Too Good to Pitch

Watermark said:
Not a rule per se, more of a guideline. I never suggested the kind of auto-ban that got into you dumbasses head, probably because that's the only way you guys think punishment or ostracization can be handled.



It has nothing to do with being "fair" to the other children, they are concerned about the safety of the children, which is a perfectly legitimate gripe. If you disagree, found your own fucking league.
Click to expand...

A 40 mph fastball is not that dangerous to a child wearing a batting helmet. And if you are going to have rules like that for the children's safety, how about making the rules up BEFORE mid-season? This is not about children's safety.
 
Solitary said:
If you think people become wealthy by sheer luck, and equate the chances at being rich to being struck by lightning, I would disagree on your qualifications to speak on wealth.

And just as an FYI, wealth is earned not distributed.
Click to expand...

The idea that labor alone creates value has been discredited for more than 100 years. The last serious economist who held that view was Karl Marx.
 
Watermark said:
The idea that labor alone creates value has been discredited for more than 100 years. The last serious economist who held that view was Karl Marx.
Click to expand...

I didn't say labor alone. But if I build a business up from scratch, and use innovative ideas to create a bigger and better business model, haven't I earned it?

Earning is not always about sweat. An artist earns by being creative.
 
WM, you say that you are not poor by a long shot. What is it that you do to earn your money?
 
BTW, I did not "equate" the two. I was mocking your argument "there are plenty..."

This is a weasel argument. There are plenty of stories of a lot of things, it doesn't necessarily signify any great trend.
 
Watermark said:
BTW, I did not "equate" the two. I was mocking your argument "there are plenty..."

This is a weasel argument. There are plenty of stories of a lot of things, it doesn't necessarily signify any great trend.
Click to expand...

Then on what do you base your contention that the rich are lucky?
 
Solitary said:
WM, you say that you are not poor by a long shot.
Click to expand...

I did not say that. Future tense, my friend. :clink:

I am undoubtedly poorer than you right now, being in college. I was just trying to be an asshole. I can't predict the future, and software engineers may very well become a useless field in 10 years, and my stocks may all go into the dirt.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
It has nothing to do with being "fair" to the other children, they are concerned about the safety of the children, which is a perfectly legitimate gripe. If you disagree, found your own fucking league.

Not that I agree. It seems like someone was being rather sensationalist about the "lack of safety" and overestimating the amount of harm it would cause, which is common amongst conservatives. But, of course, we have you guys coming in and presenting this "IT'S OUR SOCIETYW HICH HATES WINNERS AND WNATS EVERY1 TO BE LOSER" and "CLRLY LIBERULS ARE 2 BLAIM" bullshit.
Click to expand...

The safety issue is just a bs excuse after they got embarassed. As I explained balls coming off the bat (even for eight to ten year olds) are going to travel well over 40 miles an hour.
 
Watermark said:
The idea that labor alone creates value has been discredited for more than 100 years. The last serious economist who held that view was Karl Marx.
Click to expand...

Sees there's your problem, you think Marx was a serious economist. :) Ricardo was the last serious economist with the idea.

I don't see where you get that from what he said. He said it was not sheer luck and that it was earned.

The labor theory of value does not follow from the idea that wealth is "earned." If A puts 2 hours into creating something that has greater utility than a similar object that B created in 200 hours, then A "earned" his likely greater rewards.
 
RStringfield said:
Sees there's your problem, you think Marx was a serious economist. :) Ricardo was the last serious economist with the idea.

I don't see where you get that from what he said. He said it was not sheer luck and that it was earned.

The labor theory of value does not follow from the idea that wealth is "earned." If A puts 2 hours into creating something that has greater utility than a similar object that B created in 200 hours, then A "earned" his likely greater rewards.
Click to expand...

Picasso's painting Garçon à la pipe sold for 104 million dollars at auction. It wasn't actually a very good painting by him, it sold for that much merely because his name was attached to it. He definitely has some good painting, and a ton of bad ones too, but the bad ones sell for just as much. Which is what I was getting at: wealth is created for a lot of very silly reasons. Humans are extremely stupid.

Not that I'm suggesting the art price setting government commision that you are undoubtedly going to suggest that I'm suggesting, I'm just pointing out that wealth is in many cases something that was acquired just because human beings are so retarded.
 
Watermark said:
Picasso's painting Garçon à la pipe sold for 104 million dollars at auction. It wasn't actually a very good painting by him, it sold for that much merely because his name was attached to it. He definitely has some good painting, and a ton of bad ones too, but the bad ones sell for just as much. Which is what I was getting at: wealth is created for a lot of very silly reasons. Humans are extremely stupid.
Click to expand...

Christ could you answer more pretentiously?
 
Epicurus said:
Christ could you answer more pretentiously?
Click to expand...

I think he was trying to come up with an answer that wasn't talking about inherited wealth.

But neither one accounts for more than a tiny percentage of the wealthy in this country.
 
Watermark said:
I'm not poor, and I will undoubtedly have more money than you one day. The only question is, which order of magnitude will it be? So, I think I'm more qualified to speak on how wealth is distributed.
Click to expand...

how do you know you are going to have money? you can't predict luck watermark.
 
RStringfield said:
Don't know if this subject been posted on but...

A nine year old is not allowed to pitch because he is "too good." What?!?! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/sports/baseball/26youth.html?ref=sports

This is complete nonsense. The justification given...

Peter Noble, a lawyer for the league, said the only factor in banning Jericho from pitching was that his pitches were too fast.

"He is a very skilled player, a very hard thrower," Noble said. "There are a lot of beginners. This is not a high-powered league. This is a developmental league whose main purpose is to promote the sport."
...

There are two problems with this excuse.

1. He has not hit anyone and supposedly has excellent control.
2. He is only throwing 40 miles an hour.

If you are worried about your kid getting hit by a ball traveling 40 miles an hour then don't let them play ball at all. Any decent 8-10 year old kid is going to occasionally, or even routinely, strike the ball hard enough to travel far beyond 40 miles an hour.

In the Little League World Series this past weekend there were plenty of kids throwing 70 plus. Those kids ranged from 10-12 (at least at the beginning of the season). Your head is not twice as hard at 12 vs 8.

At 40 miles an hour a ball is not likely to do much damage, unless there was some freakish incident. But baseball has certain risks and as a parent you either accept them or you turn your kid into a pussy.

Whatever parents are complaining about this should ashamed of themselves. In fact, if your kids are on another team and you are not protesting this you should be ashamed of yourself.

And the coach that forfeited and refused to play, he should retire from the game in disgrace.

Now, I don't know how this league is structured, but if it were setup correctly, this would be easily avoided. In my Little League kids from 9-12 played in either the Minor or Major Leagues. The Major League teams had first pick and would often take talented 9 year olds. Some of the kids at 12 stayed in the minors (though 12 year olds were not allowed to pitch in the Minor League). Major League teams often pulled kids up during the season. This was a good setup as the talented kids were challenged with better competition and the kids that were not so talented were allowed to stay with players closer to their skill level.
Click to expand...

*Sniff* I smell liberal bullshit. :mad:

What this is really about is how Jericho (supposedly) makes the other kids feeeeeel bad. It is the same bullshit we're seeing in the school districts, with teachers banning tag and dodge ball. :mad:

If the liberals have their way, our children will be ZOMBIES loaded up on Prozac and Ritalin who are afraid of / allergic to everything and can't function in the real world.

Fuck liberalism. :321: It truly is a MENTAL DISORDER.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top