[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.
[/quote]
So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?
[quote]JDSoFla wrote:
detazathoth wrote:
JDSoFla wrote:
AzCats wrote:
Not sure what god has to do with taking steroids. One could have great Morals and still take steroids or for that matter not believe in God also. Maybe I missed your point, but God really has nothing to do with it.
Well, morals are a product of the word of God, for some.
Divine Command Theory:
-| Divine command theory - Wikipedia |-
-| http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-theory/ |-
Personally, as a virtue ethicist, I have no problems partaking in something if I see no vices in that activity.
I see no vices in the use of steroids outside of tested and “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
So, I have no ethical problems with the use of steroids outside of “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
Bingo. This is exactly the type of responses I was hoping to get.
Just doing as I was told. No offense, of course, but I saw this thread train-wrecking from the start.
People, you might believe things, but lets see the empirical evidence concerning your beliefs.
I’m drunk, time for bed.
[/quote]
That’s why I said at the end if it trains wrecks, I’ll ask the thread to be deleted. It hasn’t trained wrecked yet.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
SWR wrote:
itsthenickman wrote:
If steroids can make you better at your job (firefighter, cop, soldier, etc) is it not your duty to become better?
Should they also take Meth just before they know they have to run to a fire, or chase a criminal?
Don’t be retarded; meth alters perception and descision-making abilities.
BBB[/quote]
So you think it’s a police officer or firefighter’s “duty” to take steroids because it will make them better at their job?
And in case it wasn’t obvious, should they also take any other illegal drug that could help them do their job better?
I’ve seen people function pretty well on cocaine. In the short term, it can help in certain situations.
I think you’re missing the point. If not meth or cocaine, any other illegal drug. Or are steroids the only thing that’s illegal and 100% safe and misunderstood?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
So are we acknowledging that the rules of sport are, at best, arbitrary and foolish? Or do they seek to create some sort of integrity within the sport? Do these rules exist in an attempt to further separate the wheat from the chaff? To allow those with the greatest raw athletic ability to shine through the most?
At what point is this integrity violated? The areas between specialized training and nutrition, OTC supplementation, and PED usage are very much grey ones.
Now, in answering these question, remember that PED’s were never a part of the original regulation of sport, and in fact, were embraced quite readily by a number of spots for quite a few years. At some point, rules against these substances were created under the premise that they create an unnatural distortion of innate athletic abilities. The same premise can easily be used in arguments against the other performance enhancing factors listed previously, yet they are still entirely legitimate.[/quote]
No we are not acknowledging any such thing. Most “rules” are arbitrary by nature. They usually arise from a creative process or completely random. Do you think there was a scientific study performed to fix the basketball rim at precisely 10 feet? No. Just because something is somewhat arbitrary, does not make it “foolish”.
Rules absolutely intend to create some type of integrity, yes, but they also serve to provide a guideline as to how the sport will be performed. If you have no rules (consistency), you have no basis by which to compare and declare linear champions and winners of contests. It’s one of the shortfalls, for instance, of the WSM in my opinion. They’ve only recently gotten better at making the apparatus and events CONSISTENT - which ultimately makes them meaningful.
Rules don’t exist to separate the wheat from the chaff as you put it. As I said, they exist to make certain performance of sport is consistent. If it is consistent, it may then be MEASURED and winners declared, performances compared. Under a consistent set of rules, it allows the superior athlete or team to distinguish itself.
You choose to view this gray area you speak of and it’s a product of your own imagination and others. Specialized training, nutrition, etc. are not prohibited by any rules. This harkens back to your misguided ideas about making a “level playing field” among everyone, like handicaps in golf. The idea behind competitive sport is that everyone COMPETES ON A LEVE PLAYING FIELD - not to make everyone equal. This means compete under a consistent set of rules. If someone gains an “edge” by being in better health (nutrition), training harder or smarter (specialized training) is irrelevant. Reducing your argument to its logical conclusion, we should do something about those that have superior genetics b/c of their parents. Sport rules do not attempt to remove the human element (work ethic, intelligence, cunning, desire, etc.) - they seek to remove unfair advantages like DOPING.
Drugs are not so much a distortion of natural ability. Take top 10 sprinters 1-10, give them all drugs or take them all off drugs, and they will still finish the same generally speaking. The problems with drugs is that there is room for abuse in sport, and there are those that don’t want to take them b/c of possible health side effects. HRT is a far cry from needing to take test x amount of times out of the year, for years at a time, to effectively compete at your sport. No athlete should have to make that decision. And I know track athletes that have been affected by that very dilema. And they chose not to take for personal reasons. This sir, is unfair.
The question of steroids in sport is not one of ethics. It’s one of a level playing field. Even if you permitted drugs for instance, not all particpants would be willing to risk the health risks. And that is where the legalize drugs argument in sport fails. And more than any other in your opinion so called gray area you can name (nutrition, training), drugs shifts the balance of power more than any other single element.
I’m not an anti-drug guy, but some of you would do well do stop acting as if it’s eating a few m&m’s under a doctors supervision. Drugs have no place in serious sport. And I’m tired of the uknowing ignorant generalizations like, for instance, “all track and field athletes are on” - maybe the top guys sure, but there are a bunch doing it clean who cannot get to the top because they can’t compete with those that are CHEATING. No athlete should have to be put to such a decision and hence, the prohibition of drugs in sport is the “ethical” thing to do.
