DLR_Mysterion
(Banned)
- 365
- United Kingdom
I hated my participation trophy I got once at a football camp. Just reminded me I wasn't good enough to get a real trophy! Saying that it was an incentive to work harder....
Double post on the phone; please merge.
Only silly Warriors fans still want to tout that achievement but not even the team really cares because it didn't amount to anything in the end. You guys can keep pretending most professional sports achievements are still memorable without titles/rings behind them. The fact is, at the end of the day, only the diehard sports fan cares. People remember Michael, hardly anyone knows who Stockton is or what he's famous for.
Not going to entertain the rest of the post trying to ride the coat tails of Scaff's.
Which is part of the reason why they can be effective.I hated my participation trophy I got once at a football camp. Just reminded me I wasn't good enough to get a real trophy! Saying that it was an incentive to work harder....
Some think so, others don't.Do participation medals have anything to do with political correctness?
I think I'd fall into the "don't" category.Some think so, others don't.
Which is part of the reason why they can be effective.
Some think so, others don't.
What they aren't is either a new concept or a scientificly invalid method of motivation.
I think you will find the hufpo article cite and links to the papers that do that.I think you'll need more than that Huffington Post article to make this assertion.
I think you will find the hufpo article cite and links to the papers that do that.
My apologies here's the original study.Not that I can see, their link to the study takes you to a Chicago Tribune article who seem to have no links, and that ignores the fact that the study only loosely supports the assertion that participation trophies are a scientifically valid method of motivation.
In its reasoning, it pointed out that the happiness of the children shown in the video was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.”
Is it because none of those kids are pretty enough to be allowed on TV?
Is it because none of those kids are pretty enough to be allowed on TV?
The following ad was deemed "inappropriate" (code word for politically incorrect IMO) for French television. Watch it and see if you can figure out why it's inappropriate for French television before going further in this thread or looking up the answer on the internetz or looking at a link to the story below.
It's not a anti-abortion video, it's a pro-Down's syndrome video and frankly I think they need it given some of the ghoulish comments on this article:1081It was banned because abortion is a life choice (often in difficult circumstances) that shouldn't be disturbed by media advertising. I can't believe you agree that pro-abortion or anti-abortion videos should be shown on the TV? None of their business, it's up to the body owner to make a decision.
It's not a anti-abortion video
So we shouldn't allow anything on tv that disturbs our life choices or just for abortion? How far do you go? No ads about any babies then? It might disturb mothers who aborted healthy babies. No ads for suicide prevention? Might make those making the life choice to end their life feel bad. No ads against unprotected sex in case the drunken clubbers have second thoughts and feel guilty? Since when is anything on tv anyone's "business"? It's generic programming that appeals to some and not others. Abortion is legal, so is advocating against it. It's an ad, change the channel if you don't like it, same as the rest of us.It was banned because abortion is a life choice (often in difficult circumstances) that shouldn't be disturbed by media advertising. I can't believe you agree that pro-abortion or anti-abortion videos should be shown on the TV? None of their business, it's up to the body owner to make a decision.
So we shouldn't allow anything on tv that disturbs our life choices or just for abortion?
No ads for suicide prevention?
No ads against unprotected sex in case the drunken clubbers have second thoughts and feel guilty?
The French government has doubled down on enforcing political correctness and it's now going to be a crime to have a website that is, "intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral pressure”
My apologies here's the original study.
https://psychology.stanford.edu/sites/all/files/Intelligence Praise Can Undermine Motivation and Performance_0.pdf
And no it doesn't only loosely support it and I can provide many more if you wish. The use of tools to improve participation and success in education and sport is something both my wife and I have a professional interest in, so would be quite happy to do so.
The study above (and the others I will happily provide) do however make it clear that a right and a wrong way to do it exists, as is the case with almost everything in life.
They are not a 'magic bullet' and are more effective with younger children, should not be signposted up front, should still require a minimum level of participation, and should focus on the effort put into participation, what was done well and what was learnt.
They also need to be used in conjunction with further awards that do reward results and exemplary performance.
Yes, it is. The purpose is to dissuade mothers with a positive DS test from aborting.
No, it isn't. It's reassuring expecting mothers that a child with Down's can live a happy life — which is a direct response to the question posed at the beginning.
Is there pro-life subtext? Maybe. But it's certainly not a pro-life ad.
Whiiiich is why JP is concerned about the French ruling on censoring websites. You decided the ad was pro-life despite the creator's actual intentions (your link doesn't make sense, but I found out they are a Down's syndrome advocacy group). You decided it should be banned because of your conclusions. Imagine a government having that power.I continue to disagree. Regardless of Coordown's own statement that it "wasn't the intention to make a pro-life video" it clearly stands as a pro-life message when aimed at mothers who've had a positive DS test - a scenario which returns a 90% abortion rate.
Even if there's ambiguity about how much of a pro-life message there is or isn't... that's enough to make it unsuitable for general advertising release, imo.
Which was likely the creator's intentions funnily enough.No, it isn't. It's reassuring expecting mothers that a child with Down's can live a happy life — which is a direct response to the question posed at the beginning.
Is there pro-life subtext? Maybe. But it's certainly not a pro-life ad.
I continue to disagree. Regardless of Coordown's own statement that it "wasn't the intention to make a pro-life video" it clearly stands as a pro-life message when aimed at mothers who've had a positive DS test - a scenario which returns a 90% abortion rate.
Even if there's ambiguity about how much of a pro-life message there is or isn't... that's enough to make it unsuitable for general advertising release, imo.
Because it's common sense that any advertising that is deliberately misleading and false is an offense and there are already laws on the books for that, therefore it's irrelevant because no one would expect anything different. The key part is the part that comes after the comma, and the "and/or" part, which literally means, it doesn't need to be misleading and false to be an offense, only that is must, "exert[ing] psychological or moral pressure", to be illegal.No it isn't, and that's because you deliberately misquoted. Why did you miss out the words "misleading" and "false", I wonder?
All I'll say is not everyone can afford the additional cost of a special needs child. Yes they can be adopted but not everyone gets adopted, especially special needs children. It is a sad subject to talk about but it is real.
I'm sure it would be. Equally it would be extremely uplifting for parents of Down's kids and Down's sufferers. I counter your turning the table by asking you to imagine how they feel seeing an ad showing their happiness being banned!I can see myself finding that ad extremely distressing if I had been through the abortion of a Down's child.
The thing is Down's sufferers can be magnificent beings too, it all depends on your criteria for being "magnificent". Again if it's to do with disease we can go a lot further.LMAI don't know if that's enough to say that it shouldn't be aired, but I'd actually turn the tables in a political correctness sense, and suggest that the idea that we should choose to sustain Down's in the human race denotes political correctness. There's no good to come of it, and we should get rid of as much of it as possible. Sure, one could argue "Yeah, but then our beautiful cousin Downy McDownface wouldn't exist". To which I would counter "What about all the other humans we're not currently creating?". "What magnificent beings are we missing out on by not all being permanently knocked up?". It's just touchy-feely, romanticised nonsense.
Ideally it wouldn't be relevant to the view on if the ad should air. For instance I don't support the banning of the Marie Stopes ad. I'd change it to include a man in one of the scenarios but that's it. As for my opinion on aborting/non-aborting Down's, I don't know what I'd do if I found out I was going to have a Down's baby. That's why I'd appreciate ads like this, and facts like quality of life of Down's sufferers.LMA*Note, I realise that people questioning the ban on the ad don't necessarily support the non-abortion of Down's babies.