Arenas wants to prevent Bonds asterisk
- Thread starter HndsmCelt
- Start date
Are you serious? Do you honestly believe what you wrote? I was going to let your narrow definition of "advertise" fly, until you wrote this.
Let's use a more comprehensive, and yet more simplistic definition of the word advertise, so that we can show that your definition from wikipedia is not the only way to interpret the meaning.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
advertise:
1. INFORM, NOTIFY
2. To call public attention to esp. in order to sell
Did Ecko put a picture of his ugly clothing line on the ball with a price and his name and the name of his company? Clearly he did not. But was he using the general public hatred of Bonds to draw attention to himself? I certainly think so. And did he do this under the notion that if he gives the "majority of the public who have an opinion about the subject" what they want, that they will not only know who he and his company are, but also he will have gained their respect and appreciation and therefore created more potential customers? I definitely think so.
It is marketing of a different kind. But it is still marketing. And even though I think he is just a rich douche with no class, I have to give him credit for the publicity stunt. He wasn't advertising his clothing line directly. He was advertising himself and his views. I'd say that for every 1 million people that he "reached" in this stunt, that about 10% or 100,000 of them are now more inclined to check out his clothing company. It doesn't mean neccessarily that they will buy his stuff, but any business owner could appreciate what he was trying to do. To me this was clearly advertising. He invested $750,000 in hopes of returning $millions. He could have spent $750,000 in other advertising methods and not reached half as many people as with this stunt.
Freedom of expression? Why spend $750,000? He could have found much cheaper ways to say the same thing if that is what he really cared about.
Some questions:
Do you seriously believe that Ecko spent 3/4 of a million dollars to just throw it away?
If people didn't care about steriods and the record do you think Ecko still would've bought the ball?
Before this stunt, did you know who Mark Ecko was? Did you know of his company?
I'm gonna lean away from the "Ecko is a humanitarian" or "Ecko is Mother Theresa" idea and lean towards business savvy douche. He has shown nothing in the past to suggest that he does things for "the people" so I'm not going to think this was the first. If you choose to believe that he did this so that "the people" can be heard (as if the media hasn't already jammed this down everyone's throat to the point of pure sickness), then more power to you. But I strongly disagree.
Let's use a more comprehensive, and yet more simplistic definition of the word advertise, so that we can show that your definition from wikipedia is not the only way to interpret the meaning.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
advertise:
1. INFORM, NOTIFY
2. To call public attention to esp. in order to sell
Did Ecko put a picture of his ugly clothing line on the ball with a price and his name and the name of his company? Clearly he did not. But was he using the general public hatred of Bonds to draw attention to himself? I certainly think so. And did he do this under the notion that if he gives the "majority of the public who have an opinion about the subject" what they want, that they will not only know who he and his company are, but also he will have gained their respect and appreciation and therefore created more potential customers? I definitely think so.
It is marketing of a different kind. But it is still marketing. And even though I think he is just a rich douche with no class, I have to give him credit for the publicity stunt. He wasn't advertising his clothing line directly. He was advertising himself and his views. I'd say that for every 1 million people that he "reached" in this stunt, that about 10% or 100,000 of them are now more inclined to check out his clothing company. It doesn't mean neccessarily that they will buy his stuff, but any business owner could appreciate what he was trying to do. To me this was clearly advertising. He invested $750,000 in hopes of returning $millions. He could have spent $750,000 in other advertising methods and not reached half as many people as with this stunt.
Freedom of expression? Why spend $750,000? He could have found much cheaper ways to say the same thing if that is what he really cared about.
Some questions:
Do you seriously believe that Ecko spent 3/4 of a million dollars to just throw it away?
If people didn't care about steriods and the record do you think Ecko still would've bought the ball?
Before this stunt, did you know who Mark Ecko was? Did you know of his company?
I'm gonna lean away from the "Ecko is a humanitarian" or "Ecko is Mother Theresa" idea and lean towards business savvy douche. He has shown nothing in the past to suggest that he does things for "the people" so I'm not going to think this was the first. If you choose to believe that he did this so that "the people" can be heard (as if the media hasn't already jammed this down everyone's throat to the point of pure sickness), then more power to you. But I strongly disagree.
