16-year-old solo sailor Abbey Sunderland reportedly lost at sea

[LD_Tickler]

The fact that it didn't go well doesn't mean it was a poorly made decision. If she was, in fact, professionally trained and fully capable of doing it, it was a fine decision, made on the basis of the only relevant factors. It doesn't retroactively become a bad decision if accidents occur. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

The point Red is making, as I understand it, is that factors such as skill, experience, and training are more important than age. The point everyone else is making, as I understand it, is "yeah but omg she's a MINOR!"

"Minor" as a category is only useful in establishing averages. Saying that minors shouldn't be sailing around the world is based on a presumed level of experience and competence - that of the average 16 year old. When levels of experiences are in fact, demonstrated, they don't need to be presumed.

Here's a hypothetical: let's say I'm a 16 year old bodybuiler who can olympic lift 400lbs. I do it frequently. Olympic lifts are dangerous, and the average 16 year old shouldn't try them. It does not become stupid for me to do olympic lifts just because most 16 year olds can't.

 

[Master Baiter]

This just figures.

Dad goes broke, then sends his daughter out during the stormy season and risks her life to pimp his new reality show.

Whattaguy.
Greed has consumed him.
I'd like to see anyone rationalize this crap.

 

[Cy/MiG]

^All this proves is that her parents (at least her dad) are idiots, but that still doesn't mean she shouldn't be sailing around the world @ 16.

And yes, I get the whole 'it's dangerous' and 'she's not of legal age' argument, but like Mage and LD point out, Abby is not a 'normal' 16 year old.

 

[primetime]

Why do the supporters keep thinking about the abilities? This has nothing to do with her abilities. We all know she can sail a boat quite well. There are kids who can drive cars really well. But, parents also tell their kids "no" to driving if the kid wants to drag race in the streets. Parents tell their kids "no" if their kids want to drive their car cross country alone. This is about parental responsibility. The Sunderland's are screwball parents.

Sailing around the world is not a walk in the park. It is not playing a sport. Sailing around the world has HUGE risk factors, greater than any "normal" activities (like playing sports. That is still the dumbest comparison ever Red...) a kid can do. If sailing around the world was "safer" than football, EVERY FREAKIN KID would be doing it. But they don't.

Why haven't the Sunderland's been charged with child endangerment? If there is ever an example of child endangerment, this would be it. If Abby is so great, then she can wait until she's 18. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, she wanted to be the youngest. Kids are not mature enough to make wise choices all the time. Of course she will say she's "ready". Just like the kid who tells his parents he wants to do Evil Knieval stunts and leap over the Grand Canyon. He's been practicing on his motorcycle every day since 13 and he has managed to get really good. A responsible parent would say "um, no."

I do agree with Master Baiter. The Sunderland's should be responsible for the rescue bill. Why? Sailing around the world is not a typical activity amongst civilians, therefore, any special adventures should be the responsibility of the parents. Let's see how fast they clam up over that if they had to pay. All of the sudden, Abbey's little adventure doesn't seem so fun.....

 

[MrMacphisto]

How about this? Would you let your kid go into the African wilderness alone to "tame" a lion pride? The kid has worked with lions at the zoo for most of their lives. This is more of a comparison to Ms. Sunderland's adventure than playing a sport. You making that comparison is just stupid. Why?

You say zero kids died sailing around the world. Well, did you know more people die falling down the freakin stairs every year than sailing? That comparison is just as ridiculous as your football comparison. Think about this. You mentioned 10 people under the age of 18 have attempted it. Yet, you pull out stupid statistics about people dying in football. Do me a favor Red, how many kids are playing High School football in this country? That's right, tens of thousands. Your comparison is is flat out ridiculous.

While the sample size is clearly different, the comparison is valid for one reason.

The small sample size of kids sailing around the world is demonstrative of 2 things.

1) it's expensive to own a ship capable of being sailed solo around the world

2) it takes an amazing amount of skill to even attempt this.

