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

[Master Baiter]

I love it when he does that.

If that's all you can bring to the table, then maybe you should just skip this meal.

Or just type "this^".

 

[Master Baiter]

Seriously Red, comparing sports to sailing around the world is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen anyone make.

It's a terrible comparison that barely even deserves a response. But Red is stubborn and he's desperate. He thinks any kind of fact twisting speculation and out-of-line comparisons work in his favor.
If this were a formal debate he would have lost in a landslide.

Folks, if you decide to let your kid risk their lives doing something very few people actually do, you are going to get criticized.

Rational people wouldn't dream of putting their children's lives at risk.
The Sunderland's aren't rational people.
This was done out of pure greed: TV ratings and money.

 

[vladtickleman22]

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.

I wasn't talking about this topic being brought up just here. I was speaking in general terms. When the story originally broke that she was going to be doing this NO ONE on any news program i saw covering said anything about it being the least bit of a bad idea.

You want a better example? Playing in a muddy field, while it's raining. One guy tackles another the one who got tackled slams his head into a rock that was covered in mud. DEAD. Good enough example? Okay then.

By the way, i seriously doubt the thought of death crossed her mind except for when she actually got into trouble. I've been on out on a friends sailboat tons of times. Never once thought about dying, drowning, or hell even falling overboard. Why? Because when you know what you're doing those things don't tend to cross your mind.

Going through this entire thread i have not seen one person who flat out said "The parents were not in any way putting their childs life in danger." Her ability to sail is what has been brought into question.

 

[vladtickleman22]

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

Ever heard of the America's Cup? Pretty direct competition there. Almost any coastal community will have some kind of sailing competition. Sometimes team (As with the America's Cup) and sometimes solo.

 

[vladtickleman22]

Rational people wouldn't dream of putting their children's lives at risk.The Sunderland's aren't rational people.
This was done out of pure greed: TV ratings and money.

If it were done out of pure greed why hasn't the today show or nightly news on abc or nbc covered it more? Seems pretty stupid to admit this were done for a reality show when it hasn't even reached completion yet.

Continuing with the project would be an incredibly bad idea for the creators and the tv station it would have been shown on. No one in their right mind would risk producing a show based off a world wide child exploitation.

 

[Angel77]

Rational people wouldn't dream of putting their children's lives at risk.
The Sunderland's aren't rational people.
This was done out of pure greed: TV ratings and money.

Nah, totally disagree there. If that were the case, wouldn't there have been a lot more hype before Abbey left on her journey? That's usually how it works when it comes to the media.

I really don't think we would have heard much about it if she would have made it. It wouldn't have been huge news then.

 

[Cy/MiG]

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.

Considering the sheer numbers and probabilities of it, I'm not so sure. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions play football and therefore risk personal injury or death.

How many people go into competitive sailing or decide to sail around the world? Maybe 10% of that number? 5%? 1%? Probably closer to <.01%.

Seriously Red, comparing sports to sailing around the world is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen anyone make. 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?

I doubt someone who isn't 'formally trained' would suddenly decide to sail around the world.

Chances are the people sailing will become shark food. The people playing pickup football may get muscle soreness. Yeah, great comparison Red.

Are you comparing sailing around the world to pickup football?

I'm pretty sure that the good football comparison of sailing around the world would be a full contact game on a competitive level, which poses numerous risk injuries such as:

Broken, fractured and dislocated bones & limbs, concussions, head/brain injuries, spinal injuries, back injuries, muscle strains, pulls tears, tissue damage, bruises, contusions, hernias...

Despite Red's crazy comparison, playing sports does NOT pose the same odds of death as sailing around the world. Use common sense.

Again, based on numbers and probability I'm not sure that either would statistically be more or less 'risky' or 'dangerous'.

 

[Redmage]

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?

Yes, I get it. Now, what's the important difference?

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.

Ahhh, I see. So, apparently sailing 10s of thousands of miles over open ocean is so easy that you can do it with "a few sailing lessons and a nice boat."

You make it sound so simple a child could do it. Well, heck, if it's that simple then how could it be so dangerous that doing it qualifies as "child endangerment?"

It seems to me that either this is a walk in the park - and hence not child endangerment - or it is difficult enough that doing it represents a measure of substantial skill.

At least, that's what "common sense" suggests.

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.

Well, you see, you said she had no notable skill at all. That she wasn't even "third best" in her family. As I said, I don't think you're qualified to make that judgment.

Her brother may well be better than she is. Or he may, as you suggest, just have been luckier. But coming in second behind a world-class sailor hardly means she's only "better than average."

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.

He mentioned the show. He did not say that was the reason he let Abby go. And he did let her go. He didn't kick her out of the house and say "Don't come back until you've sailed around the world."

Regardless, it is not relevant because his reasons don't matter. The question on the table is whether or not letting Abby go on this trip was "child endangerment." That depends solely on her ability to handle what she wanted to do. His reasons have nothing to do with that.

It's entirely possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Or the wrong thing for the right reasons. So the reasons are irrelevant here; all that matters is whether letting her embark on that voyage was right or wrong, given her preparation.

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".

Not true. How far you get - up the mountain or across the ocean - is a reasonable indicator of ability. If very, very few sailors could have gotten farther than Abby did on her own, then very, very few sailors are better than she is.

Now I realize that you think getting as far as Abby did requires only "a few sailing lessons and a nice boat." I think that's as thorough an indictment of your reasoning here as anything I could say. But, there again, if it's so easy then I wonder why you're fussing about it so much.

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".

I never suggested that you used any phrase. I quoted you directly. But, you seem unclear on what an analogy is and why it's a legitimate tool of rhetoric. So I recommend you do a little research.