That definition is overly simplistic; you can't possibly believe that any time someone calls attention to someone else that it can be classified as advertising. I think that you are jumping to an inaccurately conclusion because you don't agree with what this guy is doing. To be fair, I'll grant you that I can see why someone would think it's self-promotion, but I don't believe that there's any actual evidence to support that that's what it is.
As for your questions:
1 - I don't make a habit of trying to make sense out of nonsense.
2 - Who the hell knows? Who's to say that, if it weren't for steroids, there would have been a ball in the first place?
3 - As a matter of fact, I had; for some reason, this kid in my berthing when I was on the Truman was really into wearing Ecko's clothing line. He talked about this guy like some people talk about tv shows.
As for your questions:
1 - I don't make a habit of trying to make sense out of nonsense.
2 - Who the hell knows? Who's to say that, if it weren't for steroids, there would have been a ball in the first place?
3 - As a matter of fact, I had; for some reason, this kid in my berthing when I was on the Truman was really into wearing Ecko's clothing line. He talked about this guy like some people talk about tv shows.
The idea that some of you think if a vast majority of people think something, that makes it fact without finite proof, is scary.
The idea that Slim seems to think advertising oneself as a means of drawing attention to yourself is an oversimplified definition yet understands the wikipedia definition of advertising to be only applicable if he put his name on the ball is ironic.
And the fact that people are so trusting of online polls despite their horrible accuracy and scientific shortfalls doesn't speak well for our future. (yesterday's Stars and Stripes has a great editorial piece on this BTW)
The idea that Slim seems to think advertising oneself as a means of drawing attention to yourself is an oversimplified definition yet understands the wikipedia definition of advertising to be only applicable if he put his name on the ball is ironic.
And the fact that people are so trusting of online polls despite their horrible accuracy and scientific shortfalls doesn't speak well for our future. (yesterday's Stars and Stripes has a great editorial piece on this BTW)
No one is saying they trust online polls. BUT I think you have to acknowledge the trend, especially in this instance.
ALL polls have shortfalls. The mere phrasing of a question can have an incredible impact on the results.
But none of that is the real point here...
The real point is that Barry Bonds, for a lot of us, represents everything WRONG with professional sports and, with that being the stated proviso, what happens to something that only has significance if you overlook HOW the record was obtained is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Advertising is more than simply drawing attention to yourself. While the purpose of advertising is to make people aware of something they may or may not know, I honestly don't see how you can call what the ball-buying guy did as advertising. The only people who would recognize his name are those who already know it, and that is precisely the antithesis of advertising. True advertising involves informing people about something they didn't know before - such as the opening of a new store, a sale, a house for rent, etc.
Did ball-buying guy hope for some publicity with the purchase of the ball and the resulting poll? Of course. But that doesn't make it advertising per se. Did ball-selling guy hope for some kind of personal gain out of this? Yup. In fact, one might point at finger at him as the true profit-seeker.
As far as your opening sentence goes, you're mixing apples and bananas. A lot of people have come to their own conclusions about Barry Bonds on an individual basis. The idea that there aren't facts (in the public domain) to support it at this point in time doesn't mean it's not true.
I've watched American Idol so I know there are lots of ways to manipulate anything involving public input. But I think you're erring in the other direction when you make the assumption that simply because it was a publicly conducted poll that it could not accurately reflect the beliefs of a majority of people.
ALL polls have shortfalls. The mere phrasing of a question can have an incredible impact on the results.
But none of that is the real point here...
The real point is that Barry Bonds, for a lot of us, represents everything WRONG with professional sports and, with that being the stated proviso, what happens to something that only has significance if you overlook HOW the record was obtained is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Advertising is more than simply drawing attention to yourself. While the purpose of advertising is to make people aware of something they may or may not know, I honestly don't see how you can call what the ball-buying guy did as advertising. The only people who would recognize his name are those who already know it, and that is precisely the antithesis of advertising. True advertising involves informing people about something they didn't know before - such as the opening of a new store, a sale, a house for rent, etc.