On the other hand, playing football is relatively inexpensive, and while it does take skill and dedication, it's a more accessible form of these things than global sailing.

So, quite frankly, Abbey is an elite sailor by virtue of what she's already accomplished.

By contrast, Bobby the average running back is just one kid among millions. The risk Abbey is facing might be high, but she's better prepared for it than 99.999999% of her peers (and I'm talking sailors as peers, not age group).

Bobby faces the risk of serious injury every game he plays, but because his ability is average, he has a higher chance of hurting himself than Abbey does, because he's not elite.

That's the difference here, prime.

The point is that football is a popular risk that parents engage their children in, so that's why it's socially accepted. If it wasn't as popular, then it would be more condemned when something terrible happened (like Bobby damages a vertebra).

Something similar has happened with video games. Back in the 90s, parents used to be up in arms about violent video games. Their prejudices were fueled by things like Columbine, when it became known that the deadly duo liked to play shoot 'em up games. People ignored the fact that the vast majority of gamers didn't kill their classmates, but the outrage still managed to garner support for censorship of games.

Now, thankfully, Abbey's situation didn't involve any death, but it's kind of the same idea. Most parents naturally would fear sending their kid on a ship alone across the world, but then again, most parents don't have a phenomenal daughter capable of even trying something like this. Because Abbey is exceptional, she was allowed to try something exceptional and yes... dangerous.

By contrast, kids everyday are allowed to play something physically dangerous, regardless of whether or not they happen to be exceptional at it, and so injuries occur. I'm not arguing against having kids play football, but it is pretty hypocritical to point the finger at these parents while not considering the other more prevalent dangers that are socially acceptable for kids to engage in.

I need you to pay attention Red. Seriously. Pay attention. My point is not about Abbey's skill. It is about her parents, who are responsible for their MINOR child, allowing her to undertake one of the most dangerous things any human can do. I seriously want to know why this is not child endangerment? Youh ave ducked that whole point. Tell me Red, how come their decision is not child endangerment?

I can't speak for Red, but skill really is the difference here. Only a handful of kids are allowed to deal with this danger, because of their advanced skill.

If Abbey hadn't been experienced, it would have been child endangerment. Because she was very experienced, it's not. That's the difference.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Why do the supporters keep thinking about the abilities? This has nothing to do with her abilities. We all know she can sail a boat quite well. There are kids who can drive cars really well. But, parents also tell their kids "no" to driving if the kid wants to drag race in the streets. Parents tell their kids "no" if their kids want to drive their car cross country alone. This is about parental responsibility. The Sunderland's are screwball parents.

Sailing around the world is not a walk in the park. It is not playing a sport. Sailing around the world has HUGE risk factors, greater than any "normal" activities (like playing sports. That is still the dumbest comparison ever Red...) a kid can do. If sailing around the world was "safer" than football, EVERY FREAKIN KID would be doing it. But they don't.

You keep missing that the very fact only a few do try this form of sailing is indicative of a much greater level of skill than the average football player.

Red never suggested sailing around the world was safer than football. He used the comparison to demonstrate how popularity equals social acceptability -- regardless of the dangers.

 

[primetime]

But the problem I have is that sailing around the world exposes your child to unseen danger. Football is NOT a fair comparison. The simple fact that millions play it, let's you know the risk factor of death is not as high. How so you ask? Let me put it this way. What are the odds that you will NOT die playing football as compared to sailing around the world? In football, kids practice, learn plays, wear pads, and usually play is safe. Sailing around the world involves the unknown. Ask yourself, is sailing the ocean alone where you can deal with rogue waves, sharks, high winds, evil men on boats (pirates), SAFER than playing football? If you say yes, you're just saying yes to keep your argument going.

Like I mentioned before, more people die falling down the stairs than they do sailing around the world (according to Red's stats). Is walking down the stairs all of the sudden a dangerous activity? No. Things happen. There is a much much higher risk sailing around the ocean.

