Looking at Armstrong

On 5/12/2011 10:12 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On May 13, 1:00 am, Substance wrote:
On 5/12/2011 7:52 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:

You'd be surprised how many people think this is a doping
case. And that doping to win a bike race is illegal.

It's bigger than that. Stuff I like is both moral and legal. Stuff I
don't like is neither. That's the way many people view these things.

How do you feel about stuff that is moral but not legal, or legal but
not moral? Like a legal eagle omelet with morel mushrooms - sounds
tasty, but would you eat it?

R

Your big old brain is confusing you. Keep it simple:

moral = good
legal = good
good = whatever I want

This way you don't have to muck about with all that nasty thinking. If
the discussion involves politics and requires further nuance, you can
add to the list thusly:

constitutional = good
conservative = good
liberal = evil

On May 13, 12:11*am, Mike wrote:
But this isn't about changing pro cycling - it's about recognizing
CORRUPTION when we see it. It might take ten years to come out, but
when it does we should call it what it is - lying, stealing and
cheating.
They need to be called out and prosecuted so maybe it won't happen
again in the future. And then there will be MORE MONEY to invest in
food safety, and not in fake champions and FAKE VELODROMES.

I seriously doubt that the US prosecution and/or conviction of LA/
Weisel/etc.on corruption or fraud charges stemming from events 10+
years ago will have the slightest impact on whether or not mostly
European-based contemporary pro cycling teams will or will not run
team-based doping programs. Pro sport, in general, has extremely
strong incentives for those who cheat, enough so that when there is a
good chance of non-detection (e.g. fast clearing drugs, drugs for
which there is no current test, drugs that can be "explained" by a
doctor's note {read: asthma drugs}, etc.), individuals and teams will
do so if they think the benefits outweigh the risks. Even the most
draconian penalties that have been thought up and enforced have
resulted in the elimination of drugs, so I doubt seeing LA in the can
will change anyone's mind.

On May 13, 7:15*pm, Brad Anders wrote:
On May 13, 12:11*am, Mike wrote:

But this isn't about changing pro cycling - it's about recognizing
CORRUPTION when we see it. It might take ten years to come out, but
when it does we should call it what it is - lying, stealing and
cheating.
They need to be called out and prosecuted so maybe it won't happen
again in the future. And then there will be MORE MONEY to invest in
food safety, and not in fake champions and FAKE VELODROMES.

I seriously doubt that the US prosecution and/or conviction of LA/
Weisel/etc.on corruption or fraud charges stemming from events 10+
years ago will have the slightest impact on whether or not mostly
European-based contemporary pro cycling teams will or will not run
team-based doping programs. Pro sport, in general, has extremely
strong incentives for those who cheat, enough so that when there is a
good chance of non-detection (e.g. fast clearing drugs, drugs for
which there is no current test, drugs that can be "explained" by a
doctor's note {read: asthma drugs}, etc.), individuals and teams will
do so if they think the benefits outweigh the risks. Even the most
draconian penalties that have been thought up and enforced have
resulted in the elimination of drugs, so I doubt seeing LA in the can
will change anyone's mind.

Not to mention that even the cows are doping so nobody is in The
Clear.

R

On May 13, 7:05*pm, Substance McGravitas wrote:
On 5/12/2011 10:12 PM, RicodJour wrote:

On May 13, 1:00 am, Substance *wrote:
On 5/12/2011 7:52 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:

You'd be surprised how many people think this is a doping
case. And that doping to win a bike race is illegal.

It's bigger than that. Stuff I like is both moral and legal. Stuff I
don't like is neither. That's the way many people view these things.

How do you feel about stuff that is moral but not legal, or legal but
not moral? *Like a legal eagle omelet with morel mushrooms - sounds
tasty, but would you eat it?


Your big old brain is confusing you. Keep it simple:

moral = good
legal = good
good = whatever I want

This way you don't have to muck about with all that nasty thinking. If
the discussion involves politics and requires further nuance, you can
add to the list thusly:

constitutional = good
conservative = good
liberal = evil

So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
on my pasta, that's an evil thing?

Somehow I think you're oversimplifying things in an overly complicated
way. How about this:
good = whatever I want = evil
It puts you in between good and evil, which seems right, makes you
judge and jury, which seems right, and it's a nicely balanced
equation, right?

R

On 5/13/2011 5:39 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On May 13, 7:05 pm, Substance wrote:
On 5/12/2011 10:12 PM, RicodJour wrote:

On May 13, 1:00 am, Substance wrote:
On 5/12/2011 7:52 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:

You'd be surprised how many people think this is a doping
case. And that doping to win a bike race is illegal.

It's bigger than that. Stuff I like is both moral and legal. Stuff I
don't like is neither. That's the way many people view these things.

How do you feel about stuff that is moral but not legal, or legal but
not moral? Like a legal eagle omelet with morel mushrooms - sounds
tasty, but would you eat it?


Your big old brain is confusing you. Keep it simple:

moral = good
legal = good
good = whatever I want

This way you don't have to muck about with all that nasty thinking. If
the discussion involves politics and requires further nuance, you can
add to the list thusly:

constitutional = good
conservative = good
liberal = evil

So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
on my pasta, that's an evil thing?

Somehow I think you're oversimplifying things in an overly complicated
way. How about this:
good = whatever I want = evil
It puts you in between good and evil, which seems right, makes you
judge and jury, which seems right, and it's a nicely balanced
equation, right?

That's good, so far as it goes. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything at
all to explain why my point of view is correct and yours is wrong.
Without that, what's the point?

On May 13, 6:39*pm, RicodJour wrote:

So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
on my pasta, that's an evil thing?

R

No, it's evil when he progressively sprinkles grated cheese...

On May 14, 1:43*pm, Scott wrote:
On May 13, 6:39*pm, RicodJour wrote:

So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
on my pasta, that's an evil thing?

No, it's evil when he progressively sprinkles grated cheese...

You believe the cheese should be spread around equally? That smacks
of socialism.

R

On May 14, 10:43*am, Scott wrote:
On May 13, 6:39*pm, RicodJour wrote:

So, when the waiter liberally sprinkles a nice grated Pecorino Romano
on my pasta, that's an evil thing?

R

No, it's evil when he progressively sprinkles grated cheese...

It's evil because the waiter controls the supply of grated cheese
and that kind of centralized command economy is inefficient
and leads to tyranny. As demonstrated, this centralized system
has infantilized and enslaved you, to the point where you've
lost the ability to sprinkle cheese on your own pasta.

In a truly free world, you would show initiative and bring
your own cheese and cheese-grater to the restaurant,
weakling.

Sincerely,
Fredmaster Ayn