Did ball-buying guy hope for some publicity with the purchase of the ball and the resulting poll? Of course. But that doesn't make it advertising per se. Did ball-selling guy hope for some kind of personal gain out of this? Yup. In fact, one might point at finger at him as the true profit-seeker.
As far as your opening sentence goes, you're mixing apples and bananas. A lot of people have come to their own conclusions about Barry Bonds on an individual basis. The idea that there aren't facts (in the public domain) to support it at this point in time doesn't mean it's not true.
I've watched American Idol so I know there are lots of ways to manipulate anything involving public input. But I think you're erring in the other direction when you make the assumption that simply because it was a publicly conducted poll that it could not accurately reflect the beliefs of a majority of people.
Why not? I've heard of millionaires spending a lot more for things we could not possibly comprehend.
Who knows why rich people do things? Do you?
He's obscenely rich. He may have decided, out of hatred for Barry Bonds or a great dislike of how he thinks Bonds obtained the record, to purchase the "sacred" object because he was a baseball fan as a child and could easily afford to actually own this item.
And once owned, he has the right to do with it whatever he chooses. He wouldn't be the first millionaire to buy something only to turn around and donate it to a museum or something.
I don't know what his motives were - and they're not the point anyway. What if a group of guys pooled their money and bought the ball, and then conducted a poll online to see what should be done with it. Would you still decry their motives?
Who knows why rich people do things? Do you?
He's obscenely rich. He may have decided, out of hatred for Barry Bonds or a great dislike of how he thinks Bonds obtained the record, to purchase the "sacred" object because he was a baseball fan as a child and could easily afford to actually own this item.
And once owned, he has the right to do with it whatever he chooses. He wouldn't be the first millionaire to buy something only to turn around and donate it to a museum or something.
I don't know what his motives were - and they're not the point anyway. What if a group of guys pooled their money and bought the ball, and then conducted a poll online to see what should be done with it. Would you still decry their motives?
If if you think Barry is 100% guilty of injecting steriods, saying that he is represents EVERYTHING wrong with sports is saying that you have been desensitized to many much worse things. Did you know there is a man in the NFL playing after being convicted of manslaughter while driving drunk? Do you even know the name of that man? And that man is still getting arrested for driving drunk?
Exactly which side am I erring on? Online polls aren't proof of anything except a waste of time. They don't convey what the general public believes because it is limiting in who can conduct the voting. People who can't afford a computer or internet service are eliminated. That's like polling 23 states in the for the next president, of course it "could" be what everyone would vote, but unless you give everyone the chance, it doesn't count for anything. Not to mention that many more scientific polls have shown that Bonds has much greater support from the black community than the white, and your using the medium that is much more available to the white community to do the voting... scientifically it makes no sense.
Exactly which side am I erring on? Online polls aren't proof of anything except a waste of time. They don't convey what the general public believes because it is limiting in who can conduct the voting. People who can't afford a computer or internet service are eliminated. That's like polling 23 states in the for the next president, of course it "could" be what everyone would vote, but unless you give everyone the chance, it doesn't count for anything. Not to mention that many more scientific polls have shown that Bonds has much greater support from the black community than the white, and your using the medium that is much more available to the white community to do the voting... scientifically it makes no sense.
Michael Vick had much greater support from the black community than the white too. So did OJ. I choose not to care.
I don't know who's running "scientific" polls on an irrelevant turd like Barry Bonds, but the ones I've seen all wander around the 75% mark against. If anything, an online poll like the one conducted and with the purpose it was conducted for would be far more likely to attract the most rabidly interested in the topic, which would typically include a disproportionate number of Barry backers. Realtively few people casually back Barry Bonds with a shrug, many many people think he's a rat but really can't be bothered to care much one way or the other.
I don't know who's running "scientific" polls on an irrelevant turd like Barry Bonds, but the ones I've seen all wander around the 75% mark against. If anything, an online poll like the one conducted and with the purpose it was conducted for would be far more likely to attract the most rabidly interested in the topic, which would typically include a disproportionate number of Barry backers. Realtively few people casually back Barry Bonds with a shrug, many many people think he's a rat but really can't be bothered to care much one way or the other.