Does Abbey have skill. Yes. As a parent, should it even matter? No. How can anyone rationalize sending their kid on a journey where the odds of you dying is much much greater than walking down stairs (or playing football...)? That is why it is child endangerment. How can someone get accused of child endangerment for leaving their 10 year old at home alone for 3 hours, but allowing your kid to sail around the world not? Had Abbey died, how could her parents live with themselves knowing they had full control to prevent her death? The Sunderland's got very lucky.

 

[Master Baiter]

So, quite frankly, Abbey is an elite sailor by virtue of what she's already accomplished.

The risk Abbey is facing might be high, but she's better prepared for it than 99.999999% of her peers (and I'm talking sailors as peers, not age group).

Woah Woah Woah, hang on here.

Before you anoint her the "World's Greatest Sailor" title consider this:

She didn't win a contest or anything even close.
She's a rich kid with a boat.
Who has parents with highly questionable motives.

I'm sure there are a lot of experienced sailors who would argue with the above quoted statistic you seemingly grabbed out of thin air.

 

[Redmage]

My basis is common sense.

Ah, common sense.

Does common sense suggest that a person with exceptional skills should be judged by different standards than a person without those skills, in areas where the skills are relevant?

I'm just curious here.

Sailing around the world by yourself, regardless of age, is inherently a very dangerous thing to do. I think we can all agree on that.

Sure. So is playing football.

There is no doubt she has a certain amount of skill and was well-equipped and prepared. Even so, you can't deny what happened came perilously close to taking her life.
Taking that into consideration, how you can say it was still a good decision to attempt a headline-grabbing stunt like this is beyond reasonable judgment.

The risk would have been the same regardless of whether she made it or not. But the fact remains that her skills were equal to the danger. And that means that her parents made the right call.

"Child endangerment" means sending children into situations for which they are unprepared. Children do dangerous things every single day, from playing sports to simply walking to school. But no one calls those things "child endangerment" because we prepare our children to handle those risks. And then we just hope nothing happens to them.

Preparation - training and equipment - is the key. Letting a child walk to school in Minnesota in January is not child endangerment. Sending a child on the same trip without a coat, and without knowing the way, is child endangerment. Abby Sunderland was prepared. The fact that she made it as far as she did demonstrates that.

It also begs the question "If she's so dammed skilled, how did she end up sailing headlong into such awful weather and ultimately capsizing her yacht?"

You think the mast of a more skillful sailor is stronger for some reason? Is this more of that common sense?

I don't feel I'm required to submit a list of credentials to chime in with an opinion on a discussion forum.

Certainly not. It all depends on how seriously you want to be taken.

 

[Redmage]

Why do the supporters keep thinking about the abilities? This has nothing to do with her abilities.

Yes, so you keep saying.

Tell me, should we drop the requirement that children learn to drive and demonstrate their ability before getting a license? After all, if training doesn't matter, and ability is irrelevant, then it seems obvious that a trained driver is no safer than an untrained driver. Why waste the time and money on something that makes no difference to safety?

But, if that idea seems a bit foolish, then perhaps training and ability do matter, when deciding how safe something is for a given child.

 

[Redmage]

I'd just like to point out that many dangerous things are done, often by children younger than Abby. They do these things for no reason except to break a record or to be hailed as the best in the world at something relatively pointless.

No one calls this "child endangerment." We call it "the Olympics."

 

[LD_Tickler]

I'd just like to point out that many dangerous things are done, often by children younger than Abby. They do these things for no reason except to break a record or to be hailed as the best in the world at something relatively pointless.

No one calls this "child endangerment." We call it "the Olympics."

I was actually thinking about that the other night. World class gymnastics sees tweens risking severe injury daily.

 

[Master Baiter]

Ah, common sense.

Does common sense suggest that a person with exceptional skills should be judged by different standards than a person without those skills, in areas where the skills are relevant?

I'm just curious here.

You're curious. That's been established.

