the world lacked controversy what fun would it be?

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

.

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

You've opened Pandora's Box, Dante. This is one of those topics that will put me in Overanalyze Mode.

Depends.
People are socialized in how they confront challenges by early and ongoing experiences. If one succeeds a reasonable amount, then the challenges will make him/her "better". Essentially that person will become less afraid of challenges, more willing to take risks, and probably more successful.
Of course there's also the chance that the person will fail horribly by taking an extremely bad risk if this is not balanced. Also the person will more likely lack empathy for people who have had bad luck, often using those "bootstraps" mantras you hate so much.

On the other hand if a person fails horribly too much and early on, that person will start taking a more conservative (not politically) atttude toward risk. The person will avoid challenges and greatly limit their own potential and possibly have a rather dismal and insecure view of the world.

Of course these attitudes get more stubborn with age, but can change with new experiences, especially radically different ones (ie a risk-taker becoming horribly disabled, a risk-adverse person having a consistent lucky streak).

Ideally for society and all it's individuals, we'd be best off with a balance that leads to a lot of risk-taking, but a low occurrence of stupid risk-taking. We also do better when society is sympathetic to those who fail in the taking of rational risk and likes to bolster the ability of those with less to risk being able to take rational risks.
The idea of a good safety net is dependent on providing cushion for risks gone bad, while not being so cushy as to discourage rational risk or encourage stupid risk.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

My Mom's cousin starred in that movie.

__________________
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening......... but this wasn't it. -- Marx

I thought you were leaving?

my grandmother was Douglas Fairbanks Sr. assistant

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.obamatruth.org/