But you can't say who voted and who didn't. You can't say who had the chance to vote and who didn't. And you can't say who voted hundreds or thousands of times (it's already been commented on how easy it would be to tamper with the poll), one way or another.
That's part of my point, and I think what JSin is pointing to also. Just because there's an Internet poll that says so doesn't mean that the majority of American baseball/sports fans feel that way. Like I said, I didn't deem the poll worthy of voting in. Came off to me as just a publicity stunt by Marc Ecko. I kind of wish that the 'send the ball to outer space option had won, and then we'd see how devoted Ecko is to "giving the fans what they want".
Internet polls, especially polls designed to lure Bonds opposers, can't be considered valid, anymore than a poll on this message board can. Just because the majority of people who visit one site feel a certain way about something doesn't mean that the majority of people in the country feel the same way.
By the way, I can't stand Bonds anymore than anyone else. I just don't think the poll is relevant, and I certainly don't think the ball should go to the Hall of Fame with an asterisk on it.
That's part of my point, and I think what JSin is pointing to also. Just because there's an Internet poll that says so doesn't mean that the majority of American baseball/sports fans feel that way. Like I said, I didn't deem the poll worthy of voting in. Came off to me as just a publicity stunt by Marc Ecko. I kind of wish that the 'send the ball to outer space option had won, and then we'd see how devoted Ecko is to "giving the fans what they want".
Internet polls, especially polls designed to lure Bonds opposers, can't be considered valid, anymore than a poll on this message board can. Just because the majority of people who visit one site feel a certain way about something doesn't mean that the majority of people in the country feel the same way.
By the way, I can't stand Bonds anymore than anyone else. I just don't think the poll is relevant, and I certainly don't think the ball should go to the Hall of Fame with an asterisk on it.
I didn't vote in the poll either and many would accuse me of being Bonds biggest supporter. It seemed dumb to me. An online poll to determine how to embarrass Bonds with his homerun ball. I joked with my friends about Bonds laughing at the guy. I mean he just wasted almost a million dollars and for what...?
I didn't really care what happened to the ball, if the ball went to the hall and I was in charge I wouldn't bother displaying it, but I'm not losing sleep if they do. I just think its a slippery slope when you using online polls for more than their worth, and that is nothing.
I didn't really care what happened to the ball, if the ball went to the hall and I was in charge I wouldn't bother displaying it, but I'm not losing sleep if they do. I just think its a slippery slope when you using online polls for more than their worth, and that is nothing.
That's where I don't agree with you.
Bonds is the type of player that works hard every day (numerous witness accounts in his carreer), tries to concentrate on the team and baseball and not him (just open archive with numerous interviews), family guy, loves his kids, does not torture animals, does not drink and drive, does not shoot anybody, does not rape anybody, supports his teammates (except the ones like Kent) and does not love the media (which is plus for some of us).
So, no, I don't think he represents "everything WRONG with professional sports". I would say that (steroid allegations aside) he represents exactly the opposite - the model for sport athlete (if you take all said above and compare to many athletes in the pro sport right now).
The only issue with him - he actually hates the media (except a few). And I can't blame him if all those rumors about how they treated his father are true.
Unfortunately, media controls how many of us see him and they portrayed him badly way before any steroid allegations.
Bonds is the type of player that works hard every day (numerous witness accounts in his carreer), tries to concentrate on the team and baseball and not him (just open archive with numerous interviews), family guy, loves his kids, does not torture animals, does not drink and drive, does not shoot anybody, does not rape anybody, supports his teammates (except the ones like Kent) and does not love the media (which is plus for some of us).
So, no, I don't think he represents "everything WRONG with professional sports". I would say that (steroid allegations aside) he represents exactly the opposite - the model for sport athlete (if you take all said above and compare to many athletes in the pro sport right now).
The only issue with him - he actually hates the media (except a few). And I can't blame him if all those rumors about how they treated his father are true.
Unfortunately, media controls how many of us see him and they portrayed him badly way before any steroid allegations.
As far as I know, Bonds was always a jerk to the media. Whether he has reason to dislike them or not, there's no reason to be a jerk. And no one likes a jerk.