Her skills are over-rated, or we would be talking about the record she broke, instead of how she nearly died in the process.

The risk would have been the same regardless of whether she made it or not. But the fact remains that her skills were equal to the danger. And that means that her parents made the right call.
... because we prepare our children to handle those risks. And then we just hope nothing happens to them.


Certainly not. It all depends on how seriously you want to be taken.

You don't have children, so that makes you unqualified to comment about them.

You can't be taken seriously because of it.

Any parent with half a brain wouldn't risk their child's life, prepared or not, on a ridiculous stunt to promote a Reality TV show.

 

[vladtickleman22]

You're curious. That's been established.

Her skills are over-rated, or we would be talking about the record she broke, instead of how she nearly died in the process.




You don't have children, so that makes you unqualified to comment about them.

You can't be taken seriously because of it.

Any parent with half a brain wouldn't risk their child's life, prepared or not, on a ridiculous stunt to promote a Reality TV show.

Her skills have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the ocean is incredibly unpredictable. What happen to her could have happen to anyone at any skill level or any age.

This thread never would have come up if she made it. Simply because her brother made it. Why no outrage over the fact the same parents let their other child do the very same thing? BECAUSE HE MADE IT! Even though the risk of what happen would have still been there. The idea some people have that if she was 18 instead of 16 magically things would have been fine is insane.

A person who has been doing something for many years can have something unexpected and out of their control happen. Whether or not they are over the age of 18. Years of experience is years of experience reguardless of being 16 or 61.

 

[vladtickleman22]

This just figures.

Dad goes broke, then sends his daughter out during the stormy season and risks her life to pimp his new reality show.

Whattaguy.
Greed has consumed him.
I'd like to see anyone rationalize this crap.

That just makes the dad a useless piece of manipulative shit. It doesn't however mean the daughter wasn't capable of sailing.

 

[Angel77]

I was actually thinking about that the other night. World class gymnastics sees tweens risking severe injury daily.

Exactly.

If people are so upset over someone being 16 and setting a record or goal of some sort, are these same people protesting the 15 and 16 year olds that spend 50-60 weeks in a gym training just so they can wear a medal around their necks? Not all of that training is healthy for these kids - shit, some of these girls don't even get their periods because of the stress put on their bodies. And these kids often start training at 5 or 6 years of age, to help train their bodies to preserve the flexibility that kids naturally have and that we all tend to lose as we get older. A lot of gymnasts end up with eating disorders because they're told they have to be a "certain way" and are often labeled as failures by the time they are 10 or 12 years old. Puberty is often delayed because of the intensity.

Yeah, real good there.

What do you think about these parents? Are they endangering their children? Is it fair/right to put these kids at "risk" for physical or mental anguish all in the name of who put in a good show? So their kid can "be the best?"

Honestly, how is this any different? Of course, what I just described is for Olympic/World Competition athletes and not your typical high school gymnastics training but Abbey isn't your typical girl.

"I think that a lot of people are judging me by the standards they have for their teens and other teens that they know ... and thinking 'she's exactly like them,'" Sunderland told The Associated Press. "They don't understand that I've sailed my whole life and I do know what I'm doing out there."

And obviously she does. Glad you're safe Abbey.

 

[Redmage]

You're curious. That's been established.

Her skills are over-rated, or we would be talking about the record she broke, instead of how she nearly died in the process.

Nice try, but anyone can fail. Extreme skill merely increases the chance of success; there are no guarantees.

She sailed 30,000 plus miles over open ocean, by herself. Very few sailors of any age could have done the same. That demonstrates her skills and shows that she's well beyond the average mariner, and not even in the same league as her age-peers.

So, I repeat: Does "common sense" (which you seem to swear by) suggest that a person of demonstrably superior ability should be judged the same as someone with less or no ability at all, in the relevant field?

I think you know the only reasonable answer here. If there were another, you would have given it instead of dodging the question.