I swear, there are people who seem to think “ut oh, another thread about steroids, I better defend any pro-steroid post about their use no matter what”.
Do I care if people are allowed to legally use steroids? No
Do I think it’s stupid to think it’s a police officer or firefighter’s “duty” to use them? YES, that’s completely ridiculous.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
JDSoFla wrote:
detazathoth wrote:
JDSoFla wrote:
AzCats wrote:
Not sure what god has to do with taking steroids. One could have great Morals and still take steroids or for that matter not believe in God also. Maybe I missed your point, but God really has nothing to do with it.
Well, morals are a product of the word of God, for some.
Divine Command Theory:
-| Divine command theory - Wikipedia |-
-| http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-theory/ |-
Personally, as a virtue ethicist, I have no problems partaking in something if I see no vices in that activity.
I see no vices in the use of steroids outside of tested and “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
So, I have no ethical problems with the use of steroids outside of “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
Bingo. This is exactly the type of responses I was hoping to get.
Just doing as I was told. No offense, of course, but I saw this thread train-wrecking from the start.
People, you might believe things, but lets see the empirical evidence concerning your beliefs.
I’m drunk, time for bed.
That’s why I said at the end if it trains wrecks, I’ll ask the thread to be deleted. It hasn’t trained wrecked yet.[/quote]
Can an OP do that? I’ve never heard of a thread being closed/deleted just cuz an OP asked, am I forgetting somethign? As soon as someone responds to a thread, it ceases to be “your” thread, it seems to me (with the exception of training journals and thread posting video), since deleting the thread would involve deleting posts made by other, posts that (unless they break rules) nobody has a right to delete
[quote]orion wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.
So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?[/quote]
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward.
Whoever cannot take care of themselves without that law is both.
For a wounded man shall say to his assailant,
‘If I live, I will kill you. If I die, You are forgiven.’
Such is the rule of honour.
[quote]orion wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.
So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?[/quote]
Can you name one?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
orion wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.
So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?
Can you name one?[/quote]
Enforcing any Jim Crow law, for one. That’s too easy
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
orion wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.
So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?
Can you name one?[/quote]
The fugitive slave act of 1850, which required citizens to return runaway slaves to their masters, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s dred Scott decision, which in 1857 declared that slaves were not citizens but property.
That’s an unethical law. Since been changed, but it was the law.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
orion wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.
So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?
Can you name one?
Enforcing any Jim Crow law, for one. That’s too easy
[/quote]
Good point, but read my entire original post. Ethics for the generation that enacted the Jim Crow laws, whether right or wrong, were different than our Ethics today. Jim Crow Laws were repealed in 1965. Way before I was born. Lets try something that is still relevent.
I think it’s unethical to restrict what someone is allowed to put in his/her body, so all laws against the use of drugs that don’t cause harm to others are unethical to me.
[quote]SWR wrote:
I think it’s unethical to restrict what someone is allowed to put in his/her body, so all laws against the use of drugs that don’t cause harm to others are unethical to me.
[/quote]
I like your thought on what you think ethics are. So by using a substance that might possibly only hurt you is ok? I can assume that there is someone on this planet that loves you? If so by using something that can possibly hurt you would that loved one be hurt in the process?
Ethics are usually used by a group of people say a culture, race, religion, or nation. Usually not an individual. That is when you get anarchy.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
SWR wrote:
I think it’s unethical to restrict what someone is allowed to put in his/her body, so all laws against the use of drugs that don’t cause harm to others are unethical to me.
I like your thought on what you think ethics are. So by using a substance that might possibly only hurt you is ok? I can assume that there is someone on this planet that loves you? If so by using something that can possibly hurt you would that loved one be hurt in the process?
Ethics are usually used by a group of people say a culture, race, religion, or nation. Usually not an individual. That is when you get anarchy.[/quote]
You realize of course that cultures, religions, races and nations are made up of individuals right?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:I like your thought on what you think ethics are. So by using a substance that might possibly only hurt you is ok? I can assume that there is someone on this planet that loves you? If so by using something that can possibly hurt you would that loved one be hurt in the process?
Ethics are usually used by a group of people say a culture, race, religion, or nation. Usually not an individual. That is when you get anarchy.[/quote]
Your alcohol ingestion can harm you as well as others. Same for smoking cigarettes. OTC drugs can harm you as well.
Steroids’ bad reputation isn’t the result of a legitimate health concern standpoint.
Fuck ethics, who’s ethics? Youre’s, mine, whos are we talking about.It might go against youre ethics to use AAS but not mine.
I have been around plenty of people who were on AAS including myself and I have never seen anyone of them flip out and get mad or hysterical and get into a big fight or get in there car and crash and kill people, But that happens every fucking day from alchohol.Is Alchohol unethical.
And how you gonna bring up a law from 150 years ago trying to argue youre case for ethics.
Who thinks the Romans would have used steroids, and if they had would they have allowed them in there olympic games or just in Gladiator battles.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Fuck ethics, who’s ethics? Youre’s, mine, whos are we talking about.It might go against youre ethics to use AAS but not mine.
I have been around plenty of people who were on AAS including myself and I have never seen anyone of them flip out and get mad or hysterical and get into a big fight or get in there car and crash and kill people, But that happens every fucking day from alchohol.Is Alchohol unethical.
[/quote]
Yea, but how many times have you seen steroids mixed with making starting defense?! That’s the lethal combination that makes you put your head through car windows!