And let's not downplay the seriousness of using steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. No, it's not dogfighting or drunk driving or sexual assault, but it's not minor either. It's essentially the same as using any other controlled-substance, except the fact that it doesn't impair your ability to function on a fundamental level. But Bonds isn't a model citizen by any stretch of the imagination. Just because he's not a rapist or a drunk or a dopehead doesn't mean that he's the model for what a professional athlete should be. Not by a long shot.
You're right that a lot of people have been influenced by the media about Bonds, but he is a jerk. And even though he's sort of being singled out over this whole steroids thing, and even though the majority of the blame over this scandal in baseball can be placed squarely at the feet of MLB and Bud Selig, he is still not a likeable person. He's a great baseball player, but he's also a cheater and, as far as I know, he doesn't treat people well if he doesn't have to. That's not the type of person that I would point to as what a professional athlete should model himself after.
And let's not downplay the seriousness of using steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. No, it's not dogfighting or drunk driving or sexual assault, but it's not minor either. It's essentially the same as using any other controlled-substance, except the fact that it doesn't impair your ability to function on a fundamental level. But Bonds isn't a model citizen by any stretch of the imagination. Just because he's not a rapist or a drunk or a dopehead doesn't mean that he's the model for what a professional athlete should be. Not by a long shot.
You're right that a lot of people have been influenced by the media about Bonds, but he is a jerk. And even though he's sort of being singled out over this whole steroids thing, and even though the majority of the blame over this scandal in baseball can be placed squarely at the feet of MLB and Bud Selig, he is still not a likeable person. He's a great baseball player, but he's also a cheater and, as far as I know, he doesn't treat people well if he doesn't have to. That's not the type of person that I would point to as what a professional athlete should model himself after.
As I said, steroid allegations aside, what in Bonds' career is not a model for baseball athletes?
Let's see: he's the best player in baseball (7 MVPs tell us so); he's overwritten many records in the book (single season and career wise); he was the most hard working player in the Giants these years (countless accounts from other players); he's the most feared baseball players (just look at number of walks and intentional walks); he likes to help teammates with the game (again, many-many accouns of former teammates); he never broke any rules and was never a poster boy for any of the scandals (again, steroids allegations aside); he almost single-handedly kept Giants in San Francisco in 1993 with his play.
Yeah, whay a disgrace for the sport...
And if we start talking about steroids, there are as much pro steroids use as against it. If you'd like, I can post links on articles that are pro-Bonds for everybody to read and make their own opinions.
If you want to admire Barry Bonds, please feel free to do so. I simply do not and cannot share your enthusiasm. There's more to being a successful player than statistics, which is why I mentioned Lawrence Funderburke.
And steroids weren't his only scandal. But that's neither here nor there. As I've said repeatedly, I do not like or respect him and I never will. So posting a bunch of articles would be totally meaningless, especially since pretty much everyone on the planet has already formed their opinion one way or the other.
Have a good evening. I'm gonna go talk about something I enjoy - our Kings.
And steroids weren't his only scandal. But that's neither here nor there. As I've said repeatedly, I do not like or respect him and I never will. So posting a bunch of articles would be totally meaningless, especially since pretty much everyone on the planet has already formed their opinion one way or the other.
Have a good evening. I'm gonna go talk about something I enjoy - our Kings.
You confusing a model for other athlete's and a role model. All the players you listed are great people but young kids aren't dreaming of having a career like Funderburke's. That might be what you want from your team, a bunch of nice guy, but I was the best, winners. I can find my role models in professions that require more than athleticism and a jump shot.
You're not a parent, JSin. When you are, I think you'll realize that kids choose their role models from athletes and movie stars. That's what I've been referring to, not some kind of ethereal model other athletes look up to.
I'm trying to gracefully bow out of this discussion because, quite frankly, I respect you and the other people who have posted here too much as Kings fans to allow myself to get drawn into a discussion of someone like Barry Bonds.
I'm trying to gracefully bow out of this discussion because, quite frankly, I respect you and the other people who have posted here too much as Kings fans to allow myself to get drawn into a discussion of someone like Barry Bonds.
You're not a parent, JSin. When you are, I think you'll realize that kids choose their role models from athletes and movie stars. That's what I've been referring to, not some kind of ethereal model other athletes look up to.