 

[Redmage]

If people are so upset over someone being 16 and setting a record or goal of some sort, are these same people protesting the 15 and 16 year olds that spend 50-60 weeks in a gym training just so they can wear a medal around their necks? Not all of that training is healthy for these kids - shit, some of these girls don't even get their periods because of the stress put on their bodies. And these kids often start training at 5 or 6 years of age, to help train their bodies to preserve the flexibility that kids naturally have and that we all tend to lose as we get older. A lot of gymnasts end up with eating disorders because they're told they have to be a "certain way" and are often labeled as failures by the time they are 10 or 12 years old. Puberty is often delayed because of the intensity.

And that doesn't even count the very real chance of injury during competition. Gymnastics, figure skating, diving, skiing, soccer, luge - many Olympic events present a substantial risk of injury to the participants, and there is no minimum age. Indeed, for some events, such as gymnastics, there are practical upper limits on a competitor's age.

And yet the very same people who are criticizing Abby Sunderland cheer these events, with no thought of charging these kids' parents with "child endangerment." And the rewards are no greater than the record that Abby was trying to break.

I'm tempted to call it hypocrisy, but really I think it's just thoughtless. A 13 year old female gymnast is not a "rich kid," so it's OK for her to do what she does. Class envy isn't a factor there. The risks of these sports are more widely understood (or at least, more people think they understand them) and so they're more acceptable.

Bottom line, though, is that it's very common and accepted for parents to allow their children to undertake serious risks for rewards that are fairly pointless when viewed objectively. Abby Sunderland is getting criticism for reasons that have nothing to do with her age, and lot to do with her family's money and a serious lack of thought among her critics.

 

[Master Baiter]

Nice try, but anyone can fail. Extreme skill merely increases the chance of success; there are no guarantees.

Skill is measured by success. She was unsuccessful. So in turn, her skill as well as her family's motives are being questioned.

She sailed 30,000 plus miles over open ocean, by herself. Very few sailors of any age could have done the same. That demonstrates her skills and shows that she's well beyond the average mariner, and not even in the same league as her age-peers.

She can sail better than average, but she's far from an elite sailor. Hell, she's not even the best in her family, probably not even the second, or third best.
This was done for headlines and to promote a possible upcoming reality show.
A point you have refused to address.

She failed but has superior skills?
She's world class, but didn't make it?
You can't have it both ways, pal.

So, I repeat: Does "common sense" (which you seem to swear by) suggest that a person of demonstrably superior ability should be judged the same as someone with less or no ability at all, in the relevant field?

I think you know the only reasonable answer here. If there were another, you would have given it instead of dodging the question.

Even though you've dodged many of my questions (check my prior posts for proof), I'll show you some courtesy and answer yours.

She's demonstrated ability, but in no way "superior ability". If that were the case, she would have made it and we wouldn't be here.

As you have stated, the risks associated are the same for everyone. I am of the opinion that the risks outweigh the rewards. A young girl's life was at stake here, and she was pushed out to sea by her father during the violent, stormy season, in order to break a meaningless record and promote a reality TV show that was just in the planning stages.

It's irresponsible parenting. It's unheard of. That's why there's so much outrage.
Responsible parents just don't do this. Your ridiculous comparisons to sports constitute nothing but a straw-man argument that's a weak and transparent diversionary tactic.

The activity at question here is solo sailing. Not gymnastics, football, competitive eating or full contact tiddly winks.

If you can't stick to the topic and stay on course, then why bother climbing aboard?

 

[Bohemianne]

In anything we do, there is only one thing to expect: output. The rest will be rational or irrational blah. Nothing more.

In this story, there is dream, there is persistence, there is... there are insurmountable amount of words... there is...

Casualty. Period.

[End of]

I'm done here.

 

[Master Baiter]

And that doesn't even count the very real chance of injury during competition. Gymnastics, figure skating, diving, skiing, soccer, luge - many Olympic events present a substantial risk of injury to the participants, and there is no minimum age. Indeed, for some events, such as gymnastics, there are practical upper limits on a competitor's age.

There is a huge difference between injury and death.
Comparing these sports to solo sailing around the world is ludicrous and diversionary.
The risk of death during gymnastics, figure skating, etc. doesn't come close to the level of risk Abbey took.
You claim she has off-the-charts skill, but she almost died in the process.
That should tell you something about how dangerous her "sport" (it's not really even a sport) is.

And the rewards are no greater than the record that Abby was trying to break.

What?!? Representing your country in the Olympics and competing for a medal on the biggest stage in the World is no greater an accomplishment than breaking your big brother's sailing record?!

Pay attention. Real athletes train their whole lives just for a chance at the Olympics.

The above comment has to be about the dumbest thing I've ever read from you.

 

[Redmage]

Skill is measured by success. She was unsuccessful. So in turn, her skill as well as her family's motives are being questioned.

Man, you're reaching. I think desperation is setting in.

Skill is measured by achievment. That may or may not amount to "success" in any given endeavor. As I said, failure can happen to anyone.

For example, you might have noticed that your favorite NFL team occasionally...loses. They fail. They do not succeed. You might even see that they sometimes lose games that they should not have lost - against teams with a poorer record, for example, or due to a bad-luck injury.

That hardly takes away from the fact that they are elite athletes - among the best trained and most physically fit men in the world. Merely getting onto an NFL playing field is a measure of success. But apparently on your planet that makes them merely "better than average."

What nonsense. I call this "bronze medal syndrome." It's the idea that the person who comes in third in an Olympic event has "lost." They haven't lost. They've merely shown that, on that particular day, they were "only" the third best athlete at their sport in the entire world.

I suppose that is technically "better than average." A whole hell of a lot better.

She can sail better than average, but she's far from an elite sailor. Hell, she's not even the best in her family, probably not even the second, or third best.

Her family is probably better qualified to make that determination than you are. As for "an elite sailor" if you think most sailors could travel as far as she did by herself, then I'd very much like to see you try it.

Heck, I'd even spot you a year or two of practice to get "better than average."

This was done for headlines and to promote a possible upcoming reality show.
A point you have refused to address.

Because A) it remains unproven and B) it's irrelevant.

She failed but has superior skills?
She's world class, but didn't make it?
You can't have it both ways, pal.

Of course I can. There are 32 teams in the NFL. Only one of them will win the Superbowl. But every one of them is made up of world-class athletes with skills superior to 99.9% of all other football players.

Worst case of bronze medal syndrome I've seen in quite some while.

Responsible parents just don't do this. Your ridiculous comparisons to sports constitute nothing but a straw-man argument that's a weak and transparent diversionary tactic.

Translation: you wish I'd quit bringing up arguments for which you have no good answer.

The activity at question here is solo sailing. Not gymnastics, football, competitive eating or full contact tiddly winks.

You wish to cry "child endangerment." Therefore, anything that endangers a child is a fair comparison.

If you can't stick to the topic and stay on course, then why bother climbing aboard?

See the dictionary under "analogy."

 

[LD_Tickler]

I love it when he does that.

 

[primetime]

Seriously Red, comparing sports to sailing around the world is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen anyone make. Do you even sail? Do you even play football? Apples and oranges. My goodness man, the risk of death is much greater sailing the ocean than playing a sport. Think about it. The average person could go outside, bring some friends and throw a football around in the park. The chances of death with no "formal training" is what? Now, take those same people who decide to sail around the world, the chances of death are what? Chances are the people sailing will become shark food. The people playing pickup football may get muscle soreness. Yeah, great comparison Red.

I need you to follow this Red. Why is it child endangerment to leave a 10 year old at home alone for a few hours, and not Ms. Sunderland sailing around the world? We're not talking sports. Please use that comparison since we are talking about child endangerment.

Vlad, this topic didn't just suddenly come up. I posted a thread months ago blasting the Sunderland's for this dumb parental decision.

