Do you think Tiger is sick or just a cad?

[Disney Doll]

Remember the woman on the show, The Simpsons, who, whenever the town members would meet to discuss some prevailing issue, would scream out:

“But what about the children?”

The clear implication was that she felt she was morally superior to the townspeople whom, she felt, were only meeting and talking in order to fulfill some selfish curiosity while she, in her mind, was present and taking part only in order to safeguard the innocent. Of course, she was just as curious as everyone else.

My opinion: it is up to the Wood family to shield their children from the news media and related media, including discussion boards, and to also explain to them the facts of life of being very famous, including being subject to media reporting and individual gossip. It is not the media/public’s responsibility to not report and/or discuss events. It is human nature to discuss or gossip, and it is the business of the news media to report news.

‘Rationalization’ is an individual process. The person trying to quit smoking will decide to smoke a cigarette, reasoning within himself that “I have had a tough day and deserve one”. It is a rationalization.

According to the dictionary, ‘rationalization’ means ‘to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable; to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives; to create an excuse or more attractive explanation.’

Note that rationalization is the creation of the individual person. True, a person may point at another person and say “You are trying to rationalize your actions”, but it is simply a guess; only the person themselves may know for sure (and, as the dictionary says, it may be unconscious). In other words, accusing each other in multiple posts they everyone else is rationalizing something is not a rational discussion. It is akin to shadow boxing.

Here is an instance of a self-rationalization: to go into a thread that one finds objectionable and to obliquely criticize those participating in said thread by arguing that said participants are causing harm to children whom will, in all reasonably probability, never see the discussion. The reason the person went into the thread is to satisfy his or her own prurient interests. Feeling guilty, said person will rationalize his or her appearance on the thread by thinking “I am only on this thread to set others straight and to point out to these misguided people that they are harming the children of a professional golfer”. It is a pure rationalization worthy of that woman on the Simpsons. Of course, I am myself ‘shadow boxing’ since I am, by implication at least, accusing others of engaging in rationalization behavior. Yet is seems sound enough.

If one has an bone to pick with the news media, it is my understanding that virtually all members of said news media, including the New York Times, the National Enquirer, etc, have either mailing addresses or email addresses. One could do no better than to mail or email your concerns to those you feel are guilty of improper reporting. As for objecting to people discussing Tiger Woods or the general imperfections of the Famous and Notorious: you must simply learn to accept the unacceptable. Who was it that walked to the ocean’s edge and commanded the waves to stop? Anyway, akin to that example.

Good post!

 

[Disney Doll]

Nah, many threads are simply, "I don't like things, so they must be wrong!" Only rarely is it a matter of children being harmed or some other more broadly important consideration.

Something you don't like so it must be wrong.

 

[sbell111]

Unfortunately, most 10 year old boys are unable to make the distinction between "role model only for golf" vs. "role model for life". To whom much is given, much is expected. Tiger has been given much...talent, perseverance, parents who pushed him to excel, and a lot of luck. The fall from the top is long, especially when it is of one's own doing....

It is the responsibility of each child's parent to make that distinction. It is not the responsibility of the athlete.

Those who seem so angry and bitter at Tiger should take a deep breath and listen to Jack Nickalaus. He was questioned today and said:

It is none of my business. That's between Tiger and his wife.

Jack Nicklaus is a class act.

I agree, he doesn't owe anyone anything.

But no, I won't tell my DS to watch Tiger. There are plenty of other golfers that I can point DS to as someone to look up to. At this point what I will tell DS about Tiger is that this is not what you want to become or who you want to be.

I wouldn't tell my kid to 'become' any famous athlete. I don't see a problem with aspiring to play as well as any particular athlete, however. If my child wants to be a golfer, that basically means that she would be aspiring to Tigerlike golf skills.

I do not know what IMO means. However, if it has something to do with 'opinion', I did clearly state, at the beginning of the fouth paragraph, "My opinion". No doubt your eyes were resembling glazed and tasty donuts by that time.

I'm sorry. By the time that I made it through the entire post, I couldn't remember the fourth paragraph.