I'm trying to gracefully bow out of this discussion because, quite frankly, I respect you and the other people who have posted here too much as Kings fans to allow myself to get drawn into a discussion of someone like Barry Bonds.
I'm trying to gracefully bow out of this discussion because, quite frankly, I respect you and the other people who have posted here too much as Kings fans to allow myself to get drawn into a discussion of someone like Barry Bonds.
That's the thing about the Barry Bonds topic, is that even people who don't care about baseball (not you, but people in general) find themselves drawn to the discussions. Probably the most polarizing topic in sports these days, even more so than Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, I'd say.
The comment I have regarding your post, which is quite a bit off topic - and I hope no one takes it the wrong way - is that I don't think parents should hold public figures responsible as role models. They should hold themselves responsible. As terrible a person as Barry Bonds might be, or anyone else, parents have the responsibility to raise their children to identify good role models vs. poor role models, and the parents should be the primary example that the kids want to follow. Maybe not as far as what profession they want to be in, or even what type of person they want to marry, but what type of morals they respect. So when they see a person like Barry Bonds or Kobe Bryant or Kenny Rogers, (or Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears) or someone else that may be a great athlete/performer, but not necessarily a great person, they can make a distinction. And if they are not old enough or mature enough to do that for themselves, then the parents need to exercise their authority as parents, and do it for them. Simple as that.
I know that everybody raises their children differently, and all kids are different, but parenting shouldn't be so strongly influenced by public figures. I think it should be based on your personal ideals and values, and damn Barry Bonds either way.
Let me get off my soap box now. Just wanted to throw that in.
You keep trying to bow out.
That's the thing about the Barry Bonds topic, is that even people who don't care about baseball (not you, but people in general) find themselves drawn to the discussions. Probably the most polarizing topic in sports these days, even more so than Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, I'd say.
The comment I have regarding your post, which is quite a bit off topic - and I hope no one takes it the wrong way - is that I don't think parents should hold public figures responsible as role models. They should hold themselves responsible. As terrible a person as Barry Bonds might be, or anyone else, parents have the responsibility to raise their children to identify good role models vs. poor role models, and the parents should be the primary example that the kids want to follow. Maybe not as far as what profession they want to be in, or even what type of person they want to marry, but what type of morals they respect. So when they see a person like Barry Bonds or Kobe Bryant or Kenny Rogers, (or Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears) or someone else that may be a great athlete/performer, but not necessarily a great person, they can make a distinction. And if they are not old enough or mature enough to do that for themselves, then the parents need to exercise their authority as parents, and do it for them. Simple as that.
I know that everybody raises their children differently, and all kids are different, but parenting shouldn't be so strongly influenced by public figures. I think it should be based on your personal ideals and values, and damn Barry Bonds either way.
Let me get off my soap box now. Just wanted to throw that in.
That's the thing about the Barry Bonds topic, is that even people who don't care about baseball (not you, but people in general) find themselves drawn to the discussions. Probably the most polarizing topic in sports these days, even more so than Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, I'd say.
The comment I have regarding your post, which is quite a bit off topic - and I hope no one takes it the wrong way - is that I don't think parents should hold public figures responsible as role models. They should hold themselves responsible. As terrible a person as Barry Bonds might be, or anyone else, parents have the responsibility to raise their children to identify good role models vs. poor role models, and the parents should be the primary example that the kids want to follow. Maybe not as far as what profession they want to be in, or even what type of person they want to marry, but what type of morals they respect. So when they see a person like Barry Bonds or Kobe Bryant or Kenny Rogers, (or Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears) or someone else that may be a great athlete/performer, but not necessarily a great person, they can make a distinction. And if they are not old enough or mature enough to do that for themselves, then the parents need to exercise their authority as parents, and do it for them. Simple as that.
I know that everybody raises their children differently, and all kids are different, but parenting shouldn't be so strongly influenced by public figures. I think it should be based on your personal ideals and values, and damn Barry Bonds either way.
Let me get off my soap box now. Just wanted to throw that in.
I know it's not easy. I'm not saying it is. There's NOTHING easy about being a parent. Even during the great times, you're still worried about your kids' safety, their future, their health, and things that you can't even control. It's not easy at all.
But my parents made sure that they knew who I associated with, what I watched on TV, what type of music I was listening to, etc. Yeah, I had my secrets, but they raised me with morals and values, and those morals and values have always affected who I look up to and admire. Now, I am a spiritual person, my parents raised me that way, and I'm sure that plays a part also. But, all the same, if any parents are worrying about Barry Bonds not being an ideal role model for their children, then chances are they're not doing what they should be when it comes to training their children to know the difference between good and not so good. As I said, parents should be the key.
You can't protect your children from all outside influences, and peer pressure is especially difficult to deal with. But you can't worry about celebrities influence, because you can't control what they do.
But my parents made sure that they knew who I associated with, what I watched on TV, what type of music I was listening to, etc. Yeah, I had my secrets, but they raised me with morals and values, and those morals and values have always affected who I look up to and admire. Now, I am a spiritual person, my parents raised me that way, and I'm sure that plays a part also. But, all the same, if any parents are worrying about Barry Bonds not being an ideal role model for their children, then chances are they're not doing what they should be when it comes to training their children to know the difference between good and not so good. As I said, parents should be the key.
You can't protect your children from all outside influences, and peer pressure is especially difficult to deal with. But you can't worry about celebrities influence, because you can't control what they do.
Bull.... Parents with "good" values sometimes end up with "bad" kids and parents with "bad" values sometimes end up with "good" kids. This can happen for a myriad of reasons, but kids emulating good or bad role models can certainly play a part.
(A caveat here is that "good" and "bad" are loaded words. None of us will agree on what good and bad values are.)
(A caveat here is that "good" and "bad" are loaded words. None of us will agree on what good and bad values are.)
Am I the only kid who only emulated their favorite sports star on the field, ONLY. I can't even remember anything besides my favorite athletes on the field. Once a kid is old enough to know all the bad stuff an athlete is doing, they are old enough to know its wrong. Sports figures as role models sounds better than the actual effect they have.
We'll have to disagree.
I didn't say anything as a hard and fast rule, first of all. But there's a reason that young parents have problem kids more often than older, more mature parents do. It's because older, more mature adults are more qualified to raise kids than teenagers. A 19 year old set of parents can raise a very great kid, and it happens, but the odds aren't in their favor, are they? The odds are more in the favor of a 29 year old set of parents, wouldn't you agree?
Secondly, my point was that being up in arms about Barry Bonds' merit as a role model isn't something that I think parents should worry about. I think they should worry about the things that they can control, like what their kids watch and listen to, and the example that the parents set themselves, especially when the kids are younger. And then, not as a rule, but generally speaking, when the kids get old enough to start making decisions for themselves, isn't it true that they will be more prone to make good decisions?
And, finally, good and bad is pretty much good and bad. Don't steal. Don't cheat. Don't lie. Don't treat other people bad. Take responsibility for your actions. Who would disagree with those ideals? If parents instill those ideals in their kids from an early age, by word and by example, then when they get older and see people like Barry Bonds not living by those ideals, they won't be attracted to them.
My whole point is that parents shouldn't hold public figures responsible as role models. They should hold themselves responsible as role models, and whether public figures are idiots or upstanding citizens, it doesn't matter, because you can't control that. On top of that, the so-called upstanding citizens often wind up being less than upstanding, once you learn more about them. So why allow your kids to look up to people that they don't even know, just because they're good at sports or great dancers or very attractive?
There's nothing easy about being a parent, whether you have a 5 year old or a 15 year old, but more often than not, if you set a good example as a parent, your kid will be more prone to identify a terrible person as someone that they should not imitate. Not 100% of the time, but often enough to say that parents should have more of an effect on their kids than public figures like Barry Bonds. And that's really my point. I don't know how you can disagree with that.
I didn't say anything as a hard and fast rule, first of all. But there's a reason that young parents have problem kids more often than older, more mature parents do. It's because older, more mature adults are more qualified to raise kids than teenagers. A 19 year old set of parents can raise a very great kid, and it happens, but the odds aren't in their favor, are they? The odds are more in the favor of a 29 year old set of parents, wouldn't you agree?
Secondly, my point was that being up in arms about Barry Bonds' merit as a role model isn't something that I think parents should worry about. I think they should worry about the things that they can control, like what their kids watch and listen to, and the example that the parents set themselves, especially when the kids are younger. And then, not as a rule, but generally speaking, when the kids get old enough to start making decisions for themselves, isn't it true that they will be more prone to make good decisions?
And, finally, good and bad is pretty much good and bad. Don't steal. Don't cheat. Don't lie. Don't treat other people bad. Take responsibility for your actions. Who would disagree with those ideals? If parents instill those ideals in their kids from an early age, by word and by example, then when they get older and see people like Barry Bonds not living by those ideals, they won't be attracted to them.
My whole point is that parents shouldn't hold public figures responsible as role models. They should hold themselves responsible as role models, and whether public figures are idiots or upstanding citizens, it doesn't matter, because you can't control that. On top of that, the so-called upstanding citizens often wind up being less than upstanding, once you learn more about them. So why allow your kids to look up to people that they don't even know, just because they're good at sports or great dancers or very attractive?
There's nothing easy about being a parent, whether you have a 5 year old or a 15 year old, but more often than not, if you set a good example as a parent, your kid will be more prone to identify a terrible person as someone that they should not imitate. Not 100% of the time, but often enough to say that parents should have more of an effect on their kids than public figures like Barry Bonds. And that's really my point. I don't know how you can disagree with that.
All I'm saying is that you can't control what public figures do, so you shouldn't hold them responsible as role models. They are not role models. Parenting means that you know and affect who your kids look up to. Whether they are teenagers or not. I don't see what's so "blind" about what I am saying. Do you not think that a parent should have more influence on their kids than Barry Bonds?
Well, I wish you smooth sailing with your kids. I was an older parent with very strong moral values and went through heck with my teenager. In my search for answers, I met numerous mature, strong-valued parents who had two or three wonderful children and one black sheep. Why did their parenting work with most of their kids and not that one? In my case, things eventually worked out and I have a fine adult son, but nothing is as simple as you make it seem.
I think we should hold all adults responsible as role models. That is a big part of how a society enforces values, by censuring adults who behave in unacceptable ways.
It's only very recently in human history that we've come to the idea that parents in a nuclear family are somehow supposed to be the only ones responsible for how their children turn out. It used to be assumed without question as a much large social responsibility. Adults valued the next generation for the future of all their people and all adults took responsibility for guiding children.
Whether its a clan, tribe, extended family, village, city, or country, we should most certainly expect all adults to conduct themselves according to some basic values and ethics and, at the least, publicly call them out when they don't. It doesn't matter if you can change them. What matters is that you don't just stand by and close your eyes to it.
It does becomes more difficult, when a society becomes very diverse, with many different sets of values, but there are certainly many common values, as you pointed out. At least I used to think so.
So parents calling out highly visible, well-rewarded celebrities, for getting away with bad behavior is very appropriate. They model to their children and express to society that you don't just ignore unacceptable behavior, even by adults, even when they get away with it, not even when it's rewarded by society at large.
I think we should hold all adults responsible as role models. That is a big part of how a society enforces values, by censuring adults who behave in unacceptable ways.
It's only very recently in human history that we've come to the idea that parents in a nuclear family are somehow supposed to be the only ones responsible for how their children turn out. It used to be assumed without question as a much large social responsibility. Adults valued the next generation for the future of all their people and all adults took responsibility for guiding children.
Whether its a clan, tribe, extended family, village, city, or country, we should most certainly expect all adults to conduct themselves according to some basic values and ethics and, at the least, publicly call them out when they don't. It doesn't matter if you can change them. What matters is that you don't just stand by and close your eyes to it.
It does becomes more difficult, when a society becomes very diverse, with many different sets of values, but there are certainly many common values, as you pointed out. At least I used to think so.
So parents calling out highly visible, well-rewarded celebrities, for getting away with bad behavior is very appropriate. They model to their children and express to society that you don't just ignore unacceptable behavior, even by adults, even when they get away with it, not even when it's rewarded by society at large.