>>99581334>>99582091Let's assume a normal minded, able bodied person, aka not a cripple or down syndrome individual.
Genetics are crucial when it comes to physical stuff, like a lanklet basketball player or short burly rugby player, and someone has to be genetically gifted to be absolutely terrible at singing, but anything else can be subsidized by effort. Besides, "talent" is as defined as "masculinity", it's a catch all word that fluctuates depending on who you ask. I always come back to re-read picrel because it's simply true. Or at least I believe it to be true, for the majority of people:
>talent = giving a shitThis just shines brighter because everyone else just strolls through life. There nothing that any talent can't learn.
You could take any loser from this thread that meets the criteria from my initial sentence and with proper guidance he can be great.
Whilst we're on the topic is it a good idea for Cover to have a mascot in the first place?