Folks, if you decide to let your kid risk their lives doing something very few people actually do, you are going to get criticized. Despite Red's crazy comparison, playing sports does NOT pose the same odds of death as sailing around the world. Use common sense. Do you really believe kids playing a sport have the SAME odds of death as sailing around the world? If so, then how come MORE people aren't doing it? Yet, you have "weekend warriors" out there playing sports, and for some reason, have no concern that they might DIE by playing the sport. Oh, but sailing around the world is equally safe? There are no storms, rogue waves, pirates, high winds, sharks, etc when playing sports. Just maybe some grass burns and an sprained ankle or so. Come up with a better comparison. I can't really believe Red thinks sports and sailing around the planet are equal.

 

[Master Baiter]

Skill is measured by achievment. That may or may not amount to "success" in any given endeavor. As I said, failure can happen to anyone.

OK then, she set out to achieve a goal and fell short, or in other words: failed.

For example, you might have noticed that your favorite NFL team occasionally...loses. They fail. They do not succeed. You might even see that they sometimes lose games that they should not have lost - against teams with a poorer record, for example, or due to a bad-luck injury.

Comparing solo-sailing to the NFL is like comparing apples to oranges.
I'm going to educate you a little bit here using literary themes, since competitive sports seems foreign to you.

Team sports like NFL football pit elite athletes directly against each other.
The theme is Man vs. Man.

Sailing does not involve direct competition, and it's more of a thrill-seeking adventure than a sport.
The theme is Man vs. Nature.

Are you getting this?

That hardly takes away from the fact that they are elite athletes - among the best trained and most physically fit men in the world. Merely getting onto an NFL playing field is a measure of success. But apparently on your planet that makes them merely "better than average."

NFL players go through a rigorous series of direct competition from High School to College to the Pros. Getting drafted into the NFL is a huge achievement. We agree on this.

Solo Sailors compete against no one directly.
The only thing they need to participate is the money to buy a nice boat and some sailing lessons. They don't have to beat anyone out for a position.
It's a leisure activity for the wealthy. It's not a competitive sport.

Her family is probably better qualified to make that determination than you are. As for "an elite sailor" if you think most sailors could travel as far as she did by herself, then I'd very much like to see you try it.

Her brother achieved his goal of sailing around the world, so according to your definition (see above) he's more skilled or better than she is.
Maybe he had better weather, maybe he had better luck. Who the hell cares. End results are what matters in anything.
Excuses are like ... well, you know.
I don't have to be a member of her family to arrive at that conclusion.

Because A) it remains unproven and B) it's irrelevant.

A) He admitted it in several articles. A quick search will show you that.
B) It is relevant, despite what your hefty ego tells you. It was the reason she was pushed out to sea under less than optimal conditions.

Of course I can. There are 32 teams in the NFL. Only one of them will win the Superbowl. But every one of them is made up of world-class athletes with skills superior to 99.9% of all other football players.

Here again, you're making unrealistic comparisons between team sports and individual achievements. It's obvious you've done neither, so how you feel qualified to declare yourself an expert is beyond me.

Worst case of bronze medal syndrome I've seen in quite some while.

You just don't get it. There is no "Bronze medal" in a solo sailing effort.
You either achieve your goal or you don't.
It's like getting half way up the mountain and turning back.
If you don't reach the top it doesn't matter.
It's just that cut and dried with these kind of "sports".

Translation: you wish I'd quit bringing up arguments for which you have no good answer.

Another diversionary tactic.
I don't expect you to answer any direct questions regarding responsible parenting, because you have no experience in it. Therefore you aren't qualified, so you come up with smarmy responses like this.

You wish to cry "child endangerment." Therefore, anything that endangers a child is a fair comparison.

See the dictionary under "analogy."

You may be confusing me w/ someone else, as I have never used that phrase, but again, you're making ridiculous comparisons that simply just don't hold water.
Try to stick with the topic instead of concocting these wild and reckless